Assembly Spring Parlynet Weekly Book 1 2002 - Parliament of ...

PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

FIFTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

Book 1

10, 11 and 12 September 2002

Internet: www.parliament.vic.gov.au/downloadhansard

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

The Governor

JOHN LANDY, AC, MBE

The Lieutenant-Governor

Lady SOUTHEY, AM

The Ministry

Premier and Minister for Multicultural Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. S. P. Bracks, MP

Deputy Premier and Minister for Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. W. Thwaites, MP

Minister for Education Services and Minister for Youth Affairs . . . . . . . . . The Hon. M. M. Gould, MLC

Minister for Transport and Minister for Major Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. P. Batchelor, MP

Minister for Energy and Resources and Minister for Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. C. C. Broad, MLC

Minister for State and Regional Development, Treasurer andMinister for Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. M. Brumby, MP

Minister for Local Government and Minister for Workcover. . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. R. G. Cameron, MP

Minister for Senior Victorians and Minister for Consumer Affairs . . . . . . . The Hon. C. M. Campbell, MP

Minister for Planning, Minister for the Arts andMinister for Women’s Affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. M. E. Delahunty, MP

Minister for Environment and Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. S. M. Garbutt, MP

Minister for Police and Emergency Services andMinister for Corrections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. A. Haermeyer, MP

Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. K. G. Hamilton, MP

Attorney-General, Minister for Manufacturing Industry andMinister for Racing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. R. J. Hulls, MP

Minister for Education and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. L. J. Kosky, MP

Minister for Finance and Minister for Industrial Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. J. J. Lenders, MP

Minister for Sport and Recreation andMinister for Commonwealth Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. M. Madden, MLC

Minister for Gaming, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Employment andMinister assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. Pandazopoulos, MP

Minister for Housing, Minister for Community Services andMinister assisting the Premier on Community Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. B. J. Pike, MP

Minister for Small Business andMinister for Information and Communication Technology. . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. M. R. Thomson, MLC

Cabinet Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. Gavin Jennings, MLC

Legislative Assembly Committees

Privileges Committee — Mr Cooper, Mr Holding, Mr Hulls, Mr Loney, Mr Maclellan, Mr Maughan, Mr Nardella,Mr Plowman and Mr Thwaites.

Standing Orders Committee — Mr Speaker, Ms Barker, Mr Jasper, Mr Langdon, Mr McArthur, Mrs Maddigan andMr Perton.

Joint Committees

Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee — (Council): The Honourables B. C. Boardman and S. M. Nguyen.(Assembly): Mr Cooper, Mr Jasper, Mr Lupton, Mr Mildenhall and Mr Wynne.

Environment and Natural Resources Committee — (Council): The Honourables R. F. Smith and E. G. Stoney.(Assembly): Mr Delahunty, Ms Duncan, Mrs Fyffe, Ms Lindell and Mr Seitz.

Family and Community Development Committee — (Council): The Honourables B. N. Atkinson, E. J. Powell andG. D. Romanes. (Assembly): Mr Hardman, Mr Lim, Mr Nardella and Mrs Peulich.

House Committee — (Council): The Honourables the President (ex officio), G. B. Ashman, R. A. Best,J. M. McQuilten, Jenny Mikakos and R. F. Smith. (Assembly): Mr Speaker (ex officio), Ms Beattie, Mr Kilgour,Ms McCall, Mr Rowe, Mr Savage and Mr Stensholt.

Law Reform Committee — (Council): The Honourables R. H. Bowden, D. G. Hadden and P. A. Katsambanis.(Assembly): Mr Languiller, Ms McCall, Mr Stensholt and Mr Thompson.

Library Committee — (Council): The Honourables the President, E. C. Carbines, M. T. Luckins, E. J. Powell andC. A. Strong. (Assembly): Mr Speaker, Ms Duncan, Mr Languiller, Mrs Peulich and Mr Seitz.

Printing Committee — (Council): The Honourables the President, Andrea Coote, Kaye Darveniza and E. J. Powell.(Assembly): Mr Speaker, Ms Gillett, Mr Nardella and Mr Richardson.

Public Accounts and Estimates Committee — (Council): The Honourables D. McL. Davis, R. M. Hallam,G. K. Rich-Phillips and T. C. Theophanous. (Assembly): Ms Barker, Mr Clark, Ms Davies, Mr Holding,Mr Loney and Mrs Maddigan.

Road Safety Committee — (Council): The Honourables Andrew Brideson and E. C. Carbines.(Assembly): Mr Kilgour, Mr Langdon, Mr Plowman, Mr Spry and Mr Trezise.

Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee — (Council): The Honourables M. A. Birrell, Jenny Mikakos,A. P. Olexander and C. A. Strong. (Assembly): Ms Beattie, Mr Carli, Ms Gillett. Mr Maclellan and Mr Robinson.

Heads of Parliamentary Departments

Assembly — Clerk of the Parliaments and Clerk of the Legislative Assembly: Mr R. W. Purdey

Council — Clerk of the Legislative Council: Mr W. R. Tunnecliffe

Hansard — Chief Reporter: Ms C. J. Williams

Library — Librarian: Mr B. J. Davidson

Joint Services — Director, Corporate Services: Mr S. N. Aird Director, Infrastructure Services: Mr G. C. Spurr

MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

FIFTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT — FIRST SESSION

Speaker: The Hon. ALEX ANDRIANOPOULOSDeputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees: Mrs J. M. MADDIGAN

Temporary Chairmen of Committees: Ms Barker, Ms Davies, Mr Jasper, Mr Kilgour, Mr Loney, Mr Lupton, Mr Nardella,Mrs Peulich, Mr Phillips, Mr Plowman, Mr Richardson, Mr Savage, Mr Seitz

Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party and Premier:The Hon. S. P. BRACKS

Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party and Deputy Premier:The Hon. J. W. THWAITES

Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party and Leader of the Opposition:Mr R. K. B. DOYLE (from 20 August 2002)

The Hon. D. V. NAPTHINE (to 20 August 2002)Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party and Deputy Leader of the Opposition:

The Hon. P. N. HONEYWOOD (from 20 August 2002)The Hon. LOUISE ASHER (to 20 August 2002)Leader of the Parliamentary National Party:

Mr P. J. RYANDeputy Leader of the Parliamentary National Party:

Mr B. E. H. STEGGALL

Member District Party Member District Party

Allan, Ms Jacinta Marie Bendigo East ALP Leighton, Mr Michael Andrew Preston ALPAllen, Ms Denise Margret 4 Benalla ALP Lenders, Mr John Johannes Joseph Dandenong North ALPAndrianopoulos, Mr Alex Mill Park ALP Lim, Mr Hong Muy Clayton ALPAsher, Ms Louise Brighton LP Lindell, Ms Jennifer Margaret Carrum ALPAshley, Mr Gordon Wetzel Bayswater LP Loney, Mr Peter James Geelong North ALPBaillieu, Mr Edward Norman Hawthorn LP Lupton, Mr Hurtle Reginald, OAM, JP Knox LPBarker, Ms Ann Patricia Oakleigh ALP McArthur, Mr Stephen James Monbulk LPBatchelor, Mr Peter Thomastown ALP McCall, Ms Andrea Lea Frankston LPBeattie, Ms Elizabeth Jean Tullamarine ALP McIntosh, Mr Andrew John Kew LPBracks, Mr Stephen Phillip Williamstown ALP Maclellan, Mr Robert Roy Cameron Pakenham LPBrumby, Mr John Mansfield Broadmeadows ALP McNamara, Mr Patrick John 3 Benalla NPBurke, Ms Leonie Therese Prahran LP Maddigan, Mrs Judith Marilyn Essendon ALPCameron, Mr Robert Graham Bendigo West ALP Maughan, Mr Noel John Rodney NPCampbell, Ms Christine Mary Pascoe Vale ALP Maxfield, Mr Ian John Narracan ALPCarli, Mr Carlo Coburg ALP Mildenhall, Mr Bruce Allan Footscray ALPClark, Mr Robert William Box Hill LP Mulder, Mr Terence Wynn Polwarth LPCooper, Mr Robert Fitzgerald Mornington LP Napthine, Dr Denis Vincent Portland LPDavies, Ms Susan Margaret Gippsland West Ind Nardella, Mr Donato Antonio Melton ALPDean, Dr Robert Logan Berwick LP Overington, Ms Karen Marie Ballarat West ALPDelahunty, Mr Hugh Francis Wimmera NP Pandazopoulos, Mr John Dandenong ALPDelahunty, Ms Mary Elizabeth Northcote ALP Paterson, Mr Alister Irvine South Barwon LPDixon, Mr Martin Francis Dromana LP Perton, Mr Victor John Doncaster LPDoyle, Robert Keith Bennett Malvern LP Peulich, Mrs Inga Bentleigh LPDuncan, Ms Joanne Therese Gisborne ALP Phillips, Mr Wayne Eltham LPElliott, Mrs Lorraine Clare Mooroolbark LP Pike, Ms Bronwyn Jane Melbourne ALPFyffe, Mrs Christine Ann Evelyn LP Plowman, Mr Antony Fulton Benambra LPGarbutt, Ms Sherryl Maree Bundoora ALP Richardson, Mr John Ingles Forest Hill LPGillett, Ms Mary Jane Werribee ALP Robinson, Mr Anthony Gerard Peter Mitcham ALPHaermeyer, Mr André Yan Yean ALP Rowe, Mr Gary James Cranbourne LPHamilton, Mr Keith Graeme Morwell ALP Ryan, Mr Peter Julian Gippsland South NPHardman, Mr Benedict Paul Seymour ALP Savage, Mr Russell Irwin Mildura IndHelper, Mr Jochen Ripon ALP Seitz, Mr George Keilor ALPHolding, Mr Timothy James Springvale ALP Shardey, Mrs Helen Jean Caulfield LPHoneywood, Mr Phillip Neville Warrandyte LP Smith, Mr Ernest Ross Glen Waverley LPHoward, Mr Geoffrey Kemp Ballarat East ALP Spry, Mr Garry Howard Bellarine LPHulls, Mr Rob Justin Niddrie ALP Steggall, Mr Barry Edward Hector Swan Hill NPIngram, Mr Craig Gippsland East Ind Stensholt, Mr Robert Einar 2 Burwood ALPJasper, Mr Kenneth Stephen Murray Valley NP Thompson, Mr Murray Hamilton Sandringham LPKennett, Mr Jeffrey Gibb 1 Burwood LP Thwaites, Mr Johnstone William Albert Park ALPKilgour, Mr Donald Shepparton NP Trezise, Mr Ian Douglas Geelong ALPKosky, Ms Lynne Janice Altona ALP Viney, Mr Matthew Shaw Frankston East ALPKotsiras, Mr Nicholas Bulleen LP Vogels, Mr John Adrian Warrnambool LPLangdon, Mr Craig Anthony Cuffe Ivanhoe ALP Wells, Mr Kimberley Arthur Wantirna LPLanguiller, Mr Telmo Sunshine ALP Wilson, Mr Ronald Charles Bennettswood LPLeigh, Mr Geoffrey Graeme Mordialloc LP Wynne, Mr Richard William Richmond ALP

1 Resigned 3 November 1999 3 Resigned 12 April 20002 Elected 11 December 1999 4 Elected 13 May 2000

CONTENTS

TUESDAY, 10 SEPTEMBER 2002

SHADOW MINISTRY ..........................................................1 CONDOLENCES

John Scrimgeour Lechte .................................................1 Philip Martin Hudson .....................................................1 Hon. Thomas Leslie Austin .............................................1 Hon. Ann Mary Henderson...........................................12

ADJOURNMENT................................................................34

WEDNESDAY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2002

PETITIONS Motorcycles: levy ..........................................................35 Rail: Glen Waverley kiosk ............................................35 Glen Eira: rates.............................................................35 Church–Doncaster roads, Doncaster: crossing

supervision ................................................................35 Gas: East Gippsland supply .........................................35 Prague House, Kew ................................................35, 36 Libraries: funding .........................................................36 Kangaroos: control .......................................................37

DRUGS AND CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE Volatile substance inhalation........................................37

SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE Alert Digest No. 7..........................................................37 Subordinate Legislation Act..........................................37

FAMILY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Clothing outworkers conditions....................................38

BLF CUSTODIAN 56th report.....................................................................38

PAPERS..............................................................................38 FORESTS LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Introduction and first reading.......................................40 ROYAL ASSENT................................................................40 COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY

ASSOCIATION Study tours.....................................................................41

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Standing and sessional orders ......................................41 Program ........................................................................41

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Karingal Secondary College site ..................................41 Ambulance services: community officers .....................42 Dick Reynolds................................................................42 Schools: LOTE ..............................................................42 Keith Davison................................................................43 Local government: rate concessions ............................43 Surf Coast: administration............................................43 Eastern Lions Kart Club ...............................................44 Marigny Manufacturing Australia Pty Ltd...................44 CFA: Springvale brigade..............................................44

GRIEVANCES Police: crime statistics............................................ 45, 55 Liberal Party: advertisements ...................................... 46 Drought: government assistance............................ 49, 66 Liberal Party: performance.......................................... 52 Housing: waiting lists ................................................... 53 Housing: estates............................................................ 54 Gaming: regulation ...................................................... 57 Werribee: health infrastructure.................................... 59 ALP: union candidate................................................... 61 United States of America: terrorist attacks............ 64, 68 Former government: record......................................... 64

SPORTS EVENT TICKETING (FAIR ACCESS) BILL Second reading ............................................................. 68

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: TERRORIST ATTACKS...................................................................... 79

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR ............................................... 79 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Drought: government assistance...................... 79, 80, 81 United States of America: terrorist attacks.................. 80 Hospitals: infection control .......................................... 82 Cardinia Primary School.............................................. 83 Central City Studios: Docklands tender................. 83, 85 Schools: retention rates ................................................ 84 Economy: performance ................................................ 85

AGRICULTURE LEGISLATION (AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS) BILL Second reading ............................................................. 86

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL Second reading ............................................................. 99

UTILITY METERS (METROLOGICAL CONTROLS) BILL Second reading ........................................................... 105

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES (AMENDMENT) BILL Second reading ........................................................... 109

GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL Council’s amendments................................................ 121

JURIES (AMENDMENT) BILL Second reading ........................................................... 124

ADJOURNMENT Bentleigh West Primary School.................................. 126 Cobram District Hospital ........................................... 127 Consumer affairs: soccer clinic.................................. 127 Lysterfield Road, Lysterfield: safety........................... 128 Pawnbrokers: residual equity..................................... 128 SES: Stratford unit ...................................................... 129 Pawnbrokers: motor vehicles..................................... 129 Schools: innovation excellence program ................... 129 Gunnamatta: sewage outfall....................................... 130 Maribyrnong: aquatic centre ..................................... 130 Dorset Road, Ferntree Gully: safety .......................... 131 Small business: share buybacks ................................. 131 Responses.................................................................... 132

CONTENTS

THURSDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2002

PETITIONS Schools: student welfare officers ................................135 Ombudsman: investigation .........................................135 Buses: Glen Waverley–Blackburn service..................135 Libraries: funding........................................................135

SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE Vagrancy Act ...............................................................135

ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE Fisheries management ................................................135

PAPERS............................................................................136 PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES

Reports.........................................................................136 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Adjournment ................................................................136 MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Disability services: funding.........................................136 Drought: government assistance ................................136 Reservoir: mobile phone tower...................................137 Warrnambool dental clinic .........................................137 Highfield Road, Camberwell: speed limit ..................137 John Wilkinson ............................................................138 Yarra Valley: health infrastructure.............................138 CFA: Carrum brigade.................................................138 ALP: union donations .................................................139 TAC: claims.................................................................139

ESTATE AGENTS AND SALE OF LAND ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL Introduction and first reading.....................................139

WRONGS AND OTHER ACTS (PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE REFORM) BILL Introduction and first reading.....................................139 Second reading............................................................140

CONSTITUTION (WATER AUTHORITIES) BILL Introduction and first reading.....................................145 Second reading............................................................145

CONSTITUTION (PARLIAMENTARY REFORM) BILL Introduction and first reading.....................................146 Second reading............................................................146

HEALTH LEGISLATION (RESEARCH INVOLVING EMBRYOS AND PROHIBITION OF HUMAN CLONING) BILL Introduction and first reading.....................................148 Second reading............................................................187

ROAD SAFETY (RESPONSIBLE DRIVING) BILL Introduction and first reading.....................................148 Second reading............................................................189

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN (AMENDMENT) BILL Introduction and first reading.....................................148 Second reading............................................................191

NATIONAL PARKS (BOX-IRONBARK AND OTHER PARKS) BILL Introduction and first reading.....................................149

Second reading............................................................ 193 COMMISSIONER FOR ECOLOGICALLY

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT BILL Introduction and first reading..................................... 149 Second reading............................................................ 197

FEDERAL AWARDS (UNIFORM SYSTEM) BILL Introduction and first reading..................................... 149 Second reading............................................................ 200

CONTROL OF WEAPONS AND FIREARMS ACTS (SEARCH POWERS) BILL Introduction and first reading..................................... 149 Second reading............................................................ 204

SENTENCING (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL Introduction and first reading..................................... 149 Second reading............................................................ 206

CRIMES (PROPERTY DAMAGE AND COMPUTER OFFENCES) BILL Introduction and first reading..................................... 149 Second reading............................................................ 208

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT VICTORIA BILL Introduction and first reading..................................... 149 Second reading............................................................ 211

JURIES (AMENDMENT) BILL Second reading............................................................ 150 Remaining stages ........................................................154

AGRICULTURE LEGISLATION (AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS) BILL Second reading....................................................154, 187 Remaining stages ........................................................187

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES (AMENDMENT) BILL Second reading....................................................166, 176 Committee ................................................................... 182 Remaining stages ........................................................185

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Central City Studios: Docklands tender....168, 170, 172,

174 Tourism: rural and regional Victoria.........................168 Electricity: Basslink .................................................... 169 Transport: major projects........................................... 169 Police: numbers and building program ..................... 171 Justice: government initiatives ...................................172 Taxation: government policies ...................................174

SPORTS EVENT TICKETING (FAIR ACCESS) BILL Second reading............................................................ 185 Circulated amendments ..............................................185 Remaining stages ........................................................186

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL Second reading............................................................ 186 Circulated amendments ..............................................186 Remaining stages ........................................................186

UTILITY METERS (METROLOGICAL CONTROLS) BILL Second reading............................................................ 186 Remaining stages ........................................................186

PERSONAL EXPLANATION........................................... 187

CONTENTS

ADJOURNMENT Brimbank: levy ............................................................216 Dr Timothy McArdle...................................................217 Kangaroos: control .....................................................217 Calder Highway: funding ...........................................218 Royal Melbourne Hospital..........................................218 Police: Footscray........................................................219 Workcover: Arthritis Foundation of Victoria.............219 Consumer affairs: lottery scams.................................220 Dingley bypass ............................................................220 Wattle Park: advisory group.......................................220 Wodonga: adolescent residential care .......................221 Responses ....................................................................222

MEMBERS INDEX ..................................................... i

SHADOW MINISTRY

Tuesday, 10 September 2002 ASSEMBLY 1

Tuesday, 10 September 2002

The SPEAKER (Hon. Alex Andrianopoulos) took thechair at 2.06 p.m. and read the prayer.

SHADOW MINISTRY

Mr DOYLE (Leader of the Opposition) — Sincewe last met there have been some changes to theLiberal Party, and I will outline those to the house. Ihave been elected leader of the parliamentary LiberalParty, and the honourable member for Warrandyte hasbeen elected deputy leader.

In other changes in responsibility the honourablemember for Box Hill will be the shadow Minister forFinance and the shadow Minister for Gaming; thehonourable member for Berwick will be shadowTreasurer and manager of opposition business in thehouse; and the honourable member for Warrandyte willadd multicultural affairs to his existing responsibilities.The honourable member for Kew will be shadowMinister for Industrial Relations; the honourablemember for Polwarth, shadow minister for waterresources; the honourable member for Portland, shadowminister for rural and regional development; thehonourable member for Doncaster, shadowAttorney-General, shadow Minister for ConsumerAffairs and shadow Minister for AboriginalAffairs — —

Honourable members interjecting.

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask governmentbenches to come to order. The Leader of the Oppositionis entitled to be heard.

Mr DOYLE — The honourable member forBennettswood will be the shadow Minister forHealth — —


The SPEAKER — Order! I have asked governmentbenches to come to order!

Mr DOYLE — What a rabble, fair dinkum!

In the other place the Honourable Andrea Coote will besecretary to the shadow cabinet; the Honourable DavidDavis, shadow minister for scrutiny of government; theHonourable Philip Davis, shadow Minister forAgriculture and shadow minister for rural Victoria; andthe Honourable Bill Forwood, shadow minister forconservation and environment.

CONDOLENCES

John Scrimgeour LechtePhilip Martin Hudson

The SPEAKER — Order! Pursuant to the practiceset down in sessional orders, I wish to advise the houseof the death of John Scrimgeour Lechte, a member ofthe Legislative Assembly for the electoral district ofOakleigh from 1947 to 1950, and also the death ofPhilip Martin Hudson, a member of the LegislativeAssembly for the electoral district of Toorak from 1964to 1967.

I ask all honourable members to rise in their places as amark of respect to the memories of the deceased.

Honourable members stood in their places.

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask honourablemembers to take their seats.

I shall convey the messages of sympathy from thehouse to the relatives of the late John ScrimgeourLechte and the late Philip Martin Hudson.

Hon. Thomas Leslie Austin

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I move:

That this house expresses its sincere sorrow at the death on1 June 2002 of the Honourable Thomas Leslie Austin andplaces on record its acknowledgment of the valuable servicesrendered by him to the Parliament and the people of Victoriaas member of the Legislative Assembly for the electoraldistrict of Hampden from 1972 to 1976 and the electoraldistrict of Ripon from 1976 to 1992, Minister of PublicWorks and Minister for Property and Services from 1978 to1980, Minister of Agriculture from 1980 to 1982 and Ministerfor Forests from 1981 to 1982.

The Honourable Thomas Leslie Austin sadly passedaway after a long illness on 1 June 2002. Mr Austinwill be remembered for his considerable service to theWestern District seat of Ripon and for his contributionto the Victorian Parliament during his 19 years as amember of this house, 5 of which were spent as aminister in several portfolios and 2 as deputy oppositionleader.

He will also be remembered for his extraordinaryability to get on with people from all walks of life. As afarmer, an avid sportsman, a champion rabbit skinner, acrack-shot marksman and a political king-maker insome quarters, Tom Austin had a rich and verycolourful life.

Tom Austin was born on 24 September 1923 andattended the Geelong Grammar School. In 1941 he

CONDOLENCES

2 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 10 September 2002

enlisted in the Royal Australian Navy, serving as alanding craft officer on board HMAS Manoora andbeing present for eight assault landings in varioustheatres of the south-west Pacific during World War II.After the war he returned to the land, working variouslyas a wool classer for Dalgetys, as a share farmer andthen, since 1950, as a farmer and grazier in the districtof Darlington.

Mr Austin was a full-time farmer until his election toParliament in 1972, when the demands of political lifemeant that he had to employ a manager to work on thefarm. He later succeeded former Premier Sir HenryBolte in the seat of Ripon, once describing himself as aprotégé of the former Victorian Premier.

Tom Austin’s parliamentary career included being amember of the Osteopathy, Chiropractic andNaturopathy Committee from 1973 to 1975 and of thePublic Works Committee from 1976 to 1978 andholding the positions of Minister of Public Works andMinister for Property and Services from 1978 to 1980;Minister of Agriculture from 1980 to 1982; Minister forForests in 1981 and 1982; and shadow Minister forSport, Recreation and Racing in 1990 and 1991.

In the 1982 election that saw the Labor governmentelected Mr Austin retained his seat with a swing to theLiberals, which showed the strength of his personalfollowing and that he was well acclaimed at that time.He served as opposition spokesman on agriculture untilbeing elected by his party as deputy leader from 1985to 1987.

On retirement from Parliament in 1991 Mr Austin saidthat his greatest satisfaction came from responsibilityfor building the World Trade Centre and helping thepeople of his electorate after disastrous bushfires in1984 and 1997. At the time of his retirement he madethe salient point that he was worried that politicians hadlost touch with the bush, reflecting his ongoing concernfor the interests and concerns of regional and ruralVictoria.

After leaving Parliament Mr Austin served as chairmanof the Victorian Dairy Industry Authority from 1992 to2000 and chairman of the Racecourses Licences Boardfrom 1992. He maintained a very active involvement inthe Liberal Party branches until his death. On behalf ofthe government I extend condolences to Tom’s family,including his wife, Joy, daughters Deborah, Vicky andLisa and son Jonathan and their families, as well as hisstepchildren Tiffany and Justin and their respectivefamilies.

Mr DOYLE (Leader of the Opposition) — I ampleased to second the condolence motion of the Premierfor the Honourable Thomas Leslie Austin. Tom Austinwas born on 24 September 1923 and died on 1 June2002. He was the member for Hampden from 1972 to1976 and the member for Ripon from 1976 to 1992. Hewas Minister of Public Works from 1978 to 1980,Minister for Property and Services from 1978 to 1980,Minister of Agriculture from 1980 to 1982 and Ministerfor Forests in 1981 and 1982. He was Deputy Leader ofthe Opposition from March 1985 until October 1987.He was shadow Minister for Agriculture from 1982 to1990 and shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation andRacing in 1990 and 1991.

Tom was brought up at Darra, near Elaine, where hisneighbour was Sir Henry Bolte. He was educated atGeelong Grammar School, where he lived up to thefamily tradition of being captain of the first XI, as werehis father and grandfather before him. He was a classic,all-round sportsman. He excelled at football and tennis,captained the school team and won the schoolchampionship. Sport remained Tom’s lifelong love andfor him it included, as the Premier has mentioned, aunique activity — I am not sure if it qualifies as asport — at which he was runner-up world champion:rabbit skinning!

At 17 he was too young to join the armed forces, butTom and his best mate, Johnny Maslin, forged birthcertificates. They spent one night in military camp atthe Caulfield racecourse. The next day a sergeant majorconfronted them and sent them back home to theirmothers.

Later, in 1941, Tom joined the Royal Australian Navy.He reached the rank of sublieutenant and saw activeduty in the south-west Pacific, participating in landingcraft operations with HMAS Manoora, which landedtroops under fire in the attack on Borneo. Afterdischarge from the navy Tom returned to sharefarmingand doing general farm work at Darra, which included,as the Premier has said, wool classing.

This was the era of the rabbit plague, and hisrabbit-skinning prowess was developed through hisregular participation in the Moyston annualrabbit-skinning championships with another personwell known to this chamber and the people ofVictoria — his friend, Henry Bolte.

In 1947 he set up a branch of the Liberal Party inMeredith. Tom took the position of secretary and themore senior Henry Bolte was president. In 1947 theyboth stood for seats in Parliament. Henry won his seat

CONDOLENCES


of Hampden, but Tom missed out on winning theneighbouring seat of Grant by 700 votes.

Tom married Judith Staughton on 27 October 1948, andthey took a soldier settlement block near Darlington in1950. Over many years, and with the support of Judyand his four children, Deborah, Vicky, Lisa andJonathan, he turned Merida into a strong and profitableoperation with his high-quality fine wool, sheep andlambs. These family and farming commitments kepthim from public life for many years.

During his time as a farmer Tom continued his love ofsport. He captained the local Derrinallum cricket clubas well as regularly playing tennis and golf. Tom’sother sporting love was duck hunting. For 47 years hehunted with varied success. He was in East Gippslandduck hunting with his friend Stewart McArthur, MP,only 10 days before he passed away.

In 1972, with the retirement of his great friendSir Henry Bolte, he took the opportunity of enteringpublic life, winning the seat of Hampden. In hisinaugural speech in 1972 he outlined two issues ofdirect relevance to farmers today — the problems facedby the loss of population in small country towns and thefarmers’ need for certainty from the government whenfaced by drought.

In 1976 Tom faced a battle for a new seat. Neverdeterred, he fought hard for preselection for thenominally Labor Party seat of Ripon. His old friendSir Henry Bolte warned that Labor would win Ripon ina canter. Tom worked hard, won the seat and held it forthe next 16 years. He never took his election forgranted, and he never took his constituents for granted.Tom’s daughter Deborah has said that even at Sundaynight family dinners he was on call to hisconstituents — and they did telephone him at home onSunday evenings. Tom simply said, ‘I’m availableevery day, 24 hours a day’.

Tom brought a farmer’s work ethic and dedication tohis role in public life. He was promoted by PremierHamer to the positions of Minister of Public Works andMinister for Property and Services in 1978. Soon after,in 1980, he was again promoted to the position ofMinister for Agriculture, and in 1981 responsibility forforests was added to his workload. Tom’s affinity withrural people stood him in good stead in these roles. Hisforesight in the agriculture ministry laid the foundationsthat both sides of politics have built upon for both theexport and domestic success of Victoria’s agriculturalindustries 20 years later.

In 1982, with the victory of the Labor Party, Tom tookon the role of elder statesman in the opposition. Despitebeing mentioned in the Age as a possible successor toPremier Hamer in late 1980, Tom knew that the LiberalParty needed a change of atmosphere and attitudefollowing the election loss. In 1985 Tom’s election asdeputy leader underlined the respect the party had forhis political judgment and work ethic. He helped createthe climate of opinion that saw Jeff Kennett electedleader of the party. I’ll say no more than that!

In 1991 Tom’s political abilities and the respect theparty’s members had for his judgment played a centraland crucial role in the re-election of Jeff Kennett to theleadership — and I’ll say no more about that!

Tom was always a Liberal Party man. On 13 March1985 he told the Ballarat Courier:

I know the Liberal Party is the party that truly represents boththe rural and city interests … I think that’s healthy, whereasthe Labor Party is obviously geared to city interests and theNational Party completely to country interests.

In the same article he again illustrated his thoroughunderstanding of the issues facing Victorian farmerswhen he outlined some of the changes he would like tosee in the Department of Agriculture in the mid-1980s:

A revamping and shifting of resources in the Department ofAgriculture which would assist and improve the overallperformance of the department. The reverse is happening atthe moment because they’re downgrading agriculture andremoving a lot of highly qualified people, particularly in thearea of animal health.

Tom said this in 1985, and these concerns echo theconcerns of many of Victoria’s farmers today.

Following Tom’s retirement from politics in 1991 hecontinued to play an active role in public life. He alsocame to live in Melbourne with his second wife, Joy.As chairman of the Victorian Dairy Industry Authorityfrom 1992 to 2000 he oversaw changes that have seenour dairy industry become a world leader. As chairmanof the Racecourses Licences Board he was trusted byall involved in the industry and played a key role in theVictorian racing industry becoming the strongest in thenation. He continued his love affair with cricket,serving as a Melbourne Cricket Ground trustee from1992 to 1995.

His unique understanding and wise counsel onagricultural issues saw him made a life councillor of theRoyal Agricultural Society and a life member of theRoyal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.His lifelong passion for hunting saw him proudly holdthe position of chairman of the hunting advisorycommittee from 1998 until he died.

CONDOLENCES


Tom lived life to the full. He contributed to theVictorian community both in his public role as aminister and member of Parliament as well as in a lesspublic community-building role through his sportingand voluntary activities. Tom embodied all thosevirtues that make our community strong. I can do nobetter than to conclude with the words of one of his oldfriends, Stewart McArthur, in saying that with the lossof Tom Austin Victoria has lost one of its favouritesons.

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) —Together with the Premier and the Leader of theOpposition and on behalf of the National Party I paytribute to the late Tom Austin, who died aged 78 yearson 1 June this year.

Tom was a man of many facets. He had the time of hislife in the navy. He was a wool classer and a grazierand had a role as the chair of the Victorian DairyIndustry Authority for a period of about eight yearsfrom 1992. He was a Melbourne Cricket Groundtrustee. He had various ministerial roles during a periodof five years in the ministry as a component of the19 years that he served as a member of Parliament.

The eulogies delivered on the occasion of his funeralwere testimony to the many parts of this wonderfulman. First and foremost he had a great love of hisfamily, and on the day of his funeral his familymembers spoke eloquently of the involvement that hehad with his wife and children and the enormousimportance which he placed upon his associations withthem.

In the course of his time with the Royal AustralianNavy, he served his time in distinguished fashion. Likeso many who ultimately came to the Parliament he hada background in the armed services. He had a great lovefor his nation, and he lived that out as a serving memberof the navy. He had various other not-so-well-knownattributes. On the day of his funeral we were told thathe was a singer of absolutely no repute at all! He was arabbit skinner of much fame in the district and, as theLeader of the Opposition indicated, one of his greatdisappointments in life was that he was the runner-up inthat otherwise not so renowned competition on morethan one occasion.

Tom Austin was a great raconteur. He was a sportsmanof much repute, and again in that regard his recordstands scrutiny in any company. In politics he servedwell within this chamber, but he also did much withinthe Liberal Party in terms of issues to do with itsleadership over the years both in an administrative roleand also within the political party. Indeed on the day of

the funeral Mr Stewart McArthur told the wonderfulstory of his election to high office in the administrationof the Liberal Party when Tom Austin took over hiselection campaign and gave the strict instruction toMr McArthur to say absolutely nothing and leave therest to him — and Mr McArthur was duly elected.

Tom had a great empathy for people. He identified withpeople from all walks of life. He could have aconversation with anybody about any topic and he did itall so easily because it came so naturally to him.

In his maiden speech in October 1972 he talked aboutissues which illustrated that in some senses there arechanges and on the other hand some things neverchange. He talked about his concerns about distributionof population, particularly in the context of countryVictoria and the importance of being able to ensure thatcountry Victorians had the dignity of employment —that jobs were available for them and their families.

He talked about decentralisation, particularly in thecontext of small towns, and the fact that they wouldneed support of various types if they were to survive.He also spoke about the difficult seasonal conditions ofthat year and of the necessity for the government of theday of whatever political persuasion to make sure thatcountry communities were supported in those difficulttimes when the seasonal conditions turned againstthem. He also spoke about the extraordinary resilienceof country people, and in a sense Tom Austin was theabsolute representation of that concept.

One of the areas where I came to know him pretty wellwas during what became colloquially known as theannual politicians shoot. I hasten to add it is not as itmight seem at first blush. Rather the Victorian Fieldand Game Association annually hosts a forum in thecity of Sale in Gippsland, where I live and where anumber of those of all political persuasions cometogether with the field and game association toparticipate in an annual duck shoot at Dutson Downs,which is famous for perhaps other reasons at present.Hopefully those other reasons will come to pass withthe passage of time.

Be that as it may, one of the features of Dutson Downsis that waters discharged from the swamps that occupythat area are derived from the offshore oil operations. Inthose waters there are what are called NORMS, whichstands for ‘normally occurring radioactive materials’. Iabsolutely emphasise that the quantity of this product isutterly minimal, so minimal as to be insignificant, butone of the features said to attract this annual shoot ofthese ducks on this pond is that they are luminous atnight, which of course is a complete fabrication.

CONDOLENCES


However, Tom used to speak about these and otherissues when he came to Sale each year, and on theFriday night before the shoot took place we wouldgather at a local restaurant and the usual sorts of storieswould be exchanged during this evening. He was anunfailing and great supporter of this annual event and amarvellous participant in it.

As has already been remarked and as was said on theday of his funeral, it was only about a week or 10 daysprior to his death that Tom was in Sale to attend thisannual forum. Stewart McArthur was later to say thatover that weekend he, Stewart McArthur, shot noducks, and Tom Austin shot seven. Some of the fieldand game representatives who were out there over thosecouple of days with Tom talked about his extraordinaryresilience at a time when the weather was cold; he wasobviously ill but nevertheless he persisted in the pursuitof one of the sports that he loved so much.

On behalf of the National Party I join with the Premierand the Leader of the Opposition in paying mycondolences to the family of Tom Austin, a man whocan truly be said to have been a great man in the wholeof the Victorian political spectrum.

Mr HAMILTON (Minister for Agriculture) — Ijoin with the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition andthe Leader of the National Party in paying my respectsto Tom Austin and to recognise his service to thisParliament and indeed to the state of Victoria.

Perhaps the best way I can describe Tom Austin is as atrue gentlemen and a decent bloke. In my contacts withTom from 1988 when I was first elected to thisParliament until the time of his death I found thosedescriptions to be most apt.

I am fortunate to have Tom Austin’s handwrittencurriculum vitae in front of me from when Tom wasapplying for a position he had been recommended forwithin the department. Indeed, the inevitable style ofTom Austin is recognised very much in this CV if wenote that apart from his personal particulars he listedunder ‘Education and other skills’, ‘Leaving’ in 1940,and ‘wool classer’ in 1946. Those two things areobviously stated with a great deal of pride — anddeserved pride.

Tom Austin was a member of Parliament from 1972until 1992, cabinet minister for five years, DeputyLeader of the Liberal Party, chairman of the VictorianDairy Industry Authority (VDIA) from 1992 to 2000,chairman of the Racecourses Licences Board from1992 to 1999, and served on the Dairy Food Safety

Authority. He performed in all of those positions withgreat distinction and care.

I had a lot to do with Tom when I was first elected asMinister for Agriculture. I want to recognise publiclythe very wise counsel that he gave me in many privatemeetings.

Honourable members will recall that at that time thederegulation of the dairy industry was proceeding andTom was chair of the VDIA. It was always a greatpleasure to meet with Tom as chair of that board, and inmany cases one on one. I certainly respected theconfidences that were exchanged between us inendeavouring to get the best outcome for the dairyindustry, and indeed it was that respect of confidencesbetween two people, an ex-Minister for Agriculture anda very new Minister for Agriculture, that led me to avery great admiration of the late Tom Austin.

I guess the only bit that gave me any concern was whenTom and I were discussing what might be the eventualoutcome from the sale of the brands and he was wiselysuggesting to me that if we got somewhere between$15 million and $20 million we would have doneparticularly well. Either Tom was a great actor or hewas as surprised as I was when something over$62 million was the eventual price achieved. It was agreat outcome not just for the dairy industry but for thework that Tom had done as chair of the VDIA, thenegotiations he had gone through and the manychallenges he dealt with.

I certainly appreciated his efforts to get all of the partiesaround the table and come to a sensible conclusion.Tom’s great strength was his ability to get peoplearound the table and come to a successful conclusion.There is no doubt in my mind that he had a great lovefor country Victoria, and during our manyconversations he was able to impart to me some greatadvice on what should happen and in which direction.Tom was a very great supporter of the return ofresources into agricultural research and developmentbecause he realised more than many the importance ofscience in leading the way for the future of agriculturalindustry.

I also want to make note of and publicly acknowledgethe conversations Tom had with me, both of us beingmembers for country electorates and both having ahistory of growing up in the country — although Ireckon my technique for skinning a rabbit is far betterthan the technique Tom described to me. We did notever get the chance to have a go at that, but I have skuna few rabbits in my day, and no doubt may skin a fewmore!

CONDOLENCES


As other speakers have noted, Tom had a great interestin hunting, but he also had a great respect for wildlife.Very few people have the distinction of being both amember of the Royal Society for the Prevention ofCruelty to Animals and a member of a field and gameassociation. I appreciated Tom’s advice as chair of thehunting advisory committee. He would often come tome and say, ‘Look, these are the issues as I see them’,and what is more he would say, ‘You know, you do nothave to take my advice, but here it is. I think it wouldbe useful if you asked the government to proceed in thisparticular direction or that particular direction’.

It is significant that even though we were on oppositesides of politics there was that willingness to say theend result really has to be in the interests of Victoriansand not in the interests of one party or another. Thatrespect for cross-party discussion and agreement issomething I admire, and I certainly admired it greatly inthe late Tom Austin. I very sincerely pay mycondolences to Tom’s family and friends, who willmiss him, because he was a great character.

Mr HONEYWOOD (Warrandyte) — Possiblybecause of the competitive nature of our profession aspoliticians we often pride ourselves on our ability tostand on our own two feet and not to seek support andwise counsel from our colleagues of long standing andexperience.

While mentoring has come into its own in other walksof life, that does not seem to apply so much in ourprofession. I recall that when I was elected in 1988 twolower house elder statesmen gave me often unsolicitedadvice and support as a young member ofParliament — the first was Tom Austin and the otherwas Nipper Trezise. Ironically I did not know either ofthem at the time, but they certainly got to know me andassisted me.

Tom had a very gruff and down-to-earth manner and away of taking you under his wing and giving you soundadvice about life. Equally Nipper took me aside onmany occasions and gave a blow-by-blow critique ofmy speeches, which at the time I was not entirely happywith, but I came to realise that it was done in the bestspirit of an elder statesman assisting a younger bloke.The term ‘two of nature’s gentlemen’ was made toorder to describe Tom and Nipper. Theirs was adifferent generation. Perhaps they had a greater spirit ofsupport for their colleagues or comrades because ofwartime experiences; I am not certain.

During Tom’s life he was not only a mentor to someyounger members of Parliament but also an incrediblysteadfast and loyal friend. He was one of the founders

of our party, and I recall him telling me that on manyoccasions he and the late Sir Henry Bolte would go offsetting rabbit traps at night only to then front up to thelocal pub for the Meredith branch meetings where Tomwould take the minutes. It was that incredible ability torelate to everyday life that made Tom such a naturalwhen he eventually got elected to Parliament.

I recall Jeff Kennett saying that on every occasion heencountered a leadership challenge — which wasusually when he was away on holidays on the GreatBarrier Reef — Tom would be waiting steadfast andtrue at the airport gate when Jeff and Felicity exited theplane, and he would be the one to tell Jeff exactly howthe numbers were and what to do about it. Tom was anincredibly reliable colleague of Jeff’s and an incrediblementor for him as well.

Tom was well known at his favourite luncheon placenot far from this Parliament for his seat of notealongside Malcolm Fraser. A number of members ofthe club where Tom lunched regularly found it difficultto reconcile Malcolm Fraser’s philosophy as formerPrime Minister with his latter-day ideas and views ofthe world, but Tom remained true. I can well recallsitting alongside Tom at last year’s Royal AgriculturalSociety lunch and Tom telling me that Malcolm hadonly two friends left at that establishment, that he wasone of them but that he had given up on knowing whythat was so. As I said, Tom was incredibly loyal.

The last time I had occasion to have a long chat withTom was at Tom Reynolds’s annual Christmas drinks.Tom Austin — with stains all over whichever of hisincredible cricket club or football club ties he waswearing, which were so evocative of the 1950s andwhich only his generation can and do wear — took measide and, again in his own gruff manner, gave mesound and sage advice about the future of our party,about his involvement with it and about life in general.For that I owe Tom Austin a great personal debt. Hewas indeed one of nature’s gentlemen. Vale, TomAustin, mentor and friend.

Mr HELPER (Ripon) — It is with a sense ofhonour that I join the Premier, the Leader of theOpposition, the Leader of the National Party, theMinister for Agriculture and the Deputy Leader of theOpposition in paying my tribute to Tom Austin.

I am privileged to serve in this house as a successor toTom Austin in the seat of Ripon, where Tom’s memoryis held in very high regard and where there is anenormous amount of respect for him in the community.What all previous speakers have highlighted is Tom’squality of being a real live person who engaged with

CONDOLENCES


the community on a one-to-one basis, and it is thatquality that is at the root of the respect with which he isstill regarded in that community.

Although he was from a different political party, it isclear that Tom’s shoes will be very difficult to fill. Theexpectation of having a local member who is accessible24 hours a day is alive and well in the electorate ofRipon, and I am sure that is based on the precedent andthe record set in place by Tom.

I differ a little from the Leader of the National Party,who questioned whether rabbit skinning should beconsidered a sport. I am sure Tom would have joinedme in advocating that it be an Olympic sport and thatMoyston, a community in the Ripon electorate, beconsidered the home of not only Australian Rulesfootball, but rabbit skinning as well!

The service that Tom provided to the Ripon communityand the people of Victoria during his long anddistinguished term in this Parliament is something thatall sides of this chamber can look up to and take as anexample. He was a consummate politician; and as Isaid, although he was from another side of this chamberit is clear from the reflections of those who havepreceded me that he was someone who played politicshard but in a fair and reasonable way. I think that issomething we should also strive to do.

Without the slightest fear of contradiction I join thepreceding speakers in passing on my sincerecondolences and the warmest sentiments of the Riponelectorate to the family of the late Tom Austin.

Dr NAPTHINE (Portland) — It was my honourand privilege to know and work with Tom Austin inseveral capacities. As somebody who grew up and livedall my life there, I can say that Tom was an institutionin Western Victoria as a very successful farmer, as afamous and competitive sportsman, as a politician andas a Liberal powerbroker, right from the early dayswhen he ran the Meredith branch with his friendSir Henry Bolte.

I also knew Tom during his term as Minister forAgriculture, when as a government veterinarian Iserved under him. He was widely respected by thefarming community during his term as minister, and hewas equally respected and loved by the departmentalstaff. That is because both the farming community andhis departmental staff knew that Tom understoodcountry Victoria, that he had a practical knowledge offarming and agricultural issues and that he wasprepared to listen to and act on the advice given to him.He had a big picture vision of where agriculture was

and where it was going. As other speakers have said, heunderstood the opportunities in value adding toagriculture and in growing jobs in regional and ruralVictoria, which he saw as one of his roles as minister.

I then had the privilege of being his parliamentarycolleague between 1988 and 1992. Tom Austin wasvery much an elder statesman within the Liberal Partyat that time. His experience and wise, timely advicewere important to many new members of Parliament onboth sides of the house. Tom was ready with advice,and it was always sound. On a number of occasionswhen as a new member of Parliament you were beingattacked by the Labor government at the time and youwere getting hot under the collar and felt like jumpingto your feet and taking points of order, Tom would tellyou it was a sign of respect when the opposite side wasattacking you because it meant you were getting undertheir skin. So when the Minister for Agriculture at thetime, Mr Rowe, was having a go at Denis Napthine, theLiberal member for Portland, it generally meant thatDenis Napthine was scoring some points! Tom’s advicewas very good.

The other thing that Tom was famous for between 1988and 1992 — those of us who were here at the timewould remember — was that he and Joy seemed tohave a permanent booking in the dining room. Itseemed to be a table for 2 that expanded to seat 4, 6, 8,10, 12 or 20. As the evening wore on everybodycongregated around Tom Austin’s table. Many sounddecisions were made and much great advice was given,and Tom certainly acted as a leader of the Liberal Party,and indeed of the house at the time.

While we all have great stories about him — hecertainly was a person of great stories and a greatcharacter — one of the things that characterised TomAustin that we sometimes forget is that Tom was also ahard worker, very competitive and a great achiever. Hewas great company and certainly enjoyed life, but heput a lot back into the community in which he lived andin which he was proud to live. Indeed, at a very earlyage he showed that he was competitive and was anachiever. He won a scholarship to Geelong GrammarSchool at the age of 13 years at a time when the familythat he was a member of was suffering some financialdifficulties coming through the Depression in the late1920s and 1930s. Tom won a scholarship to GeelongGrammar and made the most of the opportunity.

He excelled at sport. People who play sport know thatyou do not excel at sport just on talent alone; you excelbecause you work hard, show commitment and are verycompetitive. Tom excelled at cricket, tennis, golf,shooting and fishing.

CONDOLENCES


He was a very successful farmer, but he was not handedthat successful farming legacy. He was provided with asoldier settlement block in 1950. Those who knowwestern Victoria will realise that a soldier settlementblock at Darlington was not a luxurious property toinherit or get. It was renowned for stones, it was roughcountry and you generally had an ordinary house on abig paddock. Tom worked hard to build that block intoa very successful property. He was involved in manyactivities in farming — a whole range of differentactivities — but the thing he was most proud of was hisfine wool Merino flock, which was certainly somethingto be very proud of.

Again speaking as a politician I know that many peoplesee a politician who is a representative of the LiberalParty in western Victoria as having something of acomfortable existence. That was hardly the case withTom Austin. When he took over from Sir Henry Boltein the seat of Hampden it was hard enough for him towin the preselection and election even in that seat. Afteronly four years Hampden was abolished in theredistribution — some of us know about our seats beingabolished and redistributed — and Tom Austin took onthe seat of Ripon — as the Leader of the Oppositionsaid, a seat that Sir Henry Bolte told him he ‘didn’thave a snowflake’s chance in hell’ of winning, a seatthat included significant Labor territory. But TomAustin won it through hard work and absolutelyfantastic electioneering such as doorknocking. Therewas not a pub in that electorate that did not know TomAustin and where Tom was not a regular on a Thursdayor Friday night. He went to many sporting events andcertainly was very involved in the electorate.

People have spoken about his involvement with theMoyston world rabbit-skinning championships onBoxing Day each year. Indeed Tom was runner-up onseveral occasions. In fact some people said that he wasrunner-up more for diplomatic reasons, that as the localmember it would be inappropriate to win and that youactually won more votes by participating than bywinning. There were other people who protested aboutTom Austin being allowed to enter a rabbit-skinningcompetition, given his long family history with rabbits.For those who do not know, the Austin family, Tom’sforebears, introduced rabbits to Australia on theLightning, releasing them at Barwon Park, so theAustin family has a long history of involvement withrabbits.

It is to Tom’s credit that in the seat of Ripon heincreased his majority at each and every election, andhe certainly worked very hard as a very active localmember. He made a positive contribution locally, andother honourable members have spoken about his

ministerial contributions, which have been outstanding,and his contribution to the Liberal Party.

Two things sum up Tom Austin, and the Leader of theOpposition referred to one of them. When Tom leftschool he was too young to join the army but he forgedthe date on his birth certificate and went to join thearmy because he saw that as his duty. When he wasthrown out after 24 hours, he immediately went andjoined the Royal Australian Navy, which acceptedpeople at a younger age, because he saw that that washis community duty and his duty to his fellow citizens.

I think that says a lot about Tom Austin. His historygoes through service to his local school community andhis local community generally and, even after politics,an ongoing and positive contribution to the dairyindustry, the racing industry and many other aspects ofVictorian life. Tom loved life. He certainly lived it tothe full and along the way he made an enormousnumber of friends and made a great and positivecontribution to Victoria.

I pass on my sympathies to his children, Deborah,Vicky, Lisa and Jo, and their families and to his firstwife, Judith, and his second wife, Joy.

Ms ASHER (Brighton) — I would like to contributevery briefly to this condolence motion for Tom Austin,one of the great characters of Victorian politics, one ofthe great characters of Victoria, and an all-round greatbloke. He had many interests in the sporting field, in thepolitical field and, as has already been commented on,in areas as diverse as rabbit skinning and duck shooting.Indeed, he was duck shooting 10 days prior to his deathfrom cancer.

Tom could converse with anybody, be it a farmer inMeredith or a business leader in Melbourne. He had anatural ease with people and was most unpretentious.He always had content in what he said and was anoutstanding communicator in all walks of life, both inthe country and in the city.

His political achievements in his own career are many.He followed Sir Henry Bolte as the member forHampden from 1972 and, as has already beencommented on, became the member for Ripon througha very strong doorknocking campaign in some verytough Labor territory. I understand there is one booththat goes by the apt name of Paradise, where 80 voteswere cast and where Tom Austin got all 80, which Ihave to say makes booths in Brighton and Toorak lookpretty ordinary by way of comparison!

From 1978 to 1980 he was the Minister of PublicWorks and Minister for Property and Services, from

CONDOLENCES


1980 to 1982 he was the Minister for Agriculture, andfrom 1981 to 1982 also the Minister for Forests. Inopposition he was Deputy Leader of the Liberal Partyfrom 1985 to 1987, and I have to say I think he was theperfect deputy. He was loyal, he gave sage advice andany points of difference between leader and deputywere unknown to the rest of the party. He was anabsolutely outstanding deputy and I must say he oftensought to advise me on the rigours of being deputy,particularly after the last race and over a few glasses ofscotch. I appreciated that advice very much indeed. Oneof his great achievements was, of course, in conjunctionwith Rob Knowles, the reinstatement of Jeff Kennett asleader of the party in the run-up to the 1992 electionvictory for the Liberal Party.

He was very much an elder statesman of the LiberalParty. He retired from politics — in the parliamentarysense, that is — in 1992 and took on twochairmanships, roles that he fulfilled with greatdistinction: the chairmanships of the RacecoursesLicences Board and the Victorian Dairy IndustryAuthority. He had very finely tuned political instincts inboth the city and the country. He knew what peoplewere thinking and the way the Liberal Party shouldtailor itself to pick up on that thinking.

There was no pretence at all about Tom Austin: no airs,no graces, no arrogance. He was one of the mostdown-to-earth people I have ever met, and I admiredhim for that. I enjoyed his company and I admired hispolitical judgment, but most of all I respected and stillrespect to this day his political achievements.

I would like to pass on to Tom’s family, especially tohis wife Joy, my condolences.

Mr McARTHUR (Monbulk) — I would like to joinwith other honourable members in expressing mycondolences on the death of Tom Austin.

Tom was a good friend to many people and certainly asignificant contributor to Victoria over a very longperiod of time. I will not go through the details; theyhave all been canvassed very well by other speakersbefore me. I would like to talk a little bit about TomAustin the man I knew, and knew quite well over thelast 10 or 15 years or so.

A couple of stories about Tom might be illuminating. Ifirst met Tom Austin in — surprise, surprise! — a pubin Hopetoun. It was in the course of a parliamentaryvisit organised by the former member for Mildura tolook at an issue about Mallee public lands. At the timethe Labor government of the day, under the leadershipof John Cain and with urging along from Joan Kirner,

was madly trying to gather a few green votes inMelbourne electorates by running a national parkscampaign in the Mallee.

The then member for Mildura organised a tour byparliamentary members of the Liberal Party to have alook through that country. We met the first night at thepub in Hopetoun, as I said. I got to meet Tom and talkabout a few things. He said, ‘Son, don’t waste yourtime talking to me. You’ve already got my support. Goand talk to some of those city Libs. They’re the onesthat need education’. He was right. They were the onesthat needed a bit of information and needed to see howthings were from the bush perspective. That is still thecase. Some things do not change a hell of a lot.

I suppose my friendship with Tom Austin developedfrom then. He was always a person very interested inwhat other people were doing and in their perspectiveon life, and he was very generous with his time. He wasalways willing to give advice, and it was generally verywise advice as well.

I remember — in 1991, I think it was — being at theannual general meeting of the Ripon electorate council.Again I think it was held in a pub in Avoca. We had aprivate room somewhere at the back of the pub forthose electorate AGMs. This was to be Tom Austin’sfarewell AGM — it was a swan song for Tom. Ofcourse there were lots of speeches about Tom the manand Tom’s contributions to the electorate and to theLiberal Party. They went on a bit. Tom listenedpatiently. Eventually when it had all concluded and wewere standing around having a chat towards the end ofthe evening, people said, ‘Where’s Tom?’. We lookedaround the room and Tom was nowhere to be seen. Itook a bit of a wander around the pub and there in thefront bar was Tom Austin with a couple of locals. Hewas having a good yak with them on a couple of issuesthey had asked for his help on, or something like that. Iasked him afterwards, ‘Tom, why did you leave thedinner? Why did you head out there to the bar?’. Hesaid, ‘Son, you’ve always got to remember where yourvotes come from’, and he said, ‘They’re a couple ofgood local guys. One of them hands out how-to-votecards for the ALP, but he votes for me’.

Tom was renowned for his capacity to change people’svotes, and that example is a good illustration of that. Hehad the capacity to get people to vote in a way theywould not naturally or normally vote. He became a verysuccessful local member for Ripon, and held the seatagainst the predictions of Henry Bolte and the punditsfor many years — and he built on his majority all thetime. He also used that capacity internally a few times, Ibelieve — again very successfully.

CONDOLENCES


I suppose that had a lot to do with his quiet, calm,reassuring manner, and his ability to talk to people at alllevels. It did not matter whether you were on the boardsin the woolshed, working in a slaughterhouse, or in thecommittee room of the Victoria Racing Club — TomAustin was relaxed around you and he was a personwho was good to talk to.

His capacity as a sportsman has been mentioned acouple of times. As a sportsman, Tom was a verycombative and fierce competitor — he never gave upand he never gave in. He never allowed somebody towin if he thought he could prevent it — and I presumesometimes to his detriment.

I remember a story after he had left Parliament in 1992when he was working for a consulting firm during theprivatisation of the electricity industry. Tom wasworking for a firm that was, I think, looking torepresent some of the American companies bidding forsome of the power industry segments. Some of therepresentatives of one of those companies expressed awish to play golf at the Royal Melbourne golf course,which is well known, even in Texas, so Tom wasappointed to squire them around Royal Melbourne,show them the sights and make sure they enjoyed theirday of golf — the aim, of course, being to secure theaccount.

Everything went pretty well. They had a verysuccessful day at golf, and the wise and judicious thingfor a man as good at golf as Tom Austin was wouldhave been to make sure the Americans won by a coupleof strokes or by a hole — given that it was match play,it did not really matter. But competition andpragmatism sometimes do not meet well, and Tom wasnot going to give up for anybody. So the Americanswent home having seen the full sights of the RoyalMelbourne golf course, but sadly having been wellbeaten on the course.

The other thing about Tom was that he was a veryfierce competitor in election campaigning. I rememberhim telling me a yarn one time about an early electionmeeting. I am not sure exactly where this was; Ipresume it was around Meredith somewhere. He said itwas a little hall somewhere on a cold, wet, windy night.Tom turned up for the meeting — this was back in thedays when he went to all these barnstorming meetingsand people heckled and interjected — and it was fairlychilly. It was about minus 5 degrees, I suppose, thewind was blowing a gale from the south-west and therain was pelting in horizontally.

Tom turned up and only one car was there. He thought,‘Well, this won’t take long’. So he wandered in, getting

pretty wet in the process, and there was one old bloke atthe back of the hall, rugged up in his overcoat with ascarf around his neck and his hat on, shivering away inthis cold, draughty hall. Tom went over and had a bit ofa chat to him, saying, ‘Well, it looks like there’s notmuch of a meeting. There’s not much point in ushanging around here, is there? We might as well gosomewhere warmer’. The bloke said, ‘No, no, no. Icame to hear you speak. I want to hear what you’reabout, Sonny. I came to hear your election speech —get up there and do it!’. So Tom had to stand up at thefront of the hall and speak to an audience of one. But hedid it, and of course he won the election and continuedto improve his vote at every election. So perhaps thereis a lesson or two for all of us here in the way that TomAustin went about things.

Tom certainly left his mark on most of the people hemet. I do not think I have ever heard a person say a badword about Tom. Earlier the honourable member forPortland mentioned some of the famous dinners aroundhere in the Strangers Corridor. In the period between1988 and 1992 when I was often down here not as amember of this place but lobbying a fair bit, I took partin a few of those dinners, and that was a pretty fairdescription of that table: it got bigger as the night wenton, more and more people joined the party and a lot ofissues were discussed and sorted out around the tablewith Tom Austin over a glass of red or a scotch at somestage of the night.

He was a very warm, friendly, entertaining man. Hehad the capacity to guide and encourage people from allwalks of life. And he had a sense of values and a visionwhich I think were to the benefit of the broadercommunity. I join all honourable members in this placein expressing my condolences to Deb, Vicky, Lisa andJo, and also to Joy. He will be sadly missed.

Mr PATERSON (South Barwon) — I want to addjust one aspect to the memory of Tom Austin. Before Ireally got involved with politics at all I knew TomAustin’s name very well. In my teenage years I used tohear a lot about him from my brother Rowly, who wasinvolved with the Young Liberals in Ararat. Tom hadgathered around him quite a band of Young Liberals,and it was a very active branch. I think the social sidewas probably one of the attractions of the Ararat YoungLiberals, but there was without any doubt a feelingamong that band of Young Liberals that they wanted tohelp Tom Austin.

Tom Austin had the remarkable ability to enthusepeople about politics and to gather around him peoplewho genuinely wanted to help Tom Austin the man,and of course the Liberal Party as well, although you

CONDOLENCES


cannot help feeling that it was more trying to help TomAustin himself because of the respect they had for himand the way he was able to communicate with youngpeople not only in the Liberal Party but also in thewider community.

People gathered around Tom to hear his pearls ofwisdom, and as he grew older a lot of us who came intocontact with Tom were delighted to be in his presencebecause he spoke with such wisdom about the historyof politics in Victoria and with such passion aboutmany issues.

When I came into this house in 1992 I joined theLiberal Party’s agriculture committee. We used to meetoccasionally with Tom. He was always very directwhen discussing policy; he called a spade a shovel, aswe all know, but it was usually laced with the delightfulsense of humour he had. Tom will be very sadlymissed. My condolences go to the Austin family.

Mr MACLELLAN (Pakenham) — I rise to join thedebate on the condolence motion for Tom Austin. I wasa member of Parliament briefly before Tom arrivedhere and then throughout his time as a member of thishouse, and I was a minister with him in government.

Inadvertently I may have been responsible for Tombeing made Minister of Public Works and Minister forProperty and Services, a distinguished role I had for theprevious five days. I think I disqualified myself fromcontinuing in the role by advising my Premier that Iwas not able to introduce legislation for the WorldTrade Centre because I thought it was a bad decision.At that stage it made something of a certainty of the factthat I was about to become the Minister for Transportand Tom would replace me as Minister of PublicWorks and Minister for Property and Services, wherehe served with enormous distinction.

I think all members of the house knew that it was only apreliminary to his being eventually Minister ofAgriculture, because that is where his heart and soulwas — in country Victoria, with the rest ofmetropolitan Melbourne. It was about quality food, itwas about profitable enterprises in the country and itwas about well-managed properties — a whole range ofthings.

Other honourable members have said quite rightly thatTom had this enormous ability to attract people intosupporting him. He would have made an excellentdiplomat. He could win people across to a point ofview, even one that was not in an area with which theywere greatly familiar. They could understand whenTom talked about the difficulties of life in the country.

We ought also to pay enormous tribute to the part thathis first wife, Judy, and his later wife, Joy, played in hiscareer. They worked as partners with Tom in hispolitical career. I do not think he would ever have beenelected or re-elected in the difficult electorate herepresented if he had not had the support of, firstly,Judy and, in later years, Joy in his career.

We had a great minister. We had a great man. He waslike a character from the Boys’ Own Annual — the onewho could play cricket, tennis or skin rabbits or shootor drink or stay up late or argue. He was in almostevery respect larger than life, and I think that explainswhy we were all so shaken by the possibility that a lifelike that could come to an end. Yet even in its end hedid it with such style, grace and in a gentlemanly way.All of us are the poorer for being separated from Tombut the richer for having known him.

Mr LEIGH (Mordialloc) — I had the pleasure ofmeeting Tom Austin when I first entered thisParliament. As the honourable member for Warrandytesaid, Tom was one of those people who took over whatyou were doing and had chats to you about what youshould and should not do. He was one of those who didthat for me; I suppose the other one was Frank Wilkes,a former Leader of the Labor Party. There were acouple of other people on both sides who used toencourage or discourage me.


Mr LEIGH — I will not tell you who! The thing Inoticed most about Tom Austin as a person came outwhen he was deputy leader and I was the whip. Tomwas one of those people who used his experience toharness the enthusiasm of younger members. Therewere nights in this chamber when I was encouraged toensure that 27 quorums took place. The government ofthe day, the Cain government, used to arrogantly notlisten to what the opposition said, and under the thenopposition leader, Mr Kennett, Mr Austin and laterMr Brown, a former opposition leader, these sorts ofthings used to take place.

I always marvelled at Tom’s shooting ability. Heallegedly had this fridge full of ducks, but I have to saythat I never saw any of them. I hope many others did! Itwas only in later years that I learnt of Tom’s role in theSecond World War. A lot of politicians who do thesorts of things that Tom did make known what theyhave done, but Tom was not someone who talked aboutit to any great degree.

The thing about Tom that will always stand out in mymind is that often of an evening when Countrywide was

CONDOLENCES


on he would make me, as a city member, come in andwatch it with him on the ABC so I could find out whatwas going on in country Victoria.

Mr Pandazopoulos interjected.

Mr LEIGH — Maybe you just think that! On oneof those occasions I became even more enthralledbecause I had not known of the Austin family’s allegedcontribution to the rabbit stock in Australia. Thatparticular program has stuck in my mind to this day.The first issue concerned what had happened withrabbits, and then they had a gentleman who had thisidea about how to get rid of the rabbits, includingblowing them up. Two-thirds of the program talkedabout the contribution of the Austin hereditary family,if you like, over the years. I sat through thisCountrywide program watching what was going on. Asa result of that I joined the agriculture committee as itsonly city member. I guess you can learn a lot about theother side of life and things you have never beeninvolved in personally.

I offer my condolences to Joy and the family. Tom wasone of those members of Parliament, like the DonMcKellars and the Bill Fogartys, who will never bereplaced. There are people on both sides of thischamber who will go down in history as being greatVictorians above and beyond being simply politicians.To Tom I pay my humble respects.

Mr BAILLIEU (Hawthorn) — Tom Austin wasabove all a decent bloke, a man of western Victorianorigins, a passionate Geelong supporter and a fiercelyloyal friend. He was a Liberal, and he always put theparty first, above his own interests. He was acommunity-spirited individual. He was a lover of EastMelbourne and the pleasures of Melbourne, but he wasalso a lover of the simple pleasures. In my view, aboveall he was an unpretentious fellow. Like so many othersI felt very comfortable in Tom’s presence and with hisinvolvement in the Liberal Party.

I became close to Tom Austin as party vice-presidentand president for many years. He became a friend and,in recent years, a neighbour. In the Liberal Party TomAustin was a rock, and he was a confidante to many, aswe have heard. In sporting parlance Tom Austin was a‘go to’ man. He was the one whom you went to foradvice, because he gave good advice and he had greatjudgment — and above all, you could always trust TomAustin. He made an extraordinary contribution to theparty, to his electorate and to Victoria.

Tom always took a quiet pride in his life, hisachievements, his family and his friends, and it was amuch deserved pride.

In recent years I had the pleasure of sharing Tom andJoy’s company locally at a variety of get-togethers andwe saw each other quite often. Just a couple of weeksbefore Tom passed away, I had a drink with him andsome of his very close friends — Gary and Genevieve,Peter and Mary and others — and Tom was propped upin the corner of a familiar room with a glass of wine,needless to say, dispensing good advice, wise counseland being very involved.

In those recent years Tom and I also shared at manytimes that most wonderful walk, that brisk, expectant,cheerful trip you make through the elms from this placeand others to the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Tomloved that walk: he engaged everybody along the way,as he did throughout his life.

For me and many others, I am sure — and if I dare steala line from a more famous Australian — when it comesto Tom Austin, his ghost will be heard in so manyplaces around Victoria, be it the G, be it this Parliament,be it the electorate of Ripon, be it past the manyachievements to which Tom contributed over manyyears. My condolences go to Joy and to Tom’s family.

The SPEAKER — I join with others in expressingmy sorrow at the passing of Thomas Leslie Austin andextend my condolences to his wife, Joy, and to hisfamily members.

Motion agreed to in silence, honourable membersshowing unanimous agreement by standing in theirplaces.

Hon. Ann Mary Henderson


That this house expresses its sincere sorrow at the death on4 June 2002 of the Honourable Ann Mary Henderson andplaces on record its acknowledgment of the valuable servicesrendered by her to the Parliament and the people of Victoriaas member of the Legislative Assembly for the electoraldistrict of Geelong from 1992 to 1999 and Minister forHousing and Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs from1996 to 1999.

Sadly the Honourable Ann Henderson passed away on4 June 2002 after a long and courageous fight withcancer. She will be remembered for her dedicatedservice to the people of Geelong, whom she representedin this house from 1992 to 1999, and for hercontribution to the Victorian Parliament as Minister forHousing and Minister responsible for AboriginalAffairs.

CONDOLENCES


Ann Henderson was born in Melbourne on31 December 1941 and educated at Kilbreda Collegeand Mandeville Hall. Her career reflects her passion foradvancing Geelong and the wider region and a concernfor the welfare of others. As well as having an interestin the arts, Ann Henderson was a welfare officer anddirector of Do Care, an administration and welfareofficer for Geelong Legacy, an alumni developmentofficer at Deakin University, and from 1992 to 1996 amember of the Deakin University council.

She was administrator of the Port Fairy Folk Festival,executive officer of the Geelong branch of the NationalTrust, and executive officer of the Geelong Art GalleryFoundation. She also held the office of mayoress of theCity of Newtown.

In 1992 Ann Henderson was elected to this house as themember for Geelong. Her parliamentary careerincluded being the chair of the aged care committee anda member of the local government community servicesand tourism committees from 1992 to 1996.

In 1994 Ann Henderson chaired the International Yearof the Family ministerial council and served as a boardmember of the National Ageing Research Institute from1994 to 1996. After leaving the Victorian Parliament in1999 she became the presiding member of the board ofthe Australian Institute of Family Studies, a position Iunderstand she held until her death.

I wish to acknowledge that Ann Henderson also made asignificant contribution to the Liberal Party. Sheworked on election campaign committees, was a statecouncil delegate from 1987 to 1991, and the endorsedcandidate for Geelong in 1988. She was alsovice-president of the party’s Newtown branch from1987 to 1989, and its president for the following twoyears.

In her inaugural speech to this house on 30 October1992 Ann Henderson highlighted her concerns. Theyincluded access to further education and meaningfuljobs, especially for younger people, and youthhomelessness. These policy interests and hercommitment to making a difference were recognisedwhen in 1996 she was appointed Minister for Housingand Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs. In amedia interview at the time she described these areas asthe human face of service delivery, and added, ‘and thatsits very nicely with how I see myself’. This is howAnn Henderson will be remembered by honourablemembers, by the people of Geelong, and by the manypeople with whom she worked. She worked in areasthat have made a difference and she did it with a humanface.

On behalf of the government I extend condolences tothe family of Ann Henderson: her children, Sarah, Jodieand Andrew, son-in-law Rob, and grandchildren,Angus and Marcus.

Mr DOYLE (Leader of the Opposition) — I amhonoured to second the Premier’s condolence motionfor the honourable Ann Mary Henderson, who wasborn on 31 December 1941 and died on 4 June 2002.Ann was member for Geelong from 1992 to 1999,Minister for Housing from 1996 to 1999, and Ministerresponsible for Aboriginal Affairs from 1996 to 1999.

I first met Ann Henderson in 1978 in my previouscareer as a teacher. I taught Ann’s daughters, and Annand I first met at the dreaded parent-teacher interviews.Either because of or perhaps despite what I had to sayabout her girls, we developed a close friendship. Yearslater we became colleagues when we were both electedto Parliament as part of the class of 1992. Ann almostjoined the earlier intake in 1988 when she narrowly lostthe seat of Geelong. She came back to take her placeand represent the people of Geelong in this place fouryears later.

Through the late nights in those first three consecutiveweeks of parliamentary sittings we new MPs got toknow each other quite well. We got to know Ann’sstamina and her humour. She was great company andgreat fun — and could she talk! And I mean that in thenicest sense of course; she was a great and realconversationalist.

Ann represented and was proud of Geelong, and fewareas in Victoria felt the impact of the economic woesthat had hit Victoria worse than Geelong. I think thatGeelong experience was why Ann understood theimpact of government policies on people’s lives,particularly those who were in need of help orassistance. In her inaugural speech she outlined thevalues and priorities that would guide her through herpublic life. She said:

I have had access to education, a career, and an opportunity tocontribute to the community, an opportunity to provide agood education for my children and the ability to give them asense of family and the challenge to be responsible forthemselves …

So many young people today are denied these opportunities.They do not have access to further education. They do nothave access to meaningful jobs. The pressures on familiescaused by unemployment prevent many of our young peoplefrom sharing in the sense of challenge and adventure thatshould be their right.

In my electorate of Geelong youth unemployment is a tragedyin which the whole community must share. Youthhomelessness is very real …

CONDOLENCES


I can still hear her voice vibrating with her commitmentto helping people, and see her bright blue eyes shiningas she said that.

Ann worked hard and took advantage of heropportunities. This was the key to a successful careerand a fulfilling life. Ann was one of four children bornto Alan and Marion Corben. She was raised inBeaumaris. Throughout her life Ann knew theimportance of the community, and made substantialcontributions of her own time and effort.

After marrying Michael in June 1963, Ann moveddown to Geelong and threw herself into family andcommunity life. In her adopted home town of Geelongthe organisations that benefited from her time werewide and varied. They included the Geelong Collegecouncil, the Geelong National Trust, Friends ofBethany, Mercy Family Care, Newtown SeniorCitizens, Deakin University, and Do Care.

In Ann’s first entrance to public life she was mayoressto the City of Newtown when Michael was mayor. Annwas driven by compassion. She wanted to make thelives of her fellow citizens better. I can think of fewmembers who embody the sense of communityresponsibility more than Ann did. That is why she stoodas a Liberal candidate for Geelong in 1988 — when, asI have said, she narrowly lost. When the Geelongregion was hit hard by the recession and the collapse ofthe Pyramid Building Society, Ann stood for officeagain, and of course won.

In her first term as member for Geelong I believe Annearned the respect of both sides of the house throughher diligence and work, her ability to see through thebluster of politics, and her innate courtesy. However, asI have said before, we all knew that beneath that charmand affability there was a core of steel.

Despite her workload as a local member in a marginalseat, Ann relished hard work and taking on extraresponsibilities. In her first term she assisted RobKnowles with his work in aged care. This formed thebasis of a strong friendship and working relationshipbetween them. Ann also chaired a broad-basedcommunity committee considering family policy, a rolein which she brought all her skills and experience in thewelfare sector to bear.

Ann never forgot Geelong. She was one of its greatestchampions and never missed an opportunity to promotethe city and its people and to ensure it was alwaysconsidered in policy making. Geelong still shows thehallmarks of Ann’s vision, particularly her longstandingsupport of the Geelong waterfront.

As the 1996 election approached, Ann was diagnosedwith breast cancer. But this did not stop her from onceagain standing for the seat of Geelong, and winning,with a swing to her. Her efforts and abilities wererewarded when she was offered the ministries ofhousing and Aboriginal affairs in the new government.Upon her appointment, her compassion and work ethiccame through clearly. I amplify what the Premier saidbefore by saying that in 1996 she told the Herald Sun:

I think they are portfolios that don’t attract the excitement thatsome of the other portfolios do.

But it is a great privilege to get these portfolios becausethey’re very much the human face of service delivery, andthat certainly sits very nicely with how I see myself.

I was lucky enough to work closely with Ann in theprevious government. Ann was held in high regard byher departmental officers for her mind, her work, andher determination to do something for people. To herportfolios she brought new perspectives and awillingness to try new strategies.

For instance, early in her term Ann determined torefocus government housing policy to make need thefirst priority. Rather than continuing to simply managethe housing list and provide assistance to people as theirnames came up, Ann segmented the list in order toensure that those most in need were supported as apriority. This policy has saved unknown numbers fromthe hardships of homelessness, and I am pleased theLabor government today still uses the policy.

Ann also knew the importance of speaking to peopleworking at the coalface, visiting all the majorAboriginal organisations and settlements in her time asminister. For this and for the institution of theAboriginal Young Achievers Award, as part of thenational Aborigine and Islanders Day of CelebrationWeek, Ann was widely admired and respectedthroughout the Aboriginal communities. She had agenuine understanding of and empathy for the needs ofour indigenous people.

In 1999 Ann was to face her greatest test. Known onlyto herself and a few of us, Ann’s cancer had recurred.Ann fought for the seat of Geelong, and in one of theclosest election results ever in Victoria, lost by16 votes. Typically Ann was philosophical about herdisappointment. Following the change of governmentthe commonwealth decided to use Ann’s expertise, andSenator Jocelyn Newman appointed her as chair of theAustralian Institute of Family Studies. However,following the further recurrence of her cancer, Annregularly entered hospital.

CONDOLENCES


I want to put on the record Rob Knowles’s commentabout that time in Ann’s life: ‘She was one gutsywoman’.

Ann loved politics and loved public life, not for thepolitical gains, but for the interaction with people, theability to make a difference, and the opportunity toimprove people’s lives. Yet despite all she gave topublic life, her first love was her family. To herdaughters, Sarah and Jodie, her son, Andrew, herson-in-law, Rob, and her beloved grandchildren, Angusand Marcus, I offer my deepest sympathies.

For her efforts and the legacy left by Ann Henderson,on behalf of all Victorians I simply say thank you. Ibelieve I am a better person because I knew you, Ann.Goodbye my dear friend.

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — I joinwith the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition inthis motion of condolence recognising the passing ofAnn Mary Henderson.

Ann Henderson was a truly beautiful person. Sheenriched all with whom she came into contact. I met herwhen we both came to this Parliament in 1992, and webecame great friends over the succeeding years. Shecame to the Parliament with a distinguished history ofpublic service, and she very proudly continued that roleduring her time of service in this place.

She was an absolute joy to meet. She had a wonderful,open face, more often than not smiling, and she wasabsolutely genuine in any greeting to you or to thosearound her. She had a complete commitment toconversation with you when she spoke with you — shewas a great conversationalist on a wide range oftopics — and she had a wonderful sense of fun.

Back in those days of 1992 — those heady days, assome would say — the important issues of governmenttended to take up a number of hours in this place. Forthe preservation of one’s sanity in some senses itbecame necessary to seek solace at odd hours of the dayand night in establishments not far from here. Manywere the instances when many of us had theopportunity of conversing with Ann in very enjoyablecircumstances, often for extended periods. As I said,she had a wonderful sense of fun.

She had an absolute commitment to her electorate andto the people of Geelong. She was a very caringindividual. In her maiden speech she emphasised herconcern, particularly for young people and those lessfortunate in our community, and most particularly forthe underprivileged. She was an extraordinarilycompassionate person.

Her appointment as Minister for Housing and Ministerresponsible for Aboriginal Affairs was inspired,because it enabled her to bring to bear the natural traitsof her personality in areas that necessarily involvedpeople who did not enjoy the best fortunes of life. Sheearned the respect of the Aboriginal communities. Inthe course of Ann’s visits to my electorate I hadoccasion to witness first hand how those communitiescame to recognise in her a great friend and ally andsomeone who was genuinely committed to the issues ofconcern to them.

On the other hand she was a person of absolutely ironwill. She had enormous strength of character and agreat inner strength. Subsequent to 1992, when many ofus were elected to this place, an annual function hasbeen held for conservative politicians elected in thatyear. That function, which historically has beenchampioned by the honourable member for Benambra,is held in the latter part of each year.

Last year, at a time when her illness was upon her andwas evident to all of those present, Ann Hendersonjoined us on that day. I am sure the many of us whowere there will have a lasting memory of the way sheconducted herself in the face of absolute adversity. Herillness meant nothing to her in the sense of stilling hercapacity to enjoy herself and assist in the enjoyment ofothers. From my perspective that is a lasting memory.

Her greatest commitment, of course, was to her family.The passing of her husband, Michael, was a terribleblow to her. We were not to know that only a few yearslater she would be subject to the same tragic events thatwould ultimately claim her life.

She was universally admired in this place. I cannot helpbut recall instances where, in the absolute depths of herillness, people of all political persuasions, andparticularly the ladies of this Parliament, were alwaysaround her to offer solace and assist her through whatwas a very difficult time.

She passed away aged 61 years, and her passing was atragedy for all concerned. On behalf of the NationalParty I offer my condolences to the family of the lateAnn Henderson.

Mr THWAITES (Minister for Health) — I ampleased to join with the Premier, the Leader of theOpposition and the Leader of the National Party inexpressing my sorrow at the death of Ann Henderson.Ann Henderson was widely admired on all sides ofpolitics and more broadly in the community. Certainlyshe was always a friendly face and someone who had

CONDOLENCES


an open and bubbly personality, and that is one thingthat endeared her to many people.

Ann Henderson had a very close family and, as otherspeakers have mentioned, suffered the tragedy of losingher husband, who was also involved in politics, but shewas always close to her three children.

She was one of those people who, as well as having aclose family, had an amazing amount of energy tocontribute to the community. The number ofcommunity organisations that she was involved withover many years was quite extraordinary. She wasinvolved in numerous charitable, educational andartistic organisations in Geelong. As well as her workwhich saw her take on positions such as executiveofficer of the Port Fairy Folk Festival she also hadpersonal artistic and cultural involvements which werevery fulfilling for her.

As other speakers have said, Ann Henderson was proudof her role as a minister and of the importance ofhousing and Aboriginal affairs. Right up to the time ofher death she looked back on Aboriginal affairs asperhaps her greatest contribution, something that shelearned a lot from and that she believed she was able togive back to.

I attended her funeral and was amazed at how manypeople there were to whom she had been able to givesomething as a member of the community and as amember of Parliament. In Ann Henderson the people ofGeelong had someone who was always very committedto advancing their interests and those of the variousorganisations, whether they were educational, artistic orother cultural bodies in Geelong.

It is with sadness that I join the other speakers inexpressing my condolences to her family, particularlyto her children Sarah, Jodie and Andrew, who werevery close to their mother, and to acknowledge thegreat contribution she made over many years.

Mr HONEYWOOD (Warrandyte) — My favouritememory of the late Ann Henderson, bright and funloving as she was, was at Borders book shop not manymonths before she passed away. I was in the companyof my children and Ann bumped into me. She was inthe company of a family member. She had on one ofthose incredible felt hats that she used to wear turned upat the front and she was clicking her heels and fingers toa jazz quartet that were playing in the midst of thatbook shop. I received a big hug. She had wonderfulinquiries to make of my two children. She was full oflife and confidence. She was a wonderful human being.

I first knew Ann from her time at Deakin Universitywhere she was a consummate public relationsprofessional. She single-handedly put together thealumni association for that university, which was goingthrough a major growth phase. She was committed tobringing the various regional campuses of DeakinUniversity into the one entity, and she was sorelymissed when she was preselected for the then Laborseat of Geelong for the 1992 election.

She became a cabinet colleague, but prior to herbecoming a cabinet colleague we shared an office ofsorts down in the basement. The honourable memberfor Bentleigh, Ann Henderson and I had partitionsbetween us. I recall that cigarette smoke would waftover from one corner and hair spray and otherinteresting smells and conversation would waft over inthe other direction. It was a great — —

An honourable member interjected.

Mr HONEYWOOD — I am not sure what thesingle bloke’s cubicle added to that interesting mixture,but certainly we had a lot of fun together in the threeand a half years we shared that office in the basement!

Ann was a wonderful support as a cabinet colleagueand was totally committed to her portfolios. I will neverforget her strong advocacy for a cabinet decision todemolish a public housing tower in Flemington. Shewas utterly determined to engage with all the tenants toensure that each of those tenant families had theirparticular non-English-speaking backgrounds dealt withand that they all took on board the moves that they hadto face.

One of Ann’s proudest moments in this place wasmoving her motion on reconciliation. She was totallycommitted to bringing together Koori people and otherAustralians under the banner of reconciliation.

Above and beyond all that she had an overwhelminglove for Geelong, its people and the community. Shewas passionate about her work on the Geelongwaterfront, about expanding Deakin University’sWoolstores campus and about being involved in hercommunity. Ann showed an equal and overwhelmingloyalty and support to Jeff Kennett. She admired himfor what he achieved. Ann was one of his closestpolitical friends, one of his closest personal friends, anda great supporter of his through many difficult times.

Immediately after the 1999 state election Ann felt theloss of her seat personally. As we battled to come toterms with the election that seemed to be unlosable shewould give us daily bulletins in cabinet about what hadhappened, about how one day her votes were up and

CONDOLENCES


one day they were down. She felt the loss of that seatvery keenly. She gave us her very best. She fought hardfor the people of Geelong, and she fought hard for theLiberal Party. She really was the consummate localmember.

In my 14 years in this place I have witnessed three greatladies succumb to cancer. The first was Pauline Toner,the second was Beth Gleeson and the third was bright,bubbly Ann; and each of those ladies was a courageousfighter and a wonderful human being. Farewell, Ann.

Mr HAMILTON (Minister for Agriculture) — Ijoin with the previous speakers in recognising the life ofAnn Henderson, a former Minister responsible forAboriginal Affairs. I want today to show recognitionfor the work she did.

Ann Henderson was one of many ministers forAboriginal affairs who did not allow this very sensitive,very important and delicate area to become one inwhich political football was played. Indeed followingher appointment as the Minister responsible forAboriginal Affairs, succeeding the Honourable MichaelJohns, I was fortunate as a shadow minister to find Icould work with Ann with a great deal of confidence.One of the aspects I greatly admired about her was theconfidence she had in her staff and her advisers,because it was not typical of the then Kennettgovernment that a shadow minister was encouraged tomeet with a senior adviser to discuss issues. Theconfidence she had in her staff was very much part ofher own character.

Ann inadvertently — I suppose it happens to all newministers — caused me some recent personalembarrassment. Ministers get to open all sorts ofprojects, which in most cases have been initiated by aprevious minister. I have had the pleasure of opening anumber of projects which were initiated by Ann whenshe was the Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs,and it has been my privilege to recognise hercontribution in initiating those projects. Probably one ofthe outstanding among many was the refurbishment ofthe Aboriginal Advancement League premises atThornbury, because that project was one in which shehad great personal involvement and for which she had agreat affinity. I was fortunate to be present at theopening of that and to see her great contributionrecognised. Hers was a great contribution.

Ann managed to work with Aboriginal communitieswith a great deal of understanding. Those of us whohave been involved in working with Aboriginalcommunities will know that they are a bit like theLabor Party or, with some unknowns about it, the

Liberal Party: they are a broad church. Aboriginalcommunities throughout this state are quite differentand have quite different challenges. Ann was able towork with a great cross-section of people in Aboriginalaffairs, and in doing so earned a great deal of respectwithout becoming involved in what is sometimescolloquially called Aboriginal politics.

When as a new minister one starts working with adepartment it is not long before the staff of thatdepartment say, ‘Ministers come and go but thebureaucrats stay’ — but there was a great deal ofrespect in Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV) forformer minister Ann Henderson. All the officers withinthat department who worked with her, some of them forthe whole of her ministry and prior to that, respectedher greatly. Indeed throughout AAV there has neverbeen a derogatory remark made about her. That issomething she could be proud of, and certainly I knowher family is very proud of the fact that she handled adelicate ministry with great sensitivity and expertise.

As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition indicated, wehave seen in our time in this Parliament three greatwomen taken by cancer. That is something I feelparticularly sad about, because apart from question timeand other debates that may or may not go on at varioustimes, you get to know people in this place on apersonal note, and I consider it a great privilege to haveknown Ann Henderson and to have worked with her. Iextend my very sincere condolences to her family.

Dr NAPTHINE (Portland) — It is my honour andprivilege to have known Ann Henderson andparticularly to have served with her both here in thisParliament and in the cabinet. Many others will speaktoday of Ann, of their personal knowledge of her andher role in the community. I want to speak very brieflyabout some of the things I remember very well aboutAnn.

Some of the adjectives that I would use to describe AnnHenderson are enthusiastic, caring, considerate,compassionate, committed, constructive, courageous,cheerful and happy. Ann Henderson was all thosethings. She was a very good friend and a strong cabinetcolleague, and she was a very positive member for herlocal community.

I want to highlight a couple of things that I believeepitomise the sort of work Ann Henderson did. As theminister said, Aboriginal affairs is one of the areaswhich Ann took on with great enthusiasm and in whichshe earned great respect — and I say that veryearnestly, because she earned the respect of Aboriginalcommunities. In my own electorate in western Victoria

CONDOLENCES


the local Aboriginal communities have been around along time and they have seen a lot of politicians comeand go — and they have seen a lot of politiciansinvolved in Aboriginal affairs. With Ann Hendersonthey saw a politician come who sat down and listened,who was genuinely interested and concerned and whogenuinely tried to act upon those concerns. Throughthat she genuinely earned their respect. It wasinteresting that the Aboriginal communities werestrongly represented at her funeral, and that respect onlycomes from having earned it, as Ann did.

Ann made a very positive contribution to the debate inthis Parliament on Aboriginal reconciliation. Althoughwe do not disclose what goes on in cabinet, those whowere involved in cabinet discussions about whether weshould have a debate on reconciliation in the Parliamentwould know how passionately Ann fought to have thatdebate, and she never gave up. That was a veryimportant debate and it was a great tribute to Ann that itwas held here in this Parliament.

It is interesting to note that after the change ofgovernment when we had subsequent debates onAboriginal issues, including the issue of saying sorry,Ann was regularly seated in the public gallery with theAboriginal community, which was another great markof the respect in which she was held.

I had the privilege of growing up near Geelong andgoing to school in Geelong, and I know that AnnHenderson was an institution in Geelong long beforeshe was elected to Parliament for her long and verysuccessful track record in a wide variety of communityactivities, which I will not go into now. She became themember for Geelong in November 1992, when it couldbe said colloquially that Geelong was on its kneesthrough the collapse of the Pyramid Building Societyand the general economic conditions and whenquestions were being asked about the very future ofGeelong as a regional centre and the second city inVictoria.

Ann, as part of the new government, drove positivechange for Geelong. There are landmarks in Geelongthat are tributes to the hard work of Ann Henderson.Every time I drive along the waterfront of Geelong Isee the vision and work of Ann Henderson. Every timeI see the success of Deakin University in the old woolstores in the central business district I am reminded ofthe drive and vision of Ann Henderson. She certainlywas a positive advocate for the community of Geelongand she did much to turn around the attitude inGeelong, to make it a more positive place and torevitalise Geelong for the future.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, when Ann wasthe Minister for Housing I had the privilege of being afellow minister in the Human Services department. Annwas one of those people who looked at things and said,‘What can be done to make them better and how canwe do it?’, rather than just doing things the way theywere done traditionally. The segmented waiting lists forhousing on a needs basis was a great tribute to herdrive.

Ann also made significant changes to the area oftransitional housing and worked with me on thesupported accommodation assistance programs to makethem more effective in the delivery of services forhomeless and potentially homeless people. It isinteresting to reflect on the time when Ann Hendersonwas involved in housing. A significant number ofchanges were made to the traditional night shelterarrangements at places such as the Gill MemorialHome and Ozanam House, with very positiveoutcomes.

I also want to mention briefly the way Ann dealt withher own illness. She was courageous in the extreme.When Ann was sworn in as Minister for Housing, thePremier at the time, Jeff Kennett, and Rob Knowles, theformer housing minister and then senior minister in theHuman Services department, knew she was sufferingfrom cancer and advised her to have a few months offto get herself well. But Ann would have none of that.She insisted on coming to work and on being heavilyinvolved as minister, and she really put thatresponsibility first.

Ann was very positive about dealing with her illness.She did it with dignity and she was always thinking ofothers. Many times from her hospital bed she wouldsend flowers or a note or card to somebody else whohad suffered a setback or some illness — at a timewhen she herself was suffering a very severe illness.Her courage in dealing with her cancer, her positiveapproach and her cheerfulness will always beremembered.

I pass on my sympathy to the members of her family.They can be very proud of Ann’s achievements notonly in Geelong and in her parliamentary career as aminister but most importantly as a person. She was agreat person who made a great deal of difference to thepeople around her and certainly made a significantcontribution to Geelong and to Victoria.

Mr MAUGHAN (Rodney) — I am pleased tofollow the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, theLeader of the National Party and other honourable

CONDOLENCES


members in paying a personal tribute to AnnHenderson, a lady whom I very much admired.

I first met Ann when she was elected as the honourablemember for Geelong in 1992. For the next four yearsAnn was a member of the community servicescommittee, which I had the privilege to chair at thattime, so I had an opportunity to get to know her verywell. Over those four years I appreciated her capacity,sincerity and compassion, all of which have beencommented on by previous speakers.

I think it was around 1994 that my youngest daughter’sflatmate from London visited Melbourne to attend hisbrother’s wedding. Over lunch in the parliamentarydining room he asked whether I knew Ann Henderson.I said I did and took him to meet her. This very fineyoung man, who now happens to be my son-in-law,was Andrew Emmett. His brother Rob is married toJodie Henderson. So my daughter and Ann’s daughterare sisters-in-law. That strengthened the link that mywife Dorothy, who is in the gallery today, and I hadwith Ann Henderson. This gave Dorothy theopportunity on a number of occasions to care for Ann’sgrandchildren to allow Jodie to spend more time withher mother during her illness.

Ann subsequently became Minister for Housing andMinister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, and I hadmany dealings with her. I remember on one occasionshe came to Echuca to open a fine ministry of housingvillage of some 23 very nice homes only 500 metresfrom where I live. Ann opened those homes with agreat deal of grace on that day.

I met Ann’s husband Michael on I think two occasionsprior to his untimely death from cancer and felt verymuch for Ann as she dealt first with her husband’sillness and then her own. I share the views expressed byhonourable members here today that she dealt with thatillness with a great deal of courage and dignity. As Isaid, my wife Dorothy was pleased to be able to assistat times to help Jodie spend more time with Ann.

The very high regard in which Ann Henderson washeld by her colleagues, by the community and by thewide circle of people that she came into contact withover her years as a minister and an activist in her owncommunity was demonstrated in no uncertain terms atthe funeral which was a celebration of a life well livedas a wife, a mother, a community activist, a member ofParliament and a cabinet minister.

Dorothy and I extend our condolences to Sarah, Jodieand Rob and Andrew on this very sad loss for them andthe community generally.

Ms DELAHUNTY (Minister for Planning) — I ampleased to join the leader of this house to pay tributeand salute the life and public service of AnnHenderson.

I remember when the news was passed to the Laborcaucus of Ann’s death on 4 June this year. There was apalpable sense of sadness in the room and a palpablesense of ‘too soon’ — that a great person had gone toosoon. Another woman was lost to that hideous diseaseof breast cancer. I know there is a sniff of politicalcombat in the air as we go into the spring sitting, but itis appropriate that we pause and reflect on the valuesthat we share and the affection we feel for people acrossthe chamber and it is appropriate to reflect on the publicservice performed by them all.

In looking at Ann’s career as a member of Parliament,as a minister and her pre-political career, it strikes methat women have a very different journey to this place.During her life she had her own catering and giftsbusiness. She was a director and welfare officer of DoCare and an administrator of the Port Fairy musicfestival, which has already been mentioned. Ann wasan officer of Deakin University and an executive officerof the Geelong branch of the National Trust and theGeelong Art Gallery Foundation.

I knew Ann when I was a journalist and she was aminister of the Crown. I knew of her contribution to thearts in Geelong and how much that contribution wasvalued. I also worked with Ann’s daughter Sarah at theABC, and I have discovered today that Ann and I areboth old Loreto girls.

I rise to speak today not only to salute Ann’s life and toexpress our sadness at its being cut so short but also toshare with the house a wonderful note she sent to meearlier this year. Ann was suffering from cancer andobviously struggling with life, but she took time out towrite a very moving letter to me at the time of the deathof my husband Jock.

It was a letter about courage; it was a letter aboutmoving on; and it was a letter about the support she hadreceived from her colleagues on that side of the housewhen her husband had died, but she also mentionedcolleagues on this side of the house. It was a verytimely note from a woman who knew exactly what Iwas going through. I am immensely grateful to her forthat note.

Let me talk briefly about her courage, which has beenmentioned. She showed extraordinary courage. Shecontinued as a mother and a minister after the death ofher husband, Michael. One month before the 1996

CONDOLENCES


election she was fighting for her life. Three days beforethat election was called she had surgery for cancer, butshe won the election and became a minister of theCrown. In 1999, although she was still battling her ownpersonal health challenges, she involved herself in avery hard-fought election and lived through thatnerve-racking count when she eventually lost by, Ithink, 20 votes.

While that result was very good for this side of thehouse, I hope Ann came to see that perhaps it wasvaluable for her as well, because it may have given herthat time to smell the roses and to be with her family —her daughters and her grandchildren — and her manyfriends. At least she could spend the time that was leftto her in the way she chose.

I send my sympathies and my condolences to herchildren, particularly to Sarah, who made a wonderfulcomment at the funeral. She said that her motherinstilled in her the belief that lacking the right educationor the right gender or the right background, however wedetermine that, should be no barrier to achieving yourlife’s goals. Sarah said that Ann instilled those values inall her children. While Ann might have gone, thosevalues remain in her children and in those she met andaffected and worked for as a minister in this place. Isalute her courage, and I thank her for her letter to mesome seven months ago.

Mrs SHARDEY (Caulfield) — It is certainly agreat honour to make a contribution to the condolencemotion for Ann Henderson, who lived from31 December 1941 to 4 June this year and was themember for Geelong from 1992 to 1999 and,significantly, the Minister for Housing and the Ministerresponsible for Aboriginal Affairs from 1996 to 1999.Ann died after a long fight with breast cancer at thevery early age of 60 years. Of course many in this placesupported her strongly as friends through that time.

Very sadly for the Liberal Party she lost her seat in1999 by some 16 votes. Her brother David Corbendescribed Ann as a person with a strong will to lead,and friends have described her as jet propelled. I thinkwe all recognised both those qualities in AnnHenderson and appreciated and loved her for them. Shewas a truly amazing woman. At times she ran her owncatering and gift business, was director and welfareofficer for Do Care, mayoress of the City of Newtown,administrator of the Port Fairy music festival and wasexecutive officer of the Geelong branch of the NationalTrust and the Geelong Art Gallery Foundation as wellas being a member of Parliament, a minister of theCrown, a wife, a mother and someone we all admiredenormously.

Sadly Ann lost her husband in 1995. She is survived bythree children, Sarah, Jodie, Andrew, and twograndchildren, Angus and Marcus.

Ann said the following in her maiden speech:

The principles and ethos by which I live are a result of thevalues that have been handed down to me from a family thatbased its successes and failures on hard work, adventure,challenge and opportunity.

Certainly Ann Henderson embraced all these principlesthroughout her life.

She was a role model to all women in this Parliament,particularly those on this side of the house but quiteobviously to those on both sides. She successfullycombined her roles as loving wife and mother, supergrandmother and highly successful member ofParliament. If I could be half the things that AnnHenderson was I think I would be a very happy woman.

Ann was a woman of great ability and greatcompassion. She was also one of the bravest women Ihave ever known. She was a passionate fighter for herbeloved Geelong. Through her work with Do Care shefought for those in our community who aredisadvantaged, and she showed great empathy andunderstanding in her portfolios of Aboriginal affairsand housing.

I recall many conversations with her, particularly aboutthe Aboriginal affairs portfolio — it is an area I haveworked in for a number of years at a federal level —and certainly appreciated the exchange of ideas I hadwith Ann Henderson. She was proud of what she wasable to achieve on behalf of the Aboriginal community.For example, the health outcomes agreements broughttogether, as I recall, Aboriginal organisations, the stategovernment and the federal government and achieved agreat deal for the Aboriginal community in the healtharea. I remember clearly the apology given in this placein relation to the stolen generation. That day was one ofgreat pride for Ann Henderson.

She had many friends in the Aboriginal community. Onher passing the staff of Aboriginal Affairs Victoriawrote of her:

She was a delight to work for, a person who showedleadership and compassion in her dealings with theAboriginal community, a deep understanding of the issuesand a minister who achieved a number of outstandingsuccesses in Aboriginal affairs.

Ann was also an outstanding Minister for Housing andwill be long remembered for her achievements in thisarea. In May 1999 she was responsible for theestablishment of the first crisis shelter for homeless

CONDOLENCES


single women. She was also responsible, as haspreviously been said, for the redevelopment of some ofVictoria’s older housing estates such as the Long Gullyestate in Bendigo, the Thompson estate in Geelong, theParkside estate in Shepparton and, of course, theKensington estate. The Victorian public housing sectorwill be greatly enhanced once the redevelopment ofthese estates is complete.

Ann Henderson was responsible for the significantimprovement in the provision of services to thehomeless and the restructuring of medium-term crisisaccommodation through the transitional housinginitiative — one of the most successful programs in thisarea offering support and accommodation. That hasbeen mentioned previously.

Also mentioned has been the introduction of thesegmented waiting list, which was a great achievementbringing assistance to those most in need.

Ann died at the relatively young age of 60. I spoke withher on many occasions once she had left Parliament. Nomatter how sick she was, she maintained her interestand her passion. The enormous number of people whoattended her funeral were obviously a testament to theway the community felt about Ann Henderson. I willmiss her greatly, and I convey my sincere condolencesto her family, Sarah, Jodie, Andrew and her twograndchildren, Angus and Marcus.

Ms KOSKY (Minister for Education andTraining) — I too wish to pay tribute to Ann Hendersonand to pass on my condolences to her family. AnnHenderson was a terrific minister, a committed memberfor Geelong and a fantastic family person.

Like the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, I had theopportunity to get to know Ann Henderson as heropposite number within this house between 1996 and1999. Very early on Ann and I developed a clearunderstanding that when there were personal mattersfor people who needed urgent places in housing, wewould deal with those privately. My office had theopportunity to ring her office and always get a verythorough and quick response so that we could deal withthose housing matters in a personal way withoutplaying politics. I truly appreciated the fact that she andher office always honoured that understanding andtreated our phone calls, and of course the people whowere behind the phone calls, with that respect.

Obviously on some policy issues Ann and I did notalways publicly agree, but we understood that that waspart of politics. However, when it came to personalmatters we understood that we wanted to deal with

those in a very sympathetic way. It is an absolute creditto Ann that I believe she never broke thatunderstanding — not once — and always respondedquickly to my calls. As the Minister for AboriginalAffairs indicated, she trusted her staff to the pointwhere they would also deal with matters very quickly.We developed a very close friendship with Ann’soffice — as close as you can from opposite sides of thehouse — and we really appreciated that. I still enjoycatching up with John Baring, who worked for Ann.We enjoy a drink or two and a few stories.

The sector also regarded Ann very highly, making itdifficult for me to get stories, I must say. While those inthe sector did not always agree with what Ann mayhave been doing — and it is very difficult for anyminister in this house to get full agreement — they hadenormous respect for her and refused to shareinformation with me. That was a demonstration of theway she worked with those in the sector and the respectthey held for her.

Ann never played personal politics, and I always verymuch appreciated that. She always focused on the issueand the argument at hand, rather than playing personalpolitics.

I will mention three of her key achievements; two havebeen mentioned previously, and I want to touch onthose as well. There was a commitment by the Kennettgovernment at the 1996 election to demolish onehigh-rise tower. That was always going to be a bit of adifficult task because of the controversy around it. Annnot only handled that matter incredibly well, I believe,and probably to my upset because I would have liked tohave played some politics with it, but she handled it sowell that it really was not about the demolition of ahigh-rise tower but about the complete refurbishment ofa Kensington high-rise tower. The people who residethere now enjoy the benefit of the way in which shedealt with that matter. She got the support of thePremier of the day in meeting the election commitment,but I think she very cleverly turned the electioncommitment into her own personal commitment toprovide better housing for the people who were livingin that high-rise tower in Kensington.

It has already been mentioned in this house that Annintroduced segmented waiting lists and transitionalhousing. I know that was mentioned by her daughterSarah on the radio the day following her death. Ibelieve that was a very important shift at the time inhousing, and it is one that has been maintained by thisgovernment.

CONDOLENCES


At one time, and I know I talked with Ann quite a bitabout this, there was a decision to move people whohad been living in housing in Port Melbourne to otherhousing. I think at the time — it happens to all of us:you get advice from a department and on its face itlooks okay until you get to know the people behindit — I had the opportunity to talk through some of thosecases with Ann, and to Ann’s absolute credit she movedfrom that position. It is always hard for ministers to say,‘Maybe it was not correct and I am prepared to admitthat and to shift from that’. I know that the peopleliving in Port Melbourne very much appreciated Ann’sunderstanding of that matter and her preparedness tounderstand their plight.

I also share something else in common with AnnHenderson, and that is her driver — now my driver, butit is a shared driver, as we all know — Bryan Temple.Bryan regarded Ann very highly and only ever spokevery fondly but proudly of her, having known her andher family. I hope one day I might enjoy the samerespect from Bryan in the way he very much respectsAnn and her family.

I knew Ann was unwell through other members of thishouse. But in Ann’s proud and focused way she did notwant many to know and therefore to dwell on herillness. When Bryan Temple got the opportunity to visither only shortly before she died, Ann said at that pointthat it was okay that Bryan let me know. I appreciatedthat, because it gave me the opportunity to send my bestwishes to her before she passed away.

I want to pass on my sincere condolences to Ann’schildren, Sarah, Jodie and Andrew, her extended familyand close friends. It was a joy to know her.

Mr MACLELLAN (Pakenham) — Ann Hendersonwas an inspiring colleague. I think we have all heard ofhow she inspired members of the house. I sat next toher at the cabinet table, and she was certainly aninspiration to me.

She inspired her Premier, Jeff Kennett, to fund andhave a continuing interest in Freshwater Place, theGeelong waterfront project. It was really because of thesituation in Geelong as we saw it, after the Pyramidcollapse, that it was decided that we must do things thatwould rebuild the spirit of Geelong and give residents asense of future. And so out of something as strange asthe Better Cities program, which was a commonwealthproject and where there were some federal funds not yetcommitted, Ann argued forcefully and strongly with methat the Geelong Woolstores, and Deakin Universitymoving into the Geelong Woolstores, would make apositive contribution to her Geelong, the Geelong she

loved so dearly. It would bring students; it would bringfaculty; it would bring hope; it would bring future; itwould lift the spirits. And so much of my coming intocontact with Ann, as I say, lifted the spirits: she wasinspiring. The funeral was inspiring; it was acelebration of a great life. The Mercy Hospital visit wasinspiring; I saw an institution caring for her against theodds, I suppose, in a way.

I nicked off from Parliament, Mr Speaker, while youwere all about your duties — I went across to theMercy to visit Ann. She still had that sense of hope, offuture, of humour. We reminisced together and toldtales about you all until I had to leave and she had toresume her treatment.

As I said, she was an inspiring person. She had a greatsense of humour and a great compassion, and wassomeone who could get the best out of other people. Ithink we should celebrate her life and her work as weare doing, and remember how much she meant to all ofus.

Mr TREZISE (Geelong) — In contributing to thecondolence motion for the Honourable Ann HendersonI say at the outset that I did not know her personally.The very nature of political campaigns, especially in amarginal seat such as Geelong, where one person ispitted against another in a very adversarial way, meantunfortunately that friendships are not forged and thusmy only real contact with Ann Henderson was in thepolitical environment during the prolonged 1999election campaign.

As a political opponent Ann was a very tenacious,tireless person who campaigned hard despite thepersonal battle that she was having at the time with herhealth and wellbeing, a personal battle that she kept toherself but no doubt shared with her family. Inrecognising that, in hindsight one cannot help butadmire her courage through a local campaign that wasdrawn out and, as I know personally, was bothphysically and emotionally very wearing.

As we have already heard today, Ann Henderson was amuch respected person in this Parliament. She was avery hardworking and talented minister in the Kennettgovernment who was dedicated to her portfolios ofhousing and Aboriginal affairs, as she was to herelectorate and her beloved home of Geelong. I extendmy sincere condolences to her family.

Mr PLOWMAN (Benambra) — I express mypersonal condolences on the death of Ann Henderson,but I want to speak about the joy I have of havingknown her and having had her as a friend. I had the

CONDOLENCES


privilege of coming into this place with Ann in 1992.They were heady and exciting days, particularly forthose of us who were new members. Three of us wentacross the road to the Windsor Hotel and did a dealwith the management about the accommodationopportunities, and we managed to get accommodationat the hotel for the first four months of our term asmembers.

Honourable members may remember that during thatperiod we had very many late nights, and those nightswere much later over there over a nightcap. I think wewere so stirred up with what was happening, by thechanges being made, that we could not resist theopportunity to sit up and talk about it to try to get ourheads around it, and having each other at the hotel gaveus the opportunity to discuss the changes and betterunderstand what was happening. My friendship withAnn developed at that time and it grew over the nextnine years during the period I knew her.

My past association with Ann was during one of herfirst jobs with Ted Best and Co. Ted Best later becamethe Lord Mayor of Melbourne and also myfather-in-law. Ted and Joan Best remember Ann with agreat level of fondness. They remember Ann for herextraordinary diligence in the work she did — her hardwork — for her extraordinary loyalty to Ted Best for allthe time that she worked with him and for her obviousleadership. Those qualities stayed with Ann for the restof her life and developed and we were lucky enough tosee the development of that leadership until the time ofher death. I am sure had she not died we would haveseen her go on to greater things.

In her role as minister I had the great good fortune towork with her with the Aboriginal community innorth-east Victoria and, as was mentioned earlier, herdesire to see some level of reconciliation was one of herdriving forces. She gained respect among theAboriginal community which I think epitomised herability to get on with everyone. She was a very lovingand respectful person. In her role as a minister I had theopportunity to work with her with Group Self Build, aprogram that allows people with no money to put thedeposit of their own work into building their ownhomes. Wodonga has the proud claim of having thegreatest number of Group Self Build houses in Victoria.During her period as a minister Ann was instrumentalin pushing that very hard.

I was also lucky enough to be involved in one of thehousing developments where she announced andplanned the change of a large area of public housing.Some housing commission houses that had outlivedtheir time were demolished and in their place it was

planned to build a mix of public and private housing.Unfortunately that had not occurred before Ann’sdeath, so she was unable to see the fruits of that project,but I think those programs will lead to far better publichousing in Victoria.

Ann was a strong Liberal but not so strong that shecould not include members from all sides of thisParliament among her friends. Again I use that word‘respect’; she gained respect in this place frommembers of all parties. She was a great communityperson. She was a great friend to us all. She was a greatlistener. She was great at getting people together. TheLeader of the National Party mentioned the Christmasparties that Ann organised from the very first year shewas a member of Parliament until the year she left. Shehad that charming ability to make you want to be partof it, and I was very proud, along with the honourablemember for Mooroolbark, to be part of the little teamthat helped to organise those Christmas functions.

Ann had a compelling love for her family. It was anenormous loss to Ann and her family when Michaeldied, but Ann was a fighter. It was her strength thathelped her family overcome that tragic loss and helpedher fight the cancer until the very day before she died,when she said to her daughter Sarah, ‘I don’t know whyall these people are coming to see me — I’m not goingto die just yet’. She had that fighting spirit right to theend.

Ann’s love of Geelong and the people of Geelong wasprobably epitomised by that lovely New Year’s Eveparty she put on to celebrate her 60th birthday. I wasvery proud to be there. So many friends of Ann’s camefrom all around Australia, but what she concentrated onwas the joy she had in being a member of the Geelongcommunity and in her friends in Geelong, and again inthe respect she had for the people of Geelong and theirendeavours to make Geelong one of the best cities inAustralia.

We will all miss Ann, but we are much the richer forhaving known her. I take this opportunity, as I did ather funeral, to say goodbye to a friend and amagnificent lady. My condolences go to Ann’s familyand to all the friends who loved her and who miss her.

Mr LONEY (Geelong North) — I was elected inthe same election as Ann Henderson in 1992. I say thesame election rather than the same day because in somesenses Ann bookended her political career with closeelections. It was not quite as close as the 1999 one, butit was one that went on for some days with recount,postal vote count and absentee count before finally

CONDOLENCES


being declared. Ann was no stranger to the drawn-outelection.

At that election we were elected in quite differentcircumstances. I was the only Labor member elected inGeelong and Ann was one of a new team of Liberals,completely reversing the result of the previous election.Ann went on to the government benches and I was overon the other side. In those circumstances and for mostof the time Ann was in this place we were regularlypublicly opposed — me putting the Labor view ofthings in Geelong and Ann putting the Liberal view ofthings in Geelong. In the public sense we were oftenadversaries and engaged in frequent quite fiercepolitical debate.

However, there was never any doubt in my mind or theminds of others in Geelong about the commitment ofAnn Henderson to Geelong. That commitment actuallywent beyond Ann; it was a Henderson familycommitment to the region. Michael also made asignificant commitment, having served as mayor ofNewtown and having been involved in various otherbodies. The Henderson family commitment to theregion shone through in Ann. As honourable membershave said, she was involved with a range oforganisations such as the National Trust and Do Care.

It has also been said that her time in this place was notwithout its own periods of difficulty. During her firstterm Michael unfortunately died of cancer, and thatplaced a great strain on Ann. A fairly short timethereafter she was diagnosed with cancer. We try butcannot really imagine what the emotional effect of thatwould be. But Ann went on from that not only to bere-elected to this place but to become a minister. Peoplehave commented on her courage and strength in thisplace, and I am sure she gained a lot of that from what Iobserved as the strength of the Henderson family inbeing able to support Ann through those times.

The last time I saw Ann was early this year. My wife,Judy, and I were having a cup of coffee in a shop notfar from here. I had not noticed Ann in the shop, but shehad obviously noticed me. On leaving she came over tohave a chat. This happened on a particular day when aminister was under attack from the opposition and themedia, and Ann stopped to express her empathy withand sympathy for that minister and the circumstancesthe minister was in. We chatted about that for a littlewhile before she went away. Afterwards I remarked tomy wife that Ann seemed to be looking well and full oflife. We expressed the hope that she had overcome herhealth problems, but unfortunately that was not to be.

Ann was proud of her family. I remember standing withher on the back balcony of this place in one of thosequiet moments you occasionally get here when shepointed out the steeple of St Patrick’s Cathedral andexpressed her pride in the fact that her grandfather hadbeen involved as a stonemason in building the steeple.Ann was certainly proud of her family, and she wasproud of the Liberal Party, which she represented well.Both her family and the Liberal Party have good reasonto be proud of her.

I pay my respects to Ann and offer to her family myand Judy’s sympathies and those of the people ofGeelong North.

Ms ASHER (Brighton) — I too would like to makea brief contribution to the condolence motion for AnnHenderson.

I first met Ann in 1991 at a Liberal Party preselectiontraining program. Preselection procedures in the LiberalParty are so vigorous that in 1991, obviously with aneye to a landslide victory, the party decided that it wasgoing to train candidates for the rigours of preselection.Indeed, the honourable member for Malvern was in thesame mock preselection as Ann and I. Will I tell theresult? Doyle first, Asher second — that’s the story ofmy life! Annie did extremely well in a dignifiedmanner.

I remember Annie being incredibly nervous and sayingto me, ‘How could you have just spoken like that?Everyone is sitting in there judging. I am really nervousabout this’. Here was a woman who had contested anelection for a marginal seat in 1988, gone through thewhole election campaign and obviously gone throughpreselection being nervous. At that moment of meetingAnn it struck me that she was far more at home in herown community, where she knew the people and theissues, than in some contrived political circumstance togive us a bit of training to try to shunt us through apreselection. To me that was the hallmark of thewoman.

Ann was elected as the member for Geelong in 1992.She was promoted to cabinet in 1996 as Minister forHousing and Minister responsible for AboriginalAffairs and held that position at the cabinet table until1999. Jeff Kennett, who was particularly fond of AnnHenderson, was responsible for that promotion. At thatstage Jeffrey had four women in his cabinet, whichequalled Joan Kirner’s record at that time. Society andpolitics have changed substantially since then. JanWade, Marie Tehan, Ann and I were Kennett’s womenat that cabinet table.

CONDOLENCES


Without wanting to disclose cabinet discussions, itwould not be beyond the realms of the thinking of thosein this chamber that sometimes Jeffrey gave hisministers a bit of a shellacking. He was generallymilder on the four women, but Ann had a distinction —I never once heard the former Premier tackle her. Inever once heard the former Premier unload on her andI never once heard the former Premier angry with her.That was a mark of Ann Henderson’s political skill,judgment and capacity to handle issues sensitively onall occasions. Jeffrey had a very close workingrelationship with all his ministers, and a very closeworking relationship with his female ministers, but withAnn most of all. It was to her credit that she was able tobe such a peacemaker in that cabinet and in the partyroom, and be such a good influence on liberalismthroughout the 1990s.

She had a number of significant achievements, and in apolitical sense they have been discussed, certainly interms of her portfolios. Much has been made of thedemolition of the high-rise towers. Indeed, it was apromise made by a young Jeff Kennett when he wasMinister for Housing in the Hamer era that he woulddemolish one of those towers and provide betteraccommodation. Because he was so fond of Ann it wasa genuine source of pride to him that she was theminister who effected the promise that he had mademany years beforehand.

She also — and I know this will have been touchedon — had a particular passion for the development ofGeelong, specifically the Geelong waterfront, and spentmany hours guiding and assisting in that, with a terrificresult for Geelong. Her involvement in her owncommunity was substantial. Again a number of peoplehave mentioned her involvement on the GeelongCollege council; with the Geelong branch of theNational Trust of Australia as an executive officer; withFriends of Bethany, Mercy Family Care and Newtownsenior citizens; as mayoress of Newtown and welfareofficer at Do Care; and with Geelong Art GalleryFoundation and so on. Her success as a businesswomanin a very successful small business has also beenmentioned.

It strikes me that these are the credentials of an idealpolitical candidate: somebody with skill, tact,compassion, local community experience and businessexperience — the range. In this modern era, wherepeople are looking to local candidates, she was an idealmember of Parliament. She was guided by the values ofliberalism and of hard work. I, too, want to refer to thefirst speech she made in this place on 30 October 1992,when she is reported as saying:

The principles and ethos by which I live are a result of thevalues that have been handed down to me from a family thathas based its successes and failures on hard work, adventure,challenge, and opportunity.

That is Ann Henderson — no privilege, no takingthings for granted, but simply hard work and challengeand her response to that. It is those values and ethicswhich are so fundamental to the Liberal culture that Iadmire substantially.

I wish to pass on my condolences to Ann’s family, inparticular Sarah. Ann was a wonderful colleague and awonderful person.

Mr BAILLIEU (Hawthorn) — The Hendersonfamily is an extraordinary bunch and Ann Hendersonwas an extraordinary woman. She was an extraordinaryLiberal, an extraordinary community worker, anextraordinary member of Parliament and anextraordinary minister.

I came to know Ann as party vice-president and then asparty president for a number of years. We went throughpreselections, and I am partly responsible for organisingthose very candidate training sessions — —

Mr Doyle — Thanks for nothing!

Mr BAILLIEU — Together we worked throughcampaigns and attended branch and electorate functionsand endless meetings.

Ann Henderson was great for the Liberal Party. Youcan get lucky, and as party president and somebodyactively involved in preselections I can say that we gotexceptionally lucky with Ann Henderson.

Like so many in the Geelong region and elsewhere inVictoria and in this place, I liked Ann. I admired herand respected her enormously, and I was very muchlooking forward to joining her in this place in 1999. Itwas certainly a cause of great sorrow for me that shewas unsuccessful.

It has been a day for Geelong supporters to expresstheir sorrow at Ann’s passing. Ann and her family weregreat Geelong supporters, and I enjoyed nothing morethan seeing Ann, Michael and the rest of the family atGeelong functions at Kardinia Park and elsewhere. Weoften saw them there.

It has been mentioned that Ann’s husband, Michael,also passed away from this dreadful illness. Perhaps ithas not been mentioned that Michael’s brother alsopassed away in that short time frame from a similarillness. The courage of the Henderson family has beenextraordinary through all of that.

CONDOLENCES


Ann loved Geelong. I am very fond of and have been aregular visitor to Geelong myself, and I know howmuch the Hendersons have meant to Geelong over theyears.

I will never forget Michael’s funeral. We drove throughthe city and looked up at St Mary’s, the toweringcathedral on the top of the hill. It was a very black day.It was freezing cold and there were storms about. Therewas rain in the air and a very strong wind. In a way itwas as if forces greater than those we will ever knowwere wrestling with the emotions of the day. I canremember being in the cathedral. I had never seen ithappen before, but the wind blew in a stained glasswindow, that day of Michael’s funeral. The rain camein, and those of us who were sitting in the pews weregetting wet from the rain coming through the window.It was the most emotional experience I have had for along, long time, and I will remember it always.

Geelong turned out for Michael’s funeral, and it turnedout equally for Ann’s funeral. It was as if everybody inGeelong was there. It was another very grey, cold andwindy day, and during the service a burst of sunshinecame through the north transept as an amber light.There was truly a glow that day on the whole familyand everybody in the place. Those two experiences willstay with me forever, as I am sure they will stay withthe whole of Geelong.

There is plenty of good reason to believe that whenAnn became the honourable member for Geelong,Geelong was a broken place down on its knees. That iswhat Ann inherited as a member. She left in 1999,leaving behind an extraordinary legacy. To see that youonly have to look at the waterfront, which is just a joyto see and be a part of, the developments at DeakinUniversity and the fibre centre — which, sadly, hasnow departed — the improvements at Kardinia Park,the hospital improvements, the work on the Geelongcouncil reconstruction, the Geelong community ingeneral and the art gallery and art community work thatAnn did.

As I said, it is an extraordinary legacy. I am not surewhat hand Ann had in it, but whenever I see those tall,lean, very friendly, colourful bollards that now dot theGeelong waterfront and have spread down to BarwonHeads and beyond, I always think of Ann. In their ownway they are a reminder of someone who made a greatcontribution, cheered so many people along the wayand encouraged so many others.

Politics is often a cruel business, as many in thischamber know. Ann did not deserve to lose in 1999.She had done a remarkable job for Geelong. Since 1999

I have not met anyone who thought that she deserved tolose and I have met only a very few people who votedthe other way. I am not quite sure how you got up, Ian!

Ann had a really good crack at winning underextraordinary duress. Had 10 people in the electorate ofGeelong voted the other way in 1999 how differentthings would have been. Ann played a straight bat inthat election; there were no games. It was only thewell-engineered preferences of some so-calledIndependents, who might be described as committedIndependents, that conspired to defeat her. Because itwas such a pivotal result at the time, had she wonperhaps the future of Victoria may have been quitedifferent. For Ann and her family, and equally for all onthis side of the house, it was an extraordinarilyemotional time.

Ann never let go but fought right to the end of thatcampaign. She was an inspiration in the way she dealtwith the result of that election and the campaign leadingup to it. In my view she won in so many other ways andwe are so much the better for having enjoyed herfriendship, her leadership, her commitment and theachievements that she so soundly registered in Geelongand Victoria. I offer my best wishes and condolences toher family.

Ms GILLETT (Werribee) — I too would like topay tribute to Ann Henderson and pass on my sinceresympathies and condolences to her family.

I became the member for Werribee in 1996. They weredifficult times. The Labor Party was in opposition andhad not seemed to make too much progress between1992 — that awesome defeat — and 1996. It was withsome trepidation that I walked into the chamber on theopposition side and realised there were so few LaborParty members and so many members of the thengovernment. It could have been a little intimidating, butas an old storeman and packer I fronted up, counteddouble and reckoned that we were an even match forthe government any day.

Two ministers stood out as still holding on to what Isuppose some people might say are old-fashionedvalues about treating their peers — meaning MPs — nomatter whether they are on the government oropposition side, with respect and dignity. UnfailinglyAnn Henderson was one of those ministers.

I hope I share with Ann a belief in the absoluteimportance of serving and being a passionate advocatefor my community. At the time Werribee did not have alot of public housing and many people were in greatneed. In the first three or four months of my being a

CONDOLENCES


member of Parliament a young woman with smallchildren came to me in desperate circumstances. Callsto the Office of Housing were not making muchprogress, and the young woman and her little ones werein desperate need. This was my first direct contact withAnn. I was a little concerned about telephoning heroffice because I felt I would just get the ‘Go away, youare a completely irrelevant member of the opposition’type of thing.

You can imagine the restorative effect it had on myself-esteem and self-confidence when I was put throughdirectly to Ann. She said, ‘Hello, Mary, how are yougoing? I haven’t had time to catch up with you.Congratulations. Now, what is the problem?’. I spokewith Ann for about 20 minutes. I had the young womanand her family in my office. Ann wanted to speak toher, and I was able to put the two of them on the phoneto each other. Then Ann said to me, ‘Give me a coupleof hours and I will see what I can do’. That night theyoung woman and her children were safely housed forthe first time in three months. That act alone —although it was not the only act of care, concern,respect, generosity and straightforwardness — wasenough for me to owe Ann Henderson a great deal.

People often say, ‘What difference does it make havingwomen in politics?’. There have been a lot of goodwomen in politics, and Ann was right up there with theabsolute best of them. The difference they make is theAnn Henderson difference: to treat your colleagues andpeers with respect no matter what side of the fence youcome from. Ann could do that because she understoodthat we all serve our communities with passion andcommitment and hopefully with a great deal of integrityand care. The way Ann treated me — and just about allmy colleagues — stood out as something to emulate.

I hope the continuing difference that women can makein politics is the sort of difference that Ann Hendersonmade. The power of having a vast majority in the lowerhouse and a majority in the upper house did not seem toaffect her wanting to be a decent, straightforwardofferer of service to her community and to the widercommunity of Victoria as well.

I am glad people feel they learnt lessons from Ann. Asmembers of Parliament the challenge for us now is tomake sure that the example Ann showed and the legacyshe left lives on in the way we treat one another,understanding that our communities all deserve to beserved well and remembering that we should treat oneanother with the dignity and respect with which Anntreated all of us.

I pay most sincere respects to her family, butcongratulate them on having spent time with a greatmother and I think great grandmother — in a lot ofways in families you cannot have much better than that.

Mrs ELLIOTT (Mooroolbark) — The life of AnnHenderson was characterised by strength and passionand by unflinching courage, but overall by a gift forfriendship. First of all the strength of passion was forher family: for her husband Michael and her threechildren Jodie, Sarah and Andrew, for Rob, hergrandchildren, Angus and Marcus, for her own brothersand sisters and for her in-laws. Ann had the mostamazing blue eyes, which have been inherited by Sarah.When she was talking about her family those eyeswould light up. She was so proud of theirachievements.

Her next great passion was for Geelong. She andMichael were Geelong in many senses, and Geelongcame first with Ann. During her entire parliamentarycareer she worked for Geelong — and other honourablemembers have detailed her achievements in that greatprovincial city.

Her next passion was for the Liberal Party andliberalism. In her own life the striving and achievingwere characteristic of the basic philosophy ofliberalism. As other honourable members have pointedout, she was so at home with herself and so strong thatshe could extend that tolerance and strength tohonourable members who thought differently fromher — and so many members of the governmentbenches today have described that.

Her next passion was for her ministries — housing andAboriginal affairs — and again previous speakers havetalked about her achievements in those areas. Mypersonal experience was in housing. Ann instituted anannual art competition entitled My Home for childrenwho lived in public housing. She was kind enough toask me, on the thin basis of my involvement with thearts, to judge that competition for the time that she wasthe minister. She would always come in and talk to thecompetitors who were there and look at the worksherself. I could see that she was instilling a sense ofpride in people who lived in public housing, and thatwas well shown by that annual art competition.

In Aboriginal affairs Ann was colour blind. Shebelieved passionately in the Aboriginal cause, and afterthe Bringing Them Home report she spoke both in thehouse and outside it about Aboriginal reconciliation.Whenever I met Jim Berg from the Koori HeritageTrust we would always talk about Ann, and he wouldsay how much she had done for him and his people.

CONDOLENCES


Ann faced her illness and her final months with themost enormous courage. She spoke to me several timesin the early days about the diagnosis of her illness, butshe was essentially private about that and always put ona very courageous front and got on with life. In that shewas a lesson to me. When I was diagnosed with thesame disease one of the first calls I had from was fromAnn, offering encouragement and practical strategies todeal with it. At the time she herself was in hospitalhaving palliative care for the illness which ultimatelykilled her. I will always remember the hand she heldout to me at that time, and if I can deal with it with asmuch strength as she did I will be fortunate and will bedoing well.

The thing I would like to stress most about Ann is hergift for friendship, and one of her closest friends is inthe gallery today. Ann loved a party. She came in withus in 1992, and I remember the day we were all swornin. We went as a group to have dinner at Florentino’s,thinking we were going to change the world, and Ithought at that time that Ann was one of those peoplewho just might change the world. She would always bethe one to say, ‘Feel like a cup of coffee?’. She wasalways fun in the bar, and we had some hystericalnights when a chance comment turned into somethingthat had us all doubled with up with laughter. Shewould always call the honourable member forBenambra ‘Tony Plowperson’ rather than ‘TonyPlowman’! She just made a difference in whicheversocial gathering she was involved in.

The penultimate big party for Ann was her60th birthday on New Year’s Eve, when she lookedmarvellous and spoke not about herself but about herfriends and her family. That was her gift to those of uswho were there and those who could not come on thatevening. That great celebration of her 60th birthday wasso sadly to be her last.

The last great celebration was her wonderful funeral inthe cathedral at Geelong. So many people from somany walks of life in Geelong and wider afield packedthe place out to pay tribute to someone who, unlikemost of us, left an enduring legacy of achievements thatpeople can look at and say, ‘Ann Henderson did this’ or‘Ann Henderson was responsible for that’. I wasspeaking just yesterday to the executive officer ofBreast Cancer Network Australia about Ann and aboutthe fact that another federal parliamentarian has justbeen diagnosed with the same disease. Lyn Swinburnesaid to me, ‘What is so terrible about it is the waste ofamazing women and the fact that they are not left withthose years when they could still give to the communitybut also enjoy family and friends in a more relaxed

way’. We are all the poorer for Ann’s passing. She wasa truly remarkable woman.

To her family, to her three children, Sarah, Andrew andJodie, to Rob, to Angus and to Marcus and her moreextended family I send my condolences on behalf ofmy husband and myself. I miss a friend.

Mr WILSON (Bennettswood) — It is with a heavyheart but with many wonderful memories that I rise tospeak to this condolence motion for the late AnnHenderson. Other honourable members haveadequately covered Ann’s parliamentary career andtouched on her ministerial career. I wish to concentratemy brief remarks to the latter and from the viewpoint ofa ministerial staffer who was in a position to observeAnn’s very great style and her many achievements.

When Ann Henderson was first appointed as Ministerfor Housing in 1996, Rob Knowles, who had precededher in the housing portfolio, asked me to assist Ann inher new portfolio until she settled in. It was a very brieftour of duty because Ann Henderson took to herministerial responsibilities, duties and challenges withgreat ease. Ann Henderson’s ministerial term will belong remembered for her very personal commitment toissues, projects and people, and the details andsuccesses of those were outlined in the contribution bythe Leader of the Opposition.

Ann quickly gained the respect of the bureaucrats in theOffice of Housing and within the public housing sector,and that is no easy task for a Liberal. The same respectdeveloped with officers of Aboriginal Affairs Victoriaand with Victorian Aboriginal communities.

I have many wonderful memories of Ann Henderson,but the lasting memory will be a meeting of the HumanServices cabinet subcommittee some time, I think, inlate 1996. Each Monday after cabinet the subcommitteewould meet in Rob Knowles’s conference room atlevel 22, 555 Collins Street. On that particular day Iwalked into the conference room with Rob Knowles —the current Leader of the Opposition was in the room,as was the honourable member for Portland — to seeAnn for the first time with her severely cropped hair.Ann’s fight with breast cancer had become a verypublic battle, and I had only admiration for her courage,her strength and her dignity. It was after that meetingthat Rob Knowles made the comment to the Leader ofthe Opposition and me: ‘That is one gutsy lady’.

Ann Henderson was much loved and respected by herministerial and electorate staff during her parliamentarycareer, and I thank the Minister for Education for hergenerous tribute to Ann’s staff during her contribution

CONDOLENCES


earlier. Today June Ford, John Baring, Fiona Nield, PatTerranova, Dean Sterling, Bryan Temple, FelicityJohnston, Jenny Howie, Jenny Turner, Emma Merriganand Jane Thomas would join me in paying tribute to agreat lady, a great Liberal and a great Victorian.

Dr DEAN (Berwick) — Ann Henderson and I usedto sit up there where the honourable members for Riponand Bendigo East sit. We sat there together for threeand a half years from 1992 to 1996. It is a good spot upthere; you get a terrific view of what is going on,particularly if it is the first time you have been inParliament. It was important for me to be able to sitnext to Ann Henderson in 1992 because you wouldhave to say that I was an absolute greenhorn in thisplace.

I had led a fairly focused life elsewhere and probablydid not have a huge amount of knowledge of life’saffairs when it came to politics, particularly grassrootspolitics and a lot of the things you have to learn in thisplace. We came in as a big mob in 1992 and we had anenormous amount of fun, probably because it was avery exciting time. Jeff Kennett was an amazingcharacter who ploughed a furrow through Victorianpolitics leaving the little backbenchers swimmingbehind gasping for air and wondering what on earth hadhit them.

That experience brought us all together, and AnnHenderson was very much a part of it. We basicallytook over the bar. Things have changed a little and thatarea is not used quite so much now, but I can tell youthat from 1992 to 1996 the ‘92ers’ were in that bar for alot of the time, and Ann Henderson was the absolutecentre of stories and a great raconteur. If you werewalking through the Strangers Corridor and heardAnn’s voice in the bar you would usually do a U-turnand go in because you knew there would be a goodstory, a terrific joke or just a lot of camaraderie.

During that period my wife Helen and I faced a fairlydifficult personal situation, and apart from the Premierthere was only one person in the whole of Parliamentwho knew about it, and that was Ann Henderson. Anngave me enormous support at that time, and when Ilook back now and recall that she was still giving mesupport and assisting me when she had problems of herown which made mine pale into insignificance, I canonly reflect on what sort of a special person she was.

We became firm friends, and you do not make a lot ofthose sorts of friends in politics. One thing I have learntis that, as someone mentioned, there is a lot of crueltyin politics and it can bring out the worst in some people,but there was not an ounce of cruelty in Ann

Henderson. No matter what happened and no matterwhat the personal conflicts were, Ann rose above them,and she was a person of extraordinary quality to be ableto do so.

Ann took me under her wing, and I suspect the Premiermay have put us together up there on the back bench forthat purpose. Jeff Kennett had met me only a couple oftimes and that was on the campaign trail, and I do notthink I impressed him very much. I remember the firsttime we met was at Fountain Gate shopping centre.Ken Smith and Jeff Kennett were going through thecentre and meeting people and I thought, ‘I’ll go on myown and meet other people’. Ken came up to me andsaid, ‘You idiot! When the Leader of the Opposition isthere, you should be there with him and not off talkingto other people’.

Maybe it was a good idea to put Ann up there with mebecause she took me under her wing. She even used tocomment on my dress. I had a habit of wearing tieswith stains all over them and various other things, andshe sorted me out on that too. Not much has changed!

We had many serious conversations as well as manylight-hearted ones. We used to look down at theministers wondering whether one day we would evermake it, and we used to judge them out of 10 on theirperformance at answering questions. Ann was anenormous supporter of Jeff Kennett. I came from alegal background, and basically lawyers criticiseeverybody and everything all the time — it is just partof the deal — but if I started criticising Jeff Kennett shewould put her fingers in her ears and say, ‘I’m notlistening’.

Ann had a huge loyalty towards Jeff. They had a specialbond, and I can tell you how it came about because shetold me and I do not think she would mind me tellingyou now. When she was running for preselection in the1992 campaign she did something or said something —I have forgotten what it was — that raised his ire. Hewas absolutely furious with her and he rang her up andgave her a total blast. Ann just listened to the blast andthen stood up for herself and said, ‘No, I did it for thisreason and I did it for that reason’, and she did not lethim get away with it. If there was one thing JeffKennett respected it was people who did not get blownaway by the blast that quite often came — and Iremember I got blown away by it many times. Annstood up to him and a real bond was formed. That is avery rare thing in politics, and it went on after that.

In 1996 we were all ambitious little backbenchershoping we would get a spot on the front bench. I did notget one — I got a parliamentary secretary’s job — but

CONDOLENCES


Ann did. You might think that in the competitive areaof politics others might hold a bit of resentment in thosecircumstances and say, ‘Damn it, what does she havethat I haven’t got?’.

The amazing thing was that amongst my colleagues andme there was absolutely no resentment whatever aboutAnn getting that job because we knew why she got it.When she came into this place she had a level ofmaturity which she displayed all through her time inParliament which automatically qualified her for thatjob, which she did very well indeed.

She really looked after me. She never stopped askinghow I was and what was happening in my life. Sheknew I had a passion for indigenous affairs. At the timethis house had the debate on reconciliation she knew Idesperately wanted to speak. The only three memberswho spoke on behalf of the government in that debatewere Jeff Kennett, Ann and me, and I am fairly certainthat Ann made sure I got to speak.

I think Ann did quite a few things behind the sceneswhich were never revealed. When her brother-in-law, Ithink it was, passed away I remember it being a veryhard time for her. When her husband, Michael, passedaway — we have heard about the funeral and I willnever forget that day as long as I live — I never thoughtI would be going back into that cathedral to mournAnn.

There was something about Ann that made you thinkshe was going to go on forever. No matter whatproblems she had, nobody had any concept that shewould finally be overcome by that disease. It was aterrible thing to see it happen, and I do not think I couldever handle something so difficult in the way shehandled it. What style, what maturity, what kindness!Caring for other people even when she herself wasdying was an amazing thing.

Ann, I miss you terribly. I wish you were here now,because we are going through all sorts of hard timesand it would be terrific if you were here. Do rememberus, and I will always remember you.

Mr PATERSON (South Barwon) — I pay tribute tomy former colleague and friend, Ann Henderson, whodied tragically in June. Ann loved her family, and shewas passionate about Geelong — before, during andafter her parliamentary career. She gave great service tothe people of Geelong in a variety of roles, serving as amember of the National Trust, Legacy, DeakinUniversity, Do Care, the Port Fairy music festival, theGeelong Art Gallery Foundation and many othergroups. She also showed extraordinary leadership in the

development of Geelong’s waterfront. Her interest inGeelong lasted well after she left Parliament, and Ioften received phone calls from her about local issues.

In her maiden speech to Parliament in 1992 she spokeabout how she often looked up at the spire ofSt Patrick’s Cathedral, which is situated behindParliament House, which she said had been built bymembers of her family. Two brothers, both masonrycraftsmen, came to Australia many generations ago tolay their own foundations for a large and diversefamily. She said that the principles and ethos by whichshe lived were the result of the values that had beenhanded down to her from a family that based its successand failures on hard work, adventure, challenge andopportunity.

Ann’s death prompted a headline ‘Passionate fighter forbeloved Geelong’ in the Geelong Advertiser. Ann wascertainly passionate, and she was certainly a fighter.She herself was certainly loved, and she certainly lovedGeelong. I say at this juncture that I know her colleagueGarry Spry would have dearly loved to have been heretoday but he is ill and cannot join in debate on thiscondolence motion.

Ann was brave to the end, and I will miss her deeply. Iwill miss her compassion, I will miss her often wickedsense of fun and I will miss her laughter. My sympathygoes to her children, Sarah, Jodie and Andrew, andtheir families.

Mr SMITH (Glen Waverley) — I would like tobring another perspective to the debate on the sadpassing of Ann Henderson. I was Government Whipduring the period when she was seriously ill and thenrecuperating. Jeff Kennett and I agreed that she shouldbe away as often as possible, and it was my chore tomake sure that she did go home early. I can assure you,Mr Speaker, that a number of people would be up forunbelievable excuses to try to get away for whatevernefarious activities that might have been going on at thetime, or whatever else they wanted, but Ann Hendersonhad to be forced almost on a nightly basis to go home.

She was a team player par excellence. She felt that bygoing early in the delicate medical state she was in shewas letting down the side. As whip it was anextraordinarily hard daily chore to ensure that Annwent home to get the proper rest she should have beengetting. In fact she should not have been in here at allsome of the time, but because of her dedication and herpassionate devotion to her portfolio she was here all thetime to ensure that she could give to the best of herability. It was a tremendously hard job to convince her.On a nightly basis I would say, ‘Go home, Ann, get a

CONDOLENCES


good night’s rest and don’t bother coming in until youare feeling better in the morning’. She did, but it was ahard chore.

Another thing about her as a great team player and aperson dedicated to her portfolio was the fact that itseemed that at that stage I had a lot of housingproblems, with many public housing constituents whoneeded assistance. There was one extraordinary casethat I will not go into. Her close adviser, John Baring,whose name has come up in the debate, kept meinformed on almost a daily basis on what was going on.It was amazing that a woman who had that illness atthat stage and who you would think would have otherthings on her mind would slip past in the corridor andsay, ‘We are doing such and such about this particularcase’. It was absolute dedication to a degree that I foundquite amazing — ‘inspirational’ was the word used bythe honourable member for Pakenham.

Another thing that comes to mind about that time is theadage, proverb or whatever: I complained because I hadno shoes until I saw a man who had no feet. Whentalking to people who had excuses in trying to get awayfor whatever reasons they wanted to get away for, Iused Ann Henderson as the example. It was amazingthe inspiration it brought to those people, who wouldthen realise that they were complaining about thingsthat were of such triviality while she had something thatshe was carrying with such dignity and with suchbravery. She was one of the bravest persons I have metand a woman who will go down with all of us as beingan inspiration.

I also pass on condolences of my wife Sarah to herfamily: Sarah, Jodie and Andrew.

Mr ROWE (Cranbourne) — It is with a degree ofsadness that I join the condolence debate today but alsowith some happiness that I at least had the pleasure ofknowing Ann Henderson.

As my colleagues from 1992 have all attested, certainlya good time was had by all in those early days from1992 to 1996. I am sure a lot of those good times, as thehonourable member for Berwick alluded to, werebrought about by the shock factor, and certainly thatback bench will never be the same.

It is a credit to the woman Ann Henderson was that wefind out today she was Robert’s mother confessor andmine as well — a woman of great compassion, awoman of — —

Mr Doyle — Great capacity.

Mr ROWE — A woman of great capacity, as theLeader of the Opposition says.

She had a great understanding of life and would offersensible, caring, sincere advice that some of us mayhave needed from time to time.

As Minister for Housing she was, as others have said, agreat minister and a great person. The ministry certainlyhad its problems — problems inherited from the sharedhome ownership scheme and the home opportunityloans scheme. As a minister she met with those peoplewho had been affected by taking on those governmentloans and she did not shirk for one moment from ameeting with an angry person in those circumstances.Such a person would leave the meeting speakingvolumes about how kind, compassionate and caring theminister was.

The Christmas parties were most enjoyable, and therewere nights in the dining room where we would besitting having talks after a long day going into a longevening — and we would break into song!

I remember that on my wedding day all the guests weretalking about the table of politicians, who were beingled a merry dance by Ann Henderson. I remember Annand the Leader of the Opposition dancing the nightaway. To have her there on that day was very special,because she had certainly helped me through difficulttimes prior to the day. I would love to have been able togive her more support in her time of need. The wholecommunity will miss her.

On behalf of myself and my wife, Maria, I place on therecord our sincere thanks for and appreciation of havingknown a wonderful lady, Ann Henderson. We offer ourcondolences to her family. She was a great lady.

Mr WELLS (Wantirna) — The recent passing ofAnn Henderson was a sad day for me, not only fromthe perspective that I had lost a respected formercolleague but because of the close association I hadwith Ann in my capacity as the immediate pastchairman of the Victorian Homeless Fund. Annprovided great support to the Victorian Homeless Fundas the Victorian Minister for Housing between 1996and 1999 and was integral to the VHF undertaking abold new direction culminating in the commencementof an innovative and exciting new project back in 1996.

The fund’s houses project involved the renovation ofsurplus and run-down public housing stock, with theassistance of the fund’s project partner, the HousingIndustry Association, back to an appropriate standard,allowing it to be used for emergency transitionalhousing for homeless families and young people. When

CONDOLENCES


I first became chairman of the VHF in 1995 the fundrequired an overhaul and a new direction for the future.Like most charitable organisations the fund was findingit increasingly difficult to raise public funds forhomeless causes, particularly from the corporate sector.

The economic recession of the early 1990s in Victoriahad made the corporate sector much more demandingin terms of wanting to see some return for its donateddollar. In light of the changing times the VHFembarked on developing an ambitious project thatwould see the fund directing its focus to expendingdonated moneys on bricks and mortar projects wheredonors could see a result for their contribution. TheVHF and I, as its chairman, were very fortunate thatAnn Henderson had the vision and foresight to see thatthe fund’s cooperative partnership with the housesproject, involving the government, corporate andcharitable sectors, could make a real difference.

The significant difference this particular project madewas that surplus public housing declared to be nolonger viable could be renovated back to a standardwhich would keep it as emergency public housing for afurther five years or more, whereas if it had not been forthe homeless fund project it would have been lostaltogether as emergency transitional housing stock. AnnHenderson sincerely believed in the worthwhilebenefits of the homeless fund’s project, and in June1996 she initiated a search for surplus properties withinOffice of Housing stock suitable for renovation and foruse as transitional housing.

The first two houses to be completed under the project,the HIA Foundation House and Kingston House, whichwere opened by Ann on 9 December 1996, werelocated in Doveton and Dandenong North. Since thenthe project has grown to five renovated properties, withthe first two followed by Pitcher Partners House,Tattersalls House and the latest, Helen MacphersonSmith Trust House, just recently completed and openedon 5 July this year in Burwood.

The Victorian Homeless Fund is greatly appreciative ofthe fact that the houses project, first commenced withthe kind assistance of Ann Henderson, continues to besupported by the current government and the Ministerfor Housing, who is also the Minister for CommunityServices. Everyone involved in the houses project isvery grateful that the good work of Ann Hendersoncontinues to receive widespread support andrecognition as a worthwhile initiative to assistVictoria’s homeless families and young people. Thefund’s houses project would never have got off theground without Ann Henderson’s extraordinarykindness and encouragement, and it will remain as a

continuing legacy of the great work of a caring andremarkable person.

Ann spoke at many of our fundraising events, and it isterrific that her Geelong colleague, the Honourable IanCover in another place, continues to work hard for thevaluable corporate dollars.

On behalf of the Victorian Homeless Fund, and as theformer chairman and current honorary patron, it is withgreat sadness that I support this condolence motion forthe passing of a very special lady in Ann Henderson,who will remain in our memories forever. She will besadly missed.

Mr THOMPSON (Sandringham) — Following anumber of suicides and deaths in a short space of timeon a Sandringham electorate housing estate I hadoccasion to speak with Ann Henderson in the chamberas I wanted to raise a matter on the adjournment debate.She indicated that the adjournment debate may not bethe best forum for that, and said rather she would like tomake an appointment to travel to the Sandringhamelectorate at the earliest opportunity to meet withresidents on the estate to discuss the issues of concernto them.

She was decisive, principled and innovative in herapproach to this particular problem, and she won theaffection of the people on the estate as she talkedthrough the issues with them and engaged, through herchief of staff, John Baring, with them on subsequentoccasions to ensure that their concerns about the estatewere being addressed.

As has already been said in the chamber today, herfamily motto in effect was ‘Hard work, adventure,challenge and opportunity’. But to those words I think Iwould choose to add a few more. Her staff, upon theoccasion of her death, noted that vitality, integrity andcompassion were also virtues Ann possessed.Throughout her illness she was a resilient andcourageous woman. She was both brave and bold asshe confronted the challenges of her medical treatment.She had a vitality for life and an epicurean appreciationof dining with family and friends.

My parliamentary colleague the honourable memberfor Bellarine unfortunately has not been able to attendto contribute to this condolence motion, but just a fewmoments ago by phone he asked for these remarks tobe passed on in the debate: firstly, that he regarded Annas an outstanding leader in Geelong; and secondly, thatone of her greatest achievements in public life was achange in the waiting list for public housing accordingto need and not just chronological order.

CONDOLENCES


There is a Latin expression, si quaeris monumentumcircumspice, which generally translated to apply to thechamber today is, ‘If you seek a memorial to Ann’s life,look around’ — look from the spire of St Patrick’sCathedral to her family in the chamber today.

Mrs PEULICH (Bentleigh) — I would like to say afew words in honour of Ann. Having known Ann from1992 to 1999 and for part of that time having shared aroom with her — the partitioned room to which theDeputy Leader of the Opposition referred — I was ableto observe her at fairly close quarters. Although Annand I did not move in the same social circles and ourbackgrounds were fairly different, let me say that itmade no difference to her or to me.

In the contributions today there were some commonthemes about Ann’s character, which were verified byall who spoke. I place on record and extend mycondolences to Ann’s family, including her childrenand grandchildren.

Ann was the darling of the Liberal Party. I rememberwhen we were elected in 1992 she was much admiredfor her tenacity and her hard work in the community.She was, and always remained, a team player who wascommitted to her community and to liberalism. Sheearned the respect and admiration of everyone whocame in contact with her.

I think the most admirable of Ann’s qualities was heroptimism, which she clearly retained to the end. Shewas a highly organised person. Never a moment waswasted; it was always put to some good andconstructive use. Watching the way she managed hervery busy office was something that made me greenwith envy, and I must confess I did take a few pages outof her book. She was not only highly organised butalways worked at driving change and at drivingresolutions to problems, even if she was only playingthe role of a facilitator.

Apart from that she was a darned nice person. In thisfairly fickle profession the nastiest comment I everheard Ann make about anybody, including of coursepolitical opponents, was, ‘He’s a bit of a nasty person’.That was about as harsh as it got from Ann, which Imust confess made the rest of us feel a little bitinadequate.

She certainly was passionate about Geelong. She wasabsolutely devoted to her husband, who predeceasedher. I know how much they adored each other. She wasenormously proud of all three of her children. Ofcourse, being a fairly clucky mother myself, I was ableto share in the delight that Ann experienced when she

became a grandmother. She was absolutely filled withadoration for her grandchildren.

As a local MP she was a community builder with veryextensive community networks, and she obviouslyearned enormous respect in and left a permanent markon Geelong. As a minister she was hardworking,compassionate and genuine about making adifference — and she did make a difference in both ofher portfolios of housing and Aboriginal affairs. As acolleague she was friendly, much liked and respected.

In closing, I would like to extend the condolences notonly of those MPs who are here but those who are nolonger here and had the privilege of serving with Ann.Her good work, her achievements and her incrediblecivic sense of duty are an example to all politicians onall sides of politics.

Ms BURKE (Prahran) — Much has been said onthe Honourable Ann Henderson, but I would like tomake a small contribution.

I first heard of Ann when she was the new candidate forGeelong. I heard from the community the greatexcitement about this woman with passion,commitment and energy. We certainly saw the resultsof that. The second time I came across Ann Hendersonwas in the time of the council amalgamations. All shewanted was the best outcome for Geelong. She neverinterfered in any way, she just wanted the best outcomefor Geelong. Then there was my time in Parliamentwith Ann in her role as Minister for Housing andMinister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs. Anybodywho has a high proportion of ministry of housingproperties in their electorate really understands theimportance of a good minister for housing, and Anncertainly was that.

On a personal note, we used to walk around the Tanbefore Parliament sat on Parliament mornings. Theywere very energetic walks, revving us up for the day,and there were many interesting conversations as wewent around. But I suppose the most memorable thingfor me was being at the funeral and seeing all of thepeople there from her life, from the very beginning tothe very end. I could not help but remember what awoman who was a close friend of Ann’s said to me.She said, ‘When Ann died, I couldn’t understand whythe world did not stand still’. I guess we can be pleasedtoday that this Parliament has stood still to rememberAnn and her achievements, not only in Parliament butin life and for the Victorian people. My condolences goto her friends and family.

ADJOURNMENT


The SPEAKER — I join the house in expressingmy sincere sorrow at the passing of Ann Henderson,and I express my sincere condolences to her threechildren and family members at the very sad loss theyhave incurred as a result of her passing.

Motion agreed to in silence, honourable membersshowing unanimous agreement by standing in theirplaces.

ADJOURNMENT


That, as a further mark of respect to the memory of the lateHonourable Thomas Leslie Austin and the late HonourableAnn Mary Henderson, the house do now adjourn untiltomorrow.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned 5.39 p.m.

PETITIONS

Wednesday, 11 September 2002 ASSEMBLY 35

Wednesday, 11 September 2002

The SPEAKER (Hon. Alex Andrianopoulos) took thechair at 9.36 a.m. and read the prayer.

PETITIONS

The Clerk — I have received the following petitionsfor presentation to Parliament:

Motorcycles: levy

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of theLegislative Assembly in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the state ofVictoria sheweth that we, the undersigned, are advising thestate government that we strongly oppose the introduction ofthe $50 levy. We see singling out one group of motorists asbeing discriminatory and misguided.

Your petitioners therefore pray that there will be no$50 surcharge on top of the motor registration fee formotorcyclists and that the cost of better driver education of alldrivers/riders be borne by all road users not just one section ofthe motoring public.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

By Mr PLOWMAN (Benambra) (1066 signatures)

Rail: Glen Waverley kiosk


The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of thestate of Victoria, sheweth that the kiosk adjacent to the GlenWaverley railway station is an excellent, well-run businessthat meets our needs and is open between 5.00 a.m. and6.00 p.m.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the Minister for Transportuses the powers available to him under the Transport Act andthe franchise agreement signed with Connex to ensure that thecurrent operators of the kiosk have their lease renewed.


By Mr WILSON (Bennettswood) (1368 signatures)

Glen Eira: rates


The humble petition of certain residents of the Caulfielddistrict sheweth that the Glen Eira council’s 2002–03 28 percent rate increase:

1. is unjustified and places an unacceptable burden onratepayers, including the elderly, small business andfamilies;

2. is discounted this year by a funny money rebate scheme,hiding the full magnitude of the rise from ratepayers;

3. is opposed by the Glen Eira communities, localpoliticians and even the mayor of Glen Eira, especiallyas Glen Eira is debt free.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the state government andthe Minister for Local Government take immediate action toensure that the outrageous rate increase is revoked, and theGlen Eira council’s rate increase is at or below CPI.


By Mrs PEULICH (Bentleigh) (191 signatures)

Church–Doncaster roads, Doncaster: crossingsupervision


The humble petition of the parents of students and the staff ofDoncaster Secondary College, and the citizens of the City ofManningham in the state of Victoria sheweth that supervisionof dangerous intersections is necessary in order to reduce therisk of injury to members of the public and more specificallyto the youth of Doncaster; and that we completely oppose theabolition of funding by Vicroads for a school crossingsupervisor located at the intersection of Doncaster Road andChurch Road, Doncaster.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the state governmentsupport the safety of our children by reinstating full fundingfrom Vicroads for crossing supervision at the intersection ofChurch Road and Doncaster Road, Doncaster.


By Mr PERTON (Doncaster) (345 signatures)

Gas: East Gippsland supply


The humble petition of certain citizens of the state of Victoriasheweth the immediate need for the state government tofacilitate the provision of natural gas reticulation to businessesand households in East Gippsland.


By Mr INGRAM (Gippsland East) (9628 signatures)

Prague House, Kew


The humble petition of the undersigned residents of Kew andcommunity users of Cotham Cellars, the licensed supermarketat 253 Cotham Road, Kew.

Circumstances

The residents in Cecil Street, Kew, and nearby streets wereinformed in October 2001 by the Sisters of Charity that they

PETITIONS

36 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 11 September 2002

proposed to submit to Boroondara council a plan to redevelopPrague House at a site on the corner of Cecil Street andCotham Road, Kew, to house 45 formerly homeless men with‘special needs’. Prague House is currently located in SackvilleStreet, Kew. A small licensed supermarket, which has been inthe area since the 1920s, will be demolished as part of theproposed redevelopment.

The redevelopment site, which is owned by the Victoriangovernment, has been, or is about to be, granted to the Sistersof Charity by the government.

The Boroondara council advised the Sisters of Charity tocanvass their building plans with local residents beforesubmission to council. Two meetings were conducted withresidents at St George’s hospital, with two town planningrepresentatives from Boroondara council attending the secondmeeting. At both meetings local residents attemptedunsuccessfully to express their fears about issues other thanthe proposed building plans. The particular fear of theundersigned petitioners is:

the fear of older people living in their own homes thatthey will lose their independence with the proposedclosure of Cotham Cellars, an easily accessible grocerystore for local residents and the only one within a1.7-kilometre radius.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Victoriastop the proposed closure of the licensed supermarket toenable the proposed redevelopment of Prague House by theSisters of Charity at 253 Cotham Road, Kew, on propertygranted by the Victorian government; that the Parliamenteither stop or renege on the granting of the site, owned by theVictorian government as part of the aged care services facilityat St George’s hospital, to the Sisters of Charity for theredevelopment of Prague House, which is not an aged carefacility. This supermarket is the only grocery and liquor storewithin a 1.7 kilometre radius and is within walking distancefor local residents, particularly the area’s many older residentsliving independently in their own homes. Many of these olderresidents fear losing their independence if the store closes.


By Mr McINTOSH (Kew) (350 signatures)

Prague House, Kew


The humble petition of the undersigned residents of Kew andcommunity users of Cotham Cellars, the licensed supermarketat 253 Cotham Road, Kew.

Circumstances

The residents in Cecil Street, Kew, and nearby streets wereinformed in October 2001 by the Sisters of Charity that theyproposed to submit to Boroondara council a plan to redevelopPrague House at a site on the corner of Cecil Street andCotham Road, Kew, to house 45 formerly homeless men with‘special needs’. Prague House is currently located in SackvilleStreet, Kew. A small licensed supermarket, which has been inthe area since the 1920s, will be demolished as part of theproposed redevelopment.

The redevelopment site, which is owned by the Victoriangovernment, has been, or is about to be, granted to the Sistersof Charity by the government.

The Boroondara council advised the Sisters of Charity tocanvass their building plans with local residents beforesubmission to council. Two meetings were conducted withresidents at St George’s hospital, with two town planningrepresentatives from Boroondara council attending the secondmeeting. At both meetings local residents attemptedunsuccessfully to express their fears about issues other thanthe proposed building plans. These fears are:

the fear that this redevelopment will not be an agedhome residence for men with ‘special needs’, as statedby the Sisters of Charity, but a residence for men withalcohol-related and neurological problems;

the fear that these men will not be confined within thedevelopment but allowed to roam the local streets and,when drunk, not allowed access to the development untilsober;

the safety aspect, to themselves and others, of homeless,drunken men roaming the local streets;

the fear of residents that the men, when drunk andtherefore not allowed access to Prague House, will causedamage to private property and people — there havebeen anecdotally reported incidences of indecentexposure, urination on private properties and begging inand around its current location;

the fear of older people living in their own homes thatthey will lose their independence with the proposedclosure of Cotham Cellars, an easily accessible grocerystore for local residents and the only one within a1.7-kilometre radius.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Victoriastop the proposed redevelopment on the corner of Cecil Streetand Cotham Road, Kew, of Prague House, a residence for45 homeless men with ‘special needs’; that the Parliamenteither stop or renege on the granting of the site, owned by theVictorian government as part of the aged care services facilityat St George’s hospital, to the Sisters of Charity for theredevelopment of Prague House, which is not an aged carefacility. The redevelopment proposal is a risk to the socialfabric of the local area. Residents have safety and otherconcerns related to drunken men roaming local streets and theloss of the only licensed grocery facility within walkingdistance, particularly for the area’s many older residentscurrently living independently in their own homes.


By Mr McINTOSH (Kew) (333 signatures)

Libraries: funding


The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the state ofVictoria respectfully requests:

that the Victorian government immediately investsubstantially more in public library services for thebenefit of all Victorians;

DRUGS AND CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE


that the Victorian government increase funding to publiclibraries for the purchase of books;

that the Victorian government increase funding for thepurchase and maintenance of mobile library services toensure the removal of the barrier to access by Victoriansin rural and remote areas.


By Ms BURKE (Prahran) (104 signatures)

Kangaroos: control


The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the state ofVictoria sheweth an overpopulation of kangaroos in theHeathcote area. Your petitioners therefore pray that a humanecull of the kangaroos be undertaken, followed up by amanagement plan to prevent this situation recurring.


By Mr HARDMAN (Seymour) (1777 signatures)

Laid on table.

Ordered that petition presented by honourable memberfor Bentleigh be considered next day on motion ofMrs PEULICH (Bentleigh).

Mr PLOWMAN (Benambra) — I move:

That the petition tabled in my name asking for the $50 levyon motorcycles to be abolished be taken into consideration onthe next day of sitting.

I do so particularly on the basis that I have another400 signatures.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberis not entitled to debate the question.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered that petition presented by honourable memberfor Benambra be considered next day on motion ofMr PLOWMAN (Benambra).

Ordered that petition presented by honourable memberfor Bennettswood be considered next day on motion ofMr WILSON (Bennettswood).

Ordered that petitions presented by honourable memberfor Kew be considered next day on motion ofMr McINTOSH (Kew).

Ordered that petition presented by honourable memberfor Seymour be considered next day on motion ofMr HARDMAN (Seymour).

Ordered that petition presented by honourable memberfor Gippsland East be considered next day on motion ofMr INGRAM (Gippsland East).

Ordered that petition presented by honourable memberfor Prahran be considered next day on motion ofMs BURKE (Prahran).

DRUGS AND CRIME PREVENTIONCOMMITTEE

Volatile substance inhalation

Mr LUPTON (Knox) presented final report, togetherwith appendices and minutes of evidence.

Laid on table.

Ordered that report and appendices be printed.

SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONSCOMMITTEE

Alert Digest No. 7

Ms GILLETT (Werribee) presented Alert Digest No. 7 of2002 on:

Adventure Activities Protection BillAgricultural Industry Development (Further

Amendment) BillAgriculture Legislation (Amendments and Repeals)

BillCriminal Justice Legislation (Miscellaneous

Amendments) BillForests Legislation (Amendment) BillState Taxation Legislation (Further Amendment) BillVolunteer Protection Bill

together with appendices.

Laid on table.

Ordered to be printed.

Subordinate Legislation Act

Ms GILLETT (Werribee) presented report, together withappendices and minutes of evidence.

Laid on table.


FAMILY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE


FAMILY AND COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Clothing outworkers conditions

Mr LIM (Clayton) presented report, together withminority report and minutes of evidence.

Laid on table.

Ordered that report and minority report be printed.

BLF CUSTODIAN

56th report

The SPEAKER presented report given to him pursuantto section 7A of BLF (De-recognition) Act 1985 by thecustodian appointed under section 7(1) of that act.

Laid on table.

Ordered to be printed.

PAPERS

Laid on table by Clerk:

Alpine Health — Report for the year 2000–01 (in lieu ofReport previously tabled on Wednesday 7 November 2001)

Anti Cancer Council — Report for the year 2001

Auditor-General — Annual Plan 2002–03

Benalla and District Memorial Hospital — Report for theyear 2000–01 (in lieu of Report previously tabled onWednesday 7 November 2001)

Bendigo Health Care Group — Report for the year 2000–01(in lieu of Report previously tabled on Tuesday 30 October2001)

Building Act 1993 — Notice of making the Amendment(Government Gazette No. G23, 6 June 2002)

Cobram District Hospital — Amended Financial Statementfor the year 2000–01 (in lieu of Report previously tabled onWednesday 7 November 2001)

Crimes Act 1958 — Authorisation pursuant to s 464Z(2)

Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 —Documents pursuant to s 12H — Poisons Code:

Amendment No. 4 to the Standard for UniformScheduling of Drugs and Poisons No. 16

Standard for Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and PoisonsNo. 17

Amendment No. 1 to the Standard for UniformScheduling of Drugs and Poisons No. 17

Notices regarding the amendment, commencement andavailability of the Poisons Code

Environment Protection Act 1970 — Order declaring StateEnvironment Protection Policy (Prevention and Managementof Contamination of Land) (Gazette S 95, 4 June 2002)

Financial Management Act 1994 — Report from the Ministerfor Agriculture that he had received the 2000–01 annualreport of the Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board ofVictoria

Financial Management Regulations 1994 — Order in Councilpursuant to Regulation 11 — Authorisation of expenditure ofa Royal Commission

Gaming Machine Control Act 1991 — Amendment of rulespursuant to s 78(2)

Kyabram and District Memorial Community Hospital —Report for the year 2000–01 (in lieu of Report previouslytabled on Thursday 1 November 2001)

Kyneton District Health Services — Report for the year2000–01 (in lieu of Report previously tabled on Wednesday7 November 2001)

Maldon Hospital — Report for the year 2000–01 (in lieu ofReport previously tabled on Tuesday 30 October 2001)

Mallee Track Health and Community Service — Report forthe year 2000–01 (in lieu of Report previously tabled onTuesday 30 October 2001)

Manangatang and District Hospital — Report for the year2000–01

Maryborough District Health Service — Report for the year2000–01 (in lieu of Report previously tabled on Tuesday30 October 2001)

Melbourne City Link Act 1995:

City Link and Extension Projects Integration andFacilitation Agreement Ninth Amending Deed

Exhibition Street Extension Fifth Amending Deed

Melbourne City Link Seventeenth Amending Deed

Orders pursuant to s 8(4) decreasing the Project Area(5 orders)

Third Deed Amending Master Security Deed

Mt Alexander Hospital — Report for the year 2000–01 (inlieu of Report previously tabled on Tuesday 30 October 2001)

Murray Valley Citrus Marketing Board — Report for the year2000–01

National Parks Act 1975 —

Notices of consent to the granting of ExplorationLicence Nos 3281 and 3376 relating to ChilternBox-Ironbark National Park

Ombudsman Act 1973 — Report of the Ombudsman onmatters arising from the Office of Gambling Regulation

PAPERS


investigation of International Gaming Technology —Ordered to be printed

Planning and Environment Act 1987 — Notices of approvalof amendments to the following Planning Schemes:

Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme — Nos C6, C12

Ballarat Planning Scheme — No. C49

Banyule Planning Scheme — Nos C21, C27

Bass Coast Planning Scheme — Nos C12, C15, C17,C20

Bayside Planning Scheme — No. C27

Boroondara Planning Scheme — No. C14

Brimbank Planning Scheme — No. C44

Campaspe Planning Scheme — No. C19

Cardinia Planning Scheme — Nos C23, C30, C32 Part 1

Casey Planning Scheme — Nos C13, C45

Colac Otway Planning Scheme — No. C2

Darebin Planning Scheme — Nos C18, C22, C35, C38

Frankston Planning Scheme — No. C13

Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme — Nos C26, C33

Greater Geelong Planning Scheme — Nos C38, C44,C45, C47

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme — Nos C18, C21

Hepburn Planning Scheme — No. C8

Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme — Nos C22, C28

Horsham Planning Scheme — No. C7

Kingston Planning Scheme — Nos C17, C19, C20

Knox Planning Scheme — No. C2

Loddon Planning Scheme — Nos C6, C8

Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme — No. C12

Maribyrnong Planning Scheme — Nos C9, C14 Part 1

Maroondah Planning Scheme — No. C28

Melbourne Planning Scheme — Nos C10, C19 Part 2,C22, C66, C69, C70, C72

Mildura Planning Scheme — No. C9

Mitchell Planning Scheme — No. C10

Monash Planning Scheme — Nos C20, C39

Moonee Valley Planning Scheme — No. C31

Moorabool Planning Scheme — No. C15

Moreland Planning Scheme — No. C14

Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme — No. C43

Mount Alexander Planning Scheme — Nos C13, C15

Nillumbik Planning Scheme — No. C15

Port Phillip Planning Scheme — No. C30

South Gippsland Planning Scheme — Nos C5, C11

Southern Grampians Planning Scheme — No. C3

Surf Coast Planning Scheme — No. C8

Towong Planning Scheme — Nos C3 Part 2, C6, C8

Wangaratta Planning Scheme — No. C10

Whitehorse Planning Scheme — Nos C29, C33

Whittlesea Planning Scheme — Nos C28, C36

Wodonga Planning Scheme — Nos C9, C14

Wyndham Planning Scheme — Nos C8, C12, C34

Yarra Planning Scheme — Nos C25, C26, C37

Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme — Nos C11, C15, C20,C27, C28

Psychologists’ Registration Board of Victoria — Report forthe year 2001

Rural Finance Act 1988:

Direction by the Treasurer to the Rural FinanceCorporation to administer a scheme of assistance forpersons affected by changes in the regulation andmanagement of the forestry industry under theprovisions of the Forests Act 1958

Direction by the Treasurer to the Rural FinanceCorporation to administer a scheme of assistance forpersons affected by the establishment of marine nationalparks and marine sanctuaries under the National Parks(Marine National Parks and Marine Sanctuaries) Act2002

Rural Northwest Health — Report for the period 1 January2001 to 30 June 2001

Statutory Rules under the following Acts:

Administration and Probate Act 1958 — SR No. 38

Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 —SR No. 45

Building Act 1993 — SR No. 68

Companies Act 1961 — SR No. 58

Confiscation Act 1997 — SR No. 67

Conservation, Forest and Lands Act 1987 — SR No. 48

County Court Act 1958 — SR Nos 54, 55

Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994 —SR No. 62

Electoral Act 2002 — SR No. 73

Electricity Safety Act 1998 — SR No. 59

Environment Protection Act 1970 — SR No. 43

Fair Trading Act 1999 — SR No. 39

Fisheries Act 1995 — SR No. 63

Freedom of Information Act 1982 — SR No. 44

Fundraising Appeals Act 1998 — SR No. 65

Gaming Machine Control Act 1991 — SR No. 51

Gas Safety Act 1997 — SR No. 60

Health Act 1958 — SR Nos 69, 75

Health Records Act 2001 — SR No. 42

Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 — SR No. 41

Meat Industry Act 1993 — SR No. 72

FORESTS LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL


Private Agents Act 1966 — SR No. 52

Prostitution Control Act 1994 — SR No. 71

Second-Hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 1989 —SR No. 61

Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 — SR Nos 40, 46, 47,57, 64

Supreme Court Act 1986 — SR Nos 36, 37, 38

Tobacco Act 1987 — SR No. 66

Trade Measurement Act 1995 — SR No. 53

Trade Measurement (Administration) Act 1995 — SRNo. 53

Victorian Institute of Teaching Act 2001 — SR No. 74

Water Act 1989 — SR No. 56

Water Industry Act 1994 — SR No. 49

Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001 — SR No. 70

Wildlife Act 1975 — SR No. 50

Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 —

Ministers’ exception certificates in relation to StatutoryRule Nos 36, 37, 38, 40, 47, 54, 55, 64

Ministers’ exemption certificates in relation to StatutoryRule Nos 39, 41, 48, 52, 58, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69,71, 75

Terang and Mortlake Health Service — Report for the year2000–01 (in lieu of Report previously tabled on Tuesday26 February 2002)

West Wimmera Health Service — Report for the year2000–01

Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001 — Report of theOmbudsman on an investigation into a complaint aboutpreferential treatment of a student by the University ofMelbourne — Ordered to be printed

Wimmera Health Care Group — Report for the year 2000–01(in lieu of Report previously tabled on Tuesday 20 November2001).

The following proclamations fixing operative dateswere laid upon the table by the Clerk pursuant to anorder of the house dated 3 November 1999:

Electoral Act 2002 — Whole Act on 1 September 2002(Gazette G35, 29 August 2002)

Electricity Industry (Amendment) Act 2002 — Whole Act on31 July 2002 (Gazette S131, 30 July 2002)

Energy Legislation (Further Miscellaneous Amendments) Act2002 — Remaining provisions on 29 July 2002 (Gazette G29,18 July 2002)

Energy Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2001 —Remaining provisions on 2 July 2002 (Gazette G24, 13 June2002)

International Transfer of Prisoners (Victoria) Act 1998 —Remaining provisions on 8 August 2002 (Gazette G32,8 August 2002)

Melbourne City Link (Further Miscellaneous Amendments)Act 2002 — Section 12 on 25 June 2002 (Gazette S111,25 June 2002)

Melbourne City Link (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act2000 — Sections 41 and 42 on 14 June 2002 (Gazette G24,13 June 2002)

Racing Acts (Amendment) Act 2002 — Sections 1, 2, 8, 18and 24 on 11 July 2002 (Gazette G28, 11 July 2002)

Second-Hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers (Amendment) Act2001 — Remaining provisions on 1 September 2002 (GazetteG29, 18 July 2002)

Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997 — Remainingprovisions on 28 June 2002 (Gazette S110, 25 June 2002)

Victorian Institute of Teaching Act 2001 — Part 1, Part 2,Part 7, Part 8 and Part 9 and sections 88, 90 and 94 on 20 June2002 (Gazette G25, 20 June 2002).

FORESTS LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT)BILL

Introduction and first reading

Received from Council.

Read first time on motion of Mrs FYFFE (Evelyn).

ROYAL ASSENT

Messages read advising royal assent to:

12 June

Casino (Management Agreement) (Amendment) BillElectoral BillEnergy Legislation (Further Miscellaneous

Amendments) BillHouse Contracts Guarantee (HIH Further

Amendment) BillMagistrates’ Court (Amendment) BillMagistrates’ Court (Koori Court) BillPathology Services Accreditation (Amendment) BillState Taxation Acts (Further Tax Reform) BillState Taxation Legislation (Further Amendment) BillTobacco (Miscellaneous Amendments) BillTransport (Further Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill

18 June

Appropriation (2002/03) Bill (Presented to the Governorby the Speaker)

Appropriation (Parliament 2002/03) Bill (Presented tothe Governor by the Speaker)

Criminal Justice Legislation (MiscellaneousAmendments) Bill

Domestic Building Contracts (Conciliation andDispute Resolution) Bill

COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION


Environment Protection (Resource Efficiency) BillGaming Legislation (Amendment) BillLiquor Control Reform (Packaged Liquor Licences)

BillNational Parks (Marine National Parks and Marine

Sanctuaries) Bill No. 2

COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARYASSOCIATION

Study tours

The SPEAKER — Order! As required by theCommonwealth Parliamentary Association study tourguidelines of September 2001 I advise that thefollowing members have submitted study tour reportssince my announcement to the house on 26 February2002: the Honourable Bruce Atkinson, a member forKoonung Province in the other place; the HonourableCameron Boardman, a member for Chelsea Province inthe other place; the Honourable Sang Nguyen, anhonourable member for Melbourne West Province inthe other place; and Mr Barry Steggall, the honourablemember for Swan Hill.

As of today’s date no member of the LegislativeAssembly of the 54th Parliament has contravened thestudy tour reporting guidelines.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Standing and sessional orders

Mr BATCHELOR (Minister for Transport) — Imove:

That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspendedtoday as to allow:

1. business to be interrupted at 3.00 p.m. to enable amotion to be moved remembering those who died in theterrorist attacks on 11 September 2001;

2. sessional order 3 to be varied to provide that questiontime will take place immediately after the motion ofremembrance;

3. any business under discussion and not disposed of at3.00 p.m. shall be resumed immediately at theconclusion of question time, and any member speakingat the time of the interruption may, upon the resumptionof debate, continue such speech.

Motion agreed to.

Program


That, pursuant to sessional order 6(3), the orders of the day,government business, relating to the following bills beconsidered and completed by 4.00 p.m. on Thursday,12 December 2002:

Sports Event Ticketing (Fair Access) Bill

Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill

Agriculture Legislation (Amendments and Repeals) Bill

Agricultural Industry Development (FurtherAmendment) Bill

Utility Meters (Metrological Controls) Bill

Juries (Amendment) Bill

Dr DEAN (Berwick) — There are quite a number ofbills, and certainly one would not want any more thanseven to be dealt with in this time. However, on thebasis that we had the condolence motions yesterday andwere able to adjourn as a mark of respect for the fourmembers of this house who were deceased, I believewe can achieve that program. The bills are not largebills. The opposition will want to express particularviews on a couple of them, but otherwise the programshould be achievable.

Mr MAUGHAN (Rodney) — I simply want torecord the National Party’s view that it will not opposethe government’s business program, which has beenachieved by discussion and negotiation. It is areasonable program given the circumstances yesterdaywhen we spent some of the day on condolences andadjourned for the rest of the day as a mark of respect.None of the six bills included in the government’sbusiness program are large, and we should be able todispose of them by the 4 o’clock deadline tomorrow.The National Party will not oppose the government’sbusiness program.

Motion agreed to.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Karingal Secondary College site

Ms McCALL (Frankston) — It has been aninteresting three months in the City of Frankston.Frankston City Council has managed to upset 75 percent of the community by threatening to evict seniorcitizens by rather strange planning programs and byhalf the council not being there most of the time.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


But the most interesting thing that has happened overthe last two or three weeks relates to the old KaringalSecondary College site and the oval that was promisedto the Frankston community. In one of its more peculiarmoments, but in fact one of its right ones, the FrankstonCity Council eventually listened to the community anddecided that it would overturn the decision to sell it orencourage it to be sold and put in a bid for the landitself.

Imagine what happened when we discovered almost bymistake last week that the current Minister for Planninghad signed off on the sale of that oval site to a privatedeveloper contrary to the community’s wishes and thecouncil’s decision. This is an outrageous decision bythe government, which has now managed to alienatethe other 25 per cent of the community who were notalready alienated by the Frankston City Council. Whata disgraceful way to act for a government that has saidit would listen, consult and be accountable! The peopleof Frankston will hold this government accountable.

Ambulance services: community officers

Mr DELAHUNTY (Wimmera) — The governmentand the Minister for Health are condemned for failingto support the Wimmera community, particularlyStawell, in the provision of ambulance paramedics sothat the level of response and care is equal to thatprovided in other regions and the metropolitan area.

Last month I was presented with a petition addressed tothe Minister for Health and signed by 2166 peoplecalling for two ambulance paramedics to staff allambulance cases in Stawell and the surroundingdistrict. Unfortunately the petition does not meet thecriteria for presentation in Parliament, but I amforwarding it to the minister for his information and,importantly, action.

The information I have received shows there has been alarge increase in the workload, which begs the questionwhy Stawell has not been granted staff levelscomparable to other centres with similar or lesserworkloads, such as Maryborough with four officers andRomsey and Lorne with five. Why should the patientsserviced by the ambulance paramedics of Stawell bedenied the same level of service that is provided inother centres? Why are this minister and thegovernment continuing to allow understaffing along theWestern Highway, in the Stawell, Ararat andGrampians areas, when we all know that the Grampiansare one of the most popular tourist attractions inVictoria and that there are a high number of accidentsrequiring emergency services?

The Vic Nats and the people of Stawell believe countrycommunities are entitled to ambulance servicescomparable to their metropolitan counterparts. I will notallow this government to ignore the Wimmera. I call onthe Minister for Health to address this ambulancestaffing inequity in Stawell.

Dick Reynolds

Mrs MADDIGAN (Essendon) — I would like totake the opportunity today to pay tribute to KingRichard of Essendon. I had the privilege of representingthe Premier at the funeral of Dick Reynolds last Friday.

Dick Reynolds was a bright light for Essendonsupporters and the Essendon community, particularlythrough the days of the Depression, and was a manwhom many people were proud to have known. Thetributes at his funeral showed that it is not only hisfootball career that deserves our respect but his abilitiesas a man and the fine gentleman that he was, if I canuse an old-fashioned expression.

The tributes to Dick Reynolds were vast. They referredin particular to his great love of his family — his wifeJean and his children Graeme, Warwick, Suzie andRick; his great friendship and support of people such asBilly Hutchison and Wally Buttsworth; and the greatcontribution he made to the people of Essendon inmany ways.

When he played the game footballers were not paid thehuge sums that they are today, and Dick was wellknown around Essendon in the various enterprises heran, particularly the milk bar next to the former MooneeTheatre where many Essendon children would go ontheir way home from school, even if it was not on theirway home from school, in the hope of having of theopportunity of seeing the great Dick Reynolds.

He was a fine model for us today. He neither drank norsmoked. He was very particular about the sort of foodhe ate and he gave great service to the community. Hewas a true Essendon person, having been brought up inAscot Vale and Aberfeldie, and he will be rememberedin Essendon for a long time.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourablemember’s time has expired.

Schools: LOTE

Mr KOTSIRAS (Bulleen) — While other stategovernments encourage and foster the teaching ofLOTE (languages other than English), this Laborgovernment has turned its back on LOTE.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


Late last year this Labor government decided todowngrade LOTE once again. This inept governmentdecided to banish a large section of the LOTE unit from2 Treasury Place to Transport House, which is locatednear Spencer Street station, at a cost, according to adocument, of approximately $200 000 — an amountthat could have been spent on more resources for LOTEin our schools.

I recently received a document from the Department ofEducation and Training, and guess what? The publicservants agree with me. They agree that this Laborgovernment has deserted LOTE. According to thisdocument the public servants have raised the followingconcern:

What is the vision for LOTE, given that schools, teachers andthe broader community perceive that LOTE is beingmarginalised, that it is no longer one of the eight key learningareas, and that it can be relegated to an optional extra withinthe curriculum?

What a disgrace! This inept minister is happy to enlargeher own office space to ensure that she and her adviserssit in comfortable, versatile and spacious surroundingsthat are colour coordinated, but when it comes to LOTEshe shows no interest, no commitment and no vision. Itis therefore no surprise that the students are notchoosing to do languages in the Victorian certificate ofeducation. This is a disgrace, and the minister shouldresign.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Thehonourable member’s time has expired.

Keith Davison

Ms OVERINGTON (Ballarat West) — I wish toplace on record my tribute to Keith Davison, whopassed away on 16 August 2002 at the young age of 68.

Keith was a wonderful mentor and friend who had apassion for fairness and democracy and a real sense ofjustice for all. Keith was born in England and graduatedas a librarian. For many years he acted as a volunteerabroad in Africa. He married Myrl in England and theycame out to Australia in the mid-1980s with Myrl’sfour children, and he immediately became involved inour local community. He was vice-president of andbrother in Christ to the Ballarat Council of Churches;he was also the esteemed vice-president of theMechanics Institute of Ballarat, where his knowledge ofbooks was invaluable in the preservation of the worksthere. He was the past president of the Bridge MallTraders Association and a respected former senioracademic and practitioner in library and informationtechnology at the Ballarat university.

Keith had a heart transplant in 1990 which gave himanother 12 wonderful years for us to share in hisfriendship. Because of his passion and involvement heraised money endlessly for heart — —


Local government: rate concessions

Ms DAVIES (Gippsland West) — I wish to bring tothe government’s attention the fact that the rebate theDepartment of Human Services allocates to eligiblepensioners to assist with payment of council rates hasremained static for far too many years — since the1970s, I believe.

The description of the concession is that it should be50 per cent of council rates up to a maximum of $135each financial year. It is a very long time since $135would come close to being half the rates in most shires.The average rate for the Shire of Bass Coast is $461;the Shire of South Gippsland, $516, the Shire ofCardinia, $633, and the Shire of Baw Baw, $640. Thisconcession is not indexed to the consumer price index(CPI). Property prices and land valuations have beenrising very sharply in all areas of my electorate. Risingrates cause hardship, especially to those on fixedincomes.

Forty-four per cent of the Bass Coast shire populationare over 65 years of age and most of those people areentitled to concessions. The need for special chargeschemes on top of rates to pay for totally inadequatelocal infrastructure — roads and drains, et cetera —causes further hardship. I urge the government and theopposition, as they are developing their policies, toreturn to the original intent of this rebate’s value — thatis, to halve the rates — and to look at indexing it to theCPI in the future.

Surf Coast: administration

Mr PATERSON (South Barwon) — Residents’concerns over the activities of the Surf Coast Shire havebeen growing for some time. In fact residents have beenvery patient. A fundamental yardstick for anycouncillor is the retaining of the confidence of residentsin their council. Regrettably the collapse of confidencein the council is now widespread and it has reachedsuch serious levels that we need a fresh start on the SurfCoast.

At this stage it is not a matter of blame or singling outcouncillors or officers. It is a matter of simply acceptingthat a fresh start is in the interests of residents and theregion. There are financial issues, and operational

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


issues such as the capital works program. There areelectoral issues such as the ward boundaries, and thereis dissatisfaction with the handling of the tourismmoney. The list goes on.

It is time an administrator was given the job of tacklingthe range of issues facing the Surf Coast. I have saidthat having confidence in the process is the key. Anadministrator charged with the responsibility ofrestoring that confidence is the best hope.

There are reports that the state government, which hasheld up the Surf Coast as a model council in the past,wants to waste more time waiting for a report from amunicipal inspector. The time for this would have beenmany, many months ago. Right now we need firmaction, not more reports. Let’s be clear: the organisersof this week’s meeting are concerned residents doingtheir best for the community. The residents have mysupport.

Eastern Lions Kart Club

Mr HARDMAN (Seymour) — I congratulate theEastern Lions Kart Club, which on the weekend heldthe Jayair Junior Sprint Classic for go-karts at theHume International Raceway located nearPuckapunyal.

The club executives, Russell McAliece, Trevor Anselland Ken Drew, along with a host of other volunteers,mums and dads, sponsors and competitive young menand women aged between 7 and 16, put on an excitingrace day with nonstop entertainment. The competitorscome from every state on the Australian mainland andprovide an obvious boost to the Seymour economy.Seymour is fast becoming recognised as the mostcentral place in Victoria, as at least 80 per cent ofpeople can arrive there within a 2-hour drive.

Speaking with the parents of these young people, Ifound they were most impressed with the sport and theorganisers, because they see the activities as a positiveway for their children to spend their time, both lookingafter their vehicles and in general race participationduring the week, on race days and weekends.

It was fantastic to see the 238 competitors, their supportcrews and track stewards all working so hard to do theirbest on the day. The professionalism of the whole eventand all involved was astounding. The prizes, trophiesand presentations, including the guest presenter, motorracing legend Larry Perkins, all helped to make a veryspecial day for these young people. I commend theEastern Lions Kart Club for that great race day.

Marigny Manufacturing Australia Pty Ltd

Mr THOMPSON (Sandringham) — I recentlyreceived a letter in my office from L’Oreal Paris,indicating that the Marigny Manufacturing Australiaplant, a wholly owned subsidiary of L’Oreal, cannotcompete operationally with larger plants in the worldbecause of its small size, its location, the scarcity oflocal suppliers and the ever-increasing cost of transport.In addition the plant’s equipment is no longer adequateto make the latest generation of product formulas to theinternational standards required by L’Oreal.

The author of the letter then went on to note that:

Sadly, around 82 good and loyal people currently working atSandringham will be made redundant.

Over the past three or so years the state opposition haspromoted the implementation of policies aimed atimproving the competitiveness of industry in Victoriaacross a range of frontiers, and it is a matter of majorregret that for a range of reasons 21 000 manufacturingjobs have been lost to the Victorian economy since theelection of the Bracks government.

The importance of the government taking a lead inpromoting a nationally and internationally competitiveenvironment in Victoria cannot be underestimated. Inrecent weeks for the first time I have had peoplearriving at my office who have been looking for work.It is a similar situation to what transpired around 1992,when people who sought work were not able to obtainit, and that is a matter of major concern.


CFA: Springvale brigade

Mr HOLDING (Springvale) — I rise tocongratulate the Springvale Urban Fire Brigade, whichis a Country Fire Authority unit in my electorate ofSpringvale. I wish to pay tribute to all members of thebrigade, including Kevin Petit, the operations officer;Keith Daniels, president of the brigade; and the manyother volunteer and career firefighters and their familieswho have served the Springvale community over manyyears.

I acknowledge in particular the work and service ofKevin Cutting, who joined the brigade in 1967. In histime with the brigade Kevin has attended an incredible6038 incident turnouts, and this amazing figure doesnot include turnouts he has attended with otherbrigades. I understand that this figure may be a record,and on behalf of the grateful people of Springvale I

GRIEVANCES


express our thanks to Kevin and his wife Thelma, whohas served on the women’s auxiliary of the brigade, fortheir amazing service to our local community. On manyoccasions their important family functions, Christmascelebrations and other special events have beeninterrupted by fire calls.

It is particularly appropriate on this of all days —11 September — to reflect on the service of volunteerand career firefighters from all communities. Withoutthe service and sacrifice of people such as Kevin andThelma Cutting and the many other volunteer andcareer firefighters at Springvale, our community wouldhave suffered great loss from fire and other calamities.We thank them.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The time formembers statements has now expired.

GRIEVANCES

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The questionis:

That grievances be noted.

Police: crime statistics

Mr WELLS (Wantirna) — I grieve for theincreasing number of victims of violent crime in thestate of Victoria. The Bracks government came tooffice in 1999 with a law-and-order policy documententitled No More Excuses on Crime. To date we havehad nothing but excuses for crime!

Recently the Liberal Party issued some figures forviolent crime for the period since the Bracksgovernment was elected back in 1999, and it is worthwhile going through those figures. Homicide is up32.9 per cent, rape is up 8.5 per cent, robbery is up10.5 per cent, assault is up 26.8 per cent, abduction isup 14.4 per cent, arson is up 30.9 per cent, andaggravated burglaries are up 29.6 per cent. The totalnumber of violent crimes has risen from 29 694 to37 023 during the Bracks Labor government, which is a24.7 per cent increase, and if you add to that the figurefor crimes involving weapons and explosives you getan overall increase of 25.9 per cent. The figure forcrimes against the person in this particular period is upby 16.8 per cent. The situation is very, very serious.

The overall figure for the use of weapons in thecommission of assaults in 2001–02 grew by 37.8 percent, and the individual categories for the use offirearms and knives have increased by 46 per cent and33.1 per cent respectively. This is totally unacceptable,

and what is even more disappointing is that thegovernment is doing nothing about this massiveincrease in violent crime.

I quote from an article in the Age of 5 September whichstates:

Victorian police minister André Haermeyer said it was notpossible to ascertain the change in crime statistics fromexisting data.

‘I heard (the opposition) is now claiming that there’s a 25 percent increase in violent crime’, Mr Haermeyer said.

‘Nowhere in the police statistics do these figures appear’.

I hate to say this to the house, but the minister is plainlywrong because the figures we have were taken straightout of police crime statistics. The police bring outstatistics every financial year, and we have taken ourfigures straight out of those statistics. These are not ourfigures, these are straight out of the police crimestatistics.

In fairness we sent an email to the minister on5 September telling him that we noted his comments inthe Age saying that the Liberal Party is contrivingfigures showing that the incidence of violent crime hasbeen increasing over the past three years. We told himthat our figures were sourced from police statisticsbetween 1999–2000 and 2001–02, which proveconclusively that violent crime has increased under theBracks government. We said that if he could just tickthe ones that are right, mark the ones that are incorrectand fax it back within 24 hours we would be able tocomment.

Almost a week later there has been no response fromthe minister’s office, and it can only be concludedtherefore that the crime statistics the Liberal Partyquoted are 100 per cent correct and violent crime hasincreased by 24.7 per cent since the Bracks governmenthas been in power. We say that, based on the increasednumber of victims of crime, there is more outrage in theVictorian community than ever before.

I would like to read a letter from Janine Bramley, avictim of crime, addressed to Parliament. The housewill remember that her mother was sexually assaultedand murdered by a 16-year-old boy and a 15-year-oldboy. Ms Bramley would like this letter read to thehouse. It states:

To the Honourable Speaker and members of the LegislativeAssembly in Parliament assembled:

I would like to discuss issues that are of great importance tovictims of crime and of great concern to the public.

GRIEVANCES


My name is Janine Bramley, daughter of Marie GreeningZidan, who was murdered 15 October 2000 by two youthsaged 15 and 16 years.

In the case of the two boys who murdered my mother, theoriginal sentence was six years, with a minimum of fouryears. There was great public outcry and my family went tothe DPP to ask for an appeal.

The Appeals Court judges agreed that ‘We are not aware of amanslaughter that has been accompanied by such a degree ofcallousness’ and the offenders’ sentences were increased tonine years with a minimum of six years. We were told that thejudges could have given the maximum of 20 years.

These two offenders had rung me twice from a youthdetention centre, one call was to my son, a death threat, theother call a dirty sexual song to me.

Every day I get asked by people that come up to me to askwhy are the two offenders in a youth detention centretogether, why were they allowed to be in a room bythemselves with access to a phone and papers with my phonenumber on them.

Someone has to be accountable for this. I am not talkingabout a scapegoat. I have never received an official apologyfrom the Minister for Community Services. I cannotunderstand this, nor can the public.

These are some of the issues that have been put to me bypeople in the public and victims of crime.

What Janine Bramley and victims of crime are callingfor and have raised concerns about is set out in thesecond part of her letter, which continues:

… the state government has decreased money made availableto victims of crime, which means that victims won’t be ableto access counselling sessions through private psychologists,number of sessions available to victims reduced from 10 to5 sessions.

The victims advisory unit, which is understaffed, has threeworkers to attend to victims involving homicide,manslaughter, robberies, sexual assaults, culpable drivingoffences — this is for the whole state of Victoria. On anaverage about 40 cases a month; 54 cases referred to them inthe month of August; about 400 cases a year — how canthese workers give the quality of care to the victims, whenthey are trying to stretch themselves between so many cases?

The children’s act needs to be amended. The children’s actwas meant to protect children that did minor crimes, it wasnot meant to protect children that committed serious offencessuch as murder, vicious assaults, rape; these crimes were notmeant to come under the umbrella of the children’s act withinthe juvenile justice system.

The juvenile justice system needs to be addressed as to why ithas adults 18, 19, 20 and 21 years old in with children. Whereare the children’s rights here? At 18 you are legally an adult,so why are these adults in with children? Adults that havemurdered should not be in with children.

The cold cases, as they are referred to, not to cut staff here, asthe government has been thinking of doing; cold cases has astaff of six, it would be an insult to cut it to three.

I appeal to your conscience and hope and pray that you dowhat is right for justice, for victims of crime and for thepublic of Victoria, so that we may live together in a saferenvironment, and also that we know that we may live in anegalitarian society, where victims have rights.

We did not choose to be victims, we had no say, anyone canbe a victim. I hope by the grace of God it is not you.

It is signed by Janine Bramley. That letter is typical ofthe attitude of the victims of crime that I come across.This is a very important point where the governmenthas failed these people by allowing and not actingquickly and strongly enough to sort out the increase inviolent crime.

We have an outstanding police force that is clearly notbeing supported. Why are they not being supported?There are three reasons: firstly, the government has toomany police force members tied up looking afterprisoners in police cells. There is room for only 120. Atthe moment they are averaging 200 prisoners in policecells every day, averaged over a year. The governmentis turning the police force into revenue chasers. I knowthe shadow Minister for Transport has made this point.Even in the budget papers, the number of police fineswill increase from 903 000 to 1.7 million, almostdouble the number of police fines that the governmenthas set down as targets — 903 000 to 1.7 million toensure that the government can balance its budget.

Many police are tied up doing paperwork. I was at apolice station recently where I watched a police officeron bike patrol who had to fill out the same piece ofinformation on four separate sheets. He would rather beout patrolling the streets ensuring that crime is beingminimised, but no, he was stuck behind a desk fillingout four different pieces of paper. The government hasfailed the police force miserably.

As a result of the government failing the police forceviolent crime has increased by 24.7 per cent since theLabor Party came to government in 1999. We are stillwaiting on the government to bring down some plan ofaction so that the Victorian community can be assuredthat violent crime will be brought under control oneway or another. I grieve for the victims of crime andgrieve for people in the general community because it istotally unacceptable that we have this blow-out — thismassive increase in violent crime.

Liberal Party: advertisements

Mr CARLI (Coburg) — I grieve for the people ofVictoria because of the deception being undertaken bythe Liberal Party in those television advertisements thatit undertook recently. I particularly want to grieve as aresult of the Liberal Party trying to deceive them on the

GRIEVANCES


issue of infrastructure spending. The campaign hasalready been discredited and taken off air as a result ofwhat we know about the deception on the issue ofviolent crime, which the previous speaker spoke about.It had to be removed because of the deception.

There is an equal deception on the issue ofinfrastructure spending. I would like to see on behalf ofVictorian people — —

Mr Wells interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Thehonourable member for Wantirna has had hisopportunity.

Mr CARLI — I would like on behalf of the peopleof Victoria, the people I am grieving for, to see theopposition leader again rise and apologise, as he did onthe issue of violent crime, on the issue of infrastructurespending because it is a disgrace that the Liberal Partyhas painted that picture of Victoria and infrastructurespending in Victoria. It demonstrates that the LiberalParty cannot be trusted.

The ads said that infrastructure spending is at a recordlow in Victoria. That is wrong. In the last three Kennettbudgets infrastructure spending in Victoria was around$1 billion a year — that is $3 billion. In the threebudgets under the Labor government $6 billion hasbeen committed — that is $2 billion a year, a 100 percent increase. These are easy percentages: it is 100 percent; it is not 47, 23 or 25 — —


The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Thehonourable member for Berwick and the honourablemember for Wantirna!

Mr CARLI — We have seen a 100 per centincrease under this government. This is a false anddeceitful campaign, one which is trying to say that weare at record lows in Victoria.

The position in Victoria is unambiguous: it is clear thatthis is a government which is building infrastructurecompared with underinvestment under the previousgovernment. There has been a massive increase inspending over the three years. Spending, rather thanmoney committed, in the last three years totals$5.148 billion — over $5 billion. The actual amountspend by the Kennett government was $2.984 billion —under $3 billion.

Clearly the figures are wrong. How did the LiberalParty practise this deceit? Where did it get the figure

from? At the bottom of the ad there is a reference to anAustralian Bureau of Statistics figure — that is wherethe ads got the figure. We are not looking atinfrastructure spending; we are looking at public sectorengineering activity, so it is a small component ofinfrastructure spending. That is what was beingidentified in the ads, and that is where the deceit begins.It is not the infrastructure spending in the state, whichwe know has massively increased under the Bracksgovernment; what we are seeing is this issue of publicsector engineering activity.

Where has there been a decrease in engineering works?It has been in the areas of gas, electricity and railways.Why are they down? Because those are the areas thatthe previous government privatised. Clearly there willbe less government spending in those areas of publicsector engineering.

That is what we expect, so why the deceit? The deceitis to create an impression in the minds of Victoriansthat this government is not spending the money, notbuilding the state and not creating the infrastructure.

Where is the infrastructure being built? It is being builtbefore our eyes in the areas of health and aged care; innew community centres and police stations; ineducation, with new schools; in community safety; intransport, with roads — you name it, there is anextraordinary spend. This government wants to rebuildthe infrastructure after a period of underinvestmentunder the previous government. It is a governmentcommitted to the rebuilding of the state andfundamentally committed to infrastructure spending.

At the moment the Liberal Party cannot be trusted. Ithas a leader who has already had to apologise once, andI would like to see him apologise a second time becausehe has deceived the public yet again on a very simplematter. It is not hard to go back to the previous budgetsof the Bracks government, look at the spending oninfrastructure and see a massive increase. Let’scompare that with the performance of the Kennettgovernment, let’s do the honest thing. Why do we notsee a graph presented on television to show the actualspend of each of the two governments? That is wherewe would find a decent comparison. The real figure is amassive increase in infrastructure spending in the state.The spending is going to where it matters — into roads,community services, police stations and new hospitals.It is massive and vital new reinvestment.

The new Liberal leader, the honourable member forMalvern, wants to argue that the government is notspending the billions of dollars it is actually spending.He chooses to use an Australian Bureau of Statistics

GRIEVANCES


(ABS) figure that has very little relevance toinfrastructure spending but largely deals withinfrastructure spending in those sectors that have beenprivatised in the state. On any comparison with otherstates Victoria will appear as a low spender because wehave privatised more than every other state. That isself-evident. We do not have a proper or adequate basisfor comparison.

Mr Cameron interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Will theminister resume his seat!

Mr CARLI — Instead, what we have from theLiberal Party is an extraordinary raft of promises.Virtually every honourable member — —

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Will theminister sit down! The honourable member already hasa glass of water.

Mr CARLI — I thank my colleagues for the water.I am suffering from a bit of a cold at the moment. Fortwo and a half years Liberal candidates and Liberalmembers have been going around the state promisingeverything. The opposition has had a virtual spendingspree. The government has calculated that $2.7 billionhas been promised as a result of a lack of discipline andcontrol by the previous Leader of the Liberal Party, thehonourable member for Portland.

Apart from having the Leader of the Oppositionapologise, as he should, on the matter of infrastructurespending, we should also ask him to come clean andsay where that money will be spent. Is the oppositioncommitted to its $2.7 billion of promises? Thehonourable member for Mordialloc, for example, hasbeen campaigning on the matter of the Dingley bypass.Is Dingley to be part of the spend? Is that a promise, oris it merely the honourable member for Mordiallocgoing out on his own?

During the last couple of weeks I have been to meetingsin Essendon where on the issue of the interchangebetween the Calder and Tullamarine freeways again theLiberal candidates have got up and said, ‘We arecommitted to building it, to spending the money’. Thegovernment estimates that the project will need around$300 million. That is a lot of money to promise in a seatthat the Liberal Party is not even going to win. I wouldlike the Leader of the Opposition to come clean, and theVictorian people would like him to come clean, and saywhere the money will come from. Will all thesepromises be realised? If they are to be realised, howmany teachers, nurses and police officers will have tobe sacked to meet all these promises? The opposition

has been incredibly undisciplined over two and a halfyears and has been prepared to make the mostextraordinary promises to the people of Victoria.

To add to the deceit of the Victorian people we nowhave had an ad campaign that tried to demonstrate thatwe, the government, have underspent in infrastructure,whereas in fact we have massively increased spending.In addition the opposition has used the wrongfigures — ABS data that is completely irrelevant to acomparison of infrastructure spending between thestates or between the former Kennett government andthe Bracks government. I am glad to see the ads havebeen withdrawn — glad to see the end of them. At leastone element of the deception by the opposition, theissue of violent crimes, has been demonstrated toVictorians. I would like to see a similar apology for thedeceit around infrastructure spending.

Victoria needs to build up its infrastructure, and thattakes good financial management, so we have to have agovernment that is prepared to make the hard decisionsabout where money should be spent. The governmentshould be about developing the state, but we have fromthe opposition promises to spend, spend, spend.

I recall the honourable member for Mordialloc makingpromises about building bridges in country Victoria.Bridges are the responsibility of local government, andwe are dealing with thousands of them throughoutcountry Victoria! Does he want the Victoriangovernment to spend money on bridges and therebymeet the responsibilities of local government? Thatseems to me to be an extraordinarily large expenditurecommitment, and it is completely uncosted.Extraordinary promises have been made over two and ahalf years.

Mr Maughan interjected.

Mr CARLI — There is a new leader. He has toldhis shadow cabinet members to go away and rethinkpolicies and commitments. It is time they actually didthe sums. It is time they sat down and said, ‘Where arethe promises? How much do they cost?’.

Dr Dean interjected.

Mr CARLI — Because at the moment you arepromising $2.7 billion in extra spending.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Thehonourable member for Coburg, through the Chair andwithout the assistance of the honourable member forBerwick.

GRIEVANCES


Mr CARLI — The honourable member forBerwick is aware that we are talking about ABS figureson public sector engineering activity. He is also awareof the fact that a lot of that activity is in areas ofcurrently privatised industries. So clearly the ABSfigures will be low, as they will be in terms of anycomparison between other states. When it comes to theactual spend on physical infrastructure — roads, policestations, schools, the whole raft of infrastructurespending — what have we seen? Over the last threeyears of the Kennett government, from 1997–98 to1999–2000, we saw a spend of $2.98 billion. Over threeyears of the Bracks government, from 2001–02 to2002–03 — the current financial year — we have seena spend of $5.148 billion, an increase of 73 per cent.

We are dealing here with net spending between the twoadministrations. We are speaking of the actual dollarsthat are going out into infrastructure spending.

We have one of the greatest governments in the historyof Victoria. It is rebuilding the state. What do we havefrom the Liberal opposition? We have deceit against thepeople of Victoria — absolute deceit, deception andmisleading advertising. We have commitments that itnever expects to realise. We have $2.7 billion of idlepromises made by an undisciplined shadow cabinet as ithas raced around Victoria over the last two and a halfyears promising the earth. We know how much it haspromised. We know how much has been allocated. Weare now waiting for its leader to come clean and saywhat is going to be spent and where it is not going to bespent — or is he committed to $2.7 billion? If he iscommitted to $2.7 billion, what does that mean?

We on this side of the house know what it means. Wehave seen it before with Liberal governments. It meanscutbacks in teacher numbers, cutbacks in nursesnumbers, cutbacks in services, cutbacks in agedservices and cutbacks in police numbers — becausethat is the only way it is going to fund all the rashpromises that have been made over the two and a halfyears.

I grieve for the people of Victoria. I grieve for the factthat there is an attempt to deceive and mislead them interms of painting a picture of Victoria that is not trueand not accurate. It does not compare what has reallyhappened with three years of Bracks administration:three years of rebuilding the physical infrastructure ofthis state versus the previous three years of the Kennettgovernment which saw an extremely low spend oninfrastructure and enormous cutbacks to socialspending which have largely created the problems thatwe are fixing at the moment and we expect to continueto fix into the next term.

Drought: government assistance

Mr MAUGHAN (Rodney) — I grieve today for thepeople of northern Victoria, particularly those farmingcommunities and the communities that depend on them,because northern Victoria today is suffering one of theworst droughts in living memory.

I grieve particularly for the people in the Shire ofCampaspe and the Rodney electorate who are copingwith enormous difficulties — physical, financial andemotional — and are simply crying out for assistancefrom this government. So far there has been not oneelement of assistance, so I grieve for them today.

I want to now speak about why the government shouldrespond to this crying need from northern Victoria.

Mr Nardella — What should they do?

Mr MAUGHAN — I will tell you. If thehonourable member for Melton waits a little while, hewill hear that I have 8 or 10 things that the governmentcan and should do. I remind the honourable member forMelton that this government can and should dosomething. The government is hiding behind the‘exceptional circumstances’ provisions. Sure, thecommonwealth is generous with those exceptionalcircumstances provisions, but they apply to exceptionalcircumstances. We have not got to that trigger point yet.

We are at a point where the Victorian government canand should follow the example of the New South Walesgovernment and provide assistance now. If thehonourable member for Melton will wait a little while, Iwill detail some of those things for him.

I am calling on the government firstly to show somecompassion and concern. That would be a very goodstart: to acknowledge that people are struggling, thatthey are having difficulties.

I call on the government to declare a drought. It iswithin the province of this government to do that rightnow, and it can and should be done today. It shouldhave been done a week ago, but it was not. TheMinister for Agriculture and the Premier are runningaround saying, ‘We do not have a drought at themoment’ and, ‘If we have another couple of weekswithout rainfall, then we will set up a committee andlook into it’.

I remind the minister and the Premier that northernVictoria is now in its fifth year of below averagerainfall. I remind the government that the Rodneyelectorate is Australia’s most important dairy farmingarea. There are some 3000 farmers, 350 000 cows and

GRIEVANCES


3 major milk factories. In a reasonable year we produce20 per cent of Australia’s milk flow — 20 per cent ofAustralia’s milk comes out of the Rodney electorate. Itmakes an enormous contribution to the exports that weas Victorians and the government speak so proudlyabout. They are people contributing to the state andnational economies and they deserve some compassion,some support and some assistance.

The dairying industry is Victoria’s no. 1 exporter out ofthe port of Melbourne. It is not just the dairyingindustry that is suffering. Cropping farmers aresuffering, as are sheep and beef farmers.

We have had very poor winter and spring rains.Irrigation water has been severely restricted. I refer tothe headline of the Kyabram Free Press on Friday,16 August: ‘Water right opens at only 34 per cent’.That is a disaster for people in northern Victoria. Thereare low irrigation water allocations at the moment,crops are failing, fodder reserves are exhausted, andincreasing numbers of farmers are now desperate anddo not know what to do. There is a great of deal ofangst and anxiety in northern Victoria, not just in thefarming community — all the other industries thatdepend on farming are also starting to suffer. Otherindustries and businesses that supply the farmingindustry are showing a downturn and are suffering.

The irrigation storages in the Goulburn system were thelowest ever recorded for the month of August.Goulburn irrigators, as I have already indicated, arecurrently restricted to 34 per cent of their annualallocation. They do have a 70 per cent chance ofreceiving 100 per cent of their water right by February2003, but I suggest that those chances have been furtherreduced because we have had absolutely no rain overthe three weeks since that forecast was made. So thesituation is deteriorating rather than improving.

Farmers have been paying $30 a tonne to bring in hayfrom Gippsland and the Western District to try to keeptheir stock going. Those supplies are currently dryingup. Some farmers have sent their cattle to other parts ofthe state for agistment. An increasing number areselling good breeding stock for slaughter. At Greenhamabattoirs at Tongala they are currently working aroundthe clock and killing about 6000 cattle per week, and Iread only last week that they have 3000 cattle in theirholding paddocks waiting to be killed. That shows thedesperation. I heard last week of a farmer who, becausehe could not afford the transport, was droving his50 head of cattle by road, on foot, to the abattoirs tohave them slaughtered. That shows the sort of emotionthat is involved.

Farmers are worried about where they are going toobtain their hay this season. There is no hay at all on thedry country; there is precious little on irrigation farms;the situation in the southern Riverina is no better than inVictoria; there is little on hand in Gippsland and theWestern District; grain prices have skyrocketed andstocks are depleted. Combine this with a reduction of25 per cent in milk prices and the reduction in cattleprices — it used to be about $1000 some nine monthsago; now it is down to about $200 for those same cattle.

Cr Murray McDonald of the Shire of Campaspe — hehas been around for the last 60 years, and his familybefore him — is quoted as saying it is the toughestsituation that most of us have seen in livingmemory. The situation is critical. I have a letter from aconstituent that talks in similar terms — I have many,many letters.

The Shire of Campaspe has convened a meeting ofrural municipalities to start the process of applying forspecial circumstances funding. But that is a longdrawn-out process and it is not going to help in theshort term. This application, of course, needs to gothrough the state government — a government that sofar does not even recognise that we have a problem.

As I said, the minister says we do not have a drought.The Premier says we do not have a drought: he flew toKerang, had a look at one paddock, flew off again andsaid that we do not have a drought and that ‘we willhave a look at it a couple of weeks down the track’. It isnot good enough, Premier!

Mr Nardella interjected.

Mr MAUGHAN — It is not more than we did, andI will come back to that in a minute.

Farmers are looking for some leadership — leadershipfrom the government, leadership from the minister,leadership from the Premier — rather than cheap mediastunts, telling the farmers, for example, that their effortsare appreciated, that they are wanted, that they do havea future and that the government will assist. ThePremier says we do not have a drought — try tellingthat to the dairy farmers. Try telling that to the farmerswho have seen their crops wither and die. Try tellingthat to the businesses that are suffering. I call on thePremier to acknowledge the seriousness of the situationwe are facing — —

Mr Nardella — He has already!

Mr MAUGHAN — I call on him to show someconcern for the farming community that has pumpedmillions of dollars into the community, created

GRIEVANCES


thousands of new jobs and contributed significantly toVictoria’s exports, to realising the aim of the previousgovernment, and also this government, of achieving$12 billion worth of exports by the year 2010.

Now, for the honourable member for Melton’s benefit,I come to some of the things that the governmentshould be doing. Firstly, it should tell farmers they arewanted, and give some moral support. There has beenprecious little of that so far. And I would say that therelease of water into the Snowy River a few weeks agowas totally insensitive to those farmers in northernVictoria: many of them are about to lose all they haveworked for for the whole of their lives. The timing ofthat release was totally insensitive and shows how outof touch this government is with the people of northernVictoria.

The government should ensure that there are sufficientfinancial counsellors to assist farmers with theirdecision making and that there is practical advice andsupport from Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment staff. If necessary, it should shift peoplefrom other areas to northern Victoria to provide themanpower to do that, to make contact with people whoare suffering, to keep that dialogue going and to keeptheir spirits up, because their spirits are at rock bottomat the moment and they need some encouragement andsupport.

The government should open up parts of the alpineparks for high country grazing. There is lots of feed upthere, and allowing young cattle to graze in thosehighlands could take the pressure off. Yes, it is anemergency. Yes, we do not want to do that every year.But we are facing unusual circumstances, and I think itis something that this government could do if it threwaway some of its ideological hang-ups.

The Premier should be talking to the major financialinstitutions — and the Leader of the National Party hasalready, once again, shown leadership by doing that. Itis about time the Premier followed the Leader of theNational Party by doing likewise. The governmentshould agree to pay the difference between the cost ofirrigation water ultimately delivered and the 100 percent of water right that irrigators are obliged to pay for.That is a very sensitive issue in northern Victoria, andthe government could do this by making anannouncement that would cost it in the order of$5 million to $10 million — and that is chickenfeed interms of the total budget of the government. That issomething it can and should be doing right now. It canand should be providing subsidies for the transport ofhay and grain to keep those stock in good condition andcash grants to ensure that breeding stock — both sheep

and cattle — are preserved so that both the farmers andthe economy generally are in a position to recoverquickly when the drought breaks, as inevitably it will.

The government can and should provide funding forprojects in rural areas to create employment and toutilise and preserve the skills that are in thosecommunities, because if we do not do something alongthose lines the people working on farms and in theindustries in those small towns are going to goelsewhere — into the major rural cities and intometropolitan Melbourne — to seek work and thoseskills will be lost to the farming areas forever. Theeffects of the drought flow through to other sectors ofthe economy, so we should preserve those skills incountry Victoria.

The government should be starting to prepare anapplication for special circumstances funding from thecommonwealth, and we have heard precious little aboutany work that is going on in that respect.

The government should press the commonwealth tolessen the requirements to establish specialcircumstance provisions in irrigation areas. Currentlythe restrictions make it impossible to get specialcircumstance provisions until there have been two yearsof less than 100 per cent water rights delivered. Wehave not yet even achieved the first year, but we willthis year and we have to go through a second year likethis before we qualify for those special circumstanceprovisions in irrigation areas. The government can andshould press the commonwealth government on thatissue.

It should be doing something about controllingkangaroos. They are running rampant in northernVictoria — there are thousands of them. I commend thehonourable member for Seymour for the petition that hepresented today calling on the government to dosomething about controlling kangaroos coming out ofCrown land that are adding to the problem of farmersby trampling scarce crops and feed. They number intheir thousands; they cause damage to motor carstravelling on the roads and cause loss of life. Thegovernment can and should do something aboutcontrolling kangaroos to help people in northernVictoria.

The state must act now. It inherited a healthy economyfrom the previous government, an economy in surplus.Over a long period the farm sector has contributedstrongly to the Victorian economy. It has created jobsand boosted exports. The government has had windfallgains from stamp duty, gambling taxes are stillincreasing and GST payments are flowing through to

GRIEVANCES


the state, so the state cannot argue it does not havefunds to assist the farming community.

I call on the Premier to immediately declare a droughtin a number of areas in northern Victoria and toannounce a package of measures to assist those farmersand communities that are suffering from one of theworst droughts in living memory.

Liberal Party: performance

Mr NARDELLA (Melton) — I grieve today for theLiberal Party’s inability to tell the truth. I will put a caseto the Parliament that the Liberal Party is misleadingthe Victorian public. It is not able to lie straight in bedbecause of the things it is saying and the lies it isputting to the Victorian community. Already under thenew Leader of the Opposition, the honourable memberfor Malvern, television advertisements have been pulledbecause they have been misleading. The facts andstatistics in those television advertisements were wrong.The Liberal Party was lying to the Victorian public andit was forced to take those television advertisements offair. That is strike one. Those incorrect figures werepulled from those television advertisements. TheLiberal Party was caught out and cannot be trusted. Tohis credit, the Leader of the Opposition tookresponsibility for the television advertisements beingwithdrawn. He took responsibility, as he should, formisleading the Victorian public. But it gets worse.

On 28 August 2002 on 774 ABC radio — I still call it3LO — on the Jon Faine program, I heard the newLeader of the Opposition say:

Well, but the difficulty is that that’s differential also betweenNew South Wales and Victoria, as we’ve seen with thebuilding of, you know, nearly identical plants that have juston-costs in Victoria that are unacceptable.

The Leader of the Opposition was making the case for abad industrial relations environment in Victoriacompared with New South Wales. He was comparingthe construction of a Woolworths warehouse built inNew South Wales with one in Victoria as detailed tothe Cole royal commission. The Leader of theOpposition was blaming the Bracks Labor governmentfor a number of things that went wrong at theconstruction site in Victoria. What is the truth regardingthis specific construction that occurred in Victoria?What is the reality, known by the Leader of theOpposition but which he conveniently forgot to tell theVictorian public in that radio interview on 3LO, aboutthe construction of this warehouse? The Woolworthsconstruction in Victoria occurred when the Kennettgovernment was in office! It was constructed and built

during the period of the Kennett government regime —under its watch.

So if anyone is to blame for the poor industrial relationsrecord on that Woolworths site it should be sheetedhome to the Kennett government, the now Leader ofthe Opposition, who was a major player in thatgovernment, and the previous Liberal administration,along with the National Party, the new Lib Nats — notVic Nats, because they are a shade below the Liberalsand were in coalition with the Liberal Party at the time.James Renwick, counsel assisting the Cole royalcommission, told the inquiry that: the cost blew out by$15 million compared with the New South Wales site,even though the construction costs in New South Walesblew out by $5 million; work began on the automateddistribution warehouse in March 1997 — the Leader ofthe Opposition was blaming us for what occurred, but itwas two years and seven months before the election ofthe Bracks Labor government; construction wasplanned for completion in November 1998; andconstruction was completed in June 1999 — fourmonths before the state election, so the constructionwas not completed on time.

The Liberal Party and the coalition government, inwhich the opposition leader was a key player andconfidant to ministers and the Premier at the time, letdown not only the Victorian economy but alsoWoolworths and the society they were supposed to lookafter. Through its inaction, its lack of interest in anygenuine sense and its incompetence the Liberal Partyfailed to support business in this case and yet membersopposite want to sheet it home to the government. Theopposition leader blames Labor when it was his party,his government, that let everybody down. The Leaderof the Opposition cannot go out there and say things tothe Victorian public that are blatantly untrue, and he hasbeen caught out and exposed in this particular case.

However, it gets worse for the Liberals and the Leaderof the Opposition. Let’s analyse a quote from theLeader of the Opposition which appeared on page 6 ofthe Australian Financial Review on 22 August 2002.He said:

The Labor Party has actually driven us back into deficit.

The Leader of the Opposition claims that the BracksLabor government has driven the budget into deficit,but what is the truth? The budget papers and theAuditor-General in his reports to the Parliamentconfirm that the state budget surplus is forecast to be$522 million for 2002–03. We have had budgetsurpluses year after year after year since Labor was

GRIEVANCES


elected to office; the average surplus has been about$600 million.

I want to give the Leader of the Opposition a lesson ineconomics; this is Economics 101 for the Leader of theOpposition. If a government produces a surplus of$522 million, as the Bracks Labor government has, thebudget is not in deficit. If the budget surplus of$522 million is not a deficit then there cannot be aclaim that the Labor Party has driven the budget intodeficit. That is basic economics. The Leader of theOpposition was wrong and it could be claimed that heis economically illiterate for making the claim in thefirst place. The Leader of the Opposition should takesome time to talk to some real economists and find outwhat surplus and deficit mean. It is outrageous that theLeader of the Opposition is trying to mislead theVictorian public but it proves one thing — that theLiberal Party cannot be trusted and anything it claimscannot be believed. Members opposite are desperate.

Let’s further analyse that statement made by the Leaderof the Opposition and look at what a credible andindependent organisation has said about the BracksLabor government’s economic performance. Whenaffirming Victoria’s AAA credit rating in March 2002Moody’s Investors Service said:

Victoria has maintained a trend of sound fiscal performance,generating sizeable surpluses after financing both operatingand capital expenditures. These surpluses have resulted fromthe state’s prudent fiscal practices, supported in recent yearsby strong economic growth. Surpluses have been used bothfor debt reduction and to set up a reserve for future capitalspending.

This respected, independent credit agency iscontradicting the Leader of the Opposition and hisclaim that Labor is driving the budget back into deficit.Who is telling the truth? Is it Moody’s which says thebudget is not in deficit and that the state has maintainedits AAA credit rating or is it the Leader of theOpposition who has been contradicted time and againand who cannot lie straight in bed? When he said thatLabor has driven the state back into deficit the Leaderof the Opposition was wrong. I, and the businesscommunity, know that Moody’s is a credible voice andopinion against the Leader of the Opposition.

On Jon Faine’s program on 3LO on 28 August theLeader of the Opposition said:

Yesterday when I was in Gippsland and launched that ruraland regional team, I had behind me men and women whohave collectively 400 years of direct experience on the landand primary production.

However, on page 16 of the Age on the same day theLeader of the Opposition said:

Behind me stands 350 years experience on the land.

What is it? Is it 400 years or 350 years? Does it meanthat somebody went missing on the day or is it just thatthe Leader of the Opposition runs loose and fast withthe facts as he sees them to get the quick grab for thetelevision, the radio or the newspapers? What it comesdown to is the Leader of the Opposition does not knowhis team. He has no understanding of the responsibilityhe has as Leader of the Opposition to check his factsand ensure that whatever claims he puts to the Victorianpeople are correct.

It demonstrates, again, that the Liberal Party cannot betrusted. The Leader of the Opposition cannot be trustedin what he says. Whenever he says something it isincumbent on him that those statements be checkednext to the facts. The statements that the oppositionparty makes to the Victorian people have to be checked,counterchecked and checked again because inevitablywhat it says is wrong. The Liberal Party is lying to theVictorian people, just as it did during its seven years inoffice.

The Liberal Party is desperate: it will say anything totry to get itself elected, even if the statements are nottrue — even if it is lying to the Victorian public. Thiswas demonstrated when its ad was pulled from thetelevision. The Liberal Party is trying to dupe theVictorian public in the lead-up to the next state election.But Victorians are not stupid. Victorians proved inOctober 1999 that they knew the difference between theestablishment of a good government — that is, a BracksLabor government — and having a dud government.

The Leader of the Opposition has a responsibility to actresponsibly. He has to check his figures. A very basicthing that needs to be done — and that he needs to learnand should be learning immediately — is that he has tomake sure that he is accurate, that he places realitiesbefore the Victorian public, not fiction, not fantasy, notfigures that he plucks out of the air, and that he shouldnot be deceiving or misleading Victorian voters.

I call on the Leader of the Opposition to smarten up hisact. He is no longer in class where he has privatestudents in front of him. He has the Victorian public infront of him.

Housing: waiting lists

Mrs SHARDEY (Caulfield) — Today I grieve forall Victorians because of the crisis in public housing inthis state. I grieve in two main areas. First, I grieve forthe 46 549 Victorian families who as of June this yearhave been left languishing on public housing waitinglists under the Bracks government — this do-nothing

GRIEVANCES


government. An additional 5500 families have joinedthe public housing waiting lists, amounting to anincrease of 13.63 per cent across Victoria. The waitinglists have grown by that amount in just two years.

The largest increase in public housing waiting lists hasoccurred in country Victoria, and it is something thatthis government should be absolutely ashamed of: wehave seen a 49.32 per cent increase in waiting lists inrural and regional Victoria. These are some examples:Portland, 179.4 per cent; Wodonga, 102.7 per cent;Ballarat, 62.29 per cent; Bairnsdale, 51.5 per cent;Bendigo, 39.6 per cent; and Warrnambool, 62.33 percent.

I remind the house that under the previous governmentbetween 1996 and 1999 there was a decline in publichousing waiting lists by 25.63 per cent. The ministersays she is running a fairer system. I do not think it isfairer to have more Victorian families waiting longer toget a roof over their heads.

We have seen a massive decline in the construction ofadditional public housing under this government. Aprevious speaker, the honourable member for Coburg,said that the opposition should provide graphs of whatis going on, particularly when talking aboutinfrastructure. I might make available to the house, andeven to the honourable member for Coburg, the factthat construction has dropped under this government. In1998–99 construction of additional public housing inVictoria amounted to some 1115 units. Under thisgovernment, in 2000–01 that number dropped by halfto a mere 540 units. What a disgrace! This governmentsays that the opposition claims on infrastructure notbeing completed are not true. They are true, and I ambacking them up with figures.

Housing: estatesMrs SHARDEY (Caulfield) —

Probably the greatest area of grief today for me,however, is the crisis in the redevelopment of existingpublic housing estates. Added to the crisis we areseeing in waiting lists, we see that the Bracksgovernment has taken doing nothing to a new low, withmore than $95 million worth of construction on sevenpublic housing estate developments being stalled. Thisis despite, as I say, a desperate need for affordablehousing in Victoria.

The opposition has learned that public housing estateredevelopments in Richmond, Carlton, Port Melbourne,Ashburton, Doveton, Shepparton and Wodonga aregoing nowhere, while redevelopments in Bendigo,Maidstone, Geelong and Kensington are literally yearsbehind schedule. We have seen an increase of 13.7 per

cent in waiting lists under this government. Labor saysthis is because of a shortage of affordable housing. Ihave got news for the Minister for Housing: if shefinished the promised 808 new homes planned in theseredevelopments she would help alleviate the hugeproblem that she and her government have created.

I will give the house some statistics on some of theredevelopments. Let’s look at the Elizabeth Streetredevelopment in Richmond. It was first announced inOctober 2000, allocated a budget of $47 million andplanned to consist of 287 dwellings. What is its currentstatus? No demolition or construction commenced.Redevelopment in Rathdowne Street, Carlton, was firstannounced in January 2001, allocated a budget of$9 million and planned to consist of 136 homes. Whatis its current status? No demolition or constructioncommenced.

The Raglan–Ingles estate in Port Melbourne was firstannounced in November 1999. It is worth$15.5 million, with 114 units to be redeveloped. Whatis happening there? Nothing is happening, except thatgrass is growing on the site. There is no construction.The buildings have been pulled down, the tenants havebeen relocated and are waiting to come back to theirnew homes, but nothing is happening.

Victory Boulevard in Ashburton was first announced inJuly 2000. It is worth $8.5 million, with 37 newdwellings. No construction has commenced. Of coursea lot of announcements have been made about what thecouncil is doing with regard to plans and things likethat, but nothing is really happening.

Next is the Parkside estate in Shepparton, which wasfirst announced in May 1999. The previous minister,the late Ann Henderson, set up the task force, and thecurrent government committed to it. It is worth$5.05 million. On that estate only two units out of76 have been upgraded. Of course there is nodeveloper. The minister was back there the other dayannouncing more money for neighbourhood renewal inthat area, but what is happening? Only two units havebeen completed. It is going nowhere yet again.

The Mark–Rundle estate in Wodonga was announcedin November 2000. It is worth $10 million, and is toconsist of 78 units. What is happening there? Noconstruction has commenced.

Peace Court estate in Doveton was announced inMarch 2000. There has not even been a budget figureput on that. It involves a huge number of units — some80 units — but no construction has commenced.

GRIEVANCES


It seems that the Minister for Housing lacks either thewill or the skill to get these estates rebuilt and to startaddressing the obvious crisis in Victoria. Whenquestioned about the issue — and I must admit this wasalmost laughable — the minister is reported in theSunday Age of 8 September as saying:

… the state’s plans to expand the stock of public housing hadbeen slowed by a sharp rise in property values.

I find that absolutely extraordinary. The minister musttake us all for a bunch of fools if she thinks we willswallow that excuse — that the increase in the value ofproperty is having any effect on her lack of capacity incompleting these seven redevelopments. There is noneed to purchase new land to rebuild the promised808 homes on these sites.

The minister’s assertion that everything is going aheadaccording to plan is patently untrue. It only confirmsthat the Bracks government is lethargic and that publichousing in Victoria is in crisis. The minister isdisingenuous. Her excuses only demonstrate how littleshe knows of her portfolio, while more than46 500 struggling Victorian families wait for publichousing. That is simply not good enough.

Police: crime statistics

Mr HAERMEYER (Minister for Police andEmergency Services) — Recently the Liberal Party hasbeen trying to get on to the law and order bandwagon.Lest the house or the Victorian community forget, theseare the people who cut police numbers in this state by800, who starved our police force of resources — whodecimated our police force. Now they are out theretrying to beat up the crime rate.

Last week the Leader of the Opposition was runningout his ads saying violent crime is up 45 per cent.

Mr Leigh — It was 25 per cent.

Mr HAERMEYER — We will come to the 25 percent in a minute. He said 45 per cent. There was no45 per cent figure anywhere to be found. Liberal Partyflunkeys were running around furiously trying to find a45 per cent figure somewhere, but assuring journaliststhat the figure was correct. Ultimately they suggestedthat it might have been the firearms figure, which is up46 per cent. Country Victorians might be interested tohear their response to that. I do not know if oppositionmembers are suggesting they will change the firearmslaws, but country Victorians might be interested inquestioning them on that.

The Leader of the Opposition said, ‘I was responsible’.Of course he was responsible. Then the Liberal Party

ran another ad and said it is 25 per cent. Let’s have alook at what those figures actually say. The reality isthat there is no figure for violent crime anywhere in theVictoria Police crime statistics. Where is the VictoriaPolice crime statistic for violent crime? It is nowhere tobe found. It is an absolute concoction. Let’s have alook at — —


Mr HAERMEYER — It is absolutelyextraordinary! These people here were aiding andabetting the criminals of this state by cutting policenumbers.

Mr Baillieu — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, I ask the minister to withdraw that remark. Iand other members have taken personal offence at theminister’s comments when he directly said that we havebeen aiding and abetting criminals. It is clearly andpatently wrong.

Mr HAERMEYER — I am happy to withdraw theremark, and I am happy to quote the secretary of thePolice Association, who said that the Liberal Party wasaiding and abetting crime by cutting police numbers.

Let’s look at the figures they are now running out thatthey claim sustain their argument. As I have said, thereis no such category as violent crime. They have pickedthings that they think suit their argument and concoctedthem in the most deceitful way.

Firstly, they have taken a couple of categories —aggravated burglary and arson — which are included asproperty crimes in the police statistics.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Loney) — Order!There is far too much interjection coming from theopposition benches. A number of opposition membersare listed to speak in this debate and will get their turn.

Mr HAERMEYER — As I say, they have pickedcategories from the property crime statistics and tried tofit them into their argument. They have decided thatnon-rape sexual offences are not violent offences, eventhough Victoria Police — —

Mr Wells — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, could the minister confirm that aggravatedburglary is not a violent crime?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Loney) — Order!If the honourable member is taking a point of order it

GRIEVANCES


should be directed to the Chair and not consist of apoint in debate. Is there a point of order?

Mr Wells — Through you, Mr Acting Speaker, mypoint of order is that I would hate to think that theminister was misleading the house, so I ask him toconfirm that aggravated burglary is a violent crime.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Loney) — Order!That is clearly a point in debate and not a point of order.

Mr HAERMEYER — What else have theyincluded? As to homicide, over a third of the figuresattributed to homicide are for culpable driving, yet theshadow Minister for Transport says we ought to givedrivers free rein on the roads! He is the bloke who sayswe ought to be allowed — —

Mr Leigh — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, firstly, the minister is not referring to me bymy proper title, and secondly, I would ask him towithdraw because it is, after all, the minister who hasbroken the bipartisanship on road safety with hisspeeding — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Loney) — Order!As to the first part of the honourable member’s point oforder, honourable members should be called by theircorrect names. The second part is not a point of order.

Mr HAERMEYER — I withdraw the assertion thatthe shadow Minister for Transport, the honourablemember for Mordialloc, is a bloke.


Mr HAERMEYER — And you are a guttercrawler!

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Loney) — Order!

Mr HAERMEYER — They are saying, ‘We arenot actually going to do anything about the road toll.We are going to encourage it by telling drivers that it isall right to drive at least 10 kilometres above the speedlimit’.

Mr Leigh — On another point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, I believe the minister is referring to legislationthat is about to come before the house. He isimplicating me by saying something that I have neversaid. I suggest that he take it back. I am not encouragingpeople to speed. You’re the goose who’s doing it, notme!

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Loney) — Order!There is no point of order. I remind the honourablemember for Mordialloc that he has the call later in this

debate, at which time he will be able to deal with thosematters.

Mr Leigh — It wasn’t me!

Mr HAERMEYER — The other major area ofsignificant concern that makes up a vast proportion ofall the categories the opposition has included in thisconcoction of violent crime is assault. The reality is thatnearly 40 per cent — —


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Loney) — Order!The barrage of interjections from the front bench of theopposition must cease.

Mr Baillieu interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Loney) — Order!The honourable member for Hawthorn!

Mr HAERMEYER — Most assaults are actuallycarried out in the home. The reality is that thisfigure — —

Mr Wells interjected.

Mr HAERMEYER — No wonder they have noidea; they are totally incapable of listening and totallyincapable of understanding.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Loney) — Order!The continual barrage of interjections is not appropriatein this debate. If opposition members find they areunable to control themselves, I would ask that theyvacate the chamber for the remainder of the minister’scontribution.

Mr HAERMEYER — Assault is highly susceptibleto reporting rates of domestic violence. It is a reportageissue. Opposition members are saying they will try todiscourage people from reporting domestic violence.The reality is that if we are to deal with domesticviolence and to treat it as a serious issue we have toencourage people to report it.

This figure indicates an increased rate of reportage. Itdoes not necessarily indicate an increase in the actuallevels of domestic violence or of assault in thecommunity. The opposition is trying to make hay ofsomething we think is necessary to tackle domesticviolence — that is, to get an increase in the proportionof people who are prepared to report domestic violence.But that does not enter into the thinking of thesedesperate individuals who are out there to try to beat upcrime and to mislead the Victorian community aboutcrime statistics.

GRIEVANCES


Let’s look at this year’s crime figures. The reality is thatwe have had the first big turnaround in nearly 10 years.We have had a reduction in the crime rate of 4 per cent;we have had a reduction in the robbery rate of 13.3 percent; non-rape sex offences are down 10.4 per cent;aggravated burglaries are down 13.2 per cent;burglaries are down 18.1 per cent; handling stolengoods, down 10.9 per cent; theft of motor vehicles,down 12 per cent; theft from motor vehicles, down0.3 per cent; and drug offences are down 10.7 per cent.

Also included in the figures are weapons andexplosives. Most of these figures are down due to thepresence of added police on the streets. It is detectedcrime rather than reported crime; the added police onthe streets are going out and basically searching forillegal weapons.


Mr HAERMEYER — You are wrong again.Honourable members on the other side are desperatelytrying to mislead the Victorian community. Accordingto figures released by the Australian Bureau ofStatistics, Victoria is the safest state in Australia. It hasthe lowest assault rate, and all of the things that startedto shoot up in the statistics when the opposition was ingovernment have been turned around. The governmenthas only just finished undoing the damage done by theopposition during its seven years in government. Thepolice taken out by the opposition have just beenreplaced and their resources restored.

Mr Leigh interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Loney) — Order!The honourable member for Mordialloc took greatpains a short while ago to tell me that it was not him.

Mr HAERMEYER — The government’s measuresare starting to have an effect. In most categories theoverall crime rate is coming down; we are starting tohave a significant impact on Victoria’s crime rate. Theopposition has offered not a single solution other thancutting police numbers. Its members lied about thecrime rate the first time, they lied about it again andthey are lying about it now. They lied about policenumbers. They were the people who said they wouldincrease police numbers by 1000 yet cut them by 800.You do not get softer on crime by cutting policenumbers, and that is the opposition’s only answer tocrime.

Last week the new shadow Attorney-General said thatthe criminals should be able to keep their assets. Hewas against the new assets confiscation legislation. Ifind these people absolutely breathtaking. They have

not provided a single solution. Victoria is now startingto feel the effects of the government turning around thedamage done by the opposition when in government.

Across a variety of fronts the opposition’s ads aremisleading and quite dishonest, including the stuffabout waiting lists and crime. Under the previousgovernment Victoria was like the Titanic headingtowards an iceberg. The government has had to try andturn that around, but you do not turn the Titanic aroundon a pinhead. It has taken time but it has been turnedaround. By some indicators we may be closer to theiceberg than we were, but we are now sailing awayfrom it rather than sailing deliberately towards it, whichwas the case under the people opposite.

The opposition cannot be trusted on law and order. Itlied about the crime rate and it is lying about it again.Quite deceitfully it again has the figures wrong. It liedabout police numbers; it promised 1000 extra police butcut the numbers by 800. Not a word it says can betrusted. It has not come up with a single solution.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Loney) — Order!The honourable member’s time has expired.

Gaming: regulation

Mr BAILLIEU (Hawthorn) — Today is a day ofgreat grieving for the whole world. My thoughts, and Iam sure the thoughts of all honourable members, arewith the people of the United States of America and thefamilies and friends of people who lost their lives12 months ago. In joining in the grievance debate todayI feel a little humbled that we should be having thisdebate in the face of such worldwide grieving.

I grieve today for the integrity of gaming regulation inVictoria. Three years ago, when this government cameto office, the integrity of gaming in Victoria wasbeyond dispute. The state had a reputation of thehighest possible worldwide standard. Sadly since thattime that reputation has been dramatically andsignificantly eroded. Confidence in the Office ofGambling Regulation (OGR) and the Victorian Casinoand Gaming Authority (VCGA) has plummeted, themorale in those offices has plummeted, and the ministeris out of touch with the industry and is not involved inany of the decision making.

The industry and all of its associated stakeholders havebeen taken by the ineffective measures introduced bythe government and its failure to address problemgambling. There are now three Ombudsman’sinvestigations into the Office of Gambling Regulation,and there is a downgrading of inspectors in the VCGAand the OGR.

GRIEVANCES


What has occurred most recently and what warrants thisparticular grievance is the unprecedented and unlawfulacceptance by the government of $400 000 from agaming company to settle an investigation. The history,which goes back a couple of years, is simple. Thedirector of gaming and betting, who is answerable tothe Minister for Gaming, initiated an investigation intoa company called International Gaming Technology(IGT), which is a leading provider of poker machines tothe Australian industry. That investigation involvedinternational travel by a number of investigators andlegal teams.

As a consequence of the investigation it was decidedthat the government would accept US$200 000,equating to $400 000 in Australian money, to settle theinvestigation so it would not continue. This occurred inSeptember last year but no-one knew about it. It wasonly when an announcement of sorts was posted on theVCGA web site — an announcement that wasunattributed, undated and unexplained — that anyrevelation of this information appeared. Not until Iraised the matter in this house on 10 October last yeardid the Minister for Gaming choose to act. He did notbelieve there was any problem with the acceptance ofthis payment.

At the time this was drawn to my attention I looked atthe act and made a judgment that it was an illegal andunlawful payment which should not have proceededand which jeopardised the integrity of gaming inVictoria. It was an extraordinary proposition for thegovernment to even consider accepting such a payment.

At the time the minister chose to say, ‘There is not aproblem here at all. This is fine. Everything ishunky-dory and going according to process’. And heenjoyed bagging me in the house. Well, events haveturned on him. The minister drew the Ombudsman’sattention to the matter, but at the same time he told theOmbudsman that he did not want to be known as acomplainant, all he wanted to do was draw it to theOmbudsman’s attention. But he told the people ofVictoria that he had asked the Ombudsman toinvestigate — a bob each way, and excuse the pun!

The Ombudsman investigated thoroughly andrelentlessly and prepared an extensive report which wasnot tabled in this house until this morning. The irony isthat the Ombudsman’s report was delayed in its releaseby actions of the minister and undoubtedly — —

Mr Pandazopoulos — On a point of order,Mr Acting Speaker, I would like the former shadowMinister for Gaming to indicate whether it is theOmbudsman who presents the reports or whether the

minister can hold them up. It is a slur on theOmbudsman.

Mr BAILLIEU — In his report the Ombudsmandraws attention to the fact that he invited thegovernment to respond to it. He set deadlines for thatresponse which would have allowed the report to bereleased when this house was last sitting in the autumn.But the minister and the director delayed theirresponses and by their actions delayed the tabling of thereport, and what I just said is absolute fact. The ministerdeliberately — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Loney) — Order!Before the honourable member for Hawthorn goesdown that path I remind him of the requirement for asubstantive motion in relation to attacks on ministers ormembers of the house.

Mr BAILLIEU — Mr Acting Speaker, I ampassing comments about the actions of the minister thatare listed in the Ombudsman’s report, but the reality isthat the Ombudsman’s report very explicitly criticisedthe VCGA and the OGR and the director of gaming andbetting. Let me quote some of the items from thatreport, which reveals that the investigation by theOffice of Gambling Regulation cost taxpayers morethan $680 000, including $375 000 for legal advice and$200 000 for travel for those undertaking theinvestigation. The investigation was undertaken by thedirector because he believed the actions of InternationalGaming Technology were not suitable to permit IGT toremain in the role of gaming suppliers in Victoria. Butthe Ombudsman found that the investigation had ‘littleor no formal operational planning’.

Those several individuals who undertook theinvestigation travelled to Europe and the United Statesof America, visiting France, Germany, the Netherlands,London, Reno, Las Vegas, Colorado, Turkey, Estonia,the Dutch Antilles, Memphis and Detroit, and after allthat the investigation ‘revealed nothing new’. Thesubsequent acceptance of that money by way ofpayment of part of the costs of the investigation wasaccording to the Ombudsman ‘inappropriate and apoorly judged decision’. The Ombudsman furtherfound no legal basis for the acceptance of that paymentand quite rightly said that a court of law would have todecide that.

He further said that acceptance of the payment by theOGR:

… invites allegations of impropriety and failure to actindependently and impartially … and may be perceived as athreat … and … may be seen as an inducement for afavourable decision.

GRIEVANCES


He said that the director was ‘fully aware’ that therewas no power to recover costs and that the lawyersproviding advice to the OGR and the VCGA:

… could not be said … to be providing ‘independent’ legaladvice.

He went on to explicitly criticise the director for hisresponse to the Ombudsman’s report and said theresponse constituted ‘attempts at obfuscation by resortto bluster and rhetoric’ and could be seen as an attemptto ‘diffuse criticism by confusing issues, deflectingblame and generally muddying the water’. What anextraordinary report from the Ombudsman into the stateof the minister’s own department and his senior gamingofficials!

What was the government’s response? Its response wasto do nothing. The Premier shot through overseas, andthe minister went into hiding. The Acting Premier said,‘There’s no problem here; we’ll change a fewstructures’. It was not until the Premier returned fromoverseas that he said he had referred the matter ofwhether the payment should be returned to theOmbudsman. He said it 10 times on radio 3AW — yetonly the next week he revealed that that was not true.Meanwhile the minister had again attempted to avoidscrutiny on this issue. According to the minister’sspokesman the money was not going to be returned. Itwas not until some weeks later, when the ABC wasabout to do a piece on it, that the minister came out andsaid that the matter of whether the money should bereturned was being referred to the VictorianGovernment Solicitor.

When the government solicitor provided his advice,saying that the payment was unlawful and should bereturned, the money was returned — eventually andreluctantly. Only then did the minister address thequestion of the role of the director. Could the ministermake a decision about that? No, he could not. Hereferred the matter to the Commissioner for PublicEmployment and told Victorians that it would bemonths before he reported back. From the very firstrevelation of the matter this was an extraordinaryabrogation of his responsibility as a minister. Why didhe abrogate his responsibility? Because he thought theacceptance of the payment was a good idea, and he saidas much to the ABC reporter on the Stateline program.What’s more, he signed off on proposed legislation tolegalise such payments several months in advance ofthe acceptance of the payment, which the Ombudsmanrevealed. His own department leaked the information tothe ABC. That is the sort of confidence it has in him.

The result is that we have an outcome where the moneyhas been paid back. That is fine, but investigations are

continuing. The Ombudsman is investigating furthermatters in the Office of Gambling Regulation, theCommissioner for Public Employment is conducting aninvestigation into the director’s performance, and astructural review of the OGR and the Victorian Casinoand Gaming Authority is taking place.

Who has copped the flak? Who has taken the fall?No-one — not the Premier or the Deputy Premier whohave been involved, not the minister or the director. Sothis debacle has gone unpunished. Requests have beenmade through freedom of information (FOI). What asurprise! Nothing has been returned. By the 45-daylimit FOI officers asked for an extension to avoid thisvery discussion. They know what is coming!

The minister should be held to account. The directorshould go; the minister should go. The irony of this isthat the minister is setting up the director as a scapegoatfor his own inadequacies.

Werribee: health infrastructure

Ms GILLETT (Werribee) — I wish to grieve todayfor the complete lack of health infrastructure providedby the previous Liberal government to the people of theelectorate of Werribee. It is a sad and sorry tale,especially when one takes into account the fact thatWerribee is a growth corridor with population increasesof between 4 per cent and 6 per cent per annum.

For seven years, under constant lobbying not just by mebut by health professionals and those who provideprimary health care under the most difficult ofcircumstances in and around Werribee, the Liberalgovernment refused to act. For seven long years not onesingle dollar of health infrastructure was provided toone of Victoria’s most vibrant growth corridors. Thatresulted in a set of primary, secondary and tertiaryhealth statistics for the community of Werribee that wasshameful. Seven years of that sort of neglect takes sometime to assess and to then turn around.

However, it has been my absolute privilege over thepast two years, as I have driven around the electorate toand from the sorts of things to which members andparents go, to have watched the planning and now thebuilding of a primary health care centre for which theWerribee community has been waiting for 10 longyears. I am pleased to say that the new communitycentre will be open and available for use later this year.

This is a remarkable story of the Kennett government’scomplete lack of care and its completely biasedapproach. I understand that some electorates, perhapson the other side of town, had two primary health care

GRIEVANCES


centres at a time Werribee and its community did noteven have a commitment for one.

From the day I was elected in 1996 I was lobbiedstrenuously by the community and by primary healthcare providers for the provision of this facility. I wroteto the minister at the time, the Honourable RobKnowles, who is now retired, and receivedcorrespondence from him. Admittedly it took sometime and a number of gentle and polite but assertivereminders that my community needed his care andattention as much as any other community did, but Iwas pleased with the responses I received. The firstassured me and asked me to assure my community thatthe provision of an integrated primary health care centrewas the Kennett government’s highest priority in thewestern region. I subsequently found that it had beenthat government’s highest priority since it was electedin 1992.

However, the Kennett government had a funny way ofdealing with its priorities: it did not act on them. It hadplenty of money to spend in its Community SupportFund, which I think it would be fair to say was more orless a slush fund; it had plenty of money to spend onyachts that sank and on all sorts of bizarre and trivialmatters. But it had no money and I would assert nocommitment to do anything about providing dollars forhealth infrastructure in the growth corridors of thewestern suburbs that so desperately needed them.

It was just before the election in 1999 when I receivedsome very reliable advice that perhaps thecorrespondence I was receiving from the minister wasbureaucratic gobbledegook, that perhaps while thehealth centre was a priority there may have been others.So again I wrote to the Honourable Rob Knowles andasked him to confirm that the integrated primary healthcare centre would be provided to my community aftersuch a long wait. The correspondence I received inresponse was again very reassuring and indicated thatthe centre was the top priority — there was no higherpriority for the Kennett government. Yet in seven yearsit had not provided the centre.

Perhaps a little naively — one should not be generousin accepting what one sees as the truth — Labor draftedits financial statement which contained the costedpromises it took to the Victorian people in 1999, and onthe basis of its health proposals it took into account thatwhat the Honourable Rob Knowles said was true —that the then government had demonstrated itscommitment to provide an integrated primary healthcare centre. Labor therefore looked to other importanthealth infrastructure investments in a range ofcommunities including, I am pleased to say, my own.

Understanding as we did, and perhaps believing naivelythat what the Honourable Rob Knowles said was true, acommitment was made to upgrade the urgent care unitat the Mercy Werribee Hospital to an emergency unit. Iam sad to say that not only were Rob Knowles’spromises untrue but that put the government —thankfully Labor became the government — into adifficult situation of having made a promise that neededto be kept but of having to make up for an absolutelyappalling lack — not one dollar’s worth — of healthinfrastructure having been invested into my communityin the past seven years by the Kennett government.

A difficult decision had to be made, and I am pleased tosay that that difficult decision was made. Whilst it isdisappointing that we were unable to do both, I have tosay it gives me great pleasure to be part of agovernment that in its first three years was able todeliver a $10 million, integrated primary health carecentre in a community that had seen no healthinfrastructure dollars invested in it for a period of sevenyears.

It is also my pleasure to be able to advise the house thatsignificant investment has been made at the MercyWerribee Hospital. As anybody with any commonsenseknows, one cannot stop investing in healthinfrastructure nor in health service provision in agrowth corridor. Growth corridors like the one Irepresent and the one so ably represented by thehonourable member for Melton need constant attentionand investment. It does not have to come in a flood, butit does need to be provided on a very regular andmeasured basis. I am pleased and proud to say that thisLabor government has done just that, firstly, by playingmassive catch-up football to provide that integratedprimary health care centre, and also by constantlyinvesting in important things like the mother and babyunit that is being transferred from the Mercy Hospitalfor Women here in the city to the Mercy WerribeeHospital.

It is important that we keep investing in this way. It isimportant to thank the Minister for Health on thisoccasion for having real courage and a realcommitment to the primary health of the people ofWerribee and for making that difficult decision tochange the promise we made to provide that integratedprimary health care centre. Everyone in this chamberknows it is true that in any service provision area everydollar you can invest in a primary provision serviceadds enormous benefit compared with a tertiaryinjection of funds.

I look forward to the opening of the Wyndham PrimaryIntegrated Health Care Centre, which will take place, as

GRIEVANCES


I said, later on this year. I also look forward, with theMinister for Health, to turning the sod for the buildingof the mother and baby unit at the Mercy WerribeeHospital. This will provide mums who find themselvessuffering from that awful condition of postnataldepression much-needed care at home in thecommunity where they live so that their families willnot have the additional burden of having to travel in andout of the city to visit them.

I also place on record my gratitude to the providers ofprimary health care in the electorate of Werribee and itssurrounds. They have been providing very importantprimary health care in the most awful and awkward ofcircumstances. They are soon to have a new home,which will provide them with the capacity to grow theirservice provision and to work in an environment wherethey can collaborate rather than compete, which is theway they had to behave under the Kennett government.It will turn around their capacity to look after and carefor the community, and most importantly to worktogether as an integrated team in a collective andcollaborative way rather than being in a set ofcircumstances where they had to outdo, compete andbasically damage their relationships between each otheras service providers to fight for every tiny trickle offunds that came through for service provision.

I need to place on record too my gratitude to theproviders of primary health in Werribee in terms thatare fairly plain — that is, to say thank you to them fornot fully embracing that competitive approach, becauseit means now that collaboration is coming more easilyfor them than it is for some in other parts of Victoriaand Melbourne who wholly and solely embraced thisobsession with competition in an area of serviceprovision where demonstrably competition just doesnot work.

To the Minister for Health, who has made such awonderful and long-awaited investment in the desertthat was health infrastructure funding, and to thosewonderful people on the ground in Werribee andsurrounds, I say thank you. I look forward tocelebrating with them the first demonstrated action —that is, a commitment — to the provision of goodprimary health care in Werribee; and that will be theopening of our integrated health care centre later on thisyear.

ALP: union candidate

Mr LEIGH (Mordialloc) — I, like the honourablemember for Hawthorn, would like to talk about otherthings on this day, 11 September, but given that theworld continues I grieve today for a number of small

businesses in the City of Kingston because of theeffects that a union election has had on them.

The Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party,through its puppet the Trades Hall Council, has recentlyannounced it will pour thousands of dollars incampaign funds into my electorate and the next-doorelectorate of Bentleigh. The honourable member forBentleigh and I are delighted the ALP wants to do that.Bring them on! I will provide the buses for them all tocome down, because I am about to expose the TradesHall Council and the like for certain dealings in relationto three businesses in the City of Kingston. A dastardlyact has been perpetrated by a particular union againstthese three printing companies as a result of the internalfighting that has been going on in the Victorian ALPbetween Mr Bill Shorten’s faction and the faction ledby the national president, Mr Greg Sword.

The three companies concerned are Priority MailingSolutions, of Braeside in my electorate, which is owed$38 341.38; Ace Printing, of Seaford in the electorateof the member for Carrum, which is owed $10 000, andwhich I am told does quite a bit of work for theVictorian ALP; and Associated Printers, of Moorabbin,which is owed $30 911.16 for printing relating to theunion elections. I will happily make the material I havehere available to the house, so members need not raisethat issue.

I have copies of correspondence involving a gentlemanby the name of Mr Nick Church, who was the candidatefor secretary of the Australian Liquor, Hospitality andMiscellaneous Workers Union (ALHMU); Ms CathyD’Amico, who was the candidate for assistantsecretary; and Mr Ross Leo, who was the candidate forpresident. I might add that all three also work withCrown Casino, which is interesting. These three people,as part of a campaign to unseat the existing leftwing — —


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!I heard the comment made by the honourable memberfor Melton. I ask him to keep his voice down.

Mr LEIGH — I understand that the incumbentsecretary, Mr Brian Daley, is a member of the left wingof the Labor Party. When you look at the ALP web siteyou will find that the union is also an affiliate of theALP, and I am told on very good authority thatMr Church is a very significant member of the CentreUnity faction of the Victorian ALP.


GRIEVANCES


Mr LEIGH — The honourable member for Meltonknows who I am talking about. In his campaign to getelected as union secretary, Mr Church went to threedifferent companies and said to them, ‘I have thismail-out I want you to do for me’, but what he did nottell them was, ‘But I am only going to pay you if I getelected and can use union money to pay for thecampaign I am going to run’. I am told that Mr BillShorten — that great future leader of the ALP —advised Mr Church to approach Ace Printing to do thework for him.

I have spoken to all three of these printing companiesand there is no doubt that they are owed these amountsof money. Mr Church is involved with at least twocompanies which appear to be $2 companies. One is acompany called Pacific Insight Direct Marketing,which has Mr Church’s post office box number as itsaddress; and the other is called CMC AdministrativeServices, the company secretary of which appears to beMr Church. You might be interested to know,Mr Acting Speaker, and I am sure the honourablemember for Melton will be interested to know, that allMr Church’s phone numbers have been disconnected. Ihave even tried ringing him to have a chat about whathe owes the businesses in my electorate, but withoutsuccess.

I am very happy that the union movement wants tocome down to the southern suburbs — but not if itsmembers want to run their organisations by coming intothe business community in my electorate, cheatingpeople and potentially sending one of them out ofbusiness because of the large amount of money owed tohim!

Priority Mailing Solutions actually wrote to Mr Churchand received a response from — I am sure thehonourable member for Doncaster will know thisbunch — Maurice Blackburn Cashman, a firm actingon behalf of none other than Mr Church. That firmwrote on 25 July 2002 saying it wanted to be contactedby Priority Mailing Solutions as to the costs involved inwhat was going on.

I have spoken about this to some of my close friends inthe Victorian ALP, and what is clear is that a campaignis being — —

Mr Nardella — You don’t have any close friendsanywhere!

Mr LEIGH — Yes, I do. I have more friends onyour side than on my side. They want to talk to me!


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The house will come to order. The honourable memberfor Mordialloc should ignore interjections.

Mr LEIGH — Indeed, I will. I can assure the housethat I have spoken to a number of high-ranking unionofficials both this morning and yesterday afternoonabout what has been going on with this issue, and Ihave one of them chasing that company. What is worseabout Mr Church’s campaign is that AustralianWorkers Union headquarters were used as part of hisassault on the ALHMU, and AWU members’money — Mr Shorten organised it through his office —was used to help in the campaign to undermineMr Daley. The reason for that appears to be thatMr Daley is in cahoots with Mr Sword and Mr Churchis in cahoots with Mr Shorten.

What we have now in the City of Kingston is threesmall businesses in potentially diabolical troublebecause collectively they are owed almost $80 000 as aresult of a scandalous misuse of money which thecandidates did not even have because they did not winthe election. What is going on when candidates thinkthey can run up bills with three different companies tohelp them get elected and then use union members’money to pay them off?

The Minister for Small Business keeps talking abouthow the Labor government under this Premier isinterested in small business. I will be seeking hersupport on this matter because I am told she is notfactionally aligned with either of these two characters,so maybe she will be a bit more encouraged to helpthese small businesses that are suffering because of aninternal ALP game, which is a disgrace!

I will also seek support from the Minister for ConsumerAffairs because Mr Church has fraudulently attemptedto use money he did not have, and I will be taking thematter to the Minister for Police and EmergencyServices. The only telephone number I have forMr Church is the phone number of his mother. I am notprepared to ring his mother and raise the matter withher because I do not think that is appropriate, and Iknow he does not live at that address. Mr Churchsomehow has to make restitution because this is a veryserious matter that is damaging these businesses.

I say to Mr Hubbard, ‘Please fund the campaignsagainst me as much as you like’. I know three printingcompanies — and at least one of these fellows lives inmy electorate — that are very upset. What they did wassimply to operate a business and do the right thing. Onecompany told me they had no idea that Mr Church wasdealing with other companies.

GRIEVANCES


It is not just Mr Church. Cathy D’Amico, who worksfor Crown Casino, was running for the position ofassistant secretary. She knew what was going on, or sheshould have. Mr Ross Leo knew about this. He wasrunning for president and campaigning to unseat thepeople running that union. It is one of the reasons whyGreg Sword tore up the agreement between theVictorian ALP and himself, particularly the Premier’sfaction. Why? Because he saw behind the scenes theactivities of people like Mr Shorten, who is proposed asone of these great new heroes of the Victorian ALP ofthe future. If this is how a great new hero works for theLabor Party, I think it has a serious problem. Given thatMr Shorten was involved and his clones perpetratedthis — —


Mr LEIGH — Foghorn Leghorn from Meltonmight carry on about it, but his buddies — —

Mr Nardella — You are a coward!

Mr LEIGH — The honourable member forMelton’s buddies were the ones who did this. Thehonourable member for Melton is one of the factionalwarlords involved in these arrangements. He laughedwhen I said Nick Church was influential in centre unity.He either laughed because he does not think he is orbecause he lives in fear of what Mr Church might do tohim.

Mr Nardella — Ha, ha! You really are a fool.

Mr LEIGH — The honourable member can saywhat he likes, but the fact is that three businesses in mycommunity have been cheated. As a result they needsome kind of restitution. This information comes fromthe Australian Labor Party’s web site. This union is anaffiliate of the Victorian ALP. What are theycollectively doing?


Mr LEIGH — This is not something that happenedlast year or the year before. The correspondence I havedates from 5 June to 23 June this year. So we have adebt to three small businesses that is not even a yearold; it is now, it is immediate. Someone is payingMaurice Blackman Cashman to represent Mr Church.Who is it?

Who set up the $2 companies? That is what I wouldlike to know. When you look the matter up, you see thatNick Church has everything to do with them. He seemsabout to become the fall guy for what was going on.Who authorised Mr Church to go to Priority Mailing

Solutions in Braeside and say, ‘Spend $38 341 in myname’. What did we get for this money? What we gotwas the laser printing and merging of 3000 letters; thelaser printing and merging of 18 779 letters on anotheroccasion; and he did the same thing again involvingalmost 20 000 voters. This man fraudulently usedmoney he did not have to write to every member of aunion and say, ‘Vote for me’.

This is not just the responsibility of Mr Church, this isthe responsibility of the Victorian ALP — if it isserious. It is part of the games that have gone wrong inthe Labor Party, the games that did not work. It is apretty serious thing when the federal president walksout on the Premier’s faction, which is what he did. Thisis what the federal president is reported as having said:

‘There are common issues we have in the Left such as partyreform, but there is no formal long-term agreement’, he said.The ‘common issue’ is code for defeating the union boss, BillShorten, in his bid for Victorian president and the subsequentremoval of his close ally David Feeney as state secretary.

What happened? The Premier stood up and said, ‘Youcannot do this, Bill is going to be president. You cannotdo this, David is going to be state secretary’. Whathappened? Bill did not get to be president and Davidhas been dumped. What did he do? He put anothermember of the centre unity faction in his place, noneother than that new member of the Carrum elite,Mr Roland Lindell, the husband of the honourablemember for Carrum. Between the two of them they aretaking home $300 000 from the taxpayer and the rest.They are part of the new elite of Chelsea.

What are they doing? They are part of the same factionthat is destroying a local business in the member’s ownelectorate. What action has the Labor Party taken?Zero!

Mr Nardella — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, under standing order 108 the honourablemember for Mordialloc has impugned the reputation ofthe honourable member for Carrum, and I ask him towithdraw his remarks.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!It is not up to another honourable member to ask forsomething to be withdrawn on behalf of an honourablemember. If the honourable member for Carrum hadbeen in the house and had felt aggrieved she couldstand up in her place.

Mr LEIGH — Let me make a final point. I do notthink the honourable member for Carrum knowsanything about this. I do not think she is that high up inthe hierarchy, given how we lost the Dingley bypass tothe Burwood tramline. I think she is irrelevant to the

GRIEVANCES


scheme of things in the southern suburbs. I am notimpugning her as being part of it, I am saying she ispart of the factional thuggery that has led — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The honourable member’s time has expired.

United States of America: terrorist attacks

Mr SEITZ (Keilor) — I shall refer to two items inmy grievance debate, the first being to express mysympathy and support to the people of New York andAmerica and those who have suffered from thattragedy. In particular, I put on the public record thesupport of my daughter, my son-in-law and mygrandson, Adam, who live in America. Before thetragedy in New York on 11 September last year mydaughter was on an excursion to visit another friend ofmine, an American field service student we had hosted.Having family and friends we know so well there atthat time was traumatising for our family because whenI came home from Parliament House that night, whichwas very late, my wife was watching cable TV. Shehad seen the impact of the second aeroplane. Theconcern of the family was, ‘Where are our daughter,son-in-law and grandson?’.

Of course my wife waited for the right time totelephone America to find out if they were safe. As Godwould have it, our daughter had left New York earlier.It was common for people who visited New York topay a visit to the twin towers, and she was at the twintowers on an excursion two days before. I understandand express my sympathy and hope that the Americanpeople can get on with their lives and progress into thefuture. It is a tragedy for all those involved.

Former government: recordMr SEITZ (Keilor) —

The second matter I raise is the subject of the LiberalParty and former Liberal ministers telling untruths andtrying to rewrite history. The holocaust created by theVictorian Liberal government of seven years with theslash, burn, destroy psychology that existed at that timehas left the Bracks government in the position where ithas to repair the damage, and we are continuing to doso.

Seven years of such atrocities on the people of Victoriatakes a long time to repair. I am not talking from aneconomic sense but when one looks at the creation ofthe City of Brimbank, which is part of my electorate,one sees that it is debt ridden. Before the election of thatLiberal government the City of Keilor, which was themajor part of the state seat of Keilor, was financially inthe black — not in debt. We had seven years of no

progress and no development: it was a process ofpaying off debts and selling of properties and assets sothat the city could survive and there could be economicprogress.

Today in the media former ministers and othermembers of the current opposition are trying to restatehistory. The truth has to be said again and again aboutwhat happened in 1992 when Labor lost government inVictoria. In my electorate the electrification of the trainline to Sydenham was stopped. Funds were availablefrom the federal and state governments but the projectdisappeared. The progress of schools disappeared,hospital staff disappeared, waiting lists increased,police numbers disappeared and even with the policestation that was being built in my electorate under aLabor government the incoming Premier threatened thecontractors and builders, saying that anybody whosigned a contract with the Labor government wouldhave that contract dishonoured — that is, it would notbe agreed to. Again we had to fight for and defend thethings that were already started by contractors, such asbuilding a police station in Keilor Downs, to developthe needs of the community.

Those items have to be stressed again and again.Members of the media, particularly in my electorate —I will draw attention to my involvement in politics inthe first place — are today being confused because theyhave forgotten by not reading history. My involvementstarted when the then federal member Reg Pollard wasdefeated in exactly the same sort of climate that is beingcreated now through lies, falsehoods and dishonesty.St Albans and part of Keilor ended up beingrepresented by a gentleman representing the LiberalParty by the name of Mervyn Lee. I then became veryactive because that was not acceptable — progress wasnot taking place and nothing was happening in my area.We were still waiting to have sewerage connected tomy house and for a road to be built, let alone busservices and the other needs we had as a growingcommunity.

Today I warn the people of St Albans and the westernsuburbs generally not to be fooled by the Liberal Partypropaganda because the western suburbs cannot affordthe luxury of the return of a Liberal government orLiberal Party in any sense at any level of government,community organisation or representation because theyare not there for the people — they are there to take theresources away from the people in the western suburbs,as has been the case in the past.

History has proven that, and I invite in particular thelocal journalists to research the history and be wary ofwhat they write and what they accept as fact or how

GRIEVANCES


they portray history and not to be gullible and swallowuntruths that are dished up to them by the Liberal Partymachine and the so-called Independents who say, ‘Weare not involved; we are not members of the LiberalParty’. We know the Liberal Party rules. You can beendorsed as a Liberal Party candidate without being amember — you just become a member the day after.These processes have been followed before.

I looked at the situation since the Bracks governmenthas been in power, particularly in my region. I will nottalk about the western region because I am theconvenor of the western region politicians group. Justin my area, including the surrounding districts, we havea new junior campus for Copperfield SecondaryCollege, a large benefit for the growth area ofSydenham — thanks to the honourable member forMelton, who worked hard to achieve that outcome, plusa grant for a primary school in that area. A secondschool will now be built, and that is just one example.We also have new resources and initiatives for localTAFE colleges, again something over $6 million thatVictoria University has spent developing its bigprojects in the St Albans district.

Those things do not get front-page headlines in thelocal media. When the Premier comes out to open up abuilding we get a tiny little line on about page 4 or5 because journalists seem to be swallowing theuntruths being peddled by the Liberal Party, not only tojournalists but also in Liberal Party circles, their clubsand organisations, the bastions of the Liberalestablishment like the RACV, the racecoursefraternities and the various other Liberal networkswhere they peddle their untruths. I wish those people inbusiness, who are supposed to be honourable people,would bother to look and check the truth before theysimply pass information on and continue with theuntruths being peddled around.

An allocation of $4.5 million has been made for a newprimary school in Gourlay Road, Hillside — commonlyknown as Melton West — and there will be newhard-court tennis courts at Gilson College as well asextensions for Holy Eucharist school. Kings ParkPrimary School will get new classrooms and TaylorsLakes Secondary College will get a library upgrade.

In transport $2.24 million is allocated for two new busroutes for St Albans, Hillside and Deer Park;$30 million for electrification of the railway fromSt Albans to Sydenham; money for the Sunshine Roadduplication; $5.5 million for safety barriers on theWestern Ring Road; $242 000 for the old CalderHighway resurfacing; and $20 million for duplicationof the Melton–Keilor highway. The list just goes on. In

its short period in office the Bracks government hastried to repair the damage left in the west of Melbourneby the former Liberal government. The wounds are sobig they will take a long time to heal.

In the health portfolio $193 000 has been allocated tothe Western Drug Service for its Saving Livesinitiative; $275 000 for St Albans drug rehabilitationservice; $1.2 million for better school dental servicesand $44 million for the redevelopment of SunshineHospital to introduce 24-hour emergency care. Healthis one of the areas that was absolutely slashed anddestroyed, and pensioners and people on welfarepayments in my area were very concerned about thenews on the radio all the time about waiting lists:12 months to wait, 18 months to have a hipreplacement — all those issues were of great concern.

Let’s remind the media of the truth of what happenedunder the former government. The destruction tookseven years, so it will take some time to repair it and forthe people to realise, understand and accept what hashappened.

Nine new dental chairs have been provided forSt Albans at the dental hospital in addition to the one atthe St Albans Community Health Centre, making atotal of 10 dental chairs for people on welfare paymentsin our district. These are commitments by the Bracksgovernment to repair the damage created by theprevious Liberal government.

It is important that our new young journos, who do nothave time and who are underpaid and work withinsufficient resources to do the research properly andcorrectly, should not believe and peddle in their papersand on the radio and elsewhere the stories fed to themby the Liberal Party and their quasi in-closetsupporters — particularly during the sudden emergenceof a Liberal Party in St Albans that is not game enoughto come out and say that it is part of the Liberal Party orthat its members are Liberal Party members. They arehiding behind various facades.

I have seen it all before, such as when Reg Pollard, thefederal member for Lalor, was defeated and St Albanswas lost to the Liberal Party. We cannot afford thatluxury. I urge the people to open up their eyes and havea good look because the businesses are supporting someof those media outlets by placing great bigadvertisements. They should look at the idea again. Iremember that in the past papers folded up once thepublic realised and their eyes were opened, becausethose papers were then not able to sell their goods andproducts and people did not advertise in those papersany longer.

GRIEVANCES


For the disadvantaged there is a new Freeza musicprogram, another new project development, for theyoung people in Brimbank; and 96 new public housingunits, a matter totally ignored by the former Liberalgovernment. We heard Liberal members speakingbefore about housing needs. It has taken a Bracks Laborgovernment to repair the damage, and a number ofyears will be needed to catch up after the neglect ofseven dark, dim years of Liberal government with itsslash, burn and destroy mentality that existed then andseems still to be in the back of the minds of some of theLiberal Party members currently in this chamber.

In the area of job creation in our electorates, since theBracks government came into power a large number ofjobs have been created. We have recently had aprogram in Footscray celebrating the number of jobseekers to have been placed into employment, morethan 1000 people, which is a tremendous effort by thatparticular group. The group said, ‘Yes, we will putpeople into jobs’. It is a very important campaign andagain possible only under a Labor government. Itwould never have happened under the formergovernment.

We must be vigilant at all times to inform ourcommunity of the facts. The facts are that we cannotafford or even contemplate the luxury of going back tothose dim, dark ages of a Liberal regime in Victoria.The people of the western suburbs know what theysuffered then and are more educated now. They will nottolerate again the things that happened in the sevenyears they spent under the former Liberal government,with the total destruction of a society and a community.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The honourable member’s time has expired.


Mr PLOWMAN (Benambra) — I feel compelled tojoin the grievance debate this morning, particularlyafter having listened to and following the honourablemember for Keilor. I am concerned to bring to thehouse’s attention the seriousness of the drought that isspreading right across this state. What worries me aboutthis most serious issue is that metropolitan members ofthe government like the honourable member for Keilordo not understand and are not even prepared to look atwhat is happening out in country Victoria.

I am asking the state government to open its eyes, and Iam also asking it to open the purse strings. Thissituation is getting serious. It is imperative that the stategovernment declare drought affected those areas ofVictoria where it is too late — where the crops have

already failed and where people are selling their herdsand selling their sheep or shooting them.

There are areas in northern and central Victoria thathave never been drier since records have been kept. Irefer to a map in the Herald Sun of 8 Septembershowing the extent of this drought across Victoria. Thedarkest area, which covers 25 per cent of the state, hasnever been drier in 100 years of record keeping. Theslightly lighter area is in the lowest 11 to 30 per cent ofwinter rainfall ranges. That shows how widespread thisdrought is across Victoria. There are areas of this state,as I said, where the crops are dead. There are manymore areas where crops are so short that you would notbe able to put a harvester through them.

The other concern I have is that although in my area ofthe state there is still time for rain, things are so dry thatunless we get substantial rainfall all of the state north ofthe Divide will be in drought by the end of this monthor early the following month. The darkest patch on themap, which includes the area that has never been driersince records have been kept, extends into Gippslandand up to Sale. In south-western Victoria, thankgoodness, there are some areas that are still getting verygood rainfall, and the same is true in south-easternSouth Australia; but north of the Divide every area isdry, much of it at record levels.

Twenty per cent of the state of Queensland, which is anenormous area, has already been declared droughtaffected. In New South Wales, 82 per cent of the stateis drought affected, and much of that has been declared.In Victoria wheat yields are predicted to be down by36 per cent, barley yields by 41 per cent, and canolayields by 46 per cent. This is indicative of a shortage ofgrain to feed livestock.

Mr Maughan interjected.

Mr PLOWMAN — As my friend the honourablemember for Rodney indicates, these levels are falling.For every week that goes by without rain, thosepredicted levels are falling.

In some areas sheep are selling for as low as 20 cents ahead, and in other cases — and I have been through thismyself — farmers are being forced to shoot their sheep.The major dams of Hume and Eildon are respectively26 per cent and 23 per cent full. That is a true indicatorof the extent of the drought in Victoria and its grip onthe higher rainfall areas as well as the lower rainfallareas.

Melbourne’s water supply storages sit precariously on53 per cent, and it will not be long before that leveldrops to the point where restrictions will have to be

GRIEVANCES


imposed. Even the fire season has started. In some areasthere have been minor bushfires even before the end ofwinter. I have never before seen that in my lifetime.

There is also a growing problem with the starvingkangaroos and emus that are roaming looking for feed,causing increased danger on our roads. Members onboth sides of the house should be particularly carefulwhen they drive out on country roads at night time,because there are a greater number of animals aroundnow, particularly kangaroos, and this is creating a realproblem.

The trauma that is drought affects everyone. Allcountry communities are being affected by the droughtas it gets worse. A classic and sad case of that is theyoung schoolboy who was in tears and had to be givencounselling and assistance because his father wasshooting the livestock on his farm. Having gonethrough that, luckily not with young childrenwitnessing it, I can understand the difficulty thatfamilies have. It is not just financial; it is that wholefeeling that you cannot beat it. It is a very emotionaland unhappy time for farming families.

We are now starting to see dust storms that I do notthink we have seen since the drought of 1982. The othernight my car was covered in a brown film after a lightrainfall which carried a lot of Mallee or westernVictorian dust. In my 40 years of farming I have neverseen it worse at this time of the year. The drought of1982 is the worst drought I have been through, but atthis time of year I have never seen it as bad as it is rightacross Victoria. It is very serious. But what is thegovernment doing about it? Nothing!

The Premier of this state visited Kerang for a fewhours. His footsteps are in the sand up there, but hishead is in the sand down here.

Mr Helper — Doom!

Mr PLOWMAN — It is doom. I accept theinterjection from the honourable member for Ripon,and he should know just how serious this is. He islaughing about the impact of this — he says ‘doom’. Itis doom for some families; it is certainly not alaughable situation.

It is extraordinary that this government will not evenallow its members or the public service to use the word‘drought’. It is a drought; everyone in those areas of thestate realises the seriousness of this impending drought.How can you rename the drought committee ofVictoria the dry seasonal conditions task force and beserious about it? It is a drought; it is not just badseasonal conditions. To think that any difference is

going to be made by changing the word ‘drought’ in thedrought committee to ‘seasonal conditions’ is justabhorrent to me.

You have a classic situation, and the honourablemember for Rodney would be well aware of this, wherein Moama you have a drought declared yet 50 to100 metres south, in Echuca, you are met with the totalindifference of this government.

Mr Dixon — Stunts!

Mr PLOWMAN — It is purely a stunt when thePremier goes up to have a look at Kerang and then fliesback again. How many of the honourable members ofthat side of the house were there with him to see forthemselves how serious it is?

Mr Maughan — Let’s ask them. How many wentup?

Mr PLOWMAN — Through the Chair, can I askthat question: how many of the honourable members onthat side of the house have been up to inspect thosedrought areas?

An Honourable Member — Zero.

Mr PLOWMAN — It is zero.

Ms Beattie — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, the honourable member for Benambra knowsfull well that you do not ask questions now; questiontime is for asking questions.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!I do not uphold the point of order.

Mr PLOWMAN — One of the sad things aboutthis is that you have a drought declared in New SouthWales and assistance given to those farmers, and 50 to100 metres south you have farmers that are not in adrought — no drought declaration and no assistance —who have to compete with their neighbours over theriver who are getting assistance. Think about it. Thinkabout our country towns that are not getting assistance.It is not just the farmers; it is all those people who livein those country towns.

We have a government here that at the last electionmade the proud claim that it was going to representcountry Victoria better. I promise that just at themoment it certainly is not. A look at the Agepoll showsthe view of the people out there is that this governmentis forgetting those responsibilities and the promises itmade at the last election, but I can tell the house that theelectors will not.

SPORTS EVENT TICKETING (FAIR ACCESS) BILL


The other major inequity at this stage — and it is agreat inequity — is that while our farmers are starvingfor water this government has gone about the stunt, asthe honourable member for Dromana put it, of turningwater down the Snowy River. It is a stunt. All thosefarmers who are desperate for water in the Murray andMurrumbidgee areas of New South Wales, and all thosefarmers in the Goulburn area who are even moredesperate, are going to be denied water that is currentlybeing turned down the Snowy, where there is not adrought. There is no drought in that area of Victoria,and that water cannot even be used for irrigation; it isgoing to end up in the sea.

Why was that done now, when this state is facing theworst drought in my memory, and certainly in thehistory of Victoria? How can that much-needed waterbe turned down the Snowy by this government forpolitical advantage when farmers in the north of thisstate and in the Goulburn Valley desperately need thatwater to keep their farms alive and to keep theirlivestock alive? Hopefully this stunt will be reversed.Hopefully this government will recognise that this issheer folly. Hopefully it will turn off that tap and allowall the water possible, which should be flowing downthe Murray system, to get down to those farmers.Hopefully it will understand how serious this is forVictoria.

This issue is divisive. At times of drought governmentsshould be pulling communities together and helpingthem through their time of hardship. I call on thegovernment to use all the unspent money for the fasttrains project, which has come to nothing, and allow theRural Finance Corporation to act, to bid for those fundsand use them wisely on behalf of all farmers. Thissituation is serious. The Minister for Agriculturerealises how serious it is, but the Premier is carrying outstunts and the Treasurer is keeping the purse stringswell and truly tied.

The very serious question has been asked of me, ‘Howmany suicides will it take in country Victoria for thisgovernment to realise the seriousness of the droughtconditions in the state?’. I have seen this happen in mylifetime. How long will it take for the government tochange its policy on this very vital issue for countryVictoria and declare a drought over those areas whichare irreparable — where the crops will never grow andthe livestock have to be shot or sold for as little as20 cents a head? This is the most serious problemfacing Victoria, and this government is treating it withindifference.


Mr LANGUILLER (Sunshine) — I grieve todayabout the tragic events that occurred in New York on11 September last year. I particularly grieve about themany Australians who were there. Amongst those whoperished were several strangers united by a commonthread, Australians who did not come home.

Question agreed to.

SPORTS EVENT TICKETING (FAIRACCESS) BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 14 May; motion ofMr PANDAZOPOULOS (Minister for Gaming).

Government amendments circulated byMr PANDAZOPOULOS (Minister for Gaming)pursuant to sessional orders.

Mr BAILLIEU (Hawthorn) — Here we are at thestart of the spring sitting and the first item on thegovernment’s agenda is the Sports Event Ticketing(Fair Access) Bill, otherwise known as the Dream OnBill. This bill is a symbol of the Bracks government. Itis now being debated after three and a half years ofbluster, but it will not produce a result. The LiberalParty will not oppose the bill because it does not think itwill achieve anything. More than that, we do not thinkit will be used. I can foresee the day when the bill willbe repealed because it is redundant legislation that willnot have served any purpose other than occupy the timeof the house and involve the expenditure of a fair bit ofmoney and bluster along the way.

The purpose of the bill is to oppose ticket scalping atsporting events. Clause 1 states in part:

… to maximise access by members of the public to tickets tocertain sports events …

So we are maximising public access to sporting events.The reality is that this bill is one of the policy dogs leftover from the last election and those dogs have comeback to bite the government. It is a promise made inopposition to opportunistically secure the support ofsome people at a time when the then opposition neverexpected to be in government, but it is left with its ownpolicy and wants to go to the next election after puttinga ticket beside that box and saying, ‘We didsomething’ — and this is what Labor has done. Wehave got all con and no content; all spin and nosubstance; all sham and no reality. Everyone in theevents industry knows the bill is a joke. Everybody in



the events industry knows the process which has seenits preparation and consideration has been a joke. Whosays this bill is a joke? Who is the one person we oughtto acknowledge who says that this bill is a sham? Noneother than the Premier himself.

Yesterday on 3AW the Premier admitted to theVictorian public that this bill will not apply to thisyear’s AFL Grand Final and that it is unlikely to applyto any sporting events other than possibly a grand finalin the future and that it would have no power to controlactivities beyond the state border, despite the circulatedamendments. Perhaps the greatest irony is that thePremier admitted that the value-added packaging ofgrand final tickets by AFL clubs would be okay.Essentially the Premier was telling the Victorian peoplethat the no. 1 piece of legislation for the spring sessionof Parliament is a useless piece of legislation.

The history of the bill is that in 1999 the Labor Partyhad an election policy to do something about ticketscalping. In 2000 it set up a hotline to do somethingabout ticket scalping. In 2001 it prepared a discussionpaper to do something about ticket scalping, and in theautumn session of 2002 legislation was introduced todo something about ticket scalping. I refer to the sportsminister’s press release at the time and the sense ofurgency that he implied in the press release that thislegislation would solve the problems of the world.Nothing could be further from the truth.

The second-reading speech refers to hallmark events,major sporting events and prescribed major events asbeing the target of this legislation but, as the Premieradmitted yesterday, it is likely to only ever apply to afuture grand final and even then there is a maybe. Wehave had three and a half years of talking about doingsomething about ticket scalping but there has been noaction. The bill was finally introduced in the middle ofthe autumn sittings but it did not proceed and there wasno further discussion.

The stated purpose of the bill is:… to maximise access by members of the public to tickets tocertain sports events …

Now here we are: are we coming up to an election, andare the footy finals on? Yes, they are and this bill issuddenly no. 1 on the notice paper and we are debatingit. This has obviously been timed for no other purposethan to attract attention during the footy finals and seekpublicity in the run-up to the election. We saw that startin a media article on the weekend.

The fascinating thing about this bill is that it requires aminimum of nine months notice before any event can

be the subject of this legislation. After three years ofgovernment the best Labor can do is come up with abill which requires nine months notice — and here weare, it seems, just a few months from an election!

The bill requires the sports minister to ‘declare’ anevent to which this legislation will apply and it requiresthe promoter of a declared event to have thegovernment approve its ticketing system. I note that thevery generous amendments which have been circulatedprovide an opportunity for promoters to ask theminister to declare an event. Event organisers all overVictoria will be rushing to ask the minister to declare anevent so the government can approve their ticketingsystem — people will be knocked over in the rush!

The reality is that there is no similar legislationanywhere in the world. According to the briefing theopposition was given by the department officers duringthe autumn sittings, any arrangements undertakenelsewhere in the world have been unsuccessful inpreventing ticket scalping. The industry has simplylaughed at this bill and said it is unworkable — peoplehave said the pleasant things — and they will not say sopublicly because they do not want to offend thegovernment.

This bill cannot and will not apply to this year’sfootball finals and it will not apply to the grand final. Itcannot and will not apply to this year’s Melbourne Cup;nor does Racing Victoria think it should apply to theMelbourne Cup. It will not apply to the AustralianOpen or the grand prix. In fact, it seems that it will notapply to any event before the election. It cannot applyto the Davis Cup because Davis Cup ties are arrangedwithin a nine-month framework. It is unlikely to everapply to the Bledisloe Cup because of the internationalnature of that event. In reality this is just another Bracksexercise in all spin and no delivery.

Furthermore, this bill does not and cannot apply tointerstate events. If it is applied to a national footballcompetition there will be a serious question mark overthe ticketing system of interstate finals and interstateclubs which would not otherwise be affected. There isno jurisdiction over international or interstate actions.The amendments which have been circulated have themost limited capacity to control any actions of aninterstate nature.

Given that the purpose of this bill is ‘to maximiseaccess by members of the public to tickets to certainsports events’ and given that the question of venue sizewas raised significantly in the discussion paper,ironically there is no capacity in this bill to force therelocation of a game to a bigger venue to maximise



access. How many times have we heard footy fanscomplain about being stuck at Docklands stadium whena game should be held at the Melbourne CricketGround? That is what maximising access would beabout.

Perhaps the biggest irony is that the bill includespowers of inspection. It gives government inspectorsthe power to walk into a sporting club or sports eventorganiser’s premises and do just about anything. Thegovernment inspectors will be able to walk into a footyclub in Victoria and demand to see the books — theywill be able to demand to see absolutely anything.

Sitting suspended 1.00 p.m. until 2.02 p.m.

Mr BAILLIEU — We wondered whether we werehaving quarter-time or half-time in this debate.

Mr Robinson interjected.

Mr BAILLIEU — No, we were having fun here,waiting for you. We assumed you were outside sellingtickets to be here. This was your chance! Unfortunatelysupply has outstripped demand.

As I was saying before the luncheon break, one of theironies of this bill is that its stated purpose is tomaximise access by members of the public to certainsports events, but of course, and rightly so, the bill doesnot contemplate requiring the relocation of games fromsmall stadiums to big stadiums. Switching games fromColonial Stadium to the Melbourne Cricket Ground ismuch talked about not only because of the merits of theMCG but because of the size of the stadium. Onewould have thought that if the government were seriousit would have at least struck some arrangement with theAustralian Football League or the relevant sportingvenues to assist in such relocations on a more regularbasis, being mindful that they do occasionally occur.

One of the other great ironies of this bill is that it givesauthorised officers the right to enter the premises ofsporting clubs, venue managers or event organisers andprovides them with a full range of inspection powers, tothe extent that those inspectors can look at the books.They can look at just about anything they may requireto look at. The irony is that those powers are greaterthan the powers which would have been afforded to thefederal employment advocate, whose presence on theMCG redevelopment was rejected by this government.The government is obviously happy to have thosepowers for one purpose but not for a purpose for whichthere is a real use. It is a tragedy for the people ofVictoria that some $90 million has been lost as aconsequence of that action by the government in failing

to embrace the federal government’s offer to assist inthe redevelopment of the MCG.

The application of this piece of legislation, as I saidbefore the luncheon break, was conceded by thePremier yesterday when he spoke on 3AW and said thatit will effectively have no application whatsoever to anyevent other than possibly a grand final. It will not bethis year’s grand final and it certainly would not havebeen any grand final so far conducted under the regimeof the Bracks government. If it were to be applied tonext year’s grand final we would have to have adeclaration by December. We will wait and see whetherthere is such a declaration.

The further irony is that for the next three years thegrand final, which is scheduled to be at the MCG, isgoing to be subject to reduced capacity because of thedemolition and construction of the new stands at theground. As I understand it capacity will be down fromsome 96 000 to 75 000 or 80 000 during theconstruction period, so there will be even less ability toinfluence ticket sales at that time because most of thetickets will be accounted for in advance of the sales justbecause of the tickets that go to the clubs in theordinary scheme of things.

Some aspects of this legislation are patently absurd.The administrative costs of requiring the names of allauthorised ticket sellers, and that will run to every ticketseller at Ticketek or elsewhere, to be registered will beridiculous.

Ultimately this legislation depends on two things: theminister declaring an event and the minister approvinga ticket scheme. That leads to combinations. Theminister can declare an event and then not approve ascheme or the minister can declare an event andapprove a scheme or he can choose to not declare andin the process not approve. But if a minister declares anevent and approves a ticketing scheme that currentlyexists the reality is that nothing has been achieved, andthat is likely to be the outcome of this legislation.

In the event that the minister does declare an event, andit is certainly debatable whether that will occur, thechances are the minister will simply be approving ascheme that is already in place. The government doesnot want to rock the boat — and I will come in a minuteto some commentaries from industry members — and,as the Premier has already told Victorians, there is onlyone event that it looks like this will apply to, and theconsequence of that will be that the price of the ticketswill go up. If the event is declared and a ticketingsystem is approved, the chances are the price will besubstantially more. That has been acknowledged in the



discussion paper, which was released in July 2001, andI want to make some comments about that. The conceptwe are dealing with here is neatly outlined on page 9:

Whatever the form scalping takes, it is considered asinevitable where demand for tickets exceeds the number oftickets available. In such circumstances promoters need tofind mechanisms to ration demand or increase supply: forexample, scheduling additional concerts or moving the eventto a larger venue.

That is the concept I was talking about. It goes on tosay:

In some instances such as the AFL grand final it is notpossible to increase supply, so alternative measures to rationdemand are needed. Price is generally considered an effectivemeans to ration demand. Thus, for example, tickets for theopening ceremony at the Sydney Olympics —

obviously one of the more popular events at theOlympics —

and for the most popular events were substantially moreexpensive than for less popular events.

This is a simple equation involving supply, demand andprice. Where there is a property right attached to thepurchase of a ticket it is almost impossible to preventthe further on-selling of any ticket by an individual andthere will be a price on the demand for those tickets, sothe chances are that the price will go up.

Earlier I said a view was expressed during the briefingsthat no other regulation or systems had operatedsuccessfully anywhere else in the world, even thoughthose systems are outlined in the discussion paper. TheUnited States of America example is referred to. I quotefrom page 28:

However, as outlined previously in this paper, the USexperience indicates that regulating ticket brokers and thepricing of tickets does not necessarily reduce the incidence ofscalping or moderate clandestine ticketing distributionpractices.

Again that is a confirmation of the folly of thislegislation, particularly when you assign this folly to thepotential for only one event to be dealt with under thelegislation. Further, on page 31:

Formalising and regulating ticket brokering in the USAappears to have failed to manage the well-organised andcovert actions of scalpers.

That is simply a reality. The discussion paper alsomakes a couple of other commentaries on thisproposition, one of which I quote from page 29:

The disadvantage of legislation is that the costs ofadministration together with the resources required to pursueand prosecute cases may outweigh potential publicbenefits …

Another negative impact of legislation could be to drive thepractice of scalping further underground, forcing resale priceshigher and making exposure and monitoring as problematicas prosecution.

There is also a myth attached to this concept ofanti-scalping legislation. It is a myth associated with theviability of Australian Football League clubs, giventhat, by the Premier’s own remarks, we have reducedthis to a discussion about the grand final. There is aview that expensive media rights have salvaged AFLclubs across Australia. Nothing could be further fromthe truth. A number of clubs are still sufferingfinancially. The acquisition of expensive media rightsdeals has not led to the increased viability of thoseclubs. The AFL has commented on this. I quote from aletter from the AFL addressed to a colleague in theother house, which states:

The legislation has the potential to severely impact on allclubs but particularly the Victorian clubs.

The revenue from finals tickets is critical to the financialviability of our clubs and given the financial pressure manyare now facing and which we are supporting via a specialfinancial assistance fund it is not inconceivable that someVictorian clubs could be forced out of business if finals ticketrevenue is significantly impacted upon by the proposedlegislation.

The proposed legislation is unworkable on three counts:

1. Six of our clubs are based outside Victoria and wouldnot be subject to the legislation.

2. Once tickets to a major event are sold, there can be nocontrol over what the purchaser does with those tickets.

3. Why will a Victorian club not enter into some form of ajoint venture with a non-Victorian club?

They are just some small examples of the situationfacing those AFL clubs. The notion that expensivemedia rights have delivered financial salvation to AFLclubs is nonsense. As many of us know, some of thoseclubs are still very much threatened.

As I said before, this depends on the declaration and theapproval. The Premier has conceded that it is likely tobe only the one event. If that event is declared it will befor next year’s grand final. It will be for a reducedcapacity of between 75 000 and 80 000. The price oftickets for that event will go up, and the governmentwill have no choice but to approve the ticketing schemeof the AFL because it cannot contemplate imposingconditions on a ticketing system which would leaveVictorian clubs at a disadvantage compared withinterstate clubs. It is just further evidence of thenonsense of this legislation. Effectively nothing will beachieved as a consequence.



I refer to a further comment from Tennis Australia.While acknowledging it would be nice to have someanti-scalping proposals, that organisation does not thinkthere is any purpose in those proposals applying to theAustralian Open. Indeed it is critical of some aspects ofthe legislation detail and notes that it could not possiblyapply to the Davis Cup, even though those ticketswould be in great demand. It also comments that thedefinition of ‘public’ in the legislation seems to be veryfuzzy at best because access to the public is part of thepurpose, so the definition of public ought to be defined.Tennis Australia had this to say:

At the forum we asked for public to be defined, as this is theclear focus of the bill, but this has not been included. We needsome reassurance that we will all have the same objectives forthe success of the event. For example, in the interests ofencouraging tourism to Victoria we make a reasonablenumber of tickets available to Qantas and selected othertourism operators, which are then packaged, but are naturallyavailable to any member of the public to purchase andconsequently should be considered public access.

Indeed anyone who goes to an event is a member of thepublic, and it is hard to conceive otherwise.

A further briefing with the AFL led to the commentsthat this legislation, if declared and if a ticketingscheme other than the one proposed by the AFL isrequired before approval is given, has the potential toforce two or three Victorian clubs to go to the wall andticket prices will go up remarkably. The rhetoricalquestion is asked by the AFL: how does the ministersee Victorian clubs surviving under this legislation?

Why has this legislation taken so long to get here? Ithas taken the better part of three years. The reality isthat the government knows it cannot afford to have animpact on the only event that it now sees as targeted bythis legislation — the grand final — and it cannotafford to have an impact on Victorian clubs. Thislegislation is a folly but, as I said earlier, the chances ofit ever being implemented are slim.

What will it apply to? It will not apply to the otherfooty finals — which brings into question the notion ofseries tickets — or to the Melbourne Cup, the grandprix or the Australian Open or Davis Cup tennistournaments.

The question has to be asked: is it to apply to the rugbyWorld Cup next year? If it is, that declaration will haveto happen very soon. If the government seeks to imposea declaration on the rugby World Cup, it should watchout, because the International Rugby Union (IRU) is avery sophisticated body, and if requirements are put onits ticketing schemes which are adverse or contrary to

its own proposals, the chances are that Melbourne willlose rugby World Cup events.

If the government does declare those events, I bet it willsimply be an approval of the schemes that have alreadybeen put up by the IRU and its organising committee.Will it apply to the Commonwealth Games? Thechances of it having an impact on the games are slimbecause with the games supply invariably outstripsdemand. The ultimate irony is: we have a minister whowill be doing the declaring and the approving. Youhave to ask yourself: how many times in his illustriousfootball career has the minister himself sold on tickets?

Ultimately the opposition is not opposed to this bill. Itdoes not see it as having any material impact onanybody, because it will not be used that way. Youhave to ask yourself: if this is the No. 1 item on thegovernment’s agenda for the spring sittings, what is itall about? Then you have to ask yourself: what will theBracks government be remembered for when it passesinto the abyss? This sort of phoney legislation — whichdoes nothing but appear to do something — willprobably be the abiding memory of the Bracksgovernment.

Mr MAUGHAN (Rodney) — Victorians’ love ofsport — any sport — is well known and welldocumented and is a very important part of our way oflife. Many people would suggest that in Victoriansociety if you cannot discuss the footy, the cricket orthe races, you are functionally illiterate. I think that issomewhere near the mark. I think we all take a greatdeal of interest in the footy, the cricket or whateversporting events are on, and they provide for a great dealof conversation between people.


Mr MAUGHAN — Perhaps that is another sportthat could be introduced.

Melbourne is rightly regarded as the sporting capital ofthe world. To see that one only has to go through anumber of the sporting icons that are located in thiscity, perhaps starting with the venues for the OlympicGames that it hosted in 1956. I have to declare that as avery young man I attended every day of the athleticscontest at the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG). Iremember it very clearly. It was a great coup forMelbourne at that time. The MCG is the mecca ofAustralian Rules football, the home of the AustralianFootball League (AFL) grand final and, as has recentlycome out, the ground that Don Bradman considered tobe the best of any he played on anywhere around theworld.



An Honourable Member — Our Don!

Mr MAUGHAN — Our Don. It was his ground.The MCG is an icon, and people from all over Australiaand from other parts of the world aspire to attend majorsporting functions there, such as the AFL grand final,the subject of the legislation we are discussing today.

At this stage I do not want to get into an argumentabout who will win the grand final, but will declare thatI have a very vested interest in Collingwood and that,along with some of my colleagues, I am absolutelydelighted to see that they are still in there with a chance.Come on the Magpies!

Melbourne is also mad about tennis. It has themagnificent National Tennis Centre which stages theAustralian Open, where the world’s best tennis playerscome each year. We have the Melbourne Cup, whichalso attracts people from other parts of Australia and theworld. We also stage the Bledisloe Cup, and of coursewe will ultimately have the Commonwealth Games —all of which supports my contention that Melbourne isthe sporting capital of the world and that Australians,particularly Victorians, are sports mad and veryinterested in sporting events.

I would argue that practically all the events that Imentioned are sell-outs as demand exceeds supply. Asthe events become more popular, the problem ofdemand exceeding supply will be exacerbated. Thatincludes demand by international visitors, who comehere for a whole range of reasons. Many of them areinitially attracted by our sporting activities but they thengo on to travel around the state and other parts ofAustralia, staying in our hotels and visiting restaurantsand adding to Victoria’s economic activity. That alsoapplies to interstate visitors.

The demand from corporations for tickets to all of themajor sporting events is evidence of what is becomingan increasingly popular way of corporate life. Thecorporations buy large numbers of tickets to the eventsto entertain their clients. It is a sensible way ofentertaining and showing some hospitality to clients inthe hope of doing business with them, or alternatively,rewarding them for their business over the years.

The point I make is that demand is exceeding supply,and that people are prepared to pay the premium fortickets to avoid the hassle of queuing up to securetickets and so on. That is a fact of life.

It goes without saying that it is also a fact of life that thegrowth in corporate and tourist markets reduces thenumber of seats available to the general public. In hiscontribution the honourable member for Hawthorn

talked about the number of seats available to thegeneral public, the people who, week after week, followthe game — and I am talking about football now — andtheir clubs, making Australian Rules football thespectacle that it is. As more and more tickets go to thecorporate and tourist markets they are finding itincreasingly difficult to get tickets.

Many of those people who would like to go to thefootball when their team gets into the grand final arepriced out of the market because they cannot afford orare unwilling to pay the price the tickets arecommanding. I make the point that the excess ofdemand over supply is what creates the market forscalpers.

What do we mean when we talk about scalping? I haveread a number of definitions over the past couple ofmonths and the best one says that scalping essentiallymeans the unauthorised onselling of tickets to sports orentertainment events at a price well above the facevalue of the ticket. I think we are all agreed that that iswhat scalping is.

I was fascinated to read that the scalping market in theUnited States with its much bigger economy — notnecessarily bigger sporting events but more popularsporting events in the sense of the number of peoplewith money who want to attend — is estimated to beworth US$20 billion, which is a huge market. Some ofthe top US operators earn US$300 000 per annum byplying their trade of scalping. It is a big trade there;obviously Australia has nothing of that scale, but itshows what can be achieved in a large economy.

The discussion paper put out by the government andreleased early in July gives some good examples ofwhat scalping is about, and I will quote a couple ofthem. The first one is from the discussion paper, and itstates:

I have been sent a flyer from a restaurant in East Melbourne.A grand final reserve seat, two-course lunch, beer, wine,spirits, official football record. $750 per person.

The person concerned says that essentially that means aseat at the footy would cost $600. Another examplesays:

My neighbour offered me four tickets for $750–$1000 each.

She goes on to say that she was not going to pay thatamount but was sure that somebody else in thecorporate market would. There are plenty of otherexamples, such as:

Rang 1300 number in paper, AFL Grand Final tickets forsale, new seats being released, all major credit cards accepted.



Thought it must have been Ticketek or something, but it wasa scalper, and he wants $600 each for his tickets and he’s gotheaps.

The final one I will quote states:… looked in the paper for grand final tickets, rang a mobilenumber, met him in the city. Paid $1400 for them and don’tthink they are legit.

Some people out there are vulnerable: to pay $1400 fora ticket and not be sure they are legit! He continues:

They look just like paper, the three tickets have the samebarcode …

They are some examples of what scalping is about andthe price range of tickets in Melbourne.

The second thing I want to quote from in the discussionpaper concerns evidence regarding the reselling oronselling of AFL Grand Final tickets, and I think this iswhere most of the problems occur. People desperatelywant to get to the AFL Grand Final. It is a marvellousevent and we would all love to be there, but we cannotbecause the ground is limited to its capacity of 100 000or thereabouts. The discussion paper states:

The primary source of resold AFL Grand Final ticketsappears to be the AFL clubs themselves. It is estimated thatbetween 1000 and 5600 AFL Grand Final tickets were madeavailable, on the secondary market in August 2000, at anaverage price of $500 each.

Again, that gives some idea of the profit to be obtainedby scalping.

The discussion paper essentially posed a number ofquestions, including, ‘Does Victoria need a code ofconduct for ticketing agencies and their contractedclients?’ and ‘Should such a code of conduct bevoluntary or legalised?’. It is fair to say that there arearguments both for and against those questions, andmany of them appear in the discussion paper.

The arguments against legislative controls — and theyare essentially coming from the league clubsthemselves — are that, firstly, scalping is a traditionalfeature of major sporting events; it adds colour andinterest to the event — and I agree with that; it does noharm; there should be a free market for people todispose of any excess tickets or tickets they are unableto use; and that legislative controls are impractical.

Mr Tony Peek, the AFL’s corporate affairs manager,argues:

It doesn’t matter whether it’s a ticket to the Australian Openor the AFL Grand Final, once person A sells a ticket toperson B then what happens to that ticket, how you controlthat, is beyond anybody’s capacity to come up with a systemthat regulates it.

Essentially he is arguing that it is simply not possible toproperly regulate scalping.

Those who argue for legislative controls are essentiallyled by the government in order to implement one of itspre-election commitments. In passing, I say that at leastthis is one of its pre-election commitments it is doingsomething about keeping. Many others wereexpendable, such as saving the Waverley Park footballstadium. The promise was, ‘Only Labor has a plan tosave Waverley as a football venue’. What happened tothat promise? I don’t see footy being played there at themoment.

Another promise was, ‘Victorian Labor will soon bereleasing details of how we can protect AFL footy inVictoria and produce a huge income stream for theAFL’ — that was the ill-fated Footybet — meaning thatthey can earn income and keep Waverley Park. Thatwording was on a petition circulated by the formerMinister for Major Projects and Tourism prior to theelection, in his role as shadow minister for sport andrecreation. I am pleased that the government isimplementing at least some of those pre-electionpromises.

The arguments in favour of any legislative control arethat scalping is not victimless and the victims are theordinary fans who are unable to access the majorsporting events at a price that is acceptable to them.

They also argue that it is the athletes, the performers,the producers, the promoters and the investors whocreate the event, whatever it is, in the first place whoare entitled to keep any rewards, not the speculators. Inphilosophical terms I agree with that notion. They alsoargue that there is a risk of bogus tickets being printed,and we saw that in the example given in the discussionpaper.

The final argument — and I do not have a great deal ofsympathy with this one — is that the tax office ismissing out on revenue. I do not think we want to shedtoo many tears over the tax office, but I mention inpassing that the GST is going to catch up with thescalpers who are dealing in cash because the moneythey get from scalping is of no value to them until theycome to spend it, and at that stage the GST catches upwith them. In that sense there are some benefits to theGST.

I congratulate Sport and Recreation Victoria on theproduction of the discussion paper. It is excellent andcanvasses half a dozen legislative options. I will not gothrough all of them. It is fair and reasonable and putsthe arguments for both sides. It invites comment, and I



noticed that in his second-reading speech the ministersaid amongst other things that the response had beendisappointing. He said there had been few responses,little new information or insight and no evidence todemonstrate how the reselling of tickets for sportingevents was in the public interest or in the interests of thesport. It would appear that there was no demand forlegislation to deal with scalping, otherwise I wouldsuggest we would have heard about it from the ministerduring the discussions that have been held.

The National Party was disappointed with the responseit got from the industry. My colleague the HonourableRon Best in the other place mailed a copy of the billand the second-reading speech to all AustralianFootball League clubs and the AFL itself in about themiddle of May, but he received only three responses.The St Kilda Football Club responded promptly on3 June, the West Coast Eagles Football Club respondedon 5 June and the AFL’s response turned up a matter ofdays ago.

The National Party was disappointed with the lack ofresponse it got from the people who are going to bemost affected by the legislation. National Partymembers can only conclude that, apart from St Kildaand West Coast, the AFL clubs are not greatlyinterested in the legislation currently before the house,legislation that has the potential to seriouslycompromise the way clubs operate. I would havethought the clubs would be concerned at some of thedraconian powers the legislation will give to inspectors.

As I said, the National Party got three responses, and Iwill quote from them. The first was from the St KildaFootball Club and states:

It is of great concern to us that the St Kilda Football Club maylose some or all of its rights to sell AFL final series tickets. Inparticular, we are concerned that the minister would beentitled to publish guidelines … that will restrict such saleswithout any opportunity for public comment or review. Thisis tantamount to a quasi-legislative power without properreview or debate.

In light of this, we strongly request that the bill be amendedby including at least one of the following provisions —

and it sets out three provisions that it would like to seeincluded.

In its letter of 5 June the West Coast Eagles FootballClub says:

The bill is vague and general and … might also have thecapacity of allowing governments to take actions which arenot currently intended.

Of specific concern to us … is the ability to package grandfinal tickets that are allocated to the club with other clubactivities.

Its final comment is:

If the packaging component of the ticketing arrangement wasattacked to the extent that it forced unbundling of packageelements we would face significant income implications.

That sentiment is shared by most of the other clubs, andI wonder why they have not put their concerns inwriting.

Those concerns are summed up in the letter receivedfrom the AFL, signed by Mr Tony Peek, the generalmanager, corporate affairs and communications. Hesays:

During the past 12–18 months we have consistently advisedthe government via the minister … the legislation has thepotential to severely impact on all clubs but particularly theVictorian clubs.

He continues:

The proposed legislation is unworkable on three counts.

He spells out the three reasons why he believes it isunworkable. He talks about the draconian provisionsfor inspectors to enter the premises of AFL clubs andsays:

At a time when state governments are competing to attractnational and international sporting events, this legislationintroduces a confusing and unnecessary regulation and sendsa message that the Victorian government may choose to playpolitics with sporting events in Melbourne.

The AFL believes that all clubs, particularlyMelbourne-based clubs, have the right to be part of the finalsseries excitement. The grand final is Australia’s premiersporting event, which attracts millions of dollars to the localeconomy and in which the whole of Melbourne participates.To introduce legislation that punishes Victorian clubs forparticipating in fundraising activities around the grand final isheavy handed and short sighted.

That is what the AFL clubs think about the legislation,but what does the National Party think about it? TheNational Party argues that there is no demonstrablepublic demand for the legislation. It argues that it isintrusive, it interferes with the running of the AFL andit gives enormous powers to inspectors.

The National Party also argues that the Laborgovernment is being hypocritical because on the onehand it did not want anything to do with federalinspectors being on the Melbourne Cricket Groundredevelopment site but on the other hand under its newsports event ticketing legislation it is proposing to grant



exactly the same powers to inspectors to go into AFLclubs.

We would argue that it does not stop people scalpingtickets to Victorian events if they happen to live inSydney, Brisbane or elsewhere. We do not think it willachieve its objective, and in that sense it is not unlikethe ill-fated footy tipping competition, which iscertainly not achieving its objectives. We pose aquestion to the minister as to whether the legislationapplies to AFL clubs in other states.

The previous Labor government attempted to passlegislation to restrict scalping and failed. Thisgovernment went to the last election promising toaddress the issues associated with the sale of tickets tothe AFL Grand Final, and hence this legislation threeyears later. The government is bringing it in on what Isuggest is the eve of an election. It wants to tick offsome of the promises it made so it can say, ‘Yes, wehave done this one and we have done that one’. It hasnot done any of the major ones but it has done all thesefiddly things that may or may not work so it can say,‘Yes, we can tick off this one and tick off that’, and Ithink that is what all this is about. We would argue thatthere is no strident demand from the public for thislegislation. It is hardly earth shattering. It is certainlynot a life or death issue.

I note with interest that the government can find thetime and resources to introduce and debate thislegislation to regulate scalping, but it cannot bring itselfto assist farmers to deal with the terrible drought we arefacing at the moment. It is the worst drought in livingmemory and it cannot bring itself to do somethingabout that, or even to say the word! It can bring inlegislation to deal with the very important issue ofticket scalping, but it cannot bring itself to reducekangaroo numbers, which are causing enormousdistress not only to the farming community but tomotorists. I think the Royal Automobile Club ofVictoria reckoned that kangaroos were its greatestsource of claims — about 1300 claims last year fordeath and injury caused by hitting kangaroos. Thegovernment cannot bring itself to deal with that but itcan bring in this very important legislation to deal withthis no. 1 item, the very important crime of ticketscalping. Isn’t it terrible?

The government cannot find the time to properlyconsult with the timber cutters in the box-ironbarkforest, the people I represent around Heathcote andRushworth. The government will not talk with them butbrings in a package whereby those people who haveworked in the forest for years have a matter of about

10 days to take the package or be kicked out of theforest.

The government has the time to do that but has not gotthe time to attend to some of those other major issues.But hallelujah the government is prepared to step in anddeal with this terrible social issue of scalping.

An Honourable Member — Except it won’t.

Mr MAUGHAN — Except it won’t, that is right,and we have said that. Meanwhile the problemscontinue to escalate and we cannot do anything aboutthem. We say that the legislation is vague, that it posesmore questions than it answers, and that it isunnecessary and is not wanted by the AFL clubs.Finally, we say there is no documented evidence that itis wanted by consumers. However, we will not opposethe legislation — —

Mr Nardella — Ah!

Mr MAUGHAN — Let me explain why: because itwas part of the government’s election policy, but wewill have more to say when the legislation is debated inthe upper house.

Ms BEATTIE (Tullamarine) — As the honourablemember for Rodney rightly said, this bill delivers onone of the Bracks Labor government’s promises, alongwith the $98 million Craigieburn electrification,the $4 million Macedon Street bridge, the duplicationof Pascoe Vale Road, the Craigieburn bypass, the$8.3 million integrated health centre in the electorate ofMacedon, an extra 3000 teachers and 3000 nurses andmore than 800 extra police. I could go on about theBracks government delivering on its promises but Ihave not time for that.

The honourable member for Hawthorn, while makinghis boring old joke about this being a dog of a bill — Ithink I will buy him a joke book for Christmas, becausehe has done that one to death — says this bill is notneeded. That goes to the heart of the difference betweenthe government and the opposition because he believesthe bill is not needed. However, this is a bill for thegeneral public, not just for the top end of town wherethe honourable member for Hawthorn comes from. Thehonourable member does not understand the notion of afair go. He thinks if you put your hand in your pocketand can pay enough you can get anything you want, yetthat actually encourages scalpers. This bill is about afair go for everybody, not just for the top end of town.

The minister has lost patience with major eventsorganisers. As I said, the discussion paper and thelegislation is about a fair go. The government gave the



Australian Football League and other major eventsorganisers more than a year to come up with anindustry code of conduct, and they could not. Wewanted to provide fair and transparent ticketing. Theminister talked to industry for nine months about thatvoluntary code, but some rogue sections of thecommunity were not prepared to change. That is whywe have had to bring in this bill as well as make thepromises.

The bill is about to crack down on scalpers and we willhave new laws governing major sports events inVictoria. It will make organisers provide fair andtransparent access to ticket sales and force organisers toprovide the minister with the names of authorised ticketsellers and distributors. It will allow the minister toissue guidelines on individual events. It will also applypenalties, which I will go into because they are rathersevere. The corporate scalpers face up to $300 000 infines. As the honourable member for Rodney said,scalpers can make a lot of money out of reselling oron-selling tickets. These are not people who have a fewexcess tickets; these are people who are profiteering ina huge way. Corporate scalpers face a $300 000 fineand individuals can face up to $60 000 fines for eachevent.

It is about the definition of a major event. A ministermay consider a sports event as major, and it isappropriate that he can declare the event for thepurposes of the proposed act. The minister may notifythe event organisers not less than nine months beforethe event is to be held and that he intends to declare itan event. If the minister declares the event, a copy ofthe declaration must be published in the VictoriaGovernment Gazette.

As I said, time limits us, and I know others want tospeak on this bill. It is a good bill because it willprevent profiteering through the making of money outof an event for which, as has been said before, demandoutstrips supply. We will see that in the AFL GrandFinal when Collingwood is there and the Collingwoodarmy comes out, as it does every year. I am talkingabout next year, because we will get back-to-backpremierships and will have to declare that event! Thebill will stop that profiteering; it will stop some AFLclubs making money out of clubs less fortunate thanthemselves. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr KOTSIRAS (Bulleen) — It is with pleasure thatI take part in this debate. I do so with the understandingthat something has to be done in relation to thedistribution of tickets, especially for the AustralianFootball League (AFL) Grand Final, but this bill is all

show with very little substance. The bill looks good onthe outside, but if you look at its details, there are none.

This is the bill we had to have, because when inopposition this government promised it would dosomething about AFL tickets. The main purpose of thisbill is to maximise access by members of the public totickets to certain sporting events. Why now? It isbecause, as we all know, we are going to an earlyelection and the AFL Grand Final is approaching.Although this will not apply to this year’s grand final Ithink the government’s public relations unit thinks it isa good exercise to show that the government isattempting to do something about it.

An article in the Age of 26 September 2001, under theheading ‘Supporters the victims of legal scalping on agrand scale’, states:

Someone I know has lived all her life in Melbourne, but neverbeen to the football, doesn’t follow either Essendon orBrisbane and, in fact, doesn’t follow football … But herhusband works for a company that has a commercialarrangement with an AFL club, so she is going to the grandfinal.

Others who are not regular match goers and have only a looseattachment to the game, and none to the grand finalists, willalso be there because they ‘won’ tickets from radio stationsthat simultaneously broadcast the wailing of long-timeEssendon members who have missed out.

Once again the supporters remain out in the cold. Thishappens every year, every time. Constituents havecome to see me complaining that they are unable toobtain tickets; however, when they turn up to theMelbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) people are eagerlyselling those tickets at anything between $500 to $1000each.

Ticket scalping is the unauthorised onselling of ticketsto sporting or entertainment events at a price above theface value of the ticket. Naturally this can be viableonly if the event is popular and there is a huge demandfor tickets. Normally the scalpers stand outside thevenue such as the MCG or place advertisements innewspapers — or in these days on the Internet. Otherways that scalpers acquire these tickets includehigh-speed phone technology, using mail ordersystems, insider trading, purchasing multiplememberships to be used in clubs, employing people toqueue and purchasing tickets from fans.

In relation to the AFL, research has found that theproblem has been with the ticket distributionpractices — the way tickets are allocated tonon-competing clubs who may then sell the tickets at ahigher price. Some will agree that ticket scalping is partof the tradition of major events, and that it supports a



free market and enables the selling of tickets at marketprices. Those who are of this opinion feel that if you tryto regulate the industry you would be attempting pricefixing and would drive those people furtherunderground, that it would add to the cost ofadministration and enforcement and that it would notenable the fans who bought tickets to onsell them ifthey were unable to attend.

They also find it difficult to see how with this bill astate government could regulate a national competition.Victorian clubs would be under financial pressures andVictoria would be placed at a competitive disadvantageso that a major event might go to Queensland or NewSouth Wales rather than Victoria. All these are fairconcerns. Unfortunately I do not think this bill takes upthese issues, and that is why I think there will be furtheramendments in years to come.

On the other hand there are those who believe thatticket scalping has no place in our community. I believethe public should be given a fair go. Members of thepublic should have the opportunity to purchase ticketsfor major events in Victoria and not have to payenormous amounts for this right. True and loyal fansshould not be allowed to miss out.

Our current system, which provides access to qualityseating on the basis of how much money one has and isat the expense of the true football fans, should not betolerated. Getting access to tickets by unfair means atthe original point of sale should also not be tolerated.On many occasions I have seen people who havemissed out feeling so desperate that they have beenprepared to pay anything just to secure some tickets.

I will read from a report on ticket distribution practicesin the United States of America, which is headed WhyCan’t I Get Tickets?:

This problem is not simply the result of the law of supply anddemand. Rather, the availability of tickets and theoutrageously high — and illegal — prices that brokerscharge, to a large extent, can be laid at the door of illicitpractices in the ticket industry and other practices that,although possibly not unlawful, are deceptive, unfair to theticket-buying public and supportive of the corrupt ticketdistribution system.

…

Indeed, Billy Joel stated in a recent interview that he would infact stop doing live concerts because the system did notpermit the ‘real fans’ access to tickets.

He announced that he was going to stop touring in partbecause:

‘I am tired of being part of the rip-off.

…

The brokers that drive the prices up are ripping me offbecause I’m not getting the money … and they’reripping off the customer because the customer wants theticket and they know that the market will bear a certainprice’.

At the end of the day it is, unfortunately, the loyal fansand families who miss out. We therefore need laws toprotect the public and to provide penalties against thosewho try to take advantage of sporting fans simply tosatisfy their own greed.

We need to ensure that loyal fans are not priced out ofbeing able to attend sporting events. In Americascalping is a $20 billion industry, and if we allow it tocontinue here it will also become an integral part of ourmajor events.

In recent times scalpers have been active at the 2002World Cup soccer final, the 2000 Sydney OlympicGames, the United States Masters Golf Tournamentand the baseball finals series in New York. Closer tohome, between 1000 and 5000 Australian FootballLeague Grand Final tickets were sold in 2000 forapproximately $500 each.

That is unacceptable and should be stopped for anumber of reasons: there is a high risk that peoplepurchasing fake and worthless tickets for up to $500 or$1000 will not in the end be able to watch what theyhave paid for; it results in a loss of public confidence inmajor events; and revenue is lost by performers andorganisers, not to mention the Australian TaxationOffice.

The bill attempts to alleviate some of these problems,but it fails because despite taking three years it wasdrafted too quickly simply because we are approachingan election and because the AFL Grand Final is nearlyupon us. Under the bill certain events will be declaredmajor events, thereby requiring the organisers topresent their ticketing proposals for approval by theMinister for Sport and Recreation.


Mr KOTSIRAS — There aren’t any, because thiswill not come into effect until next year, so the AFLwill miss out this year.

The bill will ensure that organisers provide fair accessto tickets and that ticket sales are transparent, and it willinsist that organisers provide the names of authorisedticket sellers and distributors. The bill will applypenalties of $60 000 to individuals and $300 000 tocorporations involved in the unauthorised sale oftickets.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: TERRORIST ATTACKS


Under the bill officers of corporations found to havebreached the ticketing laws will face individual chargesand inspectors will be able to apply for search warrants.While the bill attempts to solve these problems, it doesnot go far enough and, as I said, we will probably needto have the legislation amended in the years to come.

This bill looks good on the outside, but it has nosubstance on the inside. It was brought in simplybecause we are approaching an election and because theAFL Grand Final is almost upon us. Imagine what willhappen if it is a Collingwood–Essendon grand final!There will not be enough tickets to go around and loyalfans will miss out once again.

The government sits there with its good spin doctorswho can put out the message and talk it up, but at theend of the day they cannot deliver substance in this bill.I hope the amendments will be made soon.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr LANGUILLER(Sunshine).

Debate adjourned until later this day.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders asvaried by resolution of the house.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:TERRORIST ATTACKS


That, remembering all those who tragically died a year agotoday in the United States of America, this house reaffirms itsdeepest sympathy with all those who suffered as a result ofsuch horrifying terrorist attacks.

Motion agreed to in silence, honourable membersshowing unanimous agreement by standing in their placesfor 1 minute.

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

The SPEAKER — Order! It gives me greatpleasure to welcome to our gallery today theHonourable Rob Kerin, the Leader of the Oppositionand former Premier of South Australia. Welcome toyou, Sir.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE


Mr DOYLE (Leader of the Opposition) — Does thePremier agree with the Victorian Farmers Federationthat a quarter of Victoria is now in drought?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I thank the Leader ofthe Opposition for his question. As most honourablemembers probably know, a dry seasonal conditions taskforce has now been established. That goes to the veryheart of the question which was raised, which referredto the Victorian Farmers Federation, and the VFF is apart of that group which will be assessing theconditions — —

Mr Mulder interjected.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Polwarth is interjecting in a manner which is notacceptable to the Chair. I ask him to desist.

Mr BRACKS — The Victorian Farmers Federationwill be part of the group assessing the conditions whichmust exist if a drought is to be declared. I will quote thewords of an authority in the past on the appropriatemeasures to be taken in assessing whether a drought isto be declared or not. This quote goes back to April1997 and it says:

It was the creation of state and territory governments, togetherwith the federal government, which thrashed out the issuesaround the table in a variety of forums, after which policieswere agreed upon. It was the sensible thing to do because itbenchmarked the process upon which assistance can be madeavailable … We are in the process of satisfying the variouscriteria needed to establish exceptional circumstances. If thatcan be done, it will trigger a number of mechanisms that willbring in the assistance that is needed.

These are the very words of the current Leader of theNational Party, speaking at the table in April 1997. Ihave to say that the Leader of the National Party isabsolutely correct on that matter. He was correct thenand he is correct now.

I am glad the question has been asked because thegovernment is obviously currently assessing whetherthose conditions exist for drought conditions to bedeclared. As some honourable members of this houseknow, the declaration of a drought is a very importantand profound matter because it goes to the verysustainability of those farms. Once the federal and stategovernments together declare a drought zone, they arereally saying that assistance is required and those farmsare under question and no longer viable.



In outlining the procedures we have taken, I am pleasedto say that the Minister for Agriculture, with theVictorian Farmers Federation, the Rural FinanceCorporation and others, is overseeing a system to assessthose matters.

It goes also to a response made by the local VictorianFarmers Federation in the area which is currently themost affected by dry conditions, and that isNormanville. It goes to the point that was raised by theLeader of the Opposition where he said in a mediarelease on 5 September 2002 — and I am quoting fromthe VFF in the region where we went to see droughtconditions:

We are extremely disgusted with the manner in which theNational Party leader Mr Peter Ryan and Liberal Party leaderMr Robert Doyle viewed the Premier Mr Bracks andagriculture minister Mr Keith Hamilton’s visit to Kerang as apolitical media stunt.

It goes on to say — I will quote one more matter, and Iknow I have to be succinct — —


The SPEAKER — Order! The government bencheswill come to order!

Mr Doyle — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, thequestion, unlike the answer so far, is very clear andsimple. Does the Premier agree that there is a droughtor not? It is a very simple question.


The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of theOpposition is clearly not taking a point of order. Thereis no point of order. However, I remind the Premier thatsessional orders require succinctness, and I ask him toconclude his answer.

Mr BRACKS — Thank you for that advice,Mr Speaker, and I will conclude on this matter. Themedia release goes on to say — and this is a very tellingpoint:

The Liberal and National parties have never offered to comeand visit our area first hand.


The SPEAKER — Order! I ask all honourablemembers of the house to come to order!

Mr BRACKS — A drought will be declared whenthe conditions meet the exceptional circumstances. Thecriteria for that have been set by federal and statejurisdictions and reaffirmed by the National Party

leader previously. It is a very important matter onwhich the government will seek advice: we have anexpert committee doing that. The answer to thequestion will be that which is delivered by the taskforce which is charged with that responsibility.


Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — I referto the Premier’s comment on ABC radio on Mondaymorning of this week, and I quote:

It is a very, very serious matter to declare a drought.

After the Premier’s visit to a drought-affected farm inKerang last week, are we to assume that he deducedthat the situation was not very, very serious?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I thank the Leader ofthe National Party for his question. I can report to thehouse that certainly in that region it is serious for twoparticular reasons: firstly, the water catchments aredown; and secondly, there has been no rainfallsubsequent to significant investment being made bysome farmers which has been sunk and lost because norainfall followed up those crops in the first place. It isserious, and that is why we have the Victorian FarmersFederation and others who will be advising us on thatvery matter before those exceptional circumstances aremet.

As the National Party leader would know, the criteria todeclare a drought are very strict and onerous. TheNational Party leader knows that; he knows that in hisheart of hearts. He made that clear in 1997 instatements he made publicly. Despite that, even if thoseconditions are not met technically, and they may not be,we will provide necessary assistance and support as astate government unilaterally. We will not wait for thefederal government. We have said we would do that,and certainly the visit I undertook reinforced a need forthat.


Mr HOLDING (Springvale) — Will the Premierinform the house how the government and allVictorians are commemorating the anniversary of11 September and outline what action the governmentis taking to help reduce the risk of such terrorist attackshere?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I thank the honourablemember for Springvale for his question. We can all beproud in this house of the response of the Victorianpublic to the anniversary of what was a dreadfulterrorism attack on the United States of America and



therefore on the friends of the United States, includingAustralia. We can be proud that Victorians respondedto the call to commemorate one year on the dreadfulevents of 11 September last year by schools observing aminute’s silence, which was recommended by allschools in Victoria. I thank the school principals andschool councils for working with the state governmentto adhere to that.

In all public buildings in Victoria flags will be flown athalf-mast for the remainder of today in commemorationof those tragic events of 12 months ago. The call forVictorians to turn their lights on for 10 minutes at 8.47this morning was heeded by a large number ofVictorians. Certainly police, firefighters, ambulanceworkers, state government officials and key privatesector companies and citizens of Victoria responded tothat call. I thank them very much for what they havedone in observing what is an important anniversary ofan event that has changed the world and our response tosuch events for all time to come.

Also this morning, with other members of this house Iattended an interfaith service at St Paul’s Cathedral. Iknow that as we are sitting here in Parliament there hasalso been a commemoration service going on atSt Patrick’s Cathedral. I know many other MPs haveattended other services around the state, including theLeader of the National Party, who attended one in hisregion. I thank all honourable members for beinginvolved in those events. It is important that we notonly appropriately commemorate what is a profoundevent but also look to what we can do to build toleranceand further peace into the future.

I shall briefly go to some major efforts the governmenthas undertaken in Victoria to learn lessons from theevents of 11 September last year in relation to terrorismand attacks on facilities which could happen in Victoriaand other parts of Australia. The disaster plan —Victoria has had one of the best disaster plans of anystate or territory government in Australia — has beenre-examined and updated to take account of potentialsabotage and terrorism. That work has been ongoing forthe past 12 months and has now concluded.

Secondly, a historic agreement was reached betweenstate and territory leaders and the Prime Minister at theCouncil of Australian Governments on the measuresthat can be taken against terrorism activity in ourcountry, preparedness for terrorism and transnationalcrime.

Thirdly, a number of bills will be introduced in thissitting of Parliament, including a new bill relating tosaboteurs and sabotage, that will effectively mean there

will be new penalties in place for any attack on publicfacilities in Victoria, and those attacks will be punishedby stiff penalties and stiff sentences. New powers tosearch for weapons will be introduced during thissitting of Parliament.

Fourthly, we have had a comprehensive examination ofall security of supply issues. Importantly and usefullyfor Victoria, the last time there was an examination ofsecurity supply issues was after the gas disaster atLongford. We have done that again following theterrorism threat to the United States last year, and thathas been undertaken in all essential services such asgas, water, electricity and transport.

Finally, I can report to the house that a successfulfull-scale exercise on counter-terrorism was undertakenin Victoria in conjunction with the commonwealthgovernment. That exercise trialled the emergencyresponse system in Victoria with the Victoria Policeand other key government agencies and emergencyservices. It was a very successful exercise. It will nowgo to the commonwealth as part of an examination ofour capacity across the nation. I was pleased thatVictoria responded extremely well and was able torespond in a superior way to a similar exercise earlierthis year.


Mr DOYLE (Leader of the Opposition) — I referthe Premier to his answer to the Leader of the NationalParty and ask: is the Premier aware that the New SouthWales Labor government has provided access tosubsidies of up to 50 per cent for drought-affectedfarmers, and will the Premier immediately andunilaterally provide the same assistance for Victoriandrought-affected farmers as he has just promised?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — As I indicated to theLeader of the National Party, and I will affirm again,we are not waiting for the commonwealth on thesearrangements because we know the consequences.


Mr BRACKS — You used to; you used to wait. Weknow the consequences to certain farming areas ofVictoria of waiting for those emergency circumstancesto be adhered to. Therefore we will be seeking adviceon the best possible course of action to take for thosefarmers who are having difficulty with drier conditions.The measures taken in New South Wales are notnecessarily the correct ones for Victoria — notnecessarily. In fact what has happened is — —

Mr Doyle — So you are ruling them out, then?



Mr BRACKS — You don’t know, you have neverbeen there.

What has happened in certain circumstances is that theprice of fodder and other things has gone up because ofthe New South Wales measures. They are notnecessarily the measures we will take in Victoria. Infact I have heard directly from farming communitiesacross Victoria that there are other measures that couldbe taken, and the National Party leader agrees with me,whilst the Leader of the Opposition does not because hedoes not understand the issue. I can accept that there issome understanding from the Leader of the NationalParty, but there is nil from the Liberal Party here inVictoria.

We will continue working with the task forceestablished and continue to take advice. That advicewill go to the forms of assistance required, which willnot, I stress, necessarily be the same as those employedin New South Wales.

Hospitals: infection control

Mr VINEY (Frankston East) — Will the Ministerfor Health advise the house of the latest action thegovernment is taking to improve the quality of patientcare in the public hospital system and explain why thishas been necessary?

Mr THWAITES (Minister for Health) — I thankthe honourable member for Frankston East for hisquestion. I am very pleased to advise the house that theBracks government has established the new Victorianhospital acquired infection surveillance centre, knownas Vicniss. That $3 million centre will have the job ofreducing hospital-acquired infections such as goldenstaph and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE),which can cause great damage and distress to patientsand readmissions to hospital.

The new Vicniss system will collect data on infectionrates from the various hospitals. It will do that at thebedside. Then it will provide the support andinformation necessary for hospitals to improve theirinfection control practices. This infection controlstrategy builds upon the extra positions we have put infor nurses who are experts in infection control. Wehave put extra infection control nurses across thehospital system to reduce infection.

Honourable members opposite try to dismiss qualityissues; but they are absolutely fundamental if we aregoing to do what is necessary for our patients. In orderto improve the quality of care we have to have seniorand expert nurses who are able to educate, manage andmentor other nurses. That is why this government, the

Bracks government, has employed a net extra3300 nurses.

The honourable member asked why the governmenthas had to take this action. It is because it has had toclean up the mess the other side left. It is because theprevious Liberal government cut 2000 nurses from ourhospital system. As the report into the RoyalMelbourne Hospital by the independent HealthServices Commissioner says about the previousgovernment:

There had been an undue emphasis on commercial viability atthe expense of considerations of quality of care.

She went on — —


Mr THWAITES — The independent HealthServices Commissioner’s report says, and I quote:

Resource constraints during the latter part of the 1990s atRoyal Melbourne Hospital had a serious adverse impact onnursing services. High workloads, exposure to stressfulsituations, poor roster and shiftwork arrangements, combinedwith a reduction in staff support positions, contributed to lowstaff morale and a drop in standards.

She goes on:

More recently budgets have been improved to address theseproblems but full recovery will take time.

That is what we are on about.

The opposition promises to cut taxes, but how it is itgoing to pay for that? Another 2000 nurses sacked?Another 12 hospitals closed across the system? Theshadow minister admitted on TV that he got it wrongwith nursing. He admitted that. But who was runningthe show at the time? Who was the assistant healthminister? The now Leader of the Opposition! Who wasthe chief of staff? The now shadow minister!


The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the house to ceaseinterjecting. I advise the minister that under sessionalorder 3 he is required to be succinct, and I ask him toconclude his answer.

Mr THWAITES — I am very pleased that we aretaking the action — —


The SPEAKER — Order! The minister, concludinghis answer.




Mr THWAITES — I am happy to have a debate —at any time.


The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the honourablemember for Doncaster to cease interjecting. I ask theminister to cease responding to those interjections.

Mr THWAITES — I am very pleased that we havebeen able to put back these 3300 extra nurses who canprovide better quality of care and continue to reduce therisk of infection in our hospitals.

Cardinia Primary School

Ms DAVIES (Gippsland West) — My question isfor the Minister for Education and Training. CardiniaPrimary School has been allocated funds for itslong-awaited upgrade, but these will not cover the costof the second classroom to which the school is entitled.When will the government provide this much-neededclassroom and the necessary realignment of portableson the site?

Ms KOSKY (Minister for Education andTraining) — I thank the honourable member forGippsland West for her question. I did, during theparliamentary break, go down and visit CardiniaPrimary School. I spoke with the school principal, theteachers, the parents and also with the school councilpresident, and indeed the honourable member forGippsland West was there during that visit. I had anopportunity to see the facilities down in that area, and Imust say that the people there have struggled over thelast eight years. They got very little under the previousgovernment. They got very small amounts of money.We have, under our major capital works program,provided $500 000 for a new classroom facility as wellas additional facilities.

I had further conversations with the honourablemember for Gippsland West and also with the schoolcouncil president, and there has also beencorrespondence. I sought further information from thedepartment about the entitlement of the school. I caninform the honourable member for Gippsland West thatwe have made a decision to provide additional fundingfor a second classroom, which is within its entitlement.


Mr Phillips — Even Susan is not surprised!

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Eltham!

Mr Phillips — Ask her why she is not surprised.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Eltham will find himself outside the chamber.

Mr Maclellan interjected.

The SPEAKER — Order! Similarly the honourablemember for Pakenham!

Ms KOSKY — And certainly that secondclassroom is within the school’s entitlement. When Inoticed that other schools in the area had receivedmajor capital works, it was my view that we needed toprovide that extra — —

Ms Davies — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Iseek your guidance. I would really like to hear theminister’s response, and I really cannot hear it.


The SPEAKER — Order! I have asked the house toquieten down. A point of order has been taken that anhonourable member cannot hear. The Chair is havingdifficulty in hearing the minister. I will not hesitate tostart using sessional order 10 to restore order to thechamber.

Ms KOSKY — So we can indeed provide that extramuch-needed facility within the school’s entitlementand will realign the portables as a result.

I should say that the reason we have been able to do thisis because of the amount of additional funding we haveprovided for capital works — $880 million into capitalworks — since we have come into government: that is,one in every three schools is getting access to majorcapital works in this state.

I should also say that in the almost three years that wehave been in government we have provided more thandouble the funding for capital works that the previousgovernment provided in the same period —$822 million compared with just over $300 million. SoI am very pleased to be able to inform the honourablemember for Gippsland West that we will be providingthe extra classroom within the school’s facilities, but wecan do so because of the investment we have made ineducation in this state.

Central City Studios: Docklands tender

Mr DOYLE (Leader of the Opposition) — I ask thePremier what security the government has demandedfor its loan to Central City Studios, and will the Premierguarantee that the government is not putting more than$40 million into the project?



Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I thank the Leader ofthe Opposition for his question. We are examining thecontractual and probity issues with the final tenderer forthe project. Once they are finalised, those matters willbe released and announced. We did commit as agovernment to a $40 million contribution to a studiowith the private sector. That remains the commitment.

Schools: retention rates

Mr HARDMAN (Seymour) — I have a questionfor the Minister for Education and Training, who isreceiving accolades from right across the educationcommunity at the moment. I ask the minister to informthe house about the government’s recent initiatives toimprove school retention rates and to explain why theseinitiatives have been needed.

Ms KOSKY (Minister for Education andTraining) — I thank the honourable member forSeymour for his question. As some in this house will beaware, retention rates have been increasing under theBracks government. In fact, they have increased rightacross schools — they were at 85.3 per cent as ofFebruary 2002 — and are increasing in governmentschools as well. Years 7–12 retention rates haveincreased to 80.7 per cent. This is 4 per cent higher thanwhen we came into office; 4 per cent more students arestaying on to the commencement of year 12. Under theprevious government we saw a slide of 8 per cent in theretention rate. So retention rates were going downunder the previous government, and under thisgovernment they are increasing. We are very proud ofthat.

We are also narrowing the gap in regional Victoria. Wenarrowed it with a 2.2 per cent increase last year. It hasimproved for girls, it has improved for boys, it hasimproved across government schools and acrossnon-government schools, and it is improving in ruraland regional Victoria. But of course this has nothappened just by accident. It has happened because as agovernment we made a major investment in thosecritical years in secondary schooling. After we cameinto office we put in $65 million over a four-year periodto improve post-compulsory education and trainingpathways. Just last week I announced an extra$47.7 million for the new Victorian certificate ofapplied learning, which was in the budget that camedown earlier this year. That is almost an additional$50 million for the new Victorian certificate of appliedlearning, which will provide another pathway for youngpeople in years 11 and 12.

In the last budget we also committed over $165 millionfor the middle years initiatives, which are around

access, excellence and innovation. We have made thisinvestment so that we can have additional teachersworking with students in our classrooms as well as newprograms. Through these programs, from the beginningof next year there will be 925 extra teachers ingovernment schools. This comes on top of the3000 extra teachers and staff we have already put intoour schools. But of course we had to do this, becausethe previous government decimated education, with9000 teachers sacked from the system. What isinteresting if you look at that cut of 9000 teachers isthat cuts happened every year under the previousgovernment. Every year we saw cuts across the state,and they occurred in regional and rural Victoria andalso in metropolitan Melbourne. They slowed downaround 1996 — isn’t that interesting? — but theprevious government continued to cut.

This government has put an additional $2.75 billioninto education since it came to office because it believeseducation is so important and because it made acommitment to improve literacy and numeracystandards in our schools and to improve retention rates.

The question is what would the opposition do nexttime. We read in its ad just last weekend that ‘practicalsolutions are just as important’.

Mr Perton — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, theminister is debating the question. She has also reachedthe 5-minute mark, which is your definition ofexceeding the succinctness requirement.

Mr Batchelor — On the point of order, Mr Speaker,the minister was responding directly to the questionasked. She was asked to comment on recent initiativesand explain why those initiatives have to be taken. Sheis answering that in its entirety and is entitled to do that.

The SPEAKER — Order! I am not prepared touphold the point of order at this point in time, but Iremind the minister that she must not debate thequestion.

Ms KOSKY — So the suggestion is that practicalsolutions are just as important and it is not only abouthow much governments spend, it is also about whetherthe community benefits. This is Doyle-speak for cuts toeducation — sacking teachers and closing schools. Thequestion is of course what would the opposition do inits policies. What is its intention? Is it going to cuttaxes? Is it going to cut teacher numbers and closeschools? The public should know, and we would like toknow as well.



The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the minister tocome back to answering the question. She hasconcluded her answer.


Dr DEAN (Berwick) — I refer the Premier to thefact that six months after it was chosen as the preferredtenderer for the Docklands studio project and at thedeadline set by his government Central City Studioshad no builder for the project, had no financier for theproject, had no guarantee of operating capital and owedup to $1 million to creditors, and I ask: will he assurethe people of Victoria that the firm to which he is aboutto pass over $40 million of taxpayers’ money was andis currently solvent?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I thank the honourablemember for his question. We have spent six monthsexamining this project because we want to get it right.We do not want to do what the previous governmentdid and sign up a Seal Rocks contract, which successivegovernments have — —


The SPEAKER — Order! The house will come toorder!

Mr BRACKS — As I indicated in a previousanswer, we are examining the probity and contractissues; we are confident it can be secured. We will haveas a result of this is a studio that can be compared withany other studio in Australia — in Brisbane, Sydney orinternationally — the very thing we are lacking. Wehave great talent, capacity and ability and a great filmindustry, but what we do not have is the space and thestudios in which to do those films. This will give us thecapacity for the first time in many years.

Economy: performance

Mr ROBINSON (Mitcham) — Will the Treasurerexplain to the house how the government isimplementing its policy of fiscal responsibility andadvise what other policies the government has rejectedand why?

Mr BRUMBY (Treasurer) — I thank thehonourable member for Mitcham for his question. I puton the record the achievements of the Bracksgovernment in terms of the fiscal responsibility of thelast three years. The fact is that over the last three yearsthe Bracks government has consistently recordedsubstantial budget operating surpluses. We havemanaged to substantially cut general government netdebt. We have managed to fund $6 billion of

infrastructure funding without borrowing one additionalcent. We have managed to employ thousands ofadditional teachers, 3300 more nurses and turnaroundthe education and health systems, and we arecommitted to $1 billion in tax cuts. We have done thatwhile maintaining a substantial budget operatingsurplus.

I want to say that we have done that because we havegot the strongest economy in Australia. We have thestandout economy in Australia. Let’s look at theachievements of the Victorian economy during thethree years of the Bracks government: unemploymentrate 5.3 per cent — the lowest in 12 years; the lowest inAustralia; building approvals over the past year — arecord high and the highest number of approvals of anystate in Australia and the highest ever share for Victoriaof national building approvals. In economic growth —the June quarter economic figures — we had the fastesteconomic growth in Victoria for four years, but overthe three years of the Bracks government which statehas averaged the highest rate of economic growth? Yes,Victoria.

In investment, per capita investment is at record levels,and expenditure on research and development is atrecord levels; and as for net interstate migration, notonly is the capital for investment moving to Victoriabut people are voting with their feet and moving toVictoria from other states. What started as a tricklethree years ago has now become a stream, and in thelast year more people moved to Victoria than everbefore in our modern history.

If you were an objective person you would say that is apretty good record. The other day I read in thenewspaper an advertisement headed ‘Robert Doyle oneconomic management …’. It was a fairly briefadvertisement, but one of the things he said was:

… but there are storm clouds on the economic horizon.

I have looked around — where are the storm clouds?There they are! There they are on the oppositionbenches!


Dr Dean — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, theTreasurer is getting into a debate in relation to thismatter. When he talks about the highest this and thehighest that he should also advise the house that he isthe highest taxing and tax-collecting Treasurer in thehistory of Victoria.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Berwick rose to take a point of order that the

AGRICULTURE LEGISLATION (AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS) BILL


Treasurer was debating the issue, but proceeded tomake a point in debate himself. I will no longer hearhim. The Treasurer, answering the question.

Mr BRUMBY — We can see the storm clouds onthe southern side of the Parliament, were they ever tobe elected to government. The only storm clouds forVictoria would be seen if this opposition were everelected to government, because it has promised$2.77 billion of tax cuts and spending commitments.This is the magic pudding. Everywhere around the statethe Liberal Party is promising things — $2.77 billionworth of promises! One thing the new Leader of theOpposition needs to learn is that you cannot have yourpudding and eat it too!


The SPEAKER — Order! I ask honourablemembers to cease interjecting. I ask the Treasurer toconclude his answer.

Mr BRUMBY — The point is that $2.77 billionworth of promises would throw the Victorian budgetinto a huge deficit — and the Leader of the Oppositionknows that. Alternatively if you did not want to throwthe budget into a huge deficit you could apply theeuphemism ‘good management and practical solutions’,which is really Liberal Party code for spending cuts,sacking nurses, sacking teachers and cutting the size ofthe police force.

The Bracks government is absolutely committed toresponsible financial management. The only stormclouds for Victoria are over there on the southern sideof the Parliament — you cannot have your pudding andeat it, too!

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Treasurer tocease debating the question and conclude his answer.

He has concluded his answer.

AGRICULTURE LEGISLATION(AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS) BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 9 May; motion of Mr HAMILTON(Minister for Agriculture).

Government amendment circulated by Mr HAMILTON(Minister for Agriculture) pursuant to sessional orders.

Mr MULDER (Polwarth) — I rise to make acontribution in relation to the Agriculture Legislation

(Amendments and Repeals) Bill and briefly commenton some of the technical aspects of it.

The Agriculture Legislation (Amendments andRepeals) Bill makes miscellaneous amendments to thePlant Health and Plant Products Act 1995 to improveits administration and enforcement and repealredundant provisions. It amends the Sale of Land Act1962 to require vendor statements to include a warningto prospective purchasers of land that commercialagricultural production could affect their enjoyment ofthe land. The bill also repeals the Wheat Marketing Act1989 and the Egg Industry (Deregulation) Act 1993,both of which are redundant.

The bill provides for the expansion of the definition of‘prescribed materials’ to include livestock and livestockproducts, such as beehives, which can be vectors ofexotic pests or diseases. In certain parts of the state wehave exotic pests like branched broomrape and fireants. Clause 10 of this bill allows the minister to restrictthe movement of livestock and livestock productsbecause it is known that the movement of animals andanimal products can spread particular pests and seeds.

I will not go into some of the finer details of the billbecause the clause that interests most members isclause 30. We have been waiting for some three yearsfor the introduction of legislation that protects farmersin their day-to-day activities — that is, right-to-farmlegislation. It has taken three years for these 13 lines tobe introduced into the Victorian Parliament to bedebated so that we can offer protection to farmers bydealing with the issue of disputes between farmers andthe people who choose to move into country areaswithout understanding what it means to live in acountry area.

Also, we believed this legislation was going to bebrought forward in a manner that would protect farmersin their existing activities against people who currentlylive in rural Victoria and decide, for some reason orother, that they do not like to live alongside a farmerwho is conducting his business under normalcircumstances.

For all of the noise that had been made about the Laborgovernment and its willingness to work with countryVictorians and support farmers, this whole section ofthe legislation does one thing and one thing only to apotential buyer of land in a rural area: it says, ‘Buyerbeware!’. That is the extent of the right-to-farmlegislation that has been introduced by the government.That, along with glossy brochures, long and drawn-outcommittees and inappropriate measures do nothing to



assist farmers and protect them in their day-to-dayactivities.

This is brought to light in the nice glossy brochure thatthe minister has put out — with a lovely photo, I mustsay — entitled Living Together in Rural Victoria. Itgoes through the issues of odour, noise, dust, smoke,roads, land use, planning and subdivision. When we getright through the brochure to the last sentence it getsdown to the real issue as to why the matter ofright-to-farm legislation was first mooted and needed tobe brought into this Parliament so the issue could besorted out. Under the section headed ‘Legal’, it states:

For some disputes, a formal legal procedure might be the onlyappropriate course.

This is what this whole issue is about — that is, wecontinually meet people who move into rural Victoriaand say, for example, ‘We came here for the lifestyle,but there are certain issues about the lifestyle in countryVictoria we just don’t like’. We, as members ofParliament, are visited in our offices on a regular basisby constituents who have moved out to the countryafter they have decided they want the lifestyle but whodo not like living alongside some farmers and beingassociated with some of the farming practices.

People coming into my office raise issues about cattlecrossing the road causing them to have to have theircars washed. What else would you expect in countryVictoria? The simple facts are that farmers do movecattle around the roads, someone is likely to drivethrough what cattle leave on the road and the car has tobe washed!

Issues are raised about cattle crossing the road insummer months, milk tankers turning manure into dust,and the dust settling on house roofs, so people end upwith a water quality problem. People visit their localmembers and say, ‘We want you to deal with thisparticular issue. We moved into rural Victoria after webought a 2-acre property in the middle of a very largefarming area and we would like you to do somethingabout getting those farmers to change their practicesbecause, quite simply, it doesn’t suit us’.

I have had people come into my office with complaintsabout farmers’ practices when weaning calves. Thecalves had been put in a yard or paddock close to theneighbour’s home, and the people have complainedabout the bellowing of calves all night. Anybody whohas lived in rural Victoria would know that there isnothing worse than the noise that goes on night afternight when calves are weaned. However, it is all part ofliving in rural Victoria and par for the course. If youwant to buy your little block or plot in rural Victoria

and take up residence there, that is one of the issues thatyou have to be prepared to deal with.

I have even met people who had moved to a smalltownship just out of Colac where they had bought asmall holding alongside a little hall. We all know therole that small country halls play for ruralcommunities — they are the focal point for weddings,21st birthday parties, Saturday night dances and soforth. These people had moved down from Melbourneinto the small town and the complaint to me was thatevery Saturday night there was a function in the hall. Iwas asked, ‘What can you do about closing the halldown? We bought this property for lifestyle and you’vegot these farmers coming in regularly on Saturdaynights. What do you intend to do about it?’. Mycomment was, ‘Go over and join in! It’s most likelythat you’ll get a drink and have a dance, but don’texpect me, as your local member of Parliament, to goand tell farmers that they don’t have a right to use thehall on a Saturday night!’.

Some issues include people living close to farmingcommunities complaining about the smell of thistlespray. However, a year after you talk to the farmerabout that particular practice you get complaints that hehas done nothing about the thistles. So these issues goon and on.

The problem that we face — and I suppose you couldtake it to the issue that we currently have in some of thedrought-stricken areas of the state — is that a lot of thepeople from Melbourne who have weekenders in thecountry are usually fairly well connected. A lot oflawyers and planning professionals who move intocountry areas have the resources, including the moneyand the time, to cause a great deal of discomfort tofarmers and other people who live in rural Victoria.

I expected and hoped that this piece of legislationwould have gone to the point of dealing with theseissues rather than coming on board with this point of‘buyer beware’, because that does nothing about theproblems that exist and the issues I have already raised.

We had a situation in Deans Marsh, just out of Colac,and ended up receiving some funding assistance fromthe Victorian Farmers Federation to address it. The caseinvolved a farmer who was moving cows along theroad and a businessman who had bought a property inthe area and who decided that he did not like the roadgetting cut up. The farmer was put to enormousdifficulty. He went through two legal disputes over theissue, and finally the case was decided in his favour.However, it does not stop the fact that people, such as



that businessman, can arrive in an area and, if theywish, take legal action.

There are other courses — I know dispute mechanismsexist — but unless you can get the person who is takingaction against a farmer to go down that pathway there isstill nothing to stop him from taking a legal approach,and that is what causes most of the pain and angst inaddressing this particular issue.

We have waited three years for this and we have13 lines in a bill. I believe that Victorian farmers wouldbe, rightly, very disappointed that the Laborgovernment has let them down very badly in the waythat it has handled this piece of legislation. Thelegislation does nothing to stop these disputes; they willcontinue. Certainly the farmers in the Polwarthelectorate will be bitterly disappointed that theirinterests have not been taken on board.

It is interesting to read the ALP policy on theright-to-farm legislation, which a small section of thisamendment bill takes on. One paragraph of the ALPpolicy states:

Provided farmers can show that the activity complained offalls within acceptable industry performance standards, theywill be able to argue in defence of a nuisance action that thefarm was in operation and the conditions complained of werein existence prior to the complainant coming to the area.

It does not say anything about the fact that they have togo to court to fight for it. Imagine people, particularlyfarmers from our drought-stricken areas, being caughtup in a legal dispute while trying to fight all the otherissues they are faced with at the moment.

The government promised that the legislation woulddeal with those issues, that it would help farmers andensure they did not have people turning up on theirdoorsteps wanting to determine how they lived theirlives and carried out their farming practices. It happenstime and again, and will continue. The legislation is adisappointment because it does nothing to assist thosefarmers.

I wonder how farmers, particularly those I visited on arecent tour of the drought-stricken areas in the north ofthe state, could possibly endure such a process on top ofthe current conditions that they are experiencing. Istarted my tour at Shepparton, went through Numurkahand down to a little place called Timmering, where Imet with farmers. The issue in front of us today,whereby the Premier and the Minister for Agricultureare not prepared to declare a drought in Victoria or tooffer any assistance to those farmers, defies any form oflogic whatsoever. I was taken on a trip of the area bythe farmers and was told that some of those properties

have not had water in their dams for three and a halfyears. If that does not tell us that there is a drought inthe area, I do not know what does.

I was taken for a drive down past the Tongala abattoirs.In the holding paddocks at the abattoirs prime dairycattle with milk dripping out of their teats were standingshoulder to shoulder waiting to be slaughtered. Farmersin the Timmering area are milking cows in the morningand then walking the cows to the Tongala abattoir to beslaughtered. That abattoir is slaughtering 4500 cattle aweek, and the majority are dairy cows. Those peoplehave put huge amounts of money and years of workinto improving their herds, using technologies such asartificial insemination. They have built up great herdsof dairy cattle, and they are being slaughtered. It is anabsolute disaster!

I sat around a table with about a dozen of those farmersand the message I got was, ‘Yes, some fodderassistance would be great, but will you please tell thepeople in Melbourne what is happening to us, becauseno-one is listening and the message is not getting back’.That was clearly demonstrated by the Premier, who washappy enough to go up to Kerang and leave hisfootprints in the dust in the paddock and then comeback to Melbourne and put his head in the sand at theWilliamstown beach and pretend the drought does notexist in northern Victoria.

Enormous social problems will come out of this currentsituation. The Premier and all his ministers should bemobilising their departments. I am not just talkingabout some assistance with fodder; I am talking aboutthe little kids who go to school with the trauma ofsaying, ‘Dad, the whole farm has gone down the chute’.Kids are arriving at school carrying all this on theirshoulders.

The drought will place pressure on the health systemsin the area. It will place pressure on small business. It isnot just an issue of some drought assistance for northand north-eastern Victoria; this will requireconsiderable effort by the government of the day if andwhen it recognises that a drought exists. I assurehonourable members that I have never seen the area Itravelled through as dry or as bad as it is at the moment,and I have never seen people in such a distressed stateas they are in that part of Victoria at this time. In termsof the support needed, those people will needone-on-one critical stress debriefings given what theyare going through at this time.

I also refer to an article from the Australian FinancialReview, where Mr Bracks argued that such a move —



and I am talking about declaring a drought — shouldnot be taken without strong evidence — —

Mr Hamilton — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, I know the honourable member is a relativelynew shadow minister and a relatively new member ofParliament, but it would be appreciated if he confinedhis remarks at least to those with some relevance to thebill. We can hear that speech any old time. I ask that hebe directed to confine his remarks to the bill.

Mr Plowman — On the point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, the difficulty is that you cannot divorce thetwo. The right to farm and the current circumstances ofthe drought in Victoria go hand in hand, and it is almostimpossible to separate them. Therefore, I suggest thatthe shadow minister is within his rights in introducingthe subject matter of the drought as part of the businessof the right to farm.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lupton) — Order!The honourable member for Benambra makes a veryvalid point — that the honourable member for Polwarthis talking about the drought and that it is difficult toseparate the two — but the Minister for Agriculture iscorrect in saying that the honourable member forPolwarth has strayed considerably from the purpose ofthe bill. I ask the honourable member to confine hisremarks to the bill being debated at the moment.

Mr MULDER — Earlier in my contribution Ilinked the financial pressures placed on farmers to theproposed right-to-farm legislation, which thegovernment has failed to introduce.

I linked that to the issue of continued financial pressureon farmers who are currently facing drought conditions.In putting my case forward I would like to expand onthose conditions, because the two are directly linked.

I raise the issue of the impact of comments made by thePremier, as published in the Australian FinancialReview, when he argued that there would be no move todeclare a drought without strong evidence, because itcould have a significant impact on the capacity of theaffected farmers to raise finance. I assure the house thatthe impact of there being financial implications forfarmers who were relying on government supportthrough the proposed right-to-farm legislation is alreadythere. It is not a matter of whether financial assistancecomes or does not come, the impact of not having it isalready there.

In front of me is a list from one of the farmers in anarea I visited who is calling on the government forassistance in this regard. It indicates that withoutsufficient rain his grain and hay costs alone from

September to June total about $108 000. He does notknow where assistance will come from. He is one ofvery many in the area I visited.

Having visited that area I can say that the farmerswould be right in assuming that they have been letdown, and not just by the lack of legislation to protectthem with day-to-day activities on their farms. Theminister suggested that I was straying by raisingconcerns about drought when talking on this legislation.But it may well be that those farmers will have tochange their practices. It may well be that some ofthose dairy farmers who have sold off their herds or hadthem taken to the Tongala abattoirs and slaughteredcannot re-enter dairy farming. They may have to enterinto some other form of agriculture until they get backon their feet. Once again that brings on board the issuethat no matter what activity they have entered into —whether it be pig farming, broiler farming or what haveyou — they would have expected some sort ofassistance from the government.

The farmers also asked that I lobby the government forsome certainty from Goulburn-Murray Water abouttheir water entitlements. At the moment they have a34 per cent water entitlement. They are hoping to getsome certainty because currently there is no subsoilmoisture in the land surrounding that drought area.Some of them have enough water for three waterings oftheir farms, and then they are finished. They do notknow whether to water now or to wait to see whetherthey will get further water entitlements.

That situation is having an impact on their ability todetermine whether to buy grain or fodder or to destockor even get rid of their properties. They do not have thatcertainty at the moment. They have asked that I lobbythe government to contact Goulburn-Murray Water andmake it aware of the situation they are in. They cannotplan what to do until the government determines whattype of assistance they will get.

The people I sat with at Timmering said, ‘In threeweeks time it will be too late anyway’. The decisionsthey will have had to make about slaughtering theirprime dairy herds will have been made, and anyassistance that comes from that point onwards willcome too late for them. On that note I conclude, and Iwish the bill a speedy passage.

Mr STEGGALL (Swan Hill) — I do not knowwhere to start after that, but it would help if I spoke onthe bill we are debating — that is, the AgricultureLegislation (Amendments and Repeals) Bill. This pieceof legislation includes right-to-farm provisions butotherwise amends the Plant Health and Plant Products



Act by tightening up requirements for the prevention of,reporting on and responses to incursions of exotic pestsand diseases. It is in that context that I will addresssome of my remarks.

The amendments to the Plant Health and Plant ProductsAct are a case of government regulations catching upwith industry practice. Industry practice has got away,and I am pleased with the way this part of ouragricultural industry has developed. Basically most ofthese changes are a catch-up to the current requirementsand practices of our horticultural industry in particular.They also reflect the need for an efficient and rapidresponse to new pest outbreaks, improved productmovement and better certification measures. Weedslike branched broomrape, exotic pests like fire ants anddiseases like fire blight are significant threats. I willdiscuss them in detail.

These amendments are welcomed across the board and,as I said, are a catch-up for those areas. I will runthrough some of them. The amendments allow theminister to make an interim order regarding anunidentified pest or disease which is suspect rather thanconfirmed so as to hasten the response. In this day andage the response is vital for our state and country andfor what may follow.

If you look at problems such as bovine spongiformencephalopathy, foot-and-mouth disease and others thatthe Europeans and the Malaysians have had, you seethe need for a minister to be able to intervene veryquickly. Not always will he get it right, and hopefullythe suspicions will not turn out to be the fact, but thislegislation gives the minister the ability to intervenepronto and to take actions he deems fit. Of course aminister would have to justify publicly why he or shehad taken those steps. If there were a threat or asuspicion of exotic pests or diseases I am sure thepeople of Victoria would support that action.

The amendments also extend the interstaterequirements for moving prescribed materials from arestricted area to apply within the state. That will makeit a lot easier to move those materials. They reducepenalties for a number of amended offences to allowinfringement notices to be issued to individuals andbodies corporate. It makes me feel a lot better to knowthat that is there!

The bill allows diseased material to be imported intoVictoria — which we have had trouble with from timeto time — for specific purposes with the writtenconsent of the Minister for Agriculture. That material,of course, would be heading for our laboratories.Livestock, livestock products and beehives are added to

existing vectors of plant pests and diseases, whichreally raised people’s eyebrows and made them sit upand take notice, but their addition makes people realisethat livestock, livestock products and bees can bevectors for disease.

The Minister for Agriculture is empowered to grantconsent for entry into Victoria from interstate of suspectplant material for diagnosis, except where the materialis known to be infected. Laboratory staff, contractorsand consultants are required to report suspect oridentified exotic pests. Inspectors are empowered todirect those in charge of suspect material to eitherreturn the item to the sender or treat or dispose of theitem. At the moment there can be a few problems, sothat is a nice clean-up.

Because of the implementation of the industry code ofpractice, regulations about the quality of labelling ofseeds for sowing sold in Victoria have been repealed. Iam pleased to see the reference to the code of practice,and I suggest that the honourable member for Polwarthgive consideration to and understand the use of codes ofpractice in the future, which will give agriculture abetter and stronger base to argue its case. It isinteresting to see that a code of practice is preferred tothe regulations.

The expression ‘clean’ packaging is redefined, andinspectors are empowered to require that usedpackaging be cleaned, destroyed, disposed of orrepaired as specified. Some cowboys in the industry usesecond-hand packaging, which gives Victoria anenormous headache. Basically the industry is cleaningitself up in this regard, and the amendment applies tothose who act outside the law concerning cleanpackaging. The meaning of ‘clean’ packaging isclarified.

With the growth and development of horticultural andother products as retail-ready products as opposed tocommodities, one of the biggest problems lies withexporters, who in some cases buy second and third-ratematerial, package it up and ship it overseas. How do weas a nation stop inferior exports going out of thecountry and giving Australia a bad name? In the 1980sthe table-grape industry was lost because of thatpractice. We are now getting it back, but it has takennearly 15 years. The rubbish with Australian labels inthe markets is a huge problem for horticulture and stonefruits in the Swan Hill area. People travel the area at theend of every season. Between the states and thecommonwealth there must be a way to solve theproblem.

Mr Hamilton — Quality assurance.



Mr STEGGALL — QA is fine if people play bythe rules, but we virtually have illegal exports eventhough they are not illegal because you do not have toexport top-quality products.

Mr Hamilton interjected.

Mr STEGGALL — It is not giving Australia aquality standard but putting rubbish into the market.The people who participate in that market are oncers —in with a quick hit and out — and the rest of us are leftwith the results. As I said, it took 15 years to get backthe market for table grapes. Clean packaging is a veryimportant part of the bill.

There is another bit that is not quite right. I do not havethe answer, but the state and federal governmentsshould come up with the answer. We need it.


Mr STEGGALL — Yes, she would get it right; shewould know exactly what it was.

The legislation also allows growers and packers to uselocation codes on fruit and vegetables, rather than theaddress of origin, for traceability and compliancepurposes. This can also be done electronically, which isa classic example of the legislation catching up withpractice, because that is already done and is workingwell.

The bill repeals requirements for labelling plantproducts with grade and quality descriptions becausethe alternatives are far better. Once again that is aclean-up of present practices. The reference tointentional or reckless failure to comply with section 43of the act is removed, and a defence that all reasonablesteps have been taken is included. We are starting tomove and getting there, but I will not go into that toomuch.

The bill empowers the minister to delegate only to thesecretary the making of interim orders on exotic pestsand diseases. I do not have a problem with that; I wouldhave a problem with the secretary if he made a mess ofit, and so would the minister. It allows the secretary oran inspector to fix a minimum of two days for a personto comply with an order rather than the currentminimum of seven days, which is a perfectly agreedposition. Bearing in mind the speed with which somedisease problems move around the world, two daysmight be a long time.

The power of inspectors to detain or seize seedsbecause of mislabelling is removed because it is nolonger required. Inspectors are empowered to detain

packaging used to pack fruit, nuts or vegies for48 hours for inspection. Again it is the packaging thatcauses the problem, and it is not included in thelegislation, although I do not believe this bill is theplace to have it. Inspectors powers are expanded inrelation to exotic pests and diseases, and the bill makesit an offence to hinder an inspector and increasespenalties for offences against inspectors.

Anyone, particularly any of my legal friends, who startsdelving into and looking at the powers that we giveinspectors and the rights of people that are taken awayby the powers in our agricultural bills will see that thosepowers are quite phenomenal. This legislation can beseen as very draconian, and it would be if it were to beused in the wrong way — and if it were, the politicalfallout would be very great. Our agricultural legislationrelies entirely upon the goodwill of the minister and thedepartment for its operation. Where that goodwill failsthe whole of the legislation will fail, and veryquickly — and so will the minister and the bureaucrats.

There are two other parts in this bill. Part 4 repeals theredundant Wheat Marketing Act and Egg Industry(Deregulation) Act. My goodness, do honourablemembers remember the problems we had with the EggIndustry (Deregulation) Act? The eggs are gone, thederegulation is complete and the act is no longerrequired. Those parts of the bill are reasonable and theNational Party has no problems with them.

Part 3 of the bill deals with the amendment of the Saleof Land Act. The National Party has been looking atthis for some time as part of the mosaic of legislationcoming in to cover the so-called right-to-farm issue.While the minister has tried desperately to change thename of it, I can assure him that it will always be calledright to farm and no Labor minister will be able tochange the terminology of it. Living Together in RuralVictoria will always be — —

Dr Napthine — It sounds like St Kilda.

Mr STEGGALL — It does. It will always be calledright to farm.

Dr Napthine interjected.

Mr STEGGALL — Yes, that’s right; I thought theyfixed that up in St Kilda!

We have made some progress on the right-to-farmissue; it has been slow but we are getting there. TheVictorian government has acted slowly on its electionpromise to protect the right of Victorian farmers tofarm. The minister has established his working group. Itmet over a long period and brought out six



recommendations, and the government is slowlyploughing through them. This legislation is part of thatprocess.

Before I get onto the Sale of Land Act I refer to therecent case at Swan Hill in which I appreciated theminister’s support for actions that I and others took.The result of that right-to-farm issue worked out theway I thought it should and justice was done at not ahuge cost, although it could have gone on and beenvery costly. I wonder whether our planning policyframework and planning laws are going to deliver theplanning side of the right to farm.

At the end of the 1990s the National Party was preparedto look at the planning laws and planning practices tosee whether the right of farmers to carry out properpractices through the planning procedures was going tobe good enough and strong enough. I am starting towonder whether we should revisit that just to check thatthe policy framework being used today is adequate. Theplanning people will tell you that it is; I am just notconvinced in my mind that I can rely enough on theplanning laws to look after the right of people to farm,particularly where world best practice is carried out.

The other aspect of the right-to-farm issue which hasnot yet been resolved — and I appreciate the minister’sresponse to me of recent times — is the nuisanceprovisions of the Health Act, which were the key areasI wanted to get at when the paper on the right-to-farmissue was done in 1997. In the minister’s response tome he says that he will look at the nuisance provisionsthe next time the Health Act is before the Parliamentand points out that there are some good bits and somebad bits for farmers in those provisions. I have beenlooking for the good bits, and I have a bit of troublefinding them! I still believe that the nuisance provisionsare a major obstacle to the right to farm. I appreciatethrough the government and the bureaucrats that therewill be some difficulties, but if we are going to have theright to farm in a proper and sustainable manner theyneed to be addressed. The nuisance provisions aresomething that the National Party will continue to chasedown.

The minister has started work on the area of educationalawareness. I go back to the 1997 document, which triedto paint a picture of how farming was perceived at thattime. A 1997 survey of Australian schoolchildrenshowed that only 18 per cent believed that people in thecities did not need farmers and only 55 per cent ofschoolchildren believed that the food they ate camefrom farms. That was in 1997, when this was startedand education awareness of farming was brought to thefore.

While I know the government has accepted thatposition and made some noise about addressing it, I donot believe that at the moment when you listen to someof the comments, particularly as we get into a droughtdebate, we are adequately addressing it. The drought isvery much part of the Australian scene and part of theangst of being a farmer and living in or being abusinessman in a country community.

I had three huge droughts in my farming career — in1967, 1972 and 1982 — and believe me, they are veryhard for families and communities to handle. One of thethings we have to be careful about and that horrified mea little was the types of comments we heard earliertoday. Please, do not denigrate our farmers. Do not runthem down. Do not make them look as if agriculture isa business which will fail completely in wholecommunities. Droughts are very much a part of life inAustralia and when they come they hurt. Governmentscan do a series of things, and I believe this stategovernment needs to do them very quickly and set theprocess in place.

I point out to the minister — he would know this —that it is the state government that declares the droughtand that puts in its programs. It is the state governmentthat will then apply to the commonwealth for adeclaration of exceptional circumstances. But the firstissue is that the state government is the responsiblebody, and that is why the Premier copped the flak whenhe went to my area in Kerang last week. We honestlybelieved he was going to announce somecommencement, and to go there and not do that was thething that made us wild. Then there were his commentson television that night along the lines of, ‘Well, if thecommonwealth does not do it, we will’. Thecommonwealth cannot do anything about a drought inthe state of Victoria until the state of Victoria declaresit. Victoria has that responsibility, and I hope that theprocess in place now will come to fruition very soon.

I also hope the government will look at the many areasof assistance that are available, some of which are notall that expensive. We used them in Gippsland whenwe had the last drought. We contacted all thoseagricultural people personally to try and get advice.When we had the bad droughts one of the things wefound in my electorate is that at such times people needadvice and to feel that the whole world is not againstthem. When people are in the middle of a drought andthey are struggling there as a family operation, whenthey and their kids are having all the emotions andproblems that were mentioned earlier, they need to begiven some confidence that the banks, the governmentand the community will do their best to steer themthrough.



The other thing we brought in in Gippsland, again forthe first time, was the purchase of farms. It wassomething I desperately needed when I was in Sea Lakein the mid-1980s and I had a little triangle that gotwiped out. It was not a statewide drought; it was just alittle triangle that got wiped out three years in a row. InSea Lake in those times there were people who wantedto get out but could not. For some families the droughtbecomes the restructure process that they go through.

I appreciated the Premier’s comments at question time.The provision of subsidies for transport and fodder hasnot always proved to be the best operation in someareas. In some cases it might be very suitable but thereare other areas that need to be attended to, and peopledo need to have some confidence that they are notgoing to carry this drought.

How could you explain it to someone in Melbourne? Ihave a lot of trouble doing that. It is like the situationwhen someone has lived all year and had their salarypaid every week; they have spent their money andwhen they get to December they have to pay back notonly all the income — the farmer does not get anyincome in the drought — but they have to pay back allthe money they have spent as well. It becomes verydifficult. However, in the grain areas we have had somegood seasons at times so the banks should give strongsupport to a lot of our areas.

The issue in this drought that is different from theothers that I have been involved in is that in theWimmera–Mallee we are only delivering 50 per cent ofour water and are in danger now of having a carryover;and in the Goulburn system there is a very low waterallocation, even though it is early in the season. That isnew. I do not believe our irrigation areas will get overthe exceptional circumstance hurdle; they just will notmake it, so they will need some state assistance — andstate assistance alone. I was disappointed that the stateof Victoria and all the other Labor states did not agreeto the Truss changes to the exceptional circumstancesprovisions.


Mr STEGGALL — Yes, well you’d better go backand fix that one up. If this drought continues throughfor a period of time yet the minister will need all thetools at his disposal to assist those communities andfamilies through. I thought the federal agricultureminister’s package was helpful and would be helpful tothe government in that regard.

The sale of land issue is another small piece in thepackage. As I said, the big one that I am after is the

nuisance provisions in the Health Act, but this was onewe had identified so that when people purchase land ina rural area, their section 32 statement will spell outwhat they are buying and point out the things that mayor may not happen. It is not as strong as some of theAmerican provisions, but the provision in clause 30gives a warning to the following effect:

Important notice to purchasers:

The property may be located in an area where commercialagricultural production activity may affect your enjoyment ofthe property. It is therefore in your interest to undertake aninvestigation of the possible amenity and other impacts fromnearby properties and the agricultural practices and processesconducted there.

I do not have the examples that are used in the paperwith me but they were a lot stronger than that. TheAmericans brought it in because they had trouble withall the movie stars around Hollywood going around andbuying up all sorts of things.

Mr Hamilton — They had problems with the farmsubsidies.

Mr STEGGALL — Yes, that is right. But they alsohad a lot stronger wording than that. However, this is amove in the right direction, and we need to have thisone passed. We need also to have more awareness,particularly as our agricultural areas get into strife withthe drought. We need some public relations assistancefrom the government and industry to create thatawareness.

On the right to farm, with the frosts we are having at themoment I am sure I am going to have a frost machinecomplaint any day now because we have had two badfrosts in a row at home. An earlier speaker mentionedsome of the right-to-farm areas in the south, and I willcover some of the others. I have had police called tosome of these in the middle of the night — for example,wine-grape harvesting, laser grading and lights ontractors. The police have actually been called out tostop those activities because a person has said it was anuisance and he did not want it. The local memberintervened after that happened, and basically we havehad the problem fixed up, but I tell the house that onlyto illustrate where we are at.

Among the issues I have dealt with personally havebeen people complaining in connection with dairyfarming about the early-morning milking of cows,irrigation pumps and frost machines. They havecomplained about wine harvesting, dust, laser grading,lights on tractors and other matters. The biggestproblem is with the broiler farms, for which codes ofpractice must come in. Codes of practice are the only



way we will ever handle that. Another problem was thecolour of plastic nets in the Yarra Valley — and I wentoff the deep end with that one!

People must remember that in our state mostcouncils — not all, as we have a bad one locally thatkills the story — will support agriculture in their areabut, particularly close to Melbourne, there are councilsthat are totally opposed to many of the practices that arefollowed in their areas. This is not an easy issue, and itis one we need to work through.

That is why I have always wanted that nuisanceprovision in the Health Act, so that people cannot sayproperly accepted farming practices are a nuisance.That is all I have been after. I have not got it yet, and Ido appreciate the difficulties, but that is what werequire, plus a government and a minister that willdefend, promote and drive the public awareness ofagriculture.

Mr Hamilton — We’ve got one here.

Mr STEGGALL — Well, we might have, but he’snot getting the message over too well.

We have difficulty, with 25 per cent of the populationliving outside Melbourne and 75 per cent living in it, ingetting the country story across. That is our problem,and that is the politics of where I come from. As aminority party how do we get the message of ourpeople across? Where do we go to get the informationand advice for the future and for the issues that arise?

The role of government in the future will involve moreand more work for some ministers. Ministers will be inconflict from time to time. Conservation and agriculturewill be in conflict, but it is the agriculture minister’sresponsibility to make sure that he has a loud voice inthe metropolitan media so that agricultural issues arewidely discussed in the metropolitan area and in ourschools and so on.

The National Party will not be opposing this legislation.We wish it a speedy journey.

Mr HOWARD (Ballarat East) — I am pleased tospeak on the Agriculture Legislation (Amendments andRepeals) Bill. As we have already heard, there areseveral aspects to this bill. One of the key parts of thelegislation attempts to ensure that we are as vigilant aspossible in tightening previous provisions of the PlantHealth and Plant Products Act to protect the fine qualityof the agricultural produce of this state and to ensurethat we have the best possible agricultural practices toboth detect any intrusions of exotic diseases as soon asthey happen and to put in place a range of strategies —

we can be proactive and prevent the diseases coming inif possible — that ensure that anybody who is carryingout poor practices which endanger our agriculturalindustries can be brought to account for their activities.

Our history shows that several diseases have alreadybeen found in Victoria and a number of pests have beenintroduced, to our great cost on a number of occasions.We have managed to eradicate them, but they stillpresent reason for ongoing vigilance.

We certainly do not want to see diseases and pests likefire blight, which we know affects apples and pears,and Pierce’s disease, which is an insect-transmittedvirus that has caused major damage to the Californiangrapevine industry, taking hold in our agriculturalindustries. Branched broomrape is a pest that has veryfine seed that is easily transferred. We need to ensurethat we can put in place procedures that will reduce thecontamination across the state by the seed of this smallplant and also deal with a number of other pests likeMediterranean fruit flies and fire ants, which have beenfound in Queensland and which, if they did come toVictoria, could very quickly cause devastation.

We need to be very proactive in ensuring that thesesorts of pests and diseases do not enter this state, andthat if they do we can detect them and respond veryquickly.

This part of the bill, which was not referred to by thehonourable member for Polwarth at all in hiscontribution, is vitally important to the ongoing healthof our agricultural industry in this state. It brings inprocedures for ensuring that early reporting is theresponsibility not just of producers but also of cropconsultants, who are in a better position to detectincursions of pests and diseases that producers mightnot be aware of, and of laboratory managers, who maypick up these diseases in material they are testing butwho in the past may have been reluctant to expose thatdetection for reasons of confidentiality. This bill nowrequires laboratory managers to report any evidence ofdiseases they might detect.

People can certainly be put in a difficult position, andthis bill will help tighten up the existing legislation sothat all bodies who may become aware of earlyincursions of exotic pests and diseases will know whattheir responsibilities are and be able to respondappropriately. In the past, slow detection has causedthis state great cost, and the government wants toensure that that does not happen in the future. It alsowants to tighten up declarations made by the Governorin Council when pests have been found, which can takea few weeks. This bill enables the minister to declare



suspect pests on an interim 28-day order while awaitingthe formalities of a Governor in Council declaration totake effect. Again, the bill is a means of being veryproactive.

The proposed legislation also looks at how to restrictthe transfer of potentially contaminated materials notjust into our state from interstate but also from statecontrol zones into other parts of the state. The bill alsoensures that inspectors have increased powers to detectdirty packaging, for example, and to order its disposal.As we have heard from the honourable member forSwan Hill, reused packaging can be a serious cause ofcontamination of plant produce and the governmentwants to ensure that it can also control that aspect of theindustry.

The bill also puts in place enforcement provisions toensure that a range of offences and penalties will becorrectly dealt with by the courts and that people willcomply with the legislation. The bill contains a range ofprovisions that will help, as I have said, to protect thequality of our produce and ensure that we can maximiseexport potential and detect any incursions as soon asthey occur, thereby reducing the costs incurred whendetection is slow.

The bill also addresses other very important aspects ofthe legislation which have been raised by theright-to-farm working party, including the concernquite rightly held by farmers across this state that withthe growth of urban development into previously ruralzones, or with people simply moving from urban areasinto rural areas, the history of farm management is notfully understood, resulting in many objections beingmade to some of the farming practices that take place.

Honourable members would be aware that the Ministerfor Agriculture established a working party whichinvolved the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF), theMunicipal Association of Victoria (MAV), theDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment andthe Department of Infrastructure working together andconsulting broadly across the community to developways to protect our farmers and ensure they maintaintheir right to farm.

The bill amends the Sale of Land Act to provide thatwhen properties are sold, land-holders must indicate intheir vendor statements the nature of the amenity of thearea so that the purchasers of land cannot say, ‘Wewere unaware that this might happen or that mighthappen in this area’. That is a very important aspect ofthe recommendations put forward by the right-to-farmworking party, but it is not the only one. Thehonourable member for Polwarth tried to score political

points in regard to this bill but to no avail, because thisgovernment has worked very responsibly byestablishing the right-to-farm working party; byworking with the VFF, the MAV and other communitymembers on the recommendations the working partyhas put forward; and by implementing thoserecommendations quite sensibly.

As the house has heard, several of thoserecommendations have already been enacted. A ruraldisputes system was a key recommendation of theworking party, and that was established in February toensure that mediation can occur between parties whohave concerns to enable them to work through thoseconcerns. Another of the working party’srecommendations related to an extensive publiceducation campaign. As the house has already heard,appropriate leaflets have been developed and madeavailable to local government, real estate agents and allgovernment agencies, and the government is trying toget those out to the community.

Obviously there is still a large job to be done ineducating the urban-based communities about theseimportant issues and ensuring that they are aware of theneeds that farmers have in carrying out a range ofactivities so that they are also put in place. As we havealready heard, some of those recommendations havenot been finally put in place but are being evaluated: forexample, those looking at the planning laws and thereview on rural zones. They are being examined at themoment with a view to ensuring that they can moresatisfactorily meet the needs of farmers. Theright-to-farm issues that this government has beenworking through have been developed very responsiblyand in consultation with the whole community.


Mr HOWARD — Certainly the former governmentdid very little. In terms of the right to farm, thisgovernment came in with a clean slate. It had to put themechanisms of consultation in place, something that theformer government did not seem to understand.Consultation is a term that this government has had toreintroduce into the lexicon of the Victoriancommunity. It has followed through with this processon every piece of legislation it has brought forward. Onthat score I am pleased to inform the house that overallon this legislation we consulted with the Victorian Fruitand Vegetables Wholesalers Association; the VegetableGrowers Association; the Orchards and FruitCoolstores Association; the Northern VictorianFruitgrowers Association; the Murray Valley CitrusGrowers Association; the Victorian FarmersFederation, as I have said before; the Australian



Nutgrowers Association Council; the Seed Associationof Victoria; the Murray Valley Tablegrape GrowersCouncil and the Victorian Livestock IndustryConsultative Committee.

I want to again emphasise the point that thisgovernment is all about consultation, ensuring thatpeople across our community have an opportunity toprovide appropriate input in regard to managementissues in this state, and the government is working withthat input in a practical way. The honourable memberfor Polwarth, however, wanted to try some politicalpoint-scoring with the comments he made. Rather thantalking about this legislation in a meaningful way, heresorted to point-scoring in regard to right-to-farmissues and then wanted to talk about the serious issue ofdry conditions in the north and other parts of this state.

This government is not treating those issues in a tritemanner. It is following a very responsible process. Itdoes not see this as an opportunity for politicalopportunism; it wants to get on with the job ofsupporting farmers who are undergoing difficulties. Ithas already put systems in place to offer additionalcounselling, and technical advice is available throughadditional Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment offices in parts of the state — —


Mr HOWARD — Well, they are out there. Thegovernment is doing its best to ensure that they knowabout these facilities that have been put in place,because we understand that the key things farmers needat the moment are support and technical advice to assistthem. The Rural Finance Corporation is also availableto provide advice and support to land-holders who needit. So this government has been working very seriouslyand sensibly. I am glad that the honourable member forSwan Hill seemed to recognise that fact in thecomments he made. The government wants somebipartisan support to deal with this serious issue for ourstate. There is no place for political opportunism inregard to this important issue.

I will leave it at that point. I am pleased to support thislegislation. No doubt the issue of the dry conditions inmany parts of the state, if we do not have rain in thevery near future, will be discussed in future and thepeople of Victoria will see that this government will beresponding in a responsible way to ensure it can supportthose people who need it. I am very pleased at this stageto support the legislation before the house.

Dr NAPTHINE (Portland) — The AgricultureLegislation (Amendments and Repeals) Bill has two

components. The first component deals with legislationto assist in the prevention of and response to exoticpests and diseases such as fire ant, which is causingenormous problems in Queensland and proving to be avery difficult pest to control and eradicate. I think it willbe just about impossible to eradicate fire ant inQueensland because the nature of the ant and the way ithas spread will make it very difficult. One of thereasons it has become difficult is because quick anddecisive action was not taken earlier. Hopefully thislegislation provides a framework to not repeat thatmistake in Victoria.

Obviously there is also the issue of fire blight, and wehave had an instance in Victoria of suspected fireblight — a very spurious suspected fire blight — in theRoyal Botanic Gardens which caused enormous anxietyand economic loss for our apple and pear producersthroughout Victoria. The way that was perpetrated wasdisgraceful, but the response from the Victoriangovernment department at the time was very significantand appropriate. Issues such as branched broomrapeand fruit fly are also enormously important.

The other major component in the legislation isamendments to the Sale of Land Act, which I will cometo at the end of my speech.

The issue of exotic diseases and pests is a veryimportant one for Victoria and Australia, which arelarge agricultural producers. Agriculture is theeconomic powerhouse of this state and of Australia.Comments have been made in the past about ridinghome on the sheep’s back. What we are symbolicallysaying is that agriculture is an important industry,economically, to Victoria and Australia and willcontinue to be important during this century. Despitepeople’s comments about agriculture being a sunsetindustry, nothing could be further from the truth.Agriculture is on a new wave of productivity, a newwave of diversification and a new wave of opportunitythroughout rural and regional areas.

Agricultural producers deserve our thanks and praisefor the way they have improved their productivity andefficiency, the way they have responded to economicchallenges and because they are, without doubt, themost efficient in the world, despite competition fromhugely subsidised producers in both Europe and theUnited States of America. We have to protect ouragricultural industries with all the opportunities we can.When I talk about protecting I am not talking aboutfinancial subsidies, I am talking about protecting themin terms of providing technical, professional, andresearch and development support, support inlegislative frameworks, and responses to perceived and



real threats. Exotic disease and pests are one of thosereal threats to agriculture.

We are fortunate in Victoria and Australia that we livein an island country. In the establishment of thiscountry, often more fortuitously than anything else,when we established our agricultural industries,whether the livestock industry or agriculturalproduction industries such as cereal, fruit growing andother industries, we largely established industries with arelatively disease-free status by world standards. Wemust protect that status to the nth degree.

The cost of any exotic diseases and pests can bedevastating. We have seen the cost of thefoot-and-mouth disease outbreak in England, which hasbeen estimated to be ₤10 billion, which is close enoughto $30 billion. An outbreak of foot-and-mouth diseasein Australia would be devastating for our livestockindustries and our export trade. We must make everyeffort to prevent foot-and-mouth disease ever coming toAustralia. I applaud all governments for being involvedin Exercise Minotaur, which is in place at the momentto help us to hone our skills in dealing with exoticdisease.

There are similar diseases in plants which could besimilarly devastating, such as Russian wheat aphid,barley stripe rust and fire blight in pears and apples.There are pests such as the African giant snail, whichcould similarly have a significant effect on ouragricultural industries.

I had the experience in my veterinary career with theagriculture department in dealing with the fowl plagueoutbreak at Bendigo, and I saw at first hand the effectof that exotic disease on that individual enterprise. Itwas devastating. I am pleased that the operator has beenable to rebuild some years later and now has asuccessful enterprise. The effect on our poultry industrywas significant. I was amazed at the warnings we had togive people. Although the scientists said that fowlplague does not affect humans — there is no harm fromeating poultry meats and no harm from eggs — thesales of chicken meat and eggs plummeted, andoverseas countries just shut off. It did not matterwhether you were from northern Australia or Tasmania,once fowl plague was diagnosed in Victoria exportswere shut off across Australia; and it took a lot of effortto export from other parts of Australia. Exotic diseasescan have a significant effect.

We need legislation that provides power for thedepartment and governments to act quickly andappropriately in dealing with those issues. As thehonourable member for Swan Hill said, it is important

that we have the powers and that the powers are broadranging. I remember after I was sworn in as aninspector of stock under the Stock Diseases Act beingtold by the chief veterinary officer, ‘Now you have thepower to do everything just about except declare war’.You have enormous powers, but it is important to usethem wisely, well and judiciously. The honourablemember for Swan Hill said that those powers need to beused with goodwill, but they also need to be used with adegree of competence and technical skill.

I am concerned about the decline in the level ofconfidence and technical skill within the Department ofNatural Resources and Environment. I make nocomment about individual officers. There are manyhighly qualified and competent officers within DNRE,but there are too few of them, they are too sparselyspread and they are not being provided with enoughresources and training to ensure that we can respondproperly to an exotic disease, whether it be an exoticpest, an exotic plant disease or an exotic animal disease.For example, in the department in western Victoriathere is a shortage of qualified veterinarians, a criticalshortage of qualified animal health officers and ashortage of experts in plant diseases. There has been asignificant decline in expertise, technical skills andspecialisation within the amalgamated DNRE. Thereare too many generalists and not enough specialists.That certainly needs to be addressed.

The Liberal Party policy of having a separate specialistdepartment of agriculture that is highly geared towardstechnical skills and confidence is an important part ofgoing hand in hand with this sort of legislation.

Mr Helper interjected.

Dr NAPTHINE — The honourable member forRipon, if he understood rural Victoria, wouldunderstand the need to have a strong, technically skilleddepartment of agriculture backed up by appropriatelegislation. They go hand in glove; you cannot have onewithout the other. That is the point I am making.Similarly when dealing with issues of exotic diseases,be they plant or animal diseases or exotic pests, it isimportant to re-emphasise the need for ourcommonwealth colleagues in the Australian Quarantineand Inspection Service to be ever vigilant and continueto have high standards in protecting our clean, greenand disease-free image. Many farmers are concernedabout the direction in which AQIS is going — beingpushed, I believe — by the concept of freer world tradeand the pressures that come from other overseascountries that imply that Australia is using diseaseprotection as a barrier to trade.



I believe we must stand our ground. We must be strong.When we need measures for disease protection weshould stand by that and should not be bluffed orbullied into weakening our quarantine provisions on thebasis of trying to do deals on trade. That message mayget through to AQIS. I hope it does.

Drought is another issue affecting pests, plants andanimals, and the honourable member for Swan Hill saidit very well. There is clearly a drought on in northernVictoria. The only ones who have their heads in thesand on this one are the government — the Premier andthe Minister for Agriculture. It is clearly a stateresponsibility to declare a drought, and it is a statedecision that would allow programs to be implementedto help farmers and help them now. Farming familiesrequire people assistance as well as the assistanceneeded to help farm businesses and communities.

It is also important that the minister and the Premier beaware of the fact that many of the original droughtprovisions that have been used in the past have beengeared around a philosophy of protecting breedingnuclear stock on a livestock industry basis rather thanbeing adjusted to assist people who are just about100 per cent cropping people — people involved inhorticultural industries and people in irrigation areaswho have never experienced the problem of not getting100 per cent water rights. These people may actuallyhave green grass but still be significantly affected bythe drought. All of those things need to be taken intoaccount.

There is no doubt that there is a drought on. TheVictorian Farmers Federation says there is a droughton, the farmers know there is a drought on and the ruralcommunities know there is a drought on. It is abouttime this government recognised it and did somethingabout it. The reason I talk about drought in the contextof this bill is important. Drought relates directly to thebill because when there is a drought on there is a higherrisk of spreading plant diseases and plant pests. Thereare significant moves of fodder over long distancesfrom areas that do not traditionally send fodder.

Mr Howard interjected.

Dr NAPTHINE — For example, I am sure thehonourable member for Ballarat East would understandwhat ARGT, or annual rye-grass toxicity, is and thesignificance of that disease. He would understand howin a drought situation there is a significant risk thatARGT would be spread from South Australia and otherareas into the northern areas of Victoria. Similarly thereis the risk of the significant spread of noxious weedsand diseases. They are very significant issues in a

drought situation. It is appropriate that we have thislegislation, but we have to be more conscious as acommunity that in a drought situation these thingscome to the fore and there is a higher risk of themspreading.

Again, the legislation talks about honeycomb and bees,but we have read that because of the drought situationexisting in northern Victoria we are now having toimport honey into Victoria for the first time. Thatimposes some significant disease risk for our beeindustry. It is important that AQIS and the departmentwork closely together to reduce that risk.

For our cereal growers in the northern area, plantingnext year’s crop is going to be a difficult and importantissue. They need financial assistance, and many ofthose farmers will be tempted because of their financialstraits to look to buy cheap seed. There is a real risk inthat for us of diseases getting into our wheat, barley andother crops. If we do not ensure that those farmers donot take a short cut we will live to regret it. We need toensure there are adequate and secure supplies of cleanseed of the right varieties for those farmers who havelost all their crops this year to plant next year, or wewill run into a real problem. The legislation is,therefore, about protection of our agriculturalindustries. Because of the drought we have significantlyhigher risks in this very area addressed in thelegislation. It is important that the minister be aware ofthat.

Finally, let me refer to part 3 of the bill, which amendsthe Sale of Land Act. I will quote from the bill becauseit is instructive. It says that people who buy land nowunder section 32 of the Sale of Land Act will be toldabout the risks and impacts of agricultural practices.What is going to happen? They are going to get a noticeunder section 32, as follows:


The property may be located in an area where commercialagricultural production activity may affect your enjoyment ofthe property. It is therefore in your interest to undertake aninvestigation of the possible amenity and other impacts fromnearby properties and the agricultural practices and processesconducted there …

To quote a rural expression, that is stating the bloodyobvious. Anyone who is buying land may be in an areawhere there may be agricultural practices that mayaffect them! If anyone goes out there and looks at landthey are purchasing anywhere in rural Victoria, that isbloody obvious. It is about time this government gotserious about the right-to-farm issue rather than puttingup what can hardly be described even as token orwindow-dressing efforts. That does nothing to assist the

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL


right-to-farm issue. It is a serious issue right throughoutVictoria but particularly in and around regional centresand in and around Melbourne. The government needsto get serious about that. The legislation is a disgracefultoken effort. It states the absolutely obvious that anyonewould see and that anyone purchasing land anywherewould know.


Dr NAPTHINE — The honourable member forRipon would be embarrassed by having this — —


Dr NAPTHINE — If the honourable member forRipon is proud of this legislation I suggest he go andtalk to people buying land in Ripon, talk to the estateagents in Ripon, and see what they think about puttingthat on to vendors statements. He will see that it willmake a real difference to people buying land in thatarea; it will make them sit up and take notice! That willmake them think about it! It is stating the bloodyobvious. It is absolutely a waste of time and a waste ofeffort. It is about time the government got serious aboutright-to-farm legislation.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr HELPER (Ripon).


AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRYDEVELOPMENT (FURTHER

AMENDMENT) BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 6 June; motion of Mr HAMILTON(Minister for Agriculture).

Government amendments circulated by Mr HAMILTON(Minister for Agriculture) pursuant to sessional orders.

Mr MULDER (Polwarth) — I rise to contribute tothe Agricultural Industry Development (FurtherAmendment) Bill. The bill implements therecommendations of a national competition policyreview of the Murray Valley citrus marketing acts ofVictoria and New South Wales. The principal purposesof the bill are to repeal the Murray Valley CitrusMarketing Act 1989 and establish a new committeeunder the Agricultural Industry Development Act 1990;to make orders to allow a committee to operate bothwithin Victoria and in a participating jurisdiction; andto provide for Victoria to recognise an instrument madeunder an act of another state or territory which

corresponds to the Agricultural Industry DevelopmentAct 1990 to apply in Victoria.

The bill has been circulated widely. It has the support ofthe industry and the Victorian Farmers Federation. TheNational Party does not oppose the bill. In fact theamendments that have been circulated are of a technicalnature, and we do not have any problems with them.

The bill before Parliament is, as stated, the result of thenational competition policy to review the MurrayValley citrus marketing acts of Victoria and New SouthWales. The review was commissioned by the Victorianand New South Wales governments in 1998, as bothgovernments agreed to implement therecommendations which stemmed from the review.

In simple terms we have two boards, one in New SouthWales and one in Victoria. We have mirroredlegislation and, as honourable members can appreciate,both boards are working in the interests of the citrusgrowing regions and are mirroring each other with theadministration and other necessary costs that go withthat process. Both of the boards, as I indicated, servicethe interests of the industry in the whole region. Wehave a border and a river separating the two boards.

This legislation deals with that issue in disbanding thecurrent boards and setting up a new board. A poll willbe conducted so that growers will be able to put inplace a new committee that will continue the work ofsupporting the citrus industry, assisting with researchand development and with marketing, and providing awhole range of administrative support to that particularindustry.

Not a lot of citrus is grown in the electorate ofPolwarth. The minister has even offered to move somecold climate growers into the region, which would begratefully accepted because, as honourable membersknow, the seat of Polwarth is a tremendous agriculturalbase in Victoria, providing enormously to the overalleconomic benefits of the state of Victoria.

The following appears on the home page of the MurrayValley Citrus Marketing Board:

Citrus in the Murray Valley

Citrus production in the Murray Valley stretches south-eastfrom the South Australian/Victorian border through thehighly productive areas of Sunraysia, mid-Murray (Swan Hilland Barham) to the area surrounding Wangaratta.

Broadly speaking, it covers a distance of more than600 kilometres along the Murray River.

There are over 73 registered approved receivers (packers andprocessors), and a number of merchants in the Murray Valley



area. Merchants handling fresh citrus are predominantlylocated in the capital city markets whilst the packers andprocessors are generally located in the production area.

A wide range of citrus is grown in the region: naveloranges, valencia oranges, mandarins, lemons andgrapefruit. The home page also lists some interestingfacts about the growing area:

Citrus is grown commercially in all states of Australia exceptTasmania.

Irrigated production conditions provide the best results due tothe citrus liking an arid climate where insect pests and fungusdiseases are rare.

The two varieties of oranges grown commercially in Australiaare navels, which mature from May to October, andvalencias, which mature during October to April.

To be grown successfully, citrus trees need a well-drainedsoil, an arid climate, an abundance of sunshine and some frostto assist with colouring rind.

An Honourable Member — It should be good thisyear.

Mr MULDER — It should be excellent this year.

Interestingly the Murray Valley market distribution —and these figures quite astounded me — for the productthat comes out of that region shows that the totaltonnage forwarded to markets for Melbourne is 25 100;for Sydney, 5700; for Brisbane, 1260; and for otherareas around Australia, around 1000 tonnes — aconsiderable contribution from that region.

For the short periods I have travelled through theMurray Valley region over the years it has always beenindicated to me that that region, as much as other partsof the state, had suffered significantly from a downturnin returns on investment and problems that agriculturehas experienced from drought. That region has a greatnumber of seasons where things seem to work verywell, and all of a sudden it will cop a problem, usuallyassociated with overseas markets where products floodinto Australia. We have had many periods whereorange groves have been ploughed into the ground andtrees ripped out. That has always indicated to me thereal difficulty that agriculture, not just in my part of theworld but certainly throughout the Murray Valley,suffers as a result of overseas intervention in ourmarkets and products coming in that are highlysubsidised.

On that note I will conclude my contribution. As I said,the amendments are of a technical nature and theLiberal Party does not oppose any of them. I wish thebill a speedy passage.

Mr STEGGALL (Swan Hill) — It is an interestingpiece of legislation. If you look at the history of theMurray Valley Citrus Marketing Act you will see thatfollowing the national competition policy review of theMurray Valley citrus marketing acts of Victoria andNew South Wales in 1998 it was recommended thatalthough the board should continue to be underpinnedby legislation and supported by levies, its power tointervene directly in markets should be repealed, theaccountability of the growers strengthened, and largegrowers given greater influence, which is one of thegreat issues we have in these things. Theserecommendations have already been enacted.

This bill repeals the Murray Valley Citrus MarketingAct of 1989 and enables the establishment of a singlenew cross-border committee with New South Wales,pending the result of a poll of citrus growers in bothareas. Although the national competition policy’srecommendations relate specifically to the MurrayValley Citrus Marketing Act of 1989, the bill has beendrafted so that its proposed extraterritorial powers aregeneric and could apply to any agricultural commodityand govern our relationship with any other state orterritory. This is a most fascinating little piece oflegislation.

Firstly, the Murray Valley Citrus Marketing Act was, ofcourse, based in Victoria, from Koondrook to the SouthAustralian border. The 1989 act actually exempted theCobram and Wangaratta citrus industries because theydid not want to be part of this operation, and that hasactually operated quite well. I should advise the housethat there are actually two industries in citrus: there isthe fresh industry, which is the one you make moneyfrom, and the juice industry, which is the one you donot. We in Australia have enormous difficulty if wethink we are going to compete with the Brazilians onthe juice market, but changes have recently been madethroughout northern Victoria particularly, and someparts of New South Wales — the clearing of oldvarieties and the replacement with new varieties ofcitrus. It is the most sought after commodity, and it stillis sold, unfortunately, as a commodity around theworld.

Some of the recent work in Mildura in marketing andpackaging has been extremely good. I think we areslowly getting there, although I do get very wild when Ihear of knock-backs because of snails still being foundin the citrus, or some other problems which do crop up.We are getting better at it; the quality assuranceprograms are getting better, and citrus in northernVictoria, southern New South Wales and also in theMurray irrigation area in South Australia has anenormous future. The more work we do with varieties



and the more we learn to have quality assuranceprograms that solve our problem with exports, thehappier I will be. It is a great industry and one which Ibelieve has not lived up to its potential in recent times.

Interestingly this year America, because of the eventsof 11 September last year, has brought in two changeswhich will or could impact on our citrus industry here.It has brought in a law that provides that if you aregoing to sell to America you have to register yourpacking shed or factory with America, as is done withmeat. I am not sure if our citrus packing sheds areregistered with America. I think they are; they havebeen in the past. Also the Americans — God bless theirlittle souls! — need to be advised 72 hours before theproduct arrives. In my recent journeys the issue of theuse of that as a non-trade barrier for exports of anyproduct or commodity into the United States has beenof great concern. It is doing it to stop the poisoning ofthe food chain — and I think most people understandthat the poisoning of the food chain is a very difficulttask to carry out and the risk is generally,internationally, regarded as being low. However,America has done that, and if it implements this forAustralia we will have some difficulties.

Although the legislation amends the Murray ValleyCitrus Marketing Act, it is a far more interesting pieceof legislation than that. It brings together areas that canwork across jurisdictions. Although people just think ofthe Victorian–New South Wales border as the area orthe South Australian Riverland or Sunraysia areas,there are other areas, and the legislation will allow it tohappen.

One of the things that came out of my recent journeyoccurred when I visited Spain. I went there to see whatthe next phase of our type of agriculture was and howthey organised themselves there, what they do. I wentto a place called Almeria in southern Spain where thefarmers have 30 000 hectares of fruit and vegetableproduction under plastic, in greenhouse production.Thirty thousand hectares is 100 kilometres by3 kilometres wide — it was absolutely amazing. Thegreenhouses were mainly not of the Dutch and Israelitype — only 1 per cent were — they were not heated,and as a result in the middle of winter they had troublewith the Dutch with their heated products, so that was alittle downturn for them.

What I wanted to find out was how the producersmarketed their products. They produce 2.8 milliontonnes, which they marketed throughout Europe in boththe European Union and non-European Unioncountries, America and Canada. At home we have beenwrestling with the next phase in intensive agriculture,

looking at the use of water, soil and the climate,particularly the climate, the hours of sunlight and all therest. I have always been interested in the intensiveagriculture of greenhouse production, but how do youdo it?

The Spanish work in cooperatives — not thecooperatives that we know from the old days oflabour-based cooperatives but groups of companiesworking together to coordinate the selection ofvarieties, the time of planting, the harvesting, theproduction, the marketing, the packaging and all that.They then bring together all the service industries,which include the plastic provision, fertilisers, dripirrigation, the pumps — they are all ground waterpumps in Spain — so all the service providers,including the transport providers, come together in anoverall body to produce and coordinate the marketing,production and packaging of these products. Theyexport about 47 different varieties and have nine mainvarieties of product. Using their quality assuranceprograms and looking after all the food safetyrequirements of the market, we saw what they areputting together and how they have organisedthemselves.

Where we wish to have an industry operating as acooperative venture, with planning provisions andnecessary ministerial orders to assist it, this legislationwould allow it to operate in the Murrumbidgeeirrigation area (MIA) of New South Wales, the MurrayValley of Victoria and New South Wales and theRiverland region. The areas do not have to becontiguous, as I read the bill; they could be declaredand do not need to be adjacent to one another. Thatovercomes one of the problems that we have had inAustralia, particularly in northern Victoria. The RiverMurray would have to be the worst boundary anycommunity could put on itself. Why you would runyour border down the middle of the river or on theVictorian side of the river beats me.

The New South Wales and Victorian sides of the borderhave a lot in common. You see that particularly inMildura where similar industries are operating on bothsides of the river, more so than they do in my area. Thereason is that the water law in Victoria is so superior tothe water law in New South Wales, especially in myarea, that you cannot get guaranteed supply. It isdifferent in Mildura because there you have highsecurity New South Wales water which equals ourwater rights. They can do it there. It is a differentsecured water right in New South Wales in the Milduraarea than it is in Swan Hill for New South Wales. Thatis why the development is there and not on the NewSouth Wales side down our way.



However, there is quite a bit of development happeningdown our side where this type of arrangement may beuseful. It is operating where it does not needgovernment, but if something happened, and I amthinking it would come into the regulatory treatmentmethods for food safety or quality assurance orsomething like that — for example, if we wereexporting to the Americans and they decided to use thisnew law that they have put in place against ourexports — we might need to assist our communities inSouth Australia, the MIA and the Murray Valley eitherto overcome or abide by that requirement. Thislegislation will be extremely good in that regard.

The exciting thing that I have found — and I know Ihave been criticised by some for doing it, but I knewthat what I was looking for existed somewhere in theworld, and I found it — is that the cooperative approachto export is vital. The honourable member for Polwarthread out the figures for the Murray Valley citrusmarketing volumes — 25 000 to Melbourne, 5000 tosomewhere else and a couple of thousand elsewhere,but unfortunately he did not give us the Americanvolumes because we have quite a bit going to America.

Mr Mulder — You can do it.

Mr STEGGALL — I don’t know it; I would if Idid.


Mr STEGGALL — I was not knocking you at all. Ithink it is probably less than the 25 000, but it would befar greater than the other volumes, but the honourablemember for Mildura might know how much is goingoverseas. It is for us a very small industry comparedwith what it can be.

The people who are in the industry have been wrestlingwith the issue for some time and looking for waysthrough. I believe they will eventually work out acooperative arrangement and some planning withregard to their varieties, their plantings and theirdifferent seasons in different parts of Australia toenable them to supply a retail-ready product — not abulk commodity — over a greater period of time thanthey do today. One of our weaknesses as agriculturalpeople is that we do not have enough varieties andenough volume of product, so we just do not do it.Because we do not have enough volume we are notable to participate in the good, high-value markets tothe extent we should.

I am advised that we export 1200 tonnes to the UnitedStates of America out of Mildura. I thought it wouldhave been higher than that. There is potential. I know

we have received a lot of interest in citrus from variousparts of the world such as Italy, but there is a bit of atwist in it — they want mandarins in here fromsouthern Italy.

Mr Hamilton — It is not a lemon twist?

Mr STEGGALL — This is a mandarin twist.

The Koreans had the same thing — when we were ingovernment they were looking at us exporting intoKorea but they wanted their mandarins into Australia. Ido not know where that has got to. The beauty of thislegislation is if we require it, we could take that nextstep. This is not government intervention, it is privateenterprise, which may ask government for someprotective mechanism to ensure food safety or qualityassurance programs. Let it be known that a cooperativeapproach is being taken where huge communities areworking together to get big volume and big investmentand then service markets using the latest science. Weare on the cusp of that. In my own electorate of SwanHill the stone fruit people are slowly getting going withthat.

Mr Hamilton — Doing very well.

Mr STEGGALL — They are doing very well.They are working cooperatively and coordinating theirplantings, their quality assurance and their packaging.They are now coordinating their marketing and theprovision of retail-ready product throughout Asia. Ihope after my journey they will do it in steadilyincreasing volumes through Italy and Europe, becauseonce you get into Italy the rest of Europe opens up toyou. I believe this legislation has more potential thanwe probably considered it to have. Whoever put thething together — —


Mr STEGGALL — A good minister? I think itmight have been a bureaucrat who thought we shouldmaybe extend this a little bit.

I see that in Australia we can have cooperative ventureswithout government interference but maybe with somegovernment umbrellas. I can give the house theexample of table grapes going into Robinvale. Theystart in October just south of Ayers Rock, go tosouthern and south-western Queensland after that andthen they come down to Menindee and then to Mildura,Robinvale and Swan Hill. That is a private enterpriseoperation. We have apricot producers from Pooncarie,Swan Hill and New Zealand looking at coordinatingproduction, packaging and marketing in those areas.



This does not help us with New Zealand, but that doesnot matter.

Mr Hamilton — It is the eighth state.

Mr STEGGALL — They do not like you sayingthat, but it is very true.

The National Party believes that maybe we should havea bit of a think about the opportunities that exist and therequirements of different communities if we are goingto have the citrus industry grow and develop like thestone fruit and table grape industries.

Another interesting industry in Mildura is the new driedfruit industry. We will see how that goes. It is a newtype of operation which is very exciting. It will be goodto have this type of legislation sitting there forcommunities spread throughout Australia to use if theyhave the requirement. The National Party will besupporting this legislation and wishes it a speedypassage.

Mr HOWARD (Ballarat East) — I am pleased to beable to speak on the Agricultural Industry Development(Further Amendment) Bill. I note that as ParliamentarySecretary for Natural Resources and Environment Ioften tend to speak on bills that you could describe asbeing green; however, I think you have to describe thisone as an orange bill. I am very pleased to see that thebill is very appealing to the honourable member forSwan Hill. I am sure it is equally appealing to thehonourable member for Mildura, whom I understandwants to speak very soon on this matter.

In regard to the issue contained within the bill, althoughwe know you cannot compare apples with oranges inthis case we are comparing oranges with wine grapes,strawberries and tomatoes, as they all come under thegamut of the bill. The bill aims to ensure that there areopportunities for particular fruit organisations withinthis state to continue to be able to promote and markettheir products, to rely on the state to assist them inbringing together their particular bodies, and to enablethem to levy compulsory charges on producers of thosefruits.

The honourable member for Swan Hill eloquentlydescribed the citrus industry in this state. He will bemissed in this house in the next Parliament given theextensive amount of information he has provided in hisvarious speeches. His most recent speech explainedmany details in regard to the citrus industry, and weknow it does not just operate on this side of the MurrayRiver; while the larger component of the citrus industryoperates here, it also operates in New South Wales.

The bill enables the citrus organisation to be recognisedunder the Victorian act and perform functions andduties interstate.

As we have heard, it is somewhat symbolic aslegislation because it explores the opportunities ofbeing able to market Victorian produce together withproduce from other states and ensures that we have afacility which enables those organisational bodies to berecognised within one state but is able to enact theirfunctions in other states. The legislation opens the doorfor a lot of opportunities in the future. Certainly no-onecould describe this bill as a lemon.


Mr HOWARD — You have to try, with a bill likethis, to find a way of making it a little moreentertaining.

We have done a lot of consultation within theindustry — however, I would not describe the activityas navel gazing — and that has enabled the industry toevaluate the best way to move forward. In doing so,what was the citrus industry board will bereconstituted — although we notice that its juices arenot reconstituted — and, as we have heard, this willallow a poll to be taken of the producers to establish thenew board. While that is happening the existinglegislation will be allowed to provide a transitionalsupport base until July 2004, but if these arrangementscan be put in place sooner this will override that.

This is a fine piece of legislation. It supports the citrusindustry in particular; however, it also opens the doorfor the advanced opportunities to market and promoteother agricultural produce within this state in the future.

I do not want to speak too long on this bill because Imight give some people the pip and the minister mightwant to put the squeeze on me.

Mr Richardson — On a point of order, MadamActing Speaker, the honourable member for BallaratEast is badly in breach of standing order 3284, whichrelates to bad gags.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Barker) — Order!While I rule that there is no point of order, I tend toagree with the honourable member for Forest Hill.

Mr HOWARD — In closing, I just want to say thatI support this legislation wholeheartedly and believe itis certainly in the interests of the agricultural fruitindustry within this state.



Mr SAVAGE (Mildura) — In view of the fact thatMildura is probably the heart of the citrus growingarea — —


Mr SAVAGE — I am not going to have any jokes. Ileave that to my colleague over there. I could notpossibly beat some of those jokes.

Because Mildura is the heart of the citrus growing areait is beholden on me to make some observations aboutthe Agricultural Industry Development (FurtherAmendment) Bill. It is a vibrant industry, but it hasbeen under incredible pressure over recent years from adismantling of all forms of protection from foreigntrade, and it works only one way. Brazil has a tariffprocedure that is about 45 per cent — I think ours isabout 5 per cent or 6 per cent at the moment — and,needless to say, Brazil has very low cost production.Large companies like Amatil own huge areas ofproduction in Brazil, so it is not in some ways helping aThird World nation. Those sorts of pressures applyextreme outcomes on our industry and there are pocketsof it that are very successful.

I look with concern when I read about nationalcompetition policy driving these agendas, because I amyet to see anything that has come out of nationalcompetition policy that brings out competition thatproduces good outcomes for the people at the bottomend of the production market. Perhaps it is good forsupermarkets and foreign traders, but it is not very goodfor many producers.

A good example of the way that these industries areunder significant pressure is a recent occasion that Ibought some oranges in a supermarket when there wasa shortage of supply for local product. The label on thefruit said, ‘Australia: nature’s best’, so I purchased it.When I got home I looked at the back of the productand a label said, ‘Produce of the USA’.

I have been hearing for many years since I have beenthe member for Mildura that the government is going toaddress the issue of labelling. Obviously it has not. Ifyou can put ‘Australia’ on one side of a label andpurport the product to be Australian but look on theother side and see that it is from the USA, that is notfair and these are not equitable outcomes for ourindustry.

Mr Mulder — Did you eat the Australian side ofthe orange?

Mr SAVAGE — It did not go to waste, put it thatway. The other thing that is having an impact on the

industry is the predatory nature of supermarkets. If youconsider the price that a supermarket charges forsomething and the price that the grower receives for ityou see a huge disparity. Some products at the farmgate would be worth thousands of dollars if they weretranslated at a product price.

Mr Mulder — Farmers markets are the go!

Mr SAVAGE — Yes. I visited the MilduraCooperative about 10 days ago and saw how efficientlyour produce is marketed, its quality and the hard workthat our local population puts in to making sure thisproduct is acceptable to the American market, which isa unique market. The United States of America hasrestrictions on our fruit when it has its own fruit, yet itcan come into our market 12 months of the year.

I wish to make a couple of comments on the bill. As hasbeen mentioned by previous speakers, it will combinetwo marketing boards into one as part of arecommendation from a national competition reviewheld in 1998. The review made 12 recommendations,which both New South Wales and Victoria haveaccepted.

Citrus marketing boards in both states provide a rangeof research and market development services for theindustry in the Murray Valley, but for practicalpurposes the boards have operated out of Mildura as asingle entity.

There are some good and positive outcomes from this.There will be democracy; orders will be made after theindustry has been consulted, and that is appropriate; andit will be back to square one if the producers decidethey are not prepared to accept the structure of the newboard. I commend the fact that both parliaments areconsidering the element of democracy which is mostappropriate. There will be some cost savings with thereduction of two boards to one. I understand thatcommittees for the wine grape, strawberry and tomatoindustries are also operating under this act successfully.

The citrus industry in both states has recommended thatthe boards be reconstituted under Victorian legislationbecause the board office and the majority of citrusproduction is here in Victoria. I have been incommunication with Mr John Braniff, who is the headof the Murray Valley Citrus Marketing Board, and itsupports the bill. On that basis, I commend the bill tothe house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr McINTOSH (Kew).


UTILITY METERS (METROLOGICAL CONTROLS) BILL


UTILITY METERS (METROLOGICALCONTROLS) BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 16 May; motion of Mr BRUMBY(Treasurer).

Mrs PEULICH (Bentleigh) — The opposition doesnot oppose the Utility Meters (Metrological Controls)Bill. The purpose of the bill is to extend the operationof current trade measurement laws to utility meters,which are used to measure quantities of reticulatedelectricity, gas and water, and to ensure that utilitymeters will be subject to the same regulatoryframework and scrutiny which currently applies toother measuring instruments under the Victorian trademeasurement legislation.

The bill is necessary because some trade transactionswere exempted from section 6 of the TradeMeasurement Act, and that included the measurementof reticulated electricity, gas and water, because at thattime it had been under direct government control. Ofcourse since the corporatisation of utilities in Victoriathat direct government control no longer applies, andthere is a need to make sure we have a coherent andintegrated system.

The uniform adoption of trade measurement legislationoccurred in 1990, except in Western Australia. It wasput in place to ensure accuracy and consistency inmeasurement across Australia. It is obviously in thenational interest to have a formal system that ensuresmeasurements are consistent throughout the countryand that the data provides a quantitative basis fordecisions in many aspects of our life, especiallycommerce, industry, science, engineering, internationaltrade, government regulations, health and safety.

The national system was designed to ensuretransactions involve verifiable measurements that areconducted accurately and consistently across all statesand territories. However, it was the responsibility of thestates and territories to operate the trade measurementauthorities and the verifying authorities. The nationallegislation is obviously clearly necessary to promotecommercial certainty as well as the confidence ofconsumers in the market, which is needed to maintainsuitable protections for those consumers.

The opposition has consulted widely and the legislationhas received general support, with the exception ofsome aspects of it — that is, the regulations which areyet to be developed. I will speak to that in some greaterdetail.

The Trade Measurement Act 1995, along with theTrade Measurement (Administration) Act 1995, formsthe basis of Victoria’s uniform trade measurementlegislation commitments. This bill ensures that utilitymeters for electricity, gas and water will be subject tothe same regulatory framework and scrutiny thatapplies to other measurement instruments underVictorian trade measurement legislation. It effectivelymeans that those companies responsible for meteraccuracy will be subject to oversight by TradeMeasurement Victoria inspectors and licensees.

The bill provides for separate commencement inrespect of each of the utility sectors of gas, electricityand water to ensure it is systematically implementedand that utility meter accuracy is put in place toenhance both business and consumer confidence.

Some concerns about the qualifications of inspectorswere raised during the briefing. The department wasgood enough to provide information that all inspectorscurrently appointed under the Trade Measurement Acthold national accreditation as inspectors through theNational Standards Commission and that in relation toqualifications applicable to inspectors appointed underthe Utility Meters (Metrological Controls) Bill existinginspectors appointed under the Trade Measurement Act1995, who will generally play a minor role in theprocess, will be appointed as inspectors as a result oftheir previous experience, including ongoing training,but not on their technical experience in respect to utilitymeters. There will also be training in the operation ofutility meters on an ongoing basis.

I understand the new inspectors, who will be dedicatedto utility meters, will be required to have specialistknowledge about a specific utility — water, electricityor gas — but may interchange to another utility throughmultiskilling and to suit staff leave arrangements. Therewill be a need to ensure that the training of inspectorscovers such things as customer relations and possiblysome negotiation skills.

The opposition is quite confident that this aspect of itsconcerns has been addressed. However, numerousconcerns were raised by those with whom the shadowMinister for Small Business in the upper houseconsulted. They focus predominantly on clause 72 ofthe bill which deals with other fees and charges beingprescribed. It is clear that under this provision aregulatory impact statement will be required and thatregulations are yet to be developed along with thatprocess.

Concerns were also raised with the opposition about thepossible cost of compliance and the level of



consultation that is to occur as part of that process. Theopposition would like a guarantee that there will beextensive consultation on the process of developingthose regulations and that when writing the regulationsthe government consults with all utilities and utilitymeter manufacturers on the regulations and their impacton businesses. Clearly business is concerned whenthere are mounting imposed business costs, many ofthem resulting from increased costs of doing businessas a result of government policies. There is a concernabout more regulations causing heightened compliancecosts being passed on to business.

I would welcome the minister, in summing up, givingsome assurances about and the process of developingregulations. I look forward to the implementation of aconsistent and systematic regulatory framework forensuring the accuracy of utility meters used for trade, sothat it is consistent with current Victorian trademeasurement legislation. With those few words, Icommend the bill to the house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Barker) — Order!The honourable member for Swan Hill — again!

Mr STEGGALL (Swan Hill) — To whoever putthese three bills together I say: at least we will clear thedecks in one fell swoop.

The Utility Meters (Metrological Controls ) Bill isprobably a strange one for me to be handling in thishouse. I am sorry that the minister responsible, theTreasurer, does not see fit to join us for this shortdebate. It is always a pity when ministers — and I amafraid the Labor government is quite often that way —do not come in for the debate on their own bills. That isdisappointing. I admit that the Minister for Agriculturewas there for the whole debate on the two previousbills. It is valuable when ministers are here.

The history behind the bill is that in 1990 all statesexcept Western Australia agreed to adopt uniform trademeasurement legislation. The Victorian TradeMeasurement Act 1995 and the Trade Measurement(Administration) Act 1995 comprise Victoria’s uniformtrade management legislation. Utility meters measuringthe consumption of reticulated electricity, gas and waterwere exempted from those acts. This bill brings the lawgoverning utility meters into line with other trademeasurement legislation.

In general, the bill establishes conditions about the useof utility meters for trade, sets out requirements for thereverification and certification of utility meters, coverslicensing and enforcement issues, and allows theadministering authority to adopt codes of conduct

governing utility meters used in an industry. I say thatbecause each of the industries is different and is treatedas such.

This bill is really an enabling bill and, as currentlydrafted, will not affect our irrigation districts — and weare rather interested in water being put into thoseareas — but it will impact on our stock and domesticsupplies. So it will certainly impact on urban areas andin rural areas it will affect stock and domestic supplies.That is important because currently we do not have thescience to accurately measure, to the extent that thislegislation requires, irrigation waters — our detheridgewheels are not as accurate as they could be. Science iscatching up and it will not be very long before theaccuracy of that measurement will be sufficient to beincluded but it is not here at the moment. If irrigationwater had been included in this bill, there would havebeen quite an argument against it, because it wouldhave been impractical.

We have had advice from Goulburn-Murray Water, themajor irrigation organisation that has examined thelegislation. It has had legal advice and was told that thepriority areas for legislation are gas and electricity, andthen water, in the following order: metro urban, metrorural, and waterworks districts, stock and domestic. Atthis stage irrigation is well down the priority list. Theintent is eventually to cover the whole water industryway down the track. Irrigation is well down the list andGoulburn-Murray Water is not aiming to pick it up atthis stage. As I said, if the detheridge wheel wasincluded we would have many concerns, but based onlegal and other advice people in the irrigation industryare comfortable with the situation.

It is interesting to wander into the area of gas. OriginEnergy finds that the principles are okay but it has notbeen thought through well; it is messy and it is not clearwhat the Essential Services Commission or TradeMeasurement Victoria will do, but it will all be sortedout at the coalface and be made to work.

The purposes clause of the bill covers a series of areas:as I said, it is an enabling bill that will enable ministersand governments to bring different industries into thelegislation as they are ready and to set dates and times.It provides for a scheme similar to the national model,the uniform trade measurement legislation, to apply toutility meters used for trade. It enables the scheme to beapplied to utility meters used in the gas industry, theelectricity industry and the water industry from arelevant prescribed date, and that is the key part of thatprovision. This provision could be put in place sometime in the future when those industries are ready.



The bill provides for transitional arrangements withrespect to existing and new utility meters; provides forthe director of Trade Measurement Victoria (TMV) tobe both the administering authority and the licensingauthority; provides for the verification of utility metersin specified cases and for reverification and certificationof all utility meters; provides for the granting ofservicing licences; and also provides for theenforcement of the act, including the appointment andpowers of inspectors and the issue of infringementnotices.

The bill enables the making of codes of conduct, whichwill be interesting to see and hear, and provides for theapproval of codes of conduct operating under existingarrangements. Codes of conduct are starting to spreadright throughout our legislation, which I welcome.

Further, the bill empowers the making of regulationsfor the purposes of the act and makes consequentialamendments to the Water Act. The legislation is part ofnecessary continuing legislation required in these areas,and I hope that as it is administered and introduced intothose various areas people can maintain confidence inthe measurement of these liquids or electricity for theircommercial use in trade.

At the moment the Swan Hill area is starting to putmeters in for the new Woorinen irrigation district,which will probably be the most accurate in theirrigation system. I believe it will not be long beforethat type of meter can be used under this legislation andthat the tolerance levels achieved through the sciencegoing into the production of those meters will beacceptable for this legislation and will give confidenceto those who will use it in the area around Swan Hill.

The National Party will not be opposing the bill andwishes it well on its journey.

Ms BEATTIE (Tullamarine) — The TradeMeasurement Act 1995, along with the TradeMeasurement (Administration) Act 1995, form thebasis of Victoria’s uniform trade measurementlegislation, which was agreed to by all states andterritories except Western Australia in 1990. Unlikeother measuring instruments used for trade, measuringinstruments used to determine a quantity of reticulatedelectricity, gas or water are currently exempt from theprovisions of the Trade Measurement Act.

This bill essentially transfers the administrativeresponsibility for enforcing the accuracy of gas,electricity and metropolitan water meters from theEssential Services Commission, and the accuracy ofnon-metropolitan water meters from the Department of

Natural Resources and Environment to a specialist trademeasurement body, Trade Measurement Victoria(TMV), which sits within the Department ofInnovation, Industry and Regional Development.

As I said, the instruments were previously exempt, andthe exemption was justified at a time when the utilitieswere publicly owned and directly regulated by Crownauthorities. As a consequence of the former Kennettgovernment’s policies of privatisation andcorporatisation, Victoria’s government agencies nolonger have a primary service role with respect to thesupply of utility meters. Accordingly, so far as Victoriais concerned the initial justification for the exemptionof utility meters from trade measurement legislation nolonger exists.

As a matter of good public policy, utility meters shouldbe subject to scrutiny. There is nothing more basic inpeople’s lives than gas, water and electricity, and it isimportant that the measurements of those supplies beabsolutely accurate. The scrutiny that existed whenutility services were provided by government is now ofa different character following the privatisation andcorporatisation that has taken place in Victoria. Almostevery household in Victoria is supplied by one or moreutility service. In terms of both consumer protectionpolicy and business impact considerations there isjustification for specific legislative intervention toensure the accuracy of utility meters.

Given the importance of that accuracy to the Victoriancommunity it is important to assure every reticulatedgas, electricity and water customer of the integrity of autility meter measurement.

Legislative control will also ensure that entities thatwere corporatised and privatised by the previousgovernment are now appropriately accountable, andthat is an absolute necessity. The bill introduces alegislative regulatory framework for ensuring theaccuracy of meters that is consistent with what alreadyapplies to all other measuring instruments used for tradeunder Victorian trade measurement legislation. There isnothing dramatic about this legislation; it just brings therelevant areas into line with other trade measurements.

The bill will extend the operation of current trademeasurement laws to cover utility meters. It transfersthe administrative responsibility for enforcing theiraccuracy. That is most important because it impacts onevery Victorian’s life. All businesses and consumersbenefit from having accurate utility meters. We knowhow important it is to give comfort to businesses andlandlords that all their metering is right.



Aside from ensuring that customers get what they payfor, precise meter readings send the correct pricingsignals to both residential consumers and businesses. Itenables efficient consumption and efficient planningdecisions — the Minister for Planning would certainlybe aware of the importance of the meters — and itenhances certainty. In this way ensuring the accuracy ofutility meters promotes the efficient use of energyresources to the overall benefit of Victorians. We haveto be careful with our energy resources. We areconsuming energy at a great rate and we must beresourceful in the way we use it.

The bill assists by ensuring that our scarce naturalresources are not wasted unnecessarily. It is particularlyimportant because Victorians currently spend$8.5 billion on energy each year. It is important thatthere be a consistent, systematic regulatory frameworkin place to ensure that the accuracy of utility meters ismaintained.

There has been a great deal of consultation, and thehonourable member for Bentleigh expressed someconcern about that consultation. Industry consultationshave not raised a great deal of concern about the intentand application of the bill. Industry is solidly behind thebill. However, some businesses have misunderstood theintent of certain clauses in the bill and have madeassumptions about the requirements and how the billmay be administered. Trade Measurement Victoriaofficers believe they have provided satisfactoryresponses to the businesses that have expressedconcerns. Trade Measurement Victoria is currentlyresponding to a recent letter from South East Waterabout certain issues in the bill. It does not believe thatany of the concerns need to be addressed but are due tolack of understanding about what is in the bill.

I will go through some of the parties that took part inthe consultations. The Bracks government prides itselfon its consultation. It is a government that is known forlistening and then acting, not acting and then trying todrag the community along with it. The gas and energycompanies consulted included Gas TechnologyServices, Citipower, Origin Energy and United Energy.

We are hearing a lot about water and the very dryconditions at the moment, so it is a wake-up call thatmeters must be correct. There must not be a drop ofwater wasted and the readings must be accurate. Thewater companies consulted were Barwon Water, SouthGippsland Water, City West Water, my own waterauthority, Western Water, South East Water,Goulburn-Murray Water, South West Water, NorthEast Water, Yarra Valley Water, National Metering

Service, Portland Coast Water and the Sunraysia RuralWater Authority.

The irrigators were also consulted and includedNaturally Resourceful, Measuring and ControlEquipment, AMIAD, Trimec, the ACE Group, ABBIndustry Pty Ltd, Rubicon Systems Australia, ManlyHydraulics Laboratory, Murray Irrigation Ltd, PhoenixMetering Services, Combined Instruments, SunraysiaRural Water Authority, South West Irrigation andSunwater.

The consultation has been wide and complete. Theissues raised in those consultations arose more frommisunderstandings than real issues. TXU Australia,which has the gas and electricity business, did notattend the presentation on the bill but was sent a copy ofa Powerpoint presentation. TMV officers have hadthree discussions with TXU Australia’s representativesabout the bill. The government believes that theconcerns of TXU Australia have been addressed. TheBracks government listens and then acts.

Consultation with industry about the bill began inFebruary. In April presentations were made to thebusinesses that I named. Some of the businessesattended more than one consultation, so they areinterested in the bill and involved in it. The governmentbelieves they are now supportive of the bill.

Other initiatives surround this legislation, and we havebeen concerned to ensure that the measurement andpricing of goods are transparent and that businesses andconsumers have confidence in the systems in place.

A recent example of the government’s initiative in thisarea is the work currently being done to assistindependent fuel retailers to compete against oilcompany-run service stations by ensuring that fuel ismeasured for sale at the refinery at a consistenttemperature base. Honourable members may beaware — certainly I think most petrol consumers are —that sales of what is termed ‘hot fuel’ from oilcompanies have been an issue for small independentpetrol retailers for some time. It is certainly an issue forconsumers of petrol because it gives a falsemeasurement.

The government recently had draft regulations releasedto the petroleum industry for comment. The objectiveof that is to control temperatures at which fuel ismeasured for sale at refineries and terminals. TheVictorian government initiatives will ensure that theproblem of hot fuel does not threaten the viability ofindependent traders, who are absolutely crucial tomaintaining long-term competition in the marketplace,

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES (AMENDMENT) BILL


as it will make the measurement and pricing of fuel atrefineries more transparent.

The bill comes about as a result of the Kennettgovernment’s privatisation policy. Previously meterswere essentially controlled by the government becausegas, electricity and water were supplied by thegovernment. But with the sale of those companies thislegislation became necessary to check the meters andtheir maintenance, both of which are important. So thisis good legislation. It is a further demonstration of theBracks government’s commitment to helping Victorianbusiness grow and succeed. It is a demonstration ofhow the Bracks government listens and then acts. It isalso a demonstration of the Bracks government’scommitment to transparency, openness and honesty ingovernment — —

Mrs Peulich interjected.

Ms BEATTIE — That is something which I knowthe honourable member for Bentleigh absolutelysupports. Small business operators in particular willappreciate knowing that their consumption of gas,water and electricity is being accurately measured.Some utility service providers operate in accordancewith various codes under the current licensingarrangements and conditions, and the bill also providesthat the administering authority may adopt and approvea code of conduct which applies to utility meters usedfor trade being measured. To ensure a consistentframework part 8 of the bill essentially places limits onthe power of an authority to make by-laws under theWater Act 1989 which are inconsistent with the utilitymeters act.

As I said, we need a systematic approach to measuringgas, water and electricity; we need an open andtransparent process so consumers, businesses, landlordsand tenants can all go forward knowing that all theiressential services are being measured accurately. So itis good public policy. It comes as a result ofprivatisation which in many cases has been verycontroversial. We will be bringing in legislation toensure that water stays in public ownership, and that isan absolutely crucial piece of legislation. Again, theBracks government listens then acts. I commend thisbill to the house.




RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES(AMENDMENT) BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 14 May; motion of Ms PIKE(Minister for Housing).

Opposition amendments circulated by Mrs SHARDEY(Caulfield) pursuant to sessional orders.

Mrs SHARDEY (Caulfield) — It gives me pleasureto speak on the Residential Tenancies (Amendment)Bill. May I say at the outset that the opposition does notoppose this bill. However, I have circulatedamendments which I would like the government toconsider and perhaps even support.

The purpose of this legislation is to make variousamendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997,which regulates tenancies, rooming houses and caravanparks. The background to this bill is interesting. In 1996the previous government conducted a review of theResidential Tenancies Act 1980 under the chairmanshipof the honourable member for Brighton, and as a resultit passed new legislation in 1997. It had determined thatthe three existing acts — the Residential Tenancies Act1980, the Caravan Parks and Movable Dwellings Act1988 and the Rooming House Act 1990 — would bestreamlined and integrated into a single piece oflegislation.

The 1997 act contained common provisions, whereappropriate, to provide equity between the three typesof tenure. It retained the provisions that preserved thenecessary distinction between residential tenancies,caravan parks and rooming houses. The new act aimedto clarify the rights and responsibilities of landlords andtenants. I will briefly mention some of the changes thatoccurred at that time, because they set the basis for thiscurrent legislation and the review that took place overthe last couple of years.

First of all one thing that was very specific to that pieceof legislation was the removal of restrictions on theperiod between rent increases, with an increase from 60to 90 days in the notice period for landlords to notifytenants of rent increases. There was a reduction of theperiod for notice to vacate for no specific reason fromthe then six months down to 90 days. That sets theframework for the legislation we are talking abouttoday.

I am sorry, that is the schoolteacher in me.

Mr Hulls — What school?



Mrs SHARDEY — State school, and thenMethodist Ladies College — a good school.

That legislation also saw the introduction of fast-trackprocedures to simplify the ending of fixed-termtenancies and tenancies where there were outstandingrental arrears. It also saw the introduction of a 60-daynotice to vacate where premises were to be sold, whichmeant that a notice could be served before the sale orwithin 14 days of the contract of sale being entered into.The act also contained an efficiency measure whichsaw the introduction of a centralised system of bondmanagement, which was one of the most important andfar-reaching elements of that piece of legislation. Themain objective of having a central bond manager was toensure the lodgment of all residential bonds and tomaximise the return on bond moneys.

A number of new measures were contained in the act toimprove the quality of rental accommodation. The actstrengthened the provisions dealing with violence anddamage to property by both tenants and their guests.The act also contained provisions intended to preventpersonal documents and goods left behind by tenantsfrom being destroyed.

The Residential Tenancies Act in its new form wasvery, very important, and I congratulate the previousgovernment and the then Minister for Housing, the lateAnn Henderson, on the enormous amount of work thatwas done in introducing that legislation. I alsocongratulate the Honourable Louise Asher, the thenMinister for Small Business, on the work she did in theconsultation period leading up to that new act.

The Australian Labor Party’s promise coming up to thelast election was to review the Residential TenanciesAct and to assess the impact of the changes made in1997. As honourable members know, in August 2000 aresidential tenancies working group was set up withstakeholders and a background paper and consultationreport were published.

It took two years, but we finally have a bill of some103 clauses representing what some people would sayis a myriad of mostly minor technical changes to theact. I took the time to go back and read the contributionto the second-reading debate on the 1997 ResidentialTenancies Bill of the now education minister but thenshadow Minister for Housing, and her attack on theformer government over that piece of legislation wasvitriolic. She certainly stated her party’s strongopposition to the legislation at that time.

One has to wonder why the changes to that legislationhave not been more profound. Given that at that time

the then shadow minister put forward a reasonedamendment not to proceed with the ResidentialTenancies Bill and certainly offered her party’s strongopposition to that bill, I would have thought thegovernment would have taken this opportunity toimprove on the act we now have.

A number of people from various stakeholder groupshave talked about the fact that this piece of legislationcould be improved by restructuring it and making iteasier to use. Some people find the act somewhatdifficult to understand because there are areas commonto caravan parks, rooming houses and residentialtenancies, and they find it difficult having to dip intoeach of those parts to find what they are looking for. Iwas surprised to learn that the government had not beenmore rigorous in its amendments. Perhaps the exercisewas a little too academic — I do not intend to be meanspirited in saying that — and required a profoundlydifferent approach to recast the act in a way that wouldbe more helpful to stakeholders and to users of thelegislation. In a sense that opportunity has been lost,and it will be incumbent upon the next government tolook at restructuring this act to make it more useful.

I note that many issues raised in the report were nottaken up. Last night I finally obtained a copy of thefinal report of the residential tenancies working groupand was able to glance at it. Stakeholders are probablydisappointed that some of the recommendations in thereport are not taken up in the new legislation. In someareas agreement could not be reached between theparties on a recommendation to address particularproblems that had been raised.

The Victorian Caravan Parks Association hascomplained bitterly that it did not have the opportunityto see any draft legislation or to give its views on it. Thefinal report went forward and that was the last theassociation saw of it, and that is the basis of theamendments I have circulated. The association takesgrave issue with particular clauses in this bill, and it isvery important to recognise that even though thatassociation was a stakeholder in the working party itdid not have the opportunity to give its final verdict onwhat the government was proposing.

The Labor Party has been very strong in its talk aboutthe need to consult with the community and to be openand transparent, and many people would say yes, that isa good thing; but to camouflage talking to people asconsultation and then ignore what they say is an issuethat really needs to be thought about. The actions of thisgovernment will be judged by the community, and Idoubt whether adopting that particular form ofconsultation and then not taking any notice of it will



wash with the community as living up to the high jumpbar that the government set in terms of being open andaccountable.

The main areas of amendment to the act covered by thisbill are in relation first of all to tenure and notices tovacate; tenure in caravan parks; rent increases; someadministrative issues; the possible misuse of violenceprovisions; issuing of receipts; penalties; and variousamendments to clarify the act and improve processes.With 103 clauses in this bill, a lot of them very minorand technical, it is not appropriate to go through all ofthem. I will note just 10 of the key changes.

First of all, the period of notice to vacate a rentedproperty without a stated reason has been increasedfrom 90 to 120 days. This applies to tenants, roominghouses and caravan parks. The one thing I would takefrom the contribution to the original second-readingdebate back in 1997 when the Labor Party was inopposition by the then shadow Minister for Housing,currently the Minister for Education and Training, onthis issue is that this was one of the areas where sheparticularly attacked the then government. She said thatthe six months notice that was required to be given by alandlord asking a tenant to leave without a reason was aprovision that the Labor Party supported and that it wasstrongly opposed to the reduction to 90 days. In thatcontext I would have thought this would have been oneof the key areas for this government and that it wouldperhaps go back to the six months, but it has not — ithas gone back to 120 days. The Real Estate Institute ofVictoria does not seem to have an objection to that andneither do the other stakeholders.

Additionally there is a series of specific-purpose noticesto vacate. For example, the period in which it ispossible to apply to the Victorian Civil andAdministrative Tribunal (VCAT) challenging the noticeif a premises is to be sold and the notice to vacate istaken as unreasonable has been increased from 28 to60 days.

The second key amendment relates to caravan parks. Iwill be discussing this a little later. A person has tooccupy a site for only 60 consecutive days before beingconsidered a resident with rights under the ResidentialTenancies Act. Previously the requirement was for90 consecutive days.

The third key area of change relates to the number ofrent increases, which is now to be limited to two peryear, with 60 days notice. Previously the number ofincreases per year was unrestricted but the notice periodwas 90 days, so by implication there could be only fourper year. Additionally there is now an expansion of the

criteria for determining whether rental increases areexcessive. Those criteria require looking at the numberof increases in the previous two years, the size of theincreases and the period since the last increase. Thesedo not seem to be onerous changes but many peoplewould say that with the current oversupply of propertyin some areas and the vacancy rates being somewhathigher than they have been in the past — not for all ofVictoria but for metropolitan areas — a lot of landlordswould think twice or maybe more before they considerincreasing rents. The one thing that landlords look for isa stable client to rent their premises and if increasingthe rent means their tenant might leave, I am sure theywould think twice about it.

The fourth key area is that landlords are now able toapply to VCAT for an urgent hearing if the tenant orresident refuses right of entry to the property for aninspection — for example, for the sale of the property.

The fifth area relates to the provision allowing alandlord to suspend a tenant or visitor for two daysbecause of violent behaviour. There is now a newprovision which applies a penalty for the misuse of theprovision where a person does not have reasonablegrounds to believe that a serious act of violence hasoccurred or that the premises is in danger. A misuse ofthe provision incurs 20 penalty units. There had beensome concern that this provision had been abused in thepast and there was talk of perhaps reducing to one daythe time for which a person could be suspended. Thetwo-day suspension was retained but with an overriderwhich is not too unreasonable — that is, that there mustbe reasonable grounds for the suspension.

The sixth main area is that that there are new offencesfor the failure of a landlord to provide a copy of acompleted bond lodgment form for entering a propertyother than in accordance with the act and for failure tocomply with an order of VCAT. That is replicated inthe VCAT act. These are fairly small changes. Therequirement for the landlord or agent to maintainrecords of rental payments is updated, particularly toensure that electronic payment of rent is efficientlyrecorded. This requirement recognises that technologyis upon us and we need to provide for that.

There is a provision to ensure that only premises ownedor leased by or formally affiliated to an education ortraining institution are exempt from the provisions ofthis act. This is required to protect students living innon-university quarters.

An amendment extends the time that personaldocuments left behind at the end of a tenancy arerequired to be kept from 28 to 90 days. However, there



is a qualification in that it removes the requirement toadvertise the disposal of such documents at the end of a90-day period. This is important. I have seen anexample of this in the property next to my office, wherea tenant moved out and left goods for a goodly period,and it was a process for the new tenant to have thosegoods removed. It made life difficult for that newtenant. It is important to have a process to protect theprevious tenant’s ownership of goods and personaldocuments but at the same time offer an opportunity forthose goods and documents to be moved.

There is also an amendment to provide that a claim forbond moneys for unpaid rent by a landlord or agent anda possession order can be made at the same time. Thatis a process to assist with the end of a tenancy.

The issue that is of most importance in relation to thebill is the one I have mentioned raised by the VictorianCaravan Parks Association. Its metropolitan divisionhas come to see me, and I have received a large amountof correspondence from caravan parks aroundVictoria — probably from all areas of countryVictoria — that are most concerned about clause 44 ofthe bill, which amends the period for a person to qualifyas a resident with all the rights of a tenant under the actand reduces it from 90 days to 60 days.

This is an area where the opposition will be proposingan amendment. I hope that people who are desirous ofcaravan park owners being given the opportunity assmall business people to run their businesses in the bestpossible way in providing appropriate tourist facilitiesfor Victorian families, and those who require crisis andtransitional accommodation and are in great need, canhave their needs met. All of these elements are at riskwith this clause.

Members of the caravan parks association believe thechange will reduce the capacity of caravan park ownersto clearly delineate between on the one hand those whoare residents and on the other hand those who requireflexible shorter term accommodation, such astransitional housing clients and crisis accommodationclients. We know that the Office of Housing and otheragencies are now having to use caravan parks forshort-term crisis and transitional accommodation,which is usually about three months. It is incumbentupon government and all of us to ensure that thataccommodation will still be available to those people,and that caravan park owners will not feel unhappyabout offering that accommodation. There is a greatshortage of this type of accommodation, crisisaccommodation in particular.

As I move around Victoria the one thing that housingworkers say to me is that there is a chronic shortage ofcrisis accommodation in particular, and also of othershort-term transitional housing accommodation.Although caravan park accommodation is expensivethey do not believe they could cope with theresponsibility they have of housing people who are interrible crisis if they did not have access to caravanparks.

While that is perhaps something that we in this chamberdo not like to think about — we would not like to be inthat position — I would hate to think we would takeany step that meant a caravan park owner would thinktwice about offering this form of accommodation. If aperson stayed for 60 days they would then have theright to remain as a permanent tenant and a caravanpark operator would not perhaps have the opportunityto then fulfil a booking they had for the holidays,particularly the Christmas holidays. I would hate tothink caravan park owners would be reticent aboutoffering this short-term accommodation to people inneed because we had changed the legislation byreducing from 90 days to 60 days the time frame inwhich a person could become a permanent resident. Ihope the government is cognisant of that. I know thatother parties are thinking about it.

Park owners have said to me they believe they wouldbe less inclined to accommodate the more doubtfulapplicants for occupancy, that it would work against theinterests of those who wish to reside in caravan parks,and that welfare agencies would therefore find it moredifficult to accommodate those in need and in crisis.

I have received a letter from an operator who has alarge number of caravan parks throughout Australia, 33of which are in Victoria, with a turnover in excess of$15 million, so there is a tourist element to it. The letterstates:

In every state and territory of Australia we have parkoperators who run caravan parks that focus on tourism,permanent and semi-permanent accommodation.

Currently in all states these accommodation facilities are ableto exist in harmony with the needs of the owner, tourist andtenant being well addressed.

However, the proposed changes to the Residential TenanciesAct surpass the mandate of short-term and longaccommodation by having a detrimental effect on the ongoingviability of tourism in caravan parks.

To reduce the qualification period of the occupant to less thanthe current 90 days … will massively increase costs and havea detrimental effect upon of the promotion of longer termtourism stays, which are the very essence of touristaccommodation.



To reduce the qualification period of the occupant to zeronights will make a tourism operation totally untenable astourism accommodation can no longer be guaranteed.

He goes on to say that every single tourism booking hasno value when the previous occupant of that site has theright to claim tenancy. He also says that the rights ofthe tourist will therefore have been usurped.

I have an email from the president of the VictorianCaravan Parks Association, Phil Redmond, who saysspecifically with respect to the 90-day provision:

… the association has consistently held the view that thereexists no body of evidence to justify either the removal or anyreduction in the 90-day ‘qualifying’ period for caravan parkresidency. This position was referred to and supported quitespecifically when the tenancy legislation was last reviewed bythe Asher committee and there has been no contrary evidence,other than hearsay, produced during this most recent review.

The association has not at any stage altered its position beingthat the 90-day provision should remain unchanged.

He invites the parties to support an amendment.Mr Redmond is one of those who wrote to the ministercomplaining that at the end of the working party periodthe draft legislation did not come back to him as astakeholder representing the large number of caravanparks for that association to respond and to advisegovernment of what it felt about the draft legislation.

I might just add that the metro division of the VictorianCaravan Parks Association, which made representationto me in person, represents some 300 caravan parksthroughout Victoria, approximately half of all thecaravan parks. It sent me a petition, which I have here,signed by a large number of its members. It is a strongindication of the feeling on this issue.

I have raised in this place today my concern aboutaccommodation being available for those people whorequire public housing in the state of Victoria and tothose in particular who are looking for short-termaccommodation because they are in crisis. Thegovernment has, in the last budget, cut the budget forhomeless assistance programs by $12.2 million,something that has disturbed me greatly because all Isee around Victoria is great concern by welfareagencies, housing agencies and others as to the amountof accommodation available for these people. In thelegislation before us I believe we need to take great carenot to further disadvantage those Victorians who weshould be caring the most about because they are ingreatest need.

I will conclude my contribution at this point in time andhope the government thinks it appropriate that we comeback into committee stage and are able to consider theamendment I have proposed because I believe it will be

in the best interests of needy Victorians and, indeed, allVictorians.

Mr MAUGHAN (Rodney) — The ResidentialTenancies (Amendment) Bill is a compromise. I do notsay that in any derogatory sense; it is a goodcompromise between the interests of the landlord on theone hand and of the tenant on the other. The agreementwas reached as part of the residential tenancieslegislation working group, whose discussions werechaired by the honourable member for Bendigo East.That group included all the major players in residentialtenancies and certainly included the Real EstateInstitute of Victoria, the Tenants Union of Victoria, theVictorian Caravan Parks Association and a variety ofconsumer groups including the Brotherhood ofSt Laurence and Hanover Welfare Services. It is fair tosay that there has been considerable consultation withthe various stakeholders on the proposed legislation,and I take this opportunity of commending firstly theminister on that initiative and then the honourablemember for Bendigo East on her chairing of that group.

The first stage of the consultation process wasexcellent. I think the latter part of it fell down because,as the honourable member for Caulfield has alreadyexplained to the house, and I will expand on it a littlelater, there were a couple of participants in the groupwho felt let down that they were not advised of the finalrecommendations and of the draft legislation before itwas presented in the Parliament. That is a pity, becauseit was a good process with apparently those few minordeficiencies at the end.

The terms of reference are well spelt out, and they aresix. I do not intend to go through all of them except tosay that the six terms of reference given to theresidential tenancies legislation review group included:to look at certainty of tenure; to review unreasonablerent increases; to minimise the possibility ofexploitation; to identify areas to improve the efficiencyof the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal; andto examine the decrease in the incidence of substandardrental accommodation. There is still some very poorquality rental accommodation out there, and I think it isimportant that people have reasonable housing and thatgovernment take an interest to make sure there is theabsolute minimum of that substandard rentalaccommodation. Then there is also the normal thing: tolook at any other matters and provide advice to theministers and the Attorney-General on the legislation.

It is interesting to go back through the history ofresidential tenancies legislation in the state. I note thatthe first landlord and tenant legislation was enacted inthe 1860s and that virtually nothing else was done after



that until World War II, when rent control processeswere put in place to stop people charging excessiverents because there was a limited amount ofaccommodation during that period. Then nothing muchhappened until the Residential Tenancies Act wasenacted in 1980. The prime purpose of that legislationwas to reduce the incidence of disputes and to providesome ground rules in resolving disputes betweenlandlords and tenants.

Within the next decade — in 1988 and 1990 — theCaravan Parks and Movable Dwellings Act and theRooming Houses Act were enacted. Those two piecesof legislation acknowledged that for many Victorians acaravan or a room was their sole place of residence andthat they did have some rights but they also had someobligations. I think that trend has continued.Unfortunately more and more people are living incaravans and rooms — that is, living in accommodationthat many of us would consider to be inadequate formany members of the community.

The Residential Tenancies Act in 1997 consolidated allof that previous legislation. Like other honourablemembers I pay tribute to the late Honourable AnnHenderson, of whom we spoke yesterday on thecondolence motion, and to the Honourable LouiseAsher, who both had a role in bringing together all ofthat legislation in the act we are looking at amendingthis evening. As I said, the Residential Tenancies Act of1997 consolidated the previous acts. It established forthe first time a centralised system for holding bonds onbehalf of tenants and it removed restrictions on rentincreases.

It is interesting to note that in the state of Victoria thereare some 250 000 landlords or people who ownproperty for rental. There are 320 000 tenancies inhomes, flats, units, rooming houses and caravan parks.It is also important to note that most of the landlords aresmall-scale landlords; they own only one property. Wesometimes think of landlords — sometimes the rhetoricon the other side of the house has us think it — as beingcapricious people out there to maximise the return fromtheir properties and to extract the maximum benefitthey can from their tenants. I would suggest that that iscertainly not the case, as these figures show, with78 per cent of landlords owning one property — inmany cases a property they have inherited or a propertythat a couple or a family have purchased to providesome sort of accommodation for their retirement. Ireject the notion that landlords are primarily there toextract the maximum benefit out of tenants. I thinkmost of them are caring landlords.

I need to declare an interest here. I am a landlord, as Ihave five units in a property at Shepparton. If you wantto manage a property properly you need to be able toget on with the tenants and to come to some reasonableaccommodation. I would suggest that most landlordsare in that category. Sure, we do have landlords whoare unreasonable and therefore there is a need forlegislation such as this to deal not with the vastmajority, who in my opinion are caring landlords, butwith the small number of people who do not do theright thing.

I also note in passing that there are some 70 000households in the public housing sector. That sectormakes a very important contribution to the housing oflarge numbers of Victorians. I note with interest thatover the years the standard of public housing hascertainly improved. Again I pay tribute to the late AnnHenderson for her contribution in that area. Yesterdayin my contribution to the condolence motion Imentioned that as the housing minister at the time sheopened a public housing estate of 23 very nice homes inmy home town of Echuca. They exemplify the standardof public housing that is now being built.

It is important to get the balance right between theinterests of landlords on the one hand and tenants on theother and not to make it so difficult that landlords, asowners of rental property, decide that it is all toodifficult and the restrictions are all too onerous, so thatthey therefore sell their properties and invest in sharesor something that is far easier to manage.

It is a matter of getting the right compromise betweenthe legitimate rights of tenants and not making it sodifficult for landlords that they decide it is all tooonerous and leave the investment in that rental market.It is very important to have that private investment inthe rental market because government never has andnever can provide all the rental accommodation that isrequired. We need private investment, and we need toencourage private investors in that market.

I make one other point in passing: I think it is veryimportant that we encourage people in public housing,after they have been there for a while and once theyhave accumulated some assets, to purchase their homes.I am a great believer in that — giving people publichousing accommodation when they need it, butencouraging them to look after that property on thebasis that one of these days it will be theirs. The factthat it is a government property does not mean that theycan mistreat that property. On the contrary, they shouldbe encouraged to look after it and should be givenincentives to ultimately buy that home for their ownprivate home. I am a great believer in that, as I am in



group self-build. My good friend the honourablemember for Benambra referred yesterday to theself-build homes in Wodonga. We also have a group ofthem in Echuca, and I think it is a wonderful way forpeople to be able to get into their own homes with someassistance being provided by government.

This legislation does three things: it increases the periodof notice to vacate a property without a reason from90 days to 120 days — I think that is not unreasonable;it reduces from 90 days to 60 days the period that aperson must reside in a caravan park to be eligible forprotection under the act, and I think there will be furtherdiscussion on that provision; and it reintroduces a limitof two rent increases per year and commensuratelyreduces the notice period for a rent increase from90 days to 60 days.

There are a large number of administrative amendmentsin this legislation, and I do not intend to comment onthose except to say that one of them is that if a tenantrefuses the landlord entry to the property, urgenthearings by the Victorian Civil and AdministrativeTribunal have now been speeded up. I think that is avery sensible provision and does not in any waydisadvantage the tenants. I am pleased to see that one.

In concluding, or getting close to concluding, I want tomake the point that it was Labor Party policy prior tothe election to review, as a matter of priority, theadequacy of the Retail Tenancies Act. I quote from‘Taking care of small business’, Labor’s small businesselection policy, which says:

Labor will, as a matter of priority … review the operation andadequacy of the Retail Tenancies Act.

Now, if a matter of priority is taking three years to do,so be it, but it does not seem to me to be a matter ofpriority, and it does not seem that this review has beenthe extensive review that Labor led people to believewas going to be carried out prior to the election. So inthat sense it is another Labor commitment that has beenfulfilled in part but certainly not in whole.

I express concern that a section dealing with the rightsof people with disabilities living in communityresidential units has been dropped. I would like to quotefrom an email from Tony and Heather Tregale ofWatsonia. They say:

The Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill … presentlybefore Parliament, has an important section missing!

The missing section relates to the removal or modification ofsection 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997. This wouldhave allowed those people with intellectual and multipledisabilities living in group homes (CRUs) and paying a

realistic rent, to have rights under the act — ‘reasonable rightsin their long-term home, like other citizens of Victoria!’.

It seems to me that is not at all unreasonable —

The ‘working party’ under the chair of the member forBendigo sat from mid-2000 and recommended that the saidpeople have rights under the act!

Just before the ‘amendment bill’ was recently presented toParliament the Department of Human Services, with thestroke of a pen —

I do not know whether this is accurate or not, but this iswhat these people are saying —

disallowed the recommendations of the working party and,consequently, the election platform of the government — thatof improving the lives of those with a disability!

They conclude by saying that they call upon, in thiscase, the National Party and also the Liberal Party to:

… secure a commitment from the Department of HumanServices that those living in the said group homes throughoutVictoria will have reasonable rights in their long-term homeswithin a reasonable time frame …

I would be very interested to hear the comments,particularly of the honourable member for BendigoEast, to learn how she feels about that, and would bevery interested to hear the minister’s comments in thesumming up. I conclude by saying that it would appearthat all groups involved in the consultation processreached a consensus, and I again congratulate thehonourable member for Bendigo East on reaching thatconsensus.

Mr Plowman interjected.

Mr MAUGHAN — No, I won’t do that — she’llget a swelled head!

I conclude by quoting from Hanover Welfare Services,which says — and I think this is typical of a number ofthose who were involved in the process:

We support the proposed changes to the act in the areas oftenure security, rent increase limits and violence provisions.We also support the changes to the old section 22 in terms ofthe definition of crisis accommodation and the retention ofthis section (clause 10) that excludes such accommodationfrom the operation of the act. Hanover also supports theintroduction of clause 25 that allows for transitional housingproviders to issue a 30-day notice to tenants who actunreasonably in failing to seek/accept long-term housing.

I support the comments made by the honourablemember for Caulfield, who talked about the need forcrisis accommodation in the community. I certainlyfind through my office that there is great difficulty infinding crisis accommodation when it is needed; I hopethat this legislation does nothing to reduce the amount



of crisis accommodation available. I conclude byreferring to late correspondence that was only receivedby my colleague in the other place, the Honourable RonBest, a week ago — it was dated 3 September and itcomes from the Victorian Caravan Parks Association,proposing amendments. The National Party will not beopposing this legislation, but will have some furthercomments to make on it when it is in the other place.

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East) — I am very pleased tocontribute to the debate on the Residential Tenancies(Amendment) Bill and I would like to thank thehonourable member for Rodney for his kind wordsduring his contribution. I had the honour to chair theresidential tenancies working group, which reviewedthe changes made in 1997 by the previous workinggroup, which had considerably reviewed and changedthe original act, but I will come to that in a little while.

The Labor Party took to the 1999 state election anexplicit commitment to review the ResidentialTenancies Act of 1997 and, in particular, to look at theimpact these changes had had, particularly on the issuesaround security of tenure and fair rent mechanisms.Through that, the minister for community services andhousing established a working group and, as Imentioned, I was very pleased to chair that group. Ithank the minister for that opportunity.

I think the working group has had successful outcomesin many ways. There was a lot of material to gothrough, and all the stakeholders, who were wellrepresented around the table, made a contribution whileworking towards a commitment to improve theconditions of the residential tenancies market.

In going through some of the background to the billother honourable members have talked about factorsthat led to the review over the last couple of years. TheResidential Tenancies Act 1997 replaced theResidential Tenancies Act 1980, the Rooming HousesAct 1990 and the Caravan Parks and MovableDwellings Act 1988. As I said, a review of the threeacts started in 1995 and before the principal act wasintroduced to the house in 1997 it underwent a reviewin accordance with national competition policyprinciples.

That led to a number of major changes to the bill that inmy view and in the view of many people adverselyimpacted on the security of tenancy and fair rentmechanisms. Many people across a number of sectorswere concerned about this issue, and it was one of thekey issues that was considered around the workinggroup table.

The working group was asked specifically to balancethe rights of tenants on the one hand and landlords onthe other. Already tonight we have heard a lot ofdiscussion about balancing those rights, and I am surewe will hear more during the debate. It has always beena key issue with residential tenancies, and at every pointthe working group was grappling with that issue. It isimportant to note that the working group grappled withnot tipping the balance too far one way or the other. Itstrove for an appropriate balance between the rights oftenants and landlords, and the outcomes of the grouphave been welcomed by all sections of the community.

The working group met on a number of occasionsbetween August 2000 and October 2001 in consideringthe terms of reference put forward by the government.Some play has already been made about the draftlegislation going back to the committee. At every stagethe committee was well consulted. A number ofworking documents containing great detail went backto the committee and were worked through at eachmeeting. In developing the working drafts and dealingwith the material presented for consideration thecommittee went through its share of forests! A numberof working drafts were presented to the committee, andin the end that strengthened the outcomes of theworking committee because they were considered ingreat detail.

The house has heard a bit about the consultationprocess. A strong consultation process was workedthrough right across Victoria. Public meetings wereheld in metropolitan Melbourne and a couple were alsoheld in country Victoria, two of which I attended inBendigo and Wangaratta. Those meetings werefantastic because we heard the views of members of thecommunity, including tenants, landlords and propertymanagers, about residential tenancy. Those meetingswere very useful in instructing the final outcome of theworking group.

A number of special interest consultations looked atissues such as supported accommodation, people fromcultural and linguistically diverse backgrounds,rooming house and student accommodation andcaravan parks. Indeed, it was the Victorian CaravanParks Association that approached the Office ofHousing for a second consultation, which was dulygiven, specifically on the issues that were of concern tothe association. Members of the public who forwardedtheir written submissions to the working group alsomade a strong contribution to the process.

I will not go through all the changes in detail, but anumber of the amendments that we are considering inthe bill are of a technical or administrative nature, and



there are far too many to go through in the timeavailable tonight. I will refer to a number of the keyamendments. The first is to increase the period of theno-reason notice to vacate from 90 days to 120 days.This goes to the issue of security of tenure. Anotheramendment that affects security of tenure and people onlow incomes is a reduction in the number of rentincreases allowed per year to two, whereas the principalact allows for a rent increase to occur on every singleday of the year. There is a 90-day period of notice, butthe present legislation allows for the possibility of atenant being faced with a rent increase on every singleday of the year. Clearly that is something the committeediscussed at length, and I think we have a greatoutcome in reducing that to two increases per year andthe period of notice from 90 days to 60 days.

A further amendment introduces new offences andpenalties for such things as misusing the violenceprovisions; the failure of the landlord to provide a copyof a completed bond lodgment form to the tenant; and anumber of other issues that will attract penalties underthe proposed legislation.

Another key focus of the working group was to makethe act more user friendly. Members of the workinggroup often referred to the amendments made in 1997.Indeed, the first item raised at the first meeting by PhilRedmond of the Victorian Caravan Parks Associationwas the difficult construction of the present act. Theassociation found it cumbersome and difficult forpeople in the industry to deal with. We have striven tomake the proposed legislation more user friendly andeasier for people to go through and apply in their ownareas. Where possible the government has sought toapply a consistent approach to language andterminology across all areas of the act. This should bewelcomed by many sections of the community.

Another key part of the bill I am particularly pleasedwith is the clarification of the exemption for studentaccommodation, which was a key area of concern for anumber of student bodies around the state, butparticularly for the National Union of Students.

Currently student accommodation classified as ancillaryto an education institution is exempt from the act. In thecurrent era forced upon us by the federal government,where universities need to attract a number offee-paying students from overseas, the area of studentaccommodation has become quite blurred, and therehave been some issues of insecurity of tenancy for anumber of students. It is great to see that this billclarifies the type of student accommodation that isexempt from the Residential Tenancies Act and the

type that is covered by it. I think that clarification willbe welcomed by many students around the state.

The final major change I will touch on is that the billmakes practical amendments in the area of the keepingof receipts. Technology changes frequently, and theintroduction of things such as Bpay through telephoneand Internet banking has led to the amendmentscontained in clause 11 under the heading ‘Record ofrent payment’ so that the legislation can keep pace withchanges in technology.

I touch briefly on the issue of caravan parks and theamendment proposed by the honourable member forCaulfield. At the outset I express my disappointmentwith the amendment. It is contrary to the outcomes ofthe working group and certainly goes against the spiritof the discussions that took place within that group. Iam pleased that the government will be opposing thisamendment. The Victorian Caravan Parks Associationmade a submission to the working group which I willtouch on in a moment. The reduction of the period forgranting a tenant right in a caravan park from 90 daysto 60 days is not that dramatic a change, and I find it abit surprising that this has become a threshold issue atthis point in time.

The caravan parks association was very wellrepresented on the working group by Phil Redmond. Atall stages he understood the nature of compromise andthat we were striving to get the right balance betweenthe rights of tenants and the rights of landlords. He wellexpressed the needs of caravan park owners and wellrepresented the industry at the table. As I said, heunderstood that the review aimed to restore balance insome areas. Mr Redmond acknowledged that thecaravan parks association preferred 90 days, but whenthe association presented its submission to the review itrecognised that a compromise had to be found and saidthat it had determined that a resident should be definedas any person who has occupied any site in the caravanpark for at least 60 consecutive days. This was agreedaround the table and has since been supported by thecaravan park association in its application, but at the11th hour has been raised in an amendment proposedby the honourable member for Caulfield. I wonder ifthis was the only change the honourable member couldfind to make in this bill. However, it is an importantchange for tenants in caravan parks.

Mr Vogels interjected.

Ms ALLAN — The honourable member forWarrnambool is absolutely right that this is a reallyimportant issue for people who depend on caravanparks for their accommodation. The question that



crosses my mind is: what is so different about day 60from day 89? The anecdotal feedback is that retainingthe 90-day period before someone becomes a tenant ina caravan park allows the caravan park owner todetermine if that person will be a suitable tenant. If youhave not determined someone’s character after 60 days,I do not see what an additional 30 days will give you.Quite frankly two months is an adequate period forsomeone to display their behaviour.

Mr Plowman interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Davies) — Order!The honourable member for Bendigo East, withoutassistance.

Ms ALLAN — Goodness knows country Victorianshave only taken four weeks to determine what the newleadership of the Liberal Party is going to be like! I amsurprised the caravan park owners need more than twomonths.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Davies) — Order!The honourable member for Bendigo East should talkabout the bill.

Ms ALLAN — We should also consider thevulnerable nature of tenants in caravan parks. Thesepeople rely on this transitional form of accommodation.They are quite vulnerable in many respects, and that iswhy the issue was well and truly thrashed out aroundthe table. The views of the Victorian Caravan ParksAssociation were put forward quite clearly by PhilRedmond, and he understood the need for compromise.I am disappointed that the opposition has chosen thispath, because it goes against the spirit of the workinggroup and the fact that at all stages we sought to getagreement by consensus. I am sure there are many otherhonourable members who would like to comment onthis matter.

The government reiterates its position, particularly withthis amendment, that it is striving to put in place a bit ofa better balance following the changes made in 1997and provide some security, not just in caravan parks butright across the industry as a whole.

I conclude by thanking all of the people involved in theworking group. It is important that I put their names onrecord, because they did an incredible amount of work,and not just during our regular meetings — a number ofthem put in above and beyond the call of duty outsidethe meetings. I thank Mark MacDonald and RoslynJenner from the Real Estate Institute of Victoria,Richard Watling and Michelle Marven from theTenants Union of Victoria, Ken Dyson from ShelterVictoria, Chris Momot and Anne Donovan from the

Statewide Women’s Community Housing Service,Rose Banks from the Port Phillip Private HotelsAssociation, and Phil Redmond from the VictorianCaravan Parks Association.

I also thank Steve Bevington from the CommunityHousing Federation of Victoria, Diana Haward fromthe Brotherhood of St Laurence, Janine Mayhew fromthe Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau,John Chryssomallos from the Newlands Public TenantsAssociation, Michael Horn from Hanover WelfareServices, Brian Beecham from Consumer and BusinessAffairs Victoria, Michael Levine from the VictorianCivil and Administrative Tribunal, and Louise Johnsonfrom the Department of Infrastructure.

I also thank for their support, of both me and theworking party, staff from the Office of Housing, KenDownie and Claire Brown. I am sure Ken will not mindmy saying this: I particularly thank Claire for the workput in throughout the period of the working group. Shecertainly was fantastic in the support she provided tome as chair. It is important that we put on the record thecontribution of these people who made a wonderfulcommitment to restoring some of the balance in theresidential tenancies legislation.

As I said at the outset, that was the brief given to theworking group. It was a commitment that we, ingovernment, made in our Better Housing policy andduring the last state election. It is pleasing to see thatthis is a commitment that is being delivered through thepassage of this legislation. However, I again note thatthe amendment put forward by the honourable memberfor Caulfield is personally unacceptable to me, not justas chair of the working group but also as one who seeksthe protection of the rights of caravan park tenants.

I finish by again thanking the Minister for Housing forgiving me the opportunity to chair this group. Itcertainly has been a very instructive and worthwhileprocess. I am confident that the outcome of thislegislation, hopefully without amendment — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Plowman) —Order! Honourable members at the table will keep theirvoices down!

Ms ALLAN — The legislation is certainly trying toprovide a better balance, not tipping the balance too farone way or the other; it is about a better balance for therights and responsibilities of all stakeholders within theresidential tenancies market. I wish the bill a speedypassage.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Plowman) —Order! I call the honourable member for Brighton.



Mr Hulls — Welcome back!

Ms ASHER (Brighton) — And welcome back toyou. I hear you have been busily involved in theparliamentary recess. By way of background, I alsochaired a review — —

Mr Hulls interjected.

Ms ASHER — I do not understand these timingissues.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Plowman) —Order! The honourable member for Brighton shall notbe distracted by the Attorney-General’s interjections.

Ms ASHER — By way of background, I toochaired a backbench committee under housing ministerRob Knowles when I was on the back bench, whichwas quite historic, to review the Residential TenanciesAct. We did a wholesale review trying to strike theright balance between tenants and landlords.

Mr Ryan interjected.

Ms ASHER — Indeed, the Leader of the NationalParty reminds me that he too was on that committeeand played a pivotal part in moving forward thatresidential tenancies legislation, particularly therights — the delicate rights — between landlords andtenants and, I think, achieving some good results.Another housing minister, Ann Henderson, for whomwe had a condolence motion yesterday, implementedthe majority of that particular review. She was to becongratulated for taking that very fulsome step forward.

The ALP, quite understandably, when it was elected togovernment decided it would do its own review ofresidential tenancies legislation, and we have heardfrom the chair of that particular committee. The reviewwas not as comprehensive as the review donepreviously, but nevertheless obviously sought to meetsome of the goals that the government has. One aspectof this review that disappoints me is that the review wasnot as consultative as one would have expected fromthis government, given its rhetoric, and that it did notconsult as widely as the former review committee underthe Kennett government did.

If I can digress just momentarily, Mr Acting Speaker,one of the issues for this government, given that it hashad some 700 reviews and task forces and workingparties, is at what point you make a decision, or at whatpoint you actually listen to what people are telling youand act on what people want from you as a government.The amendment put forward by the honourablemember for Caulfield goes to the crux of this dilemma.

The ALP said it would consult. The Victorian CaravanParks Association said very clearly what it wanted, andI believe what it wanted was reasonable, but thegovernment just ignored it. So at what point do youmove on from this rhetoric of consultation if you do notwant to listen to what people are telling you in the firstinstance?

I want to focus on one element of the ResidentialTenancies (Amendment) Bill and it is an element thatimpacts on me as shadow Minister for Tourism — —

Mr Hulls interjected.

Ms ASHER — It is not an electorate issue. Itconcerns small businesses — that is, the issue oftourism services provided by caravan parks. Caravanparks, as much as the Attorney-General might like toscoff, are an integral part of the tourism industry.Metropolitan caravan parks provide 1.4 million site orcabin nights per annum — a very significant part of anindustry that was worth, when we left government,about 10 per cent of Victoria’s gross state product. Inthese parks we have caravans and a range of cabins, andthe parks are becoming more modernised in recenttimes.

Caravan parks often have a multiple role: some have atotally tourism focus, some have a short-termaccommodation focus, and others have a longer term,almost semi-residential-style accommodation focus. Ithink it should be up to the owner, the small businessperson, to determine the focus of how his or her smallbusiness will operate. It is at this point that I willdiverge from the government and support theamendment proposed by the honourable member forCaulfield.

A key recommendation of the government’s bill, not ofits working party, is to change the definition of‘resident’. I take up the comments of the honourablemember for Bendigo East and also refer to theResidential Tenancies Legislation Working Groupreport dated October 2001, which I understand shechaired. The report says that the Victorian CaravanParks Association does not support any change to thecurrent qualifying period for residency in caravanparks. The working party report notes this.Recommendation 3.7 was that unanimous agreementcould not be reached on this issue.

It is all very well for the honourable member forBendigo East to talk about her report. Her report noteswhat the Victorian Caravan Parks Association said. Therecommendation clearly indicates there was noagreement, and yet the government has decided, off on



some sort of crusade on its own, to bring in thissubstantial change, which impacts adversely on smallbusiness owners and on tourism operators.

In essence, the government is proposing to change thedefinition of a resident of a caravan park. I refer to theResidential Tenancies Act 1997, which provides undersection 3, definitions, that:

“resident” means —

…

(b) in relation to a caravan park, a person who occupies asite in the caravan park as his or her only or mainresidence and —

(i) who has obtained the prior written agreement ofthe caravan park owner to do so … or

(ii) who has so occupied any site in the caravan parkfor at least 90 consecutive days.

In other words, the trigger for residential tenancy rightsto kick in — if I can use that vernacular terminology —is 90 days of residence. However, the government hasdecided to introduce — and this has nothing to do withthe working party report from which I have justquoted — under part 5, clause 44 of the ResidentialTenancies (Amendment) Bill, a change to the caravanpark residency period from 90 days to 60 days.

Ms Allan interjected.

Ms ASHER — The honourable member forBendigo East, who I suspect has not run a business,asks, ‘What does it matter?’. It matters a great deal tothe caravan park owners, to small business operatorsand to tourism operators.

I refer to the minister’s second-reading speech in whichshe says that this particular change will not interferewith the provision of accommodation for tourism. It ison that point that the opposition and I disagree with thegovernment’s rationale. This contention is wrong. Itflies in the face of the government’s so-calledconsultation and it flies in the face of good tourism andsmall business operation.

The Victorian Caravan Parks Association is opposed tothis particular clause. Phil Redmond, the president ofthe Victorian Caravan Parks Association, has sent anemail to the shadow minister, the honourable memberfor Caulfield, indicating that there has been no contraryevidence during the recent review that this shouldactually be changed. The same Phil Redmond wrote tothe Minister for Housing on 20 May, saying:

I am disappointed to have only just become aware of theintention to introduce the amendment bill as early as next

week without the association being provided with anopportunity for final comment.

He then requested a postponement of the introductionof the bill. What sort of consultation is this from theopen, transparent and consultative government we aretold we have? A small business group has put in asubmission saying it does not want this, the workingparty said it did not want it and there was norecommendation — the government proceeds with thebill. The Victorian Caravan Parks Association, made upof genuine small business operators, has said it has onlyjust become aware of it and has sought a postponementof the introduction of the bill, but this government justforges ahead with something that quite frankly isanti-business.

We then see further consultation, if the governmentwants to listen to it, from the Big 4 Holiday Parksgroup. For honourable members who are not aware,Big 4 Holiday Parks runs 33 caravan parks in Victoriawith a tourism turnover in excess of $15 million. Thesesmall businesses add up to tourism jobs in Victoria. Ithas written to the residential tenancies legislationworking group secretariat expressing exactly the sameview. I quote from the letter:

However, the proposed changes to the Residential TenanciesAct surpass the mandate of short-term and longaccommodation by having a detrimental effect on the ongoingviability of tourism in caravan parks across Victoria.

That is what worries the opposition — the ongoingviability of a very important sector of the Victorianeconomy.

I refer to the fact that individual operators have signedpetition after petition to the honourable member forCaulfield claiming also that it — meaning thegovernment’s legislation — will also complicate thereservation of sites for future tourist bookings. This iswhat the small business operators and the tourismoperators are saying — that this change from 90 days to60 days in terms of the classification of residents willactually impact on these businesses and on tourism.

I do not think that is good enough. It is a very smallchange to ask the government to accept. The oppositionis asking for one change for the caravan parksassociation. Out of all this legislation, which is not aninsubstantial bill, it is asking the government to acceptone change: to change the definition of ‘resident’ froma person who has occupied a site for 60 consecutivedays back to the 90 days it was. Is this philosophical? Isthis earth-shattering? It certainly is important for thesesmall businesses. It is important for tourism operators.However, it is not important to the ALP.

GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL


That is the amendment the opposition will move in thisplace, and it will move it in the other place. That is theamendment the opposition believes is right and just forsmall business operators and for tourism.

I also want to make a general point in relation to theissue of consultation. I refer again to a letter from theVic Parks metro group addressed to the HonourableRon Best in the other place, who happens to be theNational Party spokesman on housing — and I consultwith him regularly!


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Plowman) —Order! Personal imputations are not accepted.

Ms ASHER — I did not hear anything — there wassuch a barrage of comment over that! I did thatdeliberately just to see what would happen.

The Vic Parks metro group has written to theHonourable Ron Best making the point that thedepartment — —


Ms ASHER — No, he gives me his mail.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Plowman) —Order! The honourable member should not respond tointerjections.

Ms ASHER — The credit cards are next! The letterrefers to the Department of Human Services residentialtenancies legislation review letter to operators. The VicParks metro group indicates that:

… there was wide opposition to a change in the definition ofresident from both operators and tenants who attended theconsultation session for caravan parks held at FrankstonCultural Centre on 18 April 2001.

The letter notes the wide opposition. Where is thisconsultation? There was wide opposition at theconsultation. The opposition was noted in the workingparty report. There is no recommendation in theworking party report, and yet the government bringsforward a bill absolutely killing the operators in termsof what they want.

Finally I turn to the Vic Parks metro group documententitled Submission on Proposals of the ResidentialTenancies Legislation Working Group. This was itssubmission to the consultation the government had. Atpage 12 at dot point 1 the submission states:

Automatic residence i.e.: removal of the 90-day rule willdiscourage owners from accepting people in need ofemergency accommodation as temporary occupants …

This is one of the things the Labor Party often does inits ideological desire to effect change. In fact what willhappen is that these caravan park operators may wellknock back people in need of emergencyaccommodation. So at dot point 1 of the submission thecaravan park operators said no. Dot point 2 goes to mypoint about tourism. It states:

The reduction of the 90-day period jeopardises futuretourist/short-term bookings as an individual can decide to stayover the prescribed time, declare residential status, stay longerand possess the premises/site. How can we protect the rightsof booked and paid customers —

read ‘tourists’ —

if occupants can change their status?

The caravan park association goes on to make somevery legitimate comments about the value of thebusinesses if this legislation is brought in.

I think the consultation the Labor Party has undertakenon this aspect is a sham. As this house has heard mecomment before, I am very concerned about the state oftourism in this state, particularly domestic tourism.Good cabins and caravan parks are part of theaccommodation available to tourism. I want smallbusiness operators to keep the value of their businesses.If this government wants to set up a consultationprocess, at the end of which it does not bring forward arecommendation of the type seen with this bill, theprocess is a sham and there is no need to proceed withthis amendment.

I support the amendment proposed by the honourablemember for Caulfield. It is hard enough for tourismoperators in this state in the current climate. It is hardenough for small business operators in this state underthis government. I support the amendment proposed bythe honourable member for Caulfield, and I hope thegovernment is big enough, honest enough andpro-small business enough to change its mind on thisamendment.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr VINEY (FrankstonEast).

Debate adjourned until next day.

GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION(AMENDMENT) BILL

Council’s amendments

Message from Council relating to following amendmentsconsidered:



1. Clause 21, page 13, line 8, omit ”.’.

2. Clause 21, page 13, after line 8 insert —

‘(3) The administrator must notify (in writing) theTribunal if the value of the gift, or total value ofthe gifts, of the represented person’s property tothe administrator, or a charity with which theadministrator has a connection, is $100 ormore.”.’.

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

In so moving, I will speak very briefly to theamendments. This is a very important piece oflegislation. As I set out in the second-reading speech, itswhole purpose is to provide an effective substitutedecision-making regime for people with a disability inrelation to medical and dental treatment and to improvethe effectiveness of services provided by the Office ofthe Public Advocate and the Victorian Civil andAdministrative Tribunal to people with a disability whoare under a guardianship or administration order.

The underlying principle of the bill is to balance thepersonal autonomy and bodily integrity of individualswith the need to ensure that people with a disabilityreceive appropriate and timely medical treatment.

When the bill was debated in this place a number ofissues were raised by the opposition, including theability of administrators to give themselves a gift andwhether there should be an appropriate regime aroundthat to ensure transparency and stop administratorssimply gifting themselves substantial amounts ofmoney without some oversight. Of course, situationswhere administrators would give a gift to themselves ona regular basis would be if the person subject to aguardianship order were to give them a regularChristmas present. In those types of situations it wouldbe appropriate for administrators to give a gift tothemselves.

The amendments deal with these situations. They areaimed at improving the effectiveness of services andproviding an even better substitute decision-makingregime for people with a disability by giving it moretransparency in those types of situations. Theamendments insert subsection (3) in proposedsection 50A of the Guardianship and AdministrationAct, which is inserted by clause 21 of the bill.

Subsection (1) of proposed section 50A provides thatan administrator may make gifts or donations of therepresented person’s estate under certain circumstances.Proposed subsection (2) provides that neitheradministrators nor charities with which they are

associated are precluded from receiving gifts ordonations from the estate of the represented person.This would apply to many situations which arecommon in practice, such as, as I said, an administratorwho for example is also the child of the representedperson and receives annual birthday or Christmas giftsfrom the represented person. Proposed subsection (3)provides that where administrators are proposing tomake one or more gifts or donations totalling $100 ormore to themselves or to a charity with whom they areassociated, they must notify VCAT of the expenditurein writing. That will certainly add a layer oftransparency in relation to such gifts.

Where administrators are making a gift to themselvesor a charity with which they are associated thegovernment believes that the amendments act as anadded protection to ensure that there is no actual orapparent conflict of interest between their role asadministrators and their role as beneficiaries. That isexactly what the amendments do. This government isalways happy to listen to reasonable proposals put bythe opposition. In that context can I say that I haddiscussions with the former shadow Attorney-Generalon this matter — —


Mr HULLS — Absolutely supported by the Leaderof the National Party. In seeking support for theamendment, I welcome the new shadowAttorney-General to his role. I am delighted that he is inthis position. I have always believed — my view maychange over time, who knows — that he is a man ofintegrity.

Ms Campbell — You think he’s a man!

Mr HULLS — Like me, recently married,and — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Plowman) —Order! The Attorney-General should return to the bill.

Mr HULLS — On many of the views held by theshadow Attorney-General on issues of social justice andsocial reform I think we will be able to reach somesubstantial accommodation. I hope that his promotionto higher office, if I can call it that, does not changehim. Don’t go changing, Victor, don’t go changing!

In making those brief comments, I say theseamendments are appropriate and give moretransparency to the legislation. I wish them a speedypassage.



Mr PERTON (Doncaster) — I thank theAttorney-General for his welcome, and I look forwardto working in my new role of shadowAttorney-General. Obviously there are issues whereboth sides of the house must cooperate in terms of thejustice system. Just last Friday the Attorney-Generaland I and a representative from the National Party werepresent at the opening of the Koori court in Shepparton,which is an excellent bipartisan measure designed toimprove the efficacy of justice in the area and also toenable the community to have a better role in both theprevention of crime and the diversion of people whoenter the criminal justice system.

As the Attorney-General said in respect of this bill, it isa good example of bipartisanship. The issue in respectof gifts by an administrator to himself or herself or to acharity associated with the administrator was raised inthe house by my predecessor, the honourable memberfor Berwick. As he indicated, there was no differencebetween the parties on the appropriateness of such a giftbeing made. Among the examples given by mypredecessor were, firstly, regular gifts of charity by aperson who might now be incapacitated by Alzheimer’sor some other disease which ought to be continued bothin the interests of the community and in respect of thewishes of the person; and secondly, where agrandmother or grandfather contributed to theeducation or wellbeing of grandchildren or the like andthose sorts of gifts ought to be continued.

As the honourable member for Berwick said in thedebate, it places the administrator in a perceivedposition of conflict and there needs to be someprotection in that respect. The honourable member forRichmond, who followed the honourable member forBerwick in the debate, indicated that while it could notbe dealt with at the time, it ought to be dealt with whenthe bill is between houses. Again it is a great argumentin favour of having a system of two houses ofParliament.

The amendment was ultimately moved by the Ministerfor Sport and Recreation with the support of the Liberaland National parties in the upper house and the Leaderof the National Party in this chamber. This was a defectpicked up by the honourable member for Berwick,recognised by the Labor Party and the National Party,and this amendment and the bill in general will benefitthe community.

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — In themidst of this very serious outbreak of cordial relationsbetween the Attorney-General and the newly appointedshadow Attorney-General, far be it from me to interferewith that welcome process.


Mr RYAN — Under no circumstances. TheNational Party supports — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Plowman) —Order! Through the Chair.


Mr RYAN — No, Mr Acting Speaker, I have justdetermined that under no circumstances will there be ahug, be it through the Chair or otherwise!

This is a very sensible amendment for all the reasonsthat have been explained eloquently by both theAttorney-General and the shadow Attorney-General. Itplaces a measure of accountability into the legislationwhich was otherwise absent and in circumstanceswhere a conflict of interest could well have beeninterpreted. This amendment will resolve thatcircumstance and therefore it is supported by theNational Party.

Mr WYNNE (Richmond) — I rise to speak brieflyon the amendment and to join with theAttorney-General in welcoming the new shadowAttorney-General.

Ms Campbell interjected.

Mr WYNNE — It is important that weacknowledge that on many aspects of the reformswhich have been so ably led by the Attorney-Generalwe have received bipartisan support in a number ofinstances on a couple of quite controversial mattersover the years, particularly in relation to legislationrelating to same-sex couples. The shadowAttorney-General was a leading proponent for it, andthe government thanks him for the leadership heshowed at some difficult times during that particulardebate.

As indicated by the Attorney-General, this amendmentarose when the bill was debated during the last sittingof Parliament. A quite reasonable proposal was putforward by the then shadow Attorney-General, and alsopicked up by the Leader of the National Party, that weneeded to have some checks and balances in place toensure that those people who were administrators ofestates — and it is quite an onerous task andresponsibility that people take on — should be providedwith some protections. There was also the importantaspect of being able to report to an independentauthority where a gift with a value in excess of $100would be notified to the relevant tribunal — in thiscircumstance being the Victorian Civil and

JURIES (AMENDMENT) BILL


Administrative Tribunal. The insertion of clause 21(3)requires in those circumstances that the administratormust notify the tribunal of a gift in excess of $100monetary value.

The government fully supports the amendment movedin the upper house. I indicated in debate that thegovernment would have a look at it when the bill wasbetween houses. It was subsequently moved andsupported in the upper house and has come back herefor ratification. Obviously there is bipartisan support forit.

Mr Wilson interjected.

Mr WYNNE — I briefly take up the interjection ofthe shadow Minister for Health. The governmentwelcomes him to the front bench. It is an importantadvancement for him, but he needs to be clear that lateron in this sitting of the Parliament we will be debatingsome fundamental reforms to the upper house and thegovernment looks forward to his support in relation tothat. Nonetheless, this is a useful amendment. It enjoysthe support of both sides of the house. I commend itand wish it a speedy passage.

Motion agreed to.


Second reading

Debate resumed from 9 May; motion of Mr HULLS(Attorney-General).

Mr PERTON (Doncaster) — This legislation isdesigned to provide several amendments to the JuriesAct 2000 which was based on the fine report of theLaw Reform Committee, entitled Jury Service inVictoria. That inquiry commenced in late 1994 becauseof concern that the range of people sitting on juries wasso narrow that many juries were unrepresentative of thegeneral community.

The committee, firstly under the leadership of theHonourable James Guest and subsequently under myleadership, addressed this concern and other mattersduring a two-year investigation. The cautious approachof the tripartisan committee and the implementation ofits recommendations was designed to lead to aresolution of problems without undermining othercornerstones of our system of justice and government.

Jury service is an important civic duty and provides anopportunity for members of the community to activelyparticipate in the administration of justice. Public

participation in the jury process is important. In myforeword to that report on juries I quoted the Englishauthor, G. K. Chesterton, who sat on a jury and, in hisown words:

… saw with a queer and indescribable kind of clearness whata jury really is, and why we must never let it go.

He wrote:

A civilisation has decided, and very justly decided, thatdetermining the guilt or innocence of men is a thing tooimportant to be trusted to trained men. It wishes for light uponthat awful matter, it asks men who know no more than Iknow, but who can feel the things that I felt in the jury box.When it wants a library catalogued, or the solar systemdiscovered, or any trifle of that kind, it uses up its specialists.But when it wishes anything done which is really serious, itcollects twelve of the ordinary men standing around.

The members of Parliament who took part in theinquiry included the Honourable James Guest; theHonourable Bill Forwood; the Honourable JeanMcLean; my predecessor, the honourable member forBerwick; the Leader of the National Party; the nowretired Dr Gerard Vaughan and the now shadowMinister for Police and Emergency Services, Mr KimWells; and then subsequently under my chairmanshipthe Honourable Carlo Furletti; the Honourable MonicaGould; the former member for Narracan, Mr FlorianAndrighetto; the former member for Melbourne,Mr Neil Cole; the member for Geelong North; themember for Rodney; the member for South Barwon,and the Deputy Premier. They all took part in theconstruction of the report of the Law ReformCommittee.

The legislation that was brought into this house in 2000represented a bipartisan effort to make juries morerepresentative and to ensure that the pool of jurorswould be sufficient. While in the city of Melbourne thatmight have been relatively easy, the exclusionary ruleshad actually made it more difficult to have arepresentative jury, particularly in many country jurycircuits where it was becoming increasingly difficult toput together a representative jury. Given that there isagreement on this legislation and there was a longdebate in 2000 on the Juries Act, there is no need forme to go into this debate at great depth.

The act has now been in operation for some two years.The purpose of this bill is to deal with some particularissues that have arisen. One of those issues arises out ofthe redistribution. The impact of this legislation and theredistribution make it difficult, for instance, for a courtin Horsham, which can now no longer select jurymembers from the nearby town of Warracknabeal as itis located in a different electoral district. So the effect ofthese changes is to permit jury districts to be developed



by the Victorian Electoral Commissioner inconsultation with the Juries Commissioner before beingsigned by the Governor in Council by order publishedin the Government Gazette.

Of course there are some automatic amendments thatare consequent upon the new electoral act as well.There are other provisions relating, for instance, toappeals against decisions of the Juries Commissioner,and those amendments are relatively small butimportant. In essence when a questionnaire is returnedto the office of the Juries Commissioner a juror may becontacted informally by telephone about theirapplication for deferral or excusal. If the office is notsatisfied the person should be excused or their servicedeferred, a summons to attend for jury service is issued.As the Attorney-General said in his second-readingspeech:

Questions have, however, arisen as to whether the telephonecall or the service of the summons constituted notification ofthe decision. In order to clarify and give flexibility to theappeals process, clause 3 allows appeals to be lodged at anytime before the person becomes a member of a panel.

There is another change relating to the calling out ofjurors’ names. Increasingly these days people areconcerned for their security, and the repetitive calling ofnames in court is regarded as compromising people’ssecurity, so this bill will amend section 31 to make thepreliminary process discretionary rather thanmandatory. Again the Liberal Party supports the viewof the Attorney-General on this issue, that the only timethe potential juror’s name should be called out beforethe accused is during the empanelment process.

There is a change in respect of the acceptance ofmajority verdicts in civil trials, where the jury has beenreduced from six to five. Clause 7 provides for thatsituation, and that amendment in the bill will enable atrial to continue rather than requiring a retrial, which ofcourse is an unreasonable cost and burden to the partiesin the matter.

Lastly there are some small amendments relating to thedisqualification of jurors. The committee worked veryhard to work out what were the appropriate exclusionsof those who have been convicted of crimes involving asentence of imprisonment, and there was some questionas to whether it was the actual term of imprisonment orthe sentence. These amendments clarify theseprovisions to ensure that a person is disqualified on thebasis of the length of sentence rather than the actualtime spent in prison or in detention.

The last one provides a little amusement. While all ofus believe that serving on juries is important, I still find

remarkable the excuses people can arrive at so as not toserve on a jury. What we tried to do in the committeewas to say, ‘All right, there is one side of the bartable’ — people who are involved in the investigationof crimes and in arguing the law at the bar table — ‘andother people should see jury service as a realcommunity contribution’. But the Attorney-General inhis second-reading speech said that persons haveclaimed ineligibility on the basis of their roles as trafficby-laws officers, neighbourhood watch committeemembers and bank fraud investigators.

I do not think it was ever intended by the committeethat those roles should prevent people from exercisingtheir responsibility to be jury members and alsoproviding the accused with the right to have a juryconstituted by their peers, so it is quite appropriate thatthis amendment be made to give voice to the originalintention of the committee.

I believe it is the view of the whole community thatjury service is extremely important, and whilst there aresome people who ought to be excluded because theirparticular roles make it inappropriate for them to gofrom one side of the bar table into the jury box, on theother hand all other Victorians should see service on ajury as an important service as a citizen. Also, shouldthey ever be accused of a crime they would be right toexpect that a top-quality jury, representative of theircommunity, would be there to adjudge their guilt orinnocence. These amendments go forward with thesupport of the Liberal Party, and I wish the bill a speedypassage.

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — TheNational Party supports this legislation. The billintroduces a series of substantially mechanicalamendments to the existing Juries Act 2000. I havelistened with interest to the honourable member forDoncaster, the shadow Attorney-General, tracing thehistory of the development of that legislation whichoccurred under a committee of his chairmanship in thecourse of the previous government. Prior to his havingthe role it was chaired by the Honourable James Guest.In any event, some very sensible changes were made tothe jury system arising from the work of that committeeof which I had the pleasure to be part. It was pleasing tosee that legislation enacted by the current governmentafter it assumed responsibility for the administration ofthe state. We now have before us a series ofamendments which have arisen because of somerelatively minor issues with regard to the administrationof this new act.

The first of these, which appears in clause 3 of the bill,relates to appeals against decisions of the Juries

ADJOURNMENT


Commissioner. A difficulty has now arisen becauseunder the act as it now appears any person who isaggrieved by a decision of the Juries Commissionermay appeal against that decision within 14 days afternotification of the decision by the commissioner orbefore the date on which the person is required to attendfor jury service, whichever is the sooner. There hasbeen some argy-bargy over the definition of theexpression ‘notification’, so to resolve this issue thatexpression has simply been taken out of the legislation.Now the amending provision within clause 3 serves toamend section 10(1) of the act so that it reads:

A person aggrieved by a decision of the JuriesCommissioner … may appeal against the decision at any timebefore that person becomes a member of the panel.

So that issue is thereby resolved.

The second issue that is dealt with, under clause 4,relates to jury districts. This is a very importantprovision. I am interested to see that the second-readingspeech makes reference to a very good example of whatwill be the new seat of Lowan which arises from therecent redistribution. Just as an observation, I suspectthat someone from New South Wales and now withinthe minister’s department could have written thesecond-reading notes because, going back to that firstpoint about appeals to the Juries Commissioner, there isreference on page 2 to appeals being made to theSupreme Court or the District Court, which is a NewSouth Wales court. I am sure it was intended to be theCounty Court.

Returning to the issue of jury districts, there is anexample which I will briefly quote from thesecond-reading speech:

This amendment is necessary because the latest electoralboundaries, which will come into operation upon the callingof the next election, have restricted access to potential jurorsfor various courts throughout Victoria.

For example, the proposed electoral boundary for the newLegislative Assembly district of Lowan encompasses both thetowns of Horsham and Hamilton. Both the Supreme andCounty courts sit in these towns.

As section 18 now operates, under the new electoralboundaries jurors for the court in Horsham could not beselected from a nearby town such as Warracknabeal (which isless than 60 kilometres away) as it is located in a differentelectoral district.

Of course these are matters which have been of greatconcern to the current member for Wimmera — whowill certainly be the new member for Lowan. They arematters of great concern to him and the people whomhe currently represents and those additional folk whomhe will represent once the impending election is over.

The example given is a very good one of thepracticalities that make the act fall short of what isnecessary to accommodate today’s needs. The NationalParty supports the amendment set out in the legislation.

This provision also touches upon the very core issue ofjury districts under the provisions of the act. Undersection 18(1) the act recites that:

There shall be a jury district for Melbourne and each circuittown.

Circuits are absolutely imperative to the administrationof justice throughout the state of Victoria and in thealmost couple of decades that I practised law,particularly in Sale but in Bairnsdale also, the circuitsystem was utterly critical to the administration ofjustice. Back in the mid-1980s in Sale the County Courtsat for anything up to six months of the year and theSupreme Court sat for up to three months.

Mr Perton interjected.

Mr RYAN — Correct. There was a hugeinvolvement of the court system in those times, and thatsystem is as important today as it was then.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.

ADJOURNMENT

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Nardella) —Order! Under sessional orders the time has come for theadjournment of the house.

Bentleigh West Primary School

Mrs PEULICH (Bentleigh) — I raise with theMinister for Education and Training a matter I flaggedwith her at a recent civic reception when she visited theBentleigh electorate — another event to which I wasnot invited but was happy to attend to use theopportunity to try to maximise the outcomes for mycommunity. One of the issues I drew to the minister’sattention at that civic reception was the issue of 400square metres of land that the Bentleigh West PrimarySchool has occupied for some 75 years. The localcouncil now wishes to reclaim that land, but because itis surplus to its needs it wants the education departmentto formalise the exchange by buying it. I understand thecouncil claims the land is worth $170 000.

The school uses this land as an exit from the back of theschool and for a number of other purposes. If it werenot available for continued use the school would needto shift drainage as well as paths to its oval, which

ADJOURNMENT


would clearly not be a desirable outcome for the330 students who attend the school.

A number of parents have been in contact with myoffice over time and I have spoken to the schoolprincipal, and they would all like to see negotiationsspeeded up. A feasibility study has been undertaken andthey would like a decision to be made. I encourage theminister to do what she can to ensure that the land is notlost. I ask her to ensure that her department continuesnegotiations to secure the land for Bentleigh WestPrimary School and to ensure that the school’scurriculum, its activities and its open space availabilityare not diminished.

Cobram District Hospital

Mr JASPER (Murray Valley) — I raise with theMinister for Health an issue that was brought to myattention by the Cobram District Hospital when Ivisited there recently. The hospital is looking to getfunding for an additional 15 beds for its nursing home,but it also raised with me a number of other issues ofconcern, in particular the increase in charges to thehospital for ambulance services.

As I understand it the ambulance services beingprovided to the Cobram District Hospital are beingfunded on the basis of 45 per cent from the Departmentof Treasury and Finance, 35 per cent from the hospitaland 20 per cent from membership subscriptionscollected over the financial year. The 35 per centcontributed by the hospital has been funded by way of astabilisation grant which has been made available to thehospital over a number of years, but I understand thatthat funding has now been rolled into the weightedinlier equivalent separation (WIES) that is allocated tothe hospital — that is, the funding provided to thehospital for the work it undertakes.

I met with the chairman of the board, Mr Phillip Pullar,the director of nursing and chief executive officer,Mr David Wenban, and other members of the board,who indicated to me that the shortfall for the ambulanceservices as a result of the funding being rolled into theWIES will be $120 000. They also indicated that this isan impossible amount of money for them to have tofind. It is difficult to understand why the Department ofHuman Services would say, ‘We will not provide thestabilisation funding grant to the hospital, but the extrafunding will be included in the allocation made underthe WIES program’.

I ask the minister why this stabilisation grant will notcontinue to be provided to the hospital and why theambulance services funding which the hospital must

meet has been included in the total funding provided tothe hospital. The minister should be able to explain tothe house why the additional funding is being requiredfrom the hospital and not from the stabilisation grant.

I also ask the minister to indicate if changes will bemade to the procedures so that extra funds can beprovided to the hospital to cover the shortfall of$120 000, and, if that is the case, if it will apply to allhospitals across Victoria. If that is the position, surelysomething can be done to assist the hospitals, inparticular the Cobram District Hospital.

Consumer affairs: soccer clinic

Mr ROBINSON (Mitcham) — I ask the Ministerfor Consumer Affairs to urgently investigate claimsbeing made by a company advertising soccer clinics. Inthe aftermath of the World Cup excitement, theWhitehorse Leader carried an advertisement on26 June — I understand the advertisement wascirculated in other papers as well — under the headingof the Australian Soccer Scouting Organisation(ASSO). It posed the question:

Are you aged 12–20 and want to play international soccer?

Do you want an opportunity to play against English premierleague and Italian seria A soccer teams?

Do you have direct access to top FIFA managers andworld-class coaching?

The advertisement makes a number of claims: firstly, itclaims that the ASSO is a division of the EuropeanFootball Institute; secondly, that the organisation isaffiliated with over 30 of the world’s top clubsincluding Manchester City, Newcastle United andChelsea; and thirdly, that an EFI elite squad will beselected to participate in an annual European tour toplay against premier English and Italian soccer clubs.

I was curious about these ambitious claims in theadvertisement, so I wrote away and had material sent tome at my office and I checked out the web site. On theweb site it is claimed that a direct affiliation withEnglish premier league clubs exists. Furthermore itfeatures a number of alleged endorsements from seniorEnglish soccer league players, including a Lucas Neilfrom the Blackburn Rovers Football Club. I madefurther inquiries and found out that Blackburn Roverschecked with their player, Lucas Neil, who reportedthat he had never heard of the ASSO or the EFI andcould not recall the endorsement. The EFIendorsements for the ASSO on the web site turned outto be useless, because the ASSO and the EFI are thesame company. They were both started up early thisyear and operate out of suburban Melbourne.

ADJOURNMENT


The asking price for the forthcoming clinics is notcheap — it is $495. I have made repeated inquiries ofthe ASSO via telephone, fax and email, asking it toexplain this situation. I indicated to the minister’s officesome time ago that I was going to undertake this task. Ipointed out that consumers could be misled intohanding over a lot of money. Their aspirations and theirchildren’s aspirations could be dashed if the companydoes not deliver what it has promised. Sadly after fourweeks these questions have not been addressed. I ammystified about a number of things, including how a12-year-old whose parents might pay a lot of moneycould end up playing in a European tour against aEuropean football team.

I ask the minister to conduct, through Consumer AffairsVictoria, an urgent inquiry into these claims, preferablybefore the commencement of these clinics, which Iunderstand is scheduled for late September and earlyOctober.

Lysterfield Road, Lysterfield: safety

Mr McARTHUR (Monbulk) — I wish to raise anissue with the Minister for Transport concerning ablack spot application made last year by the City ofKnox for Lysterfield Road, Lysterfield. For theinformation of honourable members, Lysterfield Roadis a goat track with a sad history of accidents over manyyears, many involving serious injuries. As I understandit, records show that there were 62 accidents onLysterfield Road between 1 January 1995 and 30 April2000. Worse than that, there were nine accidents overthe 2001–02 Christmas holiday break, including ahead-on collision which resulted in severe injuries andalmost caused a fatality. There were five accidents inthe seven days from 19 to 26 June this year.

It is a notorious section of road with high traffic loadsand many heavy vehicles. It is dangerous for all peoplewho use it and desperately needs work to improve itssafety. It is made even worse because the government isnot prepared to go ahead with the Dorset Roadextension; therefore it is urgent that black spot fundingbe allocated for Lysterfield Road. The Minister forTransport should be well aware of this issue as it hasbeen raised several times by the City of Knox. Whenthis application was first considered by the BlackspotFunding Advisory Committee in March this year, thecommittee agreed to approve the application andprovide the funding. Strangely it was later rejected andeventually overturned in August this year.

I ask the minister to urgently have a look at the situationand find out why that decision was suddenly andinexplicably reversed, and I ask him to take action to

ensure that black spot funding for Lysterfield Road isapproved as a matter of priority. The condition of thisroad will result in a tragedy soon if nothing is done.

Pawnbrokers: residual equity

Mr LEIGHTON (Preston) — I raise a matter forthe attention of the Minister for Consumer Affairsconcerning the provisions of the Second-Hand Dealersand Pawnbrokers Act that deal with residual equity.The action I seek from the minister is to ensure that herdepartment provides the relevant information toconsumer affairs-funded programs and that they beprovided with information on residual equity. Inreferring to consumer affairs-funded programs I amthinking of those such as the Consumer and TenantAdvice Service Northern at 251 High Street, Preston, inmy electorate, which is ably led by Mr Mark O’Brien.Those organisations do an important job in informingconsumers of their rights.

The reason for raising it at this time is that from1 September 2002 the act provides persons who pawngoods but do not redeem them with a statutoryentitlement to claim the residual equity within12 months of the date of the sale of the pawned goods.The residual equity is the amount, if any, that is leftover from the proceeds of the sale by the pawnbroker ofthe unredeemed goods after the amounts owing on theloan, the pawnbroker charge and the reasonable costs ofsale have been deducted.

It is an offence for a pawnbroker to refuse to pay theresidual equity if the claim is made by the owner of thepawned goods within 12 months of the time they werepawned. A pawnbroker is also required to send theperson who pawned the goods a notice that the goodshave been sold within 14 days of their sale if theresidual equity is $10 or more or another amount asprescribed. It is important to point out to the house andto consumers that the threshold amount is $10.

In consultation on the regulations views were put by theindustry that it should be a much higher amount. I amaware, for instance, that Cash Converters argued for athreshold of $500. I am not sympathetic to thatsuggested amount. There is a Cash Converters in myelectorate, and I can say that $500 is an enormousamount of money to many people in Preston,particularly those who might in the first instance haveto pawn their goods to a pawnbroker. As well as CashConverters, I recently noticed a couple of pawnbrokersin High Street, Preston. It would be a good time toensure that consumer-affairs funded programs have thisadvice.

ADJOURNMENT


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Nardella) —Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

SES: Stratford unit

Mr INGRAM (Gippsland East) — I raise a matterfor the attention of the Minister for Police andEmergency Services. Last Friday the Stratford StateEmergency Service (SES) shed was destroyed by fire.This is a disappointing outcome because it appears thatthe fire was deliberately lit, which is of concern to thecommunity.

In that fire most of the equipment from that SES unitwas lost, including its four-wheel drive and most of thesafety equipment such as the jaws of life. The action Iseek is for the minister to assist the Stratford SES unitto basically reinstate its equipment by providing fundsso that the unit can replace its four-wheel drive, safetyequipment and the jaws of life and facilitate the unit’sfull return back to active duty.

The building that housed all that equipment has beenlost and the unit’s members will need new facilitiesurgently. They will be required to work with the localshire to co-locate that equipment on the one site acrossthe road with the Country Fire Authority. That issuewas raised when I was there last Sunday for the launchof a new fire truck handover for the CFA. Thecommunity is extremely disappointed about the firebecause a huge amount of work had been undertakenby the community in raising funds for that equipment.The cost of the equipment lost is approximately$260 000. A lot of that was raised by the localcommunity, and 25 local volunteers put in an enormousamount of work.

It is an extremely dangerous section of the PrincesHighway and many road accidents occur there, so thevolunteers do a lot of road accident response work withthe police and the Country Fire Authority in that area toservice that dangerous stretch of highway.

The action I seek from the Minister for Police andEmergency Services is to facilitate the replacement ofthat equipment, including the hydraulic rescue gear —the jaws of life — the rescue vehicle, the stormresponse trailer and the general rescue andcommunications equipment, including — —


Pawnbrokers: motor vehicles

Mr TREZISE (Geelong) — I raise for action by theMinister for Consumer Affairs a matter concerning the

pawnbroking industry, which is prevalent in myelectorate, and not only in Geelong but in surroundingregions. On several occasions I have visited a numberof pawnbrokers within the central activities area ofGeelong to discuss with them their businesses and, forwant of a better term, their business ethics. Thebusinesses I have visited appeared to be professionallyand ethically managed, but I am well aware that that isnot always the case within the industry. For example,earlier this year the government recognised that therewas a problem with people pledging their motorvehicles for very small advances of cash. In recognisingthis issue the government passed legislation thatessentially prohibits the pawning of motor vehicles.That is important legislation that protects people whoare generally in great need.

The action I seek from the minister is for her to takeappropriate steps to ensure that all consumer affairsagencies throughout Victoria are provided with relevantmaterials and information on the laws as they relate tothe prohibition on the pawning of motor vehicles in thisstate. As I said, it is important legislation that willprotect people who are seeking to pawn their motorvehicles and are thus, it would be fair to surmise, in avery vulnerable financial position.

Prior to the passing of that legislation there wereinstances of pawnbrokers advancing disproportionatelysmall amounts of money on the pledge of a motorvehicle that was obviously of far higher value than theamount of money being sought. That is, many peoplewere basically being ripped off by a number ofmembers of the pawnbroking industry. Because it isimportant legislation it is absolutely essential that, for itto be effective, it is disseminated throughout theconsumer affairs organisations of Victoria.

In my electorate of Geelong the relevant organisation isJindarra, which recently changed its name to ConsumerAffairs Geelong (Jindarra). It is a great organisationwhich, through its very competent and effectivemanager, Tom Morrison, and his consumer affairs staff,Paul Keating and Gary Jennings, is providing a verygood, worthwhile service to the community of Geelong.


Schools: innovation excellence program

Mr HONEYWOOD (Warrandyte) — I raise for theMinister for Education and Training through theMinister for Senior Victorians a matter for her toinvestigate and take action on. It relates to her budgetspeech. Since that time schools have been kept in the

ADJOURNMENT


dark about the so-called innovation excellence program.That program is designed as a diversion behind whichthe minister can hide the fact that her government hasnot provided any middle-years funding for primaryschools, despite the fact that the program is meant tocover all of years 5 to 9 inclusive.

Government schools received a memorandum on theafternoon of Monday, 9 September — this week —informing them that if they wanted to receive any of thefunding for that program they would have to formso-called clusters and lodge expressions of interestoutlining proposals for the use of this funding.

This was the first official notification to principalsabout this program and the first time any forms orguidelines in relation to the program had beendistributed. According to the memorandum sent toschools this week, the proposals by school clusters haveto be submitted to the regional offices by no later thanFriday, 20 September. That gives schools a whole nineworking days to form a cluster, meet with that cluster,discuss ideas and then submit a formal proposal to theminister’s department for funding. This is despite thefact that the innovation excellence program wasannounced in early May this year, some five monthsago. Even the clusters involving secondary schools andprimary schools have to be based on geographicproximity.

This is totally ridiculous, for two reasons. Firstly, trueinnovation surely will not be achieved by schools thatonly have geography in common working togetherrather than by schools that share genuine ideas that gobeyond geographic boundaries or that go acrosscommon curriculum issues — for example, between aschool in the western suburbs and a school in theeastern suburbs — forming a cluster. Secondly, this is aridiculous notion because most government schoolshave been working in informal geographic clusters formany years anyway. So here we have a bureaucraticmess-up with five-months-too-late forms going out, andeven then no innovation, geographic proximity onlybeing the common glue that is meant to hold themtogether.

Gunnamatta: sewage outfall

Mr DIXON (Dromana) — I wish to raise a matterwith the Minister for Environment and Conservationconcerning the sewage outfall at Gunnamatta beach. Iask the minister to overturn the Environment ProtectionAuthority’s decision to basically build a brand-new2-kilometre extension of the outfall and to set a goal ofeventually closing the outfall.

The construction of this 2-kilometre outfall is going todo more environmental damage to a wider area than theexisting outfall does when it discharges at the rock shelfat the moment. A roadway will have to be built to theconstruction site. Quite a few hectares of natural sanddunes would need to be levelled as a work site, let alonethe construction of the actual pipeline, or, if it is adrilled pipeline, there is going to be a massive lot ofearthworks in a very sensitive environment.

There is absolutely no support for this option ofextending the outfall by 2 kilometres from any of thestakeholders, let alone the community, which is sick ofhaving Melbourne sewage dumped in its own backyard.With this extension the effluent will be spread over alarger area because it will be caught up in the oceancurrents and the effluent will flow right over to theHeads and into Port Phillip Bay, right through ourbrand-new marine park. The two just do not go togetherat all.

In this day of drought — yes, drought — the shortageof water that we have and the low levels of our dams,and we even have talk now of a brand new dam beingbuilt, I think it is criminal to have millions of litres ofeffluent pouring out into Bass Strait every single day.The $50 million to $60 million that is going to be spenton this extension to the outfall would be better usedreducing the inflows into the treatment plant at Carrum,upgrading that treatment plant even further andeventually closing the treatment plant because it wouldhave a far better quality of effluent that could be utilisedin a wider range of uses.

Maribyrnong: aquatic centre

Mr MILDENHALL (Footscray) — I raise a matterfor the attention of the Minister for Sport andRecreation in another place and ask him to review andclarify the guidelines for the government strategy offunding regional aquatic centres and brief theopposition, where appropriate, on the rationale for thegovernment’s strategy, as there is obviously someconfusion on the other side of the house.

I had the bizarre spectacle in early August of the thenDeputy Leader of the Opposition criticising me forgetting too much money for my electorate — acombination of a Community Support Fund and BetterPools funding allocation of $6.75 million towards a$17 million regional indoor aquatic centre inMaribyrnong.

I am used to being criticised by the Liberal Party formany things, like the drug strategy to fix the crisis it leftfor us, traffic and truck management strategies after

ADJOURNMENT


years of inaction by the Kennett government and soilrecycling facilities after the Kennett government’sattempt to dump contaminated soil in landfill, but neverfor getting too much money for the electorate! Thesimple fact is that the west needs a regional indoor50-metre pool and the government has providedadditional funds beyond the Better Pools funding toachieve that.

It is based on a similar project in the City of Casey,where $5 million was allocated to provide a 50-metreindoor pool in Melbourne’s south-east region. LikeCasey’s pool, which is adjacent to the Fountain Gateshopping centre, the Maribyrnong pool, which will belocated next to Highpoint shopping centre, will receivea grant for $5.25 million from the SussanCorporation — a magnificent philanthropiccontribution to the welfare and health of the westernregion.

I am waiting with bated breath for the honourablemember for Brighton to criticise the Casey pool, whichI understand is in the electorate of the honourablemember for Berwick. I am sure that the residents ofCasey will be impressed with the honourable memberfor Brighton’s insinuation that they were not entitled tofinancial support for their very successful new pool.The Maribyrnong pool is a tremendous project for thewestern region, as the Casey pool was for the south-eastof Melbourne. The inconsistency and hypocrisy of theopposition is there for all to see. I ask the minister toexamine and clarify the regional pools funding and letthese brain surgeons on the other side of the houseknow how these facilities can be justified and funded sothe community can take advantage of them.

Dorset Road, Ferntree Gully: safety

Mr LUPTON (Knox) — I raise a matter for theMinister for Transport in relation to black spot fundingfor Dorset Road, Ferntree Gully, in the vicinity ofEdina Road and Francis Crescent. This particularapplication for black spot funding was first submittedby the City of Knox. It was originally for a roundaboutbut was later amended to cover widening the four-laneroad into five lanes and providing right-hand-turnreferences, sets of traffic lights, et cetera.

I have personally written seven letters to the minister,and on two occasions I have had a letter back advisingme that the matter was receiving attention and beinginvestigated. It was recommended by the black spotcommittee in March this year, and then for someunknown reason it was referred to the federalgovernment’s black spot committee for considerationand was apparently rejected. The concern I have is

based on the fact that in the first place it met the criteriaestablished and approved by this government’s blackspot committee, because there were 20 casualtyaccidents over five years.

Lysterfield Road, which the honourable member forMonbulk has already mentioned tonight, wasrecommended for upgrading by the black spotcommittee in March this year at a cost of$2.281 million. I have raised the matter in the housetwice, and I have written four times and received oneresponse indicating that it is being looked at. For someunknown reason, in this particular case the black spotcommittee said, ‘We’ve changed our minds and we arenot going to recommend it’. This is after it had alreadydone it!

There have been a number of deaths on this road, andthere have been in excess of 70 casualty accidents in thelast five years. It is nothing but a goat track — in fact,when the old Shire of Sherbrooke had control of thisroad I think for a period of three years signs were up onthe road saying, ‘Careful: road surface dangerous’. Yetwe still cannot get any funding for this road.

Dorset Road, Ferntree Gully, and Lysterfield Road,Ferntree Gully, going up to Lysterfield, have both beenrecommended for upgrading in accordance with blackspot committee funding in this state. On each occasionthe decision has been reversed — one having beenreferred to the federal government and the other havingjust been reversed altogether — with it being said thatthey do not meet the guidelines. I ask the minister toinvestigate what is going on with this committee.Surely the members of the committee should haveenough commonsense to know that if they recommendsomething of this magnitude they should be prepared tostick to their guns.

Small business: share buybacks

Mr SEITZ (Keilor) — The matter I raise for theMinister for Small Business in the other place concernsletters people receive asking them to sell their shares.Most mums and dads have become shareholders orsmall businesspeople by purchasing shares in Telstraand insurance companies. They are now receivingletters offering to buy their shares at a price lower thanthe market value. They only have to sign the letter andput it in the self-addressed envelope enclosed, and theythink that when they sign it that is it and they will getsome cash money — —


ADJOURNMENT


Mr Honeywood — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, the house has now been in recess for just overthree months. During that time honourable membershave had many pressing issues, which they have raisedthis evening for the attention of specific ministers, yet Inotice that not one minister other than a very juniorminister is at the table. Are we to understand that notone minister will answer their portfolio issues and thaturgent issues raised by members will not be addressedto members in this chamber this evening?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Nardella) —Order! There is no point of order.

Responses

Ms CAMPBELL (Minister for ConsumerAffairs) — The honourable member for Mitchameloquently raised a very serious matter about claimsmade by the Australian Soccer Scouting Organisation(ASSO). He said that the organisation claimed that forthe grand sum of $495 parents are offered great hopefor their children’s future in the soccer world. I will bepleased to pass on this information to the department.Consumer Affairs Victoria administers the Fair TradingAct, which contains provisions dealing with misleadingadvertising. I will ask it to conduct a thorough inquiryto fully investigate the issue and advise the honourablemember of the results of its work. I advise thatConsumer Affairs Victoria has already madepreliminary investigation in relation to ASSO and haswritten to it requesting additional information. I willpass on the results of that information to the honourablemember.

The honourable members for Preston and Geelongraised for my attention matters concerningpawnbroking. Both honourable members referred to theimportance of the consumer-affairs funded communityprograms and the need for them to be kept up to datewith the latest information on pawnbroking as it affectsmany vulnerable consumers in the state.

The honourable member for Preston raised an issueabout residual equity. He outlined eloquently thechange in the legislation on residual equity. Thatinformation will be passed on, particularly the fact thatit is an offence for a pawnbroker to refuse to payresidual equity if the claim is made within 12 months ofthe sale of the pawned goods. I am proud thatConsumer Affairs Victoria has ensured that vulnerableconsumers will get residual equity. Consumers will beinformed of their rights for any amounts of $10 ormore. Consumer-affairs funded programs meet on adaily basis with some of the most vulnerableconsumers, and it is important, as the honourable

member outlined, that those people be fully abreast ofthe latest information.

The honourable member for Geelong asked that thepawnbroking issue he raised be passed on to fundedagencies. The honourable member commendedConsumer Affairs Geelong (Jindarra) on its wonderfulwork. It does truly excellent work, as the honourablemember outlined, and three of its outstanding workersare recognised not just in Geelong but far beyond. Theinformation requested by the honourable member willalso be conveyed to the consumer-affairs fundedprograms.

The honourable member for Bentleigh raised a matterfor the Minister for Education and Training — —

Mrs Peulich — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, government ministers are very good at comingout to the electorate to pull stunts and take photoopportunities, but I would like them to pull the stunt ofactually appearing here in Parliament and responding tovery serious issues raised on behalf of the community.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Nardella) —Order! There is no point of order.

Ms CAMPBELL — The honourable member forBentleigh raised a matter for the Minister for Educationand Training in relation to negotiations for lands aroundBentleigh West. That will be conveyed.

The honourable member for Murray Valley raised amatter for the Minister for Health concerning theCobram District Hospital and concerns about chargesfor ambulance services. I will convey that to theMinister for Health.

The honourable member for Monbulk raised a matterfor the Minister for Transport concerning black spotfunding in the City of Knox, particularly for LysterfieldRoad. I will convey that to the Minister for Transport.

Another matter concerning black spot funding wasraised by the honourable member for Knox. Thisconcerned black spot funding for Dorset Road. I willconvey that to the Minister for Transport.

The honourable member for Gippsland East raised amatter for the Minister for Police and EmergencyServices in relation to the Stratford State EmergencyService brigade. Fire has destroyed most of theequipment its members had worked so hard to acquire,including a four-wheel-drive vehicle, jaws of life safetyequipment and communications equipment. I willconvey that to the minister.

ADJOURNMENT


The honourable member for Warrandyte raised a matterfor the Minister for Education and Training requestingan explanation as to why correspondence concerningthe innovation and excellence program was circulatedon Monday, 9 September. That will be conveyed.

The honourable member for Dromana raised a matterfor the Minister for Environment and Conservationregarding an extension of the sewage outfall and theimportance of an effluent upgrade. I will convey that tothe minister.

The honourable member for Footscray raised a matterfor the Minister for Sport and Recreation in anotherplace and asked for a briefing of members regarding therationale for allocation of the Better Pools programfunding. I will convey that.

The honourable member for Keilor raised a matter forthe Minister for Small Business in another place inrelation to small shareholders. I will convey that to theMinister for Small Business.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Nardella) —Order! The house stands adjourned.

House adjourned 10.37 p.m.

PETITIONS

Thursday, 12 September 2002 ASSEMBLY 135

Thursday, 12 September 2002

The SPEAKER (Hon. Alex Andrianopoulos) took thechair at 9.34 a.m. and read the prayer.

PETITIONS

The Clerk — I have received the following petitionsfor presentation to Parliament:

Schools: student welfare officers


The humble petition of Myrtleford Primary School counciland undersigned citizens of the state of Victoria sheweth theincreasing frequency and severity of significant social andeducational welfare issues encountered by primary schools.

Your petitioners therefore pray that Parliament agrees to theprovision of ongoing, professionally trained welfare officersin state primary schools.


By Ms ALLEN (Benalla) (1124 signatures)

Ombudsman: investigation


The humble petition of Christopher Healy of 2 GirdwoodParade, Eildon, Victoria 3173, sheweth that in my dealingswith the Ombudsman Victoria from 1998 until this yearrelating to the Ombudsman’s duty to investigate undersection 27 of the Freedom of Information Act theOmbudsman’s investigations were conducted in a partial andunsatisfactory manner.

I have documentation to support this claim.

Your petitioner therefore humbly prays that Parliamentinspect the documents that I hold with a view to ensuring thatthe Ombudsman’s investigation of my case is revisited andwith a view to ensuring that the Victorian public is properlyserved by their Ombudsman.

And your petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

By Ms ALLEN (Benalla) (1 signature)

Buses: Glen Waverley–Blackburn service


The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of thestate of Victoria, sheweth that the Ventura Bus Lines routeservice 736 does not currently operate between GlenWaverley railway station and Blackburn railway station onSaturdays.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the Minister for Transportfacilitates operation of route 736 between Glen Waverley andBlackburn on Saturdays because of the community demandfor such a service.


By Mr WILSON (Bennettswood) (73 signatures)

Libraries: funding


The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the state ofVictoria respectfully requests:

That the Victorian government immediately investsubstantially more in public library services for thebenefit of all Victorians.

That the Victorian government increase funding topublic libraries for the purchase of books.

That the Victorian government increase funding for thepurchase and maintenance of mobile library services toensure the removal of the barrier to access by Victoriansin rural and remote areas.


By Mr LUPTON (Knox) (125 signatures)

Laid on table.

Ordered that petition presented by honourable memberfor Bennettswood be considered next day on motion ofMr WILSON (Bennettswood).

Ordered that petition presented by honourable memberfor Knox be considered next day on motion ofMr LUPTON (Knox).

SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONSCOMMITTEE

Vagrancy Act

Ms GILLETT (Werribee) presented report, together withappendices and minutes of evidence.

Laid on table.


ENVIRONMENT AND NATURALRESOURCES COMMITTEE

Fisheries management

Mr SEITZ (Keilor) presented second report, togetherwith appendices and minutes of evidence.

PAPERS

136 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 12 September 2002

Laid on table.


PAPERS

Laid on table by Clerk:

Melbourne Water Corporation Act 1992 — Ministerialdirection pursuant to s 45(3)

National Parks Act 1975 — Advice pursuant to s 11(3)

Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 — Response of theMinister for Environment and Conservation on the actiontaken in response to the recommendations made by the PublicAccounts and Estimates Committee in its final report onEnvironmental Accounting and Reporting

Victorian Environment Assessment Act 2001 — Requestpursuant to s 16(1)

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES

Reports

Mr BATCHELOR (Minister for Transport) — Byleave, I move:

That:

1. the resolution of the house of 28 November 2001providing that the Law Reform Committee be requiredto present its report upon its inquiry into possiblemandatory codes for consumer protection in certainindustries to the Parliament no later than 30 September2002 be amended so far as to require the report to bepresented to the Parliament no later than 30 September2003;

2. the resolution of the house of 28 November 2001providing that the Road Safety Committee be required topresent its report upon its inquiry into fluctuations in thenumber and severity of crashes on Victorian roads from1988 to the Parliament no later than 31 October 2002 beamended so far as to require the report to the Parliamentno later than 31 May 2003.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Adjournment


That the house, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 8 October.

Motion agreed to.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Disability services: funding

Mrs ELLIOTT (Mooroolbark) — The launch ofthe state plan for disability has been a hugedisappointment for the disability sector. The level ofunmet need for disability services has never beenhigher than right now. More than 3000 people arecurrently waiting for disability services such asaccommodation, in-home support and day programs.The rate of people with severe to profound disabilitiesis increasing at the rate of 4 per cent each year. Thefamily carers of children with a disability, who save thegovernment millions of dollars each year, are exhaustedand are not being provided with adequate respitebreaks. Perhaps most urgent is the issue of the ageingbaby boomers with a disability whose parents arebecoming too frail to look after them and are asking,‘What will happen to my child when I am no longeraround to care for him or her?’.

Despite this, the Bracks government has spent threeyears producing a plan that has no dollars attached to it.It was no surprise that the sector received ithalf-heartedly and with much cynicism. When a draftof the plan was released in October 2001 many in thesector were dismayed that the plan did not reflect theircontributions. The release of the plan again ignored thecontribution of those in the sector and thus failed toaddress the biggest challenges facing the community:the current level of unmet need and the magnitude ofthe looming problem as thousands of other Victorianswith a disability require services.

This government has employed self-indulgent rhetoricabout inclusion — —



Mr DELAHUNTY (Wimmera) — WesternVictoria’s economic and employment activity reflects astrong reliance on the agricultural sector, so with thecurrent dry conditions there is great concern not onlyfor the farming families but also for the agriculturalservices sector staff. We cannot afford to lose the skillsof our rural people, for if they have to move away forwork they could be lost to our rural communitiesforever. I call on the government to bring forward localemployment projects such as rail standardisation andriver restoration work to utilise and preserve these skillsin western Victoria.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


A number of councils and community people havecontacted me regarding increasing numbers of corellasand kangaroos. Corellas are causing extensive damageto farmland and community facilities, includingheritage buildings. Kangaroos are a safety concern onroads, particularly for school buses. They are alsocausing enormous damage to the environment and farmenterprises. The government must take up itsresponsibility for the control of corellas and kangaroos.

Education and training is vital for the continuingdevelopment of western Victoria. Schools in westernVictoria are experiencing difficulty in attracting staff.There are extra costs with advertising, and programs arebeing either cut or run by unqualified personnel. Whatis the government doing to immediately help reduce theshortage for these country Victorian schools and reducethe long-term effects on staff and students?

This matter is very serious and has implications for thequality of education available in our western Victoriancommunities. I ask the government to improve accessto teachers in the system and to bring teachers tocountry Victoria.

Reservoir: mobile phone tower

Mr LEIGHTON (Preston) — Earlier this year Iattended a public meeting of over 100 residents inReservoir objecting to the proposed location by Orangeof a mobile phone tower in Banff Street, Reservoir. Theresidents maintain their objections and concerns at thetower being located in a residential area which includesfour schools and a child-minding centre.

Hutchison Communications, the owner of Orange,claims to be willing to work with local communities. Itsweb site states:

Hutchison is working with local communities as it plans andbuilds its wire-free communications networks, including theOrange network. We appreciate that councils andcommunities sometimes have environmental, health or visualconcerns about communications equipment, and we alwaystry to accommodate these concerns when proposing newinstallations … There have been many instances whereconsultation with communities and councils has producedinnovative solutions that satisfy both local site requirementsand network design …

However, Orange has not applied its own policy toReservoir and has refused to work through it with thelocal community. I have now written to Orange callingupon it to enter into genuine discussion with my localcommunity.

I believe solutions are available. If its own policy onhow it treats communities is to be anything more thanwords, Orange should put it to the test by entering into

discussions with the residents in and around BanffStreet, Reservoir.

Warrnambool dental clinic

Mr VOGELS (Warrnambool) — I wish to bring tothe attention of the house the plight of an elderlyconstituent of mine who has undergone partial dentaltreatment in Warrnambool and who must now attend aMelbourne public dentist in order to complete theprocedure.

My constituent, Mr Arthur Peart, requires a root canalfilling. He has had partial treatment in Warrnambool,but is unable to have the procedure completed due tothe unavailability of the appropriate implement. Iunderstand this implement falls 1 millimetre short ofthe desired piece of equipment, a no. 24 file. Mr Peart,who is 76 years of age, has now been referred to theRoyal Dental Hospital of Melbourne clinic for theprocedure to be completed. This is a huge burden onMr Peart. The situation is further exacerbated forMr Peart because, apart from travelling expenses, therewill be the additional costs of accommodation inMelbourne.

It would be greatly appreciated if the Department ofHuman Services could make the appropriate dentalimplement available to the Warrnambool public dentalclinic to alleviate any further need for public dentalpatients in Warrnambool to attend Melbourne toundergo treatment.

It was only last month — August — that the Ministerfor Health launched the department’s action plan called‘Practical guidelines for aged care dental services’.With this in mind, I am sure the minister will agree thatthe situation in Warrnambool I have outlined isdeserving of attention to resolve the unhappy situation.

Highfield Road, Camberwell: speed limit

Mr STENSHOLT (Burwood) — I would like tothank the residents of Highfield Road and surroundingstreets in Camberwell, Surrey Hills and Canterbury fortheir feedback and advice in the successful campaignthat we waged on their behalf to get the speed limitreduced from 60 kilometres per hour to 50 kilometresper hour.

Highfield Road runs between Canterbury and Toorakroads and clearly was not suitable to be a 60-kilometreper hour zoned road. In fact, all of us as local residentsknew that it was dangerous to drive at such a speed inmany parts of the road, especially near Lynden Park.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


Armed with feedback from local residents, I hadproductive discussions with the Boroondara council andVicroads. I would like to particularly thank BruceGidley, Jim Hondrakis and Evan Boloutis, amongothers, for their help in achieving the change to a50-kilometre per hour speed zone. Their action hasbeen well received by the long-suffering residents. Itwas a matter of putting these people together andhaving discussions on how it was possible to make thechange.

I understand the council is looking at further initiativeswith traffic treatments, such as road markings andparking arrangements, to ensure improved and sensibletraffic flows in the area. Indeed the feedback I got frommany residents was a whole lot of ideas for improvingtraffic arrangements in the local streets. This isgrassroots democracy at work.

Once again I thank the local residents and assure themthat I will continue to be their strong local advocate onissues of community concern.

John Wilkinson

Mr SAVAGE (Mildura) — I wish to raise for theattention of the house the passing on 28 August of oneof our finest citizens, John Leslie Wilkinson. John, orJack as he was known, was born on 18 December 1918and was a great contributor to my community. Hejoined the 2nd AIF in 1940 and served for 1948 days,1188 of those overseas.

Jack was the president of the Meringur schoolcommittee for 15 years. The committee built aswimming pool and every child who has passedthrough that school since has had the opportunity tolearn to swim. He was also the president of theVictorian Wheat and Woolgrowers Association, thenthe VFGA, and was instrumental in the electricityconnection for the whole of Millewa in 1959. He alsoplayed a key role in the pipelining of the Millewa.

He was captain of the Meringur Fire Brigade for manyyears, and that brigade won the region 18 rural firebrigades competition several times. He was awardedthe Queen’s Medal for his contribution to Victorianrural fire brigades. Jack was a keen shooter and waspresident of the Mildura gun club. He and his wife,Gwen, did Meals on Wheels for 14 years after theyretired.

Jack was a patriot, a war hero, a good father andhusband, and a great community contributor. He will besorely missed. I pass on my sympathies to his family.

Yarra Valley: health infrastructure

Mrs FYFFE (Evelyn) — When will the Minister forHealth respond to the numerous requests and petitionsfrom the residents of the Yarra Valley for equaltreatment in the provision of health services? We do nothave a public hospital close by, and we do not haveemergency facilities or after-hours medical care.

Three hospitals have closed — Yarra Junction andDistrict Bush Nursing Hospital, Lilydale Hospital andthe Warburton Hospital — and what is this ministerdoing? He has wasted a minimum of $20 million indirect costs in his personal vendetta on the ambulanceroyal commission. He is part of a government that hasbungled the Seal Rocks matter to the tune of a potential$60 million. He is part of a government that turnedaway $77 million of Melbourne Cricket Groundfunding from the commonwealth to appease its unionmates. These three things alone total $157 million —just a fraction of which would provide emergency afterhours care for the people of the Yarra Valley.

I have a constituent in Healesville who suffers fromParkinson’s disease and is distressed because she facesa 3-hour return trip to see her doctor. She cannot makethe trip by herself so her ill husband has to travel withher in the taxi. Her doctor suggested he could monitorher progress with a new drug she is trialling by videolink to avoid her travelling so frequently. Guess what?The only video link is at Maroondah Hospital, and shecannot use that because it is only used for psychiatricpatients. This minister does not care about the people ofYarra Valley. He has no interest in providing care andhealth facilities.

CFA: Carrum brigade

Ms LINDELL (Carrum) — I would like theParliament to join with me today in acknowledging thetriumphant service given by the Carrum Fire Brigade tomy local community for the last 90 years. Carrum FireBrigade was established in 1912, and in the last12 months its service delivery standard was at 98.29 percent, which makes it one of the four best contributingbrigades in the state.

The Country Fire Authority (CFA) long service awardswere handed out at a recent dinner. Those awards aregiven to people who have made a great sacrifice andcommitment to their communities. I acknowledgeex-captain John Cruise and firefighter Harold Taylor,who were given long service awards for 50 yearsservice to the CFA. A 40-year service award was givento ex-captain Peter Davis; 35-year service awards werepresented to firefighter David Adams, to secretary Gary

ESTATE AGENTS AND SALE OF LAND ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL


Best and to first lieutenant Jamie Milburn; 30-yearservice awards also went to operational supportmember Ian MacLeod; a 25-year service award went tofirefighter Doug Taylor; and 20-year service awardswent to a second lieutenant, Andrew Rawlins, and tofirefighter Ian Kerboeuf.

The ladies auxiliary at Carrum also has a longstandingcommitment to —


ALP: union donations

Mr McINTOSH (Kew) — For the financial yearconcluding 30 June 2001 we have seen donations fromthe Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Unionto the Australian Labor Party to the tune of $150 000and for the three years concluding 30 June 2001 wehave seen donations totalling some $300 000 given tothe Australian Labor Party. There is no doubt there is astrong connection between this and this government’sresponse to the CFMEU of giving it favouredtreatment.

We have seen this government and indeed the Premierforgo $100 million for the Melbourne Cricket Groundproject and put in some $77 million of Victoriantaxpayers’ money just so they could maintain a closedshop at the MCG and do a shabby deal with theCFMEU.

On top of that we have seen this government in relationto the National Gallery of Victoria and the LatrobeRegional Hospital enter into a shabby little deal topostpone the awarding of a demolition contract to AbleDemolitions simply on the basis that that corporationdid not have an enterprise bargaining agreement withthe CFMEU, which is the favoured union for thisgovernment. Three hundred thousand dollars over threeyears!

One wonders, considering that the Premier has givenevery indication that we are leading up to a stateelection, just how much money they are likely to get forthe financial year ending 30 June 2002.

TAC: claims

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I draw the attention of thehouse to complaints made to my office about theoperation of the Transport Accident Commission. TheTAC was established by the previous Laborgovernment in 1986 to pay for treatment and benefitson a no-fault basis to victims of car accidents. It hasalso conducted internationally recognised road safety

campaigns. Last year I commissioned a parliamentaryintern to study just this matter.

As I said, my office has received a number ofcomplaints regarding the TAC’s operation. Caraccident victims who have suffered horrific injuriesoften feel that they have been treated like criminalssimply for trying to exercise their right tocompensation. Constituents have expressed feelings ofhaving been bullied and intimidated and having theirvery spirits crushed by the TAC. At the time when theinjured most desperately need help and understandingthe TAC, with its army of legal bullies, intimidatesthese unfortunate people whose money it has beenhappy to take when they paid their insurance premiumsbut whom it then treats in a callous and shamefulmanner.

Car accident victims can often suffer traumatic injuries,including brain damage and paralysis. Many caraccident victims will need lifelong support andassistance, and some will never be free of pain andsuffering. A society should be judged not just on howrich it is but also on how it treats its mostdisadvantaged.

The TAC needs to take stock. It should also rememberthat it exists only to serve the needs of the injured.Fraudulent claims need to be investigated but notthrough processes — —

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourablemember’s time has expired, and the time set down forthis debate has also expired.

ESTATE AGENTS AND SALE OF LANDACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL


Ms CAMPBELL (Minister for Consumer Affairs)introduced a bill to amend the Estate Agents Act 1980and the Sale of Land Act 1962 and for other purposes.

Read first time.

WRONGS AND OTHER ACTS (PUBLICLIABILITY INSURANCE REFORM) BILL


Mr BRACKS (Premier) introduced a bill to amend theWrongs Act 1958, the Coroners Act 1985, the Food Act1984, the Goods Act 1958, the Essential ServicesCommission Act 2001, the Country Fire Authority Act

WRONGS AND OTHER ACTS (PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE REFORM) BILL


1958 and the Metropolitan Fire Brigades Act 1958 andfor other purposes.

Read first time.

Second reading

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — By leave, I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill continues the government’s wide-rangingresponse to problems in the insurance sector that haveimpacted on all sectors of the Victorian economy andcommunity.

An insurance sector is vital to the performance of theVictorian economy and the security of our community.Without insurance, a lot of economic, social andcommunity activity would not take place.

The government’s objective is to ensure insurance isavailable and affordable for business and the widercommunity, to protect Victoria’s reputation as a goodplace to live and do business.

The insurance market has always been cyclical innature. But the collapse of major insurer HIH and theimpact on worldwide insurance markets from the tragicevents of 11 September make the current episodeunique in its extent and impact. This is why thisgovernment is taking action to address the problemsthat have emerged.

The pressures on the availability and price of insuranceare not unique to Victoria, or indeed, Australia.However, it is important that the strategy adopted bygovernment specifically addresses the Victoriansituation.

The government has listened to the community. Wehave seen the cost that instability in the public liabilityinsurance market is imposing on Victoria’s smallbusinesses and tourism operators, our sporting andcultural activities, and our local communities.

The Minister for Finance outlined the government’sstrategy in his ministerial statement to the LegislativeAssembly on insurance on 26 March 2002.

The government’s approach has tackled the insuranceproblems on several fronts. The focus has beenprimarily on prudent and short-term interventions tohelp the most severely disadvantaged.

We recognise that some areas have their own specialproblems requiring specialised analysis. To this end thegovernment has convened a medical indemnity

working group to provide expert advice on a series ofreform measures in relation to medical indemnity.

The major components of the Victorian government’sresponse to problems in the insurance sector are asfollows:

First, the government is making useful informationavailable to insurers and consumers so they canmake informed decisions. Potential new insurers willbe provided with information on claims, premiumsand profitability, making it easier for them to enterthe Victorian market.

Second, the government has targeted those sectorswhere insurance has been withdrawn meaning noinsurance cover is available for a particular group oractivity. The Victorian government is proud to haveled Australia in bringing specific groups — such asnot-for-profit community groups and pony clubs —and the insurance industry together to developappropriate coverage and group buyingarrangements.

Third, where necessary, the government is makingchanges to the institutional and regulatoryarrangements faced by insurers and some industrysectors. For example, the government successfullyaverted an insurance crisis in the plumbing sector byreforming the licensed plumbers insurance order andhas made other regulatory changes to help theconstruction sector more broadly.

Fourth, the government is providing short-term,last-resort insurance to areas suffering ‘insurancemarket failure’, such as the building and adventuretourism sectors, to ensure goods and services remainavailable. Importantly, this type of intervention hasincluded incentives for private sector insurers tore-enter the market.

Finally, the government is introducing acomprehensive range of legislative reforms,including tort reform, to tackle a range of areas thatover the longer term have put upward pressure oninsurance prices.

None of these approaches in isolation will provide asolution to the complex insurance problems beingexperienced. It is essential to complement andcoordinate government policy initiatives to makeinsurance more readily available and affordable toVictorians.

In relation to tort reform, the government has stronglymaintained that Victoria would move cautiously in the



absence of reliable data and a strong indication thatchanges to tort law would benefit the community.

At the same time, the government reserved the right toimplement further tort reform should the lack ofaffordable and accessible public liability insurancecoverage threaten the state’s economic and socialobjectives.

The government has now had time to carefully considerthe findings of the Trowbridge report on public liabilityinsurance; to monitor and assess developments in theinsurance market; and to consult key communitystakeholders.

The Trowbridge report proposed measures for tort,compensation and process reform to improve theaffordability and availability of insurance. Importantly,the report and subsequent data have shown that Victoriadoes not face, to the same degree, the problemsexperienced by other states such as New South Wales.

Nevertheless, the information does suggest that,without further government tort law reform, there is arisk that the trend in public liability claim costs willremain unchecked. Failure to act now would onlycontinue to create uncertainty about movements inpremiums and the availability of insurance products.

The bill I am introducing today builds on thecommitment the government made on 30 May 2002 tointroduce specific legislative changes into this sitting ofParliament. This bill includes:

provision for waivers that will allow people to acceptresponsibility for their participation in riskyactivities;

protection of volunteers and good Samaritans fromthe risk of being sued;

provisions that substantial amounts of damages canbe paid in regular instalments (structuredsettlements) instead of one lump sum;

ensuring that saying sorry does not represent anadmission of liability;

providing that the fact that some people havesuffered injuries as a consequence of their owncriminal activity, or their own ingestion of alcohol ordrugs, is taken into account by the courts;

protecting food donors from liability where theyhave donated food to charities in good faith;

enabling the Essential Services Commission tocollect insurance data to ensure transparency andfairness in the pricing of premiums;

requiring insurers to account clearly for thecollection and remission to the fire brigades ofamounts the insurers collect from insurancepolicyholders as ‘fire services levies’;

creating a cap on loss of earnings of three timesaverage weekly earnings;

creating a cap on non-economic losses ofapproximately $370 000; and

setting the discount rate at 5 per cent and adjustingthis rate from time to time to reflect actual realinvestment returns.

These Victorian legislative measures are well targetedand comprehensive to our circumstances here inVictoria. But part of the government’s strategy alsoinvolves cooperating in coordinated actions at thenational level. This reflects the government’s positionthat insurance is both a local and national product, withthe federal government being primarily responsible forinsurance supervision, regulation and consumerprotection.

Going forward, the Victorian government willemphasise to the federal government theirresponsibilities. These will include seeking measuresthat will increase the competence of the nationalregulator of the general insurance industry, theAustralian Prudential Regulation Authority, the qualityof data collection, oversight of consumer interests andpremium movements.

I now turn to the specific proposals in this bill.

Intoxication and illegal activity

There is a perception in the community that the courtshave been too quick to establish a duty of care owed bya defendant in some situations where the plaintiffshould have exercised greater care for their own safety.This concern has focused on plaintiffs who have beenintoxicated by alcohol or drugs, or engaged in illegalactivity, at the time they were injured. It is importantthat these concerns are addressed.

This bill amends the Wrongs Act 1958 to provide thatin actions in negligence for personal injury or death thecourt must always consider: the plaintiff’s level ofintoxication by alcohol or drugs; and whether theplaintiff was engaged in illegal activity, in determiningwhether a defendant owed a duty of care to a plaintiff



and, if so, whether it has been discharged. This bill alsoimposes a specific duty of care in relation to occupiers’liability.

These amendments are significant as they will providethe courts and the public with certainty by establishingintoxication and engagement in illegal activity asmatters that must be taken into account by the courts incases of personal injury or death.

Apologies

There is considerable confusion in the communityabout whether a person who is alleged to have injured athird party admits legal liability by simply apologisingto that third party.

This bill aims to encourage the use of apologies. Itapplies to expressions of regret, sorrow or sympathy byany person, where a death or personal injury is relevantto specified proceedings. The bill provides that thegiving of an apology, or a waiver of fees otherwisepayable for a service, does not in itself amount to anadmission of:

legal liability in civil proceedings (such as innegligence, or for breach of a statutory duty or acontract); or

unprofessional conduct or professional misconduct;or

responsibility for the cause, or regarding the manner,of a death, in coronial proceedings.

The bill does not render an apology inadmissible, whereit could be admitted or taken into account under thegeneral law for another purpose. If an apology includesa statement of fact, this statement may be relevant to afact in issue that is to be determined by the court orbody.

This bill does not apply to an apology where there is aclear acknowledgment of fault. In such a case themaker of the apology has in effect fully admitted legalliability, or unprofessional conduct, or that they bearresponsibility for a death.

Caps on certain heads of damages

The introduction of caps in this bill provides increasedcertainty to the public liability insurance market. Theydefine potential claimants’ rights more clearly in termsof their potential claim while also providing insurerswith greater certainty with respect to potential claimcosts.

The principle underpinning the award of damages bycourts, where negligence has been proved, is thatplaintiffs should be restored to the same position thatthey were in before their losses or injuries. It is theresponsibility of the courts to determine, in a particularcase, such matters as:

what costs has the plaintiff incurred, or will incur,that he or she would not have incurred if the incidenthad not taken place;

what income will the plaintiff not receive that wouldhave been received had the incident not taken place;and

what amount will compensate the plaintiff fornon-economic losses the plaintiff has suffered, suchas pain, or loss of enjoyment of life?

Such matters necessarily involve some level ofsubjectivity and estimation. No-one can know withcertainty whether a permanently incapacitated plaintiffwould have enjoyed the same real income, or a higheror lower real income, for the rest of his or her workinglife. Compensation is generally based on an assumptionthat the current real income of the plaintiff would havecontinued into the future.

It is appropriate that a reasonable limit be imposed onthe amount of damages for loss of future earnings thatcan be awarded by a court. This bill imposes a limit ofthree times average weekly earnings. This is a highlevel of earnings enjoyed by only a few per cent of theAustralian population. A cap at this level will thereforeapply to only a few per cent of successful plaintiffs.

Similarly, the bill imposes a cap on general damages —that is, on awards for pain and suffering, or loss ofenjoyment of life. Such awards by the courts arenecessarily subjective. No-one can doubt that there is agenuine loss of amenities suffered by a formerlyhealthy and active person now, say, confined to awheelchair for life. Imposing a cap sets out for the courta community expectation of the maximum monetarycompensation that is reasonable for these non-economiclosses.

The bill provides that the maximum amount that maybe awarded for non-economic loss is $371 380. This isthe same as the maximum currently provided for courtawards for these damages under the Transport AccidentAct 1986. As with the maximum under that act, the billprovides for this cap to be indexed annually by theconsumer price index.



Discount rate

In making an award for lump sum compensation, thecourt has to determine an amount that can be investedto provide the claimant with an income sufficient tocover the claimant’s ongoing economic requirements,for as long as the claimant needs.

Discount rates are used to turn projected future streamsof dollars into an equivalent lump sum amount now. Incases of major permanent injury, lump sumcompensation is intended both to replace loss of futureearnings and to provide funds for payments that willhave to be made in the future, such as ongoing medicalexpenses and attendant care.

In Victoria, a discount rate of 3 per cent per annumcurrently applies to all court awards of lump sumcompensation. Outside transport accidents and workerscompensation, most Australian jurisdictions have nowlegislated to apply a discount rate of 5 per cent, orhigher. In Tasmania, for example, it is 7 per cent.

The bill sets a basic discount rate of 5 per cent forawards for economic loss, with a power to vary this rateby regulation. This rate reflects the five-year averagereturn on 10-year commonwealth bonds (the best proxyfor risk-free investment) since the Australian financialmarkets were deregulated in the 1980s.

It is the government’s policy that any such regulationwill specify a rate based on the average real rate ofreturn, over at least the previous five years, on 10-yearcommonwealth bonds. It may be reasonable, in somecircumstances, to vary this basic rate. If so, the amountof such variation and the reasons for it will be stated inthe regulation.

Structured settlements

A structured settlement is a settlement in which all orpart of a damages award is paid in the form of anannuity or annuities and may include a deferred lumpsum. It is only reached when all parties agree and thedefendant, or defendant’s insurer, purchases the annuityor group of annuities out of the lump sumcompensation payment.

The primary barrier to the broader use of structuredsettlements in Australia has been the current uncertaintyregarding their tax treatment.

The federal government has now introducedamendments to the commonwealth Income TaxAssessment Act 1997 to provide an income taxexemption for annuities and certain lump sums paidunder structured settlements to seriously injured

persons, where a structured settlement meets certaineligibility criteria. The written agreement of bothparties is necessary for the structured settlement to betax exempt. These amendments are expected to pass inthe current spring sitting of the commonwealthParliament.

The amendments contained in this part of the billencourage effective financial management ofcompensation to promote the financial security andindependence for the seriously injured. Theseamendments, coupled with the federal tax amendments,help ensure that more after-tax dollars can be providedto the accident victim in a way that does not imposeadditional administrative burdens on defendants or anyadditional cost.

Good Samaritans

The legislation in respect of good Samaritans,volunteers and apologies will clarify issues ofindemnity and risk, so that members of the Victoriancommunity continue to act in a socially responsiblemanner without fear of litigation for negligence.

This bill provides good Samaritans with protectionfrom civil proceedings where they have renderedassistance, advice or care in good faith to other personsin an emergency or accident. Well-intended effortsvoluntarily undertaken by would-be rescuers, includinghealth care professionals, are protected and encouragedby this government.

The bill covers the actions of any emergency worker,Country Fire Authority (CFA) member or volunteerwhose actions as good Samaritans are outside the scopeof the relevant acts that establish their duties andauthorised activities.

The proposed bill seeks to provide immunity from civilproceedings for good Samaritans as long as they haveacted in good faith. By providing an immunity with agood faith requirement, it is proposed that thelegislation will reflect the position of rescuers or goodSamaritans at common law and that the flexibility ofthe common law will be retained in determiningwhether a person has acted in good faith inemergency-type situations. A flexible standard of carein such circumstances will also provide for the differingcompetencies brought to the scene by good Samaritans,including professional health carers.

Food donors

The bill provides protection from legal liability for foodbusinesses to encourage them to donate safe food thatwould otherwise be thrown away. The bill will provide



immunity to those who act in good faith in donatingfood to charities. In 1996 the estimated amount of foodthrown out each year in Melbourne was 280 000tonnes — a figure likely to be significantly highertoday.

The immunity only applies in certain circumstances:

A donor will be exempt from liability from anegligence claim if the food is donated to anot-for-profit charity distributing free food to thosein need;

The food must be safe to eat at the time it is donated.The immunity does not protect a food business thatdonates unsafe food. It therefore does not detractfrom the approach encouraged by the Victorian foodsafety regime that if there is any doubt, food shouldbe thrown out. The definition of safe food is adoptedfrom the Food Act; and

The legislation provides that a donor must inform thecharity receiving the food of appropriatearrangements for the safe storage and processing ofthe food after donation.

A person harmed by the consumption of donated foodmay still take legal action, but only if the food wasunsafe when it was received from the donor will thefood business be liable.

Volunteers

Volunteers play an invaluable role in the life of theVictorian community. In Victoria it is estimated thataround 1.2 million of the adult population participateeach year in voluntary activities. Voluntary work in theareas of sport and recreation, welfare and communityand religion and education accounts for most of thevolunteer hours worked in Victoria. The governmentwants to foster and encourage volunteering in thecommunity.

This bill strikes a reasonable balance between the needto protect volunteers against personal liability and theinterests of those who suffer injury. This balance isachieved by providing that a volunteer cannot be heldpersonally liable for anything done, or not done, ingood faith by the volunteer while providing a servicewithin the scope of community work organised by acommunity organisation. However, the personalliability that the volunteer would otherwise have had istransferred to the community organisation.

Waivers of implied conditions

The bill will strike the right balance between risksinherent in the supply and participation in recreationalservices.

This bill amends the Goods Act in line with proposedamendments to the commonwealth’s Trade PracticesAct, which has similar implied conditions, to allowwaivers for recreational services. All providers ofrecreational services in Victoria will then be able to usethe waivers.

The bill goes further than the commonwealth’sproposed amendments, and ensures that someconsumer protections are preserved. A waiver will notbe effective if the provider is grossly negligent,meaning that the provider has done an act or hasomitted to do something with a reckless disregard forthe consequences, the provider has not complied with aprescribed form of waiver or the provider has made afalse or misleading statement in relation to the waiver.

Essential Services Commission

One of the most frustrating issues that all governmentshave faced in responding to the current problemsregarding availability and affordability of insurance isthe lack of consistent, comprehensive, accurate andup-to-date data.

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority(APRA) is now examining the issue of compulsoryprovision of insurance data on a national basis. It ishoped that APRA will proceed quickly to develop anagreed aggregated data reporting set for insurers.However, there remains a need for such data to beprovided at the state as well as the national level.

The bill empowers the Essential Services Commission(ESC) to collect data from insurers on their Victorianrisks. It is the government’s aim and expectation thatthe ESC will work closely with APRA to ensure that, asfar as possible, the data set required by the ESC on astate basis is identical to that required by APRAnationally.

I emphasise that the state requires this data for policydevelopment purposes, and therefore is interested inaggregated data for insurance products. It is not part ofthe state’s role to examine the financial results andcommercial viability of individual insurers — that isAPRA’s responsibility. The bill therefore does notmake the insurance industry an essential serviceregulated by the ESC, nor extend the powers of theESC, other than information collection, to cover theinsurance industry.

CONSTITUTION (WATER AUTHORITIES) BILL


Statements under section 85(5) of the ConstitutionAct

I wish to make the following statements under section85(5) of the Constitution Act 1975 of the reasons why itis the intention of this bill to alter or vary that section.

Clause 7 of this bill proposes to insert new sections 28Dand 28J into the Wrongs Act 1958. Section 28J statesthat it is the intention of section 28D to alter or varysection 85 of the Constitution Act 1975. Section 28Dprovides that a court cannot award damages to aclaimant contrary to new part VB of the Wrongs Act1958. Section 28D therefore has the effect of limitingthe Supreme Court’s ability to determine the amountsthat may be awarded in respect of both non-economicand economic losses in claims for damages for death orinjury.

The purpose of part VB is to restrict the amounts ofdamages that defendants will be liable to pay if theyhave been found negligent. In order for this purpose tobe achieved it is essential that this limitation applies tothe Supreme Court. This will ensure that defendants,and their insurers, can be confident of the maximumliability they will face for these categories of damagesin the event of a successful claim.

Clause 9 of this bill proposes to insert new sections 31Band 31D into the Wrongs Act 1958. Section 31D statesthat it is the intention of section 31B to alter or varysection 85 of the Constitution Act 1975. Section 31Bprovides that good Samaritans acting in good faith inthe circumstances set out in the section are not liable incivil proceedings for anything done, or not done, bythem. It therefore has the effect of preventing theSupreme Court from exercising its jurisdiction inrelation to certain possible claims arising from theactivities of good Samaritans.

The purpose of section 31B is to encourage members ofthe community to come to the aid of people in need ofassistance in situations of emergency or accident. Inorder for this purpose to be achieved it is vital that theimmunity that the section provides to good Samaritansapplies to the Supreme Court. This will ensure thatgood Samaritans can act confident in the knowledgethat they will not be liable in civil proceedings beforethat court for any mistakes that they make in good faithin trying to help someone in the circumstances set outin the section.

Clause 10 of this bill proposes to insert newsections 31F and 31H into the Wrongs Act 1958.Section 31H states that it is the intention of section 31Fto alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975.

Section 31F provides that a person donating food in thecircumstances set out in the section is not liable in anycivil proceeding for any death or injury that results fromthe consumption of the food. It therefore has the effectof preventing the Supreme Court from exercising itsjurisdiction in relation to certain possible claims arisingfrom food donations.

The purpose of section 31F is to encourage members ofthe community to donate for charitable purposes ediblefood that they do not want, rather than to throw it away.In order for this purpose to be achieved it is vital thatthe immunity that the section provides to food donorsapplies to the Supreme Court. This will ensure that fooddonors can donate food confident in the knowledge thatany incident arising from food that they donate in goodfaith in the circumstances set out in the section will notexpose them to civil liability in that court.

Conclusion

This bill enacts substantial reforms that will provide theopportunity for significant insurance premium relief. Itwill help attack the culture of blame and makeinsurance more affordable and accessible over thelonger term. It is a balanced approach that meets thegovernment’s commitments to act in the interests of thepeople of Victoria in dealing with the current insuranceindustry problems. It represents the result of consideredand detailed research and analysis into these issues,rather than knee-jerk reactions.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr CLARK (Box Hill).

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 26 September.

CONSTITUTION (WATER AUTHORITIES)BILL


Mr BRACKS (Premier) introduced a bill to amend theConstitution Act 1975 so as to entrench the responsibilityof public authorities for ensuring the delivery of waterservices and their accountability to responsible ministersfor ensuring that delivery and for other purposes.

Read first time.

Second reading



CONSTITUTION (PARLIAMENTARY REFORM) BILL


Honourable members will agree that the provision ofwater services, at reasonable cost, is a matter of primaryimportance to our community. It was for this reasonthat, at the last election, this government made acommitment to ensure that our water authorities remainpublicly owned and directly accountable to the peopleof Victoria. To secure the public control of waterservices an amendment to Victoria’s constitution wasproposed to entrench the public ownership of our waterauthorities.

This bill implements that commitment. The ownershipof our water authorities and the dams and major pipesthat deliver water to Victorians will be entrenched instate ownership by amendments to the Constitution Act1975. Once this bill is passed, any bill that removes theresponsibility for ensuring the delivery of waterservices from a public authority or enables the sale of adam or major pipe must be passed in accordance withthe entrenchment requirements in section 18(2) ofConstitution Act.

A new part VII will be added to the constitution torequire public ownership of water authorities and damsand major pipes. If a public authority has theresponsibility for ensuring the delivery of a waterservice, that responsibility must be carried on by thatauthority or another public authority. This does notexclude public–private partnership arrangementswhereby the private sector provides infrastructure orperforms services under contract with a water authority.This bill makes it clear that a public authority may enterarrangements with the private sector for the provisionof water services but cannot abdicate its ultimateresponsibility for ensuring the delivery of waterservices under these arrangements or have thatresponsibility removed from it.

The publicly owned dams and major pipes that will beprevented from sale or transfer out of public ownershipwill be included on a publicly available register. A saleor transfer of those assets contrary to this bill will bevoid. To enable water authorities to manage their assets,the bill provides for the decommissioning of dams andmajor pipes that are no longer required for Victoria’swater supply. These assets can be removed from theregister by an order in council that includes a statementby the minister of the reasons why the dam or pipes areno longer necessary.

I am sure that all members will support the retention ofwater authorities and their primary resources in thepublic ownership for the benefit of future generations.The bill strikes the right balance between that aim andaccessing the benefits of private sector involvement inthe delivery of water services.

I commend this bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr MULDER(Polwarth).


CONSTITUTION (PARLIAMENTARYREFORM) BILL


Mr BRACKS (Premier) introduced a bill to reform theParliament of Victoria, to amend the Constitution Act1975 and the Electoral Act 2002, to consequentiallyamend certain acts and for other purposes.

Read first time.

Second reading



The purpose of this bill is to amend the ConstitutionAct 1975 and the Electoral Act 2002 to modernise theParliament so that it is responsive to the needs of allVictorians in the 21st century.

This bill is based upon the recommendations containedin the report of the commission, entitled A House ForOur Future.

The proposed amendments to the Constitution Act1975 and the Electoral Act 2002 will reform the upperhouse to provide the Victorian Parliament with a housewhich is democratic and a genuine house of review.This will, in turn, enhance the effectiveness,accountability and representativeness of the Parliamentas a whole.

All members will be pleased to see that the bill providesVictorians with a say in their own constitution for thevery first time. In doing so we are bringing Victoria intoline with most modern democratic states.

The bill includes three methods of entrenchment: byreferendum, by a majority of three-fifths and by anabsolute majority.

The provisions which are entrenched by referendum arethe core provisions of the constitution. These includethe numbers of members of both houses, new regionsfor the Council and Assembly districts, localgovernment, Director of Public Prosecutions andAuditor-General and Supreme Court. In addition,

CONSTITUTION (PARLIAMENTARY REFORM) BILL


referendums will be required to alter other provisionsadded by the bill — those which:

establish a deadlock process for disputes between thehouses;

prevent the Legislative Council blocking supply;

fix the term of Parliament at four years and make theterms of the houses concurrent;

establish the offices of the Ombudsman and theElectoral Commissioner as independent officers ofthe Parliament;

include the functions of the Freedom of InformationAct 1984; and

require that there be an act requiring that electoralboundaries functions be conducted by an ElectoralBoundaries Commission.

Other provisions which are generally of a proceduralnature are given additional protection by beingentrenched by means of a special majority, comprisinga three-fifths majority of all members of both houses.

Part III of the constitution, which deals with thedetailed operation of the Supreme Court, remainsunchanged and will continue to require an absolutemajority of both houses. The requirement for an expressprovision and a statement in the house on a billaffecting the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction remains inplace.

The measures in this bill are strongly supported by theVictorian community as reflected in the constitutioncommission report.

One of the important findings in the commission’sreport is that Victorians are seeking increased diversityof representation in the Council. It thereforerecommended a new system of multimember regions inthe Legislative Council, using the proportionalrepresentation voting system, be introduced.

The bill provides for such a system with eight regionseach electing five members. The government believesthis model, which is one of four contained in thecommission report, ensures the highest level of regionalparticipation possible, in a way that is consistent withdemocratic principles of one vote, one value.

The bill provides that these new regions are scheduledto the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act 1982; theboundaries having been drawn up by the electoralcommission to assist the constitution commission.

These regions are available to be used, in the event thatthe Electoral Boundaries Commission has notdetermined new boundaries in the ordinary way, beforeany election under the new system. The bill makes itclear that the Electoral Boundaries Commission is toproceed to determine the new regions once the bill ispassed.

The bill provides that any election held after 1 July2003 will be held under the new regions and newelectoral system for the Legislative Council. This is toprovide time for the Electoral Commissioner toimplement the changes in the bill.

Names for the new regions shall be allocated by theElectoral Boundaries Commission which is empoweredby the bill to consult with the public in respect to thenew names. They will then be tabled in the Parliamentand gazetted in the usual way.

As recommended by the constitution commission, thebill adopts the commonwealth Senate style of voting forthe upper house, with the major reform of optionalpreferential voting below the line.

This bill is the culmination of the work of theConstitution Commission Victoria, and reflects theviews of the Victorian people. A number of otherrecommendations of the commission will beimplemented by the government in a variety of otherways, including referral to relevant parliamentarycommittees at a later stage.

The government places on record its appreciation of thetime and effort expended by the three constitutioncommissioners as well as the many Victorians whotook time to contribute to the work of the commission.All of the people who attended consultation sessions orprovided written submissions are to be congratulatedbecause they are the people who have shaped this bill.

The provisions in this bill meet the government’scommitment to review the operation of the LegislativeCouncil to truly make it ‘a house for our future’.


Debate adjourned on motion of Mr PERTON(Doncaster).


That the debate be adjourned until Thursday, 26 September.

Mr PERTON (Doncaster) — I note that in thePremier’s second-reading speech he said that the billprovides that any election held after 1 July 2003 will beheld under the new regions and new electoral system

HEALTH LEGISLATION (RESEARCH INVOLVING EMBRYOS AND PROHIBITION OF HUMAN CLONING) BILL


for the Legislative Council. If the Premier is serious inhis commitment to this, is he going to give acommitment that there be no election until thislegislation is debated and until the trigger date isreached?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! That is not acomment on the question of time.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until Thursday,26 September.

Mr Ryan — Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish toraise a point of order concerning a response providedby the Premier during question time yesterday, and if itis timely I would like to proceed with it now since thePremier is in the chamber.

The first question yesterday in question time was posedby the Leader of the Opposition. The question was:does the Premier agree with the Victorian FarmersFederation that a quarter of Victoria is now in drought?In the course of his response the Premier sought toincorporate a quote taken from a speech made by me in1997. Indeed I can tell the house that speech was madeon 23 April 1997. Before quoting me the Premier said,‘I will quote the words of an authority in the past on theappropriate measures to be taken in assessing whether adrought is to be declared or not’. That was thePremier’s preamble. He then went on to read fromHansard of 23 April 1997 where he quoted me.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am prepared to accept thatwith the best will in the world these things happen byaccident rather than design and that sometimes advisersthrust things into the hands of Premiers and things getread out, so I accept that the situation can arise byaccident. But what has happened here is that the debatein which I was involved when I made the comment in1997, which was referred to by the Premier, was madein an entirely different context from that in which thePremier sought to use it yesterday for the purpose ofresponding to the question which had been put. Inraising it in the manner in which he did, the Premiervery clearly misled the house. What I am seeking as theend result of this argument is that the record becorrected to reflect the proper situation. What happenedin 1997 — —


The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The Leader ofthe National Party is engaging in a personalexplanation. It is not a point of order. I ask him to speakto the Speaker in the normal way and organise thepresentation of that personal explanation to the house.

Mr Ryan — What is of significance in this,Madam Deputy Speaker, is that it is an imperative thatthe Premier of the state should not mislead the house,be it by accident or design.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! I have alreadyresponded to the Leader of the National Partyinforming him that I believe his statement is in fact apersonal explanation, and I ask him to go through thenormal procedures in relation to that. It is not in fact apoint of order.

Mr Ryan — I respect your ruling and I will adhereto it.

HEALTH LEGISLATION (RESEARCHINVOLVING EMBRYOS AND

PROHIBITION OF HUMAN CLONING)BILL


Mr THWAITES (Minister for Health) introduced a billto amend the Infertility Treatment Act 1995 so as to makefresh provision for the regulation of certain activitiesinvolving the use of human embryos and for theprohibition of human cloning and certain other practicesassociated with reproductive technology, to makeconsequential amendments to the Gene Technology Act2001 and certain other acts and for other purposes.

Read first time.

ROAD SAFETY (RESPONSIBLE DRIVING)BILL


Mr BATCHELOR (Minister for Transport) introduced abill to make miscellaneous amendments to the RoadSafety Act 1986, to amend the Marine Act 1988 and forother purposes.

Read first time.

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN(AMENDMENT) BILL


Ms GARBUTT (Minister for Environment andConservation) introduced a bill to amend theMurray-Darling Basin Act 1993 and for other purposes.

Read first time.

NATIONAL PARKS (BOX-IRONBARK AND OTHER PARKS) BILL


NATIONAL PARKS (BOX-IRONBARK ANDOTHER PARKS) BILL


Ms GARBUTT (Minister for Environment andConservation) introduced a bill to amend the NationalParks Act 1975 to create new parks and make furtherprovision in relation to existing parks and other Crownland, to create new reserves under the Crown Land(Reserves) Act 1978, to otherwise amend the Crown Land(Reserves) Act 1978, the Mineral Resources DevelopmentAct 1990, the Reference Areas Act 1978 and the ForestsAct 1958 and for other purposes.

Read first time.

COMMISSIONER FOR ECOLOGICALLYSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT BILL


Ms GARBUTT (Minister for Environment andConservation) introduced a bill to provide for aCommissioner for Ecologically Sustainable Development,to facilitate a periodical report on the state of theenvironment of Victoria and annual reporting on theimplementation of environmental management systems,to consequentially amend the Public Sector Managementand Employment Act 1998 and for other purposes.

Read first time.

FEDERAL AWARDS (UNIFORM SYSTEM)BILL


Mr LENDERS (Minister for Industrial Relations)introduced a bill to amend the Commonwealth Powers(Industrial Relations) Act 1996 to refer to the Parliamentof the commonwealth a further matter relating toindustrial relations, to empower the Victorian Civil andAdministrative Tribunal to make orders applying federalaward conditions as common rules in Victoria and forthis purpose to amend the Victorian Civil andAdministrative Tribunal Act 1998 and for otherpurposes.

Read first time.

CONTROL OF WEAPONS AND FIREARMSACTS (SEARCH POWERS) BILL


Mr HAERMEYER (Minister for Police and EmergencyServices) introduced a bill to amend the Control ofWeapons Act 1990 and the Firearms Act 1996 and forother purposes.

Read first time.

SENTENCING (FURTHER AMENDMENT)BILL


Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) introduced a bill toamend the Sentencing Act 1991 so as to empower theCourt of Appeal to give guideline judgments and toestablish a Sentencing Advisory Council and for otherpurposes.

Read first time.

CRIMES (PROPERTY DAMAGE ANDCOMPUTER OFFENCES) BILL


Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) introduced a bill toamend the Crimes Act 1958 to create offences relating tobushfires, computers and sabotage, to amend the Bail Act1977 with respect to the granting of bail on a charge ofarson causing death, to make consequential amendmentsto other acts and for other purposes.

Read first time.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT VICTORIABILL


Mr BRUMBY (Minister for State and RegionalDevelopment) introduced a bill to establish a body tofacilitate economic and community development in ruraland regional Victoria to be known as RegionalDevelopment Victoria and for other purposes.

Read first time.




Second reading

Debate resumed from 11 September; motion ofMr HULLS (Attorney-General).

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — I spokeyesterday on the first two elements of this amendinglegislation. I now want to move onto the other mattersdealt with in the bill. The next matter, which iscontained within clause 5, is essentially a consequentialchange, and I do not intend to deal with that in anydetail.

Clause 6 deals with the principles relating to the callingof a jury panel. What underpins this amendment is theconcern that persons involved in the jury system,particularly in criminal cases, feel about the fact thattheir names are repeatedly called throughout the courseof the jury empanelling process. For example, a panelmight be called for three days and at the start of eachday the names of those who are not actually engaged injury service at the time — people sitting in the body ofthe court — are called out. There has been anexpression of concern that in that sort of repetitiveinstance, particularly in criminal cases, there is a risk tosecurity. Accordingly, the amendment proposed wouldleave to the discretion of the court whether that processshould occur.

I query whether this ought to apply in civil cases as wellas in criminal cases. It may be too unwieldy to make anamendment of this nature without it applying to both.However, in about 20 years of running civil cases Icannot think of an instance where anybody was fearfulfor their security because of an issue relating to theirname being called as part of a jury panel.

It may have been thought appropriate by thegovernment to make it all encompassing, but I ask thegovernment to comment on that issue.

I want to be certain how the proposed amendment tosection 31(1), will operate. Section 31(1) of theprincipal act states in its opening:

When the panel is present in the court, the proper officermust …

The section then outlines certain things he must do. Thekey words I want the government to comment on are‘When the panel is present in the court’. Thecircumstance I have in mind is that in non-metropolitanareas over the years there has evolved a processwhereby jury panel members come to the courtbuilding but their names are called in the MagistratesCourt as opposed to the court where the trial will

proceed. For example, in Sale it would often happenthat 75 or 80 people would gather in the morning tocomprise the panel from which juries would beempanelled. Those people would have their namescalled in the Magistrates Court and during the course ofthe day move across to the Supreme or County courts,which sat in the same building, and the trials would getunder way.

I wonder whether we need a further amendment tosection 31 to deal with the situation where if one readsthe provision literally the expression ‘in the court’means just that. If you take those words literally itseems to me the jury panel should be sitting in the courtwhere the subsequent trials are to be conducted. Itmight be a matter to which the government needs todirect its attention so we can ensure we do not have aproblem in case someone takes that point.

Clause 7 amends section 47 and deals with the failureto reach unanimous verdicts in civil trials. It is asensible provision. Changes were made historically — Iwould be showing my age if I said how long ago, so Iwon’t — that meant you did not have to have aunanimous verdict among six jurors, but subsequentlythat was changed to the way the act now reads. Theamendment proposed in clause 7 will mean you canhave a verdict from four jurors if you are down to fivejurors. That can happen for all sorts of reasons —injury, ill health or a variety of things with which weare all familiar. The National Party supports theproposal and believes it is a sensible way to deal withthat issue in the event it should arise.

Clause 8 deals with the remission of fines for failing toattend jury service. It is a sensible provision. Indeed,over many years I have seen the situation in courtswhere this provision would have been appropriate,particularly in a country location where a person whowas to attend for jury service was not present for avariety of reasons ranging from not having received thesummons through to any of a number of eventsoccurring to prevent them being able to attend. Evenwith the best will in the world, whatever their intentionsmight have been, they could not attend.

On the other hand I have seen a judge impose a fine ona person in their absence. The police have been sent outto enforce the fine only to find that the personconcerned has come to court the next day with aperfectly proper explanation as to why he or she couldnot attend the court on the previous day. There hasnever been in the statute a mechanism by which thejudge who imposed the fine in the first instance couldwithdraw it the following day. I have seen thatawkward situation occur on many occasions. The



proposed amendment is a sensible provision whereby ifan appropriate explanation has been made to the courtto satisfy whomever is on the bench as to thecircumstances of the person’s absence when the finewas imposed, there is a capacity to remit that fine.

The honourable member for Doncaster dealt well withproposed new paragraph (f) of clause 1 of schedule 2,which is substituted by clause 10 and which deals withpersons disqualified from jury service. When we werepart of the all-party parliamentary committee whichgave rise to the proposals that brought about thechanges embodied in the Juries Act it was not intendedthat the breadth of excuses would extend to those thathave emerged, such as parking officers using their roleas a means of avoiding otherwise proper service as ajuror. It is a sensible amendment, and the NationalParty supports it.

The amendments to clause 2 of schedule 1 dealt with inclause 9 refer to persons disqualified from jury service.These are important amendments because they areintended to reflect that having regard to the purposes ofthe act in respect of a sentence imposed, the originalintention was that it be the sentence imposed literally asopposed to the amount of time served as a result ofparole being granted or whatever other interveningfactors there may have been. This is a sensibleamendment because it will give effect to what theall-party parliamentary committee intended when itexamined the issue.

The whole question of the distinction between theoriginal intent and the way it has panned out is a can ofworms in itself because we could potentially get intoissues about sentencing regimes and the intent of thecourt at the time a sentence is imposed, and questionsof parole, remissions and all those sorts of things. Thecommittee’s intention when it was considering thematters which gave rise to its findings was that thisprovision should apply on the basis of being related tothe nominal time the person would serve, with thatperiod being reflected by the length of the sentence. Itwas never intended that this provision would be giveneffect on the basis of the actual time of imprisonmentafter such sentence was imposed. Again, we think thisis a very sensible provision.

Clause 11 is a catch-all measure and deals with thesaving provisions that accompany these sorts ofamending bills.

In essence, the National Party supports this legislation.The overriding thing to reinforce is the fact that the jurysystem is utterly critical to the way we demonstrate anddischarge the enormous benefits and rights that run in

our democratic system. The jury system compromisespeople who are the best judges of the facts — that is,people in the general community. It is very importantthat the system be retained. I say that in relation to bothcivil and criminal trials. I know there is a drive in manycircles in both civil and criminal forums to do awaywith juries altogether. I am opposed to that principle.Although there are methods of election so that a jury isnot involved in a civil or criminal trial, it would be asad day if by legislative imprimatur the jury systemwere removed entirely from the way our judicialfunction is carried out in this state. I for one stronglyendorse it and hope that forever after it continues to bepart of the way our democratic systems function inVictoria.

Mr WYNNE (Richmond) — I rise to support theJuries (Amendment) Bill. I thank the honourablemember for Doncaster and the Leader of the NationalParty for their contributions to the debate. The Leaderof the National Party sought some clarification on onematter dealing with proposed section 31(1) of the bill inrelation to the calling of the panels. We now have anofficer present, so I hope to satisfy the Leader of theNational Party on that in discussion prior to debate onthis bill being completed.

Nonetheless, as has been indicated by both the previousspeakers, there is strong support in our system of justicefor the idea that we are tried by our peers. We mustensure that in that process we have the broadestcatchment of people available to serve on juries. It is apublic service, it is the only fair and reasonable systemavailable and it is really one of the hallmarks of oursystem of justice.

The Juries Act 2000 implemented a number of reformsrecommended by the parliamentary Law ReformCommittee in its 1996 report on jury service inVictoria. I understand that the honourable member forDoncaster and the Leader of the National Party werekey members of that committee — if I am notmistaken, the honourable member for Doncaster wasthe chairman of that committee. Our parliamentarycommittees report in a bipartisan way on proposedreforms which, from time to time, are necessary in awhole range of areas. Obviously the Law ReformCommittee, from its name alone, from time to timetakes references, most particularly from theAttorney-General of the day, in relation to variouspieces of reform that may be required. By and largebecause of the bipartisan nature of these committeesthere is debate, discussion and eventually a conclusionreached and more often than not the suggested reformsare taken up by the government of the day. Indeed, thatwas the case here.



This bill introduces a number of technical amendmentsto the Juries Act 2000. In May 1999 the thenAttorney-General, Jan Wade, introduced the Juries Billand said that participation by the community to ensurethat the justice system remains in touch with andaccountable to all Victorians is fundamental to the basisof our judicial system. I think we all agree with that.Participation of the community is critical to goodgovernment and is equally critical to the administrationof justice.

The amendments contained in this bill are firmlydirected at increasing and broadening communityparticipation and diversity in the jury system. This isvery much in line with what the honourable member forDoncaster, as chairman of that committee, was seekingto do by way of the work of the committee. I suggestthat the modern-day jury really reflects the voice of thecommunity conscience — a voice independent of thearms of government and the judiciary and a voicewhich reflects the values and standards of thecommunity from which it is drawn. In essence, juriesare a microcosm of us all. In order for a jury to reflectthe diversity of views held in the community it needs tobe representative of the community. The Bracksgovernment has provided for this in the Juries Act 2000and the subsequent amendments in the bill we aredealing with today.

The current act states that:

A jury district is the area comprising the electoral districts forthe Legislative Assembly …

These jury districts are assigned on therecommendation of the Electoral Commissioner afterconsultation with the Juries Commissioner and havingregard to the needs of each court.

Since the revision of electoral boundaries this year ithas been evident that an amendment to the Juries Act2000 would be necessary. We all pored over theelectoral maps when they were brought out in theirdraft and final forms. Indeed the Attorney-General isresponsible for the Electoral Act, and the significantchanges that were made needed to be reflected inconsultation with the Juries Commissioner.

The new boundaries will come into operation upon thecalling of the next election and in their revised formwill restrict access to potential jurors for the variouscourts throughout Victoria. The new electoralboundaries will make jury pools for some towns toosmall, and therefore amendments to sections 18 and 19of the act will remove references to electoral districts.

These amendments enable areas of the state, rather thanelectoral districts, to be assigned as jury districts. Thiswill spread the obligation of jury service more equitablyand result in juries being more representative of thecommunity. We cannot afford to be in a situationwhere, as would be the case under the current regime,an electoral district would not necessarily draw asatisfactorily wide net to provide a pool of people.

The bill also deals with appeals against decisions of theJuries Commissioner, which currently must be madewithin 14 days of notification of the decision. In orderto clarify and give flexibility to the appeals processclause 3 of the bill will allow for appeals to be lodged atany time before the person becomes a member of thepanel.

Another important amendment is to provide that thecalling out of jurors’ names prior to empanelment willnow be discretionary rather than mandatory. Thepractice of calling out names has been seen asunnecessary and potentially compromising of a juror’ssecurity during and after jury service. I note that thenames and occupations will still be called out duringthe empanelment process, because it is appropriate thatpeople are aware of the particular background apotential juror is coming from. Put simply, theadditional process by which names are called out whenpotential jurors arrive at the courtroom will no longerbe mandatory, and that is supported by both sides of thehouse. If I were involved I would not need to know thename of the person — that is not necessarilyrelevant — however, I would be interested to know theperson’s background.

An amendment is also made to allow for majorityverdicts in civil trials where the jury has been reducedfrom six to five jurors, which may occur as a result ofthe illness or death of a juror, to enable the continuanceof such trials and avoid the expense of a retrial.

There has been some confusion as to whether the lengthof sentence given or the length of time actually servedin prison determines disqualification from jury service.Clause 9 of the bill amends clauses 2 and 3 ofschedule 1 of the Juries Act to clarify that it is thelength of sentence given or detention order made that isrelevant in determining a person’s period ofdisqualification from the capacity to serve on a jury.

Clause 10 amends schedule 2 of the act to limitineligibility for jury service to persons in the publicsector employed or engaged in law enforcement,criminal investigation, the provision of legal services incriminal cases, the administration of justice or penaladministration. The reason for this change is



self-evident: it is aimed to provide the broadest possiblerange and base for jury service. Without thisamendment those in roles such as traffic by-lawsofficers and neighbourhood watch committee memberswould arguably not be eligible to serve theircommunity in this way. However, that was never theintent. The intent has always been that the broadestpossible range of people make themselves available, aswe all should, to serve in this public service role onjuries.

An amendment is also made to section 81 of the act togive the court flexibility in dealing with persons whofail to attend for jury service or as jurors. If theysubsequently attend with an acceptable excuse the courtmay remit, or overturn, that fine or imprisonmentimmediately. This is an important change, as it takesinto account the complexities of people’s lives. Life isexceedingly complex on occasion, and sometimespeople may have a legitimate excuse for why they wereunable to appear on a particular day to undertake theirpublic service role and carry out their jury duty.

Finally, the amendments in this bill reflect the thrust ofthe recommendations made back in 1996 by the LawReform Committee, which is a bipartisan body. Thelegislation reflects the sense in which we want the jurysystem to encompass the whole and diverse nature ofour community, and that must in every way be a goodthing for the administration of justice. The jury systemis without doubt a cornerstone of our judicial systemand is fundamentally supported by the government on abipartisan basis. I wish the bill a speedy passage.

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — I thank allhonourable members for their contributions to thisimportant debate on the Juries (Amendment) Bill. Thisis all about making the jury system more effective and,if you like, more efficient than it already is.

I am sure all honourable members would agree thatjuries are fundamental to our justice system. But simplyhaving a jury system does not mean that our justicesystem is fair, because unless the jury system worksappropriately — and when I say appropriately I meanin a democratic way — the system can be unfair. I amnot talking about jury decisions but about the selectionof jurors, because trial by jury is meant to be trial byone’s peers.

The legislation will ensure that a jury district will be theelectoral district of the Legislative Assembly. That hasnot always been the case, particularly in other parts ofAustralia. I vividly recall acting as a solicitor with anAboriginal legal service in North Queensland. I actedfor many Aboriginal people who were charged with

various offences. In the years I undertook that work Ido not recall there ever being an Aboriginal person on ajury in the trial of an Aboriginal person — not once —and I did that work for five years and was involved inhundreds of trials.

Why was that? I will tell honourable members why —and this bill seeks to address the issue. It was becausethe jury district from which jurors were chosen for trialsthat occurred in Mount Isa involved a different electoralroll to that which covered those Aboriginal people. Inother words, any Aboriginal person who lived onMornington Island in the Gulf of Carpentaria or atDoomadgee up in north-west Queensland lived in adifferent electorate from those in Mount Isa. However,if you were charged with an indictable offence and youlived on Mornington Island or at Doomadgee, your trialtook place in Mount Isa. That effectively excluded trialby your peers because your community, if you lived atDoomadgee or on Mornington Island, was totallydifferent, demographically and otherwise, from MountIsa.

Aboriginal people who came down to Mount Isa fortrial were trialled by their fellow Queenslanders, butthose fellow Queenslander were not from the electoraldistrict in which the Aboriginal people lived. It waseven worse than that. Aboriginal people were broughtdown to the trial by the police. They were left in MountIsa, often locked up pending the trial, and if they werefound not guilty of the offence they were simply givena handshake and told to do their best, and that was theend of the matter.

For those who do not know North Queensland,Mornington Island is nowhere near Mount Isa, nor isDoomadgee. Many of these people were penniless andit was impossible for them to get back to their owncommunity. As a result they became bridge people.They lived under the bridges in Mount Isa and wereinvariably charged by the police with further offences,including vagrancy and other offences. So there canstill be pretty rough justice even though there is trial byjury.

This is appropriate legislation. It ensures we bring ourjury system into the 21st century. Let’s hope that thesituation that existed in North Queensland when I wasthere has changed. We should all work to ensure thatwe have a modern, relevant jury system. It is acornerstone of our justice system. It should bemaintained and strengthened. I thank all honourablemembers for their contributions to the bill. I wish it aspeedy passage.



Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Remaining stages

Passed remaining stages.


Second reading

Debate resumed from 11 September; motion ofMr HAMILTON (Minister for Agriculture).

Ms DUNCAN (Gisborne) — I am pleased to speakon the Agriculture Legislation (Amendments andRepeals) Bill. It is a fabulous bill that does a number ofthings. What I particularly like about the bill, and it isthe reason I support it so strongly, is that it recogniseswhat we might call the right to farm. The proposedamendments will enable us to respond more effectivelyand appropriately in prevention reporting and toincursions of exotic pests and diseases and alsoimprove our powers of inspection and enforcement.

I have the privilege of being a member of theparliamentary Environment and Natural ResourcesCommittee. In the past the committee has looked athow the state is set up to respond to any outbreaks ofanimal diseases. In the course of that investigation thecommittee was concerned about how quickly we couldrespond to an outbreak of a particular disease.

The timing of the response is critical to the effectivemanagement of the outbreak and to a large extentdetermines whether the impact is devastating orminimal. So the timing of detection and action iscritical. This bill seeks to do that by recognising the factthat animals can be carriers of those diseases. So part ofthe bill includes amendments to the Livestock DiseaseControl Act. The new definitions will ensure thatlivestock are recognised as plant vectors and thatappropriate action will be taken to protect them as well.

The particular part of this bill I would like to speak onprimarily is what we might call the right to farm.People may be aware that the government set up aright-to-farm working group. I would like to thank themembers of that group for the work they have done inmaking the recommendations that the government hasaccepted. The government endorsed the sixrecommendations of that working group. Its report wasdesigned to recognise and help resolve what are oftengreat tensions between people farming in areas wherethere are also other residents.

That particularly impacts on my electorate, where a lotof people are moving as a lifestyle choice. They want toget out of the city and live in a country environment.When they come to regions like ours they may or maynot be aware of the farming activities around them andwhat impact those activities may have on them.

The response to the recommendations of the workinggroup has been the amendments to the Sale of Land Act1962. The bill contains an amendment which inserts insection 32(2) — the section provides for the vendorstatement which all sellers of land must prepare — therequirement that there be a warning to purchasers thatthe property they intend to purchase or may be in theprocess of purchasing is located in an area wherecommercial agricultural production is occurring andthat that activity could impact on their lifestyle and theirintended use of the new property. It is in the purchaser’sinterest to undertake an investigation of the possibleamenity impacts from nearby properties, and thewarning will alert them to that possibility.

The sorts of things the bill seeks to alert them to is thepossible impact on them from such things as noise,odour, dust, visual amenity and livestock on roads.Many of us will recall the case a year or so ago of acouple arriving in an area and finding the movement ofcows along the laneways offensive and seeking to havethe practice stopped. That was a very difficult thing.The farmer had been using the laneway for a very longtime. I presume the new arrivals were not aware of thatimpact. The new provision will make that sort of thingless likely to occur, as the vendor statement will includethe clause alerting purchasers to the fact that there couldbe activities that may make it difficult for them. It is acase of buyer beware, but the provision will alert thebuyer to the fact that there may be impacts on them.

I can recall instances in my own electorate a couple ofyears ago involving a housing development that backsonto agricultural land. When the residential land wassubdivided, the blocks that abutted the farms werehighly sought after because they gave people abeautiful vista to look out onto: farmland and cropping.But in the first season when the farmer sought to startup the tractor at 3.00 a.m. because that was theoptimum time to cut the crop, we were inundated withcomplaints from neighbours who, while they liked thelook of the farm, did not want any of its activities toimpact on their lifestyle. I am not suggesting that it iseasy to be woken up by a tractor at 3.00 a.m., but thesort of provision being inserted into section 32 of theSale of Land Act will make people aware that thosesorts of things are possibilities. Hopefully, that will helpprevent some of the mounting tensions that have been



experienced in rural areas, particularly where increasingnumbers of people are moving to as a lifestyle choice.

The bill does a number of critical things. It certainlyassists farmers in asserting their right to farm. It alsoaddresses the way we manage exotic pests. One of itskey features is that it enables the minister to make aninterim order on a particular exotic pest. Instead of theresponse time being about three weeks, under the newsection 5A the minister will be able to make an interimorder for a maximum of 28 days declaring a suspectedexotic pest or disease to be an exotic pest or disease ifhe or she is of the opinion that it is harmful to thegrowth or quality of plants or plant products. The ordercan be made on the basis of a description of theorganism or symptoms or condition of the affectedplants. The purpose of that is to reduce the responsetime to a few days from about three weeks, which iscurrently the situation. As I said, it was found from theinquiry into animal diseases that the response time iscritical to the effectiveness of the management of adisease.

The bill contains a number of clauses which clarify therole of consultants and contractors who are employedby the grower — that is, the farmer — as pest monitorsand laboratory owners, and require that they reportsuspect or identified exotic pests and diseases withoutdelay. It really is putting into place the sorts of thingsthat arise with a lot of livestock diseases, andeffectively provides for a mandatory reporting regimein which reports are to be made without delay.

Those sorts of measures will help ensure that Victoriaremains a clean, green state and that our plant health ismaintained and our plant products industry remainsviable.

The bill, particularly in regard to the right to farm, hasbeen through extensive consultation: many stakeholdershave been consulted in its preparation. It goes someway towards reducing the tensions we have seen in thepast in rural communities, particularly communitieswhere there is an increasing growth in residentialproperties surrounding working farms.

The recommendations of the right-to-farm workinggroup form the basis of the Bracks government’sstrategy entitled Living Together in Rural Victoria, andwe are seeing the progressive implementation of thoserecommendations. One of the key features of thoserecommendations was the setting up of a rural disputessettlement centre, which was launched in February. Thebill goes some way towards implementing the sixrecommendations: some of them have been

implemented previously and more are beingimplemented by this bill.

This is a critical bill for rural and regional Victoria,making us more consistent with rules and regulationsthat exist in other states. Pests and diseases do notrespect state borders, and we must make sure that as acountry we have a united front in managing thesediseases. As honourable members are aware, some ofthem are devastating in their impact on our agriculturalproduce, and we must avoid them at all costs. If we getsuch outbreaks we must be able to respond in a timelymanner, and this bill seeks to do all that. It also supportsthe right to farm, and the specific recommendationsfrom the working group form part of the legislation. Iam pleased to speak on the bill and I commend it to thehouse.

Mr VOGELS (Warrnambool) — I am pleased tospeak on the Agriculture Legislation (Amendments andRepeals) Bill. Other speakers have dealt with the pestand disease aspects of the bill, especially thehonourable member for Portland, who did an excellentjob with his knowledge and background in that field.

I will concentrate mainly on the right-to-farm part ofthe legislation. People in rural Victoria have beenwaiting three years for this government to honour itscommitment, made prior to the last election, to enshrinethe right to farm in legislation. That commitment states:

Victorian Labor recognises the need for legislative protectionof farmers’ right to farm.

It goes on to say:

Labor will ensure that there are mechanisms in place to avoidfarmers becoming tied up in expensive and time-consuminglegal battles resulting from conventional farm practices thatpredate the arrival of the complainant.

It continues:

… we will protect farmers from complaints about acceptedagricultural practices and reduce the number of constraints onfarmers from all levels of government.

In a nutshell, all that this legislation will require — andit does not go anywhere near far enough — is avendor’s statement explaining that agriculture is beingcarried out in the area. Blind Freddie should be awareof that! If you are going to buy a house or an acre blockin rural or regional Victoria, surely you wouldunderstand that there are agricultural practices outthere.

The section 32 vendor statement is only a warning andcarries no enforcement powers. You may not be happysubsequently because as an urban dweller you did not



previously realise that a dairy farmer’s day begins at5.00 a.m. when the milking machines are cranked up,or that cow manure is sticky and smelly when it getsonto your car, or that dogs bark as they are bringing inthe cows, or that farmers sometimes — thoughrarely! — use four-letter words which may echo acrossthe valley when Daisy the cow does not want to bemilked or artificially inseminated. A farmer may getkicked where it hurts most and sometimes you mayhear some strange language. All these scenarios plusmany more could still find a farmer in court, so thislegislation does nothing to protect farmers and theirright to farm.

It is clear that the Labor Party in government hasadopted a very different approach on agricultural issuesfrom when it was in opposition. I have a copy of theLabor Party’s agricultural policy put out prior to the lastelection. It speaks about the right to farm. It alsomentions a review of the Fences Act, which has provedto be an empty promise. The Fences Act is veryimportant to right-to-farm people, telling them whatsorts of fences they can put around their place. Beforethe election the Labor Party stated:

… Labor supports in principle —

The Victorian Law Reform Commission’srecommendation to rename the Fences Act as theDividing Fences and Boundaries Act including arequirement that the Crown should contribute half thecost of constructing or repairing a dividing fencebetween Crown land and private property …

I have not seen it on the agenda yet, and I do notbelieve the Labor Party has any intention of doing itnow. After three years of governing the state andpromising to bring in a bill with real teeth, I amdisappointed that this is it.

Mr Maxfield interjected.

Mr VOGELS — You wouldn’t know! Commercialfarming can be noisy and dusty, with odours at varioustimes of the day. Combined with the management ofcrops and livestock, that can have a big impact on theway a landscape looks.

There is no doubt people are attracted to ruralenvironments for many reasons. It may just be to getout of the hustle and bustle of the city into the wideopen spaces — perhaps the kids have a pony or two.Some families like to have a vegie patch or a hobbyfarm. After purchasing their getaway property there is arealisation that farming is a commercial activity thatrequires the use of machinery and chemicals and theusual activity of managing animals in order to maintainthe land.

In a survey recently conducted by the VictorianFarmers Federation 82 per cent of primaryschoolchildren aged between 9 and 13 years said theywould not consider a job in agriculture and over 50 percent thought that cotton came from sheep. It alsorevealed that approximately 18 per cent of city childrensaid they would not work on a farm and only 55 percent of the children believed that the food they ate camefrom a farm. So somewhere we are losing the plot.

We do need legislation to protect farmers’ right to farm.If we really want to get this right we need to havewritten into our local government planning schemes inrural zones the following wording, which is somethinglike the wording used by a county in California:

If you buy a property in a local government rural zone youmay at some time be subject to inconvenience or discomfortarising from agriculture operations including but not limitedto noise, odours, fumes, dust and the operation of machinery,storing and disposing of manure, and applying chemicalfertilisers, herbicides and pesticides. If conducted in a mannerconsistent with proper and accepted standards, theseinconveniences or discomforts are hereby deemed not toconstitute a nuisance under the council’s planning scheme.

This is the sort of legislation our farmers have beenlooking for, not this wishy-washy, lacklustre attempt bythe government to try to please everybody. What thegovernment has done will have the opposite effect andwill achieve nothing.

I saw a media release put out by the Minister forAgriculture and the Attorney-General in which theyannounced that 20 new rural mediators had beenappointed to resolve farming conflicts. That is a goodstart. However, unless you have the local planningscheme laws to back up what those mediators canactually do it is all airy-fairy, because farmers usuallydo not have a lot of money. I will relate a story aboutthe time I was at Corangamite. A Supreme Court judgewho owned a property on one side of the valley did notlike what was happening on the other side of the valleyand objected. If in that situation the local dairy farmeror whoever is on the other side of the hill wants to takeon a Supreme Court judge, they first of all need goodlegal counsel or they are going to lose, so basically itdoes not happen. We need local councils in rural zonesto spell out loud and clear with no ifs and no buts, ‘Thisis a rural zone, and once you buy into this area whatwas happening previously goes on’. I do not believethis legislation goes far enough. However, it is a start.

Mr MAXFIELD (Narracan) — I rise today tosupport the legislation before the house. I commend theMinister for Agriculture on what is clearly awell-thought-out bill which recognises the needs of thefarming community while also recognising that people



like me who live in rural Victoria also have rights asmembers of a community. This bill reflects the focusthis government has put onto important rural issues. Ofcourse, that Labor has more members representing ruralVictoria in this house than the Liberal Party showsstrongly that we focus on rural Victoria. During theKennett years if you lived beyond the tram tracks youdid not rate or count. We have turned that around with astrong focus on rural Victoria.

This legislation is quite extensive. It amends the PlantHealth and Plant Products Act 1995 and the Sale ofLand Act 1962 and repeals the Wheat Marketing Act1989 and the Egg Industry (Deregulation) Act 1993. Iwill touch briefly on some of the issues affecting thisbill and comment on its local impact and the issue ofdealing with pests. As one who has the apple industryin his electorate, I was very much concerned about theproposals to allow into Victoria apples from areaswhere there is already fire blight. It was very worryingfor the local apple producers, and I here recogniseHelene Armour, who contributed to the debate locally.The Armour family have a very productive appleorchard, and I know they were very strong in ensuringthat their needs were protected from the risks posed byfire blight.

For those who are unaware, fire blight is aninsect-transmitted virus which affects apples and pears.It has produced major damage in the Californian fruitindustry and would have a major impact here. If fireblight came in it would cost industry a huge sum ofmoney to eradicate it and would jeopardise our exportsof apples. Some people say economic rationalism hasits place, but we cannot allow the concept to rideroughshod over our farmers, because ultimately the costto them and the community would be absolutelyhorrendous. I am keen to support the apple and pearindustry in my electorate.

I turn now to early reporting. If tragically some of theseexotic diseases did get in we could eradicate themrelatively inexpensively by having an early reportingregime in place. As we saw in England withfoot-and-mouth disease, by the time they found outabout it, it had spread across half the country. If wecould react by having the right powers under the act forinspectors and authorities to act quickly we couldrestrict the dangers and the risk that could flow throughto areas like the apple industry.

I now go to some of the right-to-farm issues raised inthe legislation. This is where we need to have a carefulbalance because farmers should have the right toconduct legitimate farming practices.

All honourable members will be aware of the farmerwho ended up in court because a city-basedneighbour — probably a Lib — did not want cowmanure on his car. The thought of having to wash it offwas obviously too much for him!

People who come into rural farming communities haveto acknowledge that farming activities do occur in thoseareas. I live on a 5-acre lot out of town, surrounded bybeef and dairy farms. The rights of those farmers toproductively run their farms have to be acknowledged.Dairy farmers may get up at 5 o’clock in the morningand start milking early for a range of reasons.Obviously they need to space their milkings as far apartas they can to allow for the maximum possibleproduction of milk by their cows. Early milking alsoenables them to access the cheaper off-peak power rateswhich TXU, for example, provides for the running oftheir sheds, the cooling of their milk and so forth.TXU’s recent behaviour in ramming up the price ofoff-peak power is quite disgraceful, and unfortunately ithas certainly discriminated against our dairy farmers. Itis another tragic legacy of the former Liberalgovernment, which privatised our power industrywithout any regard for our local dairy farmers.

Milking sheds certainly do start up early and makenoise. If people buy a 5-acre lot next to a dairy farmthey have to expect that there will be an element ofnoise relating to what occurs on that farm. To be quitehonest with honourable members in the house, I — —

Ms Asher — This will be a first!

Mr MAXFIELD — I will ignore the bizarreinterjection from the other side of the house. The needsof our farming community have to be recognised. Igrew up in the dairy industry — both my parents camefrom dairy farms and I worked in the dairy industry for10 years — and I know it is the lifeblood of our area. Ifa farmer has to start a pump at night to pump water upto his cattle and if a potato grower like the one near mehas to start his pump to irrigate, they should not have tofear that somebody will make complaints about itwhich might result in restricting their ability to starttheir pumps up when they need to.

The truth is that farmers are very caring, understandingand obliging people who go out of their way to keepnoise to a minimum and to fit in with their neighboursand their local communities. Members of the farmingcommunity certainly try to keep any disruption to theirneighbours to an absolute minimum. There is a need fortractors to be started up, for other noise to occur and forvarious farming practices to take place, but those thingsare done in a considerate and caring manner. However,



given the risk these days of litigation against farmers, Icertainly support the legislation before the house todayon this matter.

I turn to the issue of exotic diseases. I note that the billwill empower inspectors to gain the necessary disposalorders for dirty packages and bins containing fruit andvegetables. The power handed over to our inspectorshas to be very carefully managed. I am suffering from asore throat, so I will just pause.

Ms Asher — Fire up; you’re getting towards theend. Give us a big finish!

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The honourable member for Narracan, withoutassistance.

Mr MAXFIELD — Mr Acting Speaker, Iacknowledge your ruling and assure you I do not needassistance in regard to this bill. The sad thing aboutsome of the members opposite is that they cannot cometo grips with this issue. During their seven years ingovernment, did they come to grips with this issue anddeal with it? No!

What is happening now that we have a very strongrural-focused government in power? It is coming upwith the sort of legislation that is required for our ruralcommunities so that our farmers can be confident in theknowledge that their government is backing their rightto conduct their farming enterprises productively. As Isaid before, the days of having a city-centricgovernment are gone. We have a Minister forAgriculture at the table who has strongly driven theagendas before us today and who certainly understandsand respects the needs of farmers.

I am not keen on having too much regulation and toomuch control. We do not want to regulate or control ourfarmers out of existence, but we have to understand thatour farmers need to have confidence that theirentitlements and rights are being protected. The factthat the government engaged in significant consultationprior to bringing in this bill has meant it has come upwith a very well-structured and well-packaged bill thatrecognises the needs of our rural community.

I will conclude my remarks by saying that as someonewho lives in a rural community I very much support ourlocal farmers and their right to be able to run veryproductive businesses. The state needs its farmingcommunity to be as strong and healthy as it can be, andthis government will continue to provide the supportthat community needs.

A good example of that support is cattle underpasses.Previously when I travelled around my electorate Iwould see large number of cows crossing the roads, butnow I see significant numbers of cattle underpasseswhich were built as a result of the commitment theBracks government made during the election campaignto put $4 million into the building of cattle underpasses.

Ms Asher — How many do you have in your area?

Mr MAXFIELD — There is certainly a significantnumber. In fact, the program has been so popular thatthere is now a waiting list of people wanting to accessit. I am very keen to lobby the Treasurer — I know thatother members of this house are more than happy toassist me — to provide additional funds to continue thisproject for our dairy farmers.

When the cattle travel across the road they are at risk ofcars ploughing into them. A farmer that I spoke to theother day had one of his good cattle dogs killed when itwas crossing the road. Obviously there is a risk topeople driving along the roads who encounter the cowscrossing the road.

Ms Asher interjected.

Mr MAXFIELD — I shall ignore the commentsfrom the honourable member opposite.

This is something the Bracks government hasdelivered: it has delivered cattle underpasses. Howmuch did the previous government give for cattleunderpasses? Zero! This government has contributedmillions of dollars for the building of cattleunderpasses, and certainly we now have safer roads.

Mrs Fyffe — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, the honourable member for Narracan is nottalking about the bill. Cattle underpasses have norelevance at all to this bill, and I ask you to direct himback to it.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!I uphold the point of order and ask the honourablemember for Narracan to ensure that his remarks involvethe bill before the house.

Mr MAXFIELD — Certainly, Acting Speaker, butmy understanding of the right to farm and the right offarmers to conduct their business is that farmers need tobe able to drive cattle across roads when going to andfrom milking. Those are certainly rights that farmersneed. If farmers were faced with having to stopallowing their cattle to cross the road that wouldcertainly impact on their right to farm and their abilityto milk their cows.



I conclude my remarks by saying this is a fine andwell-structured bill and one that not only I support butmy community of rural farmers also supports.

Mrs FYFFE (Evelyn) — I am pleased to rise tospeak on the Agriculture Legislation (Amendments andRepeals) Bill. Clauses 1, 2 and 32 repeal theMeat Marketing Act 1989 and the Egg Industry(Deregulation) Act 1993, which are both redundant.Part 2 of the bill makes changes to the Plant Health andPlant Products Act 1995. These changes give theminister the ability to quickly proclaim an area andrestrict the movement of stock.

The presence of fire ants and outbreaks of branchedbroomrape in Australia bring home to us thevulnerability of our farming businesses. Early reportingand rapid response are essential. For instance, at presentbranched broomrape is growing in South Australiaaround the Murray Bridge area — so it is a little bit tooclose for comfort. In South Australia there is a systemof quarantining stock from an infected area into cleanpaddocks for, say, a couple of weeks before they aretransported. These amendments to the act will permitthe department to carry out such procedures if they aredeemed necessary. This is a very important part of thebill. This part of the bill reflects similar legislation inother states and hopefully will reduce response times —because it is essential that we have quick responsetimes to any incidence of disease.

The bill also makes it mandatory for consultants andcontractors who are employed by growers as pestmonitors and laboratory owners to report suspect oridentified exotic pests and diseases without delay.

Amendments under clause 6 ensure consistency byrequiring importers of produce from fruit fly and otherpest-affected areas to obtain certification. This willbring intrastate movements into line with interstatemovements of produce from affected areas. Thechanges in the provisions controlling the movement ofplant vectors from interstate quarantine or restrictedareas into Victoria are timely.

Clause 8(3) enables an inspector to require the owner orperson in charge of the plant, plant product, plantvector, package, agricultural equipment, soil or beehiveto have it returned, treated or disposed of at theirexpense. That is a fairly important part of the bill. Itreally sends the message home to any producer orowner of product that it must comply and be of thestandard expected in Victoria.

The repeal of provisions in clause 15 for the labelling ofseeds has the great expectation that producers will be

members of the Seed Industry Association of Australiaand will be complying with a voluntary code ofpractice. I have concerns about what happens withproducers who choose not to belong to the seedassociation. What will they be doing and whatvoluntary codes of practice will they be following? Ifthere is no law about the labelling but only a voluntarycode of practice, how can anything be enforced? It is anarea that should have been looked at a little bit moreclosely.

I support and have no problems with the parts of the billI have just mentioned. However, part 3 of the bill isvery disappointing. Firm promises were made by thisgovernment to introduce right-to-farm legislation. Andwhat have we got here? I shall quote from clause 30,‘Statement of matters affecting land being sold’:


The property may be located in an area where commercialagricultural production activity may affect your enjoyment ofthe property. It is therefore in your interest to undertake aninvestigation of the possible amenity and other impacts fromnearby properties and the agricultural practices and processesconducted there.

It is a weak statement that has no power, noenforcement provisions — really it says bugger-all! Itachieves nothing. In contrast to that — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!I believe I heard an expression that wasunparliamentary.

Mrs FYFFE — I withdraw the expression. I amafraid I am so much of a country person that thoseexpressions spring to mind.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The honourable member continuing her remarks, withparliamentary expressions.

Mrs FYFFE — I repeat that that statement is weak,it has no power, no enforcement provisions and really itsays very little and achieves nothing.

I shall quote from a right-to-farm disclosure statementof the County of Sonoma in the United States ofAmerica:

Residents or users of property located near an agriculturaloperation on agricultural land may at times be subject toinconvenience or discomfort arising from that operation,including, without limitation, noise, odours, fumes, dust,smoke, insects, operation of machinery during any time ofday or night, storage and disposal of manure, and ground oraerial application of fertilisers, soil amendments, seeds, andpesticides.



One or more of these inconveniencies or discomforts mayoccur as a result of any properly conducted agriculturaloperation on agricultural land.

It goes on further to say:

… inconvenience or discomfort arising from a properlyconducted agricultural operation on agricultural land will notbe considered a nuisance for purposes of —

that state’s regulations. I quote again:

… residents or users of nearby property should be prepared toaccept such inconvenience or discomfort as a normal andnecessary aspect of living in a county with a strong ruralcharacter and an active agricultural sector.

It is very clear, it is very firm and it is telling the facts tointending purchasers moving into a rural area. If thatcan be done in Sonoma, why can it not be done inVictoria? Fifty states in America have right-to-farmlegislation, so clearly it is possible to devise schemesthat protect the rights of farmers to go about theirlawful business.

This part of the bill shows how out of touch thisgovernment is with the people of country Victoria. It ismore concerned about looking after the chardonnaysocialists in Richmond, Carlton and Albert Park whowant the rural vistas when they deign to drive out to thecountry in their country clothes and immaculatefour-wheel drives to visit a winery or stay at a B & B ortheir holiday cottages than it is about the decent,hard-working farmers who just want to be allowed toget on with the job of putting food on the tables ofVictoria, interstate and overseas.

Victorian farmers are constantly searching for andchanging to best practice. They are constantly lookingat various ways to improve their operations, not just forproduction profits but also to minimise the effect ontheir neighbours. They need real support, not anamby-pamby, wishy-washy statement. Thisgovernment has missed an opportunity. It has let downrural and regional Victoria, and it has let them downover the drought. It has formed another task force —Lord Almighty!

If they got out of Spring Street for long enough theycould see what is happening and could see the damagethat is being caused. It is not just the financialimplications of slaughtering stock, having to purchasefeed from other parts of the state and trying to findsomewhere to agist — and those places have run out bynow; there are also the emotional implications of thedrought, the effect it has on families, on the wives andchildren of the farmers. They would see the practicaleffects where there is no water at all, and no water forpersonal needs. Because farmers have been frantically

trying to buy whatever feed they can afford to feed thefew stock they have left, there is no money left to buywater for the family.

It is time this government acted, because theimplications of what will happen with the movement ofstock and feed because of the drought very much applyto this bill. The government is introducing regulationsto cover the drought, but it is not bringing in anythingto help the people who are suffering.

I will close by quoting from an article in the Herald Sunof 11 September headed ‘Drought’s dire effectemerges’:

A spokesman for Victorian agriculture minister KeithHamilton said the ABARE report provided no major surpriseson the effect of the drought in the state’s north.

The seasonal conditions task force is expected to report to thegovernment this week on what measures are required to assistdrought-affected farmers.

There certainly are no surprises. We have been throughdrought in this country and we all know what effectdrought has on whole communities and on the wholestate. But most importantly, we must not forget theeffect this drought is having on individuals and theirfamilies. It is devastating. The government must useevery power it has to get some action very quickly.

I have friends and relatives in the country, and I know itis not just another story of farmers doing it hard. Yes,there are parts of the state that are not drought affected,and there are parts of the state where farmers are okay. Ithink Gippsland is in a reasonable position, as is theYarra Valley. We have not had the same rainfall as inprevious years, but there is enough rain for people tosurvive. But in the north of Victoria they have notreceived rain.

When you have children going to school distressedbecause dad had to destroy the stock or mum cannotgive them the money to go on the school camp becausethere is no money left — with the banks circling aroundas they always do at this time, there is no relief from thepayment of debt — the government has to doeverything in its power to do something about it now,this week. Do not leave it any longer! The pain will lasttoo long and be too devastating, and it will take a longtime for people to recover.

I am pleased with the majority of this bill butdisappointed on the right-to-farm aspect. I had hoped itwould have teeth.

Mr Hamilton — But you are not going to voteagainst it!



Mrs FYFFE — No, I will not vote against it, but Iam so disappointed, Minister, I really and truly believedyou were going to do something strong about it. All theinterface areas of Melbourne have this problem. Wehave gone into intensive agriculture because that is theway of the future, and this causes problems becausepeople are allowed to move into inappropriatesubdivisions that have been allowed by successivecouncils and governments over the years. We areeroding our valuable farmland. There is less and less ofit around the city. We really need some protection.

If the climate changes continue are we going to haveenough viable agricultural land to support thepopulation in 30 years time? Are we going to haveenough to sustain our exports, or will it all have beeneaten away because farmers will throw up their handsand stop farming and apply to subdivide because it isjust too hard to comply with all the councils and all thecomplaints so that it eventually wears them down?

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the bill. I willnow sit down and allow my colleagues time to speak.

Mr HARDMAN (Seymour) — It is a pleasure tospeak on the Agricultural Legislation (Amendmentsand Repeals) Bill. This is a very important bill for theSeymour electorate and other electorates that surroundMelbourne in particular, but also right across countryVictoria, essentially because people are moving fromcity areas to an idyllic country lifestyle. They know thatif they are an hour away from regional centres likeWodonga, Shepparton, Ballarat and Bendigo they areclose to good services, particularly since the Bracksgovernment has improved health and educationservices in the country and across the state.

The first part of the bill is about the Plant Health andPlant Products Act 1995, an important part of the bill.We must ensure that we protect our farmland, crops andproduce from exotic pests and exotic weeds, includingfire ants, fire blight, branched broomrape and fruit fly,all of which are a threat to viable farming. In somerespects they go to the part of the bill on which I wishto speak, the right to farm, which is part of theamendments to the Sale of Land Act 1962.

The right-to-farm task force, one could call it, which ismade up of representatives of the MunicipalAssociation of Victoria (MAV), the Victorian FarmersFederation (VFF), the Department of Infrastructure andthe Department of Natural Resources and Environment,put together six recommendations. One which I know isworking successfully is the Rural Disputes SettlementCentre, which is now well accepted and solvingdisputes in cases where there may be two parties that

are more reasonable than the harder-to-solve disputeswhich remain ongoing.

Recently the Minister for Agriculture, Paul Weller fromthe VFF and Rob Hauser from the Shire of YarraRanges conducted a Living Together in RuralCommunities seminar in the Yarra Valley for the YarraValley Beef Producers Association. I know thehonourable member for Evelyn was invited but couldnot attend and sent an apology on the night. It was asuccessful seminar attended by about 100 people, if notmore, from throughout the Yarra Valley as well as fromMurrindindi.

An interesting conversation took place that night. BevSchmolling from the Yarra Valley Beef ProducersAssociation rang me a few months ago to try to securethe minister to talk to the people of the Yarra Valleyabout the importance of the right to farm in theirparticular area, which is extensive. The speech that theMinister for Agriculture gave was well received, and itwas notable that the president of the VFF, Paul Weller,was very supportive of the minister’s statements, as wasthe chief executive officer of the Shire of Yarra Ranges,Rob Hauser, in talking about the shire’s plans.

Obviously a conflict of interest now occurs in countryareas, especially in areas like the Yarra Valley in myelectorate, which includes places like Yarra Glen,Dixons Creek, Healesville and also places aroundLilydale, because of the use of gas guns, which areobviously needed for the protection of the higher valuehorticultural crops that are grown in those areas now.The neighbours of those properties often have openedup bed and breakfast establishments or have moved outthere for lifestyle reasons and do not like those gas gunsgoing off.

Conflicts can now be resolved through negotiationusing the Rural Disputes Settlement Centre, but as weheard on the night, there are other issues where peoplehave to learn to be reasonable about when to use gunsand where to put a gas gun in relation to a person’shouse next door, et cetera. I read in one of the localYarra Ranges newspapers yesterday of a controversialissue about the Shire of Yarra Ranges implementinglaws on the use of gas guns. There was conflict not onlybetween the farmers but also among the land-holders.That will be an interesting one for people in thatparticular area to solve.

When people move out into country areas they have torealise that they are moving into an industrial area,although it is just farmland. What comes with that isnoise from a variety of sources, be it tractors, balinghay in the middle of the night before the dew gets it, or



something along those lines; odours from a chook shed,spreading of fertilisers or the dust that is created byfarmers ploughing their land. The visual amenity maynot always be the same because those farmers also haveto look at the use of their land and say, ‘For this to be aviable producing farm in this district I need to be able todo some high value adding with my land and I cannotafford any more to run beef; I now have to have higherintensive crops, be they cherries, grapes or flowers’. Asa result, the landscape will change around those peoplewho move out there for certain reasons.

The honourable member for Narracan spoke aboutlivestock on roads. You cannot hurry in the country asyou can in the city because if the cattle are on the roadyou have to wait for them. They are big, heavy animalsand will damage your car. Those things have to belooked at. The person who moves out there mustunderstand those issues. Although you may have gonethere to buy because it was a tranquil and peacefulplace, a place with plenty of fresh air — as plenty ofcountry areas are — it may not be like that all the time.For example, the wind might be blowing in a differentdirection when you go to buy a house next to a chookfarm and then when you move in you find that there is avery big difference.

On that basis there is a need for the legislation, and theamendment to the Sale of Land Act 1962 is importantto ensure that those people are aware of what they aremoving into. While a country property may lookidyllic, it may not be the reality. People moving therealso need to know that on top of the rights which theyhave there is not only an amount of reasonableness infarming practices but there are also responsibilities ofensuring that the weeds and pests on their properties arekept down and maintained, in my electorate especially.

I am finding that not so much in the Yarra Valley areasbut further north around the Seymour, Glenaroua andKilmore areas. One of our biggest problems is absenteeland-holders who come up and buy the idyllic block ofland. They might want to move up there one day whenthey retire, and they just let the gorse, the blackberriesor Paterson’s curse grow. The farmers around them getvery frustrated, and this causes a great many complaintsto the Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment and to me about the DNRE not doingsomething. The DNRE tries to work out someresolutions to problems and is doing a great job. In theareas surrounding Seymour it is making sure it getscommunities talking to each other about whatexpectations people have of each other to control weedsand pests. That is important.

If you move into one of those areas these days probablythe first thing you should do is join the Country FireAuthority and then join the local Landcare group tolearn about how to access government assistance for thecontrol of pests and weeds. That way you can improvethe productivity of the land through better farmingpractices, planting of trees and revegetating rechargeareas — if that is where you are — to prevent salinity.

The bill is good legislation. After a great number ofpeople from the VFF and the MAV have sat down withpeople from the DNRE with their resources andexpertise and agreed on the six recommendations, it is abit unfair to criticise them the way the previous speakerdid. I thought it was insulting to a great number ofpeople who put a lot of effort into producing a policy.Their intent was to ensure that the right to farm isconsidered to be important in Victoria. It has happenedunder this government. The work may have startedunder the previous government, but it has happenedunder this government through talking with a lot ofpeople. I think it is a worthy piece of legislation. Icommend the minister again on his fantastic work andon getting a great outcome for country Victoria.

Mr PLOWMAN (Benambra) — The first part ofthe Agriculture Legislation (Amendments and Repeals)Bill amends the Plant Health and Plant Products Act1995 and is designed to more effectively stop themovement of exotic pests and diseases into Victoria —a very necessary and commendable aim. Diseases andpests covered in the legislation include fire ants, fireblight, fruit flies and branched broomrape. I note thatwhen the honourable member for Seymour talked aboutbranched broomrape he called it ‘branded broomrape’. Ido not have any question about that, however, becauseuntil very recently I did not know what branchedbroomrape was.

There are three types of branched broomrape andalready in Victoria it has been located in fodder that hascome into the drought areas of Victoria — and Iemphasise the word ‘drought’ — from Murray Bridgein South Australia. It has been identified and locatedand, as far as is known, it has been controlled. It is,nevertheless, a matter of real concern and worry forthose people bringing fodder in under these droughtcircumstances that it could be brought in with fodder,particularly from South Australia. It is a woody plantand grows from rhizomes, and is very hard to identifyunless you know what you are looking for. It is mostimportant that with this legislation the schedule ofregulations cover all types of branched broomrapebecause of the difficulty of identification.



Fire ants, another area of concern, came into Australiathrough the port of Brisbane, apparently from SouthAmerica. It took two years to identify what was causingthe total denuding of all ground plant life. In those areaswhere the fire ants were found every ground plantdisappeared as a result of the devastation those fire antscause — and it is total devastation! I am delighted tosee that these two significant areas of concern forprimary producers are being covered by this legislation.

The main improvement to the existing legislation is theopportunity to make an interim order for 28 days todeclare an exotic pest or disease. As is indicated in thesecond-reading speech this should cut down the timefor implementation from about two to three weekscurrently to about two to three days. That, in turn, willreduce the possible spread of either the disease or thepest.

I question the need for the provision in the bill, asmentioned in the second-reading speech, that it will bemandatory for consultants and contractors to reporttheir suspicions about any occurrence of exotic pests,plants or diseases. Is there any evidence to suggest thatthey do not do that? Frankly, I think all people inconsultancy and contracting roles in the industry arejust as concerned about the movement of exotic pestsand diseases as we are as farmers, producers orconsumers.

I have nothing that suggests that this provision shouldnot be in the bill, but equally I question why it has beenincluded in the bill and whether there is any evidence tosupport the need for it.

It is interesting to note also that vectors that can carrysome of these diseases, like bees, livestock or livestockproducts, may be restricted in movement from a suspectarea or a quarantine area. I think this is valuable, butthankfully it will probably be used only infrequently.Most of us are fully aware of the damage fruit flyoutbreaks do in the fruit-growing areas in central andnorthern Victoria. It is good to see that these areaswithin the state will be treated in the same manner asthey would be if they were outside the state.

I note also that scientific research will requireministerial approval. Given the sensitivity of theconcern about the impact these diseases and pests canhave, I think scientific research into areas likebiological control must go ahead. I have no problem atall with ministerial approval being granted, because Iam quite sure that any minister of agriculture wouldlook at that appropriately and make sure that theresearch goes ahead with absolutely minimal risk ofinfection outside the research area.

I noted with interest the concern registered by thehonourable member for Swan Hill about the reuse ofpackaging without sufficient decontamination.Hopefully the improvements to this legislation willmake a difference there and improve the conduct of, asthe honourable member for Swan Hill described them,some of the cowboys in the industry. It is a problem; ithas always has been a problem. I am not sure that thelegislation will overcome that problem, but if it reducesit then it will certainly be a good thing.

The bill also talks about the implementation of gradestandards for fruit and vegetables and says that thegrade labelling has been revoked for fruit andvegetables, as it has with seed labelling. What isobviously required is the implementation of a nationalgrade standard for fruit and vegetables as is the casewhere the Australian seeds association hasimplemented a national code of practice that is largelybeing complied with by the industry.

As is always the case, inspectors are given more power.I think the honourable member for Swan Hill suggestedthat the powers that are given to inspectors in theagricultural and food produce area are second to nonein this country. Again, I have no argument with that,because I have not run across any constituent of mine ineither the food or the agricultural area who has believedthat that power has been abused. If that additionalpower to seek further information gets compliancedown from about seven to two or three days, that willbe a great improvement in the management of this area.I would suggest in the main that this part of the bill isvery sound. It certainly has the support of this side ofthe house.

The second part of the bill, though, which has raised theire of many members of the opposition is the proposedamendment to the Sale of Land Act 1962. All six of therecommendations of the right-to-farm working groupare worth while. I do not think any of us has anyargument with the recommendations that were broughtdown and the fact that they are an attempt to improvethe situation where the rights of farmers need to beprotected. But clearly the provision in the bill for theinclusion in a section 32 vendor statement of a warningto purchasers of property that the property may belocated in an area where commercial agriculturalproduction activity could affect their enjoyment of theproperty they have purchased is as weak as water.

I really am surprised that the minister has allowed thisprovision to get through without his having put moreteeth into it. The honourable member for Evelyn quoteda provision in some United States legislation — Icannot remember in which state it was — that clearly



identified what was required. I would have thought,with the efforts of the department to look worldwide atwhat was required to give greater certainty to primaryproducers, that farming practices would be protectedunder this legislation. Much more could be done andshould be done, and in fact it will be done when theLiberal Party gets into government.

This is one of the issues that we in the Liberal Partywill push very hard to make sure that primaryproducers’ rights are protected. One of the things I havenoted over the last three years is that the rights offarmers are being attacked on all sides. This area is onewhere we cannot allow that attack to continue.

One of the problems — and I say this through the Chairto the minister — is that this bill does not in any waycover the introduction of new management practices. Itonly suggests that there are existing managementpractices that might affect the enjoyment of a property,but there is nothing about the introduction of newfarming practices. A classic example is in thefruit-growing areas where to avoid the damage done byfrost they now use big wind machines that create a fairbit of noise. They turn on prior to the frost settling atabout 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning, when most peopleare enjoying their sleep — and I can understand theirdispleasure — but if farmers were to be prevented fromusing those machines because this legislation is notstrong enough, we would have missed a really goodopportunity to do more to protect the interests ofprimary producers.

The opposition supports this legislation inasmuch as itdoes not oppose it, but it is disappointed that the billdoes not cover what it set out to do.

Mr LEIGHTON (Preston) — There was a cartoonin Tuesday’s Herald Sun — I am resisting thetemptation to try to have it incorporated — that showsFred Basset in his car thinking, ‘We do enjoy aleisurely drive through the country’. In the secondframe we see that that drive is perhaps a bit slower thanexpected as Fred’s car is following a slow-movingtractor pulling a trailer laden with hay bales. I think thatencapsulates the fact that people move to the countryfor a quieter, peaceful and more tranquil existence butthat in doing so they have unrealistic expectations to dowith the noise and activity they find on farms orsometimes even on the urban fringes of Melbourne,resulting from activities such as poultry production. Attimes this can lead to social tensions.

I believe this bill will go a long way to reducing thosetensions and supporting the activities of farmers.Indeed, the Bracks government’s agriculture policy at

the 1999 election had a right-to-farm section whichincluded a commitment to protect good farmingpractice from complaints, to increase communityawareness of the importance of agriculture and toimplement an education campaign to reduce thenumber of disputes between farmers and thecommunity.

After listening to this debate I want to respond to thehonourable members for Evelyn and Benambra, whoseemed to criticise the right-to-farm provisions. Theyignored not only the work of the working party thegovernment set up but the fact that the section 32amendments to the Sale of Land Act have beenendorsed and supported by all the players. TheMunicipal Association of Victoria, the VictorianFarmers Federation, the Law Institute of Victoria andthe Real Estate Institute of Victoria have all beenconsulted and support these amendments. It wouldseem that once again it is the opposition that is the oddone out.

There is an agreement to restrict the amount of timemembers can speak, but I will mention the otherarea — the protection the bill provides to Victorianagriculture. Victoria’s food and fibre export industriesare worth $7.6 billion annually. Food processing is thelargest single component of Victoria’s manufacturingsector at 19 per cent, generating an annual turnover of$12 billion and being responsible for 35 per cent ofVictoria’s export earnings. However, under theprevious government Victoria’s agricultural sector didnot have the support and protection it deserved. Notonly did the Kennett government close countryhospitals and schools, but it was responsible for the lossof 50 per cent of Victoria’s scientific, technical andregulatory staff from the department of agriculture. Theprevious government not only did not support countryareas but in the area of agriculture put it in muchjeopardy.

It is worth looking at some of the agricultural activitiesthat we need to support. Australia is the world’s biggestexporter of goat meat. Fodder crop production is valuedat $323.1 million per annum and exports of foddercrops are increasing by approximately 20 per cent perannum. Beekeeping in Victoria is an essential serviceindustry for the agricultural and horticultural sectors,with more than 38 000 hives playing a vital role in theprotection of many crops such as fruit, vegetables,pastures and field crops; and exports of Victorian honeyand honey products are valued at more than $10 millionper annum. The horse industry contributes more than$200 million to the Victorian economy, with a keydriver being the vibrant thoroughbred and racingindustry. Exports of live horses for breeding purposes



doubled in the year 2000 and were valued at$21.38 million. There has been a substantial increase inactivity in the production of Asian vegetables in the lastfew years. The wildflower industry has achieved 80 percent growth.

This bill contains a number of very important measures,such as increasing the power of inspectors, the interim28 day order that the minister can undertake and moretimely reporting by producers.

I want to finish on the point that if you look at one ofthe pests, fire blight, it is not only a disastrous disease inCalifornia but much closer to home in New Zealand,where it has devastated the apple and pear industry. Ifhonourable members from the Liberal Party and theNational Party wanted to do anything for rural Victoriathey would use their influence with their federalcolleagues to insist once and for all that the importingof New Zealand pears not be allowed, as I do notbelieve our local industry can be protected 100 per cent.Pears and apples should not be imported from NewZealand. With those comments, I support the bill.

Mr DELAHUNTY (Wimmera) — I am pleased onbehalf of the Wimmera electorate to rise and speak onthe Agriculture Legislation (Amendments and Repeals)Bill. As I said earlier this morning, western Victoria’seconomic and employment activity reflects a strongreliance on the agricultural sector.

It is important that I make some comments on this bill,even though it does not take in many of the concernswe have in my electorate.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Plant Health andPlant Products Act 1995 by tightening up requirementsfor the prevention of, reporting on and responses toincursions of exotic pests and diseases; it amends theSale of Land Act 1962 by requiring vendor statementsto include a warning that nearby commercial farmingactivities could affect purchasers amenity; and it repealstwo redundant agricultural acts, the Wheat MarketingAct 1989 and the Egg Industry (Deregulation) Act1993.

I take up the point raised by the honourable member forPreston regarding putting pressure on our federalcolleagues about quarantine and importation laws. InAustralia we often get accused of using our quarantinelaws as a de facto trade barrier. We take pride in thefact that we have a clean and green industry. We benefitfrom our tough importation laws. We need to makesure it is done on a scientific basis and is not just aknee-jerk reaction to concerns raised by competition.None of us like competition if we do not win. We

compete on a world global market and we exporttwo-thirds of our agricultural products, so Australiadoes well in that area, but at times with tariffs and thosetypes of things we are disadvantaged enormously.

To use our quarantine laws as de facto tariffs is wrongbecause it should be done on a scientific basis. I knowthe federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries andForestry, the Honourable Warren Truss, has done a lotof work on scientific controls and in making sure thatour quarantine standards meet the standards Australiansrequire to protect our important industries, whether theyare pears or apples or something else.

This legislation covers the certification measures toprotect and address issues such as weeds, broomrape,exotic pests like fire ants and diseases like fire blight.These are significant threats to our agriculturalindustries and the legislation will do something toaddress those concerns. I know there has been a lot ofdiscussion in this debate about the right to farm. Mycolleague the honourable member for Swan Hill hasdone enormous work with the previous government andthis government to develop proposals in relation to theright to farm. The vendor statement is a further smallprotection for farmers rights to conduct theircommercial operations in rural areas. I know it is ofmajor concern to the broiler and vine industries. Thevendor statement is a small step forward because at theend of the day I am sure people who purchase land inrural areas are aware that commercial farmingoperations occur nearby. Having it in writing is a smallstep forward.

Agriculture is part of the food industry and it isimportant that the necessary laws are established toprotect the industry, including matters such as labellingand vendors which are set out in the bill. The reportingrequirements of laboratory staff, contractors andconsultants to report suspect or identified exotic pests isan important step, and it goes further than what we havehad before. It even involves contractors who do a lot ofwork in rural enterprises these days.

In talking about pests I should say that we have majorproblems in western Victoria with corellas, which causeconsiderable damage to farming enterprises andbuildings, including historic buildings in places likeStawell. Councils in the area have been contacting meabout this matter and have been asking when thegovernment will take responsibility for these pests,including kangaroos, that are causing major worries.The only people who are happy about the number ofkangaroos in country areas are the panel beaters,because they are getting plenty of work out of them.No-one is happy about the damage being done to the



environment and farm land and, importantly, to peopletravelling along rural roads. I include in that schoolbuses. I have been made aware that in the Balmoralarea bus drivers have been told to slow down becauseof the fear of hitting kangaroos. The numbers havegrown too much and I again ask the government to takeup its responsibility to control these problems,particularly when kangaroos come from Crown land.Some councils have talked about the governmentputting up fences around Crown land so those animalsare kept inside the fence.

This bill also covers labelling and allows growers andpackers to use the location code of fruit and vegetablesinstead of the address of origin for traceability andcompliance purposes. As I said earlier, the agriculturalindustry is very much part of the food industry and itdoes not take much to turn around the perceptions ofconsumers, so labelling does play an important part. Itis another reason why the government has brought inthe national livestock identification scheme for cattlebecause there are concerns in the meat industry,particularly in the beef industry, about Victoria beingthe first — and I hope we are first when we play PortAdelaide in Adelaide on Friday night. We want to bethe first because we want to protect the clean greenimage that we have in country Victoria. It is importantthat labelling meets the requirements.

I was involved in the all-party parliamentary ovineJohnes disease inquiry and it highlighted to me again,even though my background is in the meat industry,that we need appropriate trace-back mechanisms toprotect the food industry. I call on the state governmentto make sure that it cooperates with the nationalprogram on ovine Johnes disease and I congratulate iton bringing in the national livestock identificationscheme because even though there are some problemswith implementation, I think it will be a great boon toour agricultural industries.

I know the legislation adds livestock products andbeehives to existing vectors of pest plants and diseases.That is appropriate and I support it coming from theWimmera area.

I want to finish soon so a few other speakers can get upand address other matters, but I note that the legislationgives the minister the power to delegate the authority tomake interim orders on exotic pests and diseases to thesecretary of the department.

Members will also see in the second-reading speechthat the bill gives greater powers to inspectors. Mycolleague the honourable member for Swan Hillhighlighted the fact that it is important that the

inspectors, who have wide-ranging powers, have anappropriate way of dealing with and talking to people.These powers have been greatly extended. Thislegislation makes it an offence to hinder an inspectorand increases the penalties for offences againstinspectors. Being an old inspector from way back, Iknow it would have been nice to have had that in myday.

I would like to finish off by saying that I think it isimportant that the government conduct an educationprogram about the implementation of this bill. It isimportant that our rural communities be aware of thechanges affecting farming operators, inspectors,contractors and the like. It is also important that thateducation go into the schools. There is not a greatawareness of where the food products in kitchens inmetropolitan areas come from, and I think that isimportant. I know the Minister for Agriculture isworking on developing an education awarenessprogram for metropolitan areas. With those few words,I will be supporting this legislation and wish it a speedypassage.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs ELLIOTT(Mooroolbark).



Second reading

Debate resumed from 11 September; motion of Ms PIKE(Minister for Housing).

Mr VINEY (Frankston East) — It is with pleasureis that I rise to support the Residential Tenancies(Amendment) Bill. Changes to residential tenancieslegislation have some history in Victoria, but the mostrecent changes were made in 1997, when there was areduction in tenure security and fair rent mechanisms.In the view of this government that shifted the balanceof power between landlords and tenants in the Victorianrental market a little too far towards landlords. Thislegislation aims to restore some balance to residentialtenancies legislation in Victoria.

The bill reflects the style and approach of thisgovernment to a raft of social and economic legislationin Victoria. The legislation before us today is reallyabout restoring some balance to the market. The billrepresents a moderate and responsible change in thatprocess of incremental improvement.



The residential tenancies working group was chaired bythe honourable member for Bendigo East. I would liketo take this opportunity to congratulate the honourablemember on the work she did. The working groupcomprised a number of representatives from variousinterest groups in the residential tenancies market,including both tenant and landlord representatives andpeople from the caravan parks. Each of these groupslobbied hard for their particular positions. It was adifficult job done with distinction by the honourablemember for Bendigo East to ensure that there wasbalanced discussion in the working group and that thelegislation we have before us now reflects the spirit ofthose consultation processes.

One of the terms of reference for that working groupwas a commitment to increase tenure security, look atfair rent mechanisms and improve the useability of theprincipal act. I want to touch particularly on theincreased tenure security and fair rent mechanisms inmy brief comments today.

A key amendment to be made in the area of tenuresecurity is the increased notice period for no-reasonnotices to vacate from 90 days to 120 days. That is afairly moderate position between the preference oftenant organisations to remove these notices from theact or reinstate the much earlier six-month provision ofthe 1980 act and the preference of property owners andagents who wanted to maintain the 90-day period. Itwas clear from the evidence before the group and thegovernment that there had been an increase in thenumber of no-reason notices issued since the 1997changes. The proposed amendment will providesufficient distinction in the notice periods to deterlandlords from using the no-reason notice where theyhave grounds for a notice to vacate which requires only60 days notice. By increasing the no-reason noticeperiod to 120 days landlords will be encouraged toprovide notice where they have reason rather than relyon the no-reason system.

In relation to fair rent mechanisms, a key amendment isthe return of provisions to limit the number of rentincreases permitted per year. There will be a limit oftwo rent increases per year, with a simultaneousreduction in the notice period for rent increases from90 days to 60 days. This provides further balance in thelegislation and affords tenants protection by limitingrent increases in any 12-month period to two.Meanwhile landlords are offered the opportunity in ashifting market to give notice of those rent increaseswith 60 days reduced from 90.

It is also proposed that rent increases in the previous24-month period since the last rent increase could be

added to the list of factors currently considered by theVictorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal whendetermining whether a rent increase is fair. Thisprovides an opportunity for the history of rentalincreases to be considered in those determinations byVCAT.

I turn to the issue of tenancy rights in caravan parks. Iunderstand that we may be going into committee laterand will touch, perhaps, on some of these issues inmore detail during that stage. However, I believe thatwhat we have before us is a reasonable balancebetween the two competing interests of landlords andtenants. What has been faced by the working group andby the government is a view being expressed andevidenced by comprehensive case studies of the need toprovide better protection for low-income people whomove into a caravan park often when they have noalternative accommodation in permanent dwellings.

It was the view of tenant representatives that the peoplemoving into such parks should be given tenancy rightsfrom the first day that they move in. That proposal wasnot supported by representatives of the caravan parkindustry. I have had the opportunity of havingdiscussions with representatives of this industry whocame to my office to meet with me on it. They took avery fair, balanced and reasonable view in theirpresentation to me, but they argued strongly in favourof the 90-day period. However, they recognised thatthere has been a clear case put on the other side.

In these areas the business of government is to make ajudgment. Where you are consulting with two groupsthat have different and conflicting views, thegovernment is required to make a judgment. Thejudgment call of the minister, including this provisionin the legislation to reduce the period where a residentwould be considered a permanent resident and to gettenancy rights from 90 days to 60 days, was a balancedone.

This view has been and is still resisted byrepresentatives of the caravan park industry, and that isunderstandable from their perspective. Equally, there isa strong position being put by representatives of tenantsfor a need to provide improved protection for tenants incaravan parks.

The representative of the caravan park industry on theworking group, Phil Redmond, after variousdiscussions, while continuing his view that the industrywanted to maintain the 90-day qualifying period,proposed to the committee that a compromise might be60 days, and this was documented in various



correspondence to and from the minister. In all thesethings reaching a compromise is what is required.

I commend the legislation to the house as balanced andappropriate legislation. From having gone a little too fartowards the landlord in the 1997 legislation, theseamendments restore the balance and result in anequitable position between the landlord and the tenant.This is another piece of legislation that is delivering onthe government’s commitment given at the last electionto provide that balance. It is delivering on the style andapproach of this government to ensure that we involveall of the interest groups in the process of coming todecisions, but in the end where consensus cannot bereached between competing groups and interestsultimately the government is required to make ajudgment, and that has been done in relation to the90-day to 60-day period for tenancy rights. It is withpleasure that I commend the bill to the house.





Mr DOYLE (Leader of the Opposition) — I referthe Premier to his claim on 3AW on 27 August that thecompany the government intends to sign its film studiocontract with is the same company as the successfulpreferred tenderer. I ask: is it not true that he isproposing to sign the contract with a differentcompany — one that never tendered for this project?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I thank the Leader ofthe Opposition for his question. The company whichhas been the preferred successful tenderer, and withwhich the government is negotiating, is Central CityStudios and it remains CCS. Peter Bartels, who was oneof the principals, is still one of the principals involved. Ihave to say that right the way through this thegovernment has been acting properly, appropriately andresponsibly.


The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Doncaster!

Mr BRACKS — Not only do we have involved inthe selection on this matter a probity auditor who hasbeen involved in a one-step-removed examination ofthe project but also we have probity advisers who areadvising the government. Two departments — the

industry department and the Department of Treasuryand Finance — are also advising the government.

We want to make sure that we get the details rightbefore agreeing to this project. I am very confident that,once we get this right and once it is signed, this will bea great boon for the film and TV industry in Victoria.

Tourism: rural and regional Victoria

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East) — Will the Premieradvise the house of the most recent statistics confirmingthe booming Victorian tourism industry, particularly inregional Victoria, and explain why this is so important?


The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Doncaster!

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I thank the honourablemember for Bendigo East for her question. I am verypleased that today new tourism statistics released by theBureau of Tourism Research show that Australia hashad an increase in the last two years — —


Mr BRACKS — Yes, yes, that’s JohnHoward! Under the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, andthe federal Liberal government Australia has had anincrease of about 3 per cent. But in Victoria’s case, wehave had a 15 per cent increase in tourism! This goesback to the decisions this government made after thetragedy of 11 September last year and after the collapseof Ansett, when we put $10 million straight into thetourism industry of Victoria. The dividends have beenshown in this 15 per cent increase in tourism visitors toVictoria over the last two years. As well as the$10 million this government provided as a tourismrescue package following those two dreadful events lastyear — 11 September and the collapse of Ansett — inthe last financial year it has also provided an extra$570 000 to Tourism Victoria to step up the backpackermarketing exercise.

I am very pleased that these figures have been released.They show that Victoria is performing better than therest of Australia on tourism. That is very pleasing.What is also pleasing is that the unemployment figuresreleased today show that 31 400 of the 88 000 new jobscreated in Australia are in Victoria. That represents35.5 per cent of all the new jobs in Australia, whereasVictoria is 25 per cent of the economy and 25 per centof the population.



No better evidence of this good performance can befound than in regional and country Victoria, which hasmoved from the position we inherited of 10 per centplus unemployment to around 6 per cent now. I amproud, therefore, of the initiative that will be debated inthis house of the proposed regional developmentauthority, which will make a further difference toinfrastructure development and growth anddevelopment in our regions. The next logical step fromthe advances we have made is to move on to a newauthority, and we will do just that.

The real question is why the opposition is about tooppose the establishment of the regional developmentauthority, because it would mean jobs for regionalVictoria. The Liberal Party is reported as saying inBallarat that it will not support this arrangement when itcomes before the house.

The government has driven a good economicperformance. It has new tourism figures showing thatVictoria is the best state in the nation. It has new jobfigures showing it has the highest job growth in thenation. The government wants to drive it further in theregions, and that is why this house and the Liberal Partyshould get behind the excellent initiative of the regionaldevelopment authority.

Electricity: Basslink

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — Myquestion is to the Premier. Given I have provided to thePremier, the Treasurer and the Minister for Planningmaterial clearly indicating that the Basslink cable canbe put underground, both technically and commercially,and that the Treasurer has publicly agreed to considerthat information, I ask: will the Premier guarantee thathis government will not approve the project unlessBasslink is buried underground?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I thank the Leader ofthe National Party for his good question. Thegovernment has received the material from the Leaderof the National Party, and I thank him for providing it.It has been considered properly and appropriately aspart of the planning decision which the government hasto make as the responsible planning authority for thedecision on ground of the Basslink project as it entersVictoria. The infrastructure department will be givingadvice to the planning minister on this matter and it willbe taken into consideration, as will the Leader of theNational Party’s request.

Where these alternative technologies have beenemployed, that has been in areas which did not have thesame capacity that the Basslink project will be required

to have. That is a matter which is being investigatedappropriately and properly, but obviously that technicaladvice is very important as part of the decision that willfinally be made by this government.

Two levels of government need to approve this. TheTasmanian government has already approved it,following the joint advisory panel report. The Victoriangovernment is considering whether or not to approvethe project on advice that has been received. Thefederal government is also appropriately consideringthis matter. I would hope and pray that the Leader ofthe National Party has also taken this matter up with thefederal government; I assume he has. This governmentcan give him an undertaking that it will thoroughlyexamine these matters. I urge him also to make surethat the federal government also has the benefit ofconsidering the matters.

Transport: major projects

Mr LANGDON (Ivanhoe) — Will the Minister forTransport update the house on the major transportprojects presently being delivered by the governmentand advise what other projects the government hasconsidered?

Mr BATCHELOR (Minister for Transport) — Ithank the honourable member for his question andadvise that the Bracks government has developed avery comprehensive and strategic approach to transportissues in Victoria. It has developed and is delivering its$3.5 billion Linking Victoria strategy, which is astrategy to revitalise Victoria’s roads, rail and ports tolink them together.

There are lots of tremendous initiatives as part of thisstrategy. Progress is under way to duplicate the CalderHighway. The Carlsruhe section is currently under way,and if you drive up the Calder you can see it from theexisting roadway. There is the government’s$70 million commitment in this year’s budget for theKyneton-to-Faraday section. There is the fast railproject, the Spencer Street — —


Mr BATCHELOR — The Hallam bypass is duefor completion one year in advance and under budget.There is the Scoresby freeway. It was this governmentthat delivered federal funding for this project. Theprevious government did nothing in seven years: itcould not deliver a cent. It could not complete theplanning process. It could not even complete thepurchase of the land — it was hopeless!



The government is delivering a strategic approachwhich is very different to that of the other side. Iunderstand that the opposition’s no. 1 priority is theDingley bypass in the electorate of the shadow Ministerfor Transport. It has a policy based on providing roadsin the shadow minister’s area and looking after him:$180 million is their no. 1 priority in the south-east ofMelbourne, more important than the Scoresby freeway,according to the Liberal Party, and more important thanthe Pakenham bypass.

Mr Leigh — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, theminister seems to have missed one — —


The SPEAKER — Order! The government bencheswill come to order so I can hear the point of order.

Mr Leigh — I understand why the minister does notwant to discuss it, but he seems to have missed one —the Geelong freeway!

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberis clearly not taking a point of order.

Mr BATCHELOR — Another proposal that thegovernment has considered is the duplication of PrincesHighway West from Geelong through to Colac.

Mr Paterson interjected.

Mr BATCHELOR — The honourable member forSouth Barwon says the opposition is going to rejectfederal funding and go ahead and build it itself withoutit being declared a road of national importance. Thiswould cost some $350 million on top of the$180 million for the Dingley bypass.

The previous Leader of the Opposition promised tobuild the Eastern bypass across Corio — —

Mr Perton — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, theminister is clearly debating the question. He is entitledto look to proposals that have been generated withingovernment that have been rejected by the government,but your rulings through the last sitting and those beforeit indicate that ministers cannot use question time as anopportunity to attack opposition policies.

Mr BATCHELOR — On the point of order,Mr Speaker, I was asked what initiatives thegovernment had undertaken and what ones it hadrejected. What I am talking about are projects that thegovernment is going ahead with and those that thegovernment has rejected — and the Eastern bypass isone of those.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the pointof order raised by the honourable member forDoncaster, but I remind the Minister for Transport thathe must not debate the question.

Mr BATCHELOR — The Eastern ring road atGeelong across the Corio is an option that has beenconsidered in many of its manifestations. Its cheapestform, that suggested by the previous Leader of theOpposition, involved a causeway and a bridge at a costof some $600 million, so you have $1.1 billion worth ofproposals that have not been developed in a strategic orcohesive way. There is a very clear distinction in theway this government deals with its transport projects —in a strategic, integrated way forward — which is instark contrast to these other sorts of proposals that aread hoc, inconsistent and incoherent. That typifies theapproach of the opposition.

However, the real issue is that the now Leader of theOpposition has indicated that he is going to rule theseout, and we need a clear indication of what is actuallyhappening. We are looking at all these proposals, and itis quite clear that the way this government is puttingforward transport initiatives is the cohesive way and isin stark contrast to the opposition, which believes thereis only one way — and that’s the magic puddingapproach.

Dr Dean — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, theminister is clearly debating the question.

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the minister todesist debating the question and come back toanswering it.


Mr BATCHELOR — It was all right!

The SPEAKER — Order! The minister, ignoringinterjections.

Mr BATCHELOR — The government rejects theopposition’s magic pudding approach. We will putforward transport proposals that are cohesive, strategicand deliver economic, regional and employmentopportunities to the whole of Victoria.


Mr DOYLE (Leader of the Opposition) — Can thePremier confirm that the original tender for theDocklands studio project provided only for leaseholdland, but that this fundamental plank was changed afterthe preferred tenderer had been chosen so that thepreferred tenderer can have the land freehold, raising



central questions about the probity of the presentprovisions?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I am very happy toanswer the question. The government hascommissioned, as a probity auditor — which goes tothe very heart of the question raised by the Leader ofthe Opposition — Acumen Alliance. Not only that, wehave had a probity adviser, Pricewaterhousecoopers,which has been auditing and examining the wholeprocess right the way through. I am absolutelyconfident that in the final outcome their work willproduce a very good arrangement which will benefitboth film and TV industries in this state.

Police: numbers and building program

Ms ALLEN (Benalla) — Will the Minister forPolice and Emergency Services update the house on thegovernment’s recent progress in increasing policenumbers and rebuilding police stations and advise whatother policies the government has considered?

Mr HAERMEYER (Minister for Police andEmergency Services) — Fundamental to delivering asafer community is very much the issue of havingsufficient police on the ground and having themappropriately equipped and resourced. That is why wecommitted to 800 additional police. The house hasheard before: we have done it in spades. We have doneit 18 months ahead of the schedule we set ourselves —the schedule the opposition said we could not meet. Wehave done it and the police are deployed across the statein rural and regional Victoria as they are inmetropolitan Melbourne.

We are now starting to see the results. We have had thefirst significant turnaround in eight years in the crimerate — a 4.9 per cent reduction in crime after aconsistent upward trend throughout the 1990s. Therehave been big turnarounds in robbery, aggravatedburglary, car theft and drug offences. The oppositioncame out last week and claimed crime was going up45 per cent. At the end of the day it had no proof toback it up. It was a fanciful figure and now it has comeout with a 25 per cent figure. The only 25 per centfigure I can see is the Leader of the Opposition’sapproval rating!


Mr HAERMEYER — You can change the leaderbut you cannot change the rabble that sits behind him.

The SPEAKER — Order! The minister, on thequestion.

Mr HAERMEYER — Of course more can be doneand more will be done, and that is demonstrated bywhat we have already done — more police, betterconditions and better pay for our police officers.

Our police force now has the lowest attrition rate of anypolice force in the country, and it has come down fromthe highest! Victoria was losing nearly 1 in every 10police officers — they were voting with their feet andleaving the police force — and that is now down to 1 in100. That is a sign of excellent morale in our policeforce.

The government is not stopping at police numbers. Ithas the biggest police station building program in thehistory of this state. We promised to build 16 policestations but we are actually building 63 stations at acost of $125 million — including police stations thatsome members opposite did not argue for and some thatthey even argued against — in Belgrave in theelectorate of the honourable member for Monbulk; inRowville in the electorate of the honourable memberfor Wantirna; in Endeavour Hills — the one thehonourable member for Berwick said he did not want;and in Eltham, Mordialloc and Ocean Grove. Unlikethe previous government, which had a plan to close34 police stations — stations like those at Queenscliff,Drysdale and Portarlington — this government isopening them.

Mr Honeywood interjected.

Mr HAERMEYER — Bring back Louise. Herinterjections were nowhere near as inane as that!

The SPEAKER — Order! The minister will addressthe Chair and ignore interjections.

Mr HAERMEYER — I have also been askedabout other policies I have considered. I haveconsidered a few policies but I have had to reject them,particularly the ones that deal with cutting policenumbers and closing police stations. That just does notwork as a means of dealing with crime. You cannot goout there and talk tough on legislation and then notprovide the law enforcement agencies and resources todo anything about it. It just does not add up.

No wonder crime soared throughout the 1990s whenpolice numbers and law enforcement resources werebeing cut. We have just heard from the Minister forTransport about the rather astronomical promises thatwere being made in his portfolio by members opposite.Yesterday we heard about the promises of massive taxcuts that the Leader of the Opposition and theopposition have already made. This is just anotherexample — —



Mr Perton — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, theminister’s response has now reached 5 minutesduration, and in accordance with your guidelines onsuccinctness I ask you to ask the minister to concludehis answer.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberraised a point of order referring to my guidelines on thetime to be taken for question time. He will recall — ifhe does not, I will provide him with those guidelinesagain — that I have stated and my expectation is thatquestion time will generally be finished inapproximately 40 to 45 minutes. I am not of the opinionthat the minister is contravening those rules; however, Iremind him of the need to be succinct in accordancewith sessional order 3. If the minister keeps going formuch longer he will not be succinct, so I ask him toconclude his answer.

Mr HAERMEYER — I will try to remain succinct,Mr Speaker. What we have here is just another exampleof that magic pudding mentality. No doubt theopposition will come out very soon and promise morepolice, but it has done that before. The oppositionpromised 1000 police officers when it came into officelast time, and it did the opposite. The opposition hasbeen caught out lying about police numbers, it has beencaught out lying about its own statistics, and it justcannot be believed.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable membershould cease debating the question and come back toanswering it.

Mr HAERMEYER — Nothing the opposition saysabout law enforcement and crime can be believed.Magic puddings do not ring true with the electorate.The only people who believe in magic puddings — —

Dr Dean — On a point of order, Mr Speaker — —

Mr Robinson interjected.

Dr Dean — Sit down, that’s a good boy. On a pointof order, Mr Speaker, we have listened to theministerial statement, we have listened to you tellingthe minister to stop debating the question, and now weare listening to him defying your ruling. You should sithim down permanently.

The SPEAKER — Order! Even allowing forinterruptions, the minister is now not being succinct andcontinues to debate the question. I ask him to concludehis answer.

Mr HAERMEYER — I was just going to concludeby saying that magic puddings belong next to Pooh

Bear and Noddy on the library shelves. No-one believesthem, but the criminals wish they existed!


Mr DOYLE (Leader of the Opposition) — I refer tomy previous question and ask the Premier how he canjustify selling the Docklands studio land, now freehold,for $150 per square metre when the commercial valueset out in Central City’s own memorandum is $340 persquare metre, representing a loss to Victorian taxpayersof approximately $9 million and making the real cost ofthis project close to $50 million — not $40 million, asthe Premier claimed yesterday.


The SPEAKER — Order! I ask all sectors of thehouse to quieten down so I can hear the Premier.

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — Part of the arrangement,which is publicly known, with the $40 millioncontribution from the state was to allocate $8.5 millionfor the land, which has been undertaken. All the wayalong in this process the government is being advisedby both a probity auditor and a probity adviser. I havemuch more faith in them than I do in any misplacedallegations from the Leader of the Opposition.

Justice: government initiatives

Ms OVERINGTON (Ballarat West) — Will theAttorney-General advise the house about recentinitiatives implemented by the government to improveaccess to justice and explain what other policies thegovernment has considered?

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — The Bracksgovernment is absolutely committed to building a fair,accessible and responsive justice system for allVictorians. We think that is absolutely crucial. Thegovernment believes it has moved forward with viable,sound and progressive policies which actuallystrengthen our justice system and improve access tojustice. The government has listened to the communityand it has acted. In fact, it is undoing the damage of theLiberal government and the havoc that it wreaked onthe justice system.

On Friday I was very pleased to launch the Koori courtpilot in Shepparton to address the injustice of theoverrepresentation of Kooris in our criminal justicesystem. This gross overrepresentation should shame usall. As many people would know, we are piloting adrug court, which will adopt a new and therapeuticapproach to sentencing of drug offenders. Thegovernment believes these two initiatives have been



very carefully crafted and developed as pilots, and itwants to ensure they are effective and indeed addressKoori overrepresentation and reduce drug dependencyand related crime.

Because the government’s policies aim to enhance andstrengthen our justice system it has rejected someapproaches and policies. It has carefully weighed up thefinancial costs on the one hand and the social benefitson the other of every initiative. Without any evaluationof a trial, for instance, the opposition has actuallycommitted itself to statewide drug court divisions inevery Magistrates Court and in the County Courtthroughout Victoria. That would cost an estimated$89 million in recurrent funding, or $356 million overthe life of the next Parliament. The opposition has tosay where the money will come from.

Unlike the opposition, this government will not tinkerwith policies that undermine our justice system andproduce unfair results, such as mandatory sentencing,so it has rejected that policy.

Mr Perton — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, youwill recall that in the last sitting the governmentintroduced this device at the end of every questionbasically to allow ministers to attack the oppositionrather than to answer questions on governmentadministration. You have now heard governmentmembers on at least five occasions use the term ‘andwhat other policies has the minister considered’ orsimilar words. Were the minister to talk about policiesthat had been generated within government orelsewhere and give an analysis of that, that would be inorder, but it is quite clear the government is using thisas a pre-election opportunity to attack the opposition.

In accordance with your rulings in each of the previoussittings I ask you to bring the minister back to order andhave him speak about government administration ratherthan debate the question or use question time as anopportunity to attack the opposition.

Mr Batchelor — On the point of order, HonourableSpeaker, there are two elements to this. The firstelement is that the Attorney-General was asked toexplain recent initiatives the government hasundertaken and also to have a look at those that thegovernment has rejected. The Attorney-General wascommenting on those, saying that mandatorysentencing had been rejected. If the oppositionself-identifies with those policies, that is not ourproblem. We have rejected it, and that is what theAttorney-General was saying.

The second element that you, Sir, need to take intoaccount is the recurring pattern of points of order thatare being taken by the honourable member forDoncaster, where he makes statements andcomments — all the things that members are notallowed to do in a point of order. I suggest to you,Honourable Speaker, that you need to have a devicewhereby you cut him off when he flagrantly abuses thepoint of order process, as he has just done today andwill do subsequently time and again.

The SPEAKER — Order! The latter part of thatpoint of order is out of order.

The honourable member for Doncaster has essentiallyraised a point of order requesting the Chair’sintervention in regard to the answer that was beingprovided by the Attorney-General. At the time of thetaking of the point of order I was listening carefully tothe Attorney-General. He was referring to thedecision-making process that he had undertaken in aparticular area he was referring to, and I do not believethat at that point he was attacking the opposition.

Mr HULLS — We certainly reject mandatorysentencing. We believe it is ill conceived. It reflects asimple, one-size-fits-all approach to sentencing, butthere is a cost to it as well — there is a cost tomandatory sentencing. It was estimated it would cost$18 million in recurrent funding and also $48 million incapital funding — in other words, $120 million over thelife of the next Parliament. Again in relation tomandatory sentencing — —

Dr Dean — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, on theground of relevance, given that the Attorney-Generalhas been asked to talk about policies that hisgovernment has looked at and given that the oppositionalso has no policies in relation to mandatory sentencing,discussing the cost of mandatory sentencing is totallyirrelevant.

The SPEAKER — Order! I cannot uphold the pointof order raised by the honourable member for Berwick.The Attorney-General was asked a question in regard torecent initiatives that his government had considered,and I believe he was providing information in thatregard. So long as his remarks are relevant to thequestion I will continue to hear him.

Mr HULLS — Unlike the opposition, thisgovernment’s justice initiatives are sound and willenhance access to justice. They are sustainable andbased on reasoned judgments. The government rejectsthe ill-considered magic pudding, voodoo economics



approach to policy development by the opposition,where it believes it can spend more, get in less — —

The SPEAKER — Order! The Attorney-Generalshould come back to answering the question.

Mr HULLS — These two initiatives we haverejected would cost $476 million. The opposition mustsay where the money would come from. It ought tospend less time concentrating on Bunyip Bluegum andthe magic pudding. It actually looks like a couple ofpeople over that side!


The SPEAKER — Order! The government bencheswill come to order! On a number of occasions the Chairhas intervened and restricted honourable members frommaking a farce of question time with displays orexhibitions. I warn the Attorney-General again, and Iask him to refrain from displaying such documents inthe house.

Mr HULLS — In conclusion, it is voodooeconomics to think that you can actually spend more,get in less and have a budget surplus. It is nonsense!


Mr DOYLE (Leader of the Opposition) — Is thePremier aware of correspondence from the solicitors ofthe shareholders of the successful Docklands studiotenderer warning that signing with a different company,namely, Central City Studios Holdings, will result inthe government being sued for breach of theCorporations Act and breach of fiduciary duty?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I have absoluteconfidence in the processes within the Department ofTreasury and Finance and also in the probity advisersand the probity auditors. This government will makesure it receives adequate and appropriate reports beforeit signs off on this matter.

On a general note, I am not surprised that the LiberalParty is continuing its opposition to having film andtelevision flourish in this state. That was the patternright through the seven years of the Kennettgovernment, with the result that the film and televisionindustry, which was once a proud Victorian industry,faltered unbelievably and went interstate. Thisgovernment is intent and keen — —

Mr Doyle — I raise a point of order on debating andrelevance, Mr Speaker. This question was perfectlyclear. It was about whether the Premier knew of this

letter or not. It was not a debate about a range of otherissues which he is now canvassing.

The SPEAKER — Order! The latter part of thehonourable member’s comment merely repeated thequestion and was not a point of order. I ask the Premierto come back to answering the question.

Mr BRACKS — I have absolute faith in the probityauditor and the probity adviser and, as a consequence,in the outcome, which will see the film and televisionindustry flourish in this state.

Taxation: government policies

Mr TREZISE (Geelong) — Will the Treasureradvise the house what policies the government hasrecently implemented to deliver tax cuts and fiscalresponsibility and explain what other policies thegovernment has rejected and why?

Mr BRUMBY (Treasurer) — The Bracksgovernment has introduced the most significant taxreform in our state for more than 20 years. In its firstterm it has allocated $1 billion to tax cuts. It has takenVictoria from being the state with the highest numberof business taxes to being the state with the equallowest number. It has introduced fewer, simpler, lowerand better business taxes while maintaining Victoria’stax position below the national average and 0.63 percent below the tax level of New South Wales.

The government has managed to do all that whilemaintaining strong budget surpluses, turning around thehealth and education systems and halving generalgovernment net debt. You would have to say it is apretty good — —


Mr BRUMBY — I think you want to be the fourthshadow treasurer, don’t you! You want to be no. 4!

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Deputy Leaderof the Opposition to cease interjecting, and I ask theTreasurer to cease responding to interjections!

Mr BRUMBY — They are all sitting down — 1, 2,3, 4!


The SPEAKER — Order! I have just asked theDeputy Leader of the Opposition to cease interjecting,and he continues to defy me!

Mr BRUMBY — The government has managed todo that — it has managed to commit to $1 billion of tax



cuts and has reduced the number of taxes; it has doneall of that — while keeping our tax levels below thenational average. It has done that with strong budgetsurpluses and a halving of general government net debt.

I was asked whether the government had examinedother policies and whether in examining them it hadaccepted or rejected them and why. We did see onealternative policy, a policy which proposed aretrospective reimbursement scheme for stamp duty.That was a policy which was costed at in excess of$300 million per annum. That was a policy which wasdescribed by the Real Estate Institute of Victoria as halfbaked and unworkable. That, of course, was the policyespoused by the former Leader of the Opposition. Werejected that.

More recently we have seen a second policy proposal,one which has been released by the present Leader ofthe Opposition, and this is related — —

Mr Perton — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I donot know what has changed between last sitting and thissitting — —


The SPEAKER — Order! I warn the honourablemember for Tullamarine. That level of interjection fromthe government benches is totally unacceptable.

Mr Perton — In terms of your rulings, Mr Speaker,in the last sitting you constantly ruled against ministersand questioners from the government benches usingthis sort of device to avoid answering questions ongovernment administration and instead to attack theopposition. On many occasions you ruled against thisminister answering in precisely these terms. I ask that,to be consistent with your previous rulings and touphold the traditions of this house, you rule thisminister out of order, as you should have ruled theothers out of order.

Mr BRUMBY — On the point of order,Mr Speaker, I was asked about the policies of thegovernment. I was asked if we had examinedalternative policies and whether we had rejected themand why. The record will show that I was barely1 minute into my answer before the first point of ordercame from that side of the house. I had the opportunityto add what would have been 15 or 20 seconds of ananswer before a second point of order was raised.

The point is that members of this opposition areembarrassed by their policies. The honourable memberfor Monbulk has spent all of question time reading abook on the back bench — have a look at him!

The SPEAKER — Order! The Treasurer, on thepoint of order!

Mr BRUMBY — My answer was strictly inaccordance with the question. I had barely got started.The fact of the matter is that I would ask you,Mr Speaker, to refer to the standing orders whichspecifically prohibit vexatious and repetitive points oforder which are taken in this house by certain members,and I ask you to rule them out of order.

The SPEAKER — Order! I have heard sufficienton the point of order raised by the honourable memberfor Doncaster.

The point of order was essentially that in answering thequestion the minister was using the opportunity toattack the opposition. The question posed by thehonourable member for Geelong as I heard it at thetime was in regard to what the government has done inthis particular area of tax cuts and fiscal responsibilityand what policies the government had taken intoconsideration in coming to its decision. The Treasurershould confine his remarks to what his government isdoing in regard to this particular area and what policieshis government has considered rather than canvassingwhat might be opposition policies.

Mr BRUMBY — As I said, we have cut taxes andrejected other policy proposals which would have beenfiscally irresponsible. In doing so we appear to havebeen joined by other members of this house who also, itseems, may support the government’s view. I refer toan article in the Age of 24 August headed ‘Libs maybreak stamp duty pledge’. It states:

Victorian Liberal leader Robert Doyle has cast doubt on thestate opposition’s promise to give stamp duty relief to homebuyers — —

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Treasurer tocome to his point quickly. The Chair is havingdifficulty with his answer.

Mr BRUMBY — Mr Speaker, I am coming to thepoint — —


The SPEAKER — Order! I have asked thehonourable member for Doncaster on a number ofoccasions to cease interjecting. I warn him.

Mr BRUMBY — It’s a tragic pudding, isn’t it, overthere!

The SPEAKER — Order! Similarly, I ask theTreasurer to address the Chair.



Mr BRUMBY — Here I have another policy which,I have to say, has been rejected by the government.This policy states:

Are you aware of the Liberal Party’s policy to return some ofthe windfall stamp duty collected from family home buyers inthe Berwick area?

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Berwick on a point of order.

Dr Dean — Mr Speaker, as I understand it the rulesof the house require that when a member takes a pointof order the other member takes his or her seat.


The SPEAKER — Order! I have called thehonourable member for Berwick on a point of order; hehas the floor.

Dr Dean — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, youmade it quite clear in your ruling just a moment agothat you will not tolerate the government using a devicelike this to attack the opposition and to make commentsthat are clearly debating the question. Every time youuphold that point the Treasurer comes back withanother note or some other process to defy your ruling.I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to not allow that to evenbegin, because if it does it is incumbent upon us to getup and take points of order. We would much prefer it ifyou, as the Chair, could simply ensure that your rulingswere not defied.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the pointof order. I do not believe the Treasurer was at that pointattacking the opposition. He was conveyinginformation to the house about some matters he hadtaken into consideration in making his decision.

Mr BRUMBY — That is a view that has been putby many people. This statement is by MichaelShepherdson, Liberal for Narre Warren South. It hasbeen put too by the honourable member for Monbulk.This material, which has circulated, says ‘Take a standon Labor’s stamp duty’. I guess the question todayis — —


Mr BRUMBY — We have not changed the stampduty rate, but we would like the Leader of theOpposition to take a stand on stamp duty. We wouldlike to know whether he supports the former leader’spolicy, the backbencher’s policy or — —

The SPEAKER — Order! The Treasurer is nowclearly debating the question. I ask him to come back toanswering it.

Mr BRUMBY — The Bracks government has cuttaxes by $1 billion. It has been fiscally responsible and,as I said yesterday in question time, the only threat toVictoria’s fiscal responsibility is coming from thatunreconstructed rabble on the other side of the house.The commitments that have been made in relation tostamp duty are extraordinary. If I could give the newshadow Treasurer — —

Mr Clark interjected.

Mr BRUMBY — You should be thinking ofspending a bit more time in your electorate.


The SPEAKER — Order! I have asked theTreasurer on a number of occasions to address hisremarks to the Chair.

Mr BRUMBY — Our position is clear. The publicdeserves to know which of the three policy positions issupported by the new Leader of the Opposition.


Second reading

Debate resumed.

Mrs ELLIOTT (Mooroolbark) — In addressing theResidential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill I state againthat the opposition is not opposing the bill. However,we have signalled through the honourable member forCaulfield that we will be seeking an amendment toclause 44.

The press release on the bill by the Minister forCommunity Services and the Minister for Housingincludes this comment:

The Bracks government is improving the ResidentialTenancies Act 1997 to make it fairer for landlords andtenants, housing minister Bronwyn Pike said today.

There is one group for whom the bill will not make thelegislation fairer. The Victorian Caravan ParksAssociation opposes clause 44 of the bill, mainly on thebasis of the impact it would have on tourism, as verywell expounded by the honourable member forBrighton. The association also said, however, in itssubmission to the working group chaired by the



honourable member for Bendigo East that automaticresidence — that is, the removal of the 90-day rule —would discourage owners from accepting people inneed of emergency accommodation as temporaryoccupants, people who would not be accepted aslong-term residents. Clause 44, therefore, whichproposes to reduce the period under which people canbe considered as permanent residents from 90 days to60 days, will in fact hurt not only the tourism industrybut also some of the neediest people in our community.

In an article appearing in the Sunday Age of 14 July byJohn Elder we read:

Caravan parks in Melbourne’s outer suburbs —

and I represent an outer suburban constituency —

had become miniature suburbs for poor and unstable families,with demand for residential sites so great many parks hadwaiting lists of homeless people or families in crisis, welfareagencies reported.

Some park owners said that they were turning away couplesand families with children on a daily basis.

John Dalziel of the Salvation Army, well known tohonourable members, was quoted in the same article assaying:

We’ve put families into caravan parks in the outer suburbswhen there has been nothing else. We don’t like to do it …but every night we turn homeless people away from ourcentres.

Organisations like Hanover Welfare Services, WesleyMission, which operates from Ringwood close to myelectorate, and the Salvation Army started usingcaravan parks as last-refuge crisis and refugeeaccommodation some years ago due to the direshortage of public housing.

I took the time to ring Wesley Mission and theyreinforced the fact that caravans parks are not theirpreferred option for crisis and transitional housing.Nevertheless, they have their place for people in urgentneed of short-term accommodation.

Any move on the part of the government to reducefrom 90 days to 60 days the time within which peoplebecome permanent residents and are therefore entitledto certain advantages under the Residential TenanciesAct is going to impact on these people very severely. Iam sure the minister would not want that to happen.

Recently the minister opened a new crisis service inLusher Road in part of the electorate that I hope torepresent after the next election. It provides short-termemergency accommodation for 22 people in houses andmotel-style units, and obviously they are preferable to

caravans parks. Nevertheless, caravan parks have theirplace and will continue to be used until the stock ofpublic housing and more permanent crisisaccommodation is replenished by this government.

Forcing caravan park owners into a situation wherethey will be very wary of taking people in need of crisisaccommodation and forcing them to turn them away forfear that they might become permanent residents is avery deleterious move.

The government has said that the only reason theopposition wishes to move the deletion of clause 44from the bill is that we are acting on behalf of tourismand small business. I reinforce that the government is insevere danger of hurting some of the mostdisadvantaged people in our community. I am veryconcerned about that. Every member who has caravanparks in his or her electorate should be very concernedas well.

We as a society do not like to see people unshelteredand homeless. Indeed, the government has made muchof the fact that on any given night many people inVictoria do not have a bed. Caravans parks often fillthat need, and the government is in severe danger ofmaking sure that that option for crisis housing isremoved.

I am also pleased to note from the minister’s pressrelease that she is going to work with the VictorianCaravan Parks Association to meet the needs of peoplewith disabilities. It will be another review butnevertheless, if it has a good outcome, I am in favour ofit. I regularly receive Quadrangle, the magazine forpeople with quadriplegia and paraplegia, and also theMS Society of Victoria magazine. I am aware that thereare many operators in the private sector who do offeraccommodation in caravan parks and in motel-typeunits for people with disabilities. Nevertheless, it ismore difficult for people with disabilities, particularlyphysical disabilities, to have the sorts of holidays thatthose of us who are able-bodied are able to enjoy. Anymove to make caravan parks, motels and other forms ofrental accommodation more accessible to people withdisabilities is to be commended.

I give notice that as shadow Minister for CommunityServices I will be supporting the opposition’s proposeddeletion of clause 44, because it will have a bad effecton people who deserve better — certainly from agovernment which has made much of its commitmentto social justice.

Ms DAVIES (Gippsland West) — I will besupporting the main thrust of the Residential Tenancies



(Amendment) Bill. This is another of those bills thatthis government has developed after an extensiveconsultation period and a lot of discussion, and Icommend the process that they have been using. It isslow and steady, but it does usually end up with a goodbalance of opinions and recommendations.

There was the discussion paper in October 2001, andthen a working group made up of representatives fromlots of different organisations, including real estateinterests, caravan parks, tenants and communityorganisations. I note that that does not mean Inecessarily feel obliged to accept all therecommendations made through those processes, whichare not perfect and do not have any sort of objectivetruth about them.

The bill amends the Residential Tenancies Act of 1997,but not in radical ways. As we have seen, both sides ofthe house are able to support most items in the bill. Itdoes reduce the number of rent increases that can bepermitted to two in any one year. As an ex-renter I haveto tell you that even that will not be easy for renters tocope with, but it is certainly better than the number ofincreases that were allowed under the previouslegislation. The Victorian Civil and AdministrativeTribunal will be able to take the previous number andsize of increases over the preceding two years intoaccount when deciding if a rent increase has beenexcessive.

Where owners choose to give no reason for a notice tovacate a premises, they will now need to give 120 daysnotice and not 90 days, as previously. I note that thenumber of disputes which have been arising from theuse of that type of eviction has risen from 33 to275 notices in 1999–2000 to 409 applications of disputein 2000–01, so there is a very noticeable need to reducethe potential misuse of that type of eviction.

The bill also includes measures to give additionalpowers to managers of high-density accommodationlike rooming houses or caravan parks. They will havean increased power to remove residents where there is areal risk of violence. To counterbalance that, there arealso increased measures to penalise any managers whomay choose to misuse that power.

The bill contains measures to ensure proper records arekept of bonds and rent paid and that they are handed totenants regardless of the method of payment. Itprovides additional penalties for unauthorised entranceby landlords to properties. Landlords will only be ableto inspect a property three months after the start of atenancy agreement.

I note that there was agreement to exclude from this billissues relating to community residential units andsupported accommodation, or supported residentialservices. That has ostensibly been deferred to ensurethat issues arising from a review into disability serviceswhich is currently planned by the Department ofHuman Services can be taken into account beforelegislation is put into place.

The issue of supported residential services andcommunity residential units troubles me. It is importantthat that review happens without too much more delay,and I assure the minister that I will be following thatissue up.

I will be supporting the Liberal amendment to deleteclause 44 of the bill, which means that caravan parkusers will continue to need to be resident in a park for90 days before being considered permanent, andtherefore covered by residential tenancies legislation.

More and more, caravan parks seem to be taking a rolein filling in for the lack of affordable, accessible publicand private rental housing. Parks are being used foremergency short-term accommodation; they are beingused for accommodation of last resort, when there is noother accommodation available. I recognise that thereare people who voluntarily live in caravan parks — theterm ‘grey nomad’ has come to be used for thosepeople — but I do not believe that is true of the vastmajority of people who currently live in Victoriancaravan parks.

The idea of caravan parks taking on this role is not agreat alternative to proper, affordable public housing. Ibelieve the government must take up the challenge ofmaking sure that appropriate accommodation is moreoften available than it is now, and that means propershort-term emergency accommodation. It also meansproper support services for people who have social,behavioural, psychiatric or economic difficulties, whichis many of those people who currently find themselvesliving in caravan parks.

Caravan parks are a very high-density form ofaccommodation. They are asked to provide anincreasing range of services. You have the traditionalfocus of caravan parks, which is for holiday-makers.They are obviously a big focus in my particular area ofcoastal resorts from Inverloch round to Phillip Island,Coronet Bay and Corinella. We have a developingrange of permanent accommodation, where residentsown their own house within a so-called caravan park.Then there is the mid-range type of use where we havetemporary short-term rental accommodation. Thosethree types of usage do not necessarily sit very



comfortably together on one caravan park site, and thereason I have supported the continuation of the 90-dayrule is my discomfort with the notion of changing thebalance of control that is given to managers to deal withissues which may arise from having those two or threedifferent types of focus in the one caravan park.

In my particular area, I have reports of welfare agenciesplacing individuals in need of short-termaccommodation in caravan parks and then, whenproblems arise with those tenants, putting the onus backon the caravan park manager to deal with the problem.

I have, on the other side, anecdotal evidence from theTenants Union of Victoria of park owners abusing thepower of immediate eviction that they currently haveand evicting people who only asked for additionalservices or made it clear that some services offered arenot satisfactory. However, I am not persuaded that thereis enough evidence to change the current rules. I havespoken to many of the park owners in my electorate,including park owners in Inverloch, Wonthaggi andPhillip Island, and they are all in agreement that it isbest to leave that 90-day rule as it is.

I do not believe we should try to entrench caravan parksas being the same as permanent rental accommodation:caravan parks are not suitable residentialaccommodation for everybody. I would not like to seean attempt to look after tenants backfire, and I believethat reducing that 90-day requirement could backfire. Iwould not like to see park managers feel that they hadto allow people less time in their caravan park merely tomake sure they could guarantee the holidayaccommodation which is the main focus of theirbusiness. If we leave the 90-day rule as it is, then thatgives park owners a bit more flexibility in the length oftime they can permit people to stay.

I have signalled already that the generic term of caravanparks seems to be less useful in ensuring regulationsaround caravan parks are able to suit the needs ofdifferent types of uses of so-called caravan parks. Ihave encouraged the Minister for Senior Victorians toinclude retirement resorts-cum-caravan parks that arebecoming an increasing feature of my area to be part ofthe review she is doing into retirement villages.

This legislation and further action resulting from thelegislation could well look into those issues. Somecaravan parks are virtually retirement villages; some arevirtually emergency accommodation facilities andmany, in my area, have as their primary focus providingtraditional holiday accommodation. The traditionalways of dealing with tenant rights, as laudable as theymay be, do not necessarily fit comfortably within that

range of uses. I do not believe it is appropriate to tryand squash another sort of regulation into caravan parksin a way that may have unintended and negativeconsequences, both for the traditional purpose of thebusiness and for people in need.

Apart from that one issue I am pleased to support thebill. I urge the government to continue to improve theavailability of affordable and accessible public housing.The private sector cannot and will never be able to fullymeet the housing needs of all members of thepopulation: it does not matter what sort of regulationyou put in, it does not matter what protections you givetenants, sometimes the private housing market is notappropriate for certain people.

In coastal, rural and growth areas such as Bass Coastwe have an ongoing shortage of rental accommodation.The area has a strong tourist focus in much of ourhousing accommodation — not just caravan parks —and that type of tourist accommodation is expected; it isa highly desirable and vital part of our regionaleconomy. However, it means we have a significantongoing issue of holiday homelessness. People whomay be given rentals in houses or caravan parks duringthe off-season are expected to vacate thataccommodation during the height of the tourist seasonbecause that is the primary purpose of those holidayaccommodation units, houses or tourist caravan parks.

The reason it is an ongoing issue is that we do not haveenough housing alternatives. That needs to beaddressed. Although I support the thrust of thelegislation I ask the government and the opposition towork towards developing better policies that will dealwith the ongoing issue of inadequate housingalternatives as we lead into the next election.

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I rise to support theResidential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill and in sodoing I note that with 49 pages it is a fairly long bill,but its intent is simple, which is to amend theResidential Tenancies Act to make it clearer and fairerfor all parties concerned. I have in mind in particulartenants from a non-English-speaking background, andin particular the new arrivals coming from a differentbackground, often from a rural setting, who have tosettle in a metropolis like Melbourne and learn how tomanage the system. It is often mind-boggling for them.

The bill goes a long way to address those concerns. Irefer to the thrust of the bill as referred to by theminister in his second-reading speech. He states:

This bill balances tenants’ needs for security of tenure, theneed for landlords to protect their assets; and maintainsmarket investment incentives, thereby strengthening the role



of private rental accommodation as part of the total housingsystem.

Furthermore, this bill addresses the government’scommitment in the better housing policy to review theResidential Tenancies Act 1997 with a particular focus ontenure security and fair rent mechanisms.

This bill builds on the protections for both landlords andtenants contained in the current act and addresses areas ofconcern for a number of key stakeholders about the operationof the act. In this way, the best features of the current act havebeen maintained and the intention to simplify the operation ofthe act is given effect through streamlining the administrativeprocesses.

Before going to the main thrust of the bill I draw to theattention of the house the breadth and scope of the bill,which is testimony to the excellent work of thehonourable member for Bendigo East, who chaired theResidential Tenancies Legislation Working Group. It isan understatement to suggest that she and her workinggroup have done a tremendous job. The group includedrepresentatives of the Real Estate Institute of Victoria,the Tenants Union of Victoria and the VictorianCaravan Parks Association, amongst others.

It was a wide-ranging group whose members were verymuch aware of their different interests, so you canimagine the amount of work and chairmanship that thehonourable member had to do to bring them together.

However, there are many problems with the present act.That is one of the reasons the honourable member forBendigo East and her working group had such adifficult and demanding task. The principal problem isthat the law is very much slanted in favour of thelandlord rather than the tenant. In the Australian Bureauof Statistics 1996 census the private residential rentalmarket consisted of 296 251 Victorian households,which is something like 25 per cent of the total numberof households in the state. In the same year9362 Victorians — just under 1 per cent of the totalnumber of households — lived permanently in caravanparks. This is a substantial number of people, and it isdreadful that when the Kennett government framed theResidential Tenancies Act in 1997 it was so scornful ofthe interests of such a great number of people.

The existing act offers tenants little protection fromexcessive rent increases, and it places no limit on thenumber of rent increase notices a landlord can serve.Tenants are discouraged from exercising their tenancyrights for fear of retaliatory rent increases, and theymay be evicted without reason on 90 days notice.

I have spoken on other occasions in this chamber aboutthe need to protect tenants, particularly tenants ofnon-English-speaking background, because of their

inability to negotiate the system let alone properlyunderstand it when they first arrive in this country. Ihave been pushing very hard for the reintroduction ofthe bilingual tenant support program. This bill, inconjunction with a program like that, would go a longway to addressing the concerns of the newly arrivedcommunity. I commend that to the house.

Honourable members need to note that residents ofcaravan parks are particularly disadvantaged under thepresent act because they are not regarded as permanentresidents until they have occupied a caravan for at least90 days. Caravan parks accommodate some of the mostfinancially and socially disadvantaged members of ourcommunity, and this bill goes a long way to addressingtheir needs.

The amendments retain the best features of the currentact, as the second-reading speech shows, whilemodernising it significantly and making it fairer for allstakeholders. The extensive consultation with allparties — landlords and tenants — has assured that thebill has broad acceptance in the community. Thegovernment has effectively removed the taint of socialdivisiveness so characteristic of the Kennett years fromthis important act. I would even venture to say that thisbill and the fantastic work done by the honourablemember for Bendigo East and the residential tenanciesworking group characterise what the Bracksgovernment is all about — it is a government that willlisten carefully and then act. I commend the bill to thehouse.

Mr STENSHOLT (Burwood) — Thank you,Honourable Acting Speaker — —

Ms McCall — No — the minister, summing up.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lupton) — Order!With respect, and I thank the minister for intervening,the honourable member for Burwood was on his feetfirst. I called him, and accordingly the honourablemember for Burwood will speak.

Mr STENSHOLT — Thank you, HonourableActing Speaker. I also rise in support of the bill. I verymuch commend the bill. Like others before me Icommend the review undertaken by the honourablemember for Bendigo East.

I had the good fortune of attending one of theconsultation sessions at the Box Hill town hall. Therewere quite a number of people in attendance on thatoccasion — there were tenants, tenant advocacy groupsand landlords as well as real estate agents. All these



parties were able to put their views on the residentialtenancies review. I must admit that it was quite avigorous session. Views were expressed but what wasnotable was that the various parties listened to theseviews and were prepared to respond to them becausethey were seeking reasonable outcomes in respect ofresidential tenancies.

One of the issues discussed at that meeting concernedthe period of notice to vacate. Some residents felt thatthe no-reason provisions were far too draconian, whilethe landlords felt that they needed to have some powerto deal with what they regarded as difficult tenants. Thedebate ranged from bringing back the six months, to nothaving it at all, to whether it should be 90 days or120 days, and to what was a reasonable process indealing with the termination of a tenancy. This billseeks to take a moderate position in this regard, whichis entirely appropriate. The government has listened towhat was said and is seeking to act. This bill has donethat in regard to many aspects of the legislation. Overallit makes for a far more comprehensive and sympatheticpassage. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms PIKE (Minister for Housing) — I take thisopportunity to make some summary comments. First ofall I congratulate the honourable member for BendigoEast for overseeing a very broad consultation processwhich has given us the opportunity to do some goodwork in policy development. As a consequence thegovernment has delivered to the community a verybalanced, fair and reasonable piece of legislation.

My staff within the Office of Housing have workedvery hard to support the residential tenancies legislationworking group and the honourable member forBendigo East, and I thank them.

I am also pleased to note that the opposition and theNational Party are not opposed to this bill, and as thehonourable member for Rodney described it, thelegislation is a good compromise between the interestsof the landlord on the one hand and the tenants on theother. The whole tenor of the consultation processengendered a genuine dialogue about these issues, andthat was most welcome.

I note with great disappointment the opposition’sproposed amendment, which was tabled, I might add,without any prior consultation either with ourselves asthe government or with the broad membership of theworking group. It will undermine our efforts to protectthe rights of low-income caravan park residents.

What we have sought to do, and it has been ourfundamental objective, is to better support low-income

Victorians by improving their security of tenure andgiving them the basic rights that are available to otherVictorians. I would have thought that this bill mighthave provided the opportunity for the opposition todeliver on some of its high-minded rhetoric we hear —that is, the role and responsibility of government insupporting low-income people. However, the proposedamendment is delivering and communicating to theVictorian community a message that a lot of thatrhetoric is rather meaningless and hollow, and that theopposition does not stand for much at all.

If the opposition really did have some vision,commitment and leadership it would have joined withus on what is a fundamental principle of human rights.And this is a matter of principle for us! It is one of thosevery defining differences between what it means to be aLabor government and what some other groups in thecommunity might stand for. We believe that this is asocial justice issue and that low-income people, peoplewho are of limited means and who find themselvesliving in caravan park accommodation, do need to begiven every opportunity to have their rights upheld.

We need to make sure that they are not vulnerable tothe whim and caprice of a particular owner who maychoose just to evict them willy-nilly for no particularreason. The very reason that the working groupstruggled and worked with this issue in trying to reach aform of compromise was because of its absolutecommitment to the principle that people have a right toaccess the benefits of the residential tenancy legislationand cannot just be put out on their ears after a shortperiod of time for no adequate reason.

I reject the claims by the opposition that thisamendment would hurt people seeking crisis ortransitional accommodation in caravan parks. Far fromit; I think it is just a furphy. Rather, the government’sproposal would protect the rights of residents and giveample opportunity for caravan park owners to make anassessment. For goodness sake, we are not trying to cutout people’s opportunity to draw in resources fortourism! We are not trying to banish people who aregenuine tourists and make it difficult for people whoown caravan parks to have those kinds of residentsalongside long-term residents. Sixty days is absolutelyample time for people to make an assessment of thesuccess or otherwise of a long-term tenancyarrangement.

I am also extremely disappointed that the honourablemember for Mooroolbark would draw upon the namesof organisations, such as Hanover Welfare Services,Wesley Central Mission and the Salvation Army, whohave been standing alongside the government at every



point in this process because they know that they usethese facilities for short-term accommodation forhomeless people. But we are not talking about thosepeople, we are talking about people who are in a longerterm residency situation. The drawing back from90 days to 60 days to give them the rights to access theresidential tenancies legislation is not going to make itdifficult to have access to these facilities for short-termaccommodation in the least.

The opposition is telling longer term residents ofcaravan parks, particularly low-income people, thatthey are second-class citizens, that they are not worthyof rights and that they do not deserve to have access tothe Residential Tenancies Act. That is absolutelyshameful and totally inappropriate! But I might add thatI am not surprised that this is the stance the oppositionhas taken. Its rhetoric regarding the wholehomelessness sector has been slippery, wrong,unfounded and demonstrates an ignorance of the truesituation. For example, the opposition has repeated inthis debate again and again its false and misleadingclaim that the government has cut the funding of thehomeless service system by $12.2 million. I reject thisclaim absolutely and utterly! I say to the oppositionspokesperson that this is just plain wrong, that herfigures are slippery — as they are in many instances —and that she is ignorant of the housing budget.

In fact, these kinds of comments in the public arenagive evidence to the fact that she does not understandhow to read a budget paper, she does not understand thehousing budget, and she does not understand that thisgovernment has increased the funding for homelessnessservices by some 40 per cent — nearly $20 million.That is in sharp and defined contrast to the previousgovernment, which added not one zip of additionalfunding to the homelessness budget in the time it was ingovernment.

In summing up I indicate that I will certainly beadvising residents of caravan parks right across Victoriathat the opposition has rejected an amendment thatstands up for their basic human rights and is notprepared to accept the fair, balanced and principledresponse that not only the government but theResidential Tenancies Working Group put forward.

I am extremely disappointed that the opposition has nottaken note of the submission the Victorian CaravanParks Association gave to the working group. On16 May 2001 it clearly gave agreement for the timeperiod to be changed from 90 days to 60 days. It wasdone in a spirit of compromise; it was part of being partof a consultative process and of working together. Forthe opposition to now come along and undermine that

compromise and cooperation and listen to a small butdisaffected group of people is extremely disappointing.It is certainly disappointing to those people in thetenants association and other groups who worktirelessly in our community on behalf of people ininsecure accommodation. I know that they are verydisappointed; I know that they will stand with thisgovernment in condemning the opposition.

With those few comments I must say that I am pleasedthat the other dimensions of this bill are supported. I amextremely disappointed about the amendment, but Icommend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clauses 1 to 43 agreed to.

Clause 44

Mrs SHARDEY (Caulfield) — I move:

1. Clause 44, omit this clause.

Clause 44 of the bill proposes to amend the period for aperson to qualify as a resident from 90 days down to60 days. The opposition moves the amendment todelete this clause because it believes it is not in theinterests of caravan park operators and of the thousandsof Victorian families who access caravan parks toreside in and for holiday purposes, both in schoolholidays and particularly at Christmastime. We believethis clause is not in the interests of those requiringshort-term accommodation because they are in crisisand in need of support.

Briefly, I would like to reject some of the claims madeby the minister. She has claimed that the tenantsthemselves were seeking and support her clause 44 inthe bill. I refer her to a letter written by the VictorianCaravan Parks Association (VCPA), in which it talksabout the consultation process. It says:

… there was wide opposition to a change in the definition ofresident from both operators and tenants who attended theconsultation session for caravan parks held at FrankstonCultural Centre …

The minister also claims that in its submission to theworking party the Victorian Caravan Parks Associationsupported this change. I have a copy of that submission,which says the following:



Automatic residence i.e.: removal of the 90-day rule willdiscourage owners from accepting people in need ofemergency accommodation as temporary occupants, whowould not be accepted as long-term residents.

The reduction of the 90-day period jeopardises futuretourist/short-term bookings as an individual can decide to stayover the prescribed time, declare residential status, stay longerand possess the premises/site. How can we protect the rightsof booked and paid customers —

if the occupants can change their minds?

Finally, I refer to the report of the working group itself.Both the honourable member for Bendigo East and theminister have claimed that there was support in thereport from the Victorian Caravan Parks Association. Ido not find that to be true. On page 19 the VCPA saysthat it does not support any change to the currentqualifying period for residency in caravan parks.

I note, as others might, the recommendation 3.7 onpage 20 which, for those who cannot read, says:

Unanimous agreement could not be reached on this issue.

That makes the position very clear. Some honourablemembers need to take a lesson in how to read reportsand understand what they truly mean.

At that point I will resist the temptation to go anyfurther. It is very clear what the opposition’s position isand I understand that other parties in the Parliamentsupport that position. I thank the government for givingus the opportunity to go into the committee stage. It isimportant to examine these issues and to findresolutions.

Mr VINEY (Frankston East) — I rise to say that thegovernment does not support this amendment. As I saidearlier in my contribution on the bill, the proposal tobring back tenancy rights from the current 90-dayqualifying period to 60 days is about balance. Therewere competing interests in the process beingconsidered by the working groups — the interests ofpeople representing tenants and the interests of theVictorian Caravan Parks Association. The VCPA putforward a proposal of 60 days notwithstanding itpreferred 90 days — and that has never been in dispute.But it did put forward the option of a 60-day period, inthe spirit of compromise.

I quote from the minister’s letter dated 28 May toMr Redmond of the Victorian Caravan ParksAssociation. The minister wrote:

I understand that the preferred position of the VictorianCaravan Parks Association (VCPA) was to retain the 90-dayqualifying period for residency status in caravan parks. Iunderstand also that the 60-day position was put forward by

the VCPA as a possible compromise, in response to theconcerns raised by other organisations on the working group.I note that this position is clearly detailed in the workinggroup report.

It is quite clear that there was a proper consultationprocess. A compromise position was suggested andtaken up by the minister and the government. Theposition is one of balance and reason. Therefore it isappropriate for the government to continue to hold itsposition of saying that in the spirit of trying to improvetenancy rights and to make tenancy more secure forpeople in caravan parks, who are often on low incomeand unable to get other sorts of permanentaccommodation, it will give them tenancy rights after60 days. Surely it is possible for caravan park managersto use the 60-day period to assess whether they are asuitable tenant. It is difficult to understand what thedifference between day 60 and day 89 is in making thatassessment. It is reasonable and balanced and theamendment should be voted down.

Ms ASHER (Brighton) — I want to commentbriefly on this amendment because I had an opportunityto make a number of comments during thesecond-reading debate.

In its second-reading speech the government claims thatthis alteration to the period, from 90 days to 60 days,where the Residential Tenancies Act kicks in is notgoing to interfere with the provision of accommodationfor tourism. It is at that point where there isfundamental disagreement between the government andthe opposition — —

Ms Pike interjected.

The CHAIRMAN — Order! The Minister forHousing!

Ms ASHER — The fundamental point of differencebetween the government and the opposition,notwithstanding the government wants to help a certaingroup of people who will be disadvantaged, is theimpact this will have on tourism. For the minister’sassistance, I refer her to an email from Phil Redmond,the president of the Victorian Caravan ParksAssociation to — —

Ms Pike interjected.

Ms ASHER — Mr Duplicitous he has just beencalled by the minister, and the opposition is happy topass that on to him. The email states:

The association has not at any stage altered its position beingthat the 90-day provision should remain unchanged.



That is the position of the Victorian Caravan ParksAssociation. Further the Big 4 Holiday Parks Group hasalso written to the minister’s department saying — andI wish to quote from this in relation to tourism:

To reduce the qualification period of the occupant to less thanthe current 90 days, say 14, 30 or 60 days, will massivelyincrease costs and have a detrimental effect upon thepromotion of longer-term tourism stays, which are the veryessence of tourist accommodation.

It is for those reasons that I support the amendment putforward by the honourable member for Caulfield. Overand above that, the honourable members forMooroolbark and Caulfield have pointed out that whilethe Australian Labor Party seeks to assist people inneed — those people who are homeless and those ingreatest need in our community — those people maywell end up being disadvantaged.


Ms ASHER — We have here the honourablemember for Melton, who is the biggest landlord in thisParliament and who once sought to use the otherchamber to raise the issue that his own tenant wasbehind in rentals. So I would not make too much noise,given your performance as a landlord!

The CHAIRMAN — Order! I ask the honourablemember for Brighton to return to clause 44.

Ms ASHER — For those reasons and for thereasons outlined in the VCPA submission, I support theamendment moved by the honourable member forCaulfield.

Mr WYNNE (Richmond) — I rise to oppose theopposition’s amendment. At the end of the day this isessentially a philosophical divide between thegovernment and the opposition. Do you stand withlow-income people and try to support them, try to reachdown to provide some support and security tothem — —

Dr Napthine — You look down on them, do you?

Mr WYNNE — No, not at all, because — —

Dr Napthine interjected.

The CHAIRMAN — Order! The honourablemember for Portland!

Mr WYNNE — I seek to represent the electoratewith the most public housing residents in the state. It isbelow the former Leader of the Opposition to try somesort of pathetic cheap shot like that.

This is about whether you would seek to provide a levelof support to the most vulnerable, poor, low-incomepeople in this state, people who are forced throughcircumstances often not of their own making to live incaravan parks for short periods of time. For a period ofbetween 1 and 90 days currently they have no rightswhatsoever and no protection under the ResidentialTenancies Act. They are simply open to the whims ofthe marketplace and the proprietor of the caravan parkin which they live. We are seeking to redress thatthrough the proposal before us today.

Why should the period be extended? What is the magicof 90 days? What changes between 60 days and90 days? We know from the inquiry undertaken by thehonourable member for Bendigo East that most peoplewho are tourists stay for short periods of time incaravan parks. This is not about clogging up caravanparks or about seeking to ruin the businesses of caravanpark owners. This is an issue that is quite fundamentalto honourable members on this side of the house. It isabout an issue called social justice and providing a levelof protection to low-income people.

That might be anathema to honourable members on theother side of the house, because it was the currentopposition that over seven years when ingovernment — this is a startling figure, and I am goingto leave you with this — spent only $7 million on thehigh-rise public housing estates of Melbourne — onthose 40-odd public housing towers and on low-incomefamilies. That is how much commitment they had tolow-income people and public housing tenants. This isan issue about social justice and equity. It is aboutprotecting the rights of people. We oppose theamendment.

Committee divided on omission (members in favour voteno):

Ayes, 40Allan, Ms Kosky, MsAllen, Ms Langdon, Mr (Teller)Barker, Ms Languiller, MrBatchelor, Mr Leighton, MrBeattie, Ms Lenders, MrBracks, Mr Lim, MrBrumby, Mr Lindell, Ms (Teller)Cameron, Mr Loney, MrCampbell, Ms Maxfield, MrCarli, Mr Mildenhall, MrDelahunty, Ms Nardella, MrDuncan, Ms Pandazopoulos, MrGarbutt, Ms Pike, MsGillett, Ms Robinson, MrHaermeyer, Mr Seitz, MrHamilton, Mr Stensholt, MrHardman, Mr Thwaites, MrHelper, Mr Trezise, Mr



Holding, Mr Viney, MrHulls, Mr Wynne, Mr

Noes, 41Asher, Ms Maclellan, MrAshley, Mr Maughan, Mr (Teller)Baillieu, Mr Mulder, MrBurke, Ms Napthine, DrClark, Mr Paterson, MrDavies, Ms Perton, MrDean, Dr Peulich, MrsDelahunty, Mr Phillips, MrDixon, Mr Plowman, MrDoyle, Mr Richardson, MrElliott, Mrs Rowe, MrFyffe, Mrs Ryan, MrHoneywood, Mr Savage, MrIngram, Mr Shardey, MrsKilgour, Mr Smith, Mr (Teller)Kotsiras, Mr Steggall, MrLeigh, Mr Thompson, MrLupton, Mr Vogels, MrMcArthur, Mr Wells, MrMcCall, Ms Wilson, MrMcIntosh, Mr

Amendment agreed to.


The CHAIRMAN — Order! Under sessional ordersI am now required to put the questions necessary for thepassage of the bill.

Clauses 45 to 103 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendment.

Remaining stages


SPORTS EVENT TICKETING (FAIRACCESS) BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 11 September; motion ofMr PANDAZOPOULOS (Minister for Gaming).

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Circulated amendments

Circulated government amendments as follows agreed to:

1. Clause 3, line 21, omit “10” and insert “11”.



4. Clause 3, page 3, line 28, after “event” insert “or a sportsevent”.

5. Clause 3, page 3, line 31, after “event” insert “or a sportsevent”.

6. Clause 7, page 6, line 20, omit “Note:” and insert“Note 1:”.

7. Clause 7, page 6, line 21, omit “40” and insert “42”.

8. Clause 7, page 6, after line 21 insert —

“Note 2: Under section 12, an event organiser mayseek to have the event declared by giving theMinister a ticket scheme proposal for theevent. If the Minister makes the declaration, itis taken to have been made under this sectionbut the event organiser cannot apply forreview of the decision to declare the event.”.

9. Page 8, lines 1 and 2, omit the Part heading and insert —

“PART 3 — APPROVAL OF TICKET SCHEME”.








17. Clause 18, lines 15 to 22, omit sub-clause (1) andinsert —

“(1) A person is guilty of an offence if —

(a) without reasonable excuse, the personknowingly contravenes a condition that —

(i) is printed on a ticket to a declared event;and

(ii) prohibits or restricts the sale ordistribution of the ticket by a person whois not authorised in writing to sell ordistribute tickets on behalf of the eventorganiser; and

(b) the approved ticket scheme for the eventrequires the condition to be printed on theticket.”.







NEW CLAUSES

22. Insert the following new clause to follow clause 5 —

“AA. Extra-territorial operation of Act

(1) This Act operates both within and outsideVictoria.

(2) This Act operates outside Victoria to the extentthat the legislative power of the Parliamentpermits.”.

23. Insert the following new clause to follow clause 10 —

“BB. Ticket scheme proposal for an event that hasnot been declared

(1) An event organiser of a sports event that has notbeen declared for the purposes of this Act maygive the Minister a ticket scheme proposal for theevent (regardless of when the event is to be held).

(2) If the Minister considers it appropriate to both —

(a) declare the event for the purposes of thisAct; and

(b) approve the ticket scheme for the event setout in the proposal (with or withoutmodifications) —

the Minister may do so and must notify the eventorganiser accordingly.

(3) If the Minister declares the event and approvesthe ticket scheme —

(a) the declaration must comply withsection 8(2); and

(b) the Minister must ensure that a copy of thedeclaration is published in the GovernmentGazette; and

(c) the declaration is taken to have been madeunder section 8 but the decision to declarethe event is not, despite section 42(1)(a),subject to review by the Tribunal; and

(d) the ticket scheme for the event is taken tohave been approved by the Minister undersection 11.

(4) However, if the Minister decides not to declarethe event and approve the ticket scheme —

(a) the Minister must notify the event organiseraccordingly but is not required to givereasons for the decision; and

(b) the Minister’s decision is not, despitesection 42(1)(b), subject to review by theTribunal.

(5) The Minister must notify the event organiser inaccordance with sub-section (2) or (4) within

28 days after receiving the ticket schemeproposal.

(6) In this section, “Tribunal” has the samemeaning as in section 42.”.

Remaining stages


AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRYDEVELOPMENT (FURTHER

AMENDMENT) BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 11 September; motion ofMr HAMILTON (Minister for Agriculture).

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Circulated amendments

Circulated government amendments as follows agreed to:

1. Clause 10, page 8, line 32, after “industry” insert“development”.

2. Clause 16, lines 6 to 8, omit “Electoral Commissioner ora person nominated under section 58 to be the returningofficer” and insert “Victorian Electoral Commission”.

3. Clause 17, lines 18 and 19, omit “ElectoralCommissioner” and insert “Victorian ElectoralCommission”.

4. Clause 17, line 20, omit “Electoral Commissioner” andinsert “Victorian Electoral Commission”.

5. Clause 21, page 25, line 9, after “Victoria” insert “for”.

Remaining stages


UTILITY METERS (METROLOGICALCONTROLS) BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 11 September; motion ofMr BRUMBY (Treasurer).

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Remaining stages





Second reading

Debate resumed from earlier this day; motion ofMr HAMILTON (Minister for Agriculture).

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Remaining stages


PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) —Yesterday in question time the Premier incorporatedinto his answer to a question from the Leader of theOpposition a quotation from a contribution I made tothe house on 23 April 1997. The comments to whichthe Premier referred related to the national droughtpolicy of 1992, which governs applications from stategovernments to the federal government for exceptionalcircumstances assistance.

My comments were unrelated to the question of adeclaration of drought by the Victorian government,which is an entirely separate process. In selectivelyquoting me as he did, the Premier has misrepresentedmy position. I now correct the record.

HEALTH LEGISLATION (RESEARCHINVOLVING EMBRYOS AND

PROHIBITION OF HUMAN CLONING)BILL

Second reading

Mr THWAITES (Minister for Health) — By leave,I move:

That this bill be now read a second time:

Societies around the world are grappling with the speedof research developments and new technologies that areemerging. The discovery of possibilities posesquestions about what should be allowed, what shouldnot, what could be achieved, and under whatconditions. The potential to alleviate significant humanpain and suffering is great, however, we also need toclosely consider the mechanisms and safeguards thatwould allow this research to progress.

This bill is about providing an opportunity to explorethe potential benefits of advanced research. The billalso ensures that the application of this research strictlyprohibits human cloning.

Victoria has been a leader in the field of regulation ofassisted reproductive technology (ART) and the relatedfield of embryo research, with the passage of theInfertility (Medical Procedures) Act 1984, followed bythe Infertility Treatment Act 1995.

Victoria’s research and scientific community also leadsthe way in the field of stem cell research. Existingresearch work is being undertaken in Victoria by theMonash Institute of Reproduction and Development,and ES Cell International. The recent establishment andfunding of the national Biotechnology Centre ofExcellence — the stem cells and tissue repair centre —here in Victoria recognises that leadership. TheVictorian government has also invested significantly inmedical research infrastructure funding and in thebiotechnology field.

One of the greatest potential applications of embryonicstem cell research is the generation of cells and tissuesfor therapeutic purposes. This may lead to thereplacement of diseased or damaged tissue in a range ofconditions, which may include Parkinson’s disease,diabetes, liver and other organ failure, a variety ofcancers, spinal cord injury and genetic conditions suchas cystic fibrosis. These potential benefits will takesome time to be realised, and considerable further workwill be needed.

The challenge for government is to find a way toprovide legislative parameters that will guide the workof the biotechnology field which is rapidly changingand developing.

Following our history of leadership, Victoria has nowbecome part of a commitment to implement nationallyconsistent legislation to prohibit human reproductivecloning and regulate assisted reproductive technologyand related emerging human technologies. Thiscommitment was made at the Council of AustralianGovernments in April this year.

The decision of the Council of Australian Governmentsrequires legislation to be passed by the commonwealthand all Australian states and territories. This bill isVictoria’s contribution to that national scheme. The billwill provide all Victorians with the reassurance thatreproductive cloning cannot happen in Victoria orAustralia. It will also provide reassurance that there isstrict regulation of permitted research on excess

HEALTH LEGISLATION (RESEARCH INVOLVING EMBRYOS AND PROHIBITION OF HUMAN CLONING) BILL


embryos that were produced for the purpose ofinfertility treatment.

It should be noted that the debate in the commonwealthHouse of Representatives has not yet concluded andthat the commonwealth bill has been split into twoseparate bills, with one bill banning human cloning andthe other considering the use of excess embryos forstem cell research.

It is important for Victoria to go forward with theintroduction of this bill, which will allow researchwhich has such enormous potential benefit to proceed.Two years of consultation across Australia hascontributed to the recommendations that have informedthe development of this bill. It is time to progress theparliamentary debate in Victoria now in order to ensurethat a decision can be reached to allow Victoria to leadthe world in embryonic stem cell research.

The major elements of the bill are:

Creation of embryos

Embryos can only be created to treat a womanundergoing infertility treatment. This bill prohibits thecreation of embryos for research purposes.

Any fear that there will be a commercial incentive tocreate more embryos than a particular woman needs forinfertility treatment purposes is therefore unfounded.

Research involving embryos

In Victoria embryos created for a woman are kept instorage until such a time as they are no longer requiredby her and her partner (if any). At present, themaximum period of storage is five years, unless alonger period is authorised by the Infertility TreatmentAuthority. At that time, the woman (or couple) canchoose to donate those embryos to another woman or totake the embryos out of storage and allow them tosuccumb. This bill creates another option — donationto research.

The bill permits destructive research on excess IVFembryos. This is a major decision that has beeninformed by more than two years of consultation atboth commonwealth and state level. The choice facingus is to simply discard these excess embryos, or toallow the use of some of them for potential good. Thereis a responsibility to sufferers of conditions such asdiabetes, spinal cord injury, and Parkinson’s disease toat least explore the potential benefits that may bederived from embryos that would be destroyed anyway.Although there is promising research work on adultstem cells for some of these conditions, the consensus

of the scientific community is that research involvingboth embryonic and adult stem cells should proceed.

Once defined as excess, the woman (or couple) is ableto consent to the embryo being used in research.Destructive research will only be permitted on embryosalready existing at 5 April 2002. This is anothersafeguard to preclude the formation of embryosspecifically for research.

Consent

The proposed bill requires consent of all individualswho contributed to the creation of the embryo and thewoman or couple for whom the embryo was made.These consent requirements have been documented innational guidelines — Ethical guidelines on assistedreproductive technology. These require that the consentof donor gamete providers and their spouses (if any) beobtained before an excess embryo may be used forresearch.

Consent has always been central to IVF practice inVictoria. The consent requirements of this bill addfurther requirements that will ensure all peoplecontributing to the creation of the embryo givepermission to it being used in research. For the majorityof embryos, this will mean the consent of the coupleundergoing treatment. It may also involve a donor ofsperm or eggs and their spouse (if any).

Embryo research licensing committee

All research on excess embryos will be regulated by theNational Health and Medical Research Council(NHMRC) embryo research licensing committee. Thisnational committee will be responsible for issuinglicences to conduct research and reporting to Parliamentand the public about such research. Limited research onembryos prior to the embryos being declared in excesswhich is currently provided for under the existing act,will continue to be regulated by the InfertilityTreatment Authority, which can only approve researchthat does not harm the embryo.

The complex task of issuing a licence to conductresearch on embryos will be governed by the followingrequirements:

the woman for whom each embryo was formed andher partner (if any) at the time the embryo wascreated have determined the embryo to be excess totheir needs;

that each responsible person in relation to eachembryo has given proper consent to the donation ofthe embryo;

ROAD SAFETY (RESPONSIBLE DRIVING) BILL


that the activity or project proposed has beenassessed and approved by a properly constitutedhuman research ethics committee (HREC);

that the embryos were in storage at 5 April 2002 ifthe proposed research will result in the destruction ofthe embryos.

In addition, the licensing committee must also haveregard for the following:

the number of embryos likely to be required toachieve the research goals — to ensure that only theminimum number is used;

the likelihood of a significant advance in knowledgeas a result of the research which could not beachieved by other means — if other means (such asadult stem cells) had a realistic chance of achievingthe result, the embryo research would not beapproved;

any relevant guidelines issued by the NHMRC;

the human research ethics committee assessment ofthe application; and

any other matters as prescribed by the regulations.

The new licensing system will mean that if VictorianART clinics wish to conduct research on excessembryos, they will be required to seek a licence fromthe NHMRC embryo research licensing committee todo so. This will be in addition to the licence to conductART clinical practice that is required from theInfertility Treatment Authority.

This will mean that separate parts of clinics’ work willbe licensed separately, but that there will not be duallicensing for the same activities.

Ban on cloning

Reproductive cloning has always been banned inVictoria. This bill replaces the existing ban on humancloning by adopting the wording in the commonwealthlegislation. The wording in the commonwealth bill isadequate to cover foreseeable changes in technologyand this will satisfy any community concern that thecurrent provisions are not adequate.

Other prohibited practices

Other practices, which will be banned by the bill,include the practice of somatic cell nuclear transfer(SCNT), sometimes referred to as therapeutic cloning.This practice is banned under the provision banning the

formation of embryos by a process other than thefertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm.

The creation of hybrid embryos and commercial tradingin human reproductive material is also banned.

Penalties

The penalties listed in the bill for cloning and otherprohibited practices are significantly higher than thosein the Infertility Treatment Act 1995. The higherpenalties reflect current concerns in the communityabout the significance of cloning and the lack ofsupport for such a practice.

Review

The commonwealth bill will be reviewed two yearsafter the date of royal assent. The Victorian governmentwill be consulted by the NHMRC in determining thepersons who undertake this review. This will ensurethat the Australian scheme of legislation keeps abreastof developments in this area of technology and reflectscurrent community attitudes.

This bill is comprehensive. It protects as well asenables. It is a bill that will allow Victoria to continueto lead the world in IVF clinical practice and embryoresearch.


Debate adjourned on motion of Mr WILSON(Bennettswood).


ROAD SAFETY (RESPONSIBLE DRIVING)BILL

Second reading

Mr BATCHELOR (Minister for Transport) — Byleave, I move:


The main purpose of this bill is to amend the RoadSafety Act to encourage responsible driving. To thisend, the bill will introduce measures to deter excessivespeeding. It will allow on-the-spot licence suspensionsfor first offender drink-drivers with high blood alcoholconcentrations and for repeat drink-drivers. The billwill also set a lower threshold for demerit point licenceloss for probationary and learner drivers, namely5 points in 12 months.

ROAD SAFETY (RESPONSIBLE DRIVING) BILL


Speeding

Excessive speed is a major contributor to road traumain Victoria. This is particularly true of very high-levelspeeding. In this bill, the deterrent against excessivespeeding is strengthened by redefining it as exceedingthe speed limit by 25 kilometres per hour, rather than30 kilometres per hour, as at present. Excessivespeeding incurs a minimum licence suspension of onemonth.

In cases where a driver exceeds the speed limit by35 kilometres per hour or more, the bill sets a minimumsuspension period of six months. And exceeding thespeed limit by 45 kilometres per hour or more will nowincur suspension for at least 12 months.

It is a strange thing that many people think that the riskof speeding is the risk of getting a ticket, as if they donot really understand or believe the risk of causinginjury or death. Such people need to understand thatthere is no such thing as safe speeding. They might getaway with it for a time, but it is dangerous andunnecessary and eventually they, or someone else, willpay the price.

There is a direct and proven statistical relationshipbetween speed and crash risk. The odds are that if youcontinue to speed, sooner or later you will crash. In avery real sense, speeding is high stakes gambling. Butit’s not gambling only with money. It’s gambling withlives. Drivers who speed need to hear the message:don’t be a mug punter with your life.

On-the-spot licence suspension for drink-driving

Drink-driving is also a major factor in road trauma.Again, it is a statistically proven fact that drink-drivingkills people. On average, only 1 in 200 drivers tested atpolice booze buses is a drink-driver. Yet about 1 in4 driver fatalities are drivers who had a blood alcoholconcentration of 0.05 or more. Put simply, a personwho drinks and drives is not fit to hold a driver licenceuntil he or she reforms. They are a danger to themselvesand to others.

The bill contains provision for the immediatesuspension of learner permits or probationary driverlicences of drivers detected with a blood alcoholconcentration of 0.07 or more.

The Road Safety Act already provides for the interimsuspension of the licence of first offenders whose bloodalcohol concentration is 0.15 or higher and repeatdrink-drivers. At present, suspension can be imposedafter the person is charged with drink-driving, and lasts

until the case is heard, but can be appealed in themeantime if there are exceptional circumstances.

These existing interim suspension provisions haveseveral defects.

First, it may take some time for a charge to be laid.Typically, it may take a week or more for adrink-driving charge to be laid because of the variousprocedural steps involved. In the meantime, the personcan continue to drive. This does not sit well with themain purpose of interim suspension, which is to removefrom the roads as quickly as possible a driver whoposes an unacceptably high risk to the community.

Secondly, interim suspension is only an availableoption, at present, if the driver is charged withdrink-driving under the Road Safety Act. It thereforemay not be an option if a person is facing more seriouscriminal charges, such as manslaughter or culpabledriving, arising out of driving a car whilst under theinfluence of alcohol. In any case, possible offences ofthis nature generally take even longer to investigatethan simple drink-driving.

Thirdly, the 0.15 threshold for interim suspensionapplies to all first offenders, even though the legal limitis different for different categories of driver. Inparticular, learner and probationary drivers are subjectto a zero alcohol limit because inexperience and alcoholis a lethal combination.

For these reasons, the bill proposes amendments topermit the police to suspend the licences or permits ofdrink-drivers on the spot wherever they could besuspended following charge under the current law. Inessence, this is a timing change, designed to get theperson off the road immediately.

To achieve this, the bill proposes that suspensions maybe imposed on the basis of the same certificates ofanalysis that can presently be used to prove adrink-driving charge.

For repeat drink-drivers, interim suspension can beimposed for any drink-driving offence, as at present.For a first offender with a full licence, interimsuspension can be imposed if the person’s bloodalcohol content is 0.15 or higher. Again, this is thecurrent threshold for interim suspension.

In the case of learner drivers and probationary drivers,however, the bill proposes to lower the threshold forinterim suspension to 0.07. These are inexperienceddrivers, who are subject to a zero alcohol condition. Alearner or probationary driver who drives with a bloodalcohol concentration of 0.07 or higher represents an

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN (AMENDMENT) BILL


unacceptable risk and should have his or her licencesuspended immediately.

The procedural safeguards in relation to theseon-the-spot suspensions will be similar to those alreadyin the act. As at present, a certificate of analysis canonly be relied on if the sample tested was taken within3 hours of driving. There will be a right of appeal, as atpresent, in exceptional circumstances and, in addition,any court hearing proceedings arising out of theincident will be able to cancel the suspension on similargrounds. The period of interim suspension will bediscounted from any period of disqualification that issubsequently imposed by a court. Unless charges arelaid, interim suspensions cannot last longer than12 months, or the relevant minimum disqualificationperiod under the act, whichever is the less.

The bill also proposes an amendment to section 49(1)(f)of the Road Safety Act. That section defines thedrink-driving offence of failing a breath test within3 hours of driving. The act already enables further testswhere the first breath test does not produce a result forany reason. To remove any possible doubt on thematter, the amendment makes it clear that adrink-driver may be prosecuted on the basis of theresults of these further tests.

A similar amendment is proposed to section 28 of theMarine Act 1988, which deals with correspondingoffences by persons in charge of vessels.

Demerit points

The changes introduced by this bill will make licenceloss a more likely consequence for persistent speedingoffenders. There are a number of penalties for speeding,one of the most effective being the allocation of demeritpoints. Demerit points are added to a driver’s recordwhenever the driver pays an infringement notice or isfound guilty by a court of specified offences. Pointsremain on a driver’s record for three years, and thenlapse.

Because of the risks associated with inexperience, moststates of Australia impose a lower demerit point cut-offfor probationary and learner drivers than for fulllicence-holders. This bill will introduce similarmeasures in Victoria.

Too many novice drivers are dying on our roads. Thereis a need to deter high-risk behaviour, especiallyspeeding, by these drivers.

Probationary and learner drivers will risk licence loss ifthey incur 5 points in any 12-month period. They will

also remain subject to the 12 points in 3 years thresholdthat applies generally.

This limit of 5 points in 12 months will allow thesenovice drivers to learn from their mistakes but willreduce the likelihood of bad habits becomingestablished. If novice drivers will not drive responsibly,they will lose their licences.

To keep this in perspective, most probationarylicence-holders have no demerit points. These areresponsible drivers and will not be affected by thesemeasures.

For any penalty to act as an effective deterrent, thedriver must be aware of both the penalty, and of theconsequences of reoffending. To this end, the billamends section 92 of the Road Safety Act to allow theVictoria Police to access driver demerit point records.The police will notify a person who has incurreddemerit points of the possible consequences ofincurring further demerit points — namely, loss of theirlicence to drive. It is expected that this will have apositive influence on driver behaviour.

Conclusion

Taken together, the bill represents a significant packageof measures to improve the safety of all road users. Itintroduces more measures to deter the highest riskspeeding offenders. And it will enable drivers who floutdrink-driving laws to be removed from the road sooner.

These drivers have to understand that the communitywill not tolerate their gambling with the lives of othersas well as their own.


Debate adjourned on motion of Mr LEIGH (Mordialloc).


MURRAY-DARLING BASIN(AMENDMENT) BILL

Second reading

Ms GARBUTT (Minister for Environment andConservation) — By leave, I move:


In 1999 the Bracks government committed tonegotiating with the New South Wales andcommonwealth governments to seek agreement toreturn 28 per cent of original flows to the Snowy River.

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN (AMENDMENT) BILL


This was the start of achieving a real outcome for theSnowy River and its surrounding communities andproviding a significant investment in the future of waterinfrastructure in northern irrigation communities.

Twelve months later, on the banks of the Snowy River,Premiers Bracks and Carr announced their commitmentto revitalise the river. A long-term target of 28 per centwas agreed, to be delivered through partnerships withthe private sector. The governments committed to aninvestment of $300 million over 10 years to return21 per cent of original flows to the Snowy, as themedium-term target.

On 6 December 2000 the agreement of thecommonwealth was secured. The heads of agreement tothe outcome to the Snowy water inquiry was released.The commonwealth added $75 million to the$300 million investment of the states. The governmentsalso agreed to allocate an additional 70 gigalitres ofenvironmental flows for the River Murray and agreedto improved environmental outcomes for rivers in theKosciuszko National Park.

The governments further agreed that increased SnowyRiver flows and dedicated environmental flowsallocated to the River Murray will be implementedprimarily through water savings, environmentalimprovement and regional development projects indiversions from the River Murray and in theMurrumbidgee and Goulburn–Murray river systems.Only if necessary would water be acquired through thepurchase of water entitlements and rights and then in amanner which promotes the water trading market.

This arrangement is a key element of the agreement asit maintains the principles that there will be no adverseimpacts on existing irrigators’ water entitlements, SouthAustralian water security or water quality or on existingenvironmental flows.

The agreement represents a major commitment by theVictorian, New South Wales and commonwealthgovernments to invest in regional infrastructure projectsto achieve the water savings necessary to offset theincreased environmental flows to the Snowy River andthe River Murray. It will also provide significantbenefits to regional communities in northern Victoria interms of employment and improved water quality andreliability of supply.

Corporatisation of the Snowy MountainsHydro-Electric Authority, a 50-year-old institution,enabled the agreement to increase environmental flowsto the Snowy River to be put into effect.Corporatisation has now been achieved after more than

eight years of negotiations. The respective SnowyCorporatisation Acts of 1997 were proclaimed by thecommonwealth, Victorian and New South Walesgovernments on 28 June 2002.

With corporatisation of the Snowy MountainsHydro-Electric Authority, water-sharing arrangementspreviously approved by the Commonwealth SnowyMountains Hydro-Electric Power Act 1949 and theVictorian and New South Wales Snowy MountainsHydro-Electric Agreement Acts of 1958 have lapsedand are included instead in the Murray-Darling BasinAgreement.

The Murray-Darling Basin Amending Agreement, asagreed by the Murray-Darling Basin MinisterialCouncil and recently signed by the Prime Minister andthe premiers of Victoria, New South Wales and SouthAustralia, provides for increased certainty and securityof water-sharing arrangements within the Snowyscheme.

The Murray-Darling Basin Amending Agreementamends the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement as set outin the Murray-Darling Basin Act 1993 and codifies thearrangements for the operation of the Snowy scheme toprotect Victoria’s water rights and interests.

The amending agreement provides for the necessarywater accounting arrangements to recognise states’shares of water made available from the Snowy schemeto the River Murray catchment above the Hume Dam.It also provides for the protection of Victoria’s sharefrom any future decisions by the New South Walesgovernment as the regulator of the scheme.

The amending agreement provides the means ofaccounting for the increased environmental flows to theSnowy River and the River Murray and providesarrangements to support the Murray-Darling BasinCommission’s management of environmental flows inthe River Murray.

This bill gives effect to the Murray-Darling BasinAmending Agreement. The amending agreement hasundergone a rigorous approval process followingextensive negotiations between the Victorian, NewSouth Wales, South Australian and commonwealthgovernments and with the Murray-Darling BasinCommission and council. The amending agreement hasa high level of support from all governments. TheMurray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council approved theamending agreement on 5 October 2001. The PrimeMinister and the premiers of Victoria, New SouthWales and South Australia signed the amendingagreement in June 2002.



Under clause 6 of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreementany amendments to the Murray-Darling BasinAgreement agreed by the ministerial council must besubmitted for the approval of the respective parliamentsas soon as practicable after such agreement is reached.

The bill seeks the agreement of the Parliament to theamending agreement. Parliamentary approval in all therelevant jurisdictions is necessary for the amendingagreement to be fully effective.

I understand that the necessary legislation has beendrafted and either has been or will shortly be introducedas a matter of priority into the commonwealth, NewSouth Wales and South Australian parliaments.

The amending agreement removes references to theformer Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority,amends part twelve of the Murray-Darling BasinAgreement and adds a new schedule G to theagreement. Schedule G provides for the new detailedwater accounting arrangements.

The new arrangements will protect Victoria’s rights andinterests and facilitates procedures to account forincreased environmental flows to the Snowy River andRiver Murray. Schedule G also includes provisions for:

(a) the transfer of water savings to environmentalentitlements and the subsequent reduction inthe respective states long termMurray-Darling Basin caps;

(b) the release by the Murray-Darling BasinCommission of increased environmentalflows to the River Murray; and

(c) the necessary additional water accounting,notification, consultation and modellingmechanisms.

The amending agreement also provides thearrangements to support the release of increasedenvironmental flows to the River Murray, consistentwith the outcomes of the Snowy water inquiry. TheMurray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council will berequired to develop environmental objectives and astrategy for the increased environmental flows to theRiver Murray.

The allocation of 70 gigalitres of increasedenvironmental flow to the River Murray is a verysignificant step towards the rehabilitation of this mightyriver. It also demonstrates the commitment of all RiverMurray states to the long-term sustainability of the riverand the communities which depend on it.

The bill represents a major step forward in achievingimproved environmental outcomes for both the SnowyRiver and the River Murray and is essential to protectVictoria’s existing water allocations from the scheme.


Debate adjourned on motion of Mr MULDER(Polwarth).


NATIONAL PARKS (BOX-IRONBARK ANDOTHER PARKS) BILL

Second reading



The National Parks (Box-Ironbark and Other Parks)Bill will protect significant parts of our natural andcultural heritage and implement several of thegovernment’s key environment policy commitments.More specifically, the bill will do three things:

it will establish a significantly expanded parkssystem in the box-ironbark region of north-centralVictoria totalling more than 105 000 hectares;

it will enhance and further protect WilsonsPromontory National Park; and

it will enhance Mitchell River National Park and indoing so help prevent the damming of the MitchellRiver.

A new future for Victoria’s box-ironbark forestsand woodlands

The box-ironbark forests and woodlands ofnorth-central Victoria are a special part of the state’snatural and cultural heritage. Images spring to mind ofthe dark and deeply furrowed bark of ironbark treesstanding amongst spring wildflowers, the light flakyappearance of the box trees, and the dryness of theforests. The legacy of the gold rushes, the legends ofthe bushrangers and the Kelly Gang, and our nationalfloral emblem, the golden wattle, are all reminders ofthis distinctive environment. For those who live in theregion, the forests play an important part in theeveryday lives of the local communities that depend onthem for various products and visit them for recreation.



However, the box-ironbark forests and woodlands thatexist today cover only a small proportion of the areathey once did. Since European settlement, thebox-ironbark region has been substantially cleared. Theremaining native vegetation covers only some 17 percent of the original cover and has been heavilymodified by ongoing land-use activities. This has had adramatic impact on the region’s biodiversity, so muchso that more than 350 plant and animal species in theregion are now classified as threatened, near threatened,or, in some cases, extinct.

Our knowledge of these forests and woodlands hasincreased significantly since the Land ConservationCouncil (LCC) studied them during the 1980s. So, too,has our concern for their future and our awareness thatthey are under-represented in Victoria’s parks andreserves. It was this concern that led to the LCC in1996, and subsequently the Environment ConservationCouncil (ECC) in 1997, being requested to carry out aninvestigation into the future use of the public land innorth-central Victoria that supports box-ironbark forestsand woodlands.

Following an extensive period of investigation andconsultation, the ECC completed its final report in2001. It made many important recommendations aimedat finding a balance between protecting, restoring andenhancing the natural values of the forests andwoodlands on the one hand and providing for the rangeof existing uses to continue across the region as a wholeon the other. Importantly, the ECC noted the need forurgent action if we are to halt the rate of species lossfrom these ecosystems.

In accepting the vast majority of the ECC’srecommendations, the government has taken up thechallenge to pursue a new direction for the forests.However, in doing so, it recognises that this involveschange, and it is committed to working through thetransitional issues with the community.

An expanded parks and reserves system

A key element of the ECC’s recommendations is theestablishment of a comprehensive, adequate andrepresentative system of parks and reserves. The billwill create five new or expanded national parks(Chiltern-Mount Pilot, Greater Bendigo,Heathcote-Graytown, St Arnaud Range and TerrickTerrick) and five new or expanded state parks(Broken-Boosey, Kooyoora, Paddys Ranges, Reef Hillsand Warby Range). These are representative of thenatural diversity across the box-ironbark region: the dryforests and woodlands of the inland hills of the GreatDividing Range, the woodlands and grasslands of the

northern plains and the distinctive Mallee communitiesof the Whipstick, for example.

The bill will also create Castlemaine Diggings NationalHeritage Park. This is a new category of parkrecommended by the ECC to protect the nationallysignificant historic and cultural heritage and culturallandscapes on public land around Castlemaine, as wellas the significant natural values of the forests.

Most of the nature conservation and other reservesrecommended by the ECC will be reserved over timethrough the standard administrative processes.However, the opportunity is taken through this bill tocreate seven new conservation reserves under theCrown Land (Reserves) Act 1978: Deep Lead NatureConservation Reserve (No. 2) near Stawell, the BlackDog Creek Natural Features Reserve near Chiltern, andfive natural features reserves along the Broken, Booseyand Nine Mile Creeks on the largely cleared northernplains between Nathalia and Tungamah.

The decision to establish the six linear natural featuresreserves, which are a variation to the ECC’srecommendations, results from additional consultationwhich the government has carried out with adjacentlandowners and further consideration of the issuesassociated with implementing the originalrecommendations. Management of the reserves willfocus on protecting the natural values along the narrowcreek frontages but will allow a wider range of usesthan originally proposed.

The bill will also create an historic reserve along ReedyCreek at Eldorado instead of including part of the areain Chiltern-Mount Pilot National Park. This area ishighly modified but has significant historic valuesassociated with dredging for gold, including the famousEldorado dredge. An historic reserve is a moreappropriate category for the area and will help toprovide a focus for the promotion of Eldorado’s mininghistory.

The bill will also update the Reference Areas Act 1978to enable the proclamation of three new or amendedreference areas recommended by the ECC.

In creating the new park areas, the bill will excise someareas from existing parks, in addition to transferringseveral areas from one schedule of the National ParksAct to another. In accordance with the ECC’srecommendations, three shooting ranges (which areinappropriate uses of a park) will be excised from whatis now Reef Hills Park, and land more than 100 metresbelow the surface will be excised from the existingDeep Lead Flora and Fauna Reserve. Parts of several



roads will also be excised from the existing ChilternBox-Ironbark National Park, Kamarooka, Kooyooraand Whipstick state parks and Beechworth Park toenable future road proclamations. In accordance withsection 11 of the National Parks Act 1975, the NationalParks Advisory Council has provided advice for tablingin both houses of Parliament.

Enjoying the parks

In addition to their primary conservation role, the parkswill be places for visitors to enjoy and appreciate thediversity of the box-ironbark country. They will caterfor a wide range of recreation activities. Importantly,they will provide an added stimulus to the region’stourism appeal, which will provide a boost to localeconomies. Walking, picnicking, camping, car touring,birdwatching and other nature study, visiting historicfeatures, orienteering and rogaining, horse, mountainand trail bike riding on formed roads and, in someparks, car rallying are among the activities which willbe permitted subject to the protection of park values.

In recognition of the popularity of prospecting in thebox-ironbark region and in accordance with the ECC’srecommendations, prospecting using hand tools under aminer’s right (referred to in the legislation as searching)will be permitted in many of the parks. Current levelsof access for prospecting will continue in the parks inwhich this activity is to be permitted until prospectingand protection zones are formally defined through themanagement planning process involving communityand stakeholder groups.

Parts of Greater Bendigo and Heathcote-Graytownnational parks are located close to urban areas and areused for the walking of dogs. On creation of theseparks, zones will be set aside as areas where dogs canbe walked on leads. These zones may be refinedthrough the management planning process inconsultation with the community.

In a broader context, a region-wide recreationalframework is being prepared, with the assistance of a13-member recreation advisory group, to help providecertainty to those who use public land for recreation.This will identify opportunities for all currentrecreational endeavours across the region, regardless ofland status, and will provide a guide for the subsequentpreparation of management plans.

Providing for particular uses

In accordance with the ECC’s recommendations,apiculture will generally be permitted in thebox-ironbark national, state and national heritage parks.The bill will enable existing apiary licences or permits

to continue to the end of their current term, whenpermits will be granted under the National Parks Act.Because of the particular circumstances, the bill alsocontinues various authorities relating to waterdistribution works and small dams in Greater Bendigo,Broken-Boosey and Castlemaine Diggings parks andinserts new provisions in the National Parks Actrelating to future authorisation of those uses.

In recognition of the special circumstances surroundingthe highly auriferous nature of the box-ironbark regionand its long history as a major gold-producing region,the bill will implement particular recommendations ofthe ECC relating to mining activities that depart fromthe current legislative provisions applying to suchactivities in parks. It is stressed that the governmentviews this as an exceptional case.

In this instance, however, the bill will:

establish the depth limit to parts of Greater BendigoNational Park, and also the Castlemaine DiggingsNational Heritage Park and Deep Lead NatureConservation Reserve, at 100 metres below thesurface;

treat Castlemaine Diggings National Heritage Parkas restricted Crown land under the MineralResources Development Act 1990, rather than itbeing subject to the exploration and miningprovisions of the National Parks Act; and

enable the minister responsible for the NationalParks Act to consent to minor mining infrastructureunder a mining licence in the existing Deep LeadFlora and Fauna Reserve and those parts of GreaterBendigo National Park which extend only to100 metres below the surface without the consentbeing subject to the tabling provisions of section 40of that act — the government is consulting withindustry over the nature of minor mininginfrastructure.

The bill will also update the definition of restrictedCrown land in the Mineral Resources Development Actto include land recommended by the former ECC or thenew Victorian Environmental Assessment Council forparticular conservation and other purposes similar tothose already included in the definition. It will alsoprohibit surface mining and prospecting in the twoDeep Lead nature conservation reserves.

Helping to make the transition

In accepting the ECC’s recommendations andestablishing the new parks, the government recognisesthe impacts on individuals in the timber-based



industries in particular, and it is committed to providingequitable transitional assistance for those whoselivelihoods are affected.

The box-ironbark implementation panel chaired by theHonourable John Button was established to consultwith the community and advise the government on keyimplementation issues. The government hassubsequently developed a box-ironbark structuraladjustment package to assist those businesses andself-employed operators and employees in theforest-based industries who are directly affected by theadoption of the ECC’s recommendations. Proposals putforward by Timber Communities Australia have beenconsidered, and in many cases incorporated, to producea package involving financial, retraining and relocationassistance that is fair and equitable.

One of the big issues confronting the box-ironbarkregion is the future availability of firewood for localcommunities. To address this issue, the government isdeveloping five-year firewood plans for the supply offirewood to towns in the region and a communityenergy plan which will consider long-term energysolutions to reduce firewood dependency and explorealternative energy sources. Licences have also beenissued to enable the timber which has already beenfelled in the forests to be collected.

As part of the transitional arrangements relating to thenew park areas, the bill will provide for:

eucalyptus oil harvesting in parts of Greater BendigoNational Park until 26 February 2008;

the cutting of forest produce in part ofHeathcote-Graytown National Park until31 December 2002; and

the collection of firewood that has already beenfelled in previous harvesting operations in GreaterBendigo, Heathcote-Graytown and St Arnaud Rangenational parks, Kooyoora State Park andCastlemaine Diggings National Heritage Park until31 December 2005 — priority will be given tomeeting demand for local domestic purposes.

In view of community concerns over the proposal tophase out timber harvesting in the Killawarra additionto Warby Range State Park over a six-year period thegovernment has decided to give earlier protection tothis important area by ceasing timber harvesting andfirewood collection on 30 June 2003.

In accordance with the ECC recommendations, grazingwill not be permitted in national, state or nationalheritage parks but will be used as an ecological

management tool in Broken-Boosey State Park.However, to provide a phase-out period for existinglicensees, the bill will permit grazing to continue untilthree years after the parks are created or the expiry ofthe current term of the licences, whichever is the later.

Community ownership and involvement

The ongoing success of the new parks and reserves andthe other initiatives across the box-ironbark region will,to a large extent, depend on the degree of communityownership and cooperative partnership withgovernment. To encourage this, the government ispiloting a number of initiatives. Conservationmanagement networks will be established to encouragebiodiversity conservation across the landscape througha partnership arrangement across both public andprivate land, and initial trials will be held in theBroken–Boosey and Wedderburn–Wychitella areas.

Community advisory groups are being, or will be,established to advise on a range of issues includingrecreation and park and forest management plans. Thedevelopment of park management plans within threeyears of the creation of the parks will provide a furtheropportunity for the broader community to be involvedin the future of the parks. A grievance process is alsobeing established, involving input from stakeholders, toensure that any concerns over discretionary decisionsmade by land managers can be dealt with in an openand transparent manner.

Enhancing Wilsons Promontory National Park

The second feature of the bill relates to WilsonsPromontory National Park, one of the state’s mostprecious national parks and highly valued by thecommunity for more than a century. The government isstrongly committed to its ongoing protection. The billwill enhance this outstanding park by adding the twolighthouse reserves at South East Point and CitadelIsland and designating additional parts of the park asremote and natural areas.

Adding the lighthouse reserves

Including the two lighthouse reserves will permanentlyprotect their significant natural and cultural heritagevalues within the national park and will also ensure thatall of Wilsons Promontory and all of the adjacentislands are included in the park. The reserves arenatural additions to the park.

Both areas were returned to state ownership by thecommonwealth in 1995, when they were reservedunder the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978. Smallareas of the two reserves were leased to the Australian

COMMISSIONER FOR ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT BILL


Maritime Safety Authority for maritime navigation aidsand to the commonwealth of Australia formeteorological observation equipment. The bill savesthose leases and enables new leases to be granted forsimilar purposes.

Further protecting the park’s coastal wildness

The title to David Neilson’s photographic tribute toWilsons Promontory, Wilsons Promontory — CoastalWildness, sums up what for many is the essence of theProm, and the photographs in that book are a reminderof the special qualities of the park that need to beprotected so vigilantly.

The relative lack of disturbance by vehicular tracks andstructures in the southern and south-eastern sectors ofthe park and the need for managers to recognise andprotect these attributes was noted by the LCC in its1991 statewide wilderness special investigation. A 1996analysis of wilderness quality in eastern Victoria, aspart of the process leading to Victoria’s regional forestagreements, also identified the high remote and naturalvalues of the southern section of the park.

The bill will enhance the protection of those values bydesignating a southern Wilsons Promontory remote andnatural area and also by including Citadel Island in theexisting Wilsons Promontory islands remote andnatural area, as proposed in the recently released parkmanagement plan. This will give statutory recognitionto their relative lack of disturbance and, particularly inrelation to the southern part of the park, will help toprotect it from new and incremental developmentwhich, over time and perhaps quite unintentionally, willerode the very qualities that make the area so valued bypark visitors today. Existing uses, such as walking andcamping on the popular circuit walk, are not affected.

Protecting the Mitchell River

The third feature of the bill is the addition of2160 hectares to Mitchell River National Park. Thisaddition will not only enhance and broaden theconservation values and recreational opportunities ofthe park but will, through including the formerlyproposed dam site at Angusvale, help prevent thedamming of the largest free-flowing river in the state, aheritage river which provides about one-third of thetotal flow into the Gippsland Lakes.

The addition includes remote and scenic river frontagesadjacent to the Mitchell and Wentworth rivers, thepopular camping area and canoe launching site atAngusvale, and areas of significant grassy woodlandvegetation.

It comprises land acquired by the former state Riversand Water Supply Commission for the dam, therecently acquired Mitchelldale, adjacent Crown landwater frontages and some linking areas ofnon-productive state forest. Parts of the addition areareas of former farmland which progressively will berevegetated. The bill provides for the phase-out of onegrazing operation.

Conclusion

It is just over a century since the royal commission intostate forests, timber reserves and their management(constituted in 1897) commented on the condition ofthe forests in the box-ironbark region. This inquiry ledeventually to the state’s first effective forestslegislation, the 1907 Forests Act. A century later, as aresult of the ECC’s investigation, this bill, together withother ECC recommendations adopted by thegovernment, also seeks to establish a new direction forthe box-ironbark forests and woodlands and their rolein the community — a direction which aims to ensurethe survival of what remains of this remarkableecosystem before it is too late. The bill also seeksadditional protection for one of our most cherishednational parks and for the free-flowing Mitchell River.

The National Parks (Box-Ironbark and Other Parks)Bill is therefore an important measure for the furtherprotection of our state’s natural and cultural heritage. Itis also important because it reinforces both thegovernment’s vision for a more sustainable Victoriaand the government’s resolve to work with thecommunity on difficult but necessary transitional issuesto achieve that vision for the benefit of this and futuregenerations and the environment.


Debate adjourned on motion of Mr WILSON(Bennettswood).


COMMISSIONER FOR ECOLOGICALLYSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT BILL

Second reading



This bill to establish the Commissioner for EcologicallySustainable Development, whom I will refer to as the



commissioner, fulfils a major environmental policycommitment by this government.

The government’s vision for Victoria, as outlined inGrowing Victoria Together, includes a transparentcommitment to ecologically sustainable developmentand identifies the need to ensure that protecting theenvironment for future generations is built intoeverything we do.

This commitment to balance environmental, social andeconomic outcomes for all Victorians will achieve anumber of goals including the protection of theenvironment; thriving, innovative industries; and safe,healthy communities.

The establishment of a Commissioner for EcologicallySustainable Development supports this strongsustainability agenda. It is a clear demonstration of thegovernment’s commitment to promoting andimplementing ecologically sustainable development toensure that the total quality of life can be improved forcurrent and future Victorians. Importantly, through thisbill, the government will enshrine in legislation thenationally agreed definition of ecologically sustainabledevelopment as set out in the 1992 national strategy forecologically sustainable development.

The government believes that it is important to lead byexample in the adoption and promotion of decisionmaking that facilitates ecologically sustainabledevelopment. In this respect the government has builtenvironmental, economic and social considerations intoits cabinet processes. The government is alsocommitted to reducing its own environmental footprintand will implement environmental managementsystems throughout its departments.

Establishment of the Commissioner for EcologicallySustainable Development further builds on thegovernment’s commitment to promoting ecologicallysustainable development, as the office will be avaluable source of advice to both state and localgovernment, industry and the community on thesematters.

A key role of the commissioner will be to undertakepublic education programs. The objective of this role isto enhance the knowledge and understanding of theVictorian community about ecologically sustainabledevelopment and to encourage decision making thatpromotes the adoption of international best practice inecologically sustainable development. Through this rolethe commissioner will also support state and localgovernment in implementing measures which promotethe adoption by industry and the community of

practices that facilitate ecologically sustainabledevelopment.

Through state-of-environment reporting, anotherimportant role to be undertaken by the commissioner,Victorians will be kept informed about the health oftheir environment and whether through the combinedactions of government, industry and the communityenvironmental gains are being made.

This government is committed to improving theenvironmental performance of public sector work sitesby tackling energy efficiency, water use, paper use andtransport. Through annual strategic auditing of agencyenvironment management systems the commissionerwill keep the community informed about the rate of thegovernment’s progress in improving the environmentalperformance of its work sites, and how theenvironmental management systems compare withinternational best practice approaches and targets.

The state-of-environment and environmentalperformance reporting roles are further examples of thegovernment implementing its commitment to beingopen and transparent and keeping the communityinformed.

I will now turn to the particulars of the bill.

Part 1 of the bill is where the definition of ecologicallysustainable development has been enshrined. Until thistime, no other Victorian legislation has incorporated theprinciples of ecologically sustainable development thatwere agreed by the commonwealth and all state andterritory governments in 1992 under the NationalStrategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development.

Part 2 of the bill establishes the Commissioner forEcologically Sustainable Development and the office ofthe commissioner. The objectives, functions, powersand accountabilities of the commissioner are also setout in this part.

The Governor in Council will appoint thecommissioner for a term of up to five years. Thecommissioner will also be eligible for reappointment,as set out in clause 6. The commissioner may only beremoved from office if there is a failure to carry out theduties of the office or if the commissioner demonstratesinefficiency or misbehaviour in carrying out thoseduties. If the commissioner is removed from office, theresponsible minister must lay a statement of thegrounds for the removal in both houses of Parliament.

Clause 7 highlights the four objectives of thecommissioner. These are to report on matters relating tothe condition of the natural environment in Victoria; to



encourage decision making that facilitates ecologicallysustainable development; to enhance knowledge andunderstanding of issues relating to ecologicallysustainable development; and to encourage soundenvironmental practices to be adopted by state and localgovernment.

The commissioner has three key functions to undertakein delivering on its objectives. As set out in clause 8,the commissioner is to prepare a report on the state ofthe Victorian environment and conduct annual strategicaudits of the implementation of environmentalmanagement systems by agencies and publicauthorities. The commissioner will also conduct publiceducation programs that promote an understanding ofecologically sustainable development. Through theseprograms the commissioner will support state and localgovernment in implementing measures that encourageindustry and the community to adopt practices thatfacilitate ecologically sustainable development.

As the functions of the commissioner are proactive andfacilitative, the commissioner will not require powers toenter premises and seize information. It will beimportant that agencies and public authorities supportthe commissioner in the provision of information. Inthis respect, clause 9 provides for the commissioner tomake formal requests to agency and public authorityheads for information required to undertake thefunctions as set out in the bill.

The commissioner will also be able to establish areference group to provide advice on the undertaking ofits functions and may also appoint committees toprovide advice on specific matters.

In carrying out its functions the commissioner musthave regard to a set of principles including the need tointegrate economic, environmental and socialconsiderations, the need to add value, the need todevelop solutions and achieve improvement, and theneed to be impartial, open, transparent and accountable.These principles in clause 10 are strong principles thatthe government is promoting in all that it does.

This clause also sets out a process by which theresponsible minister may give specific directions to thecommissioner. It is envisaged that the commissionercould be asked to investigate and report on specificmatters that relate to ecologically sustainabledevelopment. Given that this investigatory role is not acore function of the commissioner, it is considered thatit will be used sparingly. Where specific directions aregiven, the responsible minister must also table thedirections in both houses of Parliament. This willensure that any directions are transparent.

The commissioner will be able to appoint its own staffunder clause 12 and engage consultants as necessaryunder clause 13.

Part 3 of the bill refers to the reports that thecommissioner is required to prepare as part of meetingthe functions set out in the bill.

One of the first roles that the commissioner will need toundertake once appointed will be to develop aframework for state-of-environment reporting inVictoria. In developing this framework thecommissioner will consult extensively with state andlocal government, industry and the community. It isexpected that the framework will identify the form andfrequency of the reports and a mechanism for review ofthe framework.

As set out in clause 17, the framework must beapproved by the responsible minister. Once approvedthe responsible minister has 10 sitting days to table acopy of the framework in both houses of Parliament.The minister is also required to tablestate-of-environment reports in both houses ofParliament within 10 sitting days of receiving reports.

Clause 18 sets out the requirements for preparingreports on the implementation of environmentmanagement systems by agencies and publicauthorities. This will include an analysis of the progressof agencies and public authorities in meeting objectivesand targets for implementation. In the first instance onlyagencies will be mandated to report on theirimplementation in their annual report. However, giventhat there are a number of public authorities that havevoluntarily implemented environment managementsystems, the commissioner will also be able tocomment on their progress as well.

The responsible minister is required to table the reporton environmental management systems in both housesof parliament within 10 sitting days of receiving thereport.

To ensure that the public has easy access to directionsgiven to the commissioner by the responsible ministerand the reports prepared under the bill, thecommissioner is required to publish them on theInternet.

In conclusion, this bill is evidence of the government’scommitment to facilitate a greater understanding, acrossall sections of the community, of ecologicallysustainable development and to promoting the adoptionof practices that encompass this approach.

FEDERAL AWARDS (UNIFORM SYSTEM) BILL


An important aspect to Victorians taking this approachand encouraging others to follow is through the greaterprovision of relevant information, such as thestate-of-environment reports. The government is alsoprepared to lead by example by implementingenvironmental management systems and opening up itsreporting on implementation to the scrutiny of thecommissioner.


Debate adjourned on motion of Mr THOMPSON(Sandringham).


FEDERAL AWARDS (UNIFORM SYSTEM)BILL

Second reading

Mr LENDERS (Minister for IndustrialRelations) — By leave, I move:


The Federal Awards (Uniform System) Bill has beendeveloped after a comprehensive process ofconsultation with employer groups, unions, employersand employees. The bill is an important step inestablishing a truly unitary system of industrial relationsin Victoria and will help restore the balance betweenthe rights of employees and employers that are notcovered by federal awards or agreements.

The bill represents a key part of this government’scommitment to fairness. Since 1996 the gap betweenconditions enjoyed by those employees protected byfederal awards or agreements and those underschedule 1A of the federal Workplace Relations Act1996 has steadily increased. The bill is designed toremove this artificial gap, and ensure that all Victoriansare entitled to similar minimum conditions ofemployment. This is good for employees, and it is goodfor employers.

In the face of a lack of commitment from the federalgovernment to reform the Workplace Relations Act,and on the recommendation of the independentindustrial relations task force, the Bracks governmentintroduced the Fair Employment Bill in November2000. As honourable members will recall, the billreceived significant support, not just from unions andcommunity groups but also from employer groups,such as the Victorian Automobile Chamber ofCommerce, the Housing Industry Association, the

Victorian Road Transport Association, and the MasterBuilders Association of Victoria.

Despite the significant level of support it attracted, thatbill was defeated in the Legislative Council.

The bill will ensure that Victoria operates under aunitary system of industrial relations. This attempt todevelop a unitary industrial relations systemunderpinned the 1996 referral of industrial relationspowers to the commonwealth, pursuant to theCommonwealth Powers (Industrial Relations) Act1996.

In 2000 the independent industrial relations task forceidentified over 561 000 employees who weresupposedly covered by the Workplace Relations Actbut were treated differently from other employees alsocovered by the act. These 561 000 employees, coveredby part XV and schedule 1A of the WorkplaceRelations Act, are only entitled to five basic conditionsof employment. Award employees, on the other hand,are entitled to a statutory 20 minimum conditions.

The schedule 1A category of employee is a result of theabolition of state awards by the Victorian Parliament in1992.

The bill will remove the artificial barrier between thosecovered by awards and those covered by schedule 1A.

The need for a unitary system

As members are aware, in 1996 the Victoriangovernment utilised section 51(37) of the AustralianConstitution to refer a limited number of industrialrelations matters to the commonwealth. Thisrepresented the first time any Australian state hadreferred an industrial relations power to thecommonwealth.

In November 1996 Victoria enacted theCommonwealth Powers (Industrial Relations) Act1996. This act then enabled the commonwealth tolegislate to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 toinclude specific provisions relating to Victoria.

At the time, the then shadow spokesperson and nowPremier, the Honourable Steve Bracks, said:

The Opposition supports in principle the concept of a singlenational system of industrial relations, and it always has. Itcan deliver benefits to both employees and employers bycreating a uniform national framework for dispute resolutionand the application of minimum employment standards thatcan be more easily complied with and enforced.

Despite the stated intentions behind the legislation, theCommonwealth Powers (Industrial Relations) Act 1996



did not see the establishment of a true unitary industrialrelations system. A true unitary system could only existif all Victorian employers and employees were subjectto the same rules, under the federal WorkplaceRelations Act. This clearly was not brought about bythe referral.

What the Commonwealth Powers (Industrial Relations)Act 1996 did was create a hybrid system. Victorianemployers and employees, previously subject to theEmployee Relations Act 1992, found themselves, from31 December 1996, subject to a discrete part of theWorkplace Relations Act 1996, part XV, as well asschedule 1A.

In its report published September 2000 the independentindustrial relations task force concluded that:

In practice and at law, the current system of industrialregulation in Victoria is not the unitary system as has beenadvocated by some parties. It is true to say though, that all ofVictoria operates under federal industrial law. But there aretwo completely different systems that operate for Victorianemployees and workplaces under this federal law. This hasbeen described as a dual system of industrial relations inVictoria.

Nor is the current system fair to employers andemployees. The work of the industrial relations taskforce exposed the disadvantage suffered byschedule 1A employees. Schedule 1A only operateswith respect to Victoria and ensures that schedule 1Aemployees have the worst minimum employmentstandards of any Australian employee.

Employers too have suffered as a result of the 1996referral. Schedule 1A employers have beendisadvantaged because they lack proper information ontheir rights and responsibilities under the act.

Federal award and agreement employers have beendisadvantaged because they have to compete againstemployers who may legally offer their employees lesserwages and conditions — that is, a policy premium isplaced on the so-called ‘race to the bottom’ for payingwages and conditions.

In 2000 the independent industrial relations task forcealso found that, while Victoria operated under asignificantly deregulated labour market after 1992,there has been no significant increase in jobs growthlevels or decrease in unemployment levels comparedwith the national average, or in relation to other states.This runs counter to the unresearched claims by somethat the deregulation of Victoria’s labour market hassomehow given us an advantage over other states.

In 1999 the Australian Labor Party went to theVictorian people with a firm commitment to reform thestate’s industrial relations system. Our policy stated inpart:

Labor supports a unitary national approach to industrialrelations and will make the demand of the federal governmentthat the Workplace Relations Act is made fair for all workers.This should include the re-establishment of national awardswith comprehensive standards.

Purpose of the bill

The main purpose of the bill is to refer to thecommonwealth Parliament a further matter relating toindustrial relations, and to empower the Victorian Civiland Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to make ordersapplying federal award conditions as common rules inVictoria.

The bill, in fact, has two stages:

Stage 1 involves a referral of further industrial relationspower to the commonwealth so it can legislate to applyfederal award standards (the 20 minimum conditions)to Victorian schedule 1A workers.

Stage 2 will be implemented if the commonwealthrefuses to legislate to adopt the proposed referredpower. It involves federal awards applying onapplication by common rule, under Victorianlegislation. In other words, stage 2 will only beimplemented if stage 1 fails due to a lack of cooperationon the part of the commonwealth.

I should take a little time to clearly articulate ourgovernment’s preferred approach under this legislation.The fairest, easiest and least complex approach is forthe commonwealth to accept Victoria’s referral of thecommon rule power. To do so would confirm thecommonwealth wants a true uniform industrial relationssystem in Victoria.

It is only if the commonwealth refuses the referral ofthe common rule power that the remaining provisionsin the legislation will be implemented.

Who does the bill apply to?

The Federal Awards (Uniform System) Bill will applyto persons whose wages and conditions of employmentare not covered by an award or agreement under thefederal Workplace Relations Act. In other words, thebill will only apply to employers and employeescovered by part XV and schedule 1A of the WorkplaceRelations Act.



There is a tendency, although an erroneous one, toassume that big business is covered by awards oragreements, whilst small business is award free.

One hundred and eighty-five thousand Victorianbusinesses with fewer than five employees are alreadycovered by a federal award. This represents over 39 percent of all businesses of that size. Fifty-seven per centof businesses with between 10 and 19 employees arecovered by a federal award, and this rises to 60 per centif you include those with both federal award andschedule 1A employees. Clearly, hundreds ofthousands of Victorian small businesses are alreadycovered by a federal award and/or a certifiedagreement.

The bill will have no direct impact on employers boundby a federal award or certified agreement. It should benoted, however, that the Australian Centre for IndustrialRelations Research and Training (ACIRRT), whichconducted research for the industrial relations taskforce, found that a number of Victorian workplacescontinued to operate under a mixture of regulatoryregimes. ACIRRT found that 2775 Victorianworkplaces were regulated by both federal awards oragreements and schedule 1A. Fourteen per cent ofworkplaces with between 20 and 99 employees hadboth federal award and schedule 1A coverage. Thoseworkplaces will benefit from this bill, as it willrationalise the industrial relations regimes they arecurrently subject to.

Also worthy of consideration are the conclusions of theindependent industrial relations task force that:

Victoria has, compared to other states, adisproportionately large low-wage sector.Low-income earners also tend to be concentrated insmall workplaces, in certain industries, and in ruraland regional parts of the state. The task forceidentified links between this low-wage sector andVictoria’s dual system of industrial relations.

Some 356 000 Victorian employees (approximately21 per cent of the Victorian labour force) rely almostentirely on schedule 1A of the Workplace RelationsAct 1996 for their conditions of employment.Schedule 1A employees have limited access tobenefits that are standard among federal awardemployees.

Approximately 235 000 Victorian employees receiveonly the minimum rates under industry sector orders.

The geographical differences in workplace minimumrates are also pronounced. For instance, innon-metropolitan workplaces 22 per cent of schedule

1A workplaces fall in the under-$10.50 wage bracketcompared with 8 per cent of workplaces with federalaward coverage.

When compared to standards and employmentconditions applying under federal awards and inother jurisdictions, employees who rely solely uponschedule 1A of the Workplace Relations Act 1996receive fewer conditions and entitlements than otheremployees. For instance:

no personal and carer’s leave or bereavementleave;

no entitlement to redundancy;

no entitlement to be paid for hours worked inexcess of 38 per week; and

sick leave benefits are prescribed at lower levelsin schedule 1A than they are in many federalawards.

Referral of power allowing VCAT to determinecommon-rule orders

The bill provides that VCAT may make a common ruleorder on application by the minister, a registeredorganisation, a peak body or an interested organisationin the relevant industry.

A common rule order is an order made by the VCAT,having the effect of binding all employers andemployees in the industry concerned. The orderestablishes and relates only to minimum terms andconditions of employment. It is not a code on otheremployment matters. A common rule order is limited tothe 20 allowable matters defined in section 89A of thefederal Workplace Relations Act 1996.

VCAT will make a common rule order in relation to aparticular industry if satisfied that there is an award inforce, and the award would be binding on an employeeif he or she were employed by an employer party to thataward. VCAT is also required to determine the mostappropriate award to apply, if more than one awardcovers the particular kind of work, subject to specifiedconditions.

VCAT may impose a condition, limitation or exceptionon a term or part of a term of an award in a commonrule order under certain circumstances. Thesecircumstances relate to the term not being relevant tothe employer/employee relationship or economicincapacity on the part of the employer.



Where the federal commission varies a term of anaward, the common rule order is varied accordinglywith effect from the end of 28 days after the date ofeffect of the variation of the award. Notification will begenerally provided to anyone bound by the commonrule order of a variation by the federal commission ofan award.

The party notified may lodge an objection to theproposed variation of the common rule order undercertain circumstances. The variation is not enforceableagainst the objector until determined by the VCAT.

Information and compliance

There are two arms for compliance under the bill, theprovision of information, and in certain circumstances,prosecutions for breach of the legislation.

In its report, the independent industrial relations taskforce identified a lack of information as a seriousproblem faced by employers and employees covered byschedule 1A. The taskforce report stated:

The issue of advice and education is important in dealing withschedule 1A workplaces. Employers in this sector are lesslikely to belong to an employer association at the same timeas employees are less likely to belong to a union. It is thisgroup of employers and employees on which the taskforcehas had to focus in developing more innovative ways ofdealing with employment issues. The needs of schedule 1Aemployers and employees may well be different to that ofmany federal award workplaces. For instance, the vastmajority of schedule 1A workplaces are categorised as small,the employees are generally less likely to be unionised, andthe employers are less likely to belong to an employerassociation, than is the case in federal award workplaces.

From the public consultations and submissions received bythe taskforce it is apparent that a new approach is needed toinformation and advice in this sector. There was a particularlevel of dissatisfaction with the current information providedthrough the Office of Workplace Services (the federaldepartment) by both employers and employees. A differentapproach is clearly needed to address the individual needs ofschedule 1A employers and employees. In summary,information and advisory services are critical to the success ofgood employment and industrial laws.

In 2001 Industrial Relations Victoria established aworkplace information unit. The unit provideseducational and information services to schedule 1Aemployers and employees. However, the bill provides amore comprehensive service.

In 1996, when Victoria referred most of its industrialrelations powers to the commonwealth, it also cededresponsibility for providing information andinspectorial services. The Victorian Wage Line servicewas abolished, and only a limited advisory servicerelating to long service leave was retained.

The bill provides for the appointment by the minister ofsuitably qualified information services officers. Theirprimary function is to provide information about theoperation of the legislation. They also have the functionof ensuring compliance with the legislation.

It is important to note that the powers andresponsibilities of the information services officers aresimilar to or no greater than those exercised bymembers of the federal Department of Employmentand Workplace Relations inspectorate.

Prosecutions, evidence and recovery of money

The industrial division of the Magistrates Court willhear prosecutions for breaching this legislation. Aprosecution for an offence may only be brought by aperson authorised by the minister, the secretary of thedepartment or another person in the departmentauthorised by the minister.

An employee who believes that they are owed moneymay take proceedings to recover money owing in theindustrial division of the Magistrates Court. Theproceedings must be started within six years after theentitlement arises. The court may charge interest on anymoney it finds the employee is entitled to.

Summary

The Federal Awards (Uniform System) Bill provides alogical step on the path to a truly unitary industrialrelations system. It is important to stress that the billdoes not represent the Fair Employment Bill under adifferent guise. The contrast between the two cannot bestarker. The Fair Employment Bill sought to establish anew Victorian industrial relations system, operatingseparately from the federal system.

What this new bill represents is an opportunity for allVictorian employers and employees to operate under acommon set of minimum conditions of employment,not the hybrid we have at the moment.

It will mean that a minority of Victorian employeeshave the same basic entitlements that are enjoyed by themajority, under the federal Workplace Relations Act,legislation that I need not remind you is enacted by thecurrent coalition government.

It will mean that for the first time since 1996 allVictorian employees will have an entitlement to enjoyconditions of employment that are fair and reasonable.

The bill also means that all Victorian employers operateon a level playing field. No longer will some employersbe able to undercut others, just by virtue of the fact they

CONTROL OF WEAPONS AND FIREARMS ACTS (SEARCH POWERS) BILL


are bound by a different section of the WorkplaceRelations Act. This will help ensure businessconfidence by providing consistent terms andconditions.

This bill represents the best opportunity this state hasever had to provide a fair unitary system of industrialrelations in Victoria.




CONTROL OF WEAPONS AND FIREARMSACTS (SEARCH POWERS) BILL

Second reading

Mr HAERMEYER (Minister for Police andEmergency Services) — By leave, I move:


This bill aims to improve safety, and the sense ofsafety, in the Victorian community by providing ourpolice with a greater capacity to search people fordangerous weapons and firearms. Through thisenhanced power, police will be better able to preventcrime by detecting weapons before such weapons areused in the commission of crimes. In addition, theincreased likelihood of detection should act as adeterrent to the carriage of weapons and complementthe government’s recently launched WeaponsCommunity Education Campaign, which seeks todiscourage the carriage of weapons, particularly amongyoung males.

Lowered search threshold

To achieve that end, the bill lowers the standard ofconviction required by a police member to justify asearch without warrant for prohibited or controlledweapons under the Control of Weapons Act 1990 andfirearms under the Firearms Act 1996 from reasonablegrounds for ‘belief’ to reasonable grounds for‘suspicion’ that an offence is being or is about to becommitted. The courts have held that ‘reasonablegrounds to believe’ is usually taken to mean somethingmore than ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’ in that‘belief’ connotes a higher standard of conviction than‘suspicion’.

The exercise of such search powers impinges upon theintegrity of individual persons and the possession oftheir property. For this reason, under both legislation

and the common law such powers are generally limitedto emergencies or dangerous situations. Therefore, animportant consideration in considering the lowering ofthe search threshold is whether the increased powersare justified in terms of the risk and gravity of thebehaviour sought to be prevented. This involvesstriking an appropriate balance between individualrights and the interests of the larger community.

Weapons-related offences in Victoria have risenalarmingly in the past six years. A weapon was used,threatened and/or displayed in an average of 14.2 percent of reported personal offences (including homicide,rape, robbery, assault and abduction) in 1996–97. Thisfigure had risen to 20.4 per cent of such cases in2000–01. This trend of increased weapon use and theproliferation of knives and other dangerous weapons inthe community is disturbing. The government isdetermined to tackle this problem and considers thatthis trend justifies the need to increase the police’scapacity to detect and remove weapons before anyoffence (other than carriage of the weapon itself) can becommitted.

The increased carriage and use of non-firearmsweapons has been the primary policy concern leadingto the introduction of these amendments. However, thegovernment considers that any reduction in thethreshold for searches without warrant under theControl of Weapons Act 1990 must be accompanied bya like amendment to the Firearms Act 1996. Therationale for this extension is not only for the sake ofconsistency but more importantly due to the potentialfor a firearm to cause significantly more injury anddeath than a non-firearms weapon.

The proposed change to ‘reasonable grounds forsuspicion’ will bring the threshold test in Victoria intoline with that adopted in comparable legislation in theUnited Kingdom and most other Australianjurisdictions. It will also make the standard ofconviction necessary to conduct a search for weaponsand firearms without warrant consistent with thatapplying to a search for drugs under Victoria’s ownDrugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981.

Additional safeguards

Given the intrusive nature of a search, the increasedsearch powers will also be accompanied by additionalsafeguards against the potential abuse of the increasedpowers at both an individual and organisational level.

A police member proposing to conduct a weaponssearch is currently required to:

CONTROL OF WEAPONS AND FIREARMS ACTS (SEARCH POWERS) BILL


inform the person of the grounds for his or her beliefjustifying the search; and

if requested, state, orally or in writing, his or hername, rank and place of duty.

In addition, the chief commissioner has issued detailedinstructions under section 17 of the Police RegulationAct 1958 on the conduct of searches, includingrecording, authorisation and other proceduralrequirements, in Victoria Police’s operating proceduresmanual.

The bill supplements or revises these existingsafeguards by:

making it mandatory for a police member to informthe person to be searched of his or her name, rankand place of duty in all cases regardless of whetheror not the information is requested;

requiring the member, if not in uniform, to provideevidence that he or she is a police member;

requiring the member to make a record of the searchas soon as practicable;

providing a right for a person searched to obtainwithout fee a copy of the police’s record of thesearch; and

requiring the Chief Commissioner of Police toprovide an annual report to the minister on thedetails of searches without warrant.

Besides providing an accountability measure on theexercise of the increased search powers, the annualreporting obligation will assist the government toevaluate the effectiveness of these reform measures.

In addition to the safeguards proposed for thelegislation, the bill amends both the control of weaponsand firearms acts to enable regulations to be madeprescribing:

the manner in which searches are to be conducted;and

record-keeping requirements upon the conduct ofsuch a search.

Examples of the procedural safeguards proposed underthe expanded regulation-making power include limitingthe power to direct the removal of items of clothing tocoats, jackets, hats and gloves and requiring thepresence of a nominated adult during the search of astudent in a school.

Complementary measures

To complement the revised search threshold, the billalso amends the threshold for a police member todemand production of a firearms licence to ‘reasonableground for suspicion’ that an offence against the act hasbeen or is about to be committed. It also introduces anew power under the Control of Weapons Act 1990 toenable police members to demand production of anapproval to carry a prohibited weapon where themember has reasonable grounds to suspect the person iscommitting a prohibited weapons offence. Failure tocomply with such a demand without reasonable excusewill be an offence with a maximum penalty of30 penalty units, which is the same maximum penaltyfor the offence of failing to produce a firearms licenceupon demand under the Firearms Act 1996.

The bill introduces a new power for police members todemand production of an article suspected of being aprohibited or controlled weapon or firearm detectedduring a search without warrant under the weapons andfirearms legislation respectively. The person beingsearched must be informed that it is an offence not tocomply with the request. This new demand power isdesigned to assist in minimising the intrusiveness of asearch and also protect the safety of the searchingpolice member. Failure to comply with such a demandwill be an offence attracting a maximum penalty of30 penalty units.

The bill also amends both the control of weapons andfirearms acts to make explicit that the presence of aperson in a location with a high incidence of violentcrime may be taken into account by a police member indetermining whether he or she has reasonable groundsto suspect the person is carrying a weapon. However, itshould be emphasised that, while this factor may be arelevant consideration in forming the necessaryconviction to justify a search, it will not in and of itselfbe sufficient to form reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Authorised natural resources and environmentofficers

The Firearms Act 1996 gives authorised naturalresources and environment officers the power to searchwithout warrant for firearms and demand production ofa firearms licence in circumstances connected with theirduties provided the necessary criteria are met. The billamends the search and demand production of licencepowers for these officers in an identical manner to theamendments to the police search powers that I havepreviously outlined.

SENTENCING (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL


In addition, the bill creates a new offence of hinderingor obstructing an authorised officer without reasonableexcuse in the exercise of his or her powers to search ordemand production of a licence with a maximumpenalty of 30 penalty units. This new offence isconsistent with recommendation 45 in theparliamentary Law Reform Committee’s recent reporton the powers of entry, search, seizure and questioningby authorised persons. Such a specific offence is notnecessary in relation to hindering or obstructing policemembers in exercising their powers to search ordemand licence production as the general offence ofhindering or obstructing a police member in theperformance of his or her duties under section 52 of theSummary Offences Act 1966 already applies.

Extension of the Control of Weapons Act searchpowers to non-government schools

Under the Control of Weapons Act 1990 searcheswithout warrant can only be conducted in a public placeas defined in the Summary Offences Act 1966. Thisdoes not include non-government schools. This createsthe anomalous situation where searches can beconducted in government schools (where the principalauthorised the police to enter), but not innon-government schools. To address this anomaly, adefinition of ‘non-government school’ has beenincluded in the bill. This allows for the police toexercise their increased search powers in anon-government school (once the principal hasauthorised their entry in line with current protocols), butdoes not undermine non-government schools’ status asprivate places.

Metal detectors

This bill also complements Victoria Police’s recentacquisition of 420 metal detectors for use in everypolice station and criminal investigation unit across thestate.

One of the government’s election commitments was toensure that Victoria’s police officers are thebest-equipped serving officers throughout Australia.Part of that commitment included the supply of metaldetectors to search for knives. The governmentdelivered on that commitment in the 2000–01 budgetwhere it committed $12 million over five years for apackage of personal issue and operational safetyequipment, including the acquisition of these metaldetectors.

Weapon searches conducted with metal detectors havetwo potentially significant advantages:

first, as they do not involve physical contact with asuspect, they are safer for the searching policeofficers; and

second, as no physical contact is made with theperson being searched, this form of search is lessinvasive than an initial pat search or full search.

The passage of this bill with its increased search powerswill facilitate the use of this new equipment across thestate.

Conclusion

This bill is an important element in the government’sstrategy to tackle the prevalence of dangerous weaponsin the community. Together with the provision of metaldetectors and the recent launch of the weaponscommunity education campaign, this legislation formsa comprehensive package of measures aimed atpreventing weapons-related crime and improvingcommunity safety for all Victorians.


Debate adjourned on motion of Mr WELLS (Wantirna).


SENTENCING (FURTHER AMENDMENT)BILL

Second reading

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — By leave, Imove:


The Sentencing (Further Amendment) Bill 2002reflects this government’s commitment to deliverimproved justice services to the Victorian community,with the introduction of guideline judgments and theestablishment of a Sentencing Advisory Council.

These two major reforms will modernise the criminaljustice system and ensure that it is more responsive andbetter informed about community views on sentencingissues.

Sentencing is one of the most visible and public aspectsof the criminal justice system and is at times the subjectof community disquiet. In response to communityconcern about sentencing, in October 2000 thisgovernment commissioned Professor Arie Freiberg ofthe University of Melbourne to conduct a review ofVictoria’s sentencing laws and to consider ways in

SENTENCING (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL


which informed community input could beincorporated into the sentencing process.

Professor Freiberg prepared a sentencing reviewdiscussion paper, which was released for the purpose ofpublic comment on 13 August 2001. Following aperiod of extensive public consultation, ProfessorFreiberg prepared a final report, Pathways to Justice —Sentencing Review 2002.

Sentencing is a highly complex task. The SentencingAct 1991 sets out the five basic purposes for which acourt may impose a sentence, namely, punishment,deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protectionof the community. In sentencing an offender, a courtmust also have regard to a range of matters, such as theseriousness of the offence, the personal circumstancesof the victim and the offender’s culpability. Asentencing court must consider all of these matters andbalance the interests of the community in denouncingcriminal conduct with the interests of the community inseeking to ensure that, as far as possible, offenders canbe rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. In eachcase the court must formulate a just sentence havingregard to all of the relevant evidence.

Sentencing cannot be reduced to a simplistic formula.To do so, would lead to error and injustice.

The courts are uniquely placed to deliver justice byapplying the law fairly and consistently to theindividual circumstances of each case. It is vital that thecourts are supported in this difficult and important role.

Sentencing Advisory Council

The establishment of a Sentencing Advisory Councilwill allow properly ascertained and informed publicopinion to be taken into account in the criminal justicesystem on a permanent and formal basis.

Functions of the council

The bill sets out the functions of the council. Thecouncil’s functions will include providing written viewsto the Court of Appeal in relation to guidelinejudgments, providing statistical information onsentencing to members of the judiciary and others andconducting research and disseminating information onsentencing. The council will also gauge public opinionon sentencing, consult on sentencing matters withmembers of the general public and advise theAttorney-General on sentencing issues.

The council will promote greater transparency andaccountability in the criminal justice system andstimulate balanced public debate on sentencing issues.

Structure of the council

The bill outlines the structure of the council. One of thekey features of the council’s structure is its broadmembership. The governing body of the council will bea board consisting of 9 to 12 directors appointed by theGovernor in Council on the nomination of theAttorney-General. The directors of the board willinclude persons who have broad experience incommunity issues affecting the courts, persons withexperience in issues affecting victims of crime, andpersons with experience in both the defence andprosecution of criminal offences. At least one directorof the board will also have an academic background.

This balanced membership will facilitate broadcommunity input into the activities of the council.Importantly, the composition of the board will ensurethat the justice system is informed by the views andexperience of the community.

The council will have a chief executive officer and staffto support the work of the council on a day-to-daybasis.

Accountability

Whilst it is critical that the council is independent, likeall modern statutory corporations it must also be subjectto appropriate levels of accountability. Accordingly, thebill contains a number of mechanisms to ensure theaccountability of the council in relation to its operationsand expenditure. For instance the bill provides that thecouncil must comply with a lawful requirement madeby Parliament for information concerning theperformance of its functions, the exercise of its powersor its expenditure.

Guideline judgments

The bill empowers the Court of Appeal to giveguideline judgments. The bill defines a guidelinejudgment to mean a judgment that is expressed tocontain guidelines to be considered by courts insentencing offenders. In essence, guideline judgmentsare judgments which go beyond the facts of anindividual case before the court to deal with variationsof the offence and suggest relevant sentencingconsiderations.

Power of the Court of Appeal to give a guidelinejudgment

The bill provides that, on hearing an appeal againstsentence, the Court of Appeal may consider whether togive or review a guideline judgment. This may be doneon the court’s own initiative or on the application of a

CRIMES (PROPERTY DAMAGE AND COMPUTER OFFENCES) BILL


party to the appeal. The Court of Appeal may give aguideline judgment even if it is not necessary for thepurpose of determining any appeal in which thejudgment is given. This gives the Court of Appeal theflexibility to deliver a guideline judgment outside thecontext of an individual case.

Content of a guideline judgment

The bill sets out a range of matters that may be includedin a guideline judgment, such as the criteria to beapplied by sentencing courts in selecting among thevarious sentencing alternatives, the criteria by whichthe sentencing court is to determine the seriousness ofan offence and the weighting to be given to relevantcriteria.

Procedural requirements

The bill provides that where the Court of Appealintends to give or review a guideline judgment it mustnotify the Sentencing Advisory Council and give thecouncil an opportunity to provide written views to thecourt within a specified time period. The court mustalso give the Director of Public Prosecutions and a legalpractitioner representing Victoria Legal Aid anopportunity to appear before the court and makesubmissions.

Matters to which the Court of Appeal must haveregard

The bill respects and promotes the principles of judicialdiscretion and judicial independence. Accordingly, thecontent of a guideline judgment is a matter to bedetermined by the Court of Appeal in accordance withthe principles contained in the Sentencing Act 1991.However, in giving or reviewing a guideline judgment,the bill provides that the Court of Appeal must haveregard to —

the need to promote consistency of approach insentencing offenders;

the need to promote public confidence in thecriminal justice system; and

any views of the Sentencing Advisory Council or alegal practitioner who makes a submission.

These requirements recognise the need for the criminaljustice system to be responsive, representative,transparent and accountable. Significantly, the Court ofAppeal will be assisted in its difficult task by the viewsof the Sentencing Advisory Council.

Consistency

Guideline judgments provide a mechanism to promotegreater consistency of approach in sentencing.Guideline judgments can also provide an opportunityfor appeal judges to share their collective experiencewith primary judges and articulate unifying principlesto guide the exercise of judicial discretion.

The introduction of guideline judgments in Victoriawill allow an appropriate balance to be struck betweenthe broad discretion of the judiciary to take theindividual circumstances of each case into account andthe desirability of consistency in sentencing.Importantly, guideline judgments are consistent withthe nature of the existing appellate process, wherebydecisions of the Court of Appeal guide the decisions oflower courts.

The principle that like cases be treated alike isfundamental to the fair operation of our justice system.Consistent with this principle is the ability of judges toexercise their discretion to fix a just sentence accordingto the individual circumstances of the case before himor her. The introduction of guideline judgmentsconforms with these fundamental principles.

The government is committed to providing improvedjustice services to the Victorian community andenhancing public confidence in the justice system. Theestablishment of a Sentencing Advisory Council andthe introduction of guideline judgments are major stepstowards delivering this commitment.




CRIMES (PROPERTY DAMAGE ANDCOMPUTER OFFENCES) BILL

Second reading

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — By leave, Imove:


Victoria faces difficult challenges to ensure that thecriminal law is adequately equipped to deal with newand emerging types of crime. The Crimes (PropertyDamage and Computer Offences) Bill will introduce anew range of criminal offences to help ensure thatVictoria is prepared to meet these challenges.



The bill reflects the government’s determination toprovide a modern and effective Victorian criminaljustice system. The government is committed toproviding safe streets, homes and workplaces for theVictorian community.

The bill will introduce the following new offences intothe Crimes Act 1958:

a bushfire offence directed at those individuals whointentionally or recklessly cause a fire and who arereckless as to the spread of the fire to vegetation onproperty belonging to another person;

computer offences directed at individuals whoimpair the security, integrity and reliability ofcomputer data and electronic communications; and

sabotage offences directed at individuals whodamage publicly or privately owned public facilities,with the intention of causing major disruption togovernment functions or public services or majoreconomic loss.

The new offences are based on the model provisionscontained in the model criminal code report entitledDamage and Computer Offences, which was publishedin January 2001.

The model offences establish the framework for acoordinated and uniform national approach to theseserious crimes. There is national agreement toimplement the model offences:

at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-Generalmeeting in March 2002 all jurisdictions agreed tointroduce the model bushfire offence;

at the leaders summit agreement on terrorism andmultijurisdictional crime in April 2002 alljurisdictions agreed to introduce the model computeroffences in 2002. Introducing the model sabotageoffences is also consistent with this agreement.

This bill will implement Victoria’s commitment tointroduce the model offences and will ensure that thereis a comprehensive and consistent response acrossAustralia.

Bushfire offence

Every year Victorians are threatened with thepossibility of bushfires spreading out of control. Thesefires can endanger life and property and causesignificant damage to the environment. This billrecognises these potentially devastating effects byintroducing a new bushfire offence into the Crimes Act.

While Victoria already has a range of offences coveringthe destruction of property by fire and lighting fires,these offences do not deal with the situation where aperson recklessly creates the risk of a fire spreadinguncontrollably to vegetation belonging to another.

The new offence will focus on people who create therisk of the spread of fire, rather than the infliction ofactual harm. The offence will target people whointentionally or recklessly cause a fire and who arereckless as to the spread of the fire to vegetation onproperty belonging to another person. The offence willprovide a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment,which is equivalent to the existing offence of arson.

However, persons who create the risk of a fire, wherethere are legitimate reasons to do so, will not be liable.The bill specifies that a person will not be reckless as tothe spread of fire where the person:

carries out fire prevention, fire suppression or otherland management activity;

in accordance with a provision made by or under anact or by a code of practice approved under an act;and

they believe that their conduct in carrying out thatactivity was justified having regard to all of thecircumstances.

While unfortunately it may not be possible to stop allbushfires from occurring, this offence is an importantstep towards preventing unnecessary fires that occurbecause of the intentional or reckless conduct ofindividuals. The bushfire offence will help to deterthese avoidable fires by ensuring that the full force ofthe law will be brought to bear on these offenders.

The bill will also amend the Bail Act 1977 to includethe offence of arson causing death in the list ofshow-cause offences in that act. This will require acourt to refuse bail where an accused is charged witharson causing death, unless the person can show causewhy bail should be granted.

Arson causing death is an extremely serious offencecarrying a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment.A person should not be able to receive bail for such aserious offence unless they can show cause why itwould be appropriate.

The offence of arson causing death will now be treatedin the same way as other serious show-cause offencessuch as aggravated burglary or stalking (where violenceis used or threatened against the person stalked).



Computer offences

Victorians are among the earliest adopters of newtechnology and this government has taken an activeapproach towards growing information andcommunication technologies and sharing the benefits ofsuch technologies across the entire Victoriancommunity. World-class information andcommunication technology companies have beendeveloped and nurtured — right here in Victoria.

However, as a result of this huge growth in the Internetpopulation and in electronic commerce, the integrityand security of computer data and electroniccommunications has become increasingly important.Cybercrime activities, including hacking, viruspropagation and web site vandalism pose a significantthreat to computer systems.

This bill recognises our growing reliance uponcomputers and as a result introduces seven newoffences to ensure that the Victorian criminal laws areadequate to deal with the latest advances in computertechnology. These laws will ensure that we cancontinue to nurture and share the benefit of technologywithin our state.

The main Victorian offence currently dealing with thistype of conduct is section 9A of the Summary OffencesAct 1966. Section 9A prohibits gaining access to, orentering, a computer system or part of a computersystem without lawful authority. This offence is badlyoutdated and does not adequately cover newopportunities and avenues for the commission ofcomputer crime.

Section 9A will therefore be repealed and replaced withthe new computer offences which will be inserted intothe Crimes Act. While section 9A is directed solely atunlawful access to a computer system, the new offenceswill cover a much wider range of conduct, includingunauthorised modification or impairment of data.

The first new offence in the bill will prohibit a personfrom causing an unauthorised computer function. Theperson must know that the function is unauthorised andhave the intention of committing a serious offence orfacilitating the commission of a serious offence. Thisoffence is particularly targeted at situations where theperson takes action to prepare to commit anotheroffence, such as obtaining property by deception, butthe intended offence is not committed. This offence ispunishable by the maximum penalty equal to themaximum penalty for the offence intended.

The second offence is directed at persons causing anyunauthorised modification of data in a computer. The

person must know that the modification isunauthorised, and intend to impair access to, or thereliability, security or operation of, any data held in acomputer or be reckless as to any such impairment. Theoffence will not require that data impairment actuallyoccur and will cover a range of situations where:

a hacker obtains unauthorised access and modifiesdata to cause impairment; and

a person circulates a disk containing a computervirus that infects a computer.

The offence is punishable by a maximum penalty of10 years imprisonment.

The third offence will prohibit causing an unauthorisedimpairment of electronic communications to or from acomputer. The person must know that the impairment isunauthorised, and intend to impair electroniccommunications or be reckless as to any suchimpairment. This offence is particularly designed toprohibit tactics such as denial of service attacks, wherea web site is inundated with a large volume ofunwanted messages thus crashing the computer server.The offence is punishable by a maximum penalty of10 years imprisonment.

The fourth offence will prohibit possessing orcontrolling data with the intention of committing orfacilitating the commission of a serious computeroffence by that person or another person. This offenceis akin to offences such as going equipped for stealing,although the offence will extend beyond cases wherethe data is in the physical possession of the offender tosituations where the data is in the offender’s controleven though it is in the possession of another person.The offence is punishable by a maximum penalty ofthree years imprisonment.

The fifth offence will prohibit producing, supplying orobtaining data with the intention of committing orfacilitating the commission of a serious computeroffence. The offence is designed to prohibit devising,propagating or publishing computer programs whichare intended for use in the commission of a seriouscomputer offence. The offence is punishable by amaximum penalty of three years imprisonment.

The sixth offence will prohibit causing unauthorisedaccess to, or modification of, restricted data held in acomputer. The person must know that the access ormodification is unauthorised and intend to cause theaccess or modification. Restricted data is data that isprotected by a password or other security feature. Sincethe offence is limited to restricted data, the offence willnot apply to innocuous conduct such as using another’s

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT VICTORIA BILL


computer game without permission. This offence ispunishable by a maximum penalty of two yearsimprisonment.

The final offence will prohibit causing anyunauthorised impairment of the reliability, security oroperation of any data held on a computer disk, creditcard or other device used to store data by electronicmeans. The person must know that the impairment isunauthorised and intend to cause the impairment. Theoffence is a less serious version of the offence ofunauthorised modification of data to cause impairment.The offence will apply to data stored electronically ondisks, credit cards, tokens or tickets, while the moreserious offence is confined to ‘data held in a computer’.This offence is also punishable by a maximum penaltyof two years imprisonment.

All of these offences will be supported by extendedextraterritorial jurisdiction in recognition of the realitythat computer crime may often operate across state andterritory borders. This means that the offences willapply not only to crimes committed wholly withinVictoria, but also in appropriate cases where either theconduct which comprises the offence or the targetcomputer that is harmed is located outside Victoria.

The model offences adopted in the bill reflect thecombined wisdom of computer experts, experts incriminal law and academics from around Australia. Thebill has utilised the world’s best experience in theformulation of such legislation and will positionVictoria to keep ahead of the perpetrators of computercrime. The bill will also continue to allow e-commerceto continue to flourish in Victoria so that people cantransact their business confident that the Victoriancriminal law is also up to the challenge.

Sabotage offences

Tragically, as a result of recent world events, thegovernment has a responsibility to ensure thatVictoria’s criminal laws are properly equipped torespond to all forms of terrorist conduct. This is aresponsibility that this government takes very seriously.

Victoria currently has a number of offences aimed atthose who cause damage to property. However, theseoffences are ill equipped to deal with conduct which isdirected at the government or the community at largeand which has the potential to cause massive damageand disruption to public services and facilities.

This bill creates new offences of sabotage andthreatening sabotage to fill this gap in Victorian law.The offences provide for more severe maximum

penalties in recognition of the seriousness of theconduct involved.

The new sabotage offence is directed at individualswho damage a public facility by committing a propertyoffence (such as destroying or damaging property) orby causing an unauthorised computer function, with theintention of causing:

major disruption to government functions;

major disruption to the use of services by the public;or

major economic loss.

The offence is punishable by a maximum penalty of25 years imprisonment, which reflects the gravity of theoffence involved. It will not be necessary to prove thatthe actual damage caused involved major disruption oreconomic loss.

The offence of threatening sabotage is punishable by amaximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.

The government is committed to providing a modernand effective criminal justice system that meets theneeds of the 21st century. The new offences in this billwill help to ensure that the Victorian criminal laweffectively responds to those who start bushfires, carryout sabotage of public facilities and commit computercrimes.




REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT VICTORIABILL

Second reading

Mr BRUMBY (Minister for State and RegionalDevelopment) — By leave, I move:


Honourable Acting Speaker, it is with great pride that Iintroduce the Regional Development Victoria Bill intothe house today, because this bill is testament to theBracks government’s commitment to rebuilding ruraland regional Victoria.

This bill is further proof of the Bracks government’sdetermination to put rural and regional Victoria at the



centre of our decision making, at the core of oureconomic policies and at the very heart of our drive totake Victoria forward as a thriving and innovativeeconomy.

We are making sure that the people in rural andregional Victoria get the investment and opportunitiesthat they need to look to the future with confidence.

Jobs; health; education; innovation and IT; localgovernment; road and rail transport.

In all these areas, for the first time in many years we aremaking the investments, building the infrastructure anddelivering the services that people in country Victoriawant and need.

I am proud to be part of a government that understandsthe importance of sharing the benefits of economicgrowth across the whole state.

I am proud to be part of a government that recognisesthe necessity for exciting new projects like the regionalfast rail links and the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline.

And I am proud to be part of a government thatappreciates Victoria cannot go forward if we do notfind the means to generate even more new jobs andopportunities right across the state, and connect and linkrural and regional Victoria to each other, to Melbourneand to the world.

These are big tasks — and they are not always easytasks, but they are tasks this government has taken on,working alongside the people, businesses and councilsof country Victoria.

Much has already been achieved. Much more is tocome. And there is still a lot to be done.

It requires commitment, coordination and a constantfocus on the people, communities and industries outsidemetropolitan Melbourne.

That is why the government is proposing legislation toestablish Regional Development Victoria — the veryfirst time in our history that country Victoria will have adedicated body with a specific role to facilitate thecoordinated delivery of government programs, servicesand resources in rural and regional Victoria.

Regional Development Victoria will be a practical,no-nonsense body that gets on with the job, workingalongside local councils to put projects on the groundand create local jobs.

Back in the 1970s the state government of the dayreleased a 10-point plan that promised a similar

regional advisory body, but it was never delivered —indeed, it was never even considered by the previousstate government.

These sorts of bodies are commonplace overseas,including the United Kingdom, and if we are seriousabout competing for a fair share of investment forcountry Victoria we must use the best tools, the bestpractice and the best ideas available.

This bill will lead the way in Australia when it comes toregional development.

Since coming to office in 1999 the Bracks governmenthas worked towards a vision of Victoria in which everypart of the state contributes to our growth — and sharesin that growth.

And we have seen strong and solid progress inrebuilding country Victoria.

Building approvals are at record levels, reaching$2.7 billion in the last financial year compared to$1.7 billion in 1998–99 — a phenomenal growthrate of nearly 60 per cent in the three years theBracks government has been in office.

Regional exports are increasing, with food and fibreexports reaching $7.6 billion last year — up by amassive 43 per cent over the past two years. Thisgrowth puts Victoria well on track towards our targetof $12 billion of food and fibre exports by 2010 andis proof that country Victoria can compete withanyone in the world.

The Bracks government has facilitated and attractednew investment of almost $1.5 billion in countryVictoria — working together with regionalbusinesses to explore new markets, develop newproducts and increase exports.

Our pro-business approach, our commitment towinning investment and creating jobs has delivered:

businesses like Sage Computer Support inGippsland, which now employs 50 staff and pays outmore than $2 million in wages each year inGippsland;

businesses like Murray Goulburn Co-operative, withits major new investment in Koroit, with total salesof around $2 billion and exports of more than400 000 tonnes of dairy products;

businesses like Pasta Master in Bendigo, Alstom inBallarat, Kooka’s Country Cookies in Donald, VisyIndustries in Wodonga;



businesses big and small — working alongside ourfarmers and primary producers — contributing toprosperity in country Victoria and mixing itsuccessfully with the rest of the world.

The government has also backed innovation andagricultural research in country Victoria with majornew initiatives to promote innovation and research, andto improve skills and business management.

We have invested $50 million in creating modernscience, innovation and education precincts atEllinbank, Tatura, Horsham and Mildura and institutesat Hamilton, and modernised facilities at Bendigo,Kyabram and Rutherglen. In addition, we haveprovided a further $25 million in funding for projects incountry Victoria under the government’s science,technology and innovation program.

More generally, through the Regional InfrastructureDevelopment Fund we have allocated nearly$96 million to 54 projects throughout regional Victoriawith a value of more than $218 million.

And we have not been afraid to take on the big issuesthat should have been tackled years and years ago.

Through the work of the Latrobe Valley task force weare providing more than $105 million to boost businessand community confidence and improve economic andsocial opportunities for those most disadvantaged in theLatrobe Valley.

There is no shortage of talent, ideas, determination andcourage in country Victoria.

The difference is that now, at last, Victoria has agovernment ready and willing to back that talent and toencourage and support those ideas.

From massive undertakings like the regional fast raillinks to projects that help small country towns carve outnew opportunities for themselves, this government hasgone out and worked with rural and regionalcommunities to try and give them what they need andwant.

Unlike our predecessors, this government has notwalked away from its responsibility to countryVictoria — and that can be seen very clearly when youlook at employment growth in rural Victoria.

In country Victoria the average unemployment rateover the last 12 months has been 6.3 per cent — twopercentage points lower than for the year to October1999.

In absolute terms the unemployment rate is currently5.4 per cent — the lowest in more than a decade.

This translates to more than 45 000 new jobs createdin country Victoria over the past three years.

The government’s decisions to relocate the StateRevenue Office to Ballarat and the Rural FinanceCorporation to Bendigo have helped this strong growth.

Three years ago morale in country Victoria was low asinfrastructure was either closed down or run down.

Over our first three budgets we have invested more than$2 billion in raw infrastructure, more than doubling thelevels of infrastructure spending made under the formergovernment.

Hospitals and aged care services are beingredeveloped and upgraded.

New schools are being built — and existing schoolsare being modernised.

Old and run-down police stations in country townsare being replaced.

Community halls are being rebuilt and restored.

Regional rail lines are being reopened.

Over the coming decade country Victoria will be evenfurther transformed:

the rail freight system will be standardised for thefirst time in Victoria’s history — and there will bebetter access for regional exporters to our ports;

the Melbourne showgrounds will be reinvigoratedwith over $100 million invested to showcase the bestof country Victoria;

the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline will be built;

environmental flows will be restored in our greatrivers — the Snowy, the Murray, the Glenelg and theWimmera;

there will be fast rail links to our provincial centresand beyond;

our country roads network will be the best inAustralia;

we will lead the nation in Internet access andcommunication connections in regional areas;

and our dairy and barley markets will be thriving andour food and fibre export targets achieved.



Over the last three years we have taken a partnershipapproach with the people and communities of rural andregional Victoria to make them part of a better, fairer,more prosperous state.

Right around the state people have come along to ourregional community cabinets, to the rural and regionalmayors summits and to forums about the future of theirparticular region or town — and spoken up about whatthey want for their communities.

One consistent theme coming out of those forums wasthe need for better coordination across government onregional matters.

This bill today addresses that issue — and it is proofagain that we are a government that consults, thatlistens and then gets on with the job.

This bill creates a new statutory body that will work inpartnership with regional Victorian communities,business and all levels of government to attract newinvestment and generate jobs.

Regional Development Victoria will ensure there is astrong and coordinated focus on regional Victoriaacross all state government programs, services andresources.

It will help regional Victoria boost its competitivestrengths — the strengths that are so vital to competingin world markets and generating export opportunities.

Regional Development Victoria will facilitateinfrastructure projects that build on regional strengthsand provide scope for new business activity and publicand private sector cooperation. And it will help planand build the social infrastructure necessary tocomplement economic growth and create strong,thriving communities.

When we won office we set out to ensure rural andregional Victoria won a bigger slice of the action — notjust a few crumbs now and again, but in everything thisgovernment does, and in every budget we deliver.

We have met that commitment and we have shown theleadership and taken the responsibility to give rural andregional Victoria a voice — and a future.

We have put rural and regional issues back where theybelong — at the heart of government.

Purpose of the bill

The bill:

creates Regional Development Victoria as astatutory body;

defines its role to facilitate economic and communitydevelopment in rural and regional Victoria;

provides for a chief executive; and

creates an advisory committee.

The primary purpose of Regional DevelopmentVictoria is to facilitate economic and communitydevelopment in rural and regional Victoria. Its principalfunctions are to:

facilitate new investment in rural and regionalVictoria;

facilitate the operation and growth of existingbusinesses in rural and regional Victoria;

facilitate the creation of jobs within the private andpublic sectors in rural and regional Victoria;

propose rural and regional infrastructuredevelopment opportunities.

It will be required to facilitate the coordinated deliveryof government programs, services and resources inrural and regional Victoria and to facilitate consultationbetween governments at all levels, business andcommunity organisations.

It will report to the minister on the state of rural andregional Victoria having regard to economic, social andenvironmental matters.

The bill provides for a chief executive to be appointedby Governor in Council.

The chief executive reports to the minister and isrequired to advise on the development andimplementation of economic and communitydevelopment policy for rural and regional Victoria.

On matters relating to the general conduct andmanagement of Regional Development Victoria thechief executive is responsible to the secretary of theDepartment of Innovation, Industry and RegionalDevelopment.

Regional Development Victoria’s role

Regional development must involve an integrated effortbetween those who promote economic development,



those who build community capacity, those who planand build physical infrastructure and those who deliverservices.

It also involves a special partnership with localgovernment.

Regional Development Victoria will lead thiscoordinated effort.

It will deliver the government’s commitment togenerate jobs within both the public and private sectorsin country Victoria.

It will work to ensure infrastructure development incountry Victoria.

It will smooth the way for projects that enhance theeconomic and social wellbeing of country Victoria andadminister money paid out of the RegionalInfrastructure Development Fund Act 1999.

It will work in partnership with all tiers of governmentto improve government planning and policy for countryVictoria.

And it will promote country Victoria as a great place tolive, work, invest and visit.

Regional Development Victoria will be resourced todeliver the range of programs that will make adifference to rural and regional Victoria.

The bill provides that staff transferred, seconded orassigned work in Regional Development Victoria willcontinue to be employed under part 3 of the PublicSector Management and Employment Act 1998. It isintended that staff from the Department of Innovation,Industry and Regional Development will be transferredto the new body to coincide with its establishment.

Staff will be drawn from the following areas: thoseadministering the Regional Infrastructure DevelopmentFund, regional industry specialists, the regional networkof staff located throughout the state, the Office of RuralCommunities and regional policy groups.

The advisory committee

The bill also establishes a Regional DevelopmentAdvisory Committee to advise the government onmatters relating to economic and communitydevelopment in country Victoria.

The advisory committee will also play a major role inpromoting rural and regional Victoria.

Members of the committee must come from rural andregional Victoria and they will have between themskills and knowledge in economic development,community development, finance and marketing.

The committee will build on the partnerships thegovernment has developed with business, localgovernment and the community — and it reflects, onceagain, our determination to achieve even greater thingsfor country Victoria.

The bill provides that the minister’s power of directionextends to the nine interface councils that are specifiedin the bill — namely, Cardinia shire, Hume city,Mornington Peninsula shire, Whittlesea city, YarraRanges shire, Casey city, Melton shire, Nillumbik shireand Wyndham city.

Interface councils are those that have significant ruralareas within their boundaries.

We now have a number of regions across the state withboth urban and rural areas — and we face a challengein getting the right mix of services and infrastructureinto those areas.

There is a tendency to steer resources into the moreheavily populated areas — often to the detriment ofsmaller towns and communities.

So it is particularly important that RegionalDevelopment Victoria will focus on specific rural andregional issues within the boundaries of those ninecouncils.

When the Bracks government came to office we saidwe would do a number of things to boost economicdevelopment in country Victoria.

The first was to create the Regional InfrastructureDevelopment Fund. We did set up that fund, and it hasbeen a spectacular success.

We said we would create a new Office of RuralCommunities — and we did.

We said we would strengthen the regional officenetwork and ensure its expansion into smaller ruralcommunities — and we did.

We promised to abolish the catchment managementauthority tax — and we did.

We said we would abolish compulsory competitivetendering — and we did.

We said we would place a significant emphasis onindustry sectors that have particular relevance to rural

ADJOURNMENT


and regional Victoria — and we did, delivering jobsand investment to the regions.

This bill represents the next step. It is another first forthis state — a dedicated body for rural and regionalVictoria.

When this bill becomes law, Regional DevelopmentVictoria will review more fully the findings from thegovernment’s series of consultations held throughoutrural and regional Victoria. As a priority it will berequired to advise on further action required to deliveron our commitment to regional Victoria. In doing so, itwill have regard to economic, social and environmentalissues.

It will adopt a whole-of-government, coordinated andcollaborative approach.

When this bill becomes law, Regional DevelopmentVictoria will also turn its attention to the extension ofnatural gas into regional Victoria.

During the last five years there have been very few gasextensions to the reticulated system.

This new body will have a specific role to help councilsbuild a business case to attract investment from gasdistributors — something that will be of enormousbenefit to country consumers and regional businesses.

This is a priority for the government, and it is a goodexample of how Regional Development Victoria willfocus on the needs of country Victoria and thencoordinate action to ensure priority projects aredelivered.

And it will not be doing it alone.

This bill recognises the hard work, talent andcommitment of so many people, organisations andbusinesses in rural and regional areas — and itrepresents the next step in a strong and ongoingpartnership between country Victoria and the Bracksgovernment.

The establishment of Regional Development Victoriawill deliver real and lasting benefits to the people ofrural and regional Victoria — and it deserves thesupport of all members of this house.


Debate adjourned on motion of Dr NAPTHINE(Portland).


Remaining business postponed on motion ofMr BRUMBY (Minister for State and RegionalDevelopment).

ADJOURNMENT

Mr BRUMBY (Minister for State and RegionalDevelopment) —

That the house do now adjourn.

Brimbank: levy

Mr LUPTON (Knox) — On 7 May I called uponthe Minister for Local Government to conduct anurgent investigation into the City of Brimbank inrelation to special charges payable to the St AlbansBusiness Group. The minister wrote back to me on5 June and indicated that everything was hunky-doryand the money was all going to be released. On 28 Junethe mayor wrote to the association indicating there weresome outstanding matters and called for an independentauditor, despite the fact that the same auditor had beenauditing the books for some years.

On 31 July Mr Foster, the coordinator of organisationsupport for the City of Brimbank, wrote to the sameorganisation repeating the statements made in the letterto the mayor. On the very same day an independentauditor advised that he would be able to perform theduties of the auditor but required an extension of timebecause of the end of the financial year. That was faxedto the council on 1 August. On 13 August the St AlbansBusiness Association advised Mr Foster that it had notreceived a response to the fax of 1 August. On the sameday the City of Brimbank cancelled the contractbetween it and the St Albans Business Association.

What has happened is that the St Albans BusinessAssociation has an amount of, I am advised, somethinglike $70 000 in the coffers of the City of Brimbank. TheBrimbank City Council is refusing to release thatmoney to the St Albans Business Association so it cancontinue to look after the local business association.

The council has a bad stench to it over a number ofmatters, and this matter is only making things worse.Will the minister again have a look at this and call anurgent investigation into the City of Brimbank and thehandling of matters in relation to the St AlbansBusiness Association and the levies imposed upon thatorganisation by the council? It is obvious that thecouncil is playing funny games with the businessassociation and holding the money because it does nothappen to agree with what the St Albans Chamber ofCommerce is trying to do.

ADJOURNMENT


This is a matter for urgent investigation, and I ask theminister to act promptly to try to rectify this problem sothat the people of St Albans can get on with their livesinstead of kowtowing to a crooked council.

Dr Timothy McArdle

Mr MAXFIELD (Narracan) — Will the Ministerfor Health take action to recognise the wonderful workof the late Dr Timothy McArdle, who died last night ina tragic accident while cycling?

Dr Timothy McArdle was 46 years of age and was bornin Ballarat. He has three brothers and three sisters, andhis father was also a doctor. He graduated with honoursfrom Monash University in 1980, being in the top10 students of his year. He commenced practising inWarragul at the end of 1987 and joined the localmedical group. He instigated a health column, called‘Dr Kev’, in the local newspaper in 1988 and continuedthat column through until today. He has been attachedto the West Gippsland hospital since his position wasconfirmed in 1988. He served a term as secretary andchairman of the medical staff association and was themedical staff representative for a number of years to theWest Gippsland Healthcare Group board.

Tim is the fifth valued member of the West GippslandHealthcare Group staff to die in the last nine months —the others being Ms Heather Murray, Mr Alan Rouget,Mr William Ralph and Ms Heather Colbert. Each madea fine contribution to the hospital, and each is sadlymissed.

His dedication to the profession saw him take on dutiesbeyond his general practice. He mentored juniordoctors at the hospital. With local nursing staff hepresented seminars on contraception and sexuallytransmitted diseases at local schools. His last seminar atthe Warragul regional college was two days ago. Hisbelief that young people should have access to a clinicensured that the clinic was open at least once a monthfor the students.

His interest in obstetrics resulted in an average of50 deliveries per year for the 14 years he practised inWarragul, which means 700 children were deliveredwith the caring dedication he provided. He was also ahumanitarian. Seeing the plight of the people of EastTimor, at his own expense he spent four weeks in thehighlands of East Timor providing medical care inmid-2000. He dealt with TB, meningitis, malaria andother diseases not often seen in the country.

He was a well-known fitness fanatic and took upcycling as part of the Great Victorian Bike Ride lastyear, and within the last six months he started to

compete in cycling events at the local cycling club. Hewas also a long-time keyboard player in the local band,the Beetroots. I and many others have enjoyed theoccasions when the Beetroots played at privateengagements and at community events as well.

He was a well-respected doctor in the community. Weare all extremely saddened by this tragic loss. He wascertainly a doctor who cannot under any circumstancesbe replaced. Many people in our community are feelingdevastated at the moment and are mourning the loss ofan absolutely wonderful GP in our community. Iacknowledge my real sadness, and my sympathy goesout to his family, his friends and all his patients.

Kangaroos: control

Mr MAUGHAN (Rodney) — I call on the Ministerfor Environment and Conservation to immediatelyapprove the commercial harvesting of kangaroos as partof an overall management plan to reduce kangaroonumbers in northern Victoria and particularly in theHeathcote, Rushworth and Seymour areas.

Kangaroos are in plague numbers in northern Victoria.They come out of Crown land, causing damage to thecrops and pasture of neighbouring farmers, who arealready under enormous pressure because of thedrought — a drought that this government so far refusesto acknowledge even exists.

Kangaroos are a menace to motorists. Every week thereare dozens of accidents where cars hit kangaroos, andthe cost of repairs runs into thousands of dollars. Lastyear RACV Insurance had 1373 claims forkangaroo-related accidents costing that company,which handles about one-third of Victoria’s motorvehicle insurance, about $10 million. We do not knowhow many lives were lost, but undoubtedly there willbe more.

A petition presented to this Parliament this week by thehonourable member for Seymour had 1777 signaturescalling for a kangaroo cull. The Shire of Campaspe andthe City of Greater Bendigo have both called for areduction in kangaroo numbers. Numerous residents innorthern Victoria, including Cr Greg Williams ofHeathcote, Colin Barlow from Rushworth, RayCrawley from Seymour and Lyn Denison and YvonneShaw, also from Heathcote, organised the petition,which calls for a reduction in numbers, as does theMount Pleasant Creek catchment Landcare group.

Commercial harvesting of kangaroos would reducekangaroo numbers at no cost to government, produceboth meat and skins that are in demand by the market,create employment and economic activity in country

ADJOURNMENT


areas, and reduce the cost to farmers and motorists ofdamage caused by kangaroos.

I therefore call on the minister to immediately approvethe commercial harvesting of kangaroos as part of anoverall management plan to reduce kangaroo numbersrather than let them continue to increase to the pointwhere they destroy the very environment that supportsthem and ultimately starve to death.

Calder Highway: funding

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East) — Through theTreasurer I ask the Minister for Transport what actionhe is taking to progress the completion of the CalderHighway duplication to Bendigo by 2006.

As members of this house know very well, the Bracksgovernment is committed to the progress of theduplication to Bendigo by 2006. In the budget handeddown by the Treasurer in May this year, $70 millionwas allocated for further works on theKyneton-to-Faraday section of the road. However, asthe house also well knows, the federal government stillrefuses to commit its $70 million under the roads ofnational importance (RONI) agreement.

It is no wonder that the federal government will notcommit to the completion of the Calder Highwayduplication, because their Liberal mates in Melbourneare telling them well and clearly that they do not haveto commit — they are letting them off the hook. Eventhe shadow Minister for Transport let them off the hookwhen he made this comment to the Bendigo Advertiserlast year:

The federal government is under no obligation to pay forimprovements to the Calder Highway.

The message members of the federal Liberal Party aregetting from their mates in Melbourne is that they donot have to commit to the completion of the CalderHighway to Bendigo. It is interesting to note that thenew state Liberal Party policy on the Calder Highway isfor them to turn up the RONI agreement and give theCalder the big flick.

It is also interesting to note that in the past week agroup called Bendigo Plus has launched a communitypetition in support of the state government’s 2006deadline for the completion of the Calder Highwayduplication to Bendigo. This is a petition I well andtruly support, along with the honourable member forBendigo West, Bob Cameron, the Minister for LocalGovernment.

The members of Bendigo Plus are quite clearly anon-political, community-based people who are verykeen for the economic development future of Bendigo,and more importantly, they understand that far toomany lives have been lost on the Calder Highway. Thispetition was launched on Friday; yet last Monday, onlythree days later, another life was lost on theunduplicated part of the Calder Highway betweenBendigo and Melbourne.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable membermust ask for action, and she has not done so at thispoint in time. What is the action that she is requiring?

Ms ALLAN — I ask the Minister for Transportwhat action he is taking to complete the progress of theCalder Highway duplication to Bendigo? Very clearlywe need the support of the federal government on thispetition. I urge all members of the Bendigo communityto support and sign this petition, and to lobby thefederal government in the strongest possible way tosecure the completion of the Calder Highwayduplication to Bendigo by 2006.

Royal Melbourne Hospital

Mr WILSON (Bennettswood) — I wish to raise amatter for the attention of the Minister for Health. Theaction I am seeking is for the minister to finally acceptresponsibility for the serious deterioration of Victoria’spublic hospital system and, in this particular case, theRoyal Melbourne Hospital. I ask the minister tointervene at the Royal Melbourne Hospital to ensure thatall patients are receiving timely and appropriate care.

Last Sunday morning 73-year-old Mrs Yovanka Bekutwas taken to Royal Melbourne Hospital by ambulancesuffering from a severe heart condition and alliedcomplications. I am advised that Mrs Bekut wasdiagnosed promptly, and then her most unfortunateexperience began. At some stage after diagnosisMrs Bekut was moved onto a trolley, and that is wherethis 73-year-old lady stayed until Wednesday morningwhen she was finally placed in an appropriate ward andan appropriate bed, some time between 10.15 a.m. and12.30 p.m. In the intervening period, some 72 hours,Mrs Bekut had to experience the indignity of lying on atrolley close to reception in a noisy, very public andtotally inappropriate setting. Mrs Bekut was greatlystressed by this treatment at the Royal MelbourneHospital, and her family has given permission for thisissue to be raised in public and brought to the attentionof the minister.

Yesterday in this house during question time we heardthe Minister for Health inappropriately using the report

ADJOURNMENT


of the Health Services Commissioner to score cheappolitical points against the former government over itsmanagement of the Royal Melbourne Hospital. Thecircumstances I have just outlined have occurred nearlythree years into this minister’s stewardship. On behalfof Mrs Bekut and all other Victorians who need accessto appropriate and timely public hospital services, Iimplore the Minister for Health to take responsibilityand to intervene.

Police: Footscray

Mr MILDENHALL (Footscray) — I wish to raisea matter for the attention of the Minister for Police andEmergency Services and Minister for Correctionsregarding a review of the effectiveness of policeactivities in Footscray. I request the minister to examinethe progress of police operations in Footscray and takethe results into consideration in the planning of therecently announced new police station proposal.

It is no secret that the central area of Footscray was insome difficulty when the government changed, with ahigh level of street heroin dealing, supported by a highlevel of petty crime in surrounding residential areas.The previous government was aware of the issue. Withadverse media reporting, the whole of the state wasaware of the difficulties that Footscray was in.

The problem in responding was that the previousgovernment was in the process of cutting 1000 officersfrom the force, so the only way it was able to getadditional officers onto the street was to close threeother police stations and jam the officers that that freedup into the woefully inadequate white-ant-riddenFootscray police station. The former government alsoshamefully used trainees in positions normallyoccupied by bona fide constables and then did notreplace the trainees when their placements finished. Itwas little wonder that the police at Footscray had thehighest workload of any police staff in the state. It waslittle short of a scandal that they had to face thischallenge and the drugs issue in Victoria’s worst policestation.

Since the change of government there has been asignificant improvement in police numbers and thecrime situation. It is probably no surprise in terms ofthis government’s effort and commitment that in thefinal year of the Kennett government the drug crimerate was twice the current rate — it has been halvedsince the government changed. It is also timely thatthese factors be taken into account in planning therecently announced station. The announcement hasbeen greeted very warmly in the community, but we

need to attune the design requirements to the currentcrime situation and be aware of current trends.

Workcover: Arthritis Foundation of Victoria

Mr CLARK (Box Hill) — I raise with the Ministerfor Workcover the bullying of a highly respectedMelbourne charity by the Victorian WorkcoverAuthority. This bullying was instigated by the ministerreferring a complaint to the VWA. The complaint wasmade against the Arthritis Foundation of Victoria afterthe foundation gave an employee a first warning aboutirregularities in that employee’s record keeping andother practices, irregularities which subsequently led tothat employee being dismissed.

The VWA started its investigation with a raid on thefoundation’s offices, a raid attended by the media.Inspectors emptied rubbish bins and shredders, andreduced a secretary to tears by falsely suggesting shehad improperly shredded documents. The investigationhas now dragged on for more than a year, with nooutcome in sight. The foundation has been forced tospend more than $250 000 defending itself againstvarious accusations.

When the matter was raised on Melbourne radio on4 September, a talkback caller rang in. He gave hisname as Paul, and said he was a VWA investigator andan occupational health and safety rep. He defendedwhat the VWA had done and suggested that thefoundation was wasting money trying to defend itself.His call came after the VWA itself had said it would beunfair to comment on the case.

I am now told that foundation employees believe thatthis caller, Paul, is in fact a Mr Paul Anton, one of theVWA inspectors who took part in the initial raid on thefoundation. If that is so, the bias shown by this callwould seem to have seriously compromised theintegrity of this investigation and further compoundedthe injustice already caused to the Arthritis Foundationby the VWA’s bullying and harassment.

I ask the minister to have the handling of thisinvestigation reviewed immediately by either the chiefexecutive officer or other senior management of theVWA and to ensure either that charges are laidpromptly or that the VWA publicly clear the name ofthe foundation so it can resume its valuable work forthe people of Victoria free of the victimisation it hassuffered to date.

The mishandling of this investigation reinforces theincreasing fears of many employers that the VictorianWorkcover Authority is being used as a tool to furtherindustrial relations and political agendas.

ADJOURNMENT


Consumer affairs: lottery scams

Mr NARDELLA (Melton) — I seek action fromthe Minister for Consumer Affairs to publicise overseasmoney and lottery scams by informing the Victoriancommunity of these scams and warning people offthem. Further, the minister should take action to stopthese scams at their source — for example, bydiscussing these matters with her counterparts inCanada and the United States of America to stop theserip-offs.

It has come to my attention that unsolicited mail hasbeen sent to quite a number of people in Victoria fromplaces as far away as Canada and the United States. Themail entices people to send money or fill outMastercard or Visa card authorities to these companiesfor the processing of lottery winnings which are neverthere, or the purchase of wallets which are purported toenclose within them lottery winnings or cheques thatare not there either.

We also have the ludicrous situation of Victorianresidents winning unclaimed motor vehicles — forexample, a left-hand drive Volvo valued at US$33 135.These scams rip money off the people who are suckedin by these promotions and who fail to understand thatthe slick advertising is a fraud.

Some of the names of the scammers are WorldwideLottery Commission, La Navidad, El Gordo, The FatOne and Towery Grupo Seg — and they emanate fromCanada. From the United States of America there areWilloughby and Johnson and Royal InternationalJewellers of Antwerp — although Antwerp is certainlynot in the United States. Also from Canada there areConsolidated Award Services, Prize Masters Media(World) Inc., National Sweepstakes Documents andVictory Awards.

The operators are quite slick and target their scams tovulnerable people in our society. They are leeches whosuck the lifeblood from many people. Work needs to beundertaken so that other global jurisdictions act onthese scam companies to stop them operating not onlyin Victoria but inevitably within their own countries.

The scammers use a sophisticated combination ofwords in their letters and promotional material, whichhave an air of excitement, a deadline by which theclaimant needs to make a claim, supposed independentletters of reference for goods under offer and returnaddressed envelopes with postage estimates forVictorian residents to place the correct amount ofpostage on the envelope. They include false documentssuch as audited notification, certificates of

authentication for goods under offer, certificates forconfirmed cash awards and scratch tickets. Inevitablythe goods are never available, and I seek the minister’sassistance in this matter.

Dingley bypass

Mr LEIGH (Mordialloc) — On 7 May this year theMinister for Transport cancelled a long-term Laborcommitment to a southern suburbs bypass known as theDingley bypass. He announced he was moving themoney to the Burwood East tramline. On 29 May thehonourable member for Carrum said about theAspendale Gardens Residents Association presidentand its organisation that the government had redirectedits commitment. She said that the Bracks governmentwas delivering for all Victorians and not just panderingto every group that asked for funding. She said thisabout Mr Ken Carney, the head of the association. As aresult of these issues, this week elements of the City ofKingston are now planning to take back control ofWhite Street in Mordialloc and turn it into a local road,which, if they do — —

Mr Nardella — What action do you want?

Mr LEIGH — Keep the commitment they made.The fact is that the Bracks government, from thePremier down to the Minister for Transport, has liedabout what has taken place on this issue. It has neverbought any land and has taken no action. Thegovernment has to realise that the bypass is part of theScoresby arrangement. I am calling on the Bracksgovernment to ensure that the City of Kingston doesnot close White Street. I ask the government to get onwith what it said it would do — purchase the land andbegin the construction of the freeway, which Laborpromised in its first year of government. Frankly, if itdoes not do that, from the Labor Party’s point of viewthe honourable member for Carrum is in very serioustrouble.

The Aspendale Gardens Residents Association andmany others understand what the Labor governmenthas done to them and what effect it will have on theirlocal roads. I am delighted that the Minister for Gamingis at the table because he should know this issue well;after all he is part of the betrayal of the southernsuburbs by his actions in cancelling Dingley.

Wattle Park: advisory group

Mr STENSHOLT (Burwood) — The action I seekfrom the Minister for Environment and Conservation isto effect the early implementation of her recent decisionto establish an advisory reference group for Wattle

ADJOURNMENT


Park. Local residents and stakeholders are awaiting as Iam the terms of reference for the group and thesubsequent first meeting.

I am happy to take the opportunity to remind the houseof what a great natural asset we have in Wattle Park,which is located in Burwood. Honourable memberswill recall the debate we had when passing the WattlePark bill, which enshrined in legislation its status asCrown land. Over the last three years we have beenworking hard to enhance this wonderful park, and I ampleased to report great progress. When I was electedWattle Park was somewhat run down, looked after bycontractors on an occasional basis, and there was thethreatened loss of a 60-year tradition of Sundayconcerts by the tramways band. I consulted theresidents and various groups and stakeholders andpresented the minister with a set of proposals forimproving the park and returning it to its formerprominence as a great local asset.

We now have Parks Victoria rangers working in thepark on a full-time basis, and you can see the differencein the way it is cared for. I am happy to report that theMelbourne Transit Band has received support fromYarra Trams and continues its popular concerts in thepark. Funding has been provided to the Friends ofWattle Park for plantings and restoring historic birdboxes. Funding has also been provided to the West ofElgar Road Residents Association for a nature trailwhich has recently been instituted.

Last year an Anzac Day service was again held at theLone Pine memorial after a gap of many years. Thisyear it was an even bigger event, and maybe one day itwill again rival the event it was in the 1930s, whenthousands attended the trooping of the colours in WattlePark. Best of all, at my suggestion Parks Victoria hasreinstated Wattle Day, and on 1 September we all had amarvellous time in Wattle Park in honour of WattleDay.

Hundreds of local residents came out in response to theinvitation from Parks Victoria and me. Native grasses,trees and shrubs were planted. The Melbourne TransitBand began its 63rd session. Balloons were provided tothe kids by Parks Victoria with Jackie Oxer, LindsayBergin and the staff in attendance. Nature walks wererun by the West of Elgar Road residents association.The Father’s Day lunches and afternoon teas held in thechalet were a great success. A free sausage sizzle wasput on by Parks Victoria. Hundreds of locals had familypicnics. The golf shop used one of its buggies as amobile shop, and the Friends of Wattle Park, the WattlePark Primary School and the basketweavers haddisplays in the cottage and the stables.

It was an enormous effort by Parks Victoria and thevolunteers. I want to thank everyone who was involvedfor making it a marvellous community day and a greatsuccess in Wattle Park.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Benambra has 21⁄2 minutes.

Wodonga: adolescent residential care

Mr PLOWMAN (Benambra) — The issue I wishto raise for the attention of the Minister for CommunityServices arises from the purchase of a house in BattAvenue, Wodonga, to provide adolescent residentialcare. On 2 September I wrote to the minister asking thatthis decision be reconsidered. I said that I fullysupported the department in its attempts to provideadequate assistance to people in this age group whorequire residential care. However, one universalconcern has been expressed by the community — theprice paid for the property, which was bought prior toauction, was well in excess of the expectations of theagent and the owners. The block has on it a substantialbrick house, which has been recently renovated andpainted, and the department is going to demolish thehouse and erect a purpose-built building on the site.

The house was purchased for more than $170 000 whenthere are many substandard houses that could bedemolished and there are vacant blocks available forsale, including one immediately over the road from thehouse that has been purchased. I advised the ministerabout these houses and vacant blocks in my letter andpointed out that any of them could be bought for a lotless than $170 000 — many for about $100 000.Further, that would not lead to the demolition of asubstantial home.

I have since been advised that the purchase has beencompleted by the department. I now ask the minister toreconsider the use of the house the department haspurchased and to look for a block that could bedeveloped without the need to demolish a substantialand recently renovated home.

I have received more than 40 letters and beentelephoned by more than 40 residents in the area. I willquote briefly from one, who said:

… to pay $175 000 is an astronomical amount for a housewhen they will turn around and pull it down and then spendthe same amount plus to rebuild. I am sure there would besomething more suitable elsewhere with less hassles.

That is from a resident in the area. He is an old man. Hehas come to this area to retire, and he does not want thison his doorstep.

ADJOURNMENT


I ask that the Minister for Community Servicesreconsider this decision and in doing so consider howthis house might be used for other residential care. Isupport the need for adolescent residential care in thearea, and there are plenty of other houses that could bedemolished in order to build this residential care facilitythat I ask the minister to reconsider.

Responses

Mr HAERMEYER (Minister for Police andEmergency Services) — The honourable member forFootscray raised for my attention the issue of policerequirements in Footscray. He cited some of the litanyof neglect over some years, particularly in the late1990s under the previous government, which led toFootscray developing a reputation for crime and drugdealing.

Last year the honourable member for Footscray askedme to visit the Footscray police station. I was absolutelyastounded at the working conditions in thatestablishment. It was overcrowded, appalling, and hadall sorts of occupational health and safety risks.

I congratulate the honourable member for Footscray onthe efforts he has made on behalf of police in Footscrayand on behalf of the local community in trying to attractmore police and get a better facility for the police towork from. It is now a matter of record that thisgovernment has committed to a new $12.1 millionpolice station in Footscray. The honourable memberhas been quite helpful in working with the police andhelping us identify the best possible site so we can getthe best possible outcomes for the police and the localcommunity.

Currently some 74 police are stationed at Footscray,which is almost a 50 per cent increase on the 50 whowere there barely three years ago when we came intogovernment. Although that is a significant increase, thestation is still overcrowded and neglected. The newpolice station, which we expect to open in 2004–05,will accommodate 133 members from day one. It willhave a designed-in capacity for an additional40 members from areas including the uniform branch,criminal investigations unit (CIU), traffic managementunit, regional response unit, sexual offences and childabuse unit and a proactive programs unit. Big things arehappening with police out in Footscray.

The additional police who are out there already havehad an effect on the district. As I said in question timetoday, the number of police bears a relationship to thecrime rate. It is not a direct relationship, as somehonourable members opposite seem to think — that is,

less police means less crime. It is an inverserelationship — more police means less crime — andthat is something the opposition does not seem tounderstand. Already the additional police in Footscrayhave had a big effect, to the extent that this year wehave noticed a decrease of 16.1 per cent in the totalnumber of recorded offences. That is a big drop incrime in Footscray.

The number of crimes against the person reduced by1.5 per cent; property crime is down 17.8 per cent;robbery offences — one of the big problems,particularly around the railway station and the shoppingcentre — is down 57.4 per cent; property damage isdown 11.6 per cent; burglaries are down 18.6 per cent;aggravated burglaries are down 55.6 per cent; otherburglaries are down 30.1 per cent; theft of motorvehicles is down 26 per cent; theft from motor vehiclesis down 5 per cent; shop stealing is down 26.7 per cent;other theft offences are down 15.3 per cent — —

Mr Leigh interjected.

Mr HAERMEYER — I know it irks you becauseall your criminal mates don’t like it!

The SPEAKER — Order! The minister shouldaddress his remarks through the Chair.

Mr HAERMEYER — I am sorry, Mr Speaker, Ishould not rattle his cage.

Handling stolen goods is also down 39 per cent. It isgreat news all around in Footscray. This was one ofthose areas that was being stigmatised as a high-crime,high-drug-dealing area. People are coming back intothe shopping centre, and the atmosphere of the entiresuburb has changed. It shows the difference that can bemade when you put police on the street rather thancutting police numbers. With the new police stationthings can only improve.

Ms CAMPBELL (Minister for ConsumerAffairs) — The honourable member for Melton askedme to inform the Victorian public of some of the scamsin get-rich-quick schemes that are operating in Victoria.

Honourable members would be quite familiar with anumber of these scams as over the last month a numberof us have received scam requests for urgent assistanceand to provide our personal bank details to variousscam operators. Since I issued a number of warnings onget-rich-quick schemes the consumer affairsdepartment has been receiving increasing evidence ofthese schemes operating in Victoria. One lady who hascorresponded with me has received approaches fromhalf a dozen different get-rich-quick schemes and

ADJOURNMENT


requests for her to provide transfer fees for propertybonuses, lottery bonuses and great jewellery offers.

I am happy to do as the honourable membersuggests — that is, to inform the Victorian public yetagain of the dangers of falling for these get-rich-quickschemes. I am pleased to inform the honourablemember that at the ministerial council in August thevarious ministers for consumer affairs collectivelyworked to put together information that can bedistributed throughout Australia. We will be workingwith our international counterparts to stop thisinformation at its source.

Of particular concern at the moment are a number ofschemes that are emanating from the United States ofAmerica and Canada. I will be taking that up, as thehonourable member suggested, with my counterpartsinternationally.

Mr THWAITES (Minister for Health) — Thehonourable member for Bennettswood raised a matterin relation to the Royal Melbourne Hospital, and I willseek some advice on that. I should point out that inrecent months the Royal Melbourne Hospital has beentreating many, many more patients. It has been able todo that with the extra nurses and resources that thegovernment has provided. Indeed, in the last 12-monthperiod we have seen an increase in emergencyadmissions at our major metropolitan hospitals of morethan 10 per cent.

Mr Wilson — Why?

Mr THWAITES — I think the honourable memberasks why. There are a number of reasons that seem tobe contributing to the increase in the number ofadmissions. One is that there appears to be a problemwith after-hours GPs, because we are seeing a majorincrease in the number of people coming through in theSunday–Monday period. There seems to be asubstantial increase in the number of primary-care-typeadmissions which would otherwise be treated by GPs.That is one of the factors.

Another factor, which has particularly affected theRoyal Melbourne Hospital, is the number of elderlypatients in the hospital who are assessed as requiring anursing home bed but who are unable to obtain onebecause of the shortage of nursing home beds. Victoriais some 5000 beds short of the commonwealthbenchmark for nursing home beds. The area around theRoyal Melbourne Hospital, the inner west, is one of theareas of great need for nursing home beds — it has thegreatest shortfall in beds. That is a contributing factor.

It appears, just in terms of the Royal Melbourne andother hospitals, that the number of ambulance call-outshas increased very substantially. Once again there isaround a 10 per cent increase this year. Thegovernment, and the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Imight say, have done a great deal to enable those extrapatients to be treated. A short-stay unit there has beensuccessful, extra beds have been added, and theservices at the aged care facility associated with thehospital have also improved. I am very pleased thatthey have been able to achieve that substantial increasein patients treated.

Certainly there are still things to be done andimprovements to be made. Additional funds are beingset aside for the Royal Melbourne Hospital to takeadditional action to ensure that it can treat still furtherpatients and do so in a timely manner.

The honourable member for Narracan raised with methe very tragic passing of Dr Tim McArdle, who was avery dedicated local doctor. The government and allmembers of Parliament would be very sad at thepassing of Dr McArdle, who was a well-loved doctor inhis community and contributed so much over manyyears. Since 1988 he had been attached to the WestGippsland hospital, served as secretary and chairman ofthe medical staff association and was the medical staffrepresentative for a number of years to the WestGippsland Healthcare Group board. He was verydedicated to the profession. He mentored many of thejunior doctors in the area.

As well as his local contribution he was also ahumanitarian. He assisted the plight of the people ofEast Timor at his own expense. In the middle of 2000he spent some four weeks in the highlands of EastTimor providing medical care.

As a community we owe a great debt to our dedicatedgeneral practitioners, especially in country areas. Overtime I will examine what further action might be takento recognise his contribution, but in the meantime allour thoughts are with the community and with hisrelatives at this very sad time.

Ms GARBUTT (Minister for Environment andConservation) — The honourable member for Rodneyraised with me the issue of the problems of kangaroosand commercial utilisation. It is clear to everyone thatin the current drier-than-normal circumstanceskangaroos are coming out of parks and Crown landswhere they do not have their usual feed, and comingonto private properties and even into towns to feed.

ADJOURNMENT


The government has already acted to fast-track permitsfor farmers to control wildlife, in particular kangaroos. Ihave instructed the Department of Natural Resourcesand Environment to issue permits to farmers for asmany kangaroos as need to be controlled, and that itshould be very flexible in the way it accepts thoseapplications. Whether they are faxed, emailed orwhatever it takes, DNRE officers will accept theapplications in that form so that they can be fast-trackedand farmers can get the permits very quickly.

The issue then comes up about commercial utilisation.The government does not believe that in the long termVictoria can sustain a commercial kangaroo harvestingindustry. Despite what we see at the moment, generallyVictoria has far fewer kangaroos than New SouthWales and South Australia, where they kill hundredsand thousands every year and have establishedindustries. The government does not believe that anindustry in Victoria would be viable in competingagainst those established industries.

However, under the circumstances the government willexamine whether commercial utilisation of kangaroos,taken under the authority to control wildlife — whichare the permits I just mentioned — is a practical optionin the short term. It would be subject to commonwealthrequirements. The overwhelming majority of theindustry is directed at export, and the commonwealthrequirement for the commercial harvesting ofkangaroos is for an approved management plan. That isquite a lengthy and onerous task, and it is very unlikelythat we would be able to develop it and get it approvedby the commonwealth in less than at least three months,which is not going to help in the short term. Thegovernment would be seeking exemption from federalgovernment requirements for that to occur.

Any arrangement for commercial harvesting wouldonly be under the conditions currently beingexperienced, and when our weather returns tosomething wetter, which is what we usually expect, wewill see that kangaroos will disperse and go back totheir normal habitat.

The whole question of kangaroo culling for commercialpurposes was triggered by the Puckapunyal debaclewhen the Department of Defence allowed the kangaroopopulation to get totally out of control. After months ofasking I am now quite disturbed to learn that thekangaroo management plan that was developed thereby the Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment and the Department of Defence is stillsitting on the desk of Fran Bailey, the ParliamentarySecretary to the Minister for Defence. It has been sentthrough and it is still sitting there. Unfortunately over

25 000 kangaroos have starved at Puckapunyal whilethe Department of Defence and Fran Bailey have sat ontheir hands.

Regarding towns, which were also mentioned by thehonourable member for Rodney, I have instructed theDNRE to work with local government to mitigate thedamage done by kangaroos in and around towns.Obviously you cannot shoot in towns; there is a majorsafety issue there for populations and it is anunacceptable risk. However, I have instructed DNRE todo what it can with local government around towns. AsI said, I do not think that commercial usage ofkangaroos is viable in the long term, but we are makinginquiries with the commonwealth government about theshort term.

The honourable member for Burwood also raised withme an issue about the Wattle Park advisory referencegroup. The honourable member for Burwood is awonderfully dedicated campaigner for Wattle Park. Heis constantly raising suggested improvements with me,and the park has improved out of sight since he becamethe local member. One of the park’s features is thededication of the friends groups there, and the numberof people who are willing to promote the park and towork in the park has been amazing. That park is awonderful heritage as well as being of great recreationalvalue to the community.

Parks Victoria is moving to establish a reference groupand there will be some public announcements shortly. Iwill check with Parks Victoria to ensure that it ismoving quickly. I congratulate the honourable memberfor his constant and successful campaigning on behalfof Wattle Park.

Mr CAMERON (Minister for LocalGovernment) — The honourable member for Box Hillraised an operational matter concerning the Worksafedivision of the Victorian Workcover Authority. I willtake that matter up and refer it to the board of theauthority.

The honourable member for Knox raised a matter forme in my capacity as the Minister for LocalGovernment concerning the City of Brimbank. I willrefer that matter to the Department of Infrastructure toobtain advice.

Mr PANDAZOPOULOS (Minister forGaming) — The honourable member for Bendigo Eastraised a matter for the Minister for Transport in relationto the very necessary Calder Highway duplication, thelack of action by the federal government and the need

ADJOURNMENT


for the minister to lobby the federal government. I willpass on that information.

As Minister for Tourism I note that KatherineMcKenzie, the head of Bendigo Tourism, was praisingthe work being undertaken on the Calder Highway sofar, with the upgrade at Ravenswood, and saying howimportant it is for Bendigo by reducing travelling timeto the area. Certainly the community sees that as veryimportant. It is a road of national importance which hasbeen funded like that in the past, which means that thefederal government has to pay 50 per cent of it. If itdoes not the road does not get made, so I will pass thaton to the minister.

The honourable member for Mordialloc, as ahypocritical member of Parliament, raised anothermatter for the Minister for Transport about the Dingleybypass. When the Liberal Party was in government theDingley bypass was so important, but then it took themoney away from the bypass — and he criticises thisgovernment for doing exactly the same.

Mr Leigh — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, thisminister knows as well as I do that the money gotchanged because his local Labor council wantedWestall Road finished first. He knows it, I know it.Why doesn’t he simply pass it on — —

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Mordialloc is clearly not taking a point of order. Theminister, concluding.

Mr PANDAZOPOULOS — As a local member ofParliament I know that the reality is that the biggestroad priority in the region is the Scoresby freeway andthat the federal government in partnership with thisgovernment has to pay 50 per cent of the cost. Thereare so many road projects around the state, how manycan this government do with a limited budget?

This is a classic example of the way this opposition isoperating. It wants all these things and it wants tax cuts.It wants it all done with less government money. That isthe reality.

Mr Leigh — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, weknow this minister is in trouble over the issue, but Isimply asked him to pass the matter on to the Ministerfor Transport. If the Minister for Gaming wants to getinto an argument, I am quite happy to keep raisingpoints of order. I suggest that he do the right thing andsimply pass the matter on to the Minister for Transport.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the pointof order raised by the honourable member forMordialloc. The minister will conclude his answer.

Mr PANDAZOPOULOS — The honourablemember said I know a lot about the issue. I am justresponding and showing that I do. There has been$2.7 billion worth of promises from the opposition sofar, and it wants all these projects done. The only thingis — —

Mr Leigh — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, theminister is not the Minister for Transport. I simplyasked this minister to pass the matter on to the Ministerfor Transport. He sold out the area in the southernsuburbs and he is now trying to defend his record. If hewants to stay here for much longer, that is fine, but Isuggest in the interests of all honourable members thathe simply pass the matter on to the Minister forTransport, or I will continue taking points of order.

The SPEAKER — Order! On the point of orderraised by the honourable member for Mordialloc, it hasbeen a longstanding practice of this house that when amember raises an issue on the adjournment the ministerat the table can respond on the matter raised. There isno point of order. However, I ask the minister toconclude his answer.

Mr PANDAZOPOULOS — The real issue is whatthe opposition will do about it. It is talking about it, butwill it commit to it? I will pass the matter on to theminister.

The honourable member for Benambra raised for theattention of the Minister for Community Services amatter relating to an adolescent residential care house inWodonga and some other possibilities. I will pass thaton to the minister.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned 7.16 p.m. until Tuesday, 8 October.

226 ASSEMBLY

MEMBERS INDEX

10, 11 and 12 September 2002 ASSEMBLY i

MEMBERS INDEX

ALLAN, Ms (Bendigo East)

Adjournment

Calder Highway: funding, 218

Bills

Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill, 116

Questions without notice

Tourism: rural and regional Victoria, 168

ALLEN, Ms (Benalla)

Petitions

Ombudsman: investigation, 135 Schools: student welfare officers, 135


Police: numbers and building program, 171

ASHER, Ms (Brighton)

Bills

Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill, 119, 183

Condolences

Hon. Thomas Leslie Austin, 8 Hon. Ann Mary Henderson, 24

BAILLIEU, Mr (Hawthorn)

Bills

Sports Event Ticketing (Fair Access) Bill, 68

Condolences


Grievances

Gaming: regulation, 57

Points of order, 55, 58

BARKER, Ms (Oakleigh)

Rulings, 103

BATCHELOR, Mr (Thomastown) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Major Projects)

Bills

Road Safety (Responsible Driving) Bill, 148, 189

Business of the house

Adjournment, 136 Program, 41 Standing and sessional orders, 41

Parliamentary committees

Reports, 136

Points of order, 84, 170, 173


Transport: major projects, 169

BEATTIE, Ms (Tullamarine)

Bills

Sports Event Ticketing (Fair Access) Bill, 76 Utility Meters (Metrological Controls) Bill, 107

Points of order, 67

BRACKS, Mr (Williamstown) (Premier and Minister for Multicultural Affairs)

Bills

Constitution (Parliamentary Reform) Bill, 146, 147 Constitution (Water Authorities) Bill, 145 Wrongs and Other Acts (Public Liability Insurance Reform) Bill,

139, 140

Condolences

Hon. Thomas Leslie Austin, 1, 34 Hon. Ann Mary Henderson, 12, 34


Central City Studios: Docklands tender, 84, 85, 168, 171, 172, 174 Drought: government assistance, 79, 80, 81 Electricity: Basslink, 169 Tourism: rural and regional Victoria, 168 United States of America: terrorist attacks, 80

United States of America: terrorist attacks, 79

BRUMBY, Mr (Broadmeadows) (Minister for State and Regional Development, Treasurer and Minister for Innovation)

Bills

Regional Development Victoria Bill, 149, 211

MEMBERS INDEX

ii ASSEMBLY 10, 11 and 12 September 2002

Points of order, 175


Economy: performance, 85 Taxation: government policies, 174

BURKE, Ms (Prahran)

Condolences

Hon. Ann Mary Henderson, 33

Petitions

Libraries: funding, 37

CAMERON, Mr (Bendigo West) (Minister for Local Government and Minister for Workcover)

Adjournment

Responses, 224

CAMPBELL, Ms (Pascoe Vale) (Minister for Senior Victorians and Minister for Consumer Affairs)

Adjournment

Responses, 132, 222

Bills

Estate Agents and Sale of Land Acts (Amendment) Bill, 139

CARLI, Mr (Coburg)

Grievances

Liberal Party: advertisements, 46

CLARK, Mr (Box Hill)

Adjournment

Workcover: Arthritis Foundation of Victoria, 219

DAVIES, Ms (Gippsland West)

Bills


Members statements

Local government: rate concessions, 43

Points of order, 83


Cardinia Primary School, 83

Rulings, 118

DEAN, Dr (Berwick)


Program, 41

Condolences


Points of order, 85, 170, 172, 173, 176


Central City Studios: Docklands tender, 85

DELAHUNTY, Mr (Wimmera)

Bills

Agriculture Legislation (Amendments and Repeals) Bill, 165

Members statements

Ambulance services: community officers, 42 Drought: government assistance, 136

DELAHUNTY, Ms (Northcote) (Minister for Planning, Minister for the Arts and Minister for Women’s Affairs)

Condolences


DEPUTY SPEAKER and CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES, The (Mrs Maddigan)

Rulings, 47, 48, 148, 184

DIXON, Mr (Dromana)

Adjournment

Gunnamatta: sewage outfall, 130

DOYLE, Mr (Malvern) (Leader of the Opposition)

Condolences


Points of order, 80, 174


Central City Studios: Docklands tender, 83, 168, 170, 172, 174 Drought: government assistance, 79, 81

Shadow ministry, 1

MEMBERS INDEX

10, 11 and 12 September 2002 ASSEMBLY iii

DUNCAN, Ms (Gisborne)

Bills


ELLIOTT, Mrs (Mooroolbark)

Bills


Condolences


Members statements

Disability services: funding, 136

FYFFE, Mrs (Evelyn)

Bills

Agriculture Legislation (Amendments and Repeals) Bill, 159 Forests Legislation (Amendment) Bill, 40

Members statements

Yarra Valley: health infrastructure, 138


GARBUTT, Ms (Bundoora) (Minister for Environment and Conservation)

Adjournment

Responses, 223

Bills

Commissioner for Ecologically Sustainable Development Bill, 149, 197

Murray-Darling Basin (Amendment) Bill, 148, 191 National Parks (Box-Ironbark and Other Parks) Bill, 149, 193

GILLETT, Ms (Werribee)

Condolences


Grievances

Werribee: health infrastructure, 59

Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee

Alert Digest No. 7, 37 Subordinate Legislation Act, 37 Vagrancy Act, 135

HAERMEYER, Mr (Yan Yean) (Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Corrections)

Adjournment

Responses, 222

Bills

Control of Weapons and Firearms Acts (Search Powers) Bill, 149, 204

Grievances

Police: crime statistics, 55


Police: numbers and building program, 171

HAMILTON, Mr (Morwell) (Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)

Condolences


Points of order, 89

HARDMAN, Mr (Seymour)

Bills


Members statements

Eastern Lions Kart Club, 44

Petitions

Kangaroos: control, 37


Schools: retention rates, 84

HELPER, Mr (Ripon)

Condolences

Hon. Thomas Leslie Austin, 6

HOLDING, Mr (Springvale)

Members statements

CFA: Springvale brigade, 44



MEMBERS INDEX

iv ASSEMBLY 10, 11 and 12 September 2002

HONEYWOOD, Mr (Warrandyte)

Adjournment

Schools: innovation excellence program, 129

Condolences



HOWARD, Mr (Ballarat East)

Bills

Agricultural Industry Development (Further Amendment) Bill, 103 Agriculture Legislation (Amendments and Repeals) Bill, 94

HULLS, Mr (Niddrie) (Attorney-General, Minister for Manufacturing Industry and Minister for Racing)

Bills

Crimes (Property Damage and Computer Offences) Bill, 149, 208 Guardianship and Administration (Amendment) Bill, 122 Juries (Amendment) Bill, 153 Sentencing (Further Amendment) Bill, 149, 206


Justice: government initiatives, 172

INGRAM, Mr (Gippsland East)

Adjournment

SES: Stratford unit, 129

Petitions

Gas: East Gippsland supply, 35

JASPER, Mr (Murray Valley)

Adjournment

Cobram District Hospital, 127

KILGOUR, Mr (Shepparton)

Rulings, 61, 62, 63, 67, 158, 159

KOSKY, Ms (Altona) (Minister for Education and Training)

Condolences



Cardinia Primary School, 83 Schools: retention rates, 84

KOTSIRAS, Mr (Bulleen)

Bills

Sports Event Ticketing (Fair Access) Bill, 77

Members statements

Schools: LOTE, 42

LANGDON, Mr (Ivanhoe)


Transport: major projects, 169

LANGUILLER, Mr (Sunshine)

Grievances


LEIGH, Mr (Mordialloc)

Adjournment

Dingley bypass, 220

Condolences


Grievances

ALP: union candidate, 61

Points of order, 56, 170, 225

LEIGHTON, Mr (Preston)

Adjournment

Pawnbrokers: residual equity, 128

Bills


Members statements

Reservoir: mobile phone tower, 137

LENDERS, Mr (Dandenong North) (Minister for Finance and Minister for Industrial Relations)

Bills

Federal Awards (Uniform System) Bill, 149, 200

MEMBERS INDEX

10, 11 and 12 September 2002 ASSEMBLY v

LIM, Mr (Clayton)

Bills


Family and Community Development Committee

Clothing outworkers conditions, 38

Members statements

TAC: claims, 139

LINDELL, Ms (Carrum)

Members statements

CFA: Carrum brigade, 138

LONEY, Mr (Geelong North)

Condolences


Rulings, 55, 56, 57, 58

LUPTON, Mr (Knox)

Adjournment

Brimbank: levy, 216 Dorset Road, Ferntree Gully: safety, 131

Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee

Volatile substance inhalation, 37

Petitions

Libraries: funding, 135

Rulings, 89, 180

McARTHUR, Mr (Monbulk)

Adjournment

Lysterfield Road, Lysterfield: safety, 128

Condolences


McCALL, Ms (Frankston)

Members statements

Karingal Secondary College site, 41

McINTOSH, Mr (Kew)

Members statements

ALP: union donations, 139

Petitions

Prague House, Kew, 36

MACLELLAN, Mr (Pakenham)

Condolences


MADDIGAN, Mrs (Essendon)

Members statements

Dick Reynolds, 42

MAUGHAN, Mr (Rodney)

Adjournment

Kangaroos: control, 217

Bills

Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill, 113 Sports Event Ticketing (Fair Access) Bill, 72


Program, 41

Condolences


Grievances

Drought: government assistance, 49

MAXFIELD, Mr (Narracan)

Adjournment

Dr Timothy McArdle, 217

Bills


MILDENHALL, Mr (Footscray)

Adjournment

Maribyrnong: aquatic centre, 130 Police: Footscray, 219

MULDER, Mr (Polwarth)

Bills

Agricultural Industry Development (Further Amendment) Bill, 99 Agriculture Legislation (Amendments and Repeals) Bill, 86

MEMBERS INDEX

vi ASSEMBLY 10, 11 and 12 September 2002

NAPTHINE, Dr (Portland)

Bills


Condolences


NARDELLA, Mr (Melton)

Adjournment

Consumer affairs: lottery scams, 220

Grievances

Liberal Party: performance, 52

Points of order, 63

Rulings, 132

OVERINGTON, Ms (Ballarat West)

Members statements

Keith Davison, 43


Justice: government initiatives, 172

PANDAZOPOULOS, Mr (Dandenong) (Minister for Gaming, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Employment and Minister assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs)

Adjournment

Responses, 224

Points of order, 58

PATERSON, Mr (South Barwon)

Condolences


Members statements

Surf Coast: administration, 43

PERTON, Mr (Doncaster)

Bills

Constitution (Parliamentary Reform) Bill, 147 Guardianship and Administration (Amendment) Bill, 123 Juries (Amendment) Bill, 124

Petitions

Church–Doncaster Roads, Doncaster: crossing supervision, 35

Points of order, 84, 170, 172, 173, 175

PEULICH, Mrs (Bentleigh)

Adjournment

Bentleigh West Primary School, 126

Bills

Utility Meters (Metrological Controls) Bill, 105

Condolences


Petitions

Glen Eira: rates, 35


PIKE, Ms (Melbourne) (Minister for Housing, Minister for Community Services and Minister assisting the Premier on Community Building)

Bills


PLOWMAN, Mr (Benambra)

Adjournment

Wodonga: adolescent residential care, 221

Bills


Condolences


Grievances

Drought: government assistance, 66

Petitions

Kangaroos: control, 37 Motorcycles: levy, 35

Points of order, 89

Rulings, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123

RICHARDSON, Mr (Forest Hill)


MEMBERS INDEX

10, 11 and 12 September 2002 ASSEMBLY vii

ROBINSON, Mr (Mitcham)

Adjournment

Consumer affairs: soccer clinic, 127


Economy: performance, 85

ROWE, Mr (Cranbourne)

Condolences


RYAN, Mr (Gippsland South) (Leader of the National Party)

Bills

Guardianship and Administration (Amendment) Bill, 123 Juries (Amendment) Bill, 125, 150

Condolences


Personal explanation, 187



Drought: government assistance, 80 Electricity: Basslink, 169

SAVAGE, Mr (Mildura)

Bills

Agricultural Industry Development (Further Amendment) Bill, 104

Members statements

John Wilkinson, 138

SEITZ, Mr (Keilor)

Adjournment

Small business: share buybacks, 131

Environment and Natural Resources Committee

Fisheries management, 135

Grievances

Former government: record, 64 United States of America: terrorist attacks, 64

SHARDEY, Mrs (Caulfield)

Bills


Condolences


Grievances

Housing estates, 54 waiting lists, 53

SMITH, Mr (Glen Waverley)

Condolences


SPEAKER, The (Hon. Alex Andrianopoulos)

BLF custodian

56th report, 38

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

Study tours, 41

Condolences

Hon. Thomas Leslie Austin, 12 Hon. Ann Mary Henderson, 34 Philip Martin Hudson, 1 John Scrimgeour Lechte, 1

Distinguished visitor, 79

Rulings, 1, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 218, 222, 225

STEGGALL, Mr (Swan Hill)

Bills

Agricultural Industry Development (Further Amendment) Bill, 100 Agriculture Legislation (Amendments and Repeals) Bill, 89 Utility Meters (Metrological Controls) Bill, 106

STENSHOLT, Mr (Burwood)

Adjournment

Wattle Park: advisory group, 220

Bills


Members statements

Highfield Road, Camberwell: speed limit, 137

MEMBERS INDEX

viii ASSEMBLY 10, 11 and 12 September 2002

THOMPSON, Mr (Sandringham)

Condolences


Members statements

Marigny Manufacturing Australia Pty Ltd, 44

THWAITES, Mr (Albert Park) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health)

Adjournment

Responses, 223

Bills

Health Legislation (Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning) Bill, 148, 187

Condolences



Hospitals: infection control, 82

TREZISE, Mr (Geelong)

Adjournment

Pawnbrokers: motor vehicles, 129

Condolences



Taxation: government policies, 174

VINEY, Mr (Frankston East)

Bills



Hospitals: infection control, 82

VOGELS, Mr (Warrnambool)

Bills


Members statements

Warrnambool dental clinic, 137

WELLS, Mr (Wantirna)

Condolences


Grievances

Police: crime statistics, 45

Points of order, 55

WILSON, Mr (Bennettswood)

Adjournment

Royal Melbourne Hospital, 218

Condolences


Petitions

Buses: Glen Waverley–Blackburn service, 135 Rail: Glen Waverley kiosk, 35

WYNNE, Mr (Richmond)

Bills

Guardianship and Administration (Amendment) Bill, 123 Juries (Amendment) Bill, 151 Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill, 184

Assembly Spring Parlynet Weekly Book 1 2002 - Parliament of ...

Documents

Transcript of Assembly Spring Parlynet Weekly Book 1 2002 - Parliament of ...