QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE WAGES AGREEMENT

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Thursday, 16 May 1991 ASSEMBLY 2349

Thursday, 16 May 1991

The SPEAKER (Hon. Ken Coghill) took the chair at 10.33 a.m. and read the prayer.


WAGES AGREEMENT Mr KENNElT (Leader of the Opposition) - I refer the Premier to her repeated

denials in this House that the government and its friends at the Trades Hall Council have struck a wages deal for public sector employees. Given the fact that Cabinet discussed this matter on 6 May and gave instructions that the matter be resolved, and that statements by Mr Boyd of the Trades Hall Council that a deal does in fact exist and will be backdated until today, I ask the Premier: who is lying, the Premier or Mr Boyd?

Ms KIRNER (Premier) -It is interesting that when the Leader of the Opposition is in a corner and slowly being found out for his lack of policies and commitment to the people he cannot resist personal abuse and accusations.

Mr McNamara interjected.

Ms KIRNER - Neither can the Leader of the National Party resist using the House constantly to interject across the table. I made it clear two days ago that there is no deal between the government and the Trades Hall Council. The Trades Hall Council has made it clear that there is no agreement. As I said weeks ago, there have been proper negotiations, as one would expect there to be.


Mr Kennett interjected.

The SPEAKER - Order! I ask the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to remain silent.

Ms KIRNER - The Deputy Leader of the Opposition constantly shows no respect for this House, either, and the way he constantly interjects across the table demonstrates that point. If he were interested in the future of Victoria he would be interested in the outcome of any negotiations on wages.

I made it clear on Tuesday and I make it clear again now that there is no agreement. Agreement will not be reached until there have been proper negotiations on all the matters that concern the government. That includes the need to get a view on future productivity. I know the Leader of the Opposition has no wages policy at all. Indeed, he


2350 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 16 May 1991

has no economic policy. His only policy is to get new recruits into plum Liberal seats. He did it so well for the seat of Malvern.

The SPEAKER - Order! I ask the Premier to confine her remarks to the question.

Ms KIRNER - The gentleman who is now going to be in the seat of Malvern yesterday announced to Scotch College that he would be the next Minister for Education.

Mr KENNE1T (Leader of the Opposition) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the Premier is defying your direction. The question was very simple. The two people I referred to were the Premier and Mr Boyd - -

Honourable members interjecting.

The SPEAKER - Order! The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to raise a point of order without interruption. I particularly ask the honourable member for Springvale to remain silent.

Mr KENNE1T - My point of order is that the Premier is defying your ruling, Mr Speaker. My question was quite specific. There are two people with different points of view. Obviously one is not telling the truth. I ask the Premier to address that question.

The SPEAKER - Order! It would be fuuch easier for the House to hear the Premier's reply if honourable members on both sides remained silent. I particularly ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to remain silent. His interjections have been loud and constant during the latter part of the Premier's reply. At this stage I do not uphold the point of order but I ask the Premier to confine her remarks to matters relevant to the question.

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - There are expectations for a wage settlement on the side of the Trades Hall Council and on our side. The THC has made it clear as well that there is no agreement or deal, but at some stage there will be an agreement because my view, and my government's view, is different from that of the opposition.

We have no problem supporting the accord. We know it is a factor in enabling Australia to get to the deflation result that it is at this morning. These people opposite want to criticise the accord. They have nothing to put in its place except a slash and burn policy towards workers.

We make no apology at all for undertaking proper negotiations with the Trades Hall Council on this issue.

INTEREST SWAP TRANSACTION Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - Will the Treasurer inform the

House how he intends to repay the $35 million of taxpayers funds that he used in an unlawful interest rate swap without the approval of Parliament? Can he advise the House why action should not be taken now or after the election to recover the $35 million?

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - It is fairly obvious that the Leader of the National Party has not bothered to read the material put before the Parliamentary Economic and Budget

QUESTIONS WITHJUT NOTICE


Review Committee because the committee made it clear, as did the Auditor-General in his evidence, that there would be no action required against officers or anyone else.

The opposition has decided to ignore the views of its own members on the committee. A unanimous decision was made by the members of the committee on legislation on that matter and honourable members opposite have deliberately overruled their members who worked on that inquiry over the past couple of months to bring in the report.

The report did three things: firstly, it said there should be legislation to enable the acquittance of that $35 million; secondly, there should be legislation relating to future interest swap transactions; and, thirdly, it made it clear there should be annotated appropriations.

The opposition has decided to ignore the advice of its members who were on the committee and we hope it will change its mind. If it does not change its mind I imagine the situation will be similar to a previous occasion of the Ash Wednesday bushfires and the non-acquittance, which was mentioned in the Auditor-General's report of that year and in fact that was the end of it.

It is unfortunate because we would certainly like to follow the advice of the Parliamentary committee but if the opposition does not want to do that it will make no difference whatsoever.

PUBLIC SECTOR EFFICIENCY Mr F. P. SHEEHAN (Ballarat South) - Will the Premier advise the House what steps

have been taken in the lead up to this year's Budget to improve further the efficiency of the public sector and assist the departments in their expenditure review?

An honourable member interjected.

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - At least they will not be going to Portsea! In line with the government's commitment to improving efficiency in the public sector, the Minister for Finance has decided to undertake a major review of Public Service overheads.

In the Victoria First statement, which we made in March, one of the key matters we determined to review was the whole area of government purchasing requirements. It is crucial to realise that in doing so we can lift the efficiency of the supply service in the public sector. We will set up a central Victorian supply service which will incorporate the current State Supply Service and the State Tender Board and will take over computer contractors activities from the government supply support sector.

The Victoria Supply Service has a great opportunity not only to make efficiencies but also to encourage Victorian contracts. The way in which we can get savings from this kind of review of overheads is through the elimination of duplication, the reduction of stock in hand and the strategic use of contracting and bulk buying.

It is very interesting to contrast the government's view with that of the opposition on how you achieve efficiency in the public sector. The opposition's view is that you first get rid of 3500 senior persons in the Public Service - that is its first move.



Dr Wells - That's nonsense!

Ms KIRNER - That is what the shadow Minister for Finance said. I understand he is absolutely clear that he wants to get rid of 3500 so-called "political" public servants. I understand the honourable member for Dromana would be nervous about that because even if he gets preselection, which is doubtful, the loyal public servants in his electorate would not be very happy about it.

Mr DELZOPPO (Narracan) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the answer the Premier is tendering to the House is not relevant to the question and I ask you to bring her back to order.

The SPEAKER - Order! A Minister must answer a question in a manner which is relevant to the question, although, subject to that, a Minister may answer in a manner in which he or she sees fit. I uphold the point of order and ask the Premier to relate her remarks to the question.

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - Thank you, Mr Speaker. The first action in getting public sector efficiency, according to the shadow Minister for Finance, is to get rid of 3500 public servants. We know how he treated public servants in his previous portfolios; we know how hard he doesn't work, and we know how he treated the then Premier. We would not expect him to have any compassion for workers or understanding of the public sector or of the proper rules for running the public sector!

Mr Kennan - He always loves his Leader!

The SPEAKER - Order! The Deputy Premier.

Ms KIRNER - But we should have thought he would have been able to work out how many senior people there are in the Public Service. He says he is going to get rid of 3500 but there are in fact only a little more than 2000 in the Senior Executive Service. Somewhere in the bowels of the departments he is going to sneak around looking for less than loyal people in middle management.

Mr Kennan - He is a Joe McCarthy!

Ms KIRNER - What a way to get efficiency in the Public Service: to undermine absolutely the confidence of all those people who work loyally for government policy, which is their role whoever is in government!

The second way that the opposition wishes to get public sector efficiency is by selling everything. There are ways of getting appropriate public sector efficiency without the slash, burn and sack policy of the opposition.

The next area we are going to tackle is the car fleet - an area of great interest to the opposition. The Minister for Finance is investigating savings in fleet management and shortly he will call for expressions of interest for operating leases, repair and maintenance services and fleet management services. We expect we will be able to save $14 million through that kind of public sector reorganisation.



PREMIER'S JUNE ECONOMIC STATEMENT Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - I refer the Premier to her much-publiCised and important

June economic statement. Can she assure the House that the statement will spell out a program of wide-ranging micro-economic reforms, privatisation of government business - such as the State Electricity Commission - enterprise bargaining, and voluntary unionism, and will she make this important statement to this Parliament?

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - For the second day running the opposition has been asking the questions on the government's agenda. I cannot say how delighted I am that that is the case. The reason members of the opposition are doing that is because they have no policy agenda of their own, except games - the sorts of games honourable members are going to see again this afternoon.

I can assure the honourable member that if the opposition wants to debate this very important issue it will first have to begin to work on some policies and we give them the opportunity of doing so.

SCALLOP FISHING IN PORT PHILLIP BAY

Mr McDONALD (Whittlesea) - I direct a question without notice to the Minister for Conservation and Environment - -

Mr Kennett - Careful it is not a set-up!

Mr McDONALD - Can the Minister advise the House what action he now intends to take to protect Port Phillip Bay and the sustainability of the scallop fishing industry?

Mr CRABB (Minister for Tourism) - As I indicated publicly yesterday, the Department of Conservation and Environment issued a fisheries notice, taking effect at 5 a' clock yesterday afternoon, by means of a special Government Gazette, closing the Port Phillip Bay scallop fishery for three months. Notwithstanding that, some 35 or so of the 90 boats went out earlier this morning.

Mr Weideman - Were they armed?

Mr CRABB - I would be interested to hear the views of the honourable member for Frankston South on these matters if he had any.

The boats that are fishing have been visited by enforcement officers of the Fisheries Division of my department and each of them has been served with a copy of the fisheries notice. Whether prosecutions will be entailed will depend on the investigations of those fisheries officers.

The government is prepared to work out an acceptable arrangement with the scallop fishermen. The scallop fishermen need to realise that this year they have the opportunity to extensively trial all the possible harvesting equipment that is available for harvesting scallops so that they can establish the best harvesting system and have a sustainable industry, not just for now but for the foreseeable future. However, despite all the


2354 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 16May 1991

attempts to arrange such discussions, the scallop fishermen have refused point-blank to cooperate.

As I said, it is the government's desire to see a sustainable industry maintained. If the scallop fishermen refuse to cooperate, the consequences under the Fisheries Act are quite draconian for them. Not only are the penalties imposed under the Act substantial but also ultimately they lead to confiscation of the boats and equipment and cancellation of licences.

If this group of scallop fishermen will not cooperate in attempting to achieve an acceptable form of scallop harvesting, ultimately other people may be issued with licences.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT Mr BROWN (Gippsland West) - Can the Minister for Transport explain why his

Ministry has claimed $30 million from the Transport Accident Commission to be paid before the end of June this year?

Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) - I welcome back the honourable member from Wonthaggi as shadow Minister for Transport. I know there is still quite a bit of competition between him and the honourable member for Mornington about who is the actual spokesperson.

Mr Elder - You won't be back after the next election.

The SPEAKER - Order! I suggest the Minister should ignore interjections.

Mr SPYKER - The honourable member for Ballarat should --

Mr Elder - There is no honourable member for Ballarat.

Mr SPYKER - The same comment was made at the declaration of my poll in 1979, and I am still here!


The SPEAKER - Order! I ask the Minister to pause until the House comes to order. The Minister for Small Business should remain silent.

Mr SPYKER - The honourable member for Malvern tried in 1982 and got the lowest Liberal vote ever.

Mr LEIGH (Malvern) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I am delighted to hear about the past, such as the Minister is about, but may I draw your attention to the fact that the Minister has strayed from the answer to the question. I ask you to bring him back to the question.

The SPEAKER - Order! The Minister was straying by referring to interjections. I suggest he ignore interjections but I remind honourable members, including the honourable member for Malvern, that interjections are disorderly.



Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) - The honourable member for Gippsland West raised a matter in relation to the transport budget. He will be delighted to know that our budget expenditure in transport is on line. We are not over the target in relation to our expenditure and also the reduction of the work force according to our budget - the 1500 - is close to target.

As I have indicated to the House, there is some reduction in revenue because of the recession, particularly in freight. Those issues and the ones he has raised are being addressed at the moment to ensure that at the end of the year our balanced budget can be presented, and it will be one we can be very proud of.

UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS Mr J. F. McGRATH (Warrnambool) - I refer the Premier to the most recent

unemployment figures which see State unemployment now at a record 10.5 per cent.

Mr Kennedy - Where is your regional development policy?

The SPEAKER -Order! The honourable member for Bendigo West is out of order.


Mr J. F. McGRATH - I refer the Premier to the most recent unemployment figures which show State unemployment at a record 10.5 per cent with 127 000 Victorians having lost their jobs in the past twelve months. Can the Premier inform the House why she and her colleagues should retain their jobs while those in the community lose theirs?

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - If the honourable member is proposing we reduce the number of politicians in this Parliament I would agree with him that would be a small contribution - a very small contribution - to recovery of employment for other people in this State.

We have discussed the matter a number of times and I should be more than delighted to discuss it again with the Leader of the Opposition. However, in terms of real employment policies, what a cheek for the opposition to ask what our policies are for reducing unemployment! Not one policy have opposition members put before the Victorian people. They criticise the workers of Victoria for being on strike, but they have been on strike on policy for the past nine months, and they are still on strike.

The only job the Leader of the Opposition has ever been interested in is getting back into that job, and that is what he achieved. He has absolutely no employment policy for anyone but himself.

Let us examine the actions of the government to recreate employment in this State: the current state of employment in Victoria is largely related to the national recession.


Ms KIRNER - I know opposition members do not want to put it in context, but that is true.




The SPEAKER - Order! The Premier will pause while the House comes to order and I remind the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition that it is their obligation to show a lead in the standards of behaviour in the House.

Ms KIRNER - That is why I have arranged, through the Premiers Conference, discussions with the Australian Loan Council on that issue. We all know that it is a national issue and that it has to be addressed nationally.

The second reason for problems in the employment area is the reshaping of the manufacturing industry. It is time that the manufacturing industry was reshaped, but it needs to be reshaped in a way that obtains investment for Victoria.

If one examines the work we have actually done through the Department of Manufacturing and Industry Development one finds that we are the first government in Australia to set up a tripartite manufacturing industry council.


Ms KIRNER - These people opposite have never had a manufacturing policy; they have a knitting-machine-in-the-front-garden policy but they do not have a manufacturing industry policy. I have searched in vain for it.

The SPEAKER - Order! I ask the Premier to relate her remarks to the question.

Ms KIRNER - Our manufacturing industry policy is based on three areas. One is reducing costs to employers - and we have recently done that by cutting back on the WorkCare charges; and we have also done that by actions on payroll tax, and we aim to continue to improve opportunities for employers in that area, including the revision of land tax.

The second area is to actually get on with developing the hig projects. The hig projects for Victoria involve new industries.

Mr KelU\ett - The State Bank?

Ms KIRNER - Mr Speaker, perhaps you would like to invite the Leader of the Opposition down to AST A at Avalon where he will see some of the opportunities arising for Victoria.

When I was at Aerospace Technologies of Australia Pty Ltd earlier this week the people down there were pretty upset about the kind of non-attention and constant criticism these new industries are receiving.

The Leader of the Opposition constantly sledges the government and its commitment to employees and employers to get Victoria going again. The Leader of the Opposition likes to come into this House and constantly play games, and he will do that again this afternoon. The Leader of the Opposition will fail again this afternoon like he has failed with all his games, and until the opposition develops an economic policy by which it can be judged the Leader of the Opposition will continue to abuse the future of Victoria by his lack of interest in anything that takes Victoria forward.

PAPERS

Thursday, 16 May 1991 ASSEMBLY

PAPERS

Laid on table by Clerk:

Statutory Rules under the following Acts:

Fertilizers Act 1974 -SR No. 83.

Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works Act 1958 -SR No. 82.

Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1982 -SR No. 84.

FISHERIES (SCALLOPS) BILL

Introduction and first reading

2357

Mr CRABB (Minister for ConselVation and Environment) introduced a Bill to amend the Fisheries Act 1968 to regulate the harvesting of scallops for sale and for other purposes.

Read first time.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr PLOWMAN (Evelyn) - Mr Speaker, I wish to withdraw Notice of Motion, General Business, No. 1, listed on the Notice Paper in my name. The motion, like the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Doveton, is now irrelevant, and I do not wish to proceed with it.

DISALLOWANCE OF STATUTORY RULE

Mr JASPER (Murray Valley) - I move:

That the Envirorunent Protection (Scheduled Premises and Exemptions) (Amendment) Regulations 1989 (Statutory Rule 77/1989) be disallowed.

Members of the House would be aware of the difficulties faced by the Subordinate Legislation Subcommittee of the Legal and Constitutional Committee in presenting to Parliament in good faith a report which was not supported by the government.

On 5 September 1989 I moved the disallowance of the statutory rule on behalf of the Legal and Constitutional Committee as a protective notice under the Subordinate Legislation Act, which provides for a further twelve sitting days for the notice to be dealt with.

I want to detail to the House the provisions of the Act that relate to the report, the difficulties that the committee has had with the presentation of the report and the fact that it was not dealt with by Parliament, and indicate the amendments that need to be made to the Subordinate Legislation Act so that reports from the committee can be dealt with by Parliament and recognition can be given to the importance of the recommendations of that committee.



Section 5(3) of the Subordinate Legislation Act states:

A resolution to disallow a statutory rule pursuant to sub-section (2) -

(a) must be given in the House in question on or before the eighteenth day upon which that House sits after the Legal and Constitutional Committee has reported to that House on the failure to comply with sub-section (1); and

(b) must be passed on or before the twelfth day upon which that House sits after notice of the resolution has been given in that House -

but the power of either House to pass a resolution disallowing the statutory rule shall not be affected by the prorogation or dissolution of the Parliament or of either House of the Parliament and for the purpose of this section the calculation of days upon which a House has sat shall be made as if there had been no such prorogation or dissolution.

I shall detail part of section 6 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1962 which refers to the disallowance of statutory rules:

The notice of disallowance of a resolution to disallow a statutory rule must be given in the House in question on or before the eighteenth day upon which the House sits after the rule has been laid before that House and the resolution must be passed on or before the twelth day upon which the House sits after the notice of the resolution has been given in that House.

The committee dealt with the regulation and decided that it should be reported to Parliament for disallowance. Indeed the committee had been negotiating with the then Minister for Planning and Environment, now the Treasurer; and seeking information on this regulation because it had not been finally clarified with the Minister. On many occasions the committee indicated the possible disallowance of the regulation because the eighteenth sitting day was being reached and, in fact, that is the case with this regulation.

The regulation was reported to Parliament for disallowance in October 1989 and was the committee's seventeenth report on subordinate legislation. That provided the Parliament with twelve sitting days in which to deal with the regulation. The Subordinate Legislation Subcommittee of the Legal and Constitutional Committee assesses all regulations to be determined by Parliament and approved by the Governor in Council. Those regulations are assessed in accordance with criteria laid down in the Subordinate Legislation Act 1962, in particular section 14(1) which provides the heads of investigation for the committee. I shall not detail all of those heads used by the committee in investigating a regulation but I suggest that honourable members who are not aware of the operations of the committee should make themselves conversant with the Subordinate Legislation Act and the importance of the committee in reviewing regulations and the importance in particular of section 14(1) of the Act.

After due investigations the all-party committee agreed that the regulation contravened section 14(1)(g) of the Subordinate Legislation Act, the section which related to this regulation. Section 14(1)(g) reads:

The regulation unduly makes rights and liberties of the person dependent upon administrative and not upon judicial decisions.

It is worth detailing briefly to the House the regulation reviewed by the committee. The regulation prescribes land reclamation work exceeding 3 hectares as "schedule 2 premises" and exempts this class of work from licensing. In compliance with the provisions of the Subordinate Legislation Act a regulatory impact statement was prepared and published prior to the making of the statutory rule.



The procedures were followed through so far as the regulation was concerned and, as I have shown, a regulatory impact statement was prepared and published for comment by interested parties. The regulatory impact statement acknowledged an important difference between the environmental assessment procedures of the Environment Effects Act and the works approval procedures of the Environment Protection Act.

I shall read some pertinent paragraphs from the report because it puts into place the reviews of the committee on this regulation. The report states:

In view of the fact that this statutory rule has the effect of removing access to a right of appeal, the committee sought further comment on this matter from the responsible Minister.

That is the normal procedure that the committee takes. If it has a query with the particular regulation the committee raises it with the Minister seeking clarification and then seeks action from the Minister to amend the regulation if the Minister believes the committee is right in its recommendation. The response from the Minister was - and I quote from the report:

While the Minister acknowledged that all applications for coastal land reclamation works have been appealed against since the works approval process was first introduced in 1985, he stated that these appeals were not founded, in substance, on environmental grounds. .

The report further details the rights of third parties and how they can exercise a right of appeal against reclamation of coastal beach sands, or renourishment works under the Planning and Environment Act. It was contingent on three factors which are detailed in the report. Despite the comments from the Minister and the further investigations, the committee was not happy with the responses provided; that is why it decided it should report to Parliament.

I again quote from the report:

The committee therefore considers that the right to appeal against the grant of a planning permit pursuant to the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 may not be adequate to safeguard the interests of third parties who would otherwise seek to appeal against the grant of works approval. The committee said it appreciates that this statutory rule was made in order to overcome the duplication of procedures and associated costs ...

However, the latter part of the report says:

Having regard to the matters outlined in this report, the committee is satisfied that this statutory rule removes access to an avenue of appeal which would otherwise have been available had the relevant works remained subject to the works approval process.

The final paragraph of the report of the subordinate legislation subcommittee recommended disallowance of the regulation. This was approved of by the Legal and Constitutional Committee and the report :vas prOVided ~o ~cu:liament.

The importance of the subordinate legislation subcommittee as an all-party subcommittee of the Legal and Constitutional Committee cannot be underestimated. The regulation-making powers under the 1962 Act were adequate to allow for the investigation of regulations as they were prepared and approved by the Governor in Council.

However, you will be aware, Mr Speaker, as will all honourable members, that the Legal and Constitutional Committee undertook an extensive examination of amendments to the Subordinate Legislation Act which were debated in this House in 1984 and came into



effect in 1985. The amendments to the Subordinate Legislation Act increased the powers of the committee. Victoria is now leading the way in the methods being used in the review of regulations. There is no doubt that the new procedures, including the need for regulatory impact statements and the extended powers as detailed in the Act, give the committee extensive power to review regulations and to ensure that they comply with the Subordinate Legislation Act and other Acts of Parliament in this State.

Despite the sophisticated review of regulations under the current Act, there are deficiencies that need to be addressed to improve the efficiency of this committee and to ensure that the Parliament will be responsive to reports which are brought forward to it by an all-party Parliamentary committee. Usually the reports are unanimous before they proceed from the subordinate legislation subcommittee to the full committee and then are brought before the Parliament.

It was recommended that the regulations be disallowed. The Legislative Council dealt with the motion to disallow the regulations and supported the disallowance. However, the notice of motion to disallow the regulations was not dealt with in the Legislative Assembly. That is disappointing.

I place on record that on many occasions I negotiated with the then Minister for Planning and Environment, now the Treasurer, to ensure that the regulations were debated in the Legislative Assembly so that this House could make a decision supporting or rejecting the Legal and Constitutional Committee's recommendation.

My view as chairman of the subordinate legislation subcommittee of that committee was that an all-party Parliamentary committee had recommended that certain regulations be disallowed and the recommendation should be debated by Parliament. But that suggestion was ignored by the Minister and the government.

Mr Roper -It wasn't agreed to, not ignored!

Mr JASPER - That is not correct. On a number of occasions I spoke to the Treasurer as the Leader of the House to ensure that the regulations were dealt with by the House. He was not prepared to enable that to happen. The position was reached where the twelve days had expired and the regulations continued to have effect. I suggest that situation should not be tolerated and must be changed.

If an all-party Parliamentary committee cannot have its recommendations to Parliament debated and resolved in both Houses, I suggest the government of the day is thumbing its nose at the committee and changes should be made to the procedure.

In recent years the Legal and Constitutional Committee has presented many reports to Parliament. I refer the House to the sixteenth report on subordinate legislation, which provided a scrutiny of subordinate legislation: principles and practice. That report made a number of recommendations for improving the operations of the committee to enable it to report effectively, to make information available to members of Parliament, and to ensure that the people of Victoria are better informed on regulations and better able to decide their views on specific regulations.



Again the final decision rests with Parliament. Both the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council must deal with committee reports. They are asked to ensure that the recommendations of all Parliamentary committees are supported.

Recommendation 4 of the report states:

The committee recommends that s.6(2) of the Subordinate Legislation Act be amended to provide that a statutory rule shall be deemed to have been disallowed by the Parliament if a notice of motion to disallow the rule has been given in Parliament and the notice has not been withdrawn or otherwise dealt with on or before the twelfth sitting day after it was given.

I refer to section 6 of the Subordinate Legislation Act - -

Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the notice of motion as listed on the Notice Paper states:

That the Environment Protection (Scheduled Premises and Exemptions) (Amendment) RegulatiOns 1989 (Statutory Rule 77/1989) be disallowed.

It seems to me that the notice of motion enables the House to debate the regulations or the statutory rule. The honourable member has been speaking for some considerable time

Mr Steggall -It is interesting!

Mr CRABB -It depends on one's field of interest. The honourable member has been speaking for some time about other matters concerning the Legal and Constitutional Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Act which are not before the House. Mr Speaker, I ask you to bring him to order.

Mr JASPER (Murray Valley) -On the point of order, Mr Speaker, I am concerned at the response of the Minister for Conservation and Environment. A particular regulation has not been dealt with in Parliament, and I can highlight another report of the Subordinate Legislation Subcommittee of the Legal and Constitutional Committee that the Minister was not prepared to debate.

The SPEAKER -Order! The honourable member for Murray Valley should speak on the point of order.

Mr JASPER - What I am saying is relevant because the Minister does not want to hear what is the truth, what is correct and what should be done. If the Minister were responsible he would try to develop a better system within Parliament so that the Legal and Constitutional Committee could bring forward reports to Parliament and have them dealt with.

The regulation referred to in the motion was not dealt with under the provisions of the Subordinate Legislation Act. I am suggesting to the House what should be done to ensure that regulations and reports of the subordinate legislation subcommittee are dealt with properly and not shoved under the carpet by the government of the day. The Minister should consider the nineteenth report of the subcommittee and what action he took.



The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member is going beyond the bounds of a point of order.

Mr JASPER - I make one other comment: this is an important part of the operation of the Victorian Parliament. As members of Parliament we should be aware of the important contribution of the Subordinate Legislation Subcommittee of the Legal and Constitutional Committee in seeking to ensure balance between the executive and Parliament. I am suggesting to the House a process that should be undertaken to ensure that what happened with the regulation referred to in the motion does not happen again.

The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Murray Valley must relate his remarks to the motion before the Chair. In this case it is in order to refer to the mechanisms for the disallowance of regulations and to comment on what he sees as the failures of those mechanisms. However, the honourable member is not in order if he proceeds to a significant debate on alternative mechanisms he may wish to introduce. I do not uphold the point of order, but I ask the honourable member for Murray Valley to relate his remarks to the motion.

Mr JASPER - I understand the concern of the Minister.

Mr Crabb - You're not going to start again!

Mr JASPER - Why not? The Minister may get a better understanding of how Parliament operates if he listens. I shall pass the report to him and ask him to read it. The Minister looks exasperated; he does not want to hear what I am saying. However, when he is in opposition he will be keen to support the work of the subcommittee to ensure that it reviews the work of the government of the day.

The Subordinate Legislation Subcommittee of the Legal and Constitutional Committee is more important today than ever before because of the actions taken by governments of all persuasions in transferring more and more power from the Parliamentary sphere to the executive, which governs by regulation. That matter has not been dealt with, and it should be. The point I was making when I was rudely interrupted by the Minister - -

The SPEAKER - Order! The Minister was entitled to raise a point of order.

Mr JASPER - He does not want to hear the truth. He should take more notice of the most important committee of Parliament.

Section 6(1) of the Subordinate Legislation Act states:

... the statutory rule shall be disallowed if each House of Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with the requirements of sub-section (2) of this section.

That highlights the recommendations made in the sixteenth report of the Legal and Constitutional Committee.

The committee is seeking amendments to the Act to overcome the situation it has been confronted with in dealing with statutory rules; and the government should consider the suggested amendments to the Subordinate Legislation Act that are detailed in that report.



The Legislative Council has dealt with the regulation that is the subject of the motion and has passed a resolution accepting its disallowance as recommended by the committee. With due respect to this House, some of the procedures of the Council should be considered by the Assembly. For example, the Standing Orders of the Council require that notices of motion take precedence on the Notice Paper and must be dealt with. I suggest to both the Minister for Conservation and Environment and the Minister for Labour, even though he is yawning, which I can understand because no doubt he has other things on his mind - -

Mr Pope interjected.

Mr JASPER - I understand that you have no understanding of it.

The SPEAKER -Order! The honourable member for Murray Valley should ignore interjections and address the Chair.

Mr JASPER - Mr Speaker, it is important that as a Minister of the Crown he understands the matter, especially as with other Ministers he goes off to Governor in Council meetings and approves such regulations, apparently without knowing what he is doing.

I suggest that the Minister for Labour try to understand, and then he might support the amendments to the Act the all-party Parliamentary committee is seeking. The government members of the committee support the action I am taking today in both giving details to the House of the difficulties being faced by the committee and arguing for the need for change. In particular, I ask the House to accept the recommendation in the seventeenth report that the regulation be disallowed.

I reiterate that in the Upper House the Standing Orders provide that notices of motion take precedence on the Notice Paper and are automatically dealt with.

The disallowance procedures of most other Parliaments throughout Australia, and, indeed, the Western World, are different from those we have in Victoria. The procedures of most other Parliaments provide that if a disallowance motion is not dealt with within the prescribed time - in the case of this Parliament, within twelve days - the regulation is automatically disallowed. That should be the first change that is made.

The committee is seeking an amendment to section 6(1) of the Subordinate Legislation Act to provide that when the committee recommends to Parliament that a regulation be disallowed, if the Inatter is not dealt with within a prescribed time the regulation is au tomatically disallowed.

Either House of Parliament should be empowered to disallow a regulation. The Minister for Conservation and Environment is intelligent enough to understand that in recent times Bills passed by the Legislative Council have had included in them a provision stipulating that either House can disallow a regulation.



The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member is beginning to stray beyond what I believe are the reasonable bounds of this debate. In the view of the Chair he has sufficiently made the point he obviously wants to, so I ask him to return to the motion.

Mr JASPER -It is important that the Minister and the House understand the need for Parliament to consider changes to the Act. Firstly, the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly should be amended so that notices of motion for disallowance of regulations in this House are dealt with in the same way as they are dealt with in the Legislative Council. Secondly, the Act should be amended so that if recommendations for the disallowance of regulations are not dealt with within twelve days the regulations are automatically disallowed, and that that can be handled by either House of Parliament.

Despite members from all parties being represented on the subordinate legislation subcommittee, the government has been reluctant to allow debate on the disallowance of the regulation and has shown itself unwilling to accept the recommendations contained in the committee's reports. I ask the government to show confidence in the committee by acting immediately to amend the Act and to accept the recommendations contained in the committee's seventeenth report.

I believe the Attorney-General should take note of my comments. As Chairman of the Subordinate Legislation Subcommittee of the Legal and Constitutional Committee I express my concern about the government's failure to recognise the importance of the committee's reports. I ask the government to act on the committee's recommendations so that it can continue in good faith to publish reports that are important not only to Parliament but to the people of Victoria.

Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) - The few members left in the House have listened with considerable interest and no doubt have been impressed by the diligent attention to infinite detail of the Chairman of the Subordinate Legislation Subcommittee of the Legal and Constitutional Committee of Parliament. Nevertheless, it is the function of Parliament to decide whether to disallow regulations; it is not the function of a subcommittee of a committee of Parliament - and that is as it should be.

The particular regulation the House is discussing has now been in force for two years to ensure that coastal land reclamation works and beach sand renourishment works are exempt from the works approval process of the Environment Protection Authority after they have been the subject of an environmental impact statement. In other words, the regulation ensures that those carrying out such development works should not have to jump through the hoop twice, that once is enough. The government believes that is appropriate, as do those involved in beach sand renourishment works.

The honourable member for Murray Valley and members of his subcommittee were apprised of the government's view on this matter some two years ago by the then Minister in charge of the Environment Protection Authority; and members of the subcommittee have been well aware of its operation since then.

The government maintains its position that the regulation is in the best interests of the community and has no intention of having it disallowed.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Motion negatived.


Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - I move:

That this House notes, with satisfaction, the judgment of Mr Justice Woodward on 24 August 1989 in the case of Odco Pty Ltd (better known as Troubleshooters Available) v. the Building Workers Industrial Union, which is fully consistent with the Liberal and National parties' approach to industrial relations, namely to encourage greater flexibility in the labour market and to provide greater opportunity to people in the work force to negotiate mutually acceptable terms and conditions of work leading to greater efficiency, productivity and competitiveness, and condemns the State government for its total failure to support small business against the intimidatory and predatory attacks of militant unions.

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the motion refers to a judgment of Mr Justice Woodward on 24 August 1989. That decision was upheld on appeal by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia on 21 March this year. On 17 April this year an application was filed to seek special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia and the matter will now be considered by the High Court in Melbourne on 7 June. Consequently, I direct to the attention of the House the issue of sub judice that arises in the first part of the motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party.

I am more than happy to debate the issue; but I should like it recorded that I believe the issue of sub judice is raised when commenting on the judgment of Mr Justice Woodward.

The SPEAKER - Order! On the point of order, I thank the Minister for drawing the matter to the attention of the Chair and the House. The matter of the application of the sub judice rule was dealt with in a 1979 report of the Standing Orders Committee of the United Kingdom House of Commons and the pertinent material on which this House now relies as a consequence is a view expressed and recorded in that report as being expressed by the then Speaker of the House of Commons. If I could quote from evidence to the committee on procedure, the question to the then Speaker was:

Would you agree, Mr Speaker, that the primary objective of a sub judice convention would be to prevent Parliament from prejudicing juries, parties and witnesses in the courts?

The answer is as follows:

Yes. I think it is very clear, in the face of a criminal trial, that that should be so. For example, if you were to allow discussion in the House of Commons things might very easily be brought out with regard to the character of a defendant, which would not be admissible in evidence. I think it is quite clear that there ought to be a sub judice rule or convention, certainly with regard to criminal cases. I think there are certain types of civil case, like action for defamation of character, where one can see the same sort of thing applying; and I would think that the rule or the convention ought to exist, only to be relaxed at the discretion of the Speaker. When one comes to wide issues such as those that we have been discussing, I think my present general view is that the rule ought to be invoked only at the discretion of the Speaker, that the general proposition ought to be that matters of general interest are discussable in the House of Commons unless the Speaker decides with regard to a particular issue or particular matter that he ought to invoke the rule. In other words, the presumption ought to be a different way. The presumption should be for discussion rather than against it.



In the context of the particular case, given the imminence of the hearing of the appeal by the High Court I advise honourable members speaking in the debate that they should abstain from comment on the judgment of Mr Justice Woodward but comment on other subject matter in the motion would certainly be in order.

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - Thank you for your ruling, Mr Speaker. The matter of Odco Pty Lld v. the Building Workers Industrial Union - BWIU - was of considerable interest to the broader community because it brought a focus onto the need and indeed the desire of many sections of the community to have an opportunity to freely market their wages and their capacities and skills in the marketplace.

Troubleshooters Available employs individuals in companies on a contract basis, and as a result many unions have expressed a great deal of concern. Obviously the Building Workers Industrial Union (BWIU) was one.

One of the highlights of the judgment of Mr Justice Woodward was his recognition that tradesmen and labourers who work in the building industry in this fashion may not be employees of a company in that circumstance. This company has been giving people, whether they are union members or not, an opportunity and one of the interesting features of the Odco situation is that the company is virtually totally unionised but is being attacked by trade unions. That would seem to be a little unusual.

However, it goes further than that. A very militant campaign was waged against them. The unions went to the trouble of providing documentation and various posters were put up. I have examples of some of the posters and, quite frankly, the words are too crude to read into the record. The way in which they were placed on billboards for all to see in a campaign that was designed simply to put fellow unionists out of work was quite disgraceful. For the life of me I cannot understand how any individual involved in a union could condone that sort of action.

The Troubleshooters-employee arrangement reached a high in 1988. I point out that the company has been in existence since 1973 and was founded by the present proprietor, Peter Bosa, who set up an agency which was then called Labourers and Carpenters Pool, to supply tradesmen to the building industry. At that time in time the Builders Labourers Federation declared war on the agency and, through an intensive campaign of harassment and black bans, forced its closure in 1975.

In 1976 Mr Bosa restarted the business, this time under the name Troubleshooters Available, and in 1981 he was joined by Mr Brian Groves as a company proprietor. Since that time Troubleshooters has been the subject of a continuing series of attacks from the building unions. In more recent years the main protagonist union has been the BWIU. On 27 July 1988 the company felt a need to inform its clients, Federal and State politicians, and the media of its concerns.

I should like to quote from the letter by Mr Bosa and Mr Groves because in many ways it serves to highlight the concerns being expressed at the time. It states:



... the union leadership have finally come out into the open and are now taking a leaf from that most infamous of all paperhangers. Now that they are unable to intimidate Troubleshooters Available contractors, they are going around numerous building sites putting stickers and posters up. We have reproduced and enclosed a sample of their "state of the art" propaganda for you to make up your own mind! All stickers and posters have a striking red background.

It is not my intention to read the filth that was on the posters but suffice it to say it is fact. The letter continues:

But first, a few facts:

Troubleshooters was black banned ten years before the "new right" came into being.

What was being peddled by the union was the notion that Troubleshooters was a front for the so-called new right. This organisation was established in 1973, ten years before the new right - whatever that means - came into being.

The second point reads:

Troubleshooters Available is not associated with any political parties, nor has it ever been part of the "new right".

Scab labour means: non-union labour. All Troubleshooters Available contractors are financial union members.

It is amazing that they have been attacked in this way. The fourth point is:

Troubleshooters Available bona fide subcontractors pay the correct tax for every dollar they earn.

That is the crux of the matter. This is where the difference in the approaches of the government and the coalition comes in. The government wants to see as many people as possible kept in the shackles of union membership and bound down by the dogma of being employees of the boss. The coalition is intent on providing opportunities for people to commence their own businesses, to be independent and to structure their own lives in a free manner.

One of the processes that makes this possible is available to people who are employed by Troubleshooters Available. They contract their labour to a parent organisation which finds the work, negotiates on their behalf and locates them on these various sites to carry out the functions that are required of them in the building and construction industry. At no time do they direct these people on the contract work to be carried out. That is strictly between the independent contractor and the firm carrying out that function and they are paid an appropriate amount.

Because of the nature of the building industry, which has been heavily unionised over many years, it has been found necessary for subcontractors to take out union membership. I understand those people working for Troubleshooters have been able to make a choice about joining a union; it is not something the organisation has at any time encouraged at all. It has been a matter for the independent contractors who are subcontracting to Troubleshooters to make their own decisions. The coalition supports that proposition.



As honourable members know, on the Notice Paper I have a Bill that will guarantee the rights of individuals to a free choice about whether they want to belong to a trade union. We believe that is a fundamental right.

The Minister in previous debate in this area correctly pointed out that under the State industrial Act there are no arrangements to give the Industrial Relations Commission the power to insert preference clauses, which effectively would demand that a person belong to a trade union.

When one examines the building and construction industry one finds the opposite is the case with work performed for the government. In terms of the work performed for the government, as a principal negotiator in the Victorian building industry agreement initiated by the Minister's predecessor, it in fact has a preference arrangement in that agreement.

I shall not go over that ground in detail because the Minister and I have debated that matter on previous occasions. Suffice to say a preference arrangement does exist in the agreement which binds the Victorian building industry and the government as signatories to it. It makes my point of the government's commitment in that regard. The letter continues:

The union leadership is losing the support of their rank and file on this issue. Remember, you and the thousands of others like you are the rank and file of the union.

That makes the whole issue difficult to understand, when a unionist is fighting a unionist. The letter continues:

Where these stickers are appearing, from what we understand, the rank and file are not giving support to this campaign.

The people responsible for those untruths are beneath contempt. They must be running scared to try to pull a stunt like this. These union organisers don't have the courage of their convictions. They are handing these stickers out with the words, "Don't tell anyone where you got these, or I will be in trouble".

It is an incredible situation. These people are condemning their own kind in the sense that they are all brothers in one union or alternative unions but they are running around condemning their brothers and denying them the opportunity of employment.

Of course evidence of thuggery exists within the building industry where police have been required to protect building sites because of the harassment by picketers and other violent action that resulted in people being injured. These are the same people who were involved in handing out stickers and posters. That is the underlying theme of the entire campaign. The letter continues:

They know these stickers are false. Do they think we will stand by and let this disreputable behaviour go unchallenged? .

No union could possibly suggest that this issue is anything to do with industrial relations. What it is about is the union power and they are abusing their power by doing everything they can to put Troubleshooters Available bona fide subcontractors out of business.

That is another interesting point because over a period we have seen a considerable reduction in the number of people who choose to belong to trade unions. It is this sort of



action that brought about that process. As the Minister and other honourable members know I am anything but anti-trade union membership - quite the opposite!

Mr Micallef - You have a strange way of showing it!

Mr GUDE - As the Minister knows and the honourable member for Springvale also knows, I do not support people who go outside the framework of the law. We should all play within the rules. The coalition is about putting an alternative before the people in a constructive way. We believe there should be genuine freedom in the market place to choose whether one belongs to a union.

A subcontractor should be able to negotiate his salary and working conditions freely in the market place. That is not the process the government or the union movement applies. The letter continues:

Troubleshooters Available firmly believes in the need for a healthy union movement, but until the needs of community-minded people of good character are held in higher esteem than the radical wailings of chronic malcontents, only then will Australia have a union movement that will be good for us all.

As your agency, we need your opinions and information so that we are kept up to date with what's happening on sites. For reasons we don't understand the unions apparently fear us. This has never been our intention. We have merely sought their respect so that we could all happily work together. Unfortunately, it appears that they are determined to continue a campaign of intimidation and harassment. Since they insisted on turning this issue into a win/lose situation, they are now in a position where they have set themselves up to lose the support of the ordinary, family-minded workers.

The fight for rights of independent workers continues.

P.S. It's time that the traditional blind eye started letting in some light. Injustice, suppression and segregation are the same colour through any lens.

Those final words in particular are most important in the context of the debate on the motion before the House because this is an unprecedented attack made against this particular organisation. Independent subcontractors - self-employed business people -are seen to threaten the power of the trade unions and control of the workers. I should have thought in the 1990s a more responsible and democratic approach would be taken.

I am concerned about the numbers of people who are currently unemployed in the work force. Unemployment has increased from 6.4 per cent in April 1982 to more than 10 per cent today. Part of the reason for that increase has been the greed and avarice of many trade unions in the market place, perhaps no more effectively than in Odco Pty Ltd where the unions involved have sought to try to keep tight control on the declining work force.

We have seen evidence over the lifetime of the government of increasing union activity, crashing, scrambling and decaying in the construction industry, which has all occurred in the space of nine years as the consequence of a number of matters.

It has come about because of the economic environment and also because of the way industrial relations has been conducted in this country. According to the Australian Small Business Association, subcontracting is under attack as never before in Australia.



Governments and unions seems to be acting in a virtual conspiracy to squeeze subcontractors out of the economy. Unfortunately that has a lot of relevance.

We have seen how, as a consequence of direct government decisions, government and unions persist in their attempts at hounding Troubleshooters Available. Presumably they are smarting over the drubbing the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia received in the case before Mr Justice Woodward and are now intent on destroying Odco Pty Ltd by prosecuting it over WorkCare deferred payments because of subcontractors being deemed to be employees under the Accident Compensation Act.

I remind the House that the legislation was passed only because the government had temporary control of both Houses of Parliament as a result of the Nunawading Province election re-run. I can assure the House that the arrangements applying to subcontracting under that Act would not have been passed by both Houses of Parliament in the current and normal environment where the Upper House provides a safeguard. Those provisions are totally contrary to the principles of democracy and decency and the principles of the liberal and National party coalition.

As a result of that legislation being sneaked through Parliament, Odco Pty Ltd is now facing action from the government, which is proceeding against it for back payment of WorkCare payments. Without going into the specific detail of other cases I would be happy - off the Parliamentary record - to identify some of those cases to the Minister, although I am sure he is aware of them.

My concern is that in cases like this the Accident Compensation Commission is not playing the game in an even-handed way. I have reason to understand that in other cases where similar questions have arisen about whether persons employed by an organisation were deemed to be employees the commission has been far more conciliatory in its approach. It has not allowed the financial arrangements slip by entirely, but it has certainly been lenient with arrangements concerning the collection of amounts in dispute and the rates that should apply.

I raise that point in passing because of my concern about the persecution process, which, from both my perspective and that of the company, appears to be taking place - the Minister mayor may not agree - and which is highly likely to result in another Victorian employer biting the dust, another company going out of business and yet another group of Victorian employees being driven out of work.

If, as the BWIU alleged, the subcontractors concerned were deemed to be employees you could not have a more graphic illustration of a union driving fellow unionists out of work. If the government persists with this process of collecting arrears in workers compensation premiums I have no doubt the company will fold in the near future.

As a consequence of the deeming arrangements that apply under the Accident Compensation Act there are flow-on implications through section 3(c) of the Pay-roll Tax Act and the company is being pursued by the State Taxation Office.



As a result of those two factors, and particularly in light of the matter raised by the Minister at the commencement of the debate - that the issue may not yet be resolved and may result in further proceedings in the civil jurisdiction - one would think that if it were proper for the Minister to raise the matter in this House, as I think it is, to ensure that fairness and equity prevails it would be proper also that the government agencies which are impacting on the future of the company through the direction they are following should show the same fairness urltil the matter is determined in the court system. It may be that those agencies are doing this company an ultimate injustice and driving it out of business.

This matter has been raised in a number of forums. As honourable members will be aware, I raised it for inclusion on the Notice Paper a very long time ago - I think it goes back to about October of 1988, or 1989, and it has certainly been around for a long time. I thought.very seriously about whether I should continue with the notice of motion, given the fact that further developments concerning legal proceedings may occur, but, on balance, I felt some fundamental principles needed to be stated and restated.

There is a fundamental difference between the government and the opposition that I think the community is increasingly coming to understand and respect. I have no doubt that when the next election is held the stark differences between the government's approach to industrial relations procedures and the way in which it is dealing with small business - as reflected by the matters I have just raised concerning WorkCare and payroll tax in relation to Odco Pty Ltd - and the coalition's approach will result in a resounding win for the coalition.

We are concerned with changing the structures that apply in Victoria as they impact on business; getting government out of business - getting the government's hands out of the pockets of business - and giving business an opportunity to get on with the job. When I say "business", I include people who are subcontracting to hire agencies such as Troubleshooters Available.

Odco Pty Ltd's struggle affects every Australian. The Victorian and Commonwealth governments have refused to take any interest in the pressure that the building unions have put on the company, even though the rights and economic interests of Australian people, and particularly Victorians, are being threatened by the pressure applied by the union movement today against subcontracting generally.

The debate is really about union power versus worker power. The subcontractors who work for Troubleshooters Available are all paid above-award wages and are all union members, which muddies the stream because of the pressure that can be put on people in the building industry, and they have accepted all those processes.

In many ways my concerns were summed up by Mr Brian Groves of Odco Pty Ltd when he addressed an industrial relations conference in September 1988. He asked listeners at the conference to judge whether what he was saying were the words of a person who was not deeply concerned about industrial relations in Australia and about the need for



employers and employees, including management - all concerned - to work together in a common cause. Mr Groves said what we all need to address is:

The inevitability of the failure of management in this country to address the real issues that cause industrial and economic havoc ...

He said also that these had become very clear as he listened to various employer representatives at the seminar. Mr Groves went on to say:

The right and the left have their separate interests to represent to be sure, but until the self-righteous breast beating on both sides stops, this potentially great country is the loser. Until Australians dismiss self-interest and concentrate on principles that benefit all, there will be no solution to this country's predicament.

Subsequently Mr Groves went on to say:

Managers and workers each have their job to do and together they can solve this country's industrial relations problems. I may sound like an idealist, but I have a working model and I know that it works.

Mr Groves and Mr Bosa, who are the principals of Troubleshooters Available, did have a very workable model through these years. They gave an opportunity to young people -and older people, for that matter - to effectively commence their own businesses. That opportunity is vitally important when some 230 000 Victorians are out of work, as they currently are. Many unemployed Victorians are despairing for their future because they have no real likelihood of gaining employment in the future.

Currently unemployment is said to be at 10.7 per cent and it may go to 12 per cent or even 15 per cent. If one recognises that the unemployment figures referred to today are not compiled on the same basis as they were in 1985, when the Federal government changed the rules, one is aware that the real number of unemployed is higher than the official figures. In the current economic circumstances a vast majority of households have both husband and wife working in order to generate sufficient income to sustain the family's standard of living. One can understand that, when one partner is out of work for a period, he or she will not go to the Commonwealth Employment Service and register as being unemployed because no benefit is attracted or obtained as a consequence of doing so. That is another reason why the number of people shown as being unemployed is well below the real number.

Recently in Federal Parliament the figure for the hidden unemployed was identified as 3 per cent. If that is accepted, Victoria's unemployment rate of 10.7 must have 3 per cent hidden unemployment added to it and therefore Victoria has a rate of 13.7 per cent unemployment, with the percentage being far higher in country areas.

The cause of the increase in unemployment is the approach of the government and the unions in stifling initiative. As honourable members are aware, I know from personal experience how difficulties can arise when members of one's own family who are skilled people are trying to survive in the current economic climate. I have two sons working in the building industry. Over the past twelve months both have had difficult moments in terms of employment. In one case the business where my son worked closed completely, never to be reopened, and in the other case, for the second time in less than twelve



months, the company has closed and people are taking annual leave to try to keep the show going. I am sure they will survive because they have loyal employees; I am proud to say my son is a loyal employee.

A matter often overlooked by people is that it is difficult to set up as a subcontractor with a trade qualification. One has to find the capital to purchase all the equipment to start a business. One needs reliable transport if one-is to be a subcontractor. The transport must be not just reliable but of some substance as it will have to carry the tools and equipment - gas bottles, electrical equipment or ladders - that are necessary to the segment of the building industry that one happens to be involved in. The capital outlay is considerable just to purchase all the equipment. Many tradesmen, particularly young people, who find themselves out of work are not able to raise the necessary capital. It is difficult to borrow the money needed because interest rates are running at such a high level.

Troubleshooters Available is a company that fits into the category of those providing work opportunities for unemployed tradespeople. They are allowing the tradespeople to hire out their labour. Anyone who has been involved in the construction industry - I do not pretend to be an expert, but I have had some industrial relations exposure to it over a period and have a better than reasonable understanding of it - would know that it is difficult to track down all the job opportunities that might present themselves. An agency like Troubleshooters Available is prepared to meet the need by setting up a business and helping other businesses - called subcontractors - to survive and so provide a service to the community and fill job vacancies.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in your own electorate you would be one of those most concernedif not the most concerned - about the number of unemployed people. I am sure you would be concerned about the government's approach to small business because the government is not prepared to give small business a go. That attitude is reflected in a range of government policies.

For quite some time this matter has been of concern to me and to other honourable members on this side of the House. The notice of motion has been on the Notice Paper and in a sense, as I said, it is now reaching the stage where its relevance may seem to have slipped away. However, when one puts the facts into the framework of the current state of Victoria's economy, the motion is still relevant. The State has dropped away. Businesses are declining at a record rate. The latest statements indicate that in the last quarter businesses have declined by 25 per cent and, according to projections made by representatives of the banks, the outcome for the next quarter will be the same. We are looking forward in the future to less business activity, not more. The dole queues are growing daily.

While all that is happening we have members of a union seeking to persecute fellow unionists in the marketplace and to continue the process through the courts. They are being aided and abetted by members of a government who are showing they are heartless and not prepared to recognise the peculiarities of the circumstance. The government is pursuing the company through the civil courts in respect of workers compensation and payroll tax.



As the Minister for Labour pointed out correctly, the matters are continuing to be heard before the courts. Yet the government is seeking to bear down on the company in a way that will force it to close down! As a result the subcontractors - that is, the individual little business people - will lose their jobs.

The motion notes with satisfaction the judgment of Mr Justice Woodward. I have endeavoured to comply with Mr Speaker's requirement that I not deal with the details of His Honour's judgment. Of course I had it nicely marked and was prepared to deal with it. The House will recognise that, notwithstanding being denied that opportunity, I have nonetheless been able to make a substantial point about the future of small business in this State.

Small business people have a clear choice at the next election and they will probably have that choice in the very near future. The choice is either to have a government that believes in free enterprise, which will enable the marketplace to determine relevant matters, which believes in genuine individual freedoms and the right of freedom of choice, and which will take its hands out of the pockets of some people or to cast one's vote for the Labor government that has wrecked the economy of this State and pursues companies through the civil courts and backs its union mates in the process.

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - Mr Deputy Speaker, of course I also will comply with the wishes of Mr Speaker and the matter he raised at the start of the debate: that honourable members must certainly not reflect on any decision or pending hearing of the judiciary. However, as the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party stated, there are other matters within the motion to which I can refer.

The honourable member stated that Troubleshooters Available is looking only towards a situation where persons are free to market their wages and skills in the marketplace. I do not disagree with that concept, but the problem is the way it is carried out by Troubleshooters in what is called the all-up payment it makes.

The honourable member for Hawthorn said that Troubleshooters pays above award rates but it must be said that the payment above the award rate is an all-up payment - that is, a payment that takes into account all other matters such as annual leave, sick leave and other benefits within the hourly rate paid to the subcontractors or employees of Troubleshooters. It also includes such things as long service leave and superannuation. The situation is not exactly one of paying above award rates.

The motion refers to an issue that is:

... fully consistent with the Liberal and National parties' approach to industrial relationsnamely, to encourage greater flexibility in the labour market and to provide greater opportunity to people in the work force to negotiate mutually acceptable terms and conditions '"

I find it difficult to debate the issue because the industrial relations policy of the opposition parties, as with most of their policies, is unknown.

Some time ago the former Leader of the Opposition made a speech at the Building Owners and Managers Association of Australia Ltd (BOMA) about what was supposedly



the opposition's industrial relations policy, which amounted to about eleven paragraphs. Since then I have seen a draft document produced in March this year, but which has not been released. All we see is the odd press statement about industrial relations.

It is difficult to debate the issue about whether this approach is in line with what the opposition parties say is their policy when they do not have a policy to examine. Obviously the motion is indicative of the general thrust of the industrial relations attitudes espoused on a continuing basis by those opposite.

Mr Liebennan - Consistently.

Mr POPE - There is nothing new about labour hire in Victoria or Australia. It has been around for many years. For more than twenty years it has been common within the construction and engineering industries. Skilled Engineering Pty Ltd has been in the game for more than twenty years and has been very successful in the marketplace as a labour hire firm.

Many of those labour hire companies maintain formal agreements with the trade union movement and compete for an industry share on the basis of their organisational and marketing skills rather than the income standards of their workers, which unfortunately is the situation with Troubleshooters.

Mr Liebennan - That is not correct.

Mr POPE - Also some of the labour hire firms - specifically Troubleshooters -trade not only on the income standards of their workers but also on the willingness to work in a less safe manner than they might otherwise work.

An article in the respected English journal New Statesman and Society of 10 August 1990 refers to the lump payment that occurs in the British construction industry. That situation is similar to the operations promoted in Victoria by Troubleshooters. The article contains reference to "lump" labour. That is the system in the United Kingdom where workers are employed under a system similar to what is known in Australia as the "all-up" payment with an hourly rate not applicable to award rates. As I said, it is inclusive of such things as annual leave, sick leave, the holiday leave loading, superannuation and long service leave. Part of the article states:

At the centre of the current safety crisis is the issue of lump labour. Whether Paul Elvin -

The article was actually about Paul Elvin, who was tragically killed on the job. It continues -

... himself was part of the lump is a matter of dispute - although the horrific nature of his death is not - but what is not in doubt is that there are 722 000 building workers on some form of the lump, lacking the security of permanent employment. Lump labour has neither employment protection nor effective safety protection and if workers complain, they are often sacked on the spot.

The article further states:



In the last decade the size and nature of the lump has changed. In the early 80s, thousands of small and medium-sized building firms went to the wall and building workers were forced to earn a living without the protection of secure employment. The large firms increasingly switched from employing labour directly to management fee contracting - organising multiple subcontractors on an ad hoc basis for individual projects. National insurance and pension contributions, and holiday and sick pay could all be dispensed with. Also, by skirting the National Working Rule ... agreements that fix basic pay and conditions in the industry they were able to expand and contract labour forces - without recruitment or redundancy costs - in an unstable economic climate. Subcontractors of course used self-employed or casual labour and thus the black economy of the lump became formalised and central to the construction industry.

That situation is similar to what occurs with the payment in lieu of award rates on behalf of Troubleshooters. The principle features of this employment method include lack of permanent employment, lack of security and lack of safety protection.

The 1980 report on the British construction industry indicated that 90 per cent of deaths in that industry were preventable and management action could have prevented 70 per cent of those deaths. Between 1981 and 1988 more than 1500 building workers were killed while at work, representing a 65 per cent increase in that time - a time when lump labour hire was central to the British construction industry crisis. Lump labour has no effective safety protection.

Dr Napthine - You have not shown that.

Mr POPE - If workers complain about the lump situation in Britain, as occurs here with Troubleshooters, they are sacked on the spot. Implications of the type of greater flexibility in the labour market sought by the opposition include an encouragement of employment on a short-term basis with uncertainty as to future employment security and income. The competition generated by legitimising the deregulated payment system would manifest itself obviously in competition for jobs. That situation is now seen in New Zealand, and I shall refer to that shortly.

This competition or flexibility will ultimately worsen because who is prepared to work for the lowest payment or, at least, who will accept the arbitrarily imposed rates of an agency, such as those put forward by Troubleshooters in this State?

Flexibility will be confined to the workers hired out who will have no employer providing training for that work force. That conflicts with the industry-wide view that training must be increased to provide skills for workers in the industry, and provide a truly flexible labour market and a flexible labour force enterprise.

The opposition's concept of flexibility is restricted to giving carte blanche authority to an employer over a worker, and the latter has no collective bargaining position, no readily enforceable contract of employment and no formal and enforceable grievance procedure.

One has only to examine the Dickensian policies put forward by the opposition on industrial relations practice in the Victorian construction industry to see this. At best the opposition might adopt the recent New Zealand approach which has now been proclaimed as the Employment Contracts Act.



Effectively, the Act removes award rights in that country and introduces individual contracts of employment, setting worker against worker for scarce jobs and offering auction block wage determination, reducing the standard of living for all workers while lining the pockets only of the greedy employers.

If the opposition were ever to govern the State it would certainly incur the wrath of the Victorian working people, as the New Zealand government has seen in recent times with hundreds of thousands of people marching in the streets.

It has brought great divisiveness to that country which will increase as there is a further appreciation of what that Employment Contract Act actually involves.

The government's industrial relations record is unsurpassed. I have previously mentioned industrial days lost through disputation in this State in the past nine years of the Labor government. It is one quarter of the industrial days lost under the last nine years of the previous Liberal government. The government's days lost are 25 per cent of those lost under the previous Liberal government. That is a fact opposition members do not like to recognise - that industrial disputation was four times greater under their government.

In recent years the Victorian building industry has been transformed because of industrial relations actions taken by the government. We have introduced a building industry code of conduct that disciplines employers. Obviously the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party is sensitive about the issue of the building industry because he knows it has been cleaned up and that we have continually applied sanctions against the actions of the Builders Labourers Federation (BLF).

We castigated the then Liberal Party for its actions when the BLF was paid strike pay at Lay Yang. At that time the Liberal Party made it into the Guinness Book of Records for paying a union on its return to work for every day it had been out on strike. This was done with the concurrence of the now Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party.

The other area that will raise some sensitivity with respect to the building industry is the government's derecognition of the BLF and its deregistration in this State. It did not happen under a Liberal government; it took the Labor government to act on the building industry to clean it up, and even when, many years ago, the then Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, deregistered the BLF in the Federal arena, the Victorian Liberal government shirked the issue and did not even bother to join with the then Liberal Prime Minister in deregistering the BLF. It took a Labor government to deregister those hoods, and this is the same BLF that was fawned over and capitulated to by the Liberal Party opposition when it was in government.

The sponsorship of the Victorian building industry agreement which first came into being in 1987 transformed the culture of what was previously considered a crooked industry. Recently the agreement was renegotiated for another three-year term. When the Liberals were last in government they did not have the guts, the wit nor the ability to attempt such a program. This program has cleaned up the building industry and certainly resulted in the boom years we have experienced up until recently.



Obviously liberal members would prefer to stand shoulder to shoulder and congratulate a rump organisation such as Troubleshooters Available. That organisation entered into an agreement with Gallagher and Cummins and the other hoods of the BLF. They had a joint press conference about how wonderful it was and they got into bed together and came up with an agreement last year, and apart from the fact that the BLF was then suspended from the Trades Hall Council, every building company in this State has now walked away from Troubleshooters Available because they jumped into bed with the hoods, the ones who have caused all the problems in the building industry.

The government will certainly ensure that rump organisations like Troubleshooters Available who do deals with Gallagher get their just deserts. They have been shunned by every building employer in this State. Troubleshooters Available's modus operandi does not allow people in the work force to negotiate mutually acceptable terms and conditions. In fact, employees seeking work through Troubleshooters Available are required to sign a single-page document which supersedes award entitlements.

The worker either signs the document or does not go on Troubleshooters' books. There is no process of negotiation on terms and conditions, so even if we followed the Liberal-style enterprise bargaining, that would not be satisfactory to Troubleshooters because they either sign the document ortfhey do not. It is not a matter of individual bargaining by the employees with the employer, let alone any collective style enterprise bargaining.

There is no readily acceptable avenue of independent appeal with Troubleshooters if a worker is aggrieved in any way. The contract dissociates the ~ward by substituting an hourly rate for benefits that would otherwise apply separately, such as holiday pay, sick pay, superannuation and long service leave.

The Deputy Leader of the liberal Party spoke for some time about signs around building sites and paraphernalia and bumper stickers, and said they should not exist. I agree. If anyone is to make a statement, be it in the way of a sign or some other form of paraphernalia, the person's name should be put to it; I have no problem with that. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party spoke for more than 10 minutes on this issue.

He also spoke for some time about the Accident Compensation Commission, and although I will not go into previous decisions of the court system he said Troubleshooters Available is in some way being persecuted while others in a similar capacity - I take it he means labour hire firms - are given selective and better treatment. The honourable member should name the companies he is saying receive special treatment, rather than singling out the supposed persecution of Troubleshooters Available. I am amazed how sensitive the honourable member for Hawthorn is when he talks about Troubleshooters Available. His attitude is almost unbelievable, yet understandable when one realises there is not much substance to the claims he makes.

The honourable member for Hawthorn conceded that recent press reports show that Troubleshooters is faCing bankruptcy because it owes its creditors almost $3 million. This company, which does deals with the Builders Labourers Federation and their hoodlums,



is being propped up by National Australia Bank Ltd and the National Farmers Federation.

2379

I note that the building and construction industry has walked away from Troubleshooters. The honourable member for Hawthorn led the House to believe that the building industry had embraced the philosophy that Troubleshooters espoused, but that is certainly not the case in Victoria. That company has been rejected and squeezed out of the building industry. Because of the shoddy way it operates, all that remains of it is approximately 33 contractors operating in the back blocks of Victoria.

I cast no reflection on the well-credentialled labour hiring agencies or employers. Labour hire firms have been operating for many years. Skilled Engineering Pty Ltd is highly respected in the manufacturing and building industry by employers and unions alike because it pays award rates and does not attempt to find loopholes in the legislation. It competes in the marketplace on an even-handed basis.

If the coalition is genuine about its concern for flexibility in the labour market it should examine companies like Skilled Engineering and see how they operate in the market.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, I shall not reflect upon any judgments made or hearings by courts, but I do say that the motion is arrant nonsense for all the reasons I have put forward.

The honourable member obviously did not have his heart in the motion because it has been on the Notice Paper for two years.

Mr MICALLEF (Springvale) - I oppose the motion and support the comments of the Minister for Labour, who said, at the conclusion of his speech, that the honourable member for Hawthorn did not have his heart in the contribution that he made. It was a lacklustre contribu tion from the shadow spokesman for industrial relations. Perhaps he is still smarting because he has been discredited by his opposition to the Industrial Relations Bill, which has the support of the major employer organisations. If the honourable member had a real interest in reforming industrial relations in this State he would have supported progressive legislation.

I agree with the Minister that the motion is arrant nonsense, a phrase that aptly describes the comments of the honourable member for Hawthorn.


Mr MICALLEF - If honourable members opposite put forward arrant nonsense, I will describe it as such. The Minister said he had difficulty in accepting the way Troubleshooters Available had publicised its market skills. Everyone accepts that labour hire firms have the right to market their skills, but I have difficulty with firms that operate outside the industrial law.

Dr Napthine interjected.



Mr MICALLEF - The honourable member for Portland has demonstrated by his contributions on the meat industry that he does not understand the industrial processes of the State. He probably does not understand the meat processing industry.

The Minister is right when he says that Troubleshooters is attempting to obtain a market advantage by operating outside the industrial law, which is what the government is concerned about. On many occasions the honourable member for Hawthorn has said that he does not support unions that act unlawfully. During the SPC dispute, which was about the breaking of award conditions, the honourable member publicly supported the flaunting of those award conditions, which in essence means the breaking of industrial laws. The honourable member is hypocritical in supporting some unions that operate outside the law because in the past he has condemned unions, for the wrong reasons, that operate outside the law.

Over the years many unions have fought hard to gain better working conditions and improve award conditions for long-service leave, superannuation and WorkCare, but the honourable member wants those conditions to be cast aside by a sweetheart deal between Troubleshooters and the Builders Labourers Federation, two organisations that employers and trade unions regard as unsavoury.

re It gives me no comfort to criticise a trade union but over the years I have found it extremely difficult to support the BLF and I have been critical of its behaviour. Likewise, many employers have had difficulties with Troubleshooters because it has attempted to break market arrangements, which has put at risk organisations that comply with the law. Companies that break award conditions gain an unfair advantage over their competitors, and that practice has caused concern for some years.

I am amazed that people who claim to have some knowledge about employing labour and running small business demonstrate that they know nothing about industrial and human relationships. Some companies have a lack of understanding so it is no wonder they get into difficulties on a whole range of issues and sometimes go broke because of their ignorance and stupidity about industrial relations.

Although there are problems between trade unions and some of the more progressive employers such as Skilled Engineering Pty Ltd - and I have worked alongside members of unions who have worked for Skilled Engineering - they are able to sit down and work out agreements. Organisations such as Skilled Engineering deliver a high standard of skills because they market expertise. In order to get the business they select the best quality workers and they pay them accordingly.

Because of high unemployment, there is a lot of competition even among skilled workers and it would be easy to have an arrangement such as one has with, say, owner-drivers. We all know the despicable state of the transport industry since the introduction of owner-drivers. They are willing to work for virtually nothing so they can compete with each other and they get closer and closer to the breadline and in the end they are not able to keep up interest payments on the large capital outlays they have made for the vehicles they need to compete successfully for the work.

Y:IDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


The Minister considered the British example of the introduction of lump sum payments - or all-up payments, as we know them here. These payments take into account superannuation, sick leave, holiday pay and so on. The competition among workers in a tight labour market would push those lump payments down considerably so that workers would be working for subsistence wages and, despite all the skills they have built up over a period, would be paid at a devalued rate.

I return to the Minister and his support for the workers. The SPC dispute was resolved through the Industrial Relations Commission with the organised trade union movement. When the organised trade union movement was brought into play it negotiated - -

Mr Steggall - Forced!

Mr MICALLEF - Forced? Negotiations are generally between two parties, at least. This arrangement was certainly a better final result than the initial position being put by SPC with all these hangers-on and advisers to the conservative, right- wing think-tanks encouraging people to break the system.

The Liberal policy says nothing. It talks about enterprise bargaining but it means bargaining down from a base rather than on top of a base. Currently we have provisions for registered agreements. They are common within industry, between unions and employers and they have been successful, along with the accord, in delivering a viable industrial relations system in Victoria for many years.

As the Minister pointed out, statistics bear out the fact that industrial disputation in Victoria is far less frequent under a Labor government than it was under a confrontationist Liberal government and is far better than the record of the Liberal Party government in New South Wales. We have that record to stand by. The government works in consultation with trade unions and with employers.

If ever there is a change of government in this State one of the things the Liberal Party will have to come to terms with is that it needs to consult with employers because employers have come to like the consultation they have enjoyed with the Labor government. Not only do they like it but they have come to expect it and it is a way of life for them. If a change of government brings back the dark ages of industrial relations with confrontationist policies, many employers will switch their political allegiance and openly support the party that has developed consultation.

Even though employer organisations generally have a specific political colour, many of them have shifted their tack on the Labor government and now work positively with it to develop good industrial relations in this State. That is something for which the Labor government will go down in history.

The coalition does not have any policy on industrial relations apart from a broad statement about enterprise bargaining. New Zealand is a good example. It had a Labor government but that was changed with a landslide victory to the conservatives. Within a matter of months, more than 60 000 workers and community and social workers were mobilised to show their objection to the policies of the conservative government.

TELEVISING OF PROCEEDINGS


A week is a long time in politics and if an election were held in New Zealand the conservative government with its anti-union attitude would be thrown out of office and a Labor government would be reinstated. If a new government introduced an antagonistic confrontationist policy, workers would soon realise they had backed the wrong horse and would flock back to supporting a Labor government and the trade union movement because they do support workers.

The opposition wants to negotiate around awards and to remove union protection for workers. Those protections have been built up over many years and they protect our standard of living. The accord has delivered industrial stability in this State and will continue to do so and the workers of this nation have learnt to live with the accord.

The trade unions, through restructuring and negotiations, have formed a strong and meaningful relationship with the more responsible employers in this nation. We are fortunate to have a group of enlightened employers who will continue to work with the trade unions on a consultative basis.

The SPEAKER - Order! The time appointed for General Business has expired. The honourable member may resume his comments when the matter is next before the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. until 2.6 p.m.


The SPEAKER - Order! I advise the House that I have approved a request from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to film during the Premier's second-reading speech and the responses by the lead speakers for the opposition and National Party on the Constitution (Dissolution of the Legislative Assembly) Bill today. The filming will be conducted on a shared basis with other channels and under the usual guidelines.

CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY) BILL

Second reading

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - I move:

That this Bill be now read a second time.

In moving the second reading of this Bill I want to make sure that this issue, raised by the opposition in another place, is settled quickly so as to indicate to both the opposition and the public that the government will not be distracted from the business of government by the games of the opposition Leader.

The majority of this House will not support the Bill.

CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL


The Constitution of Victoria is far too important to be left to the game playing of the opposition. At the end of today, the Leader of the Opposition will have failed again.

2383

He failed last week and he will fail again today. He knows that. He has already announced that he is casting around for a new gimmick that he will try to pass off as a strategy. By comparison, the government will concentrate on the real business of getting Victoria back to work and getting people back into jobs.

At the outset of the debate I believe a brief quotation will put the issue in context. I remind honourable members of the nature of the matter now before the House:

The Constitution of the State belongs to the people. It does not belong to the Liberal Party, the Labor Party or the National Party. It does not belong to the government of the day. It is far too important to be treated as the plaything of the moment.

The time of that statement was seven years ago, the place was the Legislative Council Chamber of this Parliament, and the speaker was the then Leader of the Opposition in that place, now the President, the Honourable AIan Hunt. He was speaking in a debate on a Bill to amend the Constitution to provide for four-year Parliamentary terms.

The government respects the views of the Honourable Alan Hunt and indeed I have long respected him as a man of principle. Much of what I have learnt about the Parliament has been learnt from him.

In contrast the Leader of the Opposition has never respected those principles. Honourable members will recall the Honourable AIan Hunt's words uttered on a previous occasion - because this was not the first time - when the present Leader of the Opposition was obsessed with attempting to force an early election. The Honourable Alan Hunt said:

The issue is Mr Kennett's unbridled tongue. That mouth of his, that inability to think straight at all times under stress, is a problem ... Those doubts are not only as to his judgment as the Leader of the Opposition, but even more particularly as to the judgment he would exercise under the constant pressure faced by a Premier of the State.

The Leader of the Opposition in this State is not and never has been a person of principle. He is a man of the moment, not a man of principle. Nothing symbolises this defect more than the debate we are having today. This is a debate that will contrast the integrity of the Constitution with the opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition. It is a debate that will contrast the long-term views and policies of this government with the short-term gimmickry of the man who sits opposite.

Even the amendment to the Constitution proposed by the Leader of the Opposition has been presented to the public in a dishonest way. The amendment purports to amend the Constitution to - and I quote from a media release issued by the Leader of the Opposition on 9 May:

... safeguard the public interest from the failures of the government formed in the Lower House.

It purports to allow for an election. But, according to the Leader of the Opposition in another place, it does no such thing.


2384 ASSEMBLY Thu~y,16~ayl991

The legislation is not even as general as claimed in the media statement of the Leader of the Opposition. It relates only to the Legislative Assembly, and partly to the Legislative Council. It would not be a permanent change to the Constitution. The hypocrisy of the move is revealed, if one thinks about it for a moment, when one recognises that the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to subject any future government to the same rules he sets today or wants to set. Nowhere in his media release does he say that, if by some mischance he had the opportunity of governing, he would be prepared to govern under the conditions proposed in this Bill.

Why not? Why is he not prepared to live by the standards that he wants to set for others? The answer is: because he has no standards, because he has a history of opportunism. He fails to live by the same standards he sets for others; he fails to live up to his undertakings and commitments; and he fails to live up to the expectations set for him even by honourable members opposite. This Bill demonstrates he wants one rule for the honourable member for Burwood and another rule for everyone else. The great tragedy of the Leader of the Opposition is that he does not even realise his own failings.

Let me take the House briefly through the history of the measure that the Leader of the Opposition is proposing to amend today. It is an interesting and important history. Concern about the stability and length of ~liaments had been an issue throughout the 1970s because of the frequent elections that had been forced on the community by the obstructionism of the Liberal and National parties in the Senate and the Federal Supply crisis in 1975.

In Apri11980, the then Premier, Mr Hamer, issued a statement saying that he was in favour of extending the term of State Parliaments to four years. He pointed out that both the State and Federal councils of the Liberal Party had adopted the principle of four-year terms. He said:

If elections are held too frequently, it creates uncertainty in the community.

He was backed up by the then Minister of Housing, the honourable member for Burwood, who complained to the Age that there was:

... too much discussion of what the government did from day to day ... There's so much discussion that we can't get things done.

He was right about that. It took a Labor government to actually progress the issue of four-year terms.

The honourable member for Burwood is also reported in the Age of 4 September 1981 as saying:

The people elect a government every three years. We can't be expected to go back to them cap in hand every time we want to do something. If they don't like it they can throw us out after three years.

That is what he said in 1981. The issue of four-year terms was again raised in 1981 by the then Federal Vice-President of the Young liberals, Mr Mark Birrell. Mr Birrell, now the Leader of the Opposition in the other place - -

An Honourable Member - The Honourable Mark Birrell.


TIlUrsday, 16 May 1991 ASSEMBLY 2385

Ms KIRNER - You are honourable only if you abide by the Constitution! At that time Mr Birrell said there were too many elections and governments lvere not given enough time to develop long-term policies. He said:

It has long been argued that three-year Parliaments provide only one year of useful work - the middle year.

According to the Sun of 27 February 1981, Mr Birrell went on to say mandatory four-year terms would mean the abolition of early elections for political purposes. However, he did not count on the Leader of the Opposition.

Two weeks later the then Uberal government reiterated its support for four-year terms. The Age gave the proposal strong endorsement pointing out that the State Council of the Liberal Party had argued:

A four-year Parliamentary term must be a fixed term binding on governments and oppositions alike. This would give our political system not only more stability, but also more integrity.

To reveal the full extent of the honourable member for Burwood's opportunism and the lack of integrity of this Bill it is important to look at the personal role of the Leader of the Opposition in the development of the provisions in the Constitution that he now wants to amend as a 11 one-off" because that suits him at the moment.

The reforms to the Victorian Constitution that took place during the first term of the Cain government were not incidental proposals of one party; they were a major overhaul of the Parliamentary system in this State, the sort that takes place only every 50 years. They involved twelve leaders of the three parties sitting down together virtually every week that the Parliament sat for some eighteen months until all the players reached agreement. That process demonstrated not only the resolve of the new Labor government to deal with difficult issues but also was a recognition by all concerned that the process needed participation and adoption by the three parties in order to have integrity in the long term. That is what Constitutions are all about.

Twelve months after these meetings commenced, the Age reported on 20 April that agreement had been reached between the three parties on proposals for four-year terms for the Legislative Assembly. However, when the Bill was introduced the opposition threatened to renege on the agreement because of concerns that a popular government may go to the polls early. The Opposition demanded a four-year term with a three-year fixed minimum.

After another six months of discussion between the party Leaders, including the honourable member for Burwood, a compromise was found for which the Leader of the Opposition claimed credit. He said it was his idea - and it was a good idea at the time -to insert a three-year minimum term into the Victorian Constitution.

According to the Herald of 1 May 1984 the Leader of the Opposition said a three-year minimum term would:

... stop the government biding its time and constantly threatening an early election.

The Australian quoted the Leader of the Opposition as saying:

CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL y) BILL


The reforms would mean governments would have adequate time to implement their policies and the electorate would have adequate time to make a considered judgment of them.

The Australian Financial Review quoted both the then Premier and the opposition Leader as saying the reforms were the most fundamental constitutional changes in Victoria this century, and they were right.

As the Honourable Haddon Storey, one of the architects of the Bill, said in another place:

The Bill is the result of discussions that have taken place between the three parties over eighteen months. The Bill represents a distillation of the views and ideas of those parties, designed to bring about a system of terms of Parliament in this State which will be for the benefit of the people of Victoria generally.

That demonstrates the respect politicians should have for the rules of politics - the Constitution - a respect the Leader of the Opposition can no longer claim because he has defied the words of the Honourable Alan Hunt that the Constitution is far too important to be treated as the plaything of the moment.

In 1984 the Leader of the Opposition was prepared to acknowledge that the Constitution should be above politics. During the debate on the Constitution (Duration of Parliament Bill (No.2) he said:

This is not a matter for politics. This is the Parliament's proposed legislation that may stand on the statute books for hundreds of years.

What a joker this man is! Honourable members must ask why the Leader of the Opposition has now abandoned that view. We must ask why he has moved to amend the words of the Constitution so carefully drafted and which he said would last hundreds of years. Honourable members must ask why he is using the Constitution of Victoria as his personal plaything. Why has he gone back on his word?

As soon as expediency knocks on his door, as soon as opportunity offers itself, the Leader of the Opposition opens the door because it suits him. I agree with what the Leader of the Government in another place has said: that is why the Leader of the Opposition cannot be trusted; that is why he will not put forward policies; that is why he wants an election as soon as possible. He does not want to be tested against his word; he does not want to be tested against policies; he does not want to be subject to public scrutiny. He knows he will fail any of those tests. He will fail those tests again and again because he is not a person of substance or commitment. He does not respect the Constitution of this State; he is just the slick advertising man who wants to survive on a gimmick a day.

How can people trust a person who in a short time can argue that the Constitution of this State should be based on a five-year term to enable stability and vision in government and then, with no consideration for the long-term good of the Victorian people, move to amend the Constitution that he drafted?

How can the people of Victoria trust a man who survives on secret strategies and who will not take people into his confidence? Forget the people of Victoria; the Leader of the Opposition will not even take members of his party into his confidence! The honourable



member for Malvern trusted him and his Parliamentary epitaph will read, "I put my faith in yesterday's man, now I have no future".

The view that the role of government is to serve personal power destroyed democracy in Queensland. The people of this State cannot afford to go down that same path. My government rejects both the content of this Bill and the contempt for the Constitution it represents.

All members of the opposition who participated in the debate about four-year terms seven years ago should be aware that if they put their hands up today to follow the Leader of the Opposition they will be tainted by the same brush of hypocrisy and instability that will follow him wherever he goes.

My government recognises and respects the Victorian Constitution and the Victorian Parliament and it is determined to meet the obligations that the current Constitution sets out - the obligation to address long-term challenges without fear or favour and with a continuing commitment to the Victorian people.

We will not be distracted by the gimmickry and personal aggrandisement of the Leader of the Opposition. With the Victorian people, we will continue to move forward with guts, determination and commitment to achieve real economic recovery in this State. Mr Speaker, the government opposes the Bill and rejects all it stands for.

Honourable Members - Hear, hear!

Mr KENNElT (Leader of the Opposition) - The government is caught in a web of incompetence and deceit from which there is no escape. The government has produced a bankrupt State; and it is a government bankrupt of ideas.


Mr KENNElT - The government is bankrupt of leadership, as we have just heard. Perhaps worst of all, the government is bankrupt of morality.


The SPEAKER - Order! The Premier had the protection of the Chair while she was speaking, and I intend to offer the same protection to the Leader of the Opposition. I ask honourable members on my right to remain silent and to allow the Leader of the Opposition to be heard.

Mr KENNElT - As Francis Galbally said recently on the steps of Parliament House, this is a wretched government.

It is interesting to note that at no time in her pathetic contribution did the Premier defend or attempt to defend the performance of her government - not once! I say to the Premier of the State of Victoria, "You have misjudged the community you have been elected to serve. You have got it all wrong: the public wants competence, decency and integrity returned to government".

CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF mE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL


I say to the Premier, "Just as you and your colleagues have deserted the public of this State, now the public is deserting your party, not in ones and twos but in hundreds of thousands". The once great Labor movement has turned its back on this government because of its lack of leadership and its lack of morality - and the support of the Labor heartland will not be restored to the party in our lifetime.

Mr Speaker, through you I say to the Premier that the attack yesterday by the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development, which was directed --


The SPEAKER - Order! As the Leader of the Opposition is aware he may not allude to debate in another House, and that if he did so, he would be out of order.

Mr KENNEIT - All I can say is that any attack made by any government Minister either in Parliament or outside is obviously directed and supported by the Premier and is a clear indication that the government has deserted its primary responsibility, which is to govern. At a time when the people of Victoria are crying out for good government and for moral leadership, this government fails on all counts.

The opposition has introduced the Constitution (Dissolution of the Legislative Assembly) Bill because the people whom the Constitution is designed to protect and support are crying out for a fresh start; and the only ones standing in the way of that --


Mr KENNEIT - The only ones standing in the way of that are the members of the Labor Party in this House.

Honourable Members - The Constitution, the Constitution.

Mr KENNETf - The Constitution is designed to protect the public interest.


The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Richmond is out of his place and out of order. As I said, the Premier had the protection of the Chair during her contribution, and the Leader of the Opposition will be given the same protection.

Mr KENNEIT - Given that the Premier will not accept her responsibility and go to the polls, it is in the public interest that the Constitution be changed to give the government the ice to slide on to do the right thing. No-one could ever have anticipated that this group of men and women opposite were so incompetent that they would sell the State Bank, not because they wanted to but because they had to.

Ms Kimer interjected.

Mr KENNEIT - You talk about the public interest! We never had to sell it, and that is the difference. These people opposite had to sell it, and when they sold it they did so at a huge loss. And what about all the other failures that the government has been associated with?



The Bill is designed to give the government an opportunity, for the third time, to do the right thing by the people of Victoria. From what she has said today the Premier has clearly shown that she intends to reject the offer. But the opposition says to the Premier that if it is her wish to put herself and all the members of her government in an isolated pocket totally separate from mainstream public concern about the future, let that be her decision. If the government refuses this offer today - -

Mr Kennedy interjected.

The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Bendigo West is out of order.

Mr KENNETT - If the government rejects this offer today, whatever follows is its responsibility. We have done what we thought possible to create the windows of opportunity for this Premier to lead her team so that the people have the opportunity to vote again with some sense of dignity, but she has refused it. Now we have the opportunity to give Victorians hope and the chance to rebuild.

On page 1 of the second-reading speech the Premier said:

At the end of today, this opposition Leader will have failed again.

It will not be the opposition Leader or the coalition that has failed; it will be the government that has failed - failed to act in the public interest. The Labor government can continue to hang on to office if it likes! That is fine, but it does so against the public will.

The Premier went on to say:

By comparison, the government will be concentrating on the real business of getting Victoria back to work and getting people back into jobs.

If ever there were a reason why the government ought to go, that is it, because everything it does at the moment destroys jobs and adds to unemployment. There is no evidence more significant than the figures that came out last Friday week. For the second time in a year the once great State of Victoria has been downgraded by those who sit in judgment on it. That will cause even more pain as the government has to borrow more money. Also, the government has so managed the books that Victoria has a deficit of $1065 million in the nine months to March, and we are told we will have a balanced Budget! That will not happen because the government has to borrow at huge cost.

Worst of all is the comment, which makes a mockery of this statement, that the government is going to get people back into jobs. Last Friday the Australian Bureau of Statistics came out with figures that indicated there had been a 22 per cent reduction in private sector investment in Victoria with the projection that there will be a 25 per cent reduction in the next quarter to March. When confidence is lost the damage is enormous, and confidence has been lost and the damage is enormous! The government is driving people from jobs every day it stays in office! That 22 per cent in itself must send a spear of hurt and pain and suspicion into every Parliamentarian's heart. Unfortunately it means that the businesses that are left are not investing in new equipment and that means no-one at all is investing in new equipment.



Victoria is becoming less competitive and that is putting people out of work. The Premier says, "We are going to work to get people back into jobs" but the one contribution she and the government have made - and which she denies - is that they have entered into another deal with the leadership of the Trades Hall Council to give those in public sector employment and the Public Service a $12 a week pay increase from today plus three increases of 2 per cent over the next fourteen months. That will not create jobs. Those who earn and create the wealth to pay for the public sector are not generating enough wealth to meet the salaries of those employed.

If the Premier, in order to try to buy votes and satisfy her friends at the Trades Hall Council before the election, enters into this deal she will drive people out of their jobs. Still she says she will hang on to office. I tell the Premier of this State that there is no doubt that this is not a question of "if" but "when" the next election is going to be held. I challenge the government: if it believes so confidently that it has done so well, we ought to go to the people and let them have the opportunity to decide. That is what the people want.

The Premier may spend her time in her office with her Ministers and backbenchers but if she were to leave her chambers and go outside she would find there is no love of this government. There is a fear and a lack of confidence, and people want a change. The government and government members owe it to the people to give the State an opportunity to start rebuilding. Let us have an election on propriety! Let us have an election on integrity and the proper standards of public behaviour! Let us have an election on the issues like Tricontinental, Pyramid and Ministerial behaviour! Let us have an election on State Bank Victoria and on the agreement and promise the Premier made that no State Bank employee would lose his job for two years!

Where do you stand? How many jobs are you creating? Thousands of extra jobs will be lost in the next few weeks because the Premier has not honoured a word. She had to sell the State Bank. She did not want to; she had to and was a victim of circumstances. Having made the pledge that no jobs would be lost for two years she did not have the authority as a Premier or as a person or the authority based on morality to put into practice what she promised then. Jobs will be lost all over the place and it is because you and the government have failed!

Let us consider two or three other comments the Premier made in the second-reading speech today. She said that the coalition is in pursuit of an early election. There is no question about that. like members of the government, we are the agents of the people who elected us and overwhelmingly the people are saying, "Give us an election!" The coalition may have to move an amendment in order that there is a change to the Constitution.



The SPEAKER - Order! I suggest to honourable members behind the Leader of the Opposition, including the honourable member for Ivanhoe, that they will assist the



proceedings if they remain silent. I ask the honourable member for Bendigo West to remain silent if he wishes to stay in the Chamber for the remainder of the debate.

Mr KENNETf - The Premier said this particular amendment relates only to this Legislative Assembly.


2391

Mr KENNETf - No, you did not. Obviously this Bill gives the opportunity to remove parts of the Constitution and to remove half the Legislative Council. What the Premier was probably referring to was that this particular Bill deals only with these particular issues and not the ongoing life of successive Parliaments. That is right. We face extraordinary times and reprehensible circumstances. At no time since the second world war has the economic and social fabric of this society been so cut apart as it is now. The Bill is designed for this Parliament. No one could have foreseen what you and your colleagues have done to this State - not even your factional colleagues!

It is not often that I agree with the Prime Minister and other senior Federal Labor Ministers, but they are all privately saying that this government should go. They want you out! The Prime Minister is sick to death of visits, telephone calls, pleadings and bleatings saying, "We have messed it up. Bail us out!" The Prime Minister and Mr Keating are not going to bailout the government. They have had enough. They have washed their hands of it.

The Bill is designed to meet the circumstances that exist today. These are extraordinary times. Of course no-one wants elections to be held too frequently per se; all we want is honest and good government. When good government fails as it has here - -

Honourable Members - What about the land deals?

Mr KENNETf - These new boys in Parliament who recently were dragged on to the front bench have asked about the land deals. The figure involved in the land deals was only $4 million, and recently the government sold part of that land for a cemetery at Pakenham for more than was invested in the whole inquiry. We are not talking about only $4 million. If $4 million put an end to our government in 1982 -which it didwhat will $23000 million worth of government losses do?


The SPEAKER - Order! Most honourable members wish to hear the Leader of the Opposition and it is certainly the duty of the Chair to ensure that happens even if that is not the wish of some honourable members. I also direct that the honourable members for Whittlesea and Ballarat North remain silent.

Mr KENNETf - Just the sale of State Bank Victoria itself, based on previous criteria, is sufficient reason to go to the people, given the government's losses and forgetting everything else that the Premier spoke about in her second-reading speech. What about the honourable member for Bundoora? Why did he go early to an election?




Mr KENNElT -It is all right; he is down in his office counting his superannuation money.


The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Springvale should cease interjecting and those honourable members behind the Leader of the Opposition are not assisting him.

Mr KENNElT - When he was Premier, the honourable member for Bundoora suited himself and rushed to the polls in a deceitful manner. He deceived the people of Victoria when he realised that the opposition was on to the VEDC issue. He said publicly the VEDC was nothing else but a red herring, but after the election it turned out to be rotten from the head down. Nothing has changed for the government today; it is rotten from the head down and every day it stays in office it defeats the purposes and interests of Victoria beginning the rebuilding process.

If it was good enough for the honourable member for Bundoora to deceive and run to the people of Victoria - he had to change the Constitution.

Ms Kimer - He did not change the Constitution.

Mr KENNElT - That is right; he did not change the Constitution. He hid the truth and he rushed to the people in order to seek re-election. He did not win the majority of votes but he won the majority of seats; we accept that, but where are his big policies?

Mr Mac1ellan - His pledge!

The SPEAKER - Order! Again I advise the House that the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to be heard without interruption. I ask the honourable members for Wantirna and Richmond particularly to remain silent.

Mr KENNElT - I understand the nervousness of the government. The big issue for the honourable member for Bundoora was his pledge and his word. liNo-one will pay a dollar more!" If that was not bad enough the Premier deceived the public prior to the election about the extent of the problems of the VEDC. He was doubly wrong. He deceived the public over the pledge. He promised that not $1 more would be paid. The Kimer government threw that away - as it had to - as the government's failure came to light.

The Premier should not talk to us about incompetence being the only reason for an election. We are talking about matters that are a lot more serious than that. We are talking about deceit and a psychological recession. We are talking about each time the Premier of the State speaks no-one believes her. No-one believes any of her Ministers. They do not trust the government.

When trust is lost and confidence destroyed the damage created can be enormous. That is proved every day of the week that the government continues to operate. The government has run out of steam; it has run out of leadership and ideas, but it continues to cling to office.



Today we have given the government yet another opportunity. It is all right for the honourable member for Dandenong to laugh, but how many jobs have been lost in his electorate in recent times at GMH and Toyota? What has he had to say on behalf of those people? Not one word. He can laugh, that is his right.

Mrs Hirsh interjected.

Mr KENNETf - How many times have you spoken in this House about job losses? Not once!


Mr Perton - You didn't mention it in your Supply speech.

Mr KENNETf - This legislation will give the government the opportunity of accepting responsibility for what it has done and allow it to go with dignity. If the government is not going to support the legislation and it wishes to hang on tenaciously to office, everyone will know about that because the Upper House has passed the Bill. The people will know the only people standing in the way are each and every one of the government members in this House.

I say again - and I do not say it idly - if the government does not wish to avail itself of the opportunity of supporting the legislation to give the people an opportunity to go to the polls, what follows is its responsibility. We have tried three times. We have done the right thing. Do not come back to us next week saying, ''What you are doing is unacceptable. It is too harsh; it is unfair". The government had its opportunity not once, not twice, but three times.


Mr KENNETf -The architect of so many failures, the honourable member for Bundoora has returned to the Chamber.

When I began my contribution today I said that the government was caught in a web of incompetence and deceit from which there is no escape. It has bankrupted the great State of Victoria. It is bankrupt of great ideas and it is certainly bankrupt of leadership - even if there is another change. The government is bankrupt of morality.

The people of Victoria demand a fresh start. They are crying out for it and if the government ignores their pleas it does so at its peril.

The SPEAKER - Order! Before calling the next speaker, I advise the House I am of the opinion that the second reading of this Bill requires to be passed by an absolute majority.

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - The Constitution (Dissolution of the Legislative Assembly) Bill was introduced in the Legislative Council by a party which is led by a man who is a living metaphor for instability and irresponsibility; a man who said at Bendigo in 1985, "I am a risk but I am not a gamble". At least with a gamble you have a



chance of winning, but he is a man who is all down-side risk. We are here faced with a smash-and-grab raid on the Victorian Constitution and the State of Victoria.

The Leader of the Opposition invoked the image of Malcolm Fraser - he makes Malcolm Fraser look good! We know what history records about Malcolm Fraser and John Kerr, and now we have it happening all over again.

I am aware from the history of struggles between Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament that in 1911 the House of Lords in Great Britain was referred to as "Mr Balfour's poodle" - a House that was merely the play-dog of the Leader of the Opposition in the Lower House.

What we have in Victoria in the form of the Upper House is a hound dog with rabies, because this amendment to the Constitution is one of the most unprincipled constitutional amendments ever proposed. It is one of the few cases - if not the only case - in the history of democracy where a Parliamentary party in opposition has sought to amend the Constitution to suit it for a time; and then after a subsequent election, which it hopes to win, to have the Constitution revert to its previous condition.

This is a debate about the need for political stability and a respect for proper government. It is a debate that goes to the heart of the issues concerning government and constitutionality in Australia in the 199Os. For a decade or more commentators and observers have argued that what the States and the country need is fewer elections and longer-term government. That view was strongly echoed by the Leader of the Opposition back in 1984. The view that he expressed about this issue reflected responsible opinion then and it reflects responsible opinion now.

The Leader of the Opposition was reflecting responsible majority opinion when he said in the debate on the Constitution Bill (No. 2), as recorded at page 4348 of Hansard of 3 May 1984:

I have been in favour of extending the terms of Parliament and I hold the view that terms of five years are better than terms of four years because of the ability it gives governments of the day, regardless of their political persuasion, to make changes and see those changes come to fruition from year to year.

He talked about the Constitution Bill (No. 2) as being a Bill of the Parliament, not the property of the government or the property of the Liberal Party or the National Party. That is a second principle that he has thrown out the window, like his commitment to four-year terms or his preference for five-year terms.

The Leader of the Opposition was probably reflecting responsible majority opinion when he went on to say, as recorded at page 4349: .

The opposition has agreed to an extended term of four years but it has gone further and said that it is better to have fixed terms ... We have collectively settled on three years ... Parliament ... will have to sit the three years but will have flexibility in the last twelve months ... That provides a degree of security that did not exist previously. It is a substantial advancement on the current situation.

CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y) BILL


He went on to say that that was the work of his own party; in the last bit he was certainly partly correct and in the first bit he was totally correct.

He was again reflecting responsible majority opinion when he went on to say, as recorded at page 4350:

The proposed legislation will lead to better management of government. It will lead to the government of the day, regardless of its political colour, having the opportunity of making the hard decisions that are necessary from time to time to allow the government to introduce its policies in line with its philosophies and to concentrate on the management and execution of those policies before being confronted with another election.

Wherever one goes in search of politics in Australia over the past ten years, whether one goes to the Business Council of Australia, to governments or to oppositions, one finds a recurrent theme: that there is a real constitutional problem in this country because we have overlapping State and Federal elections.

The circumstance of a three-year term not being long enough is aggravated by the fact that, by having State and Federal elections overlapping in every State, there is either a State or Federal election every twelve to eighteen months in this country. Above all, the cycle of instability has led to a hardening of the institutional and constitutional arteries. That is why in the 1980s there was a progressive move in the States and attempts at the Commonwealth level to allow for longer Parliamentary terms.

The opposition recognised that when it was behaving responsibly in 1984, but we now have new heights of political irresponsibility. The State and the country need long-term, considered decisions. That is why we now have a Premiers Conference meeting on a fairly regular basis: to discuss ways in which there can be better constitutional arrangements between the States and the Commonwealth to enable long-term decisions to be made so that Australia can be a more competitive country.

It is amazingly ironic for the Leader of the Opposition, and the opposition generally, to talk about us becoming more competitive when one considers his knocking, his smash-and-grab raid on the Constitution and his daily attacks on the State and the psychology of the State. It was interesting that he talked about a psychological recession - if there was anyone leading the attack on that psychology in a negative sense it is the Freud over there!

What he wants to do is talk down the people of Victoria. This negative psychologist talks about the psychology of recession. He has introduced that phrase into the political lexicon in this State and it will hang around his neck like a cross; because in doing that, he is, in a Freudian way, revealing his psychology and his intentions. He wants to talk the State down and down and down because he sees that as being in his interests.

Indeed, this is recognised as a problem even in the United States of America. Robert E. Reich, in an article which appeared in the Atlantic Monthly in February, talked about the problem in the United States and described it as being a decentralised and contentious democracy that distrusted centralised power. He talked about its inability to compete as a nation with countries like Germany, Japan and the Pacific rim countries that could better



harness their efforts in a form of more concentrated national effort so that education, training, research, infrastructure and so on could be provided in the way in which those other countries do it.

I think we have the same problem in Australia and it is not even recognised by the opposition in this State because its members want to come and sit on this side now. They do not care what it costs; they do not care how far down they have to drive Victoria; and they do not care about the level of instability they have to create to do it. All they want to do is to come and sit here. They have no vision. They are not in favour of taking in the wider political dialogue that is going on in Victoria, Australia and internationally about what is needed. They want to go backwards.

While all considered opinion in this country and in many other countries is talking about the need for more political stability and the need to pull together more as one country to compete not just as nations but as part of a global economy, we have a return over here to the 1950s. The opposition wants the psychology of recession -it wants a psychological recession.

The opposition wants to talk things down, it wants instability and it wants to tear up what it said and wrote and passed in 1984. The opposition does not want it and it is not seeking to do it on any platform whatsoever. The opposition's platform is, "Elect us and everyone will be happy". The opposition does not have a platform at all.

The opposition represents the reverse of providing an electorate with any challenge. While the government is on about getting on with the business of government - we have a legislative program that is so busy that shadow Ministers complain about it and we are preparing the June statement to be delivered by the Premier - and addressing the problems, the opposition is the antithesis of a political party and its members do the reverse of what is the duty of politicians. The duty of a politician ought not to be the smash and grab approach to try to get the perks of office, as the opposition sees it, but to challenge people. Senator Edward Kennedy spoke about the political virtues of his late brothers and said that what they had as well as their:

... innate qualities of leadership was the fact that they challenged people.

He said that was where the quality of their leadership lay, that they challenged people. He said also:

... this was true about them, and .. , it should be true about all of us.

Victorians do not have a Leader of the Opposition who begins to comprehend those sorts of values. He does not want to challenge people; he wants to depress them; he wants to drive them down in his psychology of depression. When the Leader of the Opposition stands up to ask questions at question time in Parliament, they are not about ideas and they do not call for change and development. The questions are about driving people down and making them depressed - that is what he is on about! Let there be no misunderstanding about it: the Leader of the Opposition identifies his personal interest with the people of this State being depressed and with the economy of this State deteriorating.



This morning at question time an interesting exchange took place. I interjected and said that members of the opposition are not interested unless they own it, in relation to a particular operation. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Benalla, said, "That is reasonable". That is their attitude: if they do not own it they are not interested, whether it be an advertising agency or a knitting machine. This is self-interest, blatant self-interest, self-abasing self-interest which has reached new heights. I repeat: if they do not own it, they are not interested, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, "That is reasonable". That is what they are on about!

Let us look at the way members of the opposition treat the rest of the Constitution. They do not believe the Constitution and the political and legal institutions of this State are the property of the Parliament or the people. They want to treat them like their own property; they want to own them. That is why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants to stand over the Chief Commissioner of Police and tell him whom he should prosecute. That is why the latter-day Joe McCarthy, the honourable member of Polwarth, who has been asleep for years, wants to come in and get rid of anybody in the Public Service who does not agree with him. In the end, the proposed amendment to the Constitution reflects the attitude of members of the opposition more widely to the Constitution: if they do not own it, they are not interested. If they cannot get rid of the people in the Public Service whom they do not like, if they cannot tell the Chief Commissioner of Police whom to prosecute, if they cannot interfere, like the former Deputy Leader of the Opposition did during the last session - I shall come to that in a minute--

Mr Stockdale - I can't wait for it!

Mr KENNAN - The honourable member for Brighton says he cannot wait. If they do not own it, they are not interested.

What we have is an advertising agent and a knitting mill manufacturer who drops in, who makes guest appearances here, when he is able to fit it in. Last Friday he was up at Seymour - it must take an hour and a half to drive each way - and he was saying the government must call an election now. He is off on matters of self-interest, probably near or in the electorate of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. That shows his sense of priority and it reflects the credo: if we don't own it, we are not much interested in it.

The opposition is not much interested in the long-term future of this State; it is not much interested in the people of this State unless members of the opposition can depress and frighten them. That is what the honourable member for Polwarth is on about. There is a nasty vindictiveness here that is threatening and is shown by what the opposition is doing with the Constitution.

The Premier referred to Mr Hunt in another place. We have Mr Hunt and Mr Storey, the great small-l liberals of our time. I wonder if they get much sleep at night. These are the people who used to come along to and participate in Constitutional conventions. They wanted to distance themselves from "Kerr's cur" - and I am not referring to the Legislative Council, but to Malcolm Fraser. They were squeamish about the nastiness of



1975 and said, ''We are people of principle; we believe the Lower House, being properly elected, should not be knocked off by the Upper House". Have a look at what they have said and done to the Constitution that they prided themselves on defending!

In 1984 the Leader of the Opposition boasted about the achievement - not the government's achievement, but his - of ensuring four-year terms of government. He said, "l would have preferred five years; I insisted on a minimum of three because I am not going to have elections in less than three years because that adds to instability". He said, "l really wanted five years but I got four. I am a hero".

Anyone out there who wants to buy this advertising nonsense and say the Leader of the Opposition has got better should be aware that he has not got better; he has got worse. Let us look at his achievements in the past three weeks, which must be a world record. He said, "This is all a bit of a shock; I am going to need some time to get up to speed on policies". Next day, when the 3 o'clock news was being broadcast, there was no-one here because they were all outside with their walkmans on, listening to the Leader of the Opposition - the next day he said, "Stay tuned". That was his attitude to Supply: "Stay tuned".

Then last Thursday he called a meeting of the opposition. He called it for 10 0' clock so there was not too much time for questions and discussion in his party room because it was half an hour before question time began. He called it then so that he could make a 28-minute speech and then say, "You have 2 minutes to get downstairs and get into question time". He came into question time and referred to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition - and he is about fifth or sixth in that position for the opposition - and said he was giving a 1 o'clock news conference and perhaps people should go out and listen to it. It is extraordinary.

He has talked of secret strategies. All honourable members know where that came from - it came from a 1986 news clipping. He has one of the biggest Ministries ever composed in this country and he will probably have to expand it as his position becomes increasingly wobbly.

The Leader of the Opposition has talked about street marches and has gone to Geelong and indicated he did not want a Royal Commission established to inquire into the Pyramid Building Society at all. I shall come to that in a moment.

On radio 3AW he has said that he likes Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's style. He said he is not offended by being likened to Sir Joh. Well, there is an age difference, but there might not be a difference in mentality!

He said:

All right, there may have been areas which have been called into question and dispute --

It was the irritating court system getting in the way! He was indicating his position, which is, ''When we get into power we will not worry about the Constitution; we will not worry about the Public Service; we will not worry about the Police Force; we will not worry about the courts".



The Leader of the Opposition acknowledged that some areas had been called into dispute - perhaps it was because an election was held! He went on to say:

... but Queensland ha ppens to be the State that is both economically sound and buoyant and if we can introduce the same economic philosophy in terms of getting the State moving again as Sir Joh, with the same result - -

Does he want to end up like Sir Joh? This is masochism! The psychology of this man is a matter for serious concern! The statements raise masochism to new heights! He has said that he wants to get the State moving again "with the same result" as Sir Joh achieved! 1 know the Leader of the Opposition likes going to the Supreme Court and giving evidence there, but 1 invite honourable members to consider whether that is on a par with what the former Queensland Premier is doing.

The Leader of the Opposition said further:

... we're in for a much better time --

If that is a promise, at least members of the legal profession will not complain!

There is something wrong with the conservative parties in this country: they have never been able to accept the umpire's decision. The fact of the matter is that at the end of the day the conservative parties in this country are not democrats. They are no respecters of Constitutions; they are no respecters of Constitutional conventions and proprieties. They want to rort the Constitution.

At the end of the day one sees the spirit of Ma1colm Fraser time and again. They exhibit their belief in the born-ta-rule syndrome. They would have been on about this sooner except that in 1982 the opposition was lumbered with the honourable member for Burwood as its Leader. The opposition was hopelessly behind in the polls so at that time it put on the pose of respectability. The Liberal Party had been in power for 27 years and did not have Malcolm Fraser but the honourable member for Burwood as Leader. They went through that ritual for one reason: they were behind in the polls and collectively they saw that. They had the honourable member for Burwood who himself said, "1 am a risk". Many of them were treating him as a joke and they left him alone. To be fair to him, at the time they did not take him seriously. They left him alone and they could not see themselves coming out of the wilderness for a long time.

When the polls turn around they want to turn the Constitution around. Despite what was said, and their highfalutin ideas, despite what Mr Hunt said and despite what they have said here, they do not have any serious interest in long-term and proper government. All they are interested in is being where they think they were born to be - in office!

Last week and this week we have had the benefit of hearing from the Leader of the Opposition. He has had an unlimited amount of time on two Parliamentary occasions -on those occasions he says there should be an election. He has had unlimited time to put forward his vision and his policies for this State. On both occasions he has declined to do so.



It is now about three and a half weeks since he was elected in the party room coup. He has had time to get up to speed on those policies - but of course, he will not! The gall of the man to come here and attempt to rort the Constitution, and to say he wants an election but to be not prepared to tell the people what their policies are is absolutely extraordinary!

There has been no attempt by the Leader of the Opposition or the other two honourable members who sit with him. They move their mouths and heads from side to side at question time - one is terribly tempted to lob a ping-pong ball into them. They always have their big mouths hanging open and you would not need to be a good shot to drop a ball right in!

There is no attempt to engage in any political debate. There is one recurring theme - to try to depress, depress and further depress the psychology of the people and, more likely, to frighten them. That is what it is all about! It does not matter whether it is the public servants they want to terrify or the people generally because they are at it all the time. Unfortunately they are not interested.

I refer to a speech given by Mr Leigh Masel a year or two ago when he asked:

Will history teach the Beefs, their children and their grandchildren the foolhardiness of sanguinity and will greed, overreaching and scheming which has been constant in human history be seen again and again in the years to come?

What we have from history is the later constant in human terms - the greed, the overreaching and the scheming that has come forward!

Look at the way this Leader of the Opposition expresses contempt for constitutional principles! We need look only at how he would govern this State and restore confidence. He again represented vested interests - he was the great defender of Pyramid. He wanted to go to the Supreme Court and give evidence, and he did. The transcript makes remarkable reading because this was the case where at the end of the day the judge said:

There can be little doubt that the result is that no claim of the plaintiffs can be regarded as having been substantiated.

Not one! Of course we remember the Leader of the Opposition and some of his shadows coming in here and waving around the defamatory paper by counsel for the plaintiffs, under privilege of course, and at the end of the day not one of those allegations was substantiated.

That did not stop the Leader of the Opposition. It shows his respect for the proper institution and the way he would govern if he got the chance. Mter giving evidence, the judge said to him:

You have not been sitting here as long as I have, Mr Kennett, but it may be if you have seen as much of the figures and so on that you might be more humble about the possibilities you have mentioned. It may not be as simple as you are assuming.

That did not stop the Leader of the Opposition. He then went on and talked about "The government sh~uld have done this and the government should have done that", and the judge said to him:



I think you possibly do not know but the evidence suggests that a great deal was done from February onwards, first of all to get accountancy reports, to find purchasers and all those sorts of things.

Of course at the end of the case the comment by the court was:

... no claim of the plaintiffs can be regarded as having been substantiated.

That is the drop-in approach to life: "I will drop in and give evidence on oath in the Supreme Court; I don't care that I don't know anything about it; I don't care; I haven't read anything and if I am questioned I will say that I am sorry, I have to do a radio program; I have to go to buy a knitting mill; I have finished for the day; I will drop in at the advertising agency and see how the accounts are going; I will drop in and rort the Constitution; it is nothing serious; then I will listen to the 6 o'clock news to see if the honourable member for Hawthorn has said anything".

I suppose people in his electorate are entitled to say that they hear a lot of him. He is on 3AWand the radio news talking them down. I suppose the level of depression in his electorate would be in proportion to the amount of contact he has with them.

Ms Kimer - They are probably very happy.

Mr KENNAN - As the Premier says, they are probably happy if they have not seen him for some time. This is the constitutional pillager who recommended the bailing out - and went on oath to give evidence about it - of an insolvent commercial institution, as did his shadow Attorney-General who recommended a system whereby governments bail out and offer liquidity to insolvent institutions. Of course that is a matter that no responsible government would ever have a bar of!

But perhaps we ought to be reminded of the Bjelke-Petersen-style government. That is a great hint of what the people in this State are being offered. If they are mates and he likes them he will use government money to bail them out. He won't care if they are insolvent!

The constitutional impropriety of what they are doing is underlined by the fact that they are constantly wanting to talk down the people of Victoria. They do not care what they say about that in order to depress them and try to create circumstances where this constitutional rort, and this attempt to change the Constitution suits the Liberal Party in 1991 - and of course they will automatically revert thereafter - but it is extraordinary. They say the private sector is on strike - does that mean they are mates?

Mr McNamara - Tell us about Brian Burke.

Mr KENNAN - He was criticised for bailing out an insolvent institution - the very policy of the opposition - and the McCusker report criticised the Western Australian government for bailing out Rothwells when they should have known it was insolvent, yet the Leader of the Opposition supports that policy! Do not talk any more about W A because you have adopted the very policy they were criticised for!

We do not have a private sector on strike in Victoria. In so far as you and your mates want to be on strike - and you want to go on strike in the Upper House - it is not the



private sector because the private sector that we deal with wants to be up there to create jobs.

It has a duty to the shareholders to go out and make profits. That is what it is about. They are not on strike and with the projects we have started - Bayside, Docklands, Lynch's Bridge - we have $1.58 billion worth of projects in that major project area alone. We are not dealing with a private sector on strike - it is the politicians in the opposition who are on strike!

It is the drop-in approach - whether it is a radio interview, the Supreme Court or Parliament. It is lucky today is not Friday because he would not have been able to be here - he would have been up there checking out his knitting mill!

It is not good enough. This is a serious matter and we will not tolerate it. When it is fully understood by the people - -

The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable Minister's time has expired.

Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - Labor's nine-year reign in Victoria is a chronicle of incompetence, illegality and neglect. The government has devastated the State's entire political and economic landscape.

I see the Deputy Premier is leaving the Chamber. Obviously he is heading off to the Prahran pool - or is it the Richmond pool - because he seems more intent on wallowing in the heated shallows of inner suburbia than doing his job as Deputy Premier of this State.

He will be remembered in this State as the $100 million MetTicket Man. He talks about mateship. Let us talk about mateship and Brian Bourke and Bob Hawke's mate and the juggling of the gold tax and everything else involved with it. They know all about mates; far more than we do on this side of the Chamber.

It is easy to see why Labor has lost its way. The Deputy Premier, in particular, stands for what Labor is at the moment. It is very much the Cucci socialist party that has lost contact with the average working man. He represents an electorate called Broadmeadows but he lives in Ivanhoe. He would not even know where Broadmeadows is, and before the next election someone should give him a road map so he can find his way out there.

There is very little chance of the Deputy Premier surviving in what has been a traditional blue collar Labor seat, and we may see the former member for Broadmeadows return to this Chamber as an independent Labor member - a person whose roots are firmly with the average working man.

The presentation given by the Premier in this debate was a sad and sick affair. It is what we have come to expect from her, certainly in recent months. She is an individual under extreme pressure, not only because of the financial mismanagement of the State, but because she cannot afford to turn her back on any of her colleagues.

You should have a look at who is sitting behind you now. If you do, you will look a little more concerned than you are looking at the moment. You are still smiling; but as the

CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUfION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL


knife slips in between your shoulder blades you will not be smiling, and the honourable member for Sunshine is just the person to do it! He is not the only one. You have spoken about "the ambition faction". You know who they are!

The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member should address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr McNAMARA - Unfortunately most of them are your colleagues on the front bench. We know about the ambitions of the Minister for Conservation and Environment who refused to serve with you as deputy and who has made it clear that he wants only the top job. It is "top job or nothing at all!".

We know about the Deputy Premier who is one of the most ambitious individuals in this Chamber, and like you --

The SPEAKER - Order! I have asked the honourable member to address his remarks through the Chair. If he is unable to do that, I will be unable to hear him further.

Mr McNAMARA - like the Premier he came from another place to this Chamber to further those ambitions, and not to settle for the No. 2 job. A range of other members has already indicated that they have doubts about the leadership and direction of the Labor Party and unfortunately the trend has not changed from when the former Premier was in charge. They saw reason to dump him and the same clouds are gathering over the present Premier.

A range of people, even those formally on the front bench, has voiced concern about the leadership and direction of the Premier, and the former Minister for Small Business was one who quite openly and in a blatant fashion told the media his concerns, and although he was running around like a rat for a while, he eventually owned up.

Through the Bill, the opposition parties are attempting to clear the air. It is certainly an opportunity for the government to restore confidence to the Victorian public. We have given the government three opportunities for putting Victoria first, rather than itself.

Everyone is aware of the problems in the Victorian community - the record levels of unemployment, the problems with investment - and those problems will continue. There is no confidence in the business community to invest in any major project in this State while the current administration continues to govern, and certainly one of the most important factors is ensuring that the Public Service and its delivery is made more efficient.

That is why the shadow Minister for Finance has such an important role at the moment, and will continue to have an important role as the Minister for Finance in the coalition government. He will ensure that we correct those inefficiencies.

Why is the government saying that it is not prepared to take on the amendment? It is a reasonably legitimate amendment. The only reason is that the government is numb with fright. It is absolutely petrified at the prospect of facing the public, and I direct attention to section 8 of the Constitution Act which deals with the dissolution of Parliament.



Section 8(3) describes the four methods by which an election can be called and the Legislative Assembly can be dissolved. The first method is where a period of three years has elapsed. The second is where a Bill of special importance is introduced. In that case the provisions for that Bill being rejected and re-presented again can also be the trigger for an early election.

Thirdly, a Budget may be introduced that is limited to ordinary annual services. Fourthly, there may be a motion of no confidence passed in the Legislative Assembly. If any of these measures occur an election can be called.

The opposition views so seriously the need to have an early poll that we have suggested that the Constitution Act be amended. We are providing for a lawful mechanism to enable a State election to be called. We are removing any impediment to the calling of that poll.

If the legislation is passed the government can put Victoria first rather than itself first. The Victorian public wants to be allowed to vote. It wants to be able to pass judgment on the government. What is more democratic than that?

The Kirner government has no mandate, no popular support and certainly no credibility. Obviously the last thing it is prepared to do is to accept the opportunity for the community to have its say.

The aim of the Bill is to provide a path for ensuring that the Premier can do the right thing for all Victorians and call an early poll. Certainly in clear and unequivocal terms it provides for an election to be called. Over the past nine years we have experienced a period of incompetence, illegality and neglect. If we did have an election it would certainly be regarded as a thanksgiving day by all Victorians, and a day in which we could make a fresh start and set a new direction.

We could bring Victorians out of the mire and rebuild what was once a fine State.

It is clear that we do now need a poll, earlier rather than later, and it is also clear that the government is hopelessly divided, racked by internal division and disinterest, and we do need that change.

It is worth recalling that the last election was brought about by fraud. The government knew precisely what was going on with the VEDC. It must - if it were competent -have had some indication of what was happening with Tricontinental and the State Bank and it certainly knew about the problems with WorkCare and the growing unemployment in this State.

The government's reaction was to jump in early before the annual report to Parliament of WorkCare, before the details about the VEDC emerged and certainly before the people of Victoria found out what was happening with Tricontinental Corporation Ltd and State Bank Victoria.



The Labor Party perpetrated a fraud on the public and said ''Trust me". It talked about its pledge: that there will be no new taxes in the life of this Parliament! It talked about the proper administration of the State. All those promises have proven to be fraudulent.

Government members hang their heads in shame in this Chamber. The Premier has dropped her head in shame now because she knows that the government was fraudulently elected.

It is clear that Labor governments cannot govern. They certainly cannot administer the financial affairs of the State. If the community thought a year or two ago this government had a whiff of the Whitlam government, with its maladministration and incompetence that left a stain on Australia, it now realises it has a rotting carcass as a government.

The government is operating in parallel with the Whitlam government. It does not know how to manage the affairs of the State. In fact, with what has occurred during the past few years the maladministration of the Whitlam era pales into insignificance.

This government has not lost $3 million or $4 million - which was the amount that was the subject of the criticism levelled by members of the Labor Party at a previous liberal administration during the lands deal inquiry - it has lost almost $50 ()()() million.

Government backbenchers squeal about not changing the Constitution or amending it so a lawful election can be held. It reminds me of people who have their snout in the trough. Members of the government have their snout and trotters in the trough. Anyone who knows anything about farming knows that it is the piglet that you pull away from the trough that squeals the loudest and the House is hearing a lot of squealing now because the last thing that the government wants is an early election.

The government should put the public interest before its personal interest. During the past few weeks the Premier has talked about her much heralded June economic statement which will set a new direction for Victoria, save the government, and lead Victoria to a brighter future! The coalition has asked the Premier on several occasions: will the economic statement be made to the House or will she squib it? Will the Premier adjourn the House and then introduce the government's economic statement? The Premier should do the right thing and introduce the statement while the House is sitting so that it can be debated. I ask the Premier: will this statement be introduced while the House is sitting? We cannot get an answer. The obvious answer is that the Premier will wimp out on the issue.

What do the public of Victoria and, in particular, the 230 000 Victorians who do not have a job think of the government? I do not believe there is anything more soul-destroying for an individual than being out of work and having little prospect of getting work. Victoria has the highest levels of unemployment ever recorded. What is the government doing about that? This government has touted that it believes in social justice and looking after the depressed, but it has no consideration for those unemployed.

The government must realise that by hanging onto government so grimly it continues to leave Victoria in the mire, with no confidence in and no investment by industry.



The State Budget has blown out by $1060 million to date, but the Premier says not to worry because the Budget will come in on line! It will be a better stunt than anything pulled by Houdini for the Budget to come in on line.

One of the most worrying issues - an issue that should concern every government member, particularly the Premier - is that investment reduced in the last quarter by 22 per cent. That is scandalous. Worse still is the prediction that it is anticipated that investment will decrease by a further 25 per cent!

Bankruptcies in the past quarter have increased by 75 per cent. Again the Premier prattles on that Victoria is running smoothly and that there are no problems! What is the government doing about reducing the core debt so that future taxpayers' money is not spent on just servicing the debt, because that is the direction in which Victoria is heading? Victorians will be taxed until they are white and every last drop of blood is drained from them, and that money will go just to service the interest bill.

Victoria is like some members of the farming community, who are having great difficulty in meeting their interest repayments but who keep afloat by selling off the back paddock. This government has been in that situation for at least five years.

The government often refers to 1975 when a former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, led the Uberal Party to victory in the Federal election. That election result was one of the best mandates that any government could receive.

The coalition has said many times that it does not wish to block Supply. It wants the government to take the proper course and resign. What is more democratic than calling an election? The government is running scared and will not do the proper thing. Victoria has become the butt of jokes. The government has destroyed the economic infrastructure of the State. Victorians are in despair and have grown tired and lack motivation. The State has travelled a long way from the boom period of a decade ago. Its rural and resource industries, that pulled Australia out of recession during the early 1980s, will not do that now. The government is not assisting those industries.

The Premier skulks out of the Chamber. Obviously she cannot take the heat and we now have the rabbit at the table, the Minister for Transport. I hope he has a genuine concern about the future of Victoria and the future of those citizens in his electorate who are suffering because of the economic vandalism brought about by his government.

The chronicle of the Labor government reads like a horror story. The State debt is approaching $50 million. Most of the government's revenue is going to meet interest payments. WorkCare has enormous unfunded liabilities. I am sorry that the Minister for Agriculture is not in the Chamber because he was the architect of WorkCare and he is one of the principal reasons why it developed unfunded liabilities of almost $4 billion. That situation was remedied only by pushing up to astronomical levels the premiums being charged employers. The government has forced unemployment up in the process.




Mr McNAMARA - The honourable member for Bendigo West will be a short-term occupant of this Chamber. He may as well enjoy it while he can because his future in this Parliament will soon be terminated. I hope in the few months he has left he will do something to relieve the hardship being suffered in the Bendigo area. I have never yet heard him mention the problems of Bendigo. He has never mentioned unemployment in the Bendigo area. He has never raised issues that concern people in Bendigo and they, quite rightly, will ask what purpose this individual serves in Parliament. The answer will be: none, and the sooner he goes the better for the people of Bendigo.

Today some horrific situations exist. The Minister at the table, the Treasurer, is not appropriately dealing with the interest swap arrangements of $35 million that were undertaken without Parliamentary approval. That matter must be addressed by the Auditor-General and will be addressed by a future conservative government.

The government has also had a foray into the twilight world of tragedy with the costly collapse of the Victorian Economic Development Corporation (VEDC) and the Victorian Investment Corporation, and who could forget what happened a year ago when we lost our State Bank? If ever there were justification for the people of Victoria to question the future of this government, the loss of the State Bank was it. Despite effectively giving away the State Bank we still owe in excess of $1 billion for the debt incurred by Tricontinental Corporation Ltd. The State Bank had not had a loss in 150 years. In nine years not only did it have a loss but we lost the whole bank, lock, stock and barrel, for future Victorians.

Victoria has also had losses in public transport. One recalls the criticisms about public transport prior to this government's election to office. It was supposed to be outrageous because it was losing $300 million a year. This financial year public transport lost $2000 million. We used to own the trains. They have been sold and we now lease them back. The government is not even meeting the payments. In some cases only 50 per cent of the annual lease payments are met.

The Leader of the Opposition pointed last week to the Premier as the tragic figure in yellow as she came out of the meeting with the Prime Minister. Not only is she a tragic figure but she is also a shameless figure on the government benches. The later years of this government have been a chronicle of resignations and Ministers leaving in disgrace. The honourable member for Footscray had to quit because of his role in the VEDC. That was the start of the rot. The Treasurer quit after finally facing the fact that his financial administration of the economic policies had utterly failed. That was followed by the resignation of the Premier, the honourable member for Bundoora, which was the final admission that affairs of this government were totally discredited.

The shambles continue. The current Premier was forced to bring about the resignation of the previous Minister for Small Business, the honourable member for Essendon. These are certainly tragic figures. They are all culpable because they created this mess and they must be held responsible. We must get away from the situation we have in Victoria with, for instance, the meat industry where the Premier and the Minister for Agriculture have been supporting the outlaw actions of the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union



and its secretary, Mr Wally Curran, a soul mate of the Premier, who endorses every shameless action he takes. Not only are his actions destroying the meat industry in Victoria but also thousands of jobs. The abattoirs of this State will not begin to operate properly until that militant union and its secretary are removed.

Over the past eighteen months we have lost some $125 million in export earnings. Only last week the union and the Australian Council of Trade Unions were withdrawing from the final stages of the Harrison inquiry which we would have hoped would have set new horizons to resolve these problems. Again the government showed its true colours. We were looking forward to this government acting for the economic good of this State and of all Victorians, not just of those on the government benches. We were asking in the most democratic fashion for this government to pay heed to all Victorians, not just the thugs of Lygon Street who seem to manipulate and dominate every decision this government makes.

We hope the government will respond in a positive fashion to a Bill that we believe should be passed with all due haste to allow Victorians to have the chance of a bright and prosperous future rather than continuing to see further recession, further unemployment and further denigration of our once great State.

Mr THOMSON (Pascoe Vale) - The Bill seeks an early election. It seeks to tear up our present Constitution in a crude grab for power. The Leader of the Opposition continues to destabilise Victoria with his constant talk of an early election, but one must ask why he wants an early election.

Certainly he wants an early election while the economy is at a low ebb; he is seeking to obtain political advantage from the recession. Certainly he wants an election now before he is forced to come up with policies. So far he has released only his education policy - -


Mr THOMSON - Yes, he talks about debt reduction. He has the same idea about policies as the Queen of Hearts in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland who said: sentence now, trial later. The Leader of the Opposition says: election now, policies later. He also wants an election before some of the key figures in the Liberal Party come under scrutiny for their activities in the corporate boom of the 1980s.

These corporate spivs, the merchants of greed, more than any other factor have caused Victoria and Australia's present economic problems and the last thing this community needs is to have one of those spivs running Victoria. At least four distinct issues about the corporate conduct of Mr Michael Kroger, Mr Andrew Kroger and Mr Ian Johns need to be cleared up before Parliament can contemplate passing the Constitution (Dissolution of the Legislative Assembly) Bill. None of those four distinct issues were answered by Mr Michael Kroger at his press conference this afternoon.

The first matter concerns the ramping-up of the book value of Australian Merchant Holdings, Associated Tin Smelters and Australian Venture Capital using Tricontinental



Corporation Ltd loans and share transactions and their subsequent sale at an inflated price to Mr Gary Carter.

2409

The second matter concerns the massive losses suffered by Tricontinental in its share dealings with companies associated with the Kroger brothers and Mr lan Johns. The third issue--

Mr KENNEIT (Leader of the Opposition) - On a point of order, you will notice, Mr Speaker, that the honourable member is obviously reading. I ask that his documents be made available to the House at the conclusion of his speech.

The SPEAKER - Order! Will the honourable member advise the House whether he is reading?

Mr THOMSON (Pascoe Vale) - I am making use of notes and I am more than happy to make those notes available to the House at the conclusion of my speech.

The SPEAKER - Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member may continue.

Mr THOMSON - The third issue that needs to be cleared up is the role of Mr lan Johns in transactions with those companies and whether he was involved in conflicts of interest by reason of being the Managing Director of Tricontinental Corporation Ltd at the same time as being a director of three of those companies and a shareholder in at least one.

The fourth issue is the circumstances in which these companies received at least fifteen loans and w~re involved in many share transactions with Tricontinental.

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick) - On a point of order, the honourable member has legal training and I ask you, Mr Speaker, if, in view of the charges which have been laid against Mr lan Johns and which are currently adjourned, whether the sub judice rule ought to be invoked by way of curbing the honourable member from prejudging the guilt of Mr lan Johns - not that I have much of a brief for Mr Johns.

The House should not be used as a vehicle for prejudging him when he faces charges which have been adjourned so that the Royal Commission may be held and which should not under the sub judice rule be the subject of debate in this House.

Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) - On the point of order, Mr Speaker, clearly where matters will be before a court at some time in the future it is not appropriate for members of this House to canvass opinions about those matters. The fact is that a case may be coming up, and a description of the case is clearly not sub judice; it is a factual. matter.

The point that the honourable member is quite legitimately making is that the reason for the introduction of this Bill is to enable a change of timing of an election that is causally connected with the timing of the proceedings that are before the courts. The fact that these proceedings are going to happen in the courts is of itself not sub judice, although it



would infringe the sub judice rule of this House if one were to canvass the guilt or innocence of persons who are before the court.

Mr KENNE'IT (Leader of the Opposition) - On the point of order, Mr Speaker, quite obviously the individual who has been referred to, Mr Johns, has been charged. The Royal Commission is now in place and that is the correct place for these matters to be heard. The case against Mr Johns has been deferred until after the Royal Commission so that it does not in any way raise matters that may prejudice his court case. If that is the case the sub judice rule is relevant and it would be a misuse of this House and its procedures if the honourable member were able to continue in this vein.

Mr THOMSON (Pascoe Vale) - On the point of order, Mr Speaker, none of the matters I have raised relating to Mr Ian Johns or any of the matters I intend to raise are the subject of criminal charges which have been laid against Mr Johns.

Mr CO LE (Melbourne) -On the point of order, Mr Speaker, the charges against Mr Johns relate to secret commissions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the transactions between Andrew Kroger, Michael Kroger and lan Johns or Tricontinental. In this case the matter being raised by the honourable member is not relevant and it is not sub judice.

In respect of the matters before the Royal Commission one would have thought the precedent had already been set, given that the opposition in its speeches made quite extensive submissions about what caused the loss of State Bank Victoria. Therefore, if the honourable member for Pascoe Vale chooses to talk about what caused the loss of the State Bank he is perfectly entitled to do so because the precedent has already been set. Had that not been the desire of the opposition it should not have mentioned anything to do with the State Bank.

The SPEAKER -Order! I have heard sufficient argument to rule on the matter. The application of the sub judice rule was the subject of a ruling in an earlier debate today. If the matters being raised by the honourable member do not relate to charges that have been laid and matters that are presently before court, the honourable member is in order. However, I caution him and other speakers that the objective of the sub judice convention is to prevent Parliament from prejudicing juries, parties and witnesses in the courts. Accordingly, all honourable members should be cautious in references to matters which may come before the courts and parties who may appear before the courts.

Mr I. W. SMITH (Polwarth) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker --


Mr I. W. SMITH - The government can strut and fret in its final hour on the stage but the point I want to make to you, Mr Speaker, is that - -


The SPEAKER - Order!



Mr I. W. SMITH - Under the Standing Orders, the honourable member for Pascoe Vale must relate his remarks to the Bill. So far he has involved himself in slurs and aspersions that are unparliamentary and are not related to any elected member of this Parliament or to the Bill. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to bring him back to the Bill.

The SPEAKER - Order! I do not uphold the point of order. However, the honourable member must continue, as I believe he has to date, to relate the matters that he is raising to the Bill.

Mr THOMSON (Pascoe Vale) - This Bill seeks a dissolution of the Legislative Assembly and an immediate election. As such it raises questions about the fitness of the opposition to govern and it is to those matters that my remarks are directed.


Mr THOMSON - The fourth issue is the circumstances in which these companies received at least fifteen loans and were involved in many share transactions with Tricontinental.

Mr I. W. SMITH (Polwarth) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Pascoe Vale must relate his remarks to the Bill. He continues to flout the Standing Orders by wandering off making aspersions in a cowardly fashion about people who are not elected representatives in this Parliament, and those aspersions have nothing to do with the Bill. I ask you again, Mr Speaker, to bring him to order.

The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member had been speaking for only a very short period after the last point of order. Prior to the previous point of order the honourable -member had said that in his view there were certain matters which might be motivating the opposition to support the Bill at this stage. If the honourable member is able to relate his remarks in that manner he will be in order. However, he will be out of order if he is unable to relate his remarks to the Bill and the effects of the Bill.

Mr THOMSON (Pascoe Vale) - Honourable members opposite are raising these points of order to prevent me from being heard, for the same reason they are - -

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the honourable member has made an imputation about my behaviour in the House, saying that I have raised points of order to stop him from speaking. I am offended by that and ask it to be withdrawn.

The SPEAKER - Order! I suggest to the honourable member that he withdraw the imputation.

Mr THOMSON (Pascoe Vale) - In deference to your request, Mr Speaker, I withdraw the imputation.

The question is the purpose to which these loans were put; whether or not they were used for productive purposes or to asset strip companies, send them bankrupt and rip off minority shareholders. A company called --


2412 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 16 ryIay 1991

Mr KENNET r (Leader of the Opposition) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, all of this has nothing to do with any elected person in this House or with this proposed legislation. The matters being raised by the honourable member are clearly at odds with your earlier direction that the honourable member must address his remarks to the Bill.

The Premier did not refer to any of these matters in her second-reading speech. I did not refer to them, the Deputy Premier did not refer to them and the Leader of the National Party did not refer to them. Therefore what the honourable member for Pascoe Vale is doing is out of order and I ask you, Sir, to rule him out of order and direct him back to the Bill.

The SPEAKER - Order! The fact that the matter the honourable member is raising does not concern an elected member of Parliament is irrelevant. The point of order has been raised on the issue of the honourable member relating his remarks to the Bill.

When the further point of order was taken the honourable member for Pascoe Vale had uttered only one or two sentences since the previous point of order. In those circumstances it is impossible for the Chair to make a proper decision as to the relevance of his remarks. I remind the honourable member of my earlier ruling.

Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton) - On a fdrther point of order, Mr Speaker.


Mr STOCKDALE ~ Just sit back and relax! Mr Speaker, I raise a second and distinct point of order concerning the application of the sub judice rule to the Tricontinental Royal Commission. The nub of the argument so far advanced by the honourable member for Pascoe Vale, in enumerating the points he wishes to raise, relates to the losses of Tricontinental Corporation Ltd.

In reciting the specific matters he wishes to address, he alleged he would establish that the transactions related to the losses of Tricontinental and State Bank Victoria. That is precisely the subject matter the Royal Commission is investigating. The government established the Royal Commission to investigate precisely that issue. The remarks of the honourable member until now suggest he will canvass those issues and come to conclusions on matters directly germane to the Royal Commission.

Further, he is continuing on a course laid out by the Attorney-General who, in the course of various speeches and interjections, suggested that one of the purposes of the Royal Commission was to get the Kroger brothers. The honourable member is seeking to prejudice the proceedings of the Royal Commission, which is this day proceeding to investigate those precise issues.

I put it to you, Sir, that the honourable member is clearly out of order and is prejudicing the Royal Commission in the most blatant way for purely political purposes.

The SPEAKER - Order! I have taken and carefully considered advice on the matter raised in the point of order. The distinction between a matter heard before a court and a Royal Commission is that the Royal Commission has a fact-finding role and is not an

CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF rn.r: LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL


operation which has the power to determine and convict. As such it is quite a different forum from a court. Accordingly, I do not uphold the point of order.

Mr THOMSON (Pascoe Vale) - D.T. Lempriere and Co. was incorporated in Victoria in 1934. For many years it operated in the white alloy, smelting and die-casting business.

Mr KENNElT (Leader of the Opposition) - On a further point of order, Mr Speaker, given the time that the honourable member for Pascoe Vale has had to make his contribution, I cannot understand the relevance of this company to the matters covered by the Bill. It is not as if the honourable member is responding to any leads from other speakers. He is reciting a litany of experiences that in no way relate to the proposed legislation.

The honourable member can obviously continue to do that, but if he does I have no doubt that honourable members on this side of the House will have to continually query the appropriateness of his contribution.

I ask you, Sir, to rule that the matter he now raises in his speech is not relevant to the legislation, nor has it been referred to by any other speaker today.

The SPEAKER - Order! There is no point of order.

Mr THOMSON (pascoe Vale) - In recent years the company changed its name to Australian Merchant Holdings. After Mr Ian Johns and Mr Michael Kroger joined the board as directors on 26 March 1986, Australian Merchant Holdings sold off all its assets, 1st Investor Securities, Queensland Merchant Holdings, and so on.


Mr THOMSON - Instead of being a company that made and sold things - a productive company --

Mr PLOWMAN (Evelyn) - On a further point of order, Mr Speaker, this is a simple but important Bill. The intention of the Bill is clear. You have already ruled that the honourable member for Pascoe Vale must relate his remarks to the Bill. He has made absolutely no attempt to do so. On four or five different occasions he has continued in the same vein.

It is clearly your duty to this House to ensure that he does relate his comments to the Bill. He has not done so. He has not tried to do so, and you, Sir, must make him do so.

Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance) - On the point of order, Mr Speaker, and on a number of earlier ones, I suggest the continuous calling of points of order by the opposition is clearly an attempt to frustrate the right of the honourable member for Pascoe Vale to express his point of view. It is clearly the right of the honourable member to speak in this House and it is your duty to protect that right.

The SPEAKER - Order! I have heard sufficient argument on the point of order and I will not entertain extensive debate on points of order in these circumstances. It is clear

CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BIL~

2414 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 16 ¥ay 1991

that the honourable member for Pascoe Vale has scarcely had time to relate his further remarks to the Bill. As such it is impossible to uphold the point of order.

However, I suggest to the honourable member that, without being unnecessarily repetitious, he relate to the Bill the matters he is raising.

Mr THOMSON (pascoe Vale) - These issues are most important to the public of Victoria and to the question of whether the Legislative Assembly should agree to amend the Constitution so that the Premier can call an early election.


The SPEAKER - Order! If the honourable member for Ballarat North keeps interrupting he will not have an opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Mr THOMSON - The public is entitled to have these matters brought before it before any election is called. This company - formerly Q.T. Lempriere and Co., now Australian Merchant Holdings - which had been a productive company for decades, became a cash box, an investment banking company engaged in the acquisition and disposal of securities and other assets. Two weeks after Mr Michael Kroger - -

tc Mr RICHARD SON (Forest Hill) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, following your

ruling the House has listened in silence to the honourable member for Pascoe Vale in an attempt to determine whether he is relating his remarks to the Bill. I direct your attention, Sir, to Standing Order'No. 99, which simply states:

No Member shall digress from the subject-matter of any question under discussion.

That is the relevant Standing Order. The subject under discussion is simply that:

the Governor may at any time after the commencement of the Constitution (Dissolution of the Legislative Assembly) Act 1991 dissolve the Legislative Assembly which is in existence at the commencement of that Act.

There is no possible relevance to the provisions of the Bill in an endless and repetitive reference to certain companies that have no relationship to Parliament or the Bill. The honourable member for Pascoe Vale is clearly transgressing Standing Order No. 99, and he should no longer be heard on the matter.

The SPEAKER - Order! I again advise the House that I have allowed a wide-ranging debate on this matter, including the comments of earlier speakers. I intend to protect the rights of the honourable member for Pascoe Vale and the integrity of the Standing Orders. In my opinion the honourable member for Pascoe Vale has been attempting to relate his remarks to the Bill and why it should or should not be passed at this time. While he continues to do so he will be in order. There is no point of order.

Mr THOMSON (pascoe Vale) - Two weeks after Michael Kroger and Ian Johns joined the board, Andrew Kroger took over as the principal executive officer. In the space of a few months the company took out four loans with Tricontinental Corporation Ltd, the loan numbers being 53307, 54096, 43307 and 54187.

CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB!. Y) BILL


Mr KENNETf (Leader of the Opposition) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, one does not have to wait 5 minutes to understand that this member is not trying in any way to relate his comments to the Bill. If he is worried about not having enough time and if he wants to make his comments, he should make them on the front steps of Parliament House. If he wants to speak in this Chamber, he should speak on the Bill.

I said to you earlier, Sir, that the Premier, myself and other speakers did not once refer to the matte:-s raised by the honourable member for Pascoe Vale. That is because what he is saying has no relevance to the Bill. If he wishes to make a point on whatever he is talking about, there are appropriate forums in the community for him to do so. It should not be done in this House during the debate on this Bill, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to bring him back to the Bill.

The SPEAKER - Order! As I have already said, I allowed earlier speakers considerable latitude in speaking about matters they believed related to the Bill. I intend to uphold that stance. There is no point of order.


Mr KENNETf (Leader of the Opposition) - On a further point of order, Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Derrimut made a comment I find offensive, and I ask him to withdraw.

The SPEAKER - Order! I did not hear the comment, but I ask the honourable member for Derrimut, who is out of his place, to withdraw. I ask the honourable member for Derrimut to return to his proper place and to indicate whether he is prepared to withdraw his remarks.

Mr Cunningham interjected.


The SPEAKER - Order! It was impossible to hear the honourable member for Derrimut. I ask him to return to his place and indicate whether he is prepared to withdraw.

Mr CUNNING HAM (Derrimut) - I withdraw.

Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I do not seek to canvas your earlier ruling in relation to the Royal Commission; however, I have listened, albeit with some difficulty, to the honourable member for Pascoe Vale and I submit that he is flouting the substance of your ruling. Your ruling - -

The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Brighton has said enough for me to m~e a ruling. I do not uphold the point of order.

The honourable member for Pascoe Vale has 2 minutes in which to complete his remarks.

Mr STOCKDALE - With respect, Sir --

The SPEAKER - Order! I have ruled on the point of order.

CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL y) BIL~

2416 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 16 ¥ay 1991

Mr STOCKDALE - You, Mr Speaker, ruled previously that a Royal Commi~ion is a matter of investigation of facts. Since that ruling the honourable member for P~oe Vale has done nothing but assert facts. He has sought to - -

The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Brighton is well aware that I have already ruled on that point of order.

Extension of 20 minutes granted on motion of Mr ROPER (Treasurer).

Mr THOMSON (Pascoe Vale) - It is not good enough for Mr Johns to say he was on the board to look after the best interests of Tricontinental Corporation Ltd. Tricontinental made loans to hundreds of companies.

Mr KENNElT (Leader of the Opposition) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the opposition has agreed to the honourable member for Pascoe Vale having an additional 20 minutes in which to speak. However, if he wishes to abuse the forms of the House, members of the opposition shall continue to raise points of order. If the honourable member wants to address the Bill, members of the opposition will hear him. However, if he continues to abuse the forms of the House, the next 20 minutes will be exactly the same as the last 20 minutes.

tc The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Pascoe Vale was interrupted

approximately 5 to 10 seconds after he had commenced. In those circumstances I do not uphold the point of order.

MrTHOMSON (Pascoe Vale) - Tricontinental Corporation Ltd made loans to hundreds of companies. Honourable members will remember the list published in the Herald. Jobson's Year Book of Public Companies for 1986-87 lists Mr Johns as being a director of only four companies, two of them in concert with the Kroger brothers, being Australian Merchant Holdings and Australian Venture Capital. It is not good enough to say it is standard banking practice for Tricontinental to have its directors - -

Mr KENNElT (Leader of the OppOSition) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, honourable members have listened to the honourable member for Pascoe Vale for a further 1 minute. Even with the noise in the Chamber, even you, Sir, would know his remarks had absolutely no relevance to the Bill.


Mr KENNElT - r can understand members of the government getting upset, but how do they think members of the opposition feel? We want to hear the honourable member for Pascoe Vale but we want to hear him on the Bill. We want to hear why he is not prepared to go to the polls.

Mr Micallef - What's the point of order?

Mr KENNETf - The point of order is that the remarks are not relevant. Members of the opposition want to hear him; we have agreed to an extension of time. The honourable member for Pascoe Vale obviously has a contribution to make, but it must be relevant to the Bill.

CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL \) BILL


The SPEAKER - Order! If I heard the honourable member for Pascoe Vale correctly, he said that in his view the matters he is raising should be matters of public consideration at this time; and if I understood the honourable member correctly, he is concerned that if the Bill is passed it may limit the opportunity for public scrutiny of the matters he is raising.

Mr Elder interjected.

The SPEAKER - Order! If the honourable member for Ballarat North wishes to remain in the Chamber, I suggest he remain silent, now and from here on in.


The SPEAKER - Order! And he will not be alone! If the honourable member for Pascoe Vale is able to relate his remarks to the Bill in such a manner he will be in order; and it will not be necessary for him to assert their relevance at the end of every sentence, which seems to be the purport of the points of order. There is no point of order.

Mr THOMSON (Pascoe Vale) - The Leader of the Opposition wants to know why I will not be voting for the Bill, and I am explaining exactly why I will not be voting for it.

Australian Merchant Holdings option holders included Great Eastern Mines, of which Mr Michael Kroger was also a director, and soon after his becoming a director Great Eastern Mines also took out a Tricontinentalloan on 6 May 1986, No. 56480.

Mr Stockdale interjected.

Mr THOMSON - Australian Merchant Holdings was 34 per cent owned by Associated Tin Smelters.

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I am sure the House will recognise that I am one of the more patient members of this place. I have sat here for more than 30 minutes waiting to hear one single instance of the honourable member for Pascoe Vale making reference to the Bill either by name or by detail or by anything that is relevant to it.

Despite his defiance of your recommendation to him that he come back to the Bill, I believe you have been extremely lenient, and I commend you for your leniency. But surely the time has arrived when the honourable member should be brought back to the Bill, once and for all. Please, can we have some sanity in this House?


Mr GUDE - Will you, Mr Speaker --

Mr Emst - You have lost the argument.

Mr GUDE - When you're ready. I can be very patient.

Will you, Mr Speaker, please take charge of this House and require the honourable member concerned to speak to the Bill - and ask the normally muted jackals on the


2418 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 16 ~ay 1991

other side of the Chamber to be quiet to allow the honourable member to speak?1I ask you to bring him back to the Bill.

The SPEAKER - Order! As I said in response to an earlier point of order, tl)e honourable member for Pascoe Vale earlier explained why he believes it is impbrtant that these matters be canvassed at this stage, in a manner he believes is relevant to the Bill. I do not uphold the point of order.

Mr THOMSON (Pascoe Vale) - Australian Merchant Holdings was 34 per cent owned by Associated Tin Smelter (A TS) Resources of which Michael Kroger was a director. ATS had two subsidiary companies, Exploration Securities Pty Ltd and Eighth Winima Pty Ltd, and Michael Kroger was a director of both.

In turn, ATS Resources was almost 100 per cent owned by Australian Venture Capital, of which Mr Andrew Kroger was the principal executive officer from 30 October 1985 to 1 September 1986, as well as a director--

Mr E. R. SMITH (Glen Waverley) -On a further point of order, Mr Speaker, I again refer you to Standing Order No. 99, and I remind you that on four occasions this session during debate on the Corrections Bill, you brought me back to order based on the very same points that members of the opposition are making here. What is good for this side of the House ought to be good enough for that side, so I believe you have to rule that what the honourable member for Pascoe Vale is doing at present is flouting your rule. You told me that if I kept on you would not hear me, and I expect the same treatment to be given to them as you give to us!

The SPEAKER - Order! The Chair will be absolutely even-handed in its application of the Standing Orders. If the honourable member for Glen Waverley believes otherwise, he knows the manner in which he may proceed. I do not uphold the point of order.

Mr THOMSON (pascoe Vale) - Mr Andrew Kroger was also a director of Australian Venture Capital during this period, as well as being a director of AVC Investments Pty Ltd from 7 March 1986 --

Mr PLOWMAN (Evelyn) - On a further point of order, Mr Speaker, you have asked the honourable member to explain to you to the relevance to the Bill of his remarks. Mr Speaker, it is not a matter of whether the honourable member thinks his remarks are relevant to the Bill; it is a matter of whether you believe his remarks are relevant. You have not told the House whether you believe the honourable member's remarks are relevant to the Bill. You have simply said that the honourable member, himself, believes they are.

You, Sir, in exercising your authority in this House, must determine relevance; it is not up to the member to do so, because of course he or she will say the remarks are relevant! It is up to you to determine the relevance of the honourable member's remarks and to advise the House whether you believe they are relevant. If you believe the remarks are not relevant, you have the responsibility of ensuring that the honourable member returns to relevance and speaks to the Bill.



The SPEAKER - Order! I uphold the point of order in that the honourable member for Evelyn points out that it is the responsibility of the Chair to determine the question. On the basis of earlier comments made by the honourable member for Pascoe Vale, I am satisfied that he has related his remarks to the Bill; but I reiterate that he must continue to keep his remarks relevant to it.

Mr THOMSON (Pascoe Vale) - Mr lan Johns was also a director of Australian Venture Capital during this period. AVC was a beneficiary of a Tricontinentalloan No. 568717, as well as of Tricontinental shares, as was Australian Merchant Holdings, itself. It was Australian Venture Capital--

Mr RICHARD SON (Forest Hill) - On a further point of order, Mr Speaker, I direct to your attention Standing Order No. 109, which relates specifically to irrelevance and tedious repetition. Crucial to the consideration of this point of order and the relevance of Standing Order No. 109 to the conduct of the honourable member for Pascoe Vale is the ruling that you have just given, which concerns your belief in the relevance of the remarks being made by the honourable gentleman.

Standing Order No. 109 also refers to tedious repetition. I put it to you - -

The SPEAKER - Order! I suggest to the honourable member that he come quickly to his point of order.

Mr RICHARD SON - I put it to you, Sir, that while you may be confident and satisfied that the honourable member's remarks are relevant to the Bill, they have been repetitive and particularly tedious. Therefore in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 109, I seek leave to move:

That Mr Speaker do direct the Member to discontinue his speech.

The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Forest Hill appears not to have thoroughly read Standing Order No. 109. The issue can arise only after the Chair has called attention to the matter. There is no point of order. The Chair does not accept the motion.

MrTHOMSON (Pascoe Vale) -Australian Venture Capital put Michael Kroger on the board of Triako Resources Ltd from July 1986 to January 1987. According to the Herald list, Triako borrowed $27 million from Tricontinental. During 1986 money sloshed around within the group of companies - Australian Venture Capital, A TS Resources and Australian Merchant Holdings.

The reported net value of Australian Merchant Holdings skyrocketed from $12 million on 30 June 1985 to $40 million on 30 June 1986. The group of companies was then sold off to Mr Gary Carter and his entity APA group. But the real value of Australian Venture Capital turned out to be nothing like $40 million. Mr Carter subsequently went bankrupt and the companies went into liquidation.

Mr W. D. McGRA TU (Lowan) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I direct your attention to Standing Order No. 108 which says:



... all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be deemed disorderly.

This Standing Order is here to protect those people; yet here we have a continuation of names coming from the honourable member for Pascoe Vale. Not one of them is relevant to the House. We have never heard of them. That is what the debate is really all about and, clearly, the honourable member is flouting Standing Order No. 108. I ask that you bring him back to the debate.

The SPEAKER - Order! In Standing Order 108 the word "Members" is used with a capital letter and refers to members of Parliament. There is no point of order.

Mr THOMSON (pascoe Vale) - In December of last year Mr Carter was charged with twelve counts of allegedly making improper use of his position - -

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Pascoe Vale has just mentioned that Mr Carter is charged with offences. I ask the honourable member or the Attorney-General to assure the House that the honourable member is not about to embark on another little adventure in prejudging matters which are before the courts. I ask that the sub judice rule apply.

The SPEAKER - Order! I advise the honourable member for Pascoe Vale that he may not infringe the sub judice convention of this House in any remarks he may make concerning any charges which may have been laid.

Mr THOMSON (pascoe Vale) - I shall not refer to those matters. What is of concern is whether Mr Carter was out-spivved by the Kroger brothers and Mr Ian Johns --


Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the honourable member made reference to somebody being out-spivved. There are two clauses in the Bill before the House. The first is about a date of operation and the second relates specifically to the Constitution. In defiance of your ruling, Mr Speaker, the honourable member has not once in the past 10 minutes made a single reference to the name of the Bill, a clause in the Bill or any reference to the Bill. I plead with you once more to please bring him back to the matter before the House.

The SPEAKER - Order! As I indicated earlier, it is not necessary for the honourable member, having indicated the relevance of his remarks to the Bill, to continuously indicate that relevance. I do not uphold the point of order. However, I do advise the honourable member for Pascoe Vale that he seems to be drawing a long bow and I ask him to indicate to the Chair and the House the relevance of the matters he is now raising.

Mr THOMSON (pascoe Vale) - Mr Speaker, before this Bill is passed and before we have the immediate election the opposition wants, the public wants to know how much Michael and Andrew Kroger and Ian Johns made on the deal. It has been said around town that Andrew Kroger made $5 million on the deal. Let us find out what they all made on the deal.

CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF TIlE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL


The public wants to know what role the seven Tricontinentalloans and numerous share purchases for this group played in facilitating the transaction. There needs to be a full examination of the circumstances surrounding these loans, whether any of them were defaulted on at any time, the role played by Ian Johns and whether he was involved in a conflict of interest.

The second issue involves share transactions. The public requires a full accounting of the share transactions involving Tricontinental and companies associated with the Krogers. Tricontinental had an investment banking arm as well as a lending arm. That investment banking arm purchased 60 ()()() shares of Australian Merchant Holdings at a cost of $88 247 and sold them later for a mere $15 000, making a massive loss on the transaction of some $73 232. Tricontinental got skinned and somebody made a lot of money. The public wants to know who in Tricontinental authorised the purchase and the sale, when the shares were bought, whose shares were bought and who the shares were sold to.

In addition, Australian Merchant Holdings' share register as of January 1988 shows Tricontinental as having some 250 ()()() shares in Australian Merchant Holdings. If 60 000 shares were sold later, this apparently still leaves Tricontinental as the proud owner of 190 ()()() shares in what is now a non-functioning company.

Australian Merchant Holdings and Tricontinental were involved in share purchases in Australian Tin Smelter Resources, which ceased all its tin smelting and refining activities three weeks after Michael Kroger became director of the company and disposed of the assets related to these activities.

As of September 1986 Tricontinental held 1419 235 shares in ATS Resources and was involved in purchasing shares in Australian Venture Capital in June 1985. It paid $408 000 for 800 ()()() ordinary 50 cent shares and 800 ()()() options.

What contribution did those transactions, together with the Tricontinentalloans, make towards inflating the real value of that group of companies before it was offloaded? That requires full investigation. Other share transactions for which Michael Kroger must account involve the purchase - -

Mr I. W. SMITH (polwarth) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I have been watching the honourable member for Pascoe Vale very carefully.


Mr I. W. SMITH - It is your time you are wasting! I have been watching the honourable member carefully reading from a prepared document. I ask that that document be made available to the House as is the custom.

The SPEAKER - Order! There is no point of order. The matter has already been raised and the honourable member has indicated his willingness to make it available.

Mr THOMSON (Pascoe Vale) - There was a purchase of 725 000 shares in Avcorp and the purchase of 100 000 shares in McIntosh Securities Ltd. The Avcorp shares were purchased for $362 500 and sold for $287 680, making a loss of almost $75 000, while the



McIntosh Securities shares were purchased for $335 000 and sold for $176 056, making a loss of $158 943.

The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - Before I commence my contribution to the Bill I refer to the honourable member for Pascoe Vale --

Mr I. W. SMITH (Polwarth) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker - -


The SPEAKER - Order! I will call the honourable member when the honourable member for Frankston South and others come to order.

Mr I. W. SMITH - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Pascoe Vale volunteered to make the documents available to the House - all of them. Clearly, the rush to protect this idiot and sanitise --

The SPEAKER - Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw the term he used.

Mr I. W. SMITH - Of course. The rush to protect the honourable member for Pascoe Vale has already been made, which is evident by the attendance of the Minister for Conservation and Environment and the honourable member for Dandenong who are trying to enlighten him about what he does and does not produce. I ask that those documents be made available now.

Mr ROPER (freasurer) -It is an interesting point of order made by the honourable member for Polwarth, who, with his colleagues, has deliberately tried for 50 minutes to silence the honourable member - -


Mr ROPER - If you knew your Standing Orders after all this time you would know you can only get one extension. You have never paid attention to that! The honourable member for Pascoe Vale will make the documents which he used in his speech available to the House. I am sure over time the other matters he has to bring to the House will also be made available, despite the best efforts of the Liberal Party, more so than the National Party, to stop that occurring.

Mr RICHARDSON (Forest Hill) - On the point of order, I seek an assurance from the honourable member for Pascoe Vale through you, Mr Speaker, that he did not hand over any documents to any other honourable member when he was surrounded by his colleagues and that all of the documents to which reference has been made will be made available to the House, including any which may be secreted behind the cushion on the bench in front of him - if in fact any documents have been secreted behind that cushion.

I do not accuse the honourable member for Pascoe Vale of deliberately attempting to mislead the House or of disposing of documents, but I ask that he provide you, Mr Speaker, with an assurance that he has not done so and that he will make available all of the documents that he was using.



The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Pascoe Vale at an earlier stage in response to a request said he would make the documents to which he referred available. I ask the honourable member for Pascoe Vale if, when I resume my seat, he will bring to the table the documents to which he referred. Obviously the honourable member is expected to honour his undertaking to make those documents to which he referred available.

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - The Bill will give the community an opportunity of a break from the mismanagement, failure and deceit of the government. It is about a fresh start and an opportunity for thinking Victorians to cast their votes.

Mr KENNETf (Leader of the Opposition) - On a point of order, you, Mr Speaker, made it clear that the honourable member for Pascoe Vale should bring the documents to the table. He has left half of the documents behind. He is now shuffling them with those at the table, including the Deputy Premier.

I ask the honourable member for Pascoe Vale to honour his undertaking and hand up the sheets that he pulled apart. It was clearly visible that the honourable member unclipped the documents and separated them. He referred to a file. I ask that those documents be brought down.

The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Pascoe Vale has indicated that he will make the documents to which he referred available to the House. When the documents are received at the table it will be possible to check whether he has honoured his assurance. At this stage there is no point of order.

Mr KENNETf (Leader of the Opposition) - On a further point of order, the honourable member for Pascoe Vale has just ripped a part of one of the pages of his speech. He is mutilating the document. The honourable member sat there and ripped up part of the document and he has returned to his seat with part of the documentation as well as the rest that he left there.

The ruling and precedents of the House are clear. If an honourable member has nothing to hide he should bring the documents up, but he has ripped apart the document even when he was facing towards the Chair. He has further censored the material. I suggest that the honourable member should do the traditionally accepted thing in the House and bring all the documents down to the table.

Mr CRABB (Minister for Tourism) - On the point of order, it is manifestly clear that the honourable member for Pascoe Vale was reading his own handwritten document from which he delivered his speech. He had delivered only half of his speech and you only get half of his notes. The next instalment will come at a later time. Wait for it!

Mr PESCOIT (Bennettswood) - On the point of order, the honourable member for Pascoe Vale has a folder next to him. Apart from the bottom of one of the pages he has a piece of paper tom from the pages that were given to the Clerk. I ask the honourable member for Pascoe Vale to bring that down so that someone can inspect that particular file. There is no question about it. We watched him tear off the bottom of the page. We



watched other honourable members trying to protect him and now we have a farce where you, Mr Speaker, have allowed him to say that he is going to present a document when in reality he has not presented a document that he said he would make available because he has tom off a piece of it. We have seen him put it in a folder.

The SPEAKER - Order! The point of order is a simple one, as I indicated earlier, now that the documents have been received at the table it will be possible for them to be examined to determine whether they are complete. I do not uphold the point of order.

Mr I. W. SMITH (polwarth) - On a further point of order, one of your illustrious predecessors, Speaker Wheeler, ruled in this Chamber that a file, part of which I was quoting from during a debate, and which was challenged by the then opposition, was to be made available in its entirety.

Under that precedent, the opposition now requires consistency with that ruling and that the honourable member for Pascoe Vale produce not just this scribble that we have in front of us but the file from which he was quoting.

Mr ROPER (freasurer) - On the point of order, I well recall that occasion because I took that point of order. What the honourable member for Polwarth was referring to then was a detailed file from which his speech was being made. He took extracts from a number of parts of the file.

As the honourable member for Pascoe Vale made clear in his original response to the original point of order, he was reading from notes and that material has been provided to the Clerk. It is not a file in the sense of a departmental file.

Often in this place honourable members are asked to provide to the House the notes from which they are speaking.

Mr Leigh - All of them!

Mr ROPER - That is indeed correct. It is the notes from which the honourable member is speaking. U, as honourable members are aware, there are deliberate efforts by the other side to prevent a speech from being given, as certainly occurred in this instance, the House is entitled only to the notes that were used for the speech.

That is what the honourable member has provided; and the opposition - which made every effort to obtain it in collusion between various of its members - is now specifically saying it wants more than the honourable member provided. The opposition will get more during the course of this debate and other debates. Obviously the opposition does not like the kind of material that the honourable member for Pascoe Vale provided in his speech. It will get many other opportunities.

The SPEAKER -Order! I am going to reserve a ruling on this matter as it is clear that it is not possible to give a decision and ruling until the notes that have been provided have been examined. When the notes have been examined - and obviously any honourable member will have an opportunity of examining a copy of the notes - the matter will be further considered by me.



I do not uphold the point of order at this stage. I reserve my ruling. I am not prepared to consider any further points of order on this issue pending examination of the documents which have been provided.

Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton) - On a further point of order, Mr Speaker, the action you propose is clearly not sufficient. I ask you to take further action to uphold your ruling. It is clear that the honourable member has other documents in addition to the notes which were produced. On a previous occasion the Premier walked out of the House without producing additional documents and that issue was dead from that moment: nobody would ever know whether the documents that were not produced should have been produced.

You cannot tell by inspecting the documents that have been produced whether the others should have been produced. It is clear that you cannot determine, without assuming control of the documents still in the control of the honourable member for Pascoe Vale, whether they should have been produced as well.

I wish to place on record the importance of taking that step. It relates to two things. It relates, firstly, to the integrity of the ruling you make, that you cannot assure the House by inspecting those documents whether the documents in his possession should have been produced; and, secondly, to the fact that the honourable member has gone to considerable lengths to disguise the documents that he is producing. If the honourable member does not produce the remainder of the documents, the House will be entitled to conclude that the government has illegally provided him with documents and that they are government or Royal Commission files which should not be in his possession.

For the very sake of the integrity of the House, the integrity of the Chair and, not least of all, the integrity of the honourable member for Pascoe Vale, Mr Speaker, you are obliged --


Mr STOCKDALE - Stop rattling! Further, Mr Speaker, it will be apparent from the Hansard record whether matters were referred to by the honourable member from the file in his possession which are not contained in the notes that have been produced. It is not sufficient to inspect those notes: the suspicion will remain that the documents still in the honourable member's possession are in his possession illegally unless you, Sir, can satisfy the House that they are not included within the undertaking he gave the House.

The SPEAKER - Order! I undertake to have the documents examined and to give a ruling on the matter as quickly as possible. I would certainly expect that to be in the course of this debate, on the presumption that it will continue with a number of further speakers. I invite an honourable member representing the opposition to inspect the documents held by the Clerk before they are copied. I do not intend to make any further ruling or consider any further point of order.

Or Napthine - What did the honourable member for Keilor take outside?

The SPEAKER - Order! If the honourable member for Portland wishes to remain in the House for the remainder of this debate I suggest he remain silent from now on. I do



not intend to entertain any point of order on this matter until I have had the chance to examine the documents.

Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton) - On a further point of order, Mr Speaker, with great respect, I put it to you that you have not ruled on the point of order that I raised. My point of order did not relate to the documents you indicated but to the documents still in the possession of the honourable member for Pascoe Vale. I believe the House is entitled to a ruling from you on whether or not you will take the step of putting yourself in a position to satisfy the House whether the documents he still retains are properly in his possession and should have been produced.

Mr PLOWMAN (Evelyn) - On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Brighton, Mr Speaker, I think you have missed the point: the Leader of the House agreed entirely with the point being put by the opposition that a file should be made available to the House in its entirety. When one examines what the honourable member for Pascoe Vale has beside him one sees it is a manilla folder, which is a file containing the remaining documents that were not brought up to the table.

The opposition is making the point that unless you, Mr Speaker, impound the file or at least ask the honourable member for Pascoe Vale to bring the total file to the table, without impugning the honourable member, the House has no guarantee that honourable members or you will have the opportunity, without papers being removed, of seeing what is in that remaining file which is sitting beside the honourable member at his place in the House.

The SPEAKER - Order! The central issue is the undertaking given by the honourable member for Pascoe Vale to make available to the House documents to which he was referring. I ask him to indicate to the House whether or not he has made available to the Clerk all the documents to which he was referring.

Mr THOMSON (pascoe Vale) - I am happy to give the House that assurance. When the point of order was raised it was suggested I was reading my speech and I was asked whether I would make the notes available to the House. I have made available the notes from which I was reading. The other pages to which the opposition is referring are further handwritten notes of mine that remain because I was not able to complete my speech.


Mr THOMSON - If honourable members on the opposition side of the House were so interested in that material they should ~ve let me speak in the first place.


The SPEAKER - Order! The Chair sought an assurance from the honourable member for Pascoe Vale and he gave that assurance. The Chair is obliged to accept the assurance given by the honourable member. There is no further point of order.

CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y) BILL


Mr PERTON (Doncaster) - On a further point of order, Mr Speaker, you have indicated that you are going to reserve your decision on whether the documents provided by the honourable member for Pascoe Vale constitute the documents you referred to. Beside the honourable member is a manila folder which contains further documents, one of which was withdrawn by another honourable member. The documents and the loan numbers to which the honourable member was referring relate to material that has not even been made available to counsel at the Royal Commission.

It is quite obvious that the honourable member for Pascoe Vale made reference to notes other than those he has handed to you, Mr Speaker. The honourable member has had access to confidential information belonging to Tricontinental Corporation Ltd or other corporations associated with it and those papers do not form part of the papers delivered to the Royal Commission inquiring into Tricontinental.

The SPEAKER - Order! Would the honourable member come to his point of order?

Mr PERTON - The point of order is that the handwritten notes before you cannot possibly constitute all the material to which the honourable member has made reference.

The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Doncaster has indicated the point of order he is seeking to make. I do not uphold the point of order.

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - As I started to say at the outset, some 23 minutes ago, the community is demanding a break from the mismanagement, the dishonesty and the humbug of this government. That is a reason for the Bill having been passed by the Legislative Council and being brought forward today in this House.

Going into the last election, Victorians saw a government that sought to - and, indeed, successfully did - deceive the people of Victoria. I well remember the honourable member for Doveton standing before the people on about 23 September 1988 and saying that WorkCare was on target to be fully funded at a rate of 2.4 per cent.

It was only a matter of weeks after that election that the same honourable member found the need to come into this House and indicate that - surprise! surprise! - the things the opposition had been saying prior to the election were true, and that if changes were not made WorkCare was heading for absolute disaster and ruin. A straight-out lie was perpetrated upon the people of Victoria! It was a precursor to change.

Then an election took place, at the same time as the scandal revolving around the Victorian Economic Development Corporation was coming to light. In contemplating the results of the election, as was pointed out earlier by the Leader of the Opposition, one finds that the coalition parties received a higher proportion of votes in both Houses of Parliament than did the Labor Party. The coalition parties were not returned because of the way the votes fell in respect of particular members of the Legislative Assembly.

Since that time a number of concerns have come to light. The Victorian Economic Development Corporation has reported losses of $135 million to 31 December 1989.



I invite honourable members to consider what happened to our once great State Bank of Victoria, a bank that all Victorians shared pride in, a bank that all Victorians were encouraged to open an account with while they were at school. I dare say few members in the House did not at one stage or another have an account with the State Bank. It is not bad enough that the bank has been let down; it is not bad enough that losses were incurred by the great bank that provided home opportunities for decent Victorians and their children; it is not bad enough that the profits coming from the bank that were returned to the government and offset the costs to the taxpaying public of Victoria have been lost; and it is not bad enough that the bank has suffered a turnaround - Victorians have witnessed the loss of the entire institution! State Bank Victoria was frittered away by an irresponsible government and an irresponsible Treasurer, who no longer holds the position he had in this place.

Then, of course, there is the Pyramid disaster, brought about by a combination of deceit and paralysis. Again Victorians experienced the honourable member for Doveton giving assurances - not just verbal assurances but also written assurances - about Pyramid.

Victorians have heard about the illegal borrOWings undertaken by the Victorian Development Fund -

Mr MICALLEF (Springvale) - Mr Deputy Speaker, just a moment ago I was walking out of the House and a member of the Upper House in the gallery said to me, "You're a nice pack of bastards". I resent being spoken to like that by a member of the Upper House. I ask you to take action.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Norris) - Order! I suggest the proper course would be for the honourable member to take up the matter with the Speaker. At this stage I think I am powerless to make any comment. If a comment to that effect has been made from the public gallery, it is entirely disorderly.

Mr MICALLEF - I raised it with the attendant and he said he was powerless to do anything.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! I take the honourable member's point and I assure him I will refer the matter to the Speaker.

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - As I was saying, illegal borrowings by the Victorian Development Fund of $316 million were exposed by the Auditor-General. Artificial transactions were conducted by the Victorian Development Fund using the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works as a front to give the impression that some $870 million worth of loans had been supported by deposits from the Board of Works when they had not been so supported.

Victorians have also seen a deferring of interest costs from 1989-90 to the following Budget year, resulting in an understating of interest costs last year by $381 million.

The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - I move:

CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF mE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL


That the honourable member be allowed to continue his speech for a further period not exceeding 10 minutes.

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 42 Austin,Mr Jasper, Mr Pescott, Mr Bildstien, Mr John,Mr Plowman,Mr Brown,Mr Kennett,Mr Reynolds, Mr Clark, Mr (Teller) Lea,Mr Richardson, Mr Coleman,Mr Leigh, Mr Ross-Edwards, Mr Cooper,Mr Lieberman, Mr Smith, Mr E.R. Oelzoppo, Mr McGrath, Mr J.F. Smith, Mr I.W. Oickinson, Mr McGrath, Mr W.O. Steggall, Mr Elder, Mr (Teller) Maclellan, Mr Stockdale, Mr Evans,Mr McNamara,Mr Tanner,Mr Gude,Mr Maughan,Mr Wade,Mrs Hayward,Mr Napthine, Or Wallace,Mr Heffeman, Mr Perrin,Mr Weideman, Mr Honeywood, Mr Perton, Mr Wells, Or

Noes, 44 Andrianopoulos, Mr Hill,Mrs Rowe,Mr Baker,Mr Hirsh, Mrs Sandon,Mr Barker, Mrs Jolly, Mr Seitz, Mr Batchelor, Mr (Teller) Kennan,Mr Sercombe, Mr Cain,Mr Kennedy,Mr Setches, Mrs Cole,Mr Kirner,Ms Sheehan, Mr A.J. Crabb,Mr Leighton, Mr Sheehan, Mr F.P. Cunningham, Mr McCutcheon, Mr Shell,Mr Oollis, Mr McOonald, Mr Spyker,Mr Emst,Mr Mathews,Mr Thomson,Mr Fordham,Mr Micallef, Mr Trezise,Mr Garbutt, Mrs (Teller) Norris,Mr Vaughan,Or Gavin,Mr Pope,Mr Walsh,Mr Hamilton, Mr Ray, Mrs Wilson,Mrs Harrowfield, Mr Roper,Mr

Motion negatived.

Mr CRABB (Minister for Tourism) - What an extraordinary afternoon! We were well aware of some of the indiscretions of the Kroger brothers and mates and Mr Johns but, given the reaction of the opposition, there must be more that they know about than we have found out. Today I have seen more points of order taken during a half hour than at any time in my fifteen years in this Parliament. You went to the most extraordinary lengths to try to prevent the honourable member for Pascoe Vale even mentioning the name of the president of your party! That is how much you are all terrified and you think that what we might know could be true - or is it that the honourable members opposite are a little worried about themselves and how much they were involved in some of the dirty dealings in the past five years?



The House heard a speech from the Leader of the Opposition - the Jeffrey Kennett of old - bombastic and bullying. The only thing rentarkable about it was his claim that the last election, held after three and a half years, was early. He went crook because the last election was early after three and a half years but this time he wants an election after two and a half years because it is too late! He managed to rationalise the level of logic.

After a speech like that it is no wonder that Mark Birrell, the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, has gone to China for a fortnight and taken his mates with him.


Mr CRABB - The speech by the Leader of the National Party was not worth mentioning. It was written by someone who presumably is out there but it was not written by him or by anyone with any great feeling for this place. By contrast, the speech by the honourable member for Hawthorn - he rose for only 10 minutes - -

Mr Sandon - Seven minutes.

Mr CRABB -It was only 7 minutes - because his backbenchers got into the swing of the points of order procedure so hard they could not slow down.

An Honourable Member - Like a pendulum!

Mr CRABB - He could not get to make a speech.

By contrast, on this side of the House the Premier put a cogent and logical argument demonstrating the constitutional impropriety about the naked opportunism of the measure before the House today. The Deputy Premier put a cogent and intelligent argument, and showed clearly the dangerous instability of the Leader of the Opposition and his lack of policies or his capacity to change policies and views on a whim.

Finally, the honourable member for Pascoe Vale -despite the harassment of the opposition in its desperate attempts to keep him quiet - indicated enough for honourable members of this House to know the dangers for the opposition in the outcome of the Royal Commission and other proceedings in regard to the Kroger brothers and their mates, and probably including the honourable member for Brighton!

The last election was held after three and a half years - now we are called into question by the Libs who are calling it 11 early". What makes the difference in the Liberal Party? Why did they think it was too early at three and a half years last time and why is it too late at two and a half years this time? Surely it is ambition and a naked ache for power and privilege and patronage that they love to distribute among their mates.

Why early? Why not in 6, 8, 12 or 18 months' time? There are three reasons why they want it now. Firstly, they want an election before the public wakes up to the extent of the corruption built into the structure and personalities of the Liberal Party in Victoria.

Secondly, they want an election before the population gets the chance to examine their policies or lack of them. Thirdly, they want it before the public wakes up again to what a galah Jeffrey Kennett really is.



Fourthly, they want an election before the public wakes up to their crooked mates. The chickens are coming home to roost.

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick) - On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Conservation and Environment used a term in describing the Leader of the Opposition which was either unparliamentary, or ought to be withdrawn. It was offensive, and I believe the language of Australia is represented in the non-parliamentary expression.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! The Minister is obviously unaware of the term. I must confess, with the amount of noise in the Chamber and with my hearing defect I also did not hear it.

If the Minister said something that the honourable member for Berwick finds offensive, the Minister should withdraw it.

Mr CRABB (Minister for Tourism) - Was it galah? Is that what he is worried about? Is he concerned about the good reputation of galahs or the good reputation of the Leader of the Opposition? In either case I withdraw. With due respect to galahs, I withdraw.

The fact is the chickens are coming home to roost. The liberal Party's mates - the Krogers and their mates - are going to have their day in the spotlight.

Mr Heffeman interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Ivanhoe will desist from interjecting.

Mr Heffeman interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Ivanhoe is completely out of order and is defying the Chair. I ask him to refrain from interjecting.

Mr CRABB - Around the nation today there are Royal Commissions, boards of inquiry, Australian Securities Commission inquiries and police inquiries. There are investigations of every shape, size and dimension and they are demonstrating the effects and consequences of greed and the havoc being caused by the greedy men represented in this place by the Liberal Party and by no-one else.

The Tricontinental Royal Commission has been conducting its hearings now steadily over recent months and it is inexorably stepping day by day towards exposing lan Johns and the Krogers and all their mates in the liberal Party. It is also exposing what they have done to the fabric of financial activity in this State.

Equally, the Habersberger inquiry will inevitably and inexorably move to disclose the activities of David Clarke - another acolyte of the liberal Party, another one of your mates.

Day by day they will be brought into the open, but it is only opposition members who really know how many of them, as individuals, stand the risk of being brought into a public forum along with their mates whom we already know about.



I had no idea of the dimensions of the impact of this on individual opposition members until I saw their reactions. The honourable member for Pascoe Vale made a very mild speech, which never once reached hyperbole, yet just the mention of the companies, their names and what is happening caused a total panic on the opposition benches.

They used every crude and basic measure to prevent the honourable member for Pascoe Vale from saying one word. Why? Because they are terrified. They stand there one by one guiltily trying to remember whether they are likely to get caught in the bow-wave of the ongoing inquiries.

That is what happened with the land deals inquiry. Not only did the principals end up in gaol, but the bow-wave caught all sorts of people along the way, and just as many Liberals have been involved as their President and their Treasurer and their Federal President, and all the other ones in the course of being investigated right now.

That is one of the reasons why they want an early election. They want to cover it up and not own up to their responsibilities and liabilities for representing in this place the people who have ripped off the decent people in this country.

The honourable member for Polwarth, Mr Ian Smith, said on radio last night that he wanted to see a witch-hunt in the Public Service. There will be a witch-hunt all right, but it will not be into the Public Service to see who voted Labor last time or who was contacted by the Labor Party, it will be the media, the public and all those commissions and inquiries that are running, and the witches they will be hunting will be the crooked dealers in the Liberal Party, because that is who will be pilloried in the end, and so they should be.

The nation's finances have been pillaged by the pushers and urgers, the con-men, the snake-oil peddlers and all of those people who masqueraded as financiers and yes-men in the latter part of the 1980s. Those are the people represented in Parliament by the Liberal Party.

Mr W. D. McGrath - What about Burke?

Mr CRABB - The National Party has not graduated into that arena yet, it has not yet reached the big time. The opposition represents a philosophy based on greed, the same philosophy that produced an orgy of avarice in the last decade. The perpetrators share that orgy of greed. The slogan that became famous was 11 greed is good" and nowhere was that slogan more healthily adopted than by the Victorian Branch of the Liberal Party and these are the people you seek to cover up and shade from the eyes of the public before the next election.

Government members are sometimes accused of hoping for too much, of trusting too much and of expecting too much, but for the cause of this winter of economic discontent the opposition needs to look at its own and to look at the Krogers and others who have plundered the purses of honest investors over the past decade.

They ought to look carefully at one another to see where the axe will fall next because precious few opposition members will come out of this unscathed.



One of the things that divides this House quite markedly is our attitude to these matters. The Labor movement looks and works for a better world where the standards rise. We expect to see a world with higher standards, not just higher standards of living but of understanding, of care and behaviour towards one another and towards the world around us.

By contrast the opposition would leave oUl; community to the lowest laws of "Greed is good" and the laws of the jungle and survival of the fittest. Most culpably of all, they want to cover up and excuse their mates and silence anyone who wants to implicate their crooked mates who have done so much damage to this State.

They want an early election before the public has a chance to see their policies. One would think that if the Leader of the Opposition believed one tiny part of the populist dogma that comes out of his ever-open mouth, he would say that the voters ought to be in the position of judging the opposing parties on their programs and on their policies, and yet where are the opposition policies and programs?

Everyone knows that the Leader of the Opposition is incapable of maintaining a consistent policy from one day to the next. In recent months all we have had are policies of division. The honourable member for Hawthorn wants to destroy the trade union movement and awards and get rid of minimum standards that have protected ordinary workers for 100 years. He wants to destroy WorkCare and take Victoria back to the strife it had in the 1970s. The people of Victoria have forgotten what power blackouts were like because they have not had them for so long but the opposition's policies would mean going back to the strife that the people of Victoria demonstrated they had had enough of.

The Leader of the National Party wants to destroy the independence of the Police Force and has totally disregarded the Queensland experience. One would think that the one lesson that politicians on all sides of the House would gain from the Queensland experience is that the minute one starts giving political directions to the Police Force one has a corrupt government.

One would not think anyone would forget the lessons of the Fitzgerald Royal Commission. I can remember the former Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen giving evidence and being asked his views on the principle of the separation of powers and discovering that the silly old goat had never heard of it and never cared about it and, consequently, had his dirty finger in a specific direction, not just at the Police Force, but also the courts of the State. That is exactly what the Leader of the National Party, the shadow spokesman for police matters, intends to do in Victoria. He wants to give political directions to the Police Force.

The Leader of the Opposition is not above interfering in the court system. The principle of the separation of powers is fundamental to the operation of a corruption-free State, yet the opposition is intending to head that way if it ever gains government!

The honourable member for Polwarth wants to destroy the Public Service. I heard him being interviewed on the radio last night and he talked about a witch-hunt in the Public Service. He agreed that was a fair name for what he wants to do. The honourable member



obviously likes the idea of hunting witches. He is the same person who, when a Minister of the Crown, appointed a former Prime Minister's brother-in-law as the permanent head of a department. That person also happened to be the President of the Liberal Party at that time, yet he says he does not believe in politicising the Public Service! Perhaps it is all right if that person is an in-law or is related to you!

When the Labor government came to power in 1982 it did not automatically dismiss Liberal government appointments to the Public Service. Some people may not have been reappointed. I certainly kept on the senior officers in the Ministry of Transport that I inherited from the honourable member for Berwick.

Mr Maclellan interjected.

Mr CRABB - That is a matter I did not ask him about and that is the point. The honourable member for Polwarth has said publicly that he is going on a witch-hunt to weed out of the Public Service everyone who is a Labor Party supporter. That is what he said! It is no good the honourable member saying "No" now by way of interjection because he said it on the radio and I heard him. In fact, he said it over and over again.

The three policies that we have heard from the opposition during recent weeks have been: the destruction of the trade union movement, awards and minimum standards, which emanated from the honourable member for Hawthorn; the destruction of the independence of the Police Force, as indicated by the Leader of the National Party; and the destruction of the political independence of the Public Service, which came from the honourable member for Polwarth. Now the opposition wants to tear up the Constitution because of naked opportunism.

The reason the opposition wants an early election is because it does not want anyone to find out what its policies may be. When the Leader of the Opposition was appointed recently he said he would maintain the policies of the former Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Gippsland West, but no-one can remember what those policies are. The honourable member was in favour of the death penalty and in favour of extending shop trading hours - I am not sure if the two policies are connected! The honourable member has changed his views on shop trading hours. He first advocated extending shop trading hours 24-hours a day, seven days a week everywhere throughout Victoria. He then advocated extending shop trading hours 24 hours a day seven days a week in the metropolitan area, and finally advocated extending shop trading hours 24 hours a day, seven days a week in the central business district. He is like a Cheshire cat, disappearing as you look at it.

The Leader of the Opposition announced what everyone thought were policies when he addressed passers-by in the streets of Geelong some weeks ago. I ask the House to consider this quotation, because it embodies the philosophy of the Leader of the Opposition:

Support and encouragement for the private sector and the spirit of enterprise, especially small business.



Those words are a direct quote from Sir Rupert Hamer's policy document, "Jobs for Growth" when he was trying to revive a former Liberal government in December 1980. That policy document preceded the new directions policy, which basically said the same thing. It is the same tire!d rhetoric without substance, novelty, wit or ideas. It is the same barren husk of idle rhet:oric and the same people who are trying to look after crooks, sharks and wolves, just as they looked after them before, and turn the ordinary people into the victims rather than the people they'represent.

The last Liberal government was a story of neglect, incompetence, stagnation and strife and no-one could describe it in any other way.

The third reason why the opposition wants an early election is so the public will not find out or remember the qualities of its Leader. One can look back at the almost continual expressions of amorality that have come from the Leader of the Opposition. All the time that I have observed him in the House I have not seen what one could vaguely describe as moral fibre. The Leader of the Opposition has never stood close to issues or maintained consistency on anything. He has never done anything that would cause anyone to trust him on any issue.

In 1976 I particularly remember the Leader of the Opposition making his maiden speech because I made my maiden speech at the same time. He said then, "I will be a member of Parliament for only six years because by then I will have achieved everything I can achieve". He said he would then move on to greater challenges. Obviously what he meant was that he would have six years as Leader of the Opposition and never achieve anything during that period. He did manage to become a Minister of the Crown for twelve months. He said there were too many public servants and that he would reduce their number by 10 per cent. Two days after that statement a Sir Humphrey Appleby advised him that he could reduce the number of public servants in his department by only 5 per cent! The punch line - and this is why I have a deep and abiding resentment of the Leader of the Opposition - is that when the former Premier, Mr Undsay Thompson, in an endeavour to reduce the cost of the Public Service, installed a recruitment freeze so no Minister could hire any further public servants, the Leader of the Opposition, as Minister of Housing, hired 200 consultants - and they are all still employed.

The Leader of the Opposition had no idea about working in a team with his colleagues or working by the rules that applied to everyone else. He was a few other things beside being Minister of Housing. For instance, he was Minister of funds to print the Liberal campaign brochures and he left a record of largesse that would be an embarrassment to the Queensland National Party. His memorial in the brief twelve months he was a Minister was the part he played in the tawdry assassination of Dick Hamer. He was aided and abetted by the honourable member for Polwarth who has since done the job on Lindsay Thompson, Jeffrey Kennett, Alan Brown -and he is hanging around waiting for a second chance on Kennett.

During the time the Labor Party has been in government the Leader of the Opposition has consistently been the best asset the Labor Party has had at every by-election or State



election. Who can forget his offer to the Italian beauty queen? Who can forget the foul-mouthed language on the car phone to Andrew Peacock? These things are part of the folklore of Victoria.

I enjoy taking the mickey out of the Leader of the Opposition; it is easy to do and we all have a laugh. However, it is dangerous to treat him as a figure of fun.


Mr CRABB - He has as many problems from the people behind him as the people in front of him. His chances of winning are remote. No longer is the honourable member for Gippsland West leading the party and looking smug as he shakes his finger at me saying, "You will never be the Premier". He will never be Premier, either.

No-one should be laughing at the Leader of the Opposition. He has demonstrated during the time he has been in this House that he is amoral. This man will stop at nothing to advance his own cause. I remind honourable members of people such as Hermann Goering and his mates who were figures of fun in the 1930s. They were amoral people and they threatened society and they should never have been laughed at. The threat that comes from the opposition is that it will destroy the fundamental fabric of our society.

As I have enumerated, the opposition will destroy the system of awards and basic protection for workers; it will destroy the independence of the Police Force and the Public Service. On top of that it is prepared to rip up the Constitution which it drafted and extolled at that time. The opposition is dangerous. The only reason the Bill is before the House is because the opposition desperately needs an early election to avoid the corruption inherent within its philosophy and its structure being exposed to the people of Victoria - and undoubtedly it will be day by day through all of the inquiries, commissions and investigations being carried out.


Mr CRABB - Here we go, the honourable member for Bennettswood is smiling and the honourable member for Syndal is not. That means somebody has been switched in the preselection ballot this afternoon or the opposition has paid someone to go on holidays. The honourable member for Caulfield is not present today because he is out at the cemetery trying to find some voters.

The opposition is desperate for an early election before the corruption inherent in the party comes out. It wants an election before anybody finds out what its policies are and before anyone remembers how bad the Leader of the Opposition is. The government rejects the Bill as a tawdry and stupid ploy and we should not be spending our time on this sort of nonsense. We should be spending our time governing this State and recovering from the worst recession this nation has seen in recent years.

The opposition should be spending its time informing the public of its policies and programs, if it has any. If the opposition had any sense of honesty and shame, it would be explaining to the people whose votes it desires what its policies and programs are. Until the opposition does that it will have no credit - and it deserves none.



Mr W. D. McGRA TH (Lowan) - During the debate the Premier said the majority of the House would not support the Bill. She said that in the confines of this building. I wonder whether she would be game enough to go into the community and ask whether the people of Victoria would support the government's direction in this argument today. I do not believe she would. Her contribution today showed the paranoia she has about the Leader of the Opposition.

Victorians can ask why the Labor Party is still in government. When the government was elected in 1988 it was led by the Premier, the honourable member for Bundoora, with the support of the honourable member for Doveton as Treasurer. The honourable members for Footscray and Oakleigh were Ministers, as was Mr Walker in the Upper House. They have all gone. The golden line of the team has gone. Mr Landeryou in another place was also a Minister at one stage. The honourable members for Reservoir, Essendon and Albert Park have also been Ministers. The team has gone.

The current Cabinet bears no resemblance to the old team. What is there now is a socialist left dominated government that the people of Victoria are not prepared to tolerate. That is why the Bill is before the House. Yesterday it was passed by the Upper House and we have the opportunity today of passing it in this House. An absolute majority is required at the completion of debate. If Labor members had any respect for the people of Victoria they would support the opposition and allow the Bill to pass in this House.

Today we have argued about what the Premier can offer this State. In the past three months the Premier issued a Ministerial statement about what she would do for metropolitan Melbourne. Two weeks later she realised she had forgotten about rural Victoria so she brought in a Ministerial statement about rural Victoria. We are told that in another fortnight's time the Premier will make a major economic statement. She is not prepared to come forward with that economic statement today and allow it to be scrutinised by the House because she knows it will not stand up.

Along with her colleagues she has had eight years to put the economic situation of Victoria right. Victoria has been decimated by this socialist left government. I see the honourable member for Footscray grinning. He says to himself, "Thank goodness I am not involved as one of the key decision makers now. I can back away a little bit. I don't want to be tainted by the socialist left philosophy that is now dominating. I don't want to be associated with people like Halfpenny and Curran."

In recent times one has seen the relationship between Mr Curran and the Premier concerning the scandal of the inappropriate submission that went from the government of Victoria to the Harrison meat inquiry. It was a credible submission prepared by the former Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs with the proper statistics about industrial relations and the loss of export earnings in the meat industry.

Mr Curran said, "No, we can't have that going up there, Premier; I don't want the truth to go through to that inquiry because it is too important." Even now when it has a vetted submission and the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union has been asked to go before the Harrison inquiry, it has to back away. Mr Curran says, "We can't stand this;



we're not prepared to stay here and give evidence because we might have to stand by the findings of the inquiry."

That is the sort of corruption that is occurring in government administration in the State of Victoria. Mr Curran and Mr Halfpenny are close to the direction, philosophy and motives behind the government. The reason this Bill has been introduced by the coalition on behalf of the people of Victoria is to give Victoria a new chance.

The Deputy Premier talked about the opposition making a smash and grab on the Constitution. Let me turn that around: this economy has been smashed by the Deputy Premier and his colleagues in the past five years. One can talk about the grab referred to and how it has destroyed the people of Victoria; it has decimated their confidence and they are now without hope and direction because of the smash and grab that the Premier spoke about.

The honourable member for Pascoe Vale was quoting loan book numbers that related to Tricontinental Corporation Ltd and its lending arm. I should have thought that all loan books would be with the Royal Commission. One can ask how the honourable member for Pascoe Vale can stand up and quote number for number from a loan book belonging to Tricontinental and its lending arm.

Mr Gude - Did he steal it?

Mr W. D. McGRA TH - That is a good question from the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party; did he steal it? That is a question that should be answered by somebody from the government. How does the honourable member for Pascoe Vale come to have loan book numbers while the inquiry is proceeding? There is a tremendous responsibility and obligation on the government to justify how those loan book numbers come to be in the possession of the honourable member for Pascoe Vale at this particular time.

One can ask why this Bill is being debated this afternoon. What do 127 ()()() unemployed people feel about this government retaining office?

Dr Napthine - The new unemployed!

Mr W. D. McGRA TH - That is right, the new unemployed. What do they feel about it? They are not too happy or comfortable about it. This morning the honourable member for Warrnambool asked a question about those people and whether or not the Premier and her colleagues should retain their jobs when so many other people are losing jobs. That is the sort of question that is being asked at the moment in the community, particularly in rural Victoria.

When I travel from the west side of the State to the east side the community continually ask that question. They ask, "How can the government of the day justify holding its position when we are not getting an opportunity to provide our talents in the work force?" It is very cruel to see people in country Victoria who have lost the opportunity to participate in the work force.



One needs to weigh up incompetence on the government side against competency on the opposition side. One needs to weigh up bankruptcy on the government side against the Constitution that the opposition is looking at on this side. The opposition introduces the Bill in a legal and democratic way. Is it the right way to go or must Victoria continue to face bankruptcy? Yes, it is the right way to go.

One of the real questions in the debate is whether or not Parliament should make an amendment to the Constitution to save the enormous number of bankruptcies that are occurring in this State. The continual downgrading of Victoria's credit rating by Moody's Investors Service indicates that the government is very close to bankruptcy. There is a chance of turning that around but action has to be taken quickly. The question of whether or not we want to have a socialist left led government as opposed to what the people of Victoria want has to be balanced up.

I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the people of Victoria are prepared. In 1982, in 1985 and in 1988 they were prepared to tolerate a right wing led Labor government but they are not prepared to tolerate a socialist left led government. That is why we are debating this Bill this afternoon. The people of Victoria are crying out for an election to take place.

I participated in a radio talkback program a fortnight ago and ten out of twelve people said they were happy to see Jeff Kennett back as Leader of the Opposition but then they asked, "When are you going to have an election? When is the election going to take place?" That is what they wanted to know and that is what the people of Victoria are looking for at this particular time.

The community wants to see progress like what is happening in New South Wales under a Liberal-National coalition government. People can see that things are better in New South Wales.

Mr McCutcheon interjected.

MrW. O. McGRATH - Yes, $1.3 billion. What have we got here? It is interesting that the Minister for Planning and Housing offers that interjection, bearing in mind the size of Victoria's debt.

Or Napthine - What about unemployment?

Mr W. O. McGRA TH - Perhaps the Minister for Planning and Housing can answer that question. The rate of unemployment in Victoria is 10.5 per cent. What is it in New South Wales?

Or Napthine - It is 8.4 per cent.

Mr W. O. McGRA TH - It is 8.4 per cent in New South Wales.

Mr McCutcheon - What do you want to do about it?

MrW. O. McGRATH - We want to be in a position where we can do something about it.



Mr McCutcheon - Tell us what you're doing. You don't have any policies!

Mr W. D. McGRA TH - A government should give direction; it should give a lead to the private sector. A government should give stability to the State.

Mr McCutcheon - What about industrial relations?

Mr W. D. McGRA TH - Some action will be taken by a coalition government on industrial relations. Some micro-economic reform will take place on the waterfront. It is stupid that in the port of Melbourne we can load only ten to eleven containers an hour. In Singapore they load 50 containers an hour and in Taiwan they load 55 containers an hour.

Mr Micallef - Why don't you go there?

MrW. D. McGRATH -I think you should have stayed in your country.

There must be some micro-economic reform on industrial relations issues. Victoria cannot tolerate losing 5000 jobs in the meat industry over the past ten years and a loss of $100 million in export earnings a year. That affects both meatworkers and the farming community.

Mr McCutcheon - Do you have any more policies?

The SPEAKER - Order! I ask the Minister to cease interjecting.

Mr W. D. McGRA TH - A coalition government would give private enterprise a new opportunity, a new climate and environment to allow it to grow and create more job opportunities in Victoria. That is the only way Victoria can succeed. A government must provide an environment for the private sector to develop and prosper so that less reliance is placed on the public sector. There must be change of direction, and the sooner the better for Victoria.

Members of the Labor Party in this House have an obligation to the people of Victoria to support the Bill. The Premier and the government will then have the opportunity, if they so desire, to call an election at the earliest possible time. When an absolute majority is required to pass the Bill I urge government members to vote for it in the interests of the community rather than looking after their own interests.

Mr DOLLIS (Richmond) - Today this House has witnessed one of the saddest examples of constitutional vandalism. Unlike many members of the opposition I have experienced constitutional vandalism. Constitutional vandalism is the result of those who try to subvert democracy and the institutions of the State. It is possibly the saddest form of vandalism.

Mr Gude interjected.

Mr DOLLIS - I advise the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party to listen carefully. A large number of people migrated to Australia because of the stability this country offers. They came because of the respect people had for the constitutions of this State and the country.



I suggest members of the opposition should take care in the way they are playing with the Constitution. They are subverting everything they possibly stand for. Constitutional vandalism is usually followed by some form of terror.

The shadow Minister for Finance has already declared that he has a witch-hunt list. He said that once power is bestowed upon him he will stop at nothing in using that power.

Mr Kennett intezjected.

Mr DOLLIS - The Leader of the Opposition would do well to listen because he wants to take away all the normal constitutional forms of this State and take naked power in his empty hands. He has no policies. There is nothing he can do for the State.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about integrity. He talked about confidence and honesty. He even talked about morality. Morality is something he knows nothing about. He does not know the meaning of the word.

These constitutional vandals are attempting to subvert the institutions of this State. Members of the opposition were involved in the redrafting of constitutional amendments which brought about the present Constitution. At that time they said they wanted to bring stability to the State but now they are proposing amendments to suit their personal circumstances. They are trying to tear down the Constitution they helped to build. Members of the opposition have no respect for the institution of Parliament. They have no respect for any institution in this State.

For the past two weeks the opposition frontbench has been parading in this House in an absolutely pathetic manner. It has criticised every institution in this State: the Police Force, the judiciary, and anything it could point its finger at. Why? Simply to denigrate Victorian institutions and bring about darkness. Out of that darkness this self-proclaimed Messiah - the Leader of the Opposition - will deliver power to that lot over there. But what will he deliver to the people of Victoria?

Mr Sercombe - Nothing!

Mr DOLLIS - Where are his policies? They are nowhere to be found. The Leader of the Opposition is interested only in slashing and burning. What follows is darkness.

This pathetic figure, this constitutional vandal, this Messiah, who is now walking out of the Chamber, does not even have the guts to stay and listen to my remarks about what he is proposing. The Liberal and National parties are attempting to denigrate everything in this State that they once stood for. I thought 1975 would have given the opposition the most fundamental lesson about what happens when one plays with democracy.


Mr DOLLIS - You are not just vandals, you are barbarians who are invading the constitutional stability of this State. You ought to know what barbarianism brings to a State or country. It brings darkness. What will you do if you ever achieve power? What will you do about this State?



Mr Maughan - Get it moving again!

Mr OOLLIS - You would not have a clue about how to get the State moving. You would not have a clue about anything. The opposition is simply attempting to destroy this State and bring about an election in its quest for power. It does not seem to matter that the opposition has no policies or vision for the people of Victoria. It has no ideas about how to get the State going.

Members of the opposition are opportunists and hypocrites. The opposition is not attempting to debate what it will do to give Victorians a better future; it is not debating what it will do to take Victoria into the year 2000. This is simply a debate about how members of the opposition will grab power. The Liberal Party is not used to staying in opposition, and the time will come when the people of Victoria have to make a decision.

Members of the opposition allowed this House to amend the Constitution; it agreed that, for the sake of stability, governments should be elected for four years with fixed three-year terms. The opposition determined that that was the way to go. However, the Liberal Party has a new king, a new emperor, a new Messiah who is empty of substance and is incapable of delivering anything to assist the people of Victoria.

Or Napthine - Not like your lot!

Mr OOLLIS - I would not be talking if I were the honourable member for Portland. The Liberal Party taught him a lesson about what happens to young, arrogant members who attempt to jump from the back bench to the front bench. The honourable member for Portland will go down in history as the person with the shortest career on the front bench. That is what happens to opportunists; that is what happens to those who are prepared to change sides. It is a lesson in what happens to the young, arrogant, pathetic figures sitting on the opposition benches. If I were the honourable member for Portland I would not open my mouth because the Leader of the Opposition has taught him a lesson.


Mr OOLLIS - Where was the loyalty of the honourable member for Brighton for his former Leader?


Mr OOLLIS - I would not be talking if I were the honourable member for Brighton because he is nothing but a Brotus. He was one of those who stuck the knife into the person he was supposedly sheltering from the vandals on the back bench. He gave the knife to his friend from the middle benches and he participated in the knifing of his own Leader. If I were him I would keep my mouth shut and would not be uttering any words.

Hypocrisy and despotism will haunt the honourable member for Brighton for the rest of his life. If I were him I would not attempt to interrupt in any shape or form. His record speaks louder than any words he can mutter. The honourable member for Brighton should listen carefully because he may learn what the Constitution and Parliament are



about. They are not about treachery and deceit; they are about stability, but the honourable member for Brighton would not know what stability is.

The opposition is currently running with the idea that its popularity is high.

Dr Napthine interjected.

2443

Mr DOLLIS - If the honourable member for Portland is so confident about his party's popularity, why does he not wait for the people of Victoria to have their say? Members of the opposition are afraid that in the next few months the people of Victoria will discover the pathetic state of affairs on the opposition benches. If they were not afraid of that, members of the opposition would be taking a different course. I shall teach members of the opposition something about constitutional stability.

Mr Leigh - Resign so you can find out!

Mr DOLLIS - The Uberal Party got rid of the honourable member for Malvern. Honourable members will no longer have to listen to him mouthing his pathetic, narrow-minded, stupid comments. At least after the next election the House will no longer have to listen to the honourable member for Malvern.

I have spoken about barbarians, constitutional stability, vandals and lack of respect. How is that mob going to govern? Power comes easily: power is given by the people but it is also taken away by the people. The people want respect for the institutions this mob is attempting to destabilise. People want stability; they want to know their children will have secure futures.

Stability comes from the institutions our forefathers spent much time in establishing. This is a young country, but it has a number of advantages. Until 1975 Australia had one of the most stable democracies in the world. The democratic institutions of this country have a proud record. However, Victoria is witnessing a pathetic attempt by the Uberal Party to grab power. Members of the opposition are eager to get into office, and they do not care what they destroy, what they slash and who they knife.

Honourable members saw what happened to the previous Leader of the Opposition. Backbench members of the opposition plotted against the former Leader who had the dignity and courage to say to the people of Victoria that he would wait his turn to face them. He said he would not slash and burn the Constitution and force an election. He said he would abide by and respect the Constitution.

The moment the former Leader of the Opposition said he would not block any money Bills the backbenchers started to plot. Some members, such as the honourable member for Malvern, saw salvation in a leadership challenge. However, the honourable member for Malvern is only the first to fall and honourable members will see the domino theory in practice. The constituencies of backbench members of the Liberal Party will do what they would have done even before those pathetic, treacherous individuals knifed their former Leader, the person who at least attempted to project a positive image to the State.



Mr LEIGH (Malvern) - On a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, I am hurt that members of the opposition have been described as treacherous individuals, and I ask the honourable member for Richmond to withdraw.

Mr DOLLIS (Richmond) - If the honourable member for Malvern finds "treacherous individuals" an objectionable term, 1 shall withdraw it. However, the truth is that he has been involved in plotting against his previous Leader. The honourable member for Malvern has been chucked out of his seat. Yet his new Leader was not able to save him: his plan for saving his pathetic little soul and his pathetic little future did not work!

I note that the Leader of the Opposition has returned to the Chamber. He is attempting to look serious, attempting to give the impression to the people of Victoria that the Messiah has returned: "The future is with me, trust me. I will deliver. But don't ask me what 1 will deliver". like any Messiah he wants us all blindly to follow him: "1 have come; I shall deliver from above. Don't worry about my record or about my capacity to be productive, constructive and positive. Just trust me".

The Leader of the Opposition is also saying to the people of Victoria, "If you want substance don't ask me, because I need time to think about my policies. Just trust me, because I am here. I know all the right thiJ\gs to say. I know how to get the best pictures in the newspapers and how to appear to be a person who represents the people. But don't ask me what I will do when I am in power".

The Leader of the Opposition has not produced any policies. All the so-called Messiahs we have seen have failed; and unless this so-called Messiah tries to define what he will deliver to the people of Victoria, he will perish like all those before him. One day those who assisted him to return to power will be paid back by those they did in. One thing about treachery and treason is certain: at some stage everybody is paid back.

I advise members opposite to be careful about what they do. They should not try to destroy principles they played a part in establishing. They must not be allowed to destroy the Constitution of Victoria because the Constitution is a sacred thing. It is not something to be tampered With; it is not something for the Leader of the Opposition to slash and bum but put back together when it suits him.

The Constitution is a sacred document and it is about time that the Leader of the Opposition learnt something about constitutional democracy. He should stop being a barbarian and a vandal and instead try to begin to behave like a decent Leader should. His bully-boy tactics will not work.

His pathetic promises will not fool the people of Victoria, because what they want is substantial policies.

Mr Pescott interjected.

Mr DOLLIS - Your turn is about to come this weekend because you will be dealt with like the honourable member for Malvern was dealt with.

CONSI'ITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEtiISLA TIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL


I conclude by reminding the House of the speech made by the honourable member for Balwyn during the debate on the Supply Bill, when he spoke about the pre-revolutionary France of the eighteenth century and said that a revolution was coming in Victoria. What the honourable member forgot to tell the House was that in the first nine months after the French Revolution 16 000 people perished under the blade of the guillotine.

All of Europe watched in horror, just as the people of the State of Victoria will watch in horror as these people opposite attempt to do away with our Constitution.

Another telling point is that the only inscription allowed on gravestones in cemeteries after the revolution was: "Death is an eternal sleep". That is what the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to do to our Constitution: he is attempting to make a pathetic little change that will allow him to take over, and when he has taken over all he will do is destroy.

Mter the French Revolution a deputy is reported as having said that no-one had dreamed of establishing a system of terror. The same can be said of members on the other side who are attempting to get into power by unconstitutional means. Even if the Constitution is changed to assist their dream of gaining power, they will use the power given to them by the people of this State to establish a system of terror.

Instead of implementing policies for the recovery of Victoria, they will destroy everything that this State has stood for for the past 150 years, which is why it is crucial that this pathetic attempt by the opposition to grab power is rejected by the House.

The Bill is nothing but a gimmick, an attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to hide his inability to deliver sound policies. It is nothing but an empty gesture, by which the Leader of the Opposition proclaims, "I am the Messiah, I am here to deliver. Although I have nothing to tell you, trust me. I am here: I am the king; I am the emperor; I am itl".

Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton) - Although you would not think it judging by the contributions to the debate by government members, the Constitution (Dissolution of the Legislative Assembly) Bill is about amending the Constitution. The Bill provides an opportunity for democracy to work its magic in Victoria.

We have heard a great deal of hollow, rambling and incoherent rhetoric from government speakers, most notably from the last, about constitutional principles. Where were the government's constitutional principles during the Nunawading re-election scandal? Where were its constitutional principles in 1988, when the people of Victoria were mercilessly conned into re-electing a government through a minority of votes which worked a fraud on them and was based on fraud?

I shall highlight the history of some of the issues raised during the debate by government speakers. In reality, the Labor Party is not the party of principle it claims to be. Its history is one of sordid backroom deals, dishonesty and corruption; the party has been only too willing to sacrifice the interests of the people for factional gain while kowtowing to the union movement.



One of the tradi:.ions of the Labor Party is born of the rhetoric of 1975, but the Labor Party fails every time to put the events of 1975 into their true historical perspective, which tells us what Labor is all about as well as what the events of 1975 were all about.

In 1974 the Senate merely threatened to withhold Supply from the Whitlam government. The reaction of the great white leader, Mr Whitlam, was telling: he could not wait to have an early election. He did not even wait for the Senate to refuse to debate certain Bills; instead he rushed to an election because he accurately judged that in 1974 he would win.

When the Senate deferred the passing of Supply in 1975 Mr Whitlam was dragged kicking and screaming to an early election, giving vent to extravagant hyperbole on the steps of Parliament House, which has divided the community ever since. It was not because he was a man of principle. He had demonstrated that in 1974. It was because in 1975 he judged with equal accuracy that he could not win an election. The history of 1974 and 1975 is not that Cough Whitlam is a man of great principle but that he is an accurate judge of the tenor of the Australian electorate.

His traditions are carried on in this House today. This Premier, the Deputy Premier and the 46 discredited people on the other side of the House carry them on. They will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to an election by the opposition and the people of Victoria because they know they have losfthe people's support.

They are not resisting this Bill because of any question of principle or because they stand to protect the integrity of the political process but for one reason, the same reason Cough Whitlam had to be sacked by Sir John Kerr in 1975. This rabble knows the people have had enough and will not re-elect it. The people will wreak their vengeance on the government for what it has done to the State. This rabble knows it will be lucky to hold a single seat after the next election.

The judgment the Premier will have to make is not just whether she can hang on long enough to save her skin and win the seat of Williamstown. The questions she will have to ask are: at what point is Labor's fortune as low as it can go; at what point is Labor's fortune restored; at what point can things only get worse? The issue that has not yet penetrated the slow brain of the Premier is that'we have passed that point and Labor is gone. The electorate has made up its mind about Joan Kirner, this discredited rabble, John Halfpenny, Wally Curran and the other faceless men who call the shots. The people have rejected them. They are demonstrating in poll after poll that they are not going to change their minds.

I put it to the House that Labor is wrong in its position on this Bill in their own interests. Things are not going to miraculously get better; they will only get worse because the electorate has seen through the fraud. They resent the fraud, the dishonesty, the illegality and the corruption of the very bases of the Westminster system of Parliament.

This Bill is about the workings of democracy. It is about the fact that this rabble knows its legitimacy is dead. It knows the electorate has seen through it. It took more than seven years but the electorate has seen through the government. They know that in 1982 the government was elected on a pledge not to increase taxes. The then Leader of the

CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGIS~.JATIVE ASSEMBLy) BILL


Opposition, the honourable member for Bundoora, said, "We see no reason to increase taxes". What did he do? Immediately he was elected he went on what the then Treasurer called" a creative search for new revenue measures". He repudiated the promise on which he had been elected and set about taxing Victoria into the ground.

In 1985 Labor went to the election on a promise not to increase taxes and charges faster than the CPI. At the 1988 election I was able to roll down the front steps of Parliament House a computer print-out which listed the broken promises and the taxes that had been increasing faster than the CPI. It stretched from the very top to the very bottom of the steps. There were more than 3000 broken promises.

The people of Victo:ia now know that this disreputable, crooked mob has broken every promise it ever made. In 1988 Labor went to the electorate and spent a fortune telling it that it was making not just a promise, because that coinage had been debased by its past record, but a Premier's pledge. John Cain told us on television, "I put my name to this pledge. This one will be kept". Who broke it? We did not have to wait for John Cain to break it. This Premier came along and as her first act repudiated the pledge on which Labor had been re-elected, albeit with the minority of votes, with less than half the people supporting it.

It won the votes in the right places and won enough seats, and what did the Premier do? What is the lasting scandal people will remember, if they remember anything, about this Premier? That her first act was to openly and explicitly repudiate the fundamental promise on which the government had been elected in 1988. Not only does the discredited rabble have no mandate for what it is doing to the State but it has repudiated the mandate that was given it. This government is intrinsically corrupted with dishonesty, deceit and illegality.

In the Nunawading by-election scandal Labor sought to win the decisive Upper House seat by illegal trickery and covered it up by perverting the law and the institution of Parliament. In 1988 the government scampered to an election to avoid disclosure of its mismanagement of the State. The people did not elect this socialist left government. They did not elect this Premier from Williamstown, the first socialist left Premier in the history of Victoria. They are entitled to an opportunity to express their views on the integrity and capacity of the government.

It is incapable of managing the problems it has created. Those are not just our words. Those are the words of the important credit rating agencies who determine Victoria's standing in the national and international finance communities. Those people have told Australia and the world that the government is not only incompetent and without policies but that, because of its internal division and political paralysis, it cannot manage the State. The government is illegal and dishonest and it has subverted the Constitution.

The fundamental issue is the role of the Treasurer himself in upholding the process of the Parliament which is fundamental to the Westminster system. That is the control of the government by the legislature through the process of Parliamentary appropriation.

CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY> BILL

2448 ASSEMBLY Thursda)'/, 16 May 1991

For 400 years Parliaments have exercised authority and control over the e*utive government by limiting the power of government to spend the people's nJoney by appropriation. The Treasurer is first amongst Ministers with a responsibility to uphold the fundamental principle of Westminster government. What did this Treasurer do? When he found he had spent more than the Parliament had authorised on debt servicing charges he responded by subverting the Constitution and breaking the law, not just to maintain the fraud but to cover it up. He entered into a bogus interest swap transaction - a transparent device once the details were made public by the Auditor-General. The purpose of the cover-up was to net off the excess expenditure of other appropriation.

Is it conceivable that this Treasurer did not know of his fundamental responsibility to maintain the integrity of the State's Budget, the Appropriation Bill and Act and Parliamentary control over the executive government? It is simply inconceivable that he would not know and if he did not know, that of itself should be cause enough for his resignation. He went about covering it up and sought to disguise the fact that he had overspent the Appropriation by pretending the amount did not exist by netting it off on the pretext that he had gained revenue.

Not only did he fail to declare his overspending but that by an artificial device he had raised $35 million without authority, and taised it in a transaction which increased the cost to Victorian taxpayers on the debt upon which it was based. The government stands guilty. It is condemned as illegitimate because it has subverted the basic principle of Parliamentary control under the Westminster system. It has subverted the will of the people.

It is guilty of an artificial transaction, which was used last year to raise approximately $800 million through a bogus issue of the Board of Works bonds. It was a fraud on the people who thought they were lending money to the Board of Works when in fact they had been illegally issued.

There was $316 million illegally raised through the issue of the VDF bonds. We then have the "strudel express" scam where the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Doveton, set out to defraud the Treasury of Austria in order to make $6 million additional revenue for the government. The man who stood railing against artificial tax avoidance schemes resorted to the most blatant of devices for tax evasion. He was prepared to rip off the taxpayers of another country, not only those of Victoria.

The government is imposing a situation on the finances of the State that will completely monster the future of Victorians by deferring expenditure into future Budget spheres and it has entered into leases that have the obligation deferred until the end of the lease period so that the government can obtain equipment now but pass on to future governments and future taxpayers the responsibility to repay its borrowings.

It has entered into zero coupon loans with all the interest to be met by future taxpayers and governments in breach of loan council restrictions. The government has circumvented those restrictions not only by moving them off Budget but outside the



government area and having the government's financing obligation on the basis that it will pay an addition cost in the future thus passing the cost on to future taxpayers.

The government is totally illegitimate. It has no moral integrity and no regard for the law. It has no regard for the future integrity of Victoria finances or the interest of taxpayers. It has subverted the Constitution.

The Bill is about democracy. Democracy is described in the Dictionary of Australian Politics in these terms:

A form of government in which power is vested in the people, and political decisions reflect the wishes of the majority of the people.

One must ask whether power is vested in the people of Victoria currently? Are the people having their wills expressed in Parliament through the decisions of government and through its actions in legislation and administration which have so undermined the future prosperity and survival of Victoria? The government has systematically sabotaged the interests of the people of Victoria.

Much rubbish has been talked about the principle of the Constitution. It is clear from the speeches made by government members that none of them has bothered to read the Constitution. There is nothing inviolate about any provision of the Constitution. To amend the Constitution is neither scurrilous nor is it undermining Constitutional convention. The Constitution not only contemplates amendment but it specifically provides for it in subsection 18(1):

Subject to sub-section (2) the Parliament may by any Act repeal alter or vary all or any of the provisions of this Act and substitute others in lieu thereof.

The Constitution provides the mechanism by which changes might be made and there are certain provisions which are entrenched that require different majorities from other provisions of the Act.

The Constitution goes on to describe which parts of the Constitution may be amended. To refuse to modify the Constitution would be to condemn contemporary society to be run rigidly on the basis of the Constitution in the face of the will of the people to use the Constitution.

To deny three times the will of the people is to pervert the Constitution. We are the masters of the law; the law is not the master of us. The people of Victoria are demanding an election not just for the sake of an election but to put an end to what the government has been doing to this State.

Every day the Labor government continues in office is a day the interests of the people of Victoria are further damaged. The government is doing nothing to restore the integrity of the State finances. It is doing nothing to overcome the policies that have brought the State to its knees.

The government is not expressing the will of the people to its colleagues in Canberra. The government is systematically destroying the finances of the people of Victoria for its own narrow political advantage because it believes it is inevitable that it will lose the election

CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY> BILL

2450 ASSEMBLY Thursdar, 16 May 1991

and it is forcing a situation that it hopes will shorten any future governmebt's term of ~~ ,

However, the people are not gullible or short sighted. We are laying the/groundwork for many decades of successful and responsible government. The Labor Patty opposes the Bill and claims that it is championing the Constitution but instead it is perverting and undermining it.

It is scared of an election and of the people of Victoria. It is white with fright at the prospect of Victorians having an opportunity of expressing their will. That is why government members have vomited out hollow rhetoric. I see the Minister for Conservation and Environment and the former Treasurer are skulking into the House. They have vomited out rhetoric. These troglodytes would not have been fit to govern in the eighteenth century let alone the twentieth century. They are scared of an election.

They are white with fright at letting the people of Victoria have the opportunity of expressing their will because they will lose the election and because they know the people recognise their failures. They know the people recognise that they were defrauded in 1982, in 1985 and particularly in 1988. They know their leadership has been rejected and there is nobody on the government benches who can restore the confidence of the community in the government.

They know the people are aware of the government's corruption, deceit and cover-up and they do not understand why everybody is reacting to the Tricontinental Royal Commission in the way they are, and particularly their reaction to WA Inc.

In Victoria we have "Incompetence Inc." in the 46 discredited and failed people who do not understand what is happening. What is the point of being a Labor government if one cannot help a few mates. In the face of the daily newspaper stories about W A Inc. and about corruption and the failure in Victoria it is laughable to hear the Minister for Conservation and Environment talking about corruption on this side of the House. Corruption is demonstrated in the record of the government.

The Labor government is afraid that the electorate will reject it and that for many years it will fail in its chance to recover any of its ground. Those who do see that are prepared to cling on to power.

The people know what the Labor government has cost them. The former Premier coined the term of the new cycle of poverty and the new poor. He used that expression only once because obviously when one has been in government for nine years the new cycle of poverty and the new poor would have to be the result of the damage the government has done.

Despite the rhetoric, affirmation of social justice and speaking for the poor and disadvantaged, it is the poor and disadvantaged who are the victims of the Labor government and not the people in the Golden Mile in Brighton. Their standard of living has declined dramatically under the Victorian and Federal governments but they are not



going to soup kitchens; they are not dependent on the Salvation Army; they are not sleeping in the parks; and they are not having to sell their homes and rent others.

2451

It is the poor and disadvantaged who are the greatest victims of high-taxing governments that lack compassion and suffer most from the failure of Labor.

The people know about the $50 000 million added to Victoria's liabilities because of the failure of the government; they know about the orgy of debt, and about the years and years - even generations - it will take Victoria to overcome the damage that has been done by the debt policies of this government. They know that we are the most taxed people in Australia and that we have the highest rate of tax in almost every aspect of the State taxation base.

They see the failure of Labor in the misery of their friends who are unemployed -or they are themselves unemployed - and in the misery of the businesses and shops which have closed in every suburban shopping centre.

They see Victoria plunging into recession at two to three times the rate of the rest of Australia.

On television every night they see Labor's union cronies strut their stuff, boasting and rejoicing in the fact that they have brought the State to its knees. They read in the newspapers and see on television that in the past year 127300 Victorians have lost their jobs and 127300 families rely on the dole; are dependent on the support of the rest of the community; have lost the dignity of providing for themselves.

They know we have lost our State Bank, not because we thought it was a good idea to transfer ownership to the private sector but because as a State we simply could not afford to cover the losses. They see industry crippled by high interest rates, WorkCare and all the other burdens the government has imposed on it. They see the dishonesty, the lack of principle and even the lack of moral fibre in the illegal and improper deals that seemed to break once a week under this government.

They see that Labor is discredited: the honourable member for Bundoora has gone; the honourable member for Footscray has gone; the honourable member for Doveton is discredited but is still sitting around the Cabinet table; the honourable member for Essendon admitted he lied and resigned in disgrace; and the honourable member for Albert Park was removed in a putsch to make way for the socialist left. The Honourable Evan Walker resigned in disgust at what was going on around him. It is not the opposition alone which says Labor is discredited: Labor members themselves have driven out the people who have brought the State to its knees.

What rewards does Labor provide the other great achievers? The honourable member for Thomastown, the architect of the Nunawading how-to-vote card scam, was rewarded with a seat in Parliament. The honourable member for Sunshine, the architect of WorkCare, was first rewarded in a back-stabbing contest for the seat of Sunshine and then with a Ministerial portfolio. Other members, discredited and disgraced, have clawed



their way over the dying bodies of their colleagues to grasp at the perks of power in the last few days left for the government.

Democracy revolves around the will of the people. The government is opposing this Bill, not out of constitutional principle, but because there is abundant evidence of the will of the people. The will of the people is, "Go and go now; go decently or go indecently, but go; spare us any more of this thing which has destroyed the State we are so proud of". What is the choice? Leadership is the choice: a strong, vibrant and youthful Leader who speaks with authority about his vision, compared with a mumbling incoherent Leader.

It was an embarrassment to be here when the Premier opened debate on this Bill. It was a shame to sit here and see the titular head of our State mumbling and fumbling her way through an overdramatic performance, dressed in basic black to give drama to an event that came down to hollow pathos and melodrama.

The Premier is simply not up to the job and every time she appears on television the people of Victoria see with their own eyes that she is not up to the job. They see her surrounded with incompetents.

When I tell people who my opposite number in the government is - the Treasurer -they laugh out loud, until they realise that this man bears responsibility for restoring the confidence of the international finance community in the Victorian government - then they are saddened.

They are saddened to see a Premier who strikes fear into their hearts; they realise that Victoria is completely rudderless and out of control because she is totally incapable of handling the job. They see a Cabinet which is full of hacks, people who have been discredited and who have failed in other portfolios.

They see the Labor Party as no answer to taking Victoria into the 20th century, let alone preparing us for the 21st century. This debate has been replete with the hollow class warfare rhetoric that was rejected and is being rejected right around the world by people who have tried it. That class warfare rhetoric stamps these people as not just yesterday's men and women but as last century's men and women.

These people are not fit to govern a State like Victoria in the 20th century, nor to prepare us for the 21st century. They are people out of time who are clinging to ideas that have been rejected even by those who have tried them.

We must understand that the time of free enterprise is upon us if we want to maintain our place in the world. The opposition has mapped out policies to challenge the people of Victoria to make the leap and to prepare for the competitive world of the 21st century. We have mapped out a public management strategy which will involve: contracting out; privatisation; corporatisation; focusing resources on the core responsibilities of the government to make government fulfil the proper role of a State government; workers compensation reform to take power out of the hands of the unions and to reflect the interests of the people of Victoria; and industrial relations reform to return to the people power over their working lives.



I have mentioned the policies, but the values that underpin them are more important. The values of the coalition are reflected in the values of the Victorian and Australian people: respect for individual liberty, respect for free enterprise, property rights, enterprise and initiative - concepts that are so foreign to the philosophy and values of the Labor Party.

We will be elected at the next election, not just because Labor has failed but because the values of the Uberal Party and the National Party are the values of the people of Victoria and the values that will work.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) - I join this debate on a sad note because I do not think we ought to be debating this Bill. My family migrated to Australia in 1955 along with many other migrant families who were given the opportunity to go to South Africa, the United States of America, New Zealand or Australia.

My parents were often asked why they picked Australia. They were quite clear that it was because Australia was a democratic country where political parties and individuals accepted the rules - they accepted the Constitution and democracy and recognised that democracy all around the world is a very special and fragile right that must be protected.

Many people came to Australia for rights, freedom and playing by the rules - not for ripping up the rule book when it is not suitable on a particular occasion. I am a St Kilda Football Club supporter. St Kilda has been doing pretty well lately but there have been many times when I would have liked to change the rules because I felt we had been treated unjustly.

The issue at stake is the hypocrisy of introducing this Bill. I am not opposed to amendment of the Constitution. Most of us in this House accepted the extension of Parliamentary terms from three years to four years because we thought it would enhance democracy and stabilise the State and the country. Governments sometimes have to do unpopular things but four-year terms give protection for the good of the State and the country.

I am sure there have been governments of all political persuasions around Australia that would have been defeated if they had been forced to go to the polls halfway through their terms. It is right and proper that a government that has been elected is allowed to serve its full term. The Bill is an act of terrorism. The Leader of the Opposition is a terrorist who wants to rip up the Constitution and hijack the community. He is saying, "Because I want to be Premier tomorrow, all the rules are off; we are threatening the Constitution; I want to go back to the way things were". As I said, he is threatening the whole community. He is saying, "I am not prepared to do the decent thing and wait until an election is called".

These activities are all about power and the fact that the conservatives never accept that the Labor Party has any right to govern. The Bill has really hit that home.

In 1979, at the declaration of the poll when I was elected to this place, the Uberals made it clear that I had no right to be in the Parliament, because, as they said, the people had



elected a mere fitter and turner. That was the comment that was made to me at the declaration of the poll: "You have no right to this seat, and we, the conservatives - that is, the Liberals - will be back in three years time".

It is all well and good for members of the Liberal Party to say, ''When we are in power we will defend the rules and live by them, but when we are not in power we will rip up the rule books". I had the understanding that conservatives, whether members of the National Party or the Liberal Party, were always proud of Constitutional propriety and played by the rules. However, when the crunch comes they do not. A number of conservatives have said, "I may not agree with you but I defend your right to say that the Constitution must not be altered".

The real issue is the indecent grab for power, the terrorist tactics. People have said, "We may not agree with you but we defend your right because you have been elected and should serve out your full term".

I am reminded again of 1975. How embarrassing it was in a country that has stature around the world to see the then Leader of the Opposition, in cahoots with the then Governor-General, sneaking through the back door. Fancy wanting to become the Prime Minister by sneaking through the back door!

Again the tactics being used are improper. Members of the conununity are well aware of the problems. People know that Victoria in particular faces a number of problems. What they expect elected officials to do is to recognise the shortcomings and work towards fixing them. Members of the community are saying to me, "You have a job to do; we understand the problems; get on with solving them".

It will all take some time. By the time members of the community see what is happening and have a clear picture it will sink in that this is a terrorist activity entered into by the opposition, that it is a grab for power in indecent haste, a grab for power at any expense, including throwing out the Constitution.

As has been pointed out, the tactics are not just about saying, "We would like to be in government". The opposition is saying also, "We have been instructed by our masters" -the wealthy backers who back them all the time - "to say this because things in this State have been too good for the workers", particularly in relation to WorkCare and the compensation paid to workers, to which a lot of reference has been made.

I remind honourable members that, during the 22 years that I was involved in a trade, workers compensation payments were $32 a week for a husband, wife and two kids. Under the Liberals, a worker was paid $32 a week! Any worker who was injured had no hope at all. Most young families - -

Mr E. R. Smith - When was that?

Mr SPYKER - The honourable member for Glen Waverley wants to know when that was. It was in the mid-1970s, prior to the collapse of the West Gate Bridge. When the West Gate Bridge collapsed, the Bolte government was given a clear indication that workers compensation payments were too low; special legislation had to be rushed in --



Mr E. R. Smith - Bolte was not the Premier then; Hamer was the Premier!

Mr SPYKER - The government was embarrassed by the low workers compensation payments. They were so low at that time that a worker could not even payoff his mortgage.

At that time people were injured in factories because no consideration had been given by the liberals to occupational health and safety issues. The Liberals were never interested in those matters because they took the view that, if a worker was injured, it was really his fault and he was entitl~d only to live in poverty and go to the Salvation Army and others for a handout.

Mr Reynolds - That is rubbish!

Mr SPYKER - The honourable member for Gisborne says it is rubbish, but I can assure him it was the case that workers compensation payments were so inadequate that a person could not pay his rent or house payments while depending on them. The liberals strongly supported that situation from year to year. It was only when the inadequacy of the payments was properly exposed that the liberals made some adjustment to them.

Again today's tactics are all about saying that workers - particularly in the area of workers compensation - are too well off and those payments should be cut down. The previous situation is a classic example of what happens under conservative governments.

If honourable members want another example of people taking away others' rights, they should consider what the National Party government in New Zealand is doing. It is following a clear strategy and saying, ''Workers are paid too well; they are not entitled to long service leave payment; they are not entitled to sick leave; and we will cut out those payments". They are actually turning the clock back a century. They want people to be standing outside the gate so that employers can say, ''We will give you a day's work". They want trucks to be coming in - as they used to - and people to be standing on corners at 6 in the morning, only to be told, "You might get a job", and then to let the employers pick the eyes out of the queue.

That is what the Bill is all about. It is not only a grab for power but also has been introduced because backbenchers opposite have riding instructions from their powerful backers to destroy the labour movement in this State to ensure that people are without proper wages and conditions.

That seems an appalling state of affairs in 1991, when Australia's representatives say to representatives of other countries - by way of the United Nations and in other forums - "You ought to have a democracy". Australians have welcomed the changes in Eastern Europe because people there now have democratic rights. Problems are being experienced but at least people can work them out in a democratic system.

The attempt to amend the Constitution, which would destroy the fragile democracy in this State, can only be dealt with in one way: the Bill should be thrown out!



Mr TANNER (Caulfield) - Posterity should note from this debate the dire situation of Australia and of Victoria. Future Australians and Victorians should realise the severity of the economic condition of our country. For years Australians and Victorians have talked about the economic decline of our community. The reality is that the decline is now turning into a free fall. In 1975 the national debt of this country was $5 billion. Australians have seen it rise since then so that by 1985 it was $67 billion and in 1991 it is $140 billion! Those figures represent the free fall of the Australian economy, the worst sector of which is the Victorian economy. The Australian economy - and even more so the Victorian economy - is in dire straits.

However, this government is not prepared to accept accountability for its mismanagement of the Victorian economy, as its counterpart in Canberra is not prepared to accept accountability for the dire economic situation in Australia.

This amending Bill, as proposed today by the opposition, would give the ability for an election to be called if the Governor so decided, yet this government - despite the protestations of its members in their contributions today - is not prepared even to allow the possibility of the Governor having the responsibility as proposed by the Bill. This government is not prepared under any circumstances to be accountable to the Victorian public. It does not want to have even the possibility that it could advise the Governor -or even to have the Governor decide of his own volition - that there should be an election.

There is no doubt that no government in Victoria's history has so let down the Victorian community. There is no doubt that no government in the history of Victoria has been so unpopular. Those facts are unassailable.

For a few months - until October - this government is prepared to hide behind the Constitution. However, were this amending legislative measure to be accepted by Parliament there is the faintest glimmer that there could be an election prior to October.

However, this government is not prepared to be accountable and therefore one can understand why during the 1980s and 1990s the Victorian economy has slid away because it is symptomatic of the way members of this government have behaved during that period. There has been no responsibility and no acceptance of the importance of their role in the Victorian community.

Victorian government services have never been poorer this century. One has to look only at public transport, public housing and at the situation in hospitals to understand the deterioration of services provided. Yet, all that has been accompanied by an incredible explosion in the State's debt and a vast increase in the State's taxation.

That has affected the Victorian economy as money has been soaked from it. Businesses have been unable to obtain remaining funds without paying higher interest rates. Economic activity has declined. There has been no option but for unemployment to rise as business activity declined. With the accompanying increase in unemployment, all the associated ills of a community in such a dire economic position became evident.



The government would not be committed to an election if this measure were passed. It would only be accepting that it "may" be responsible for mismanagement - but, no, it is not prepared because under protestations the government is denying the right of this Parliament to be the master of its own destiny, and the government refuses to accept the proposed measure.

Were this government to be accountable to the community this Bill provides the opportunity for it to accept such accountability. Otherwise,let history note that as the Victorian economy goes into a free fall, this government again refuses to accept its responsibility.

The SPEAKER - Order! I am of the opinion that the second reading of this Bill requires to be passed by an absolute majority. As there are fewer than 45 members present, I ask the Clerk to ring the bells.

Bells rung.

Members having assembled in Chamber:


Ayes, 42 Austin, Mr Jasper,Mr Bildstien, Mr (Teller) John,Mr Brown,Mr Kennett,Mr Clark, Mr Lea,Mr Coleman, Mr Leigh,Mr Cooper, Mr Lieberman, Mr Oelzoppo, Mr McGrath, Mr J.F. Oickinson, Mr McGrath, Mr W.O. Elder, Mr Maclellan, Mr Evans,Mr McNamara, Mr Gude,Mr Maughan,Mr Hayward,Mr Napthine, Or Heffeman, Mr Perrin, Mr Honeywood, Mr (Teller) Perton, Mr

Noes, 44 Andrianopoulos, Mr Hill, Mrs Baker, Mr Hirsh, Mrs Barker, Mrs Jolly, Mr Batchelor, Mr Kennan,Mr Cain, Mr Kennedy,Mr Cole,Mr Kimer,Ms Crabb, Mr Leighton, Mr (Teller) Cunningham, Mr McCutcheon, Mr Oollis, Mr (Teller) McOonald, Mr Emst,Mr Mathews,Mr Fordham,Mr Micallef, Mr Garbutt, Mrs Norris,Mr Gavin,Mr Pope,Mr Hamilton, Mr Ray, Mrs

Pescott, Mr Plowman,Mr Reynolds, Mr Richardson, Mr Ross-Edwards, Mr Smith, Mr E.R. Smith, Mr I.W. Steggall, Mr Stockdale, Mr Tanner,Mr Wade,Mrs Wallace,Mr Weideman, Mr Wells, Or

Rowe,Mr Sandon,Mr Seitz, Mr Sercombe, Mr Setches, Mrs Sheehan, Mr A.J. Sheehan, Mr F.P. Shell, Mr Spyker,Mr Thomson,Mr Trezise,Mr Vaughan, Or Walsh,Mr Wilson,Mrs

AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS


Harrowfield, Mr Roper,Mr

Motion negatived.

AV AILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS

The SPEAKER -Order! In earlier proceedings I was asked to rule on a point of order, and two elements were at issue. One was whether the honourable member for Pascoe Vale had made available to the House all of the notes he had undertaken to make available to the House.

Those notes have been made available and have been inspected, and I have received no indication from any honourable member that there was any deficiency in the material provided by the honourable member. Hence I do not intend to rule that the honourable member has not acted as he undertook to act.

The second matter concerns whether or not he should have been required to table all of the documents which were with him at that time, which were described as a file.

In my observation the honourable member, as he spoke, was referring to individual sheets of paper which he leafed over one at a time, and as such did not appear to meet the normal description of a file. However, the more important point is that the precedents relating to files relate to official files of Ministers, and it may be useful if I quote from the relevant section of Erskine May, 21st Edition, on page 382 in which it states, in part:

A Minister of the Crown may not read or quote from a despatch or other State paper not before the House, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the table. Similarly, it has been accepted that a document which has been cited by a Minister ought to be laid upon the table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interests. A Minister who summarises a correspondence, but does not actually quote from it, is not bound to lay it upon the table. The rule for the laying of cited documents does not apply to private letters or memoranda.

I do not uphold the point of order.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - I move:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 28 May.

Motion agreed to.

ELECTION DONATIONS DISCLOSURE BILL

Secon'd reading

Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance) - I move:


The purpose of this Bill is to introduce significant reforms to current electoral practices and procedures.



The Bill is designed to ensure confidence in the electoral process. Given the community's expectations of integrity and honesty from elected officials, all those involved in the electoral process must ensure that the process itself is not tainted in any way. However, the complexity and sophistication of modem electioneering techniques demands the spending of vast sums of money. Community expectations of integrity and honesty cannot be satisfied unless there is full disclosure of the source of these funds and the manner in which they are spent.

Community concerns with openness, honesty and integrity have, in recent times, led to several inquiries.

Following the 1987 Federal election, the Commonwealth Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters published a report entitled VVho Pays the Piper Calls the Tune - Minimising the Risks of Funding Political Campaigns. Surely this title says it all. We, as elected representatives, cannot complain about the cynicism of the community at large if we fail to recognise the seriousness of the issues raised by that report.

There have also been other inquiries. We are all well aware of the fallout from the Royal Commission in Queensland conducted by Tony Fitzgerald, QC. In New South Wales, Commissioner Roden of the Independent Commission Against Corruption identified areas of concern relating to the funding of election campaigns. We are also aware that separate Royal Commissions are now under way in both Western Australia and Tasmania, and that both of these appear to be canvassing related concerns.

It is for these reasons that the Victorian government intends to reinforce the honesty and integrity of the electoral process for State elections in Victoria. The Bill complements those parts of the recently introduced Federal Political Broadcasts and Political Disclosures Bill which address election donations disclosure.

The major provisions of the Bill are contained in Part 4. This part provides for the disclosure of donations and expenditure relating to an election. It also provides for the disclosure of all income, expenditure and debts of registered political parties on an annual basis.

In particular, clause 12 requires the agent of each political party before the expiry of twenty weeks after an election to give the Electoral Commissioner details of:

(a) (b) (c)

the total amount or value of all gifts; the number of gifts; and in relation to each gift (i) its value; (ii) the date on which it was made; and (iii) the name and address of the person who made the gift.

In the case of the candidate, his or her agent must give these details to the Electoral Commissioner before the expiry of fifteen weeks after an election.

A political party is not required to disclose details of gifts of less than $1000 and a candidate is not required to disclose details of gifts of less than $200. However, if a person



makes several gifts totalling more than these limits, the details of the gifts have to be disclosed.

Gifts made expressly for a non-election purpose do not have to be disclosed under this clause.

Clause 13 requires a person who incurs expenditure for a political purpose to give the Electoral Commissioner, before the expiry of fifteen weeks after an election, details of gifts which exceed $1000 received by the person and used for an electoral purpose and, in particular, the amount or value of the gift, the date on which it was made and the name and address of the person making the gift.

Clause 14 requires a political party or persons acting on behaH of a political party not to receive gifts exceeding $1000 without disclosing the donor's name and address - except for gifts made expressly for a non-election purpose. The clause also requires candidates or persons acting on their behaH not to receive gifts exceeding $200 without disclosure of the donor's name and address.

Clause 17 provides that agents of political parties must lodge returns of electoral expenditure with the Electoral Commissioner before the expiry of twenty weeks after polling day. In the case of agents of candidates, and of other participants in the election, returns must be lodged before the expiry of fifteen weeks after polling day.

Clause 20 requires the agent of each registered political party, within four weeks after the end of each financial year, to fully disclose to the Electoral Commissioner all income, expenditure and debts of the political party. Gifts of less than $1000, however, do not need to be disclosed. The first return to be lodged under this clause need only include particulars relating to the period after the commencement of the clause.

The remaining provisions in the Bill enhance the Electoral Commissioner's ability to enforce full and proper disclosure. In particular, clause 28 empowers the Electoral Commissioner to conduct spot audits of both registered political parties and third parties to ensure compliance with the disclosure requirements of the Bill. However, the Electoral Commissioner is prohibited from disclosing any information obtained during these audits unless in his or her view that information relates to an offence which has or may have been committed against this legislation.

The Bill also provides for consequential amendments to section 246A of The Constitution Act Amendment Act 1958 to create an offence of hindering or interfering with the free exercise by a person of his or her right to make a gift to a political party. The penalty prescribed is $1000 or imprisonment for six "months, or both.

The Bill clearly demonstrates this government's commitment to an honest and open electoral system.

I commend the Bill to the House.

EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL


Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs WADE (Kew).

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 30 May 1991.


Second reading

Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance) -I move:


2461

The quarrying industry plays an important role in the State's economy by the provision of stone, clay and sand and associated products which are vital components in the road making and building construction industries.

The Extractive Industries Act, which was originally passed in 1966, imposes controls over the quarrying industry by a system of licensing in respect of freehold land and leasing in respect of Crown land. Extractive industry licences and leases are subject to special conditions designed to ensure that this important industry functions in a manner which minimises any adverse effects on both the environment and the public amenity.

The Act has been the subject of a number of amendments in recent years which have provided benefits for both the quarrying industry and the public. The further amendments now proposed have been brought about by a concern of the industry about the restrictive nature of the current licence and lease renewal provisions which act as a disincentive to investment.

The Bill provides for minor amendments to section 17 of the Extractive Industries Act which complements improvements made to the Act over a number of years.

In 1984 substantial amendments were made to the renewal provisions and I am able to report that those amendments have generally worked well and no major problems have arisen. The Act provides for the granting of licences and leases for the purposes of quarrying for an initial period of up to 30 years and for periods of up to ten years on the first renewal. Under the current renewal provisions a holder of an extractive industry licence or lease may apply for renewal of the tenure only within twelve months of the expiry date when the first renewal occurs after May 1986.

In requesting an amendment to the Act the industry has cited a situation where a quarrying company may wish to undertake major capital improvements on a site covered by a licence or lease which has only a short term to run. A company in this situation is understandably reluctant to commit funds to the project because of the limited term of tenure left and the uncertainty of whether the lease or licence will be renewed.

The proposed amendment to the Act will enable a renewal application to be lodged at any time during the period of a licence. If the lease or licence is renewed the company can then be confident that its capital investment can proceed with sufficient term of tenure to



justify that investment. Early renewal applications will be approved only in cases where the Minister is satisfied that granting of the renewal will be of major economic significance to the State.

Another matter which is of concern to my department is the current requirement under section 17 of the Act that a renewal application must be lodged in the twelve months prior to the expiry of the lease or licence. It is essential that proper and diligent consideration be given to all renewal applications. However, as applications can presently be lodged up to the expiry date, in the majority of cases, insufficient time is available to make a determination prior to the licence expiring.

The pendency provisions of the Act allow the licence to continue after the expiry date to enable the quarrying operations to continue until the determination of the renewal application is made. However, this is not an ideal situation and a further amendment is proposed which will require that renewal applications must be lodged not later than six months from the expiry date.

It is recognised that there will be situations where special circumstances exist involving applications lodged during the last six months of the licence period. The proposed amendment provides for a safeguard in such cases by enabling the Minister to accept late applications provided suitable justification is given.

The new provisions do not alter any of the existing procedures required under the Act. Prior to making a decision regarding an early licence or lease renewal the Minister must consider a report from the Extractive Industries Board whose membership includes representatives from the appropriate planning authority and municipal council, thus ensuring that due consideration is given to local and planning issues as part of the renewal process.

The amendments being put forward will allow the industry greater freedom to develop and expand in response to market needs and will also enable improved administration of renewal applications.

An opportunity has been taken to include a number of statute law revision items in this Bill. Clause 4 proposes amendments to the Minerals Resources Development Act 1990 that will correct some errors and inconsistent provisions inadvertently included during the processing of a large number of amendments to that Act.


Debate adjourned on motion of Mr PLOWMAN (Evelyn).

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 30 May.

DEAKIN UNIVERSITY (VICTORIA COLLEGE) BILL



Second reading

Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance) - I move:


PURPOSE OF mE BILL

2463

This Bill provides for the merger of Victoria College with Deakin University to form an expanded institution with major metropolitan campuses in addition to those at Geelong and Warrnambool. The result will be a substantial increase in the size of Deakin University giving it the significant benefits of program flexibility and the capacity to share administrative and support services across a larger staff and student base.

Deakin University was established through the merger of Gordon Institute of Technology and the State College of Victoria, Geelong, and commenced operations as a combined institution in 1977. Since that time it has progressively expanded its activities in a number of areas with substantial programs in arts, humanities and social sciences, business ' studies and economics, education, science, health and architecture.

In 1990 Warmambool Institute of Advanced Education amalgamated with Deakin University and the combined institution at that time provided courses for a total of 11 700 students.

Both Deakin University and Warrnambool Institute had substantial involvement in external studies and in 1990 the combined institution was designated by the Commonwealth government as one of two Victorian distance education centres. The university currently offers distance education programs for more than 6000 students throughout Victoria, in other States and overseas.

Victoria College was established in 1982 through the amalgamation of four previous colleges, Rusden State College, Burwood State College, Toorak State College and Prahran College of Advanced Education. Victoria College is a major provider of primary and secondary education programs with 4200 students in education and approximately 5000 in other fields of study including arts, humanities and social science, business studies, health and science.

The merger of the two institutions will result in an important university with an equivalent full-time student load in 1991 of almost 17000. Significant new program developments are expected to occur in areas of engineering and law. These will broaden the profile of the institution and will enable it to develop and strengthen its offerings.

The merger of Victoria College and Deakin University is an important element in the package of restructuring proposals for Victorian higher education institutions negotiated with the Commonwealth government. The legislation provides for the transfer of major State assets at Burwood and Toorak to Deakin University. As part of these developments the Allambie Reception Centre at Burwood will be purchased, refurbished, extended and transferred to Deakin University. The Prahran campus of Victoria College will be vacated



by Victoria College and existing programs in fine arts and design will be transferred to other institutions. The Rusden campus of Victoria College will be transferred to Monash University and the existing programs, staff, and students will be transferred to other campuses of the combined institution.

Once the provisions of Part 4 are triggered by the passage of this Act, the completion of the consolidation of Victoria College into two metropolitan campuses, Burwood and Toorak, will be a major funding priority for both State and Federal governments. This will enable the orderly development of Monash University at Clayton.

The provisions of this legislation are dependent on the delivery of agreed Commonwealth funding allocations for 1993, including the commitment of $16 million of 1993 capital to Deakin University. I understand details of these capital allocations will be available later this month. The legislation will not be proclaimed until these commitments have been tabled in a supplementary statement by the Commonwealth Minister. The Minister for Education and Tr~ining has indicated that additional allocations of a~ least $7 million in 1994 will be a top priority for Victoria in order to complete planned developments associated with the merger. The Commonwealth Minister has endorsed this priority subject to sufficient Commonwealth funds being available. The 1994 allocation is integral to the strategy to develop Deakin's two major metropolitan campuses and transfer the Rusden campus to Monash University.

The fine arts transfer to the Victorian College of the Arts will lead to the development of a major centre for the arts at that institution which will be affiliated with the University of Melbourne. The use of the Prahran site will be transferred to Swinburne Institute in an important development which will include enhanced articulation between TAPE and higher education programs. Swinburne proposes a major design centre to be developed on its new Prahran campus. Subject to finalisation of these proposals, the design programs currently offered by Victoria College on the Prahran site will remain there as part of the major development in design programs. These arrangements follow ongoing consultation with staff, students and the institutions over several years and implementation will be planned through a working party involving the management of the institutions involved and staff unions.

The Bill provides for staff who are transferred from Victoria College to Deakin University to be employed on terms and conditions no less favourable than those currently enjoyed and to continue to have the benefit of all prior service entitlements. It is the intention of the government that staff transferred between Victoria College or Deakin University and either the Victorian College of the Arts or Swinburne Institute will have equivalent protection of their employment rights. It is intended that no redundancies will result from those transfers. .

These arrangements will result in the consolidation of Deakin University's metropolitan campuses on two key sites (Burwood and Toorak) and the ownership of these properties will be transferred to the university as part of the package of resources to be made available to it.

FISHERIES (SCALLOPS) BILL


To facilitate the merger the Commonwealth government has agreed to provide the resources for capital developments. The timing of these developments and their distribution between campuses will need to be planned by the university to provide for the relocation of programs, staff and students from the Rusden campus and for important new developments in engineering and distance education in Geelong.

MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

Part 1 of the Bill sets out its purpose, provides for its implementation in stages and provides definitions.

Part 2 of the Bill provides for the merger of Victoria College with Deakin University with clauses which transfer assets and liabilities and students and staff, and transfers the ownership of the Toorak and Burwood campuses, to the university.

Part 3 of the Bill makes a number of amendments to the Deakin University Act to provide for the merger. In particular it recognises graduates of Victoria College as graduates of the university, provides transitional arrangements for council membership and for the appointment of additional deputy vice-chancellors.

Part 4 of the Bill amends the Monash University Act to transfer to it the Rusden campus of Victoria College.

Part 5 of the Bill provides for the expiry of the Act if an implementation statute setting out final details of merger arrangements is not passed within a specified time period by the council of Deakin University.


Debate adjourned on motion of Mr HAYWARD (Prahran).

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 23 May.

FISHERIES· (SCALLOPS) BILL

Second reading

Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and EnVironment) - I move:


This Bill amends the Fisheries Act 1968 for the purpose of regulating commercial scallop harvesting in Port PhilIip Bay.

The bay has been closed to commercial scallop dredging since August 1988. At that time both industry and marine scientists of the department agreed that stocks of scallops in the bay were in a depleted state and that a total closure of the bay was needed in order to conserve parent stocks of scallops so that regeneration of stocks would be possible.

Honourable members will be aware that the closure of the bay has continued until recent action taken by a number of scallop fishermen in the Supreme Court resulted in a

ADJOURNMENT


judgment which ruled that the regulation closing the bay to scallop dredging was no longer valid. As a result scallop dredging has now commenced in the bay.

The closure of the bay for the past three years has provided the department with a unique opportunity of conducting comparative trials on the environmental effects of various types of dredges on the ecology of the bay.

I am concerned that the uncontrolled resumption of scallop dredging in the bay using the traditional box-type dredges will interfere with work currently being conducted by the Marine Science Laboratories to determine the effects of scallop dredging in the bay. In addition, the encouraging growth of juvenile scallops which the departmental surveys have found may be jeopardised by the dredging operations of 84 scallop boats.

The Bill will close the bay to commercial scallop harvesting until 31 December 1991. After that date scallop harvesting in the bay will be permitted only by a method approved by the Minister.

The Minister is also required to consult with the Victorian Fishing Industry Federation on the method proposed to be used to harvest scallops. If the Minister is satisfied that the method proposed is suitable, having regard to its effect on the marine environment, the approved method is publicised in the Government Gazette.

The Bill should not be seen as a mechanism for forcing the scallop industry out of Port Phillip Bay. It is designed to ensure that the industry harvests scallops by suitable methods. This will be to the benefit of all who use and enjoy the bay.


Debate adjourned on motion of Mr COLEMAN (Syndal).

Debate adjourned until Tuesday, 28 May.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr CRABB (Minister for Tourism) - I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

Pubtabs Mr REYNOLDS (Gisborne) - I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for

Sport and Recreation concerning the current push by the Totalizator Agency Board (TAB) to establish 41 new agencies in hotels, commonly known in the trade as Pubtabs. This push has been created by an economic downturn in the community. The TAB has not escaped that economic downturn and the racing codes are expecting a decrease of approximately 12 per cent in their distribution at the end of this racing year.

In order to overcome the downturn the TAB is hell-bent on increasing turnover by increasing the number of agencies and therefore making that avenue of gambling more available. This is happening irrespective of the logical placement of pubtabs. Of course,

ADJOURNMENT


they are more economical to maintain, given that there is no rental payable by a Pubtab as compared to a normal agency. The hotelier receives a lower commission and the employees receive a lower rate of pay.

The process is that the Totalizator Agency Board approves the agencies, the Victorian Off-course Agents Association subcommittee comments on any new agency to be established and the Minister for Sport and Recreation decides whether or not to approve the agency.

History shows that in three instances where the association has asked the Minister to reject three agency applications, the Minister has not taken notice of the recommendations. He may have considered the comments but rejected them.

The three towns I raise for his attention tonight are Echuca, Horsham and Bacchus Marsh. In Echuca, a city of 9000 people, the TAB intends to establish three Pubtabs: two are 1.5 kilometres from the current TAB agency, at the Hotel Echuca and the Shamrock Hotel, which are virtually side by side, and the third is two blocks from the TAB agency.

In Horsham, a city of 12 500 people, the TAB proposes to establish two agencies: one is 1 kilometre away from the current shopfront agency and the second is 150 metres away. In Bacchus Marsh, which also has a population of 12 500 people, the TAB proposes to establish an agency in the Royal Hotel, 60 metres away, and in the Courthouse Hotel, 300 metres from the current TAB agency.

None of the TAB agencies or towns concerned would disagree with the establishment of one Pub tab in each town, but it is ludicrous to establish two or even three, as in the case of Echuca. Neither the TAB agencies nor the association members are against the establishment of Pub tabs but they would like commonsense to prevail. It appears the TAB is rushing headlong into the establishment of Pub tab agencies all over the State.

I ask the Minister to consider the points I have raised, particularly as they relate to these three towns, and to read the Hansard debate of December 1988 when the matter was last before the House. I direct to his attention the undertakings that he made at that time and ask him to honour them; in this instance that is certainly not happening.

Bass Shire tourist resort project Mr WALLACE (Gippsland South) - I raise for the attention of the Minister for

Planning and Housing some difficulties being experienced by a group of people endeavouring to build a $700 million tourist resort project at Queen's Ferry near Grantville in South Gippsland. The resort is to be developed by Teal Corporation Ltd, whose chairman and chief executive officer is a well known Melbourne businessman, Geoff Logan.

The Teal company has had 50 consultants working on the project, which will incorporate 1500 hotel beds and a variety of entertainments on the scale of the Disney World park in Florida and Euro Disney in France. It would also include the planting of more than 10 million trees on the 400 hectare site.

ADJOURNMENT


The project has the full support and active cooperation of the Bass Shire Council. Local and overseas investors are planning to, and have, put up some money - about $US1 billion - for the development of this project. This is a big project and is extremely important to South Gippsland. It will be the largest single theme and entertainment park in Australia. The project will be a major economic boost for the Gippsland region and for the Victorian and Australian tourism industry.

It would also tie in the penguin parade, the big attraction at Phillip Island. When it is operating the park will employ approximately 1000 full-time workers and an additional 500 part-time workers for peak periods and weekends. Approximately 2000 contractors will be needed to service the arrangements. The project is extremely large and is just what Victoria needs.

Teal Corporation Ltd has requested from the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development and Ministers responsible for other portfolios dealing with the project an assurance that there will be no further problems to the development going ahead if conditions of the environmental effects statement are met. Government departments have been considerably reluctant to give that assurance.

A significant amount of money is needed to get the project through the environmental effects statement stage and the company does not want to find obstacles in its path after that stage. Some 22 people are working in a facilitators unit for major projects within the Department of Manufacturing and Industry Development and I understand they are part of the problem. I am informed that the company is doing everything it can to get the project going.

I ask all Ministers in charge of portfolios dealing with a project such as this to recognise the economic importance of the development and ensure that it can proceed. I ask the Ministers to give undertakings that they will do everything possible to ensure that the project goes ahead.

Provision of health services Mrs BARKER (Bentleigh) - I direct the attention of the Treasurer to staffing and

capital resources of health services. Most honourable members, especially those representing south-eastem areas, will be aware of the clear commitment of the government to health services in the south east region. I refer, of course, to the Monash Medical Centre, which is currently operating on three campuses - Clayton, Moorabbin and Prince Henry's.

All honourable members will be aware that the first stage of the Clayton campus of the medical centre has been completed and the relocation of the Queen Victoria Hospital took place some time ago. The first stage of this magnificent hospital is certainly providing excellent services for the area.

The second stage will be completed soon and it is expected that the specialty services and bed numbers of the Prince Henry's campus will be relocated to the Clayton and Moorabbin campuses at the end of the year. During the second stage of development at

ADJOURNMENT


the Moorabbin campus a number of projects have been completed, and I refer particularly to the west block which contains the new kitchen and cafeteria areas and the birthing unit. That unit is extremely popular and is a further commitment by the government to women in the State who want all birthing options available to them.

Much work is still to be done, but it is expected that, following the relocation of the Prince Henry's campus, the government will be able to spend some time assessing the full impact on the area of the Oayton and Moorabbin campuses of the Monash Medical Centre to determine future resourcing.

There is still a lot of work to be done at the Moorabbin campus after the second stage has been completed. Some interior renovations have been made to allow for the operation of a new day surgery, but it is expected that a larger day surgery unit, possibly a stand-alone unit, will be built. The government is also considering facilities for cancer services. The completion of the Moorabbin campus will include a 210-bed community hospital, which will be the community medicine department of the Monash Medical Centre.

The document put together by the hospital shows the catchment areas for the Monash Medical Centre and placement statistics show that the decision to place the hospital in Clayton and to redevelop health services for the south-eastern region was correct. The relocation of Prince Henry's Hospital means that some of the beds from that site will be distributed to other regions, with some beds to go to the western suburbs.

Further development of health services not only in the south-eastern region around Clayton, Moorabbin and Dandenong but also in the growth corridor areas is of concern, and all honourable members will be aware of the huge costs involved in building hospitals, much less staffing and providing the necessary resources.

Therefore I seek further information from the Treasurer about how the cost of these health service requirements will be met.

Accommodation for homeless youth

Mr LEA (Sandringham) - I ask the Minister for Sport and Recreation to direct to the attention of the Minister for Education and Training a matter concerning youth accommodation in the bayside area and an application made by the Bayside Youth Accommodation Service, which services the cities of Brighton and Hampton and part of the City of Moorabbin. The service has done marvellous work over the past two years to provide housing services for homeless youth.

The Ministry of Education and Training and the Department of Planning and Housing have combined to try to make available services in schools to provide accommodation and living skills for homeless youth.

The Highett Youth Housing (YAWN)jBayside Youth Group received a letter last year from the Ministry of Housing and Construction, stating:

ADJOURNMENT


A number of schools are assisting homeless students, some through the provision of accommodation. Many other schools are looking for ways to assist students who are either homeless or need to leave home but are without alternative accommodation ... The Ministry of Education is encouraging schools to link in with existing YHP management groups rather than considering managing stock directly.

You may wish to initiate contact with local principals or student welfare coordinators if you have not already done so to discuss the needs of homeless students.

The Bayside Youth Accommodation Service contacted the school council of the Brighton Bay Secondary College, which has a caretaker's cottage on the school property, seeking permission to use the residence for accommodation for homeless youth. The reply of 16 November 1990 from the principal of the school says:

The majority of school council members are in agreement with the caretaker's cottage being made available for your youth accommodation on the following conditions:

1. The Ministry agrees to this.

2. There are no costs involved to the school.

On 17 January 1991, the Bayside Youth Accommodation Service made an application to Mal Hoskins, Coordinator, Students at Risk Program, Ministry of Education, Level 10, Rialto Towers, making a formal submission detailing its intentions regarding the caretaker's cottage of Brighton Bay Secondary College. The application showed what education would be provided and, in general, how the property would be used. The application contained a list of members of the proposed incorporated community-based management committee, which included representatives of church groups, interested professionals and community representatives.

There is a local precedent for such an activity through the use of the caretaker's cottage of Cheltenham North Primary School. I shall quote from a letter written to the Reverend David Brooker of the Cheltenham Church of Christ by the then Ministry of Education:

Dear Rev Brooker,

I refer to your recent discussion with Mr Christie of this office and confirm that the necessary approvals have been given for your church to occupy the Ministry residence at 136 Chesterville Road, Highett for youth accommodation purposes.

In conclusion, the submission I have tonight from the Bayside Youth Accommodation Service Incorporated says that there are thousands of young people on the streets. In Brighton and Sandringham quite a number of young people are out on the streets and beaches in need of accommodation. The article goes on to say that in this area the Ministry of Education and Training has a vacant house and that the local school and the local youth accommodation group wish to work together on a project that will have no financial cost to the Ministry of Education and Training.

Why has the Ministry delayed approval for this worthwhile project for more than six months? I seek an explanation from the Minister for Education and Training who is supporting these projects and for some reason cannot give approval to something which has the blessing of the council, the school and the Bayside Youth Accommodation Service for youth housing accommodation in the local area.

ADJOURNMENT


Theft of copper wiring from railway tracks

Mr SEITZ (Keilor) - I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Transport. I was horrified to read in today's Herald-Sun the comments of the secretary of the railways union that there are some unscrupulous people around who are stealing and cashing in on the value of copper wiring in the railway system thereby endangering the community and themselves.

I thought that sort of activity was stamped out years ago. I recall a matter of a railway line in a country town where people who were pretending to be workers were demolishing the track and the sleepers. They had employed casual workers and were paying them cash. These workers did not know they were thieving until the local community dobbed them in and the police nabbed them. They had a few weeks' work and thought they were doing a legitimate business.

I ask the Minister to look into this and enlist the help of not only his colleague the Minister for Police and Emergency Services but also the general community because such behaviour should not be tolerated in a country where public property does not belong to anyone person. In my view everyone owns it. Whether it is graffiti, the slashing of seats on trains or windows being broken, the general community has to be alert. In cases like that one one could use the Australian thinking, "You cannot be a dobber". This is not dobbing because this is plain theft from the community.

In this case it is even worse than endangering the community. As the article goes on to say, it is endangering the thieves because of the electric voltage in the powerlines at times. I suppose somebody will get electrocuted and the relatives will sue the State for compensation. This has to be stamped out. I urge the Minister, the Transit Police and the Victoria Police as well as the general community to assist, particularly in isolated areas where railway tracks run through bushland or farmland. If people see suspicious activity taking place they should notify the nearest police station and alert the general community of what is going on in the area.

This damage is a cost to all of us but in the end it is a cost to the taxpayer should there be a major disaster. This situation requires community education and I urge the Minister to follow it up. It is a position that develops when unscrupulous second-hand metal merchants melt the copper down, as it states in the article, and sell it to reputable second-hand steel recycling merchants. It is in those areas that the police will have to crack down. This is a job for the Victoria Police Force. I ask the Minister to bring the matter to its attention because it is a case of these merchants receiving stolen goods. That has to be exposed.

I urge the people working in the second-hand steel industry to be careful because they may be aiding and abetting theft and also enormous damage and harm could be caused to our community.

ADJOURNMENT


Exploitation of unemployed persons Mr J. F. McGRATH (Warmambool) - I direct to the attention of the Minister for

Consumer Affairs, through the Minister for Sport and Recreation, an issue that was raised recently in the media about job applications which were nothing more than seams. I do not intend to deal with the same matter dealt with by the media but with an advertisement by a company from Adelaide.

There is no more despicable action than a person who seeks to exploit an emotional and sensitive issue. The Gulf war and its effect on the Kuwaiti people is something that is fresh in the minds of people who were horrified about what happened there. The community is sensitive to the needs of the Kuwaiti people and it would be willing to do something to assist them. To add to that dimension the plight of the unemployed people in this nation, and particularly in Victoria, and also the enormous difficulties that small businesses are facing at this time makes this matter even more despicable because it affects a desperate and vulnerable group of people.

It is deplorable that an advertisement should appear in newspapers such as the one that appeared in the Sun-Herald on 1 May to which constituents in my electorate responded, as I imagine did many others. The advertisement was headed, "Kuwait - building work". It goes on to say that a range of people is required for work in Kuwait including engineers, carpenters, electricians, bricklayers and so forth. It also says that the initial contract would be for 6 months, working 6 weeks on and 2 weeks off. The company would fly its employees there and back at the end of their contracts. Their salaries would be from $3000 a week and negotiable. Then comes the catch. To register for a position a person has to send a cheque or money order for $30 which is not refundable. The company advertising for these people is "New life Roofing Pty Ltd" with a post office box address - P.D. Box 451, Adelaide, South Australia.

I hope the Minister will investigate this and stop this seam before some innocent vulnerable person is affected by what is no more or less than a despicable exploitation of a vulnerable community.

Mortgage renegotiation for Morwell woman

Mr HAMILTON (Morwell) - I direct to the attention of the Minister for Planning and Housing the sad case of Mrs Williams of Morwell who in 1978 bought a Housing Commission home which she and her husband had been renting for some time.

At the time of the original purchase an insurance policy was taken out to cover the payments on the house in the event of the death of the breadwinner in the family. For reasons that I do not know Mr and Mrs Williams relinquished the insurance policy -there is some confusion about how that eventuated, certainly on the part of Mrs Williams.

I would like the Minister to note that Mrs Williams is of Greek origin and does not have a very clear understanding of the English language, and she certainly has a poor understanding of how the bureaucracy works. Mr Williams was an Australian citizen

ADJOURNMENT


and it would appear that he was fundamentally responsible for managing the family's finances during the course of the marriage.

Recently Mr Williams died following a long illness. As is always the case, this was a traumatic event for the family and has created unfortunate circumstances for Mrs Williams. She wanted to give her husband a decent funeral and obtained a loan from the local branch of a bank to cover the funeral expenses. This was commendable in itself, but in doing so Mrs Williams committed herself to payments that put her at a disadvantage because she no longer had an income and was dependent on the pension. In addition, she was committed to making house payments which were beyond her means.

In the past few months Mrs Williams has fallen behind in her house payments and is currently subject to having the house sold from under her. She came to ask me whether the Minister for Planning and Housing could sympathetically review the level of the house payments in light of her circumstances with a view to rearranging those payments.

I understand that the house has been the family home for many years and that the situation has left Mrs Williams confused and upset. I believe the foreclosure period is somewhere from the middle to the end of May. Mrs Williams has failed to respond because I think she has been confused by the whole exercise and has been very upset at the death of her late husband.

I ask the Minister to address this issue as a matter of urgency. I am sure there are sympathetic officers in the Department of Planning and Housing who could meet with Mrs Williams to see if a new arrangement can be worked out to enable her to continue to live in her house with pride and dignity. It needs the good offices of a sympathetic bureaucrat, and I am sure there are some in the Department. I ask the Minister to arrange for someone to meet with Mrs Williams as soon as possible.

Intersection at Wheelers Hill

Mr E. R. SMITH (Glen Waverley) - I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Transport concerning the intersection of Ferntree Gully Road and Lum Road, Wheelers Hill - one of Melbourne's busiest intersections. I have received a letter from Mr John Meehan of Lum Road who has indicated that an incredible number of accidents occur at that intersection.

The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member's time has expired, and the time for raising matters in the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the sitting has expired.

Responses

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - The honourable member for Bentleigh raised the important issue of the provision of hospital services for the outer suburbs in particular and ways in which the government may be able to not only continue the program of improvement in which it has been involved but also develop it further.

ADJOURNMENT


The issue raised 'I}y the honourable member has been a key issue for the government since it was first elected, and one of the first decisions it took was to close the Queen Victoria Hospital and move those resources to Clayton.

Mr Spyker - It was a good decision.

Mr ROPER - Indeed, as the Minister for Transport says, it was a good decision then and it remains a good decision now. Since then the policy has been taken further. This State had the highest concentration of hospital beds within 5 miles of the General Post Office. As a second stage, the government decided that Prince Henry's Hospital also should be closed and its resources moved to the outer suburbs. That decision was made because of a need in the outer suburbs and because Prince Henry's Hospital was very much a ruin in terms of its buildings and would require a huge sum of money to be spent to re-establish it.

Significant further work has been carried out on the Monash Medical Centre as a result of that decision. The work has been carried out not only at the Clayton campus but also at the campus at Moorabbin, on which the honourable member for Bentleigh has had a particular impact. It is proposed to increase the number of beds and resources available at both the Clayton and Moorabbin centre* by using the resources of Prince Henry's Hospital. It is easy to say, as Mr Bmell does, "We will just keep Prince Henry's open". I do not know in what form it will be maintained after it closes, whether as a museum or as a place for squatters. The resources of Prince Henry's are needed for the south-eastern and western suburbs, and the decision to make them available has been based on that need.

It is not only the building that has been taken into consideration but also the recurrent resources, that is, the staffing and medical resources of Prince Henry's Hospital. The reality is that additional beds are needed at both the Clayton and Moorabbin centres. Additional resources are needed also for the Moorabbin group at the Western General Hospital and at Sunshine. Nine years ago Sunshine Hospital was an interesting building but nothing occurred inside it. In fact, most of the building did not have a floor. Now it has the capacity to provide hospital services and will have the capacity to provide additional services as a result of the closure of Prince Henry's Hospital.

Development must take place in the Mill Park-Plenty corridor area and also in the Hoppers Crossing area. The resources available must be properly organised.

The decision about Prince Henry's Hospital is not so much an attack by the other party on the government's asset sales program as an act of vandalism against the provision of resources for the outer suburbs of Melbourne where those services are urgently needed.

The government makes it clear that it will continue with its policy and move resources to the outer suburbs of Melbourne, to areas that did not get the resources they needed in the 1960s and 1970s but are getting them now. The government will continue with a capital works program that has spent much more on hospital services now than was spent nine years ago, not only in terms of inflation and increased costs but also in real terms. That

ADJOURNMENT


program involves building real resources for the provision of future health services in Victoria, particularly for the outer suburbs of Melbourne.

2475

Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) - The honourable member for Glen Waverley, in his 25 seconds, tried to raise with me a matter regarding a busy intersection in his electorate. I suggest he gives me a note on it and I will take it from there as I did not even pick up the names of the roads at the intersection.

The other matter raised is of grave concern to me. The honourable member for Keilor referred to the lucrative racket of selling copper wire stolen from both country and suburban rail lines and the potential that has to cause disaster. It would be a disaster for the individual who was pinching the wire - because it has 1500 volts going through it -and he risks certain death or injury if he makes contact. It is a 60 metre length of multi-thread wire. Unscrupulous dealers offer $2.40 a kilogram. Individuals are making up to $1500 for about 340 metres. The copper is then melted down and is sold to larger companies.

The cost to the Public Transport Corporation is about $200 000 a year and I would prefer to spend that on other resources. There are two dangers: the person trying to steal the wire may be electrocuted and because it is overhead wire it could interfere with the wires controlling the signalling system. That could cause a failure and lead to an accident on the rail system. Many parts of the system are old and there has been an effort by everyone to ensure the system operates as safely as possible. A breakdown as I have described would cause many difficulties for our diligent workers.

I plead with members of the community who do such stealing to realise that they are not only pinching "my" wires but also are putting their lives at risk. They are really causing problems because their theft leads to costly replacements.

Mr TREZISE (Minister for Sport and Recreation) - The issues raised by the honourable members for Gippsland South, Sandringham, Warrnambool and Morwell will be referred by me to the respective Ministers.

The honourable member for Gisborne raised a matter about Pubtabs, particularly at Echuca. Three are planned and two at Horsham and two at Bacchus Marsh. He said the Totalizator Agency Board (fAB) is hell-bent on pushing Pub tab too fast. I think it has been slow and has dragged the chain. I have had a go at the way it has not been keeping pace with requirements. Victoria has 100 Pubtabs while New South Wales has more than 600. Pubtabs give a service to the punter particularly after hours for the trots and the greyhounds when the normal TABs are closed. They curb the growth of SP bookmakers.

At the time the legislation was passed I gave an assurance that I would consult with the association representing the agents. I know three applications have been deferred until I again discuss the matter with the association. I will examine the situation so far as those towns are concerned and keep the honourable member informed of what is happening. I shall discuss the issue and point out that Pubtab money is normally new money - it is not put through the SPs or is not being wagered at all.

ADJOURNMENT


Often the TAB in the area has its takings increased. For example, in Coogee, New South Wales, a TAB agency was located with an hotel on either side. Both hotels received a TAB agency licence, leading to the TAB agency increasing its takings. The same occurred at the MCG hotel where a TAB agency had been installed. Also, when a TAB agency was installed at the Melbourne Cricket Ground the total takings increased immediately, so it is not always a fact that other agencies being established in a town decrease the normal TAB takings.

Nevertheless, I understand the concern and I will certainly ask the TAB to provide information about the three towns. I will discuss it with the Victorian Off-course Agents Association and keep the honourable member for Gisborne informed as to what transpires.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned 8.46 p.m. until Tuesday, 28 May.

QUESTIONS ON NOnCE

Tuesday, 14 May 1991 ASSEMBLY 'lA77

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

EMPLOYMENT OF CONSULTANTS

(Question No. 553)

Mr COOPER (Mornington) asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services for the then Minister responsible for the Aged:

In respect of each deparbnent, agency and authority within the Minister' s administratio~ what are the names of each consultant employed since October 1988, indicating in each case: (a) the purpose for which they were employed; (b) what working plans were given; (c) the cost of their services; (d) the duration of their contract; and (e) any additional payments made in excess of the contract price?

Mr SANDON (Minister for Police and Emergency Services) - The answer supplied on behalf of the then Minister for the Aged is:

Two separate consultancies have been conducted in the Older Persons Planning Office. Both have involved use of the consultancy firm, Tumball Fox Phillips in relation to the new Victorian Seniors Card. The first consultancy also utilised subcontracted market research by Yann Campbell ~oare Wheeler. Consultancy One: Feasibility Study for Vidorian Seniors Card Turnball Fox Phillips Sheila O'Sulliv~ Esther Kister Yann Campbell Hoare Wheeler Michael Ireland, Anne Pengally (a) To establish the viability, from both a consumers' and providers' perspective, of a

Victorian Seniors Card along the lines of the Seniors Card already operating in Western Australia.

(b) The working plan required the consultants to undertake the following: Stage One: Qualitative Assessment Identify:

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

the current range of goods and services demanded by this population segment and any associated problems; forecast demand for and usage of the proposed card by older people; identify any market sub-segments amongst the over-60 population of relevance to the introduction of a Seniors Card.

Stage Two: Quantitative Assessment This stage is sought to quantify the impact on the market and on older people's consumption behaviour of the introduction of the Seniors Card. The outcomes of stage two were:

(i) quantification of elasticity of demand for various goods and services following the introduction of the card;

(ii) forecast of demand for and usage of the proposed card by older people;

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

2478 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 14 May 1991

(iii) ide::ttification of any market sub-segments amongst the over-60 population of relevance to the introduction of a Seniors Carel.

Stage Three: Negotiation With Potential Providers Provided that the outcome of stages one and two were favourable to the introduction of a Seniors Card, stage three involved the presentation of the market research to private sector providers and the development of proposals for consideration by the Victorian government as to the extent of coverage of the card. (c) Cost of services: $39 350.00 (d) Duration of contract May 1990 - August 1990 (e) No payments made in excess of contract price. Consultancy Two: Implementation of marketinglpublic relations strategy for the Seniors Card Name of Consultants: Esther Kister, Sharon Lanyon (a) To successfully launch and market the Seniors Card amongst providers, older Victorians,

community groups representing the interests of older people and the general community.

(b) Working Plan The consultants were required to address the following issues for the Older Persons Planning Office in launching and marketing the Seniors Card to the Victorian community: (0 How should provider support be maximised? (ii) What is the appropriate imaging for the card in particular, and the Seniors Card

project in general? (iii) How should information about the card be conveyed to opinion leaders in the

aged and ~neral community? (iv) How should best use be made of the general community and media goodwill

towards older people? (v) How should older people be informed of the card and where to apply for it? (vi) What kind of information should be prepared and distributed about the card to

the various target groups? (c) Estimated cost at time of submission: $21 350.00

Progress payments as of February 1991: $ 7339.59 (d) Duration of contract September 1990 - March 1991 (e) Expected cost underrun of $10000.

GOVERNMENT MEDIA UNIT

(Question No. 641)

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) asked the Premier:

In view of the Premier's decision to close the Government Media Unit: 1. How many members of the unit have been retained by the government in other roles,

indicating - (a) the role each person is fulfilling; and (b) each person's rate of pay? 2. How many members of the unit will not be retained by the government in some way when

the unit is finally closed, indicating the name of each? 3. On what date will the unit be finally closed?

Ms KIRNER (premier) - The answer is:

QUESTIONS ON ~. JTICE

Tuesday, 14 May 1991 ASSEMBLY 2479

The media unit has now closed. Four of the staff of the unit are now employed as follows: Media adviser ($56 022); principal press secretary ($56 022); press office coordinator ($56 022); and speech writer ($49 210). Currently, there is also one vacant position - regional project coordinator ($49 210). In each case, an additional 15 per cent of the salary shown is payable as commuted overtime.

. The other nine press secretary positions that were in the media unit were transferred to the Ministers' department, along with the persons occupying the positions.

CANTEEN SERVICE - DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENT

(Question No. 706)

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) asked the Minister for Conservation and Environment:

1.

2 3. 4.

Whether a canteen service operates within his Ministry or any of its agencies; if so, in respect of each canteen - (a) is the canteen subsidised and how much was the subsidy in 1989-90, indicating the percentage of all costs met by subsidy; (b) are all employees entitled to attend the canteen; (c) are non-departmental people able to gain access to the facility, and in the event that they are what is the condition of entry; (d) is the canteen operated by government staff or an outside contractor; (e) what other subsidised benefits are available to staff employed by the department or any of its agencies; (f) is any special equipment available to employees either free, at cost or subsidised, please give details? Whether an employees' social club exists? Whether an employees' credit cooperative exists? Whether an employees buying cooperative exists; if so, are other than departmental staff able to access this scheme?

Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) - The answer is:

In respect of the Department of Conservation and Environment, the Zoological Board of Victoria, and the Office of the Environment is: 1. No canteen service operates. 2 There is no employees' social club. 3. No employees' credit cooperative exists, but employees have access to union-based

cooperatives with the Victorian Public Service Association and Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union.

4. No employees' buying cooperative exists. Insofar as the question relates to the Board of Works, the answer is: 1. A number of canteen services operate within the Board of Works:

(a) Location Subsidised Amount Subsidised Subsidy Percentage in 1989-90 of total rost

Head Office Yes $516 913 38% Eastern Region Yes $49 947 29.2% Northern Region Yes $99 417 54.9% Southern Region Yes $63 170 34.2% Western Region Yes $35 948 32.4% Preston Workshops Complex Yes $51 210 36.5% Upper Yarra Region (Canteen operating only since July 1990)

(b) All employees are entitled to use the canteen.

2480

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 14 May 1991

(c) Of£.dal guests of Board of Works' staff may use the canteen services.

(d) All canteens are operated by board employees with the exception of Upper Yarra which is operated by a rontractor. Also, Southern Region canteen has a rontract chef.

On 3 April 1991, the Board of Works engaged a rontractor viz Rowland Commercial Catering, to operate the canteen at the board's head office. The subsidy for this canteen will be substantially reduced in 1991-92.

(e) Nil.

(f) No special equipment is available to employees either free, subsidised or at cost.

2. A social club exists for Board of Works employees.

3. A credit rooperative exists for Board of Works employees.

4. An employees' buying cooperative does not exist for board employees.

Insofar as the question relates to the Rural Water Commission, the answer is:

(la) (i) The food service provided by the canteen is not subsidised. It is operated on a profit sharing basis with the contractor (see response to question Id).

(ii) Profits from the food service are used to offset the costs of the tea and roffee service.

Expenses

(i) Food service

(ii) Tea and roffee service

Revenue Received

Nfi $14855

(i) From food service

Cost to the RWC (Subsidy)

$9534

$5321

Percentage of all Costs met by Subsidy 35.82%

(lb) Yes - all employees are entitled to attend the canteen.

(1 c) Yes - non-departmental people, with legitimate business at the head office complex are permitted to use food service facilities. The food service component is run on a profit-sharing basis and is not subsidised. Therefore use by non-departmental people ronbibutes to the profit margin.

(Id) The canteen is operated under a licence agreement with an outside rontractorAdvanced Food Systems Ltd. The licence is made up of two romponents (i) the food service and (ii) the tea and roffee service.

The food service component is run on a profit-sharing basis with Advanced Food Systems Ltd . The RWC proportion of the profit from the food service is used to offset the cost of the tea and coffee service. Any shortfall in the cost of operating the tea and coffee service is made up by the commission subsidy as per question la.

(le) There are no other subsidised benefits available to staff.

(If) There is no special equipment available to employees.

2. 3.

4.

A staff association exists for all members of the Rural Water Commission.

The only employees' credit cooperative existing for RWC staff is the State Government Employees Cooperative which exists for the benefit of all State public servants.

There is no employees' buying cooperative existing within the Rural Water Commission.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Tuesday, 14 May 1991 ASSEMBLY

MOTOR VEHICLE TARIFF PROTECTION

(Question No. 722)

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) asked the Minister for Labour:

2481

In view of a Federal government proposal to cut motor vehicle tariff protection by 15 per cent, which estimated to cost at least 4500 jobs in Victoria, whether he will inform honourable members why the Victorian government failed to place submission before the Industries Assistance Commission when Victoria unemployment levels are increasing rapidly? Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - The answer is:

In reply to question No. 722, a correction is required to the statement that the Victorian government failed to place a submission before the Industry Commission in respect of its inquiry into the automotive industry. In fact, the government did submit a written response to the commission's draft report, and officers of the Department of Industry appeared before the commission. The question states that the Federal government has proposed to reduce motor vehicle tariff protection. The proposal was in fact made by the Industry Commission, not the government, in a report which had the status of a draft report only. It should be noted that the proposal was to cut tariff to 15 per cent, not by 15 per cent (as stated in the question). An incidental point to be noted is that the Industries Assistance Commission has changed its name and is now the Industry Commission. It is worth noting that the government's response to the Industry Commission's inquiry has not been limited to presentation of information to the Commission. The Premier has led a delegation, which included the Mayor of Geelong, the Geelong Trades Hall Council Secretary, the Vice-President of Ford Australia and a representative of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, in discussions with the Prime Minister and Federal Treasurer and Industry Minister. The proposal to cut motor vehicle tariffs to 15 per cent by 2000 has been endorsed by the Federal government in its statement of 12 March. The Victorian government has developed two major initiatives. The Premier has announced in her Statement of 26 March that the government will contribute $200 000 toward the cost of a new automotive research and development centre within the CSIRO. In addition, the government is directing a significant part of the funding and support available through the National Industry Extension Scheme (NIBS) to improving the product quality, competitiveness and export potential of the automotive components industry.

WORK STOPPAGES

(Question No. 768)

Mr UEBERMAN (Benambra) asked the Minister for Labour:

In respect of industrial disputes involving stoppages of work of ten man-days or more in the calendar years 1982 to 1990 (to date): 1. What number of days was lost in Victoria and what was the percentage change in

days lost? 2 Whether he will ascertain and inform honourable members, in respect of the rest of

Australia - (a) what number of working days was lost; and (b) what the percentage change was for each year?

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


3. Whether he will ascertain and inform honourable members, in relation to the States of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania

- (a) what number of working days was lost; and (b) what the percentage change was for each year?

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - The answer is:

The data on working days lost is contained in Australian Bureau of Statistics Series 6322.0, Table 4 and 6321.0, Table 3. In respect of the first part of the question which concerns Victoria, the latest data and the percentage changes (as calculated from the data) are:

Year Working Days Percentage Otange Lost ('000)

1982 (to Dec) 368.0 100 (Base)

1983 (to Dec) 257.7 70.0 1984 (to Dec) 187.5 51.0 1985 (to Dec) 355.9 96.7 1986 (to Dec) 381.8 103.8 1987 (to Dec) 281.4 76.5 1988 (to Dec) 362.6 98.5 1989 (to Dec) 348.4 94.7 1990 (to Oct) 321.5 87.4

In respect of other States and Australia, reference should be made to the data in the aforementioned ABS series. However, it is relevant to point out that the Victorian data on working days lost rompares very favourably with that for New South Wales - with Victoria having less than half (48 per cent) of the number of working days lost over the whole period compared with New South Wales. Moreover, the more useful measure of working days lost per thousand employees (ABS Catalogue 6322.0, Table 6) again shows Victoria with a much better record than New South Wales for the period rovered by the table (1984 to 1988). In fact, Victoria's record over this period is also better than that of Queensland, Western Australia and the average for Australia as a whole. As an example, the romparison for the last year rovered by the table (1988) shows the following romparison:

Vie NSW WA QLD AUsr Number of working days lost per thousand employees

2421 4490 2896 2854 2915 Index (Victoria = 100)

100 185 120 118 120

PUBLIC AFFIARS UNIT - DEPARTMENT OF MANUFAcrURING AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT

(Question No. 776)

Mr PERTON (Doncaster) asked the Treasurer, for the then Minister for Industry and Economic Planning:

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


In relation to the Public Affairs Unit of the Department of Manufacturing and Industry Development:

2483

1. How many employees and consultants, respectively, are employed in the unit, indicating the terms of remuneration of any consultant?

2. What is the unit's budget for 1990-91 ? 3. What are the qualifications of each of the employees and consultants engaged in the unit? 4. Whether the unit has produced any suggested questions without notice, press releases,

research papers, or briefing notes for the Minister; if so - (a) what documents have been produced; and (b) will he make copies of the documents available?

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - The answer supplied on behalf of the then Minister for Industry and Economic Planning is:

1. The unit employs two staff, one at ADM-6level ($38697 - $40 676) and one at PP-2level ($31 429 - $33 254).

2. The unit has an operational budget of $SOOO. 3. The leader of the unit holds a Bachelor of Arts from Victoria College, with majors in

professional writing and literature. The other journalist employed in the unit holds a Bachelor of Arts, Journalism, from RMIT.

4. Yes - copies of all documents produced have now been provided by way of a response to the FoI request made in 1990.

SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

(Question No. 783)


In relation to the women's, Aboriginal and ethnic small business assistance programs of the then Department of Industry and Office of Economic Planning: 1. How many companies, individuals or firms have been assisted by the programs, indicating

- (a) the name of each; (b) the names of departmental officers and consultants engaged in the programs and (c) the terms of remuneration for each of the consultants?

2. Whether any company/firm which has been assisted by the programs - (a) gained any identifiable economic advantage as a consequence of the assistance, giving details of such assistance; (b) received any grants or financial assistance from the Victorian and/or Commonwealth governments, giving details of any such assistance; and (c) paid any fee(s} for the service provided by the programs, giving details of any fee(s) paid?


WOMEN'S SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROCRAM 1. Total number seeking information, advice and/or referral from the SBOC was 99 864

during the period June, 1988 to June, 1990. Of this figure 38.4 per cent were female inquirers; this equals 38 348 requests for information.

(a) Records of names for general inquiries are not captured. Although records of names for most of the 525 women's businesses which received advice or counselling from the SBOC are available, the information is not collated into a readily accessible listing.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(b) The program manager is Ms S Dahn. The divisional manager is Mr B. Smith. No consultants have been engaged by this program.

(c) Not applicable. 2(a) The program's objective is to improve access for women to the information, advice and

referral services available. Accordingly, there is no means to identify specific economic advantage gained from this improved access.

(b) No firm has received grants/financial assistance from the Victorian or Commonwealth governments through this program.

(c) No firm has been charged fees for information, advice or referral provided through this program.

ABORIGINAL SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 1. (a)

(b)

(c)

104.

Records of names for general inquiries are not captured. Although records for most of the 104 Aboriginal firms or individuals who received intensive information, advice or referral from the SBOC are available, the information is not collated into a readily accessible listing. The program manager is Mr R. Taylor. The division manager is Mr B. Smith. Consultants, Street Ryan and Associates. Total remuneration $19 629.

2(a) The programs relationship with inquiries does not involve the SBOC being privy to financial information which would allow identification of economic advantage gained from improved access to information, advice and referral.

(b) No firm has received grants/financial assistance from the Victorian or Commonwealth governments through this program.

(c) No firm has been charged fees for information, advice or referral provided through this program.

ETHNIC SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 1 (a) No records are available to detail the names of etlmic people who have received

information, advice and/or referral from the SBOC. (b) The program manager is Mr M Wilkie.

The divisional manager is Mr G. Oscar. Consultants, Productive Culture Australia.

(c) Total remuneration $14 6<E. 2(a) There are no means available to identify specific economic advantage gained from this

improved access. (b) No firm has received grants/financial assistance from the Victorian or Commonwealth

governments through this program. (c) No firm has been charged fees for information, advice and referral provided through this

program.

VISIT TO MALAYSIA, HONG KONG AND INDONESIA

(Question No. 823)


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


In respect of a trip by C. Leaw to Malaysia, Hong Kong and Indonesia between 31 August - 23 September 1989 to 'follow up progress reports from Hong Kong consultants': 1. What was the total sum expended? 2. What was the respective costs of airfares, accommodation, meals and entertainment

expenses? 3. What are the names of the parties with whom C. Leaw consulted? 4. What conclusions and recommendations, respectively, did C. Leaw report to the

department?


1. The total cost of the trip was $8328.97. 2. Airfares $2546.00

Accommodation $2703.63 Entertainment $107.23 Meals (daily allowance per approved rates) $1617.23 Total $6974.09

3. See attached schedule. 4. In keeping with the objectives of his travel, Mr Leaw negotiated renewal of consultancy

agreements with Econsult Sdn. Bhd. in Malaysia!Brunei and Austrade in Indonesia; reviewed progress/work quality; followed up inquiries; updated market information. He also interviewed shortlisted consultants and invited submissions for consultancy in Thailand and the Philippines; supervised and followed up progress of reports due from Hong Kong consultant for 88/89 program. All objectives of the visit were met specifically. Attachment 1 Names of parties with whom C. Leaw consulted: 1. Econsult Sdn Bhd.

David Dennis, Esther Tan 2. Atama Corp Sdn. Bhd.

Hj Adnan Hj Mahmud, Viswan Thirupad 3. Sepakat Setia Perunding

Low Lock San 4. Austrade Kuala Lumpur

NickSmit 5. IKL System Pte Ltd

Golden Systems International Hotel Management Pte Ltd Janssen B.S. Tan

6. Austrade Jakarta Alex Olah, Paul Brewer, Colin Hook, Nina Rivai, Lei1a Mudigdo, J. Sudjana, Kristiono

6. Bostock Mohammad Peter Abdul Razak Bostock

7. CV Dwijaya Adhi Gunawan

8. P.T. Trubus I<encana Girl Purwa S.T. Gunawan

QUESTIONS ON NonCE


9. Austrade Bangkok Peter Bergman, Philip Armbruster, Pongpun Saovaphudhasuvej, Metha Junhasiri

10. Frank Small &t Associates Peter 50011, Richard Mecchi, Tawanchai Xoomsai

11. Gavintom Consultancy International Co. Ltd Burapa Attakor

12 Manistee (Thailand) Lld Sudhisakdi Manibhandu

13. IMRS Co. Lld George Hooker

14. Asoke International Trading Co. Ltd. Manop Nagadatta

15. Dept of Surgery, cmlburi Hospital Dr. Pongtep Chaiprasit

16. Austrade Manila Geoffrey Gray, Christopher Begley, Robert Siy, Eva Yazon, Jose Ma. P. Fernadez

17. Charles Searby Trading Charles Searby, Violy J. Searby

18. SGV &t Co. Rene Fuentes, Bans Banzhaf

19. Logistic/Marketing Phil. Ine. Robert Goold

20. A YC Consultants Inc. Peter Wallace

21. Joaquin Cunanan &t Co. Fortunato B. Cruz

22 Austrade Hong Kong Peter Deaco~ Brendan Dyson

23. Emst &t Whinney Dr Graham Davies, Amy Kwok, Michael Chang, Shi Bisset, FrancisTse

24. Burson-Marstellar Stephanie Li~ Chang Urn

VISIT TO AUSTRALIA

(Question No. 828)


In respect of a trip by Gary Chitty to Austria between 12-26 November 1989 to 'assess likely future policies of government support to industry groups and firms': 1. What was the total sum expended?

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


2. What was the respective costs of airfares, accommodatio~ meals and entertainment expenses?

3. What are the names of the parties with whom Gary Chitty consulted? 4. What conclusions and recommendations, respectively, did Gary Chitty report to the

department?

2487

5. How many inquiries were generated as a result of the visit, indicating the names of the parties to each inquiry which has resulted in - (a) exchange of contracts; (b) identification of any (and what) increased export potential; opportunities; and (c) any identifiable economic advantage for the State of Victoria?


1. The total sum expended was $7178. Commonwealth NIBS funds paid the full amount. 2. Respective costs were:

Airfares $3526 Accommodation $1133 Personal expenses (inc. meals) $1417 Travel, communications, fees, etc. $1197

3. Parties with whom Mr Chitty consulted were: Austrian Centre for Productivity and Efficiency Vienna. International Federation of Automatic Central, Vienna Staff of ERVET: - The Emilia Romagna Land Development Board, Bologna, Italy Staff of CITER-Textiles Information Centre of Emilia, Romagna, Carpi, Italy University of Modena, Italy Management and employees of Alfa-Laval Food Engineering, Lund, Sweden

Employees of SKF, Gothenburg, Sweden Employees of Volvo, Gothenburg, Sweden

4. Conclusions appear in the attached extract of a report to the department - Part 1 -Summary of Actions.

5. As indicated in (4), this was not a visit to attract investment but to explore future policy and program options.

Attachment 1

1. SUMMARY AND ACTIONS

1.1 The study tour and conference provided many useful insights into change processes and industry. The key role of the work organisation in enterprise and skill development was a very powerful message.

ACTION: Greater emphasis must be put on forms of work organisation as part of the COL program. This basic message should be incorporated into briefing and case study material for use within the department and for wider circulation.

1.2 Early intervention needs to be introduced to eliminate technical constraints to better job design.

ACTION: Previously mooted attempts to conduct Contribution of Labour activities in companies contemplating technological change need to be revived. A joint effort with the DIEP Technology Group may be appropriate.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


1.3 Conventional wisdom to seek greater sophistication in software and technology systems is being questioned in Europe, with Computer Integrated Manufacturing often amounting to no more than a Management Information System (MI5), and with little MIS and CAD software being fully exploited.

ACTION: Australian firms need to be encouraged to establish their own capacity to design information systems and to develop those 'in-house' over a considerable timespan.

1.4 The skills bargaining concept is used in Northern Italy and in Sweden, and focuses on the highly skilled, organised work force negotiating optimum effectiveness measures for improved enterprise competitiveness.

ACTION: The challenge for management lies in accepting that increased worker skill must be accompanied by increased influence and identify; the challenge for unions is in such a drastic (in many, but not all cases) change in role. The challenge for government is to be aware of the emergence of similar practices in Australia and, where successful, perhaps documenting them for dissemination.

1.5 The regional and national development which has taken place in Emilia Romagna in Northern Italy has been partly due to the small business networking activities sponsored by the regional development board, 'ERVET'.

ACTION: DIEP, perhaps through Business Policy and Planning, should keep abreast of networking developments at the Australian Manufacturing Council and be alert to any opportunities for Victorian firms to participate.

1.6 There appears to be a profound lack of high-level research and educational activity in social and technical aspects of work in Australia compared with Europe.

ACTION: DIEP and perhaps the Federal government could establish a combined research, educational and consulting institute similar to the West German model, with a specific charter to concentrate on work and manufacturing.

1.7 Other nations have observed fluctuations in the fortunes of workplace improvement efforts. Some experts have put this down to a lack of 'business focus'. Potential for change in Australia lies in government emphasis on strategic planning and goal-setting, pointing total enterprises into such a direction and in breaking down vertical and horizontal division of labour.

ACTION: As part of all assistance programs and DIEP advice, firms must be constantly reminded of the need to establish business directions and promote these through the whole organisation, so that work force members may have real jobs working to real, current business goals to which they are individually committed.

COMDEF 89 EXHIBITION

(Question No. 831)

Mr PERTON (Doncaster) asked the Treasurer, for the Minister for Industry and Economic Planning:

In respect of the COMDEF 89 Exhibition in Washington, USA: (a) What are the names of the departmental officers and consultants who participated in the

exhibition?

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(b) What was the total sum - (a) expended on the exhibit; and, (b) allocated for the exhibit? (c) What was the respective cost of airfares, accommodation, meals and expenses of the

officers involved in the exhibit? (d) How many inquiries were generated as a result of the exhibit, indicating the names of the

parties to each inquiry which has resulted in (a) exchange of contracts; (b) identification of any (and what) increased export potential; (c) entered into any joint venture to pursue export opportunities; and (d) any identifiable economic advantage for the State of Victoria?

(e) What are the names of the Victorian or Victorian-based companies/firms which participated in the exhibit, indicating what grants, incentives and other financial assistance was given to these companies/firms by the department and/or any other government agency?


(a) COMDEF 89 was attended by: Mr Paul Casey - Director, Defence, Aerospace and Aviation Projects Air Cdre Barry Noonan (RAAF Rtd) - Senior Consultant, Defence and Aerospace

(b) A provision of $11 500 for COMDEF 89 was made in budget considerations. Expenditure on the exhibition was:

(c)

• $8000 contribution to AUSTRADE direct costs for space rental, stand design and construction.

• $4061 outward and return freight charges for display items, exhibition materials, brochures, etc.

Airfares Accommodation Surface travel Personal expenses Other expenses Total

$12854 $ 8484 $ 2037 $ 4010 $ 1290 $28675

Only a proportion of these costs are attributable to COMDEF 89 as the overseas visit extended from 5-26 October inclusive covering a number of objectives/activities other than the exhibition in Washington.

(d) As a result of COMDEF 89 a direct contract valued at $US2S0 000 was signed with a further $U5500 000 (estimated) under negotiation. The objective of Victoria's participation in COMDEF 89 was to sponsor selected small/medium Victorian companies with product/capability considered sufficiently diverse or unique to penetrate the North American and/or international defence markets. Since the exhibition, two companies have reported slow but significant progress in establishing their product overseas. The companies are currently in negotiation for substantial USA/NATO contracts.

(e) Victorian companies at COMDEF 89 were: AMSKAN Pty Ltd. DART Defence Industries IEl (Australia) Pty Ltd National Valve and Engineering STRARCH International No grants or other assistance were provided.

2490

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Participating companies met all costs other than exhibition space (which was on a shared basis between the Department of Defence, AUSfRADE, and the major exhibitors) and freight costs for display items and exhibition materials. Additionally, three Victorian companies exhibited at COMDEF 89 in their own right • Ashley-Pacific Pty Ltd • Multi-Drive Technology • Technology Australia

SPECIAL DAY OFF - 31 DECEMBER 1990

(Question No. 869)

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) asked the Minister for Community Services:

Whether any department, agency or authority within her administration gave a "special day off' on 31 December 1990 to any of its employees; if so, in respect of each organisation - (a) what was the additional cost of the "Special day off'; (b) how many people benefited; and (c) what was the basis of granting the "Special day off"? Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Community Services) - The answer is:

As this matter is the responsibility of the Minister for Labour, I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Minister.

(Question No. 875)

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:

Whether any department, agency or authority within the Minister's administration gave a "special day off" on 31 December 1990 to any of its employees; if so, in respect of each organisation - (a) what was the additional cost of the "special day off"; (b) how many people benefited; and (c) what was the basis of granting the "special day off'?

Mr SANDON (Minister for Police and Emergency Services) - The answer supplied by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is:

As this matter is the responsibility of the Minister for Labour, I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Minister.

(Question No. 876)

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, for the Minister for Consumer Affairs:

Whether any department, agency or authority within the Minister's administration gave a "special day off" on 31 December 1990 to any of its employees; if so, in respect of each organisation - (a) what was the additional <;ost of the "special day off"; (b) how many people benefited; and (c) what was the basis of granting the "special day off'?

Mr SANDON (Minister for Police and Emergency Services) - The answer supplied by the Minister for Consumer Affairs is:

As this matter is the responsibility of the Minister for Labour, I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by that Minister.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


STUDENT FARE CONCESSIONS

(Question No. 909)

Mr COOPER (Mornington) asked the Minister for Transport

1. What was the revenue forgone for student fare concessions in each of the years 1988-89 and 1989-907

2. What is the estimate for revenue forgone for student fare concessions in the 1990-91 year7

Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) - The answer is:

1. The Public Transport Corporation receives reimbursement from the Ministry of Education and Training for student concessions. The recoupment received in the last two years was $9.4 million for 1988-89 and $9.9 million for 1989-90.

2. The budgeted recoupment for 1990-91 is $10 million.

PENSIONER FARE CONCESSIONS

(Question No. 911)

Mr PERRIN (Bulleen) asked the Minister for Transport:

What is the amount of fare revenue forgone for concessional fares to pensioners on public transport in each of the years ended 30 June 1981 to 1990, inclusive:

Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) - The answer is:

The Public Transport Corporation provides services to various groups of people at a ooncession rate or at no cost at all to the user. A subsidy is then provided hom Treasury as reimbursement for the provision of these services.

The recoupment of the welfare-based ooncessions (including pensioner ooncessions) for each year since 1980-81 is as follows:

1980-81 $ 9.5 million 1981-82 $11.5 million 1982-83 $13.9 million 1983-84 $16.4 million 1984-85 $19.1 million 1985-86 $19.6 million 1986-87 $21.0 million 1987-88 $22.3 million 1988-89 $24.4 million 1989-90 $28.9 million 1990-91 $29.5 million (estimated)

2492

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

ASSEMBLY Thutsday, 16 May 1991

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT CONSULTANCIES

(Question No. 556)

Mr COOPER (Mornington) asked the Minister for Transport:

In respect of each department, agency and authority within his administration, what are the names of each ronsultant employed since October 1988, indicating in each case - (a) the purpose for which they were employed; (b) what working plans were given; (c) the rost of their services; (d) the duration of their rontract; and (e) any additional payments in excess of the rontract price? Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) - The answer is:

To provide the detail being sought by the honourable member for every consultancy in the transport portfolio would require ronsiderable research which cannot be justified. However, information in respect of the names, purpose and approved expenditure of ronsultancies engaged by the Ministry and transport agencies since 1988-89 is summarised as follows:

Agency Consultant

Ministry of TranspQrt 1988-89 Salter Advertising

TmDo TransitCmiultant 1989-90 Touche Ross and

Dames&:Moore Salter Advertising

Public Transport Corporation t 988-89 Cameron McNamara

Coopers and Lybrand Coopers &: Lybrand Coopers &: Lybrand Eoonsult Management John Conne1l Group KPMG Peat Marwick Price Water'bouse Urwick

Approved Purpose

Boating Safety and Education Program Review Met system Appraisal of Very Fast Train Proposal Boating Safety &: Education Program

Analyse Airport West Tram Extension Chart of Accounts Development Disaster Recovery Planning Flinders Street Commercial Development South Melbourne/ Albert Park Stations Met Plan Redeployment Procedures qverbead Review (V /Une)

University of Melbourne Spencer Street Station Yann Campbe1l Hoare Self Validation TIcketing Chandler &: McLeod Executive Search Ove Amp &: Macquarie Community Consultation M. Arnold Strategy on Private Bus Services

Expenditure ($)

90000 30000

100000

90000

7500 25000 30500

415 000 (est) 9000

39000 5000

560320

10000 20400 9000

20000 9000

Thursday. 16 May 1991

Agency

1989-90

Roads Corporation 1985-89

1989-90

Port of GeeJ.ong Authority 1988-89 1989-90

Consultant

Amold

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

ASSEMBLY

Approved Purpose

Private Bus Contracts/Neighbourhood aearwater Corporate Passenges- Signage Program Service Connell Wagner Spencer Street Station Relocation Dominguez Bany Samuel Review of Printing Works

Computer Package/Tmining

2493

Expenditure ($)

9000 45 000 (est)

7500 20000

MonteguLtd Heather Weller Heather Weller John P. Young &:

Induction Program, Freight/Passenger Serv. Value Engineering Program3 080

12500 10000

KPMG Peat Marwick Associates McLennan Magasanik Nelson Parkhill Olron Consultancy Price Wates-house Price Wates-house P. A. Consulting and Consultel

Structural Efficiency

Fast Freight 1iain Review of Printing Works Staff Facilities - South Dynon Overhead Review (Met)

Road Motor Fleet Review Telecommunications Strategy

P. A. Consulting Group Business Performance Monitoring P. B. Maunse11 P /L Value Engineering T. Way Review of Sleeper Supplies Retail Excellence Met TIcket Project Retail Excellence Met TIcket Project Planning &: Development Upfield

Olandler &: McLeod Executive Search Nelson English Loxton &: Plenty Valley Transport Strategy Andrews Taylor, Young, Wigan &: Metro Travel Study Ogden Brian Sweeney &: AS90datesTaxi User Survey

Coopers &: Lybrand Disaster Recovery

Harvey &: Opie Point Lillias Development Harvey &: Opie Wimmera Industrial Minerals

2200

45000 19750 6000

724069 26245

118000 (est)

85000 6400

7000 (est) 124000 96000 27000

9000 60000

10000

15300

20000

47500

Port of Melbourne Authority 1989-90 Centre for Inte!'national ~entofPortPricing 5000

Economics Brauer Galt &: Co. Executive Search 28500 Towers, Perrin Forster Actuarial Advice 53600 &:Crosby

Grain Elevators Board 1988-89 Auslang Feasibility Study 4950

2494

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

ASSEMBLY Thursday, 16 May 1991

Approved Agency Consultant Purpose Expenditure

($)

Geoff Holland & Engineering Design Terminal Extension 11862 Associates AWN Consultants Environment Monitoring at Geelong 4000

1989-90 Best Business Services Supply Function of GEB 22996 Geoff Holland & Trackshed Alteration At Geelong 23000 Associates Geoff Holland & Stanhope Silo Relocation 3770 Associates Harold W. Bloxom Power, Sunshine Plant 1450 Williamson Warner & High Capadty Rail Inloading at Geelong 26000 Roach Price Waterhouse StudyofGEB 383400 Urwick Daniel Johnston Training Course 7500 John Macklin GEBsite, Wangaratta 3000 Consultants 1SR Training Training Courses 7800 Consultants

Transport Acddent Commission 1988-1990 Richard Oliver & Management TraUring 7000

Associates Peat Marwick & Training Needs 9800 Hungerfords Peat Marwick & Staff Selection 4050 Hungerfords HRM Consulting Staff Training 9125

1988-1990 John P. Young & Client Service Course 5355 Associates HRM Consulting Staff Training 3000 Business Solutions P / L Training Course 2700 Business Solutions P /L Management Training 1800 Tobin Brothers Training Course 700 John P. Young Management Training 6500 Business Solutions P /L Staff Training 2700 Business Solutions P /L Training 900 Tony Norquay & Training 2600 Asodates J M McDonald & Reporting Training 5000 Associates John P. Young & Customer Service 4400 Associates Tony Norquay & Performance Feedlock 2750 Associates HRM Consulting P /L Staff Training 9000 Tony Norquay & Staff Training 1400 Associates

Thursday, 16 May 1991

Agency Consultant

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

ASSEMBLY

Approved Purpose

2495

Expenditure ($)

John P. Young & Management Training 1 930 Associates John P. Young & Management Training 1 960 Associates Wide Angle P /L Market Research - Driver Attitudes 4850 Rodie Research P /L Accident Prevention Submissions 9 800 GRAPPL P /L Statistics on Booze Buses 9 900 Pappas, Carter, Accident Prevention Project 34 000 Evans& Koop Financial Synergy P /L Actuarial Valuation of Claims Uability 69 200 Financial Synergy P /L Actuarial Valuation of Claims Uability 75 000 HousleyCannllmicat:iom Voice/data Communications 7200 DeloitteConsultingGroup Report on Traffic Camera Enlargements 21625 DeJoitteConsultingGroup Advise on Traffic Camera Procedures 9900 Richard Oliver Assess Risks & Safeguards for Computers 8 000 Risk Managers Housley Communications System Communications 9360 Control Risk Pacific Staff Security Measures 9 600 John Clarebrough Medical & Rehabilitation advice 10 000

MOTOR VEHICLE TARIFF PROTECIlON

(Question No. 722)

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) asked the Minister for Labour:

In view of a Federal government proposal to cut motor vehicle tariff protection by 15 per cent, which is estimated to oost at least 4500 jobs in Victoria, whether he will inform honourable members why the Victorian government failed to place a submission before the Indusbies Assistance Commission when Victoria's unemployment levels are increasing rapidly?

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - The answer is:

In reply to question No. 722, a oorrection is required to the statement that the Victorian government failed to place a submission before the Industry Commission in respect of its inquiry into the automotive industry. In fact, the government did submit a written response to the commission's draft report, and officers of the department of industry appeared before the oommission

The question states that the Federal government has proposed to reduce motor vehicle tariff protection. The proposal was in fact made by the Industry Commissio~ not the government, in a report which had the status of a draft report only. It should be noted that the proposal was to cut tariff to 15 per cent, not by 15 per cent as stated in the question An incidental point to be noted is that the former Industries Assistance Commission has changed its name and is now the Industry Commission.

2496

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

ASSEMBLY Thursday, 16 May 1991

It is worth noting that the government's response to the Industry Commission's inquiry has not been limited to presentation of information to the commission. The Premier has led a delegation, which included the Mayor of Geelong, the Geelong Trades Hall Council Secretary, the Vice-President of Ford Australia and a representative of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, in discussions with the Prime Minister, the Federal Treasurer and the industry Minister.

The proposal to cut motor vehicle tariffs to 15 per cent by 2000 has been endorsed by the Federal government in its statement of 12 March.

The Victorian government has developed two major initiatives. The Premier announced in her statement of 26 March that the government will contribute $200 000 toward the cost of a new automotive research and development centre within the CSIRO. In addition, the government is directing a significant part of the funding and support available through the National Industry Extension Scheme (NffiS) to improving the product quality, competitiveness and export potential of the automotive components industry.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNIT,.£.;DEPARTMENT OF MANUFACTURING AND INuUSTRY DEVELOPMENT

(Question No. 716)

Mr PERTON (Doncaster) asked the Minister for Transport, for the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development:

In relation to the Public Affairs Unit of the Department of Industry and Economic Planning:

1. How many employees and consultants, respectively, are employed in the unit, indicating the terms of remuneration of any consultant?

2. What is the unit's budget for 1990 - 91 ?

3.

4.

What are the qualifications of each of the employees and consultants engaged in the unit?

Whether the unit has produced any suggested questions without notice, press releases, research papers, or briefing notes for the Minister; if so - (a) what documents have been produced; and (b) will he make copies of the documents available?

Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) - The answer supplied by the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development is:

I refer the honourable member to my answer to question on notice No. 832 asked in the Legislative Council.

The answer referred to is as follows:

1. The unit employs two staff.

2. The unit has an operational budget of $5000.

3.

4.

The leader of the unit holds a Bachelor of Arts from Victoria College, with majors in professional writing and literature. The'other journalist employed in the unit holds a Bachelor of Arts, Journalism, from RMIT.

This matter has been addressed by a freedom of information request from Victor Perton, MP to the Department of Manufacturing and Industry Development on 20 November 1990, whereby copies of any press releases, memoranda, reports and briefing notes produced by the Public Affairs Unit have been provided.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Thmsday, 16 May 1991 ASSEMBLY

SPECIAL DAY-OFF

(Question No. 885)

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) asked the Minister for Finance:

2497

Whether any department, agency or authority within his administration gave a "special day off' on 31 December 1990 to any of its employees; if so, in respect of each organisation - (a) what was the additional rost of the "special day off'; (b) how many people benefited; and (c) what was the basis of granting the "special day off"? Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance) - The answer is:

As this matter is the responsiblity of the Minister for Labour, I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Minister.

USE OF GOVERNMENT VEHICLES

(Question No. 913)

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) asked the Minister for Finance:

Whether he will ascertain and adivse the name, department and status of the person who was driving govemment~wned Toyota vehicle with the registration number MWT 555, on the weekend of 2h-27 January 1991, indicating the reasons for the vehicle being driven on the Momington Peninsula?

Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance) - The answer is:

Inquiries have revealed that the driver of this vehicle was a Field Officer employed with the Ministry of Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs. Officers of that Ministry are investigating the reason for the use of the vehicle on the weekend of 26-27 January 1991.

77841/91-81



Tuesday, 28 May 1991

The SPEAKER (Hon. Ken Coghill) took the chair at 2.5 p.m. and read the prayer.


The SPEAKER - Order! I desire to make an announcement in respect of a matter of privilege, but before doing so I advise the House that I have approved a request from Channel 10 to film proceedings today concerning the matter of privilege.

Mr McNamara - The kangaroo court starts.

Mr Kennan interjected.

The SPEAKER - Order! Filming will be conducted in conjunction with programs from other channels, including the 7.30 Report, under the usual guidelines.

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE

The SPEAKER - Order! I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brunswick, the Treasurer, concerning a matter of Parliamentary privilege as follows:

Dear Mr Speaker, I wish to raise with you a matter of privilege. On 23 May 1991, I received from the Leader of the State Opposition, the Hon. Jeff Kennett, MP, addressed to me, a facsimile copy of a statement issued earlier that day by Mr Kennett. The statement said, in part:

If the government has not caused a State election to be announced by Wednesday, 29 May 1991, then all sitting Australian Labor Party members of the Victorian Parliament who retire from Parliament after that date and prior to the next State election, or who stand ClS a candidate at the next election and subsequently lose their seat will be denied any access to the taxpayer-funded component of their Parliamentary superannuation entitlement. However, any sitting ALP member who contests the next election and is returned to Parliament will be deemed to have public support for their entire Parliamentary service and therefore their superannuation entitlement on eventual retirement or defeat will not be affected. ALP members in the Legislative Council who are not up for re-election at the next election will also be affected by this measure. The denial of the public component of the.ALP members' superannuation will be achieved through special 'legislation. This will be introduced by the coalition government and made retrospective for the entire Parliamentary service of all ALP Parliamentary members. If the government does allow:

a significant number of retirements by government members; its defeat on the floor of the House; or its resignation



in time for the date of the next State election to be announced by midnight, Wednesday, 29 May 1991 and the subsequent prorogation of Parliament the next day to allow the passing of the Supply Bill by the Legislative Council, then all superannuation entitlements for members who retire or lose their seats at the subsequent election will be guaranteed.

It is clear that Mr Kennett has attempted to intimidate members, including myself, in the conduct of their duties and that such a threat is a breach of privilege. I ask you to consider this matter and confirm that there is a prima facie case of a breach of privilege in order to give precedence for a motion to be moved to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee. Yours sincerely,

Tom Roper Member for Brunswick Treasurer.

In the broad sense the head of privilege wlder which the complaint is founded relates to freedom from molestation. I refer honourable members to May, the twenty-first edition, at page 95. Within that broad head of privilege are many cited circumstances which can be considered to affect this freedom. These acts which may be considered as contempts are referred to in pages 126 to 129 of May, 21st edition, and in particular the threat of proposing to visit a pecuniary loss on a member, on account of his conduct in Parliament, has been considered a contempt. I refer honourable members to the Journal of the House of Commons 1898 at page 381.

A Victorian case in 1982 - the Ramsay case -was considered by the Speaker at that time and ruled that a prima facie case for precedence to be granted was present. The consideration of this case related to an alleged threat by a Minister to the member, Ramsay, that union action would be taken against his private business interests. A motion was proposed in the House for the matter to be referred to the Privileges Committee and, following an apology by the Minister, the motion was withdrawn. I refer honourable members to Hansard of 22 September 1982 at pages 555 to 558.

It is my view that the present complaint is similar in nature to those referred to above and, accordingly, can well be considered to fall within the ambit of that aspect of privilege. Accordingly, I have decided that a prima facie case has been made out that the matter should be given precedence by the House.

Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, a Clerk approached the Deputy Leader of the National Party and asked whether we had any objection to the filming of proceedings. I understood when you addressed the matter that you mentioned there had been a request from the media for this matter to be filmed. Do I take it you advised the media prior to advising the House that this matter was cOIning forward?

Also, I wlderstand that you initially advised the media you were not going to allow proceedings to be filmed. You have now advised that you will. Has pressure been put on you, Mr Speaker, by members of the government to ensure - -



Tuesday. 28 May 1991 ASSEMBLY 2501

The SPEAKER - Order! The Leader of the National Party has raised a point of order as is his right and he is entitled to be heard. The Chair is entitled to be able to hear him.

Mr McNAMARA - Since, from what I have been told, you have had two opinions yourself on this matter within the past couple of hours - firs~y, not to allow the media to film the proceedings on the privilege matter and subsequently to allow it - I should like to know whether you have had any pressure put on you in an improper fashion by members of the government - indeed, any fashion at all - and whether any improper threats were made against you, your office or the pOSition you hold as Speaker of this House.

Mr Kennan interjected.

The SPEAKER - Order! The Deputy Premier is making it difficult for the Chair to concentrate.

Mr McNAMARA - There is no need to get agitated about this!


The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Evelyn is well aware of the rules of the Standing Orders. I ask him to remain silent. I ask the honourable member for Richmond to remain silent to allow the Leader of the National Party to round off his point of order.

Mr McNAMARA - I want to make sure the comments I make are properly recorded. I do not intend to alter my Hansard like the Deputy Premier!


The SPEAKER - Order! If the Leader of the National Party wishes to raise a point of order he should do so directly and ignore interjections and also confine his remarks to matters relevant to the point of order.

Mr McNAMARA - I am concerned by the advice I have received that you have changed your view, Mr Speaker. I am not concerned that we are having these proceedings recorded. My concern is that some threats or persuasions have been used against you and your office. I ask you to advise the House why you changed your decision in the last hour or so to allow this charade and kangaroo court to proceed.

We are concenled about the high office of Speaker of this Chamber. I should like you, Mr Speaker, to advise members of the Chamber what pressures have been put on you personally.

The SPEAKER - Order! There has been absolutely no pressure whatever put on me in respect of any matters related to the current proceedings. Earlier this day I received an approach from representatives of the media asking whether, in the event that a matter of privilege did come before the House today, permiSSion for filming would be granted. At no stage was the press given any prior indication as to what was in my mind.



In accordance with the normal processes I sought the attitudes of the parties to such a request in the event of a privilege matter proceeding this day. There was some confusion about the advice from one of the parties and when that confusion was resolved I advised the press and the television channels that permission would be granted for filming to proceed as I have just announced.


Mr PERTON (Doncaster) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Wantima has used an unparliamentary term to which I take exception and I call upon her to withdraw it immediately.

The SPEAKER - Order! The Chair is unaware of the particular term but if the honourable melnber for Doncaster has taken exception I ask the honourable member for Wantima whether she will withdraw the term used.

Mrs HIRSH (Wantinla) - Obviously -

Mr Leigh - Be a man and withdraw.

Mrs HIRSH - Obviously the honourable member has taken notice of what I have said and, given that, I will withdraw, whether it is true or not.

Mr PERTON (Doncaster) - On a further point of order, that was not an unconditional withdrawal and not couched in the appropriate terms.

The SPEAKER - Order! I ask the honourable member for Wantima to make an unqualified withdrawal.

Mrs HIRSH (Wantima) - I withdraw.


That the complaint made by the Treasurer on 27 May 1991 be referred to the Privileges Committee for examination and report.

The SPEAKER - Order! Who seconds the motion?

Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) - I second the motion.

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - When I was elected to Parliament I never thought it would be my regrettable task to move such a motion, a motion to refer such an unprecedented and appalling threat against members to the Privileges Committee. As members of this House we are faced with one of the most fundamental assaults on Parliamentary democracy we have seen in this country or in any other civilised countries with which we prefer to compare ourselves.

Our Parliamentary and democratic society does not expect Parliamentarians to be threatened with reprisal or punishment, as the Leader of the Opposition did last Thursday, if they exercise their consciences and decision-making powers.



Last Thursday I received on my facsimile machine a press statement from the Leader of the Opposition marked specifically for my attention. This unusual action by the Leader of the Opposition was clearly intended to personalise the threat made earlier in the day. I understand that other members were similarly and personally threatened.


Mr ROPER - This happens to be a serious and important matter and if you do not understand that then that is your problem.

The fax said in part:

If the government has not caused a State election to be announced by midnight, Wednesday, 29 May 1991, then all sitting Australian Labor Party members of the Victorian Parliament who retire from Parliament after that date and prior to the next State election, or who stand as a candidate at the next election and subsequently lose their seat will be denied any access to the taxpayer funded component of their Parliamentary superannuation entitlement.

It went on to say:

However, any sitting ALP member who contests the next election and is returned to Parliament will be deemed to have public support for their entire Parliamentary service -

That is very grand of him, given that some of my colleagues have now been elected up to nine or ten times with public support -

and therefore their superannuation entitlement on eventual retirement or defeat will not be affected.

It then said:

ALP members in the Legislative Council who are not up for re-election at the next election will also be affected by this measure. The denial of the public component of the ALP members' superannuation will be achieved through special legislation. This will be introduced by the coalition government, and made retrospective for the entire Parliamentary service of all ALP Parliamentary members.

The fax then went on in the terms that you, Mr Speaker, read out earlier to make clear what the Leader of the Opposition would regard as a reaction to the measure that would persuade him to withdraw the threat.

I well recall the comments of Mr Speaker Wheeler when he commented on privilege on 22 March 1978:

May, at pages 149 and 150, summarises the position concerning the relevant head of privilege and it is clear that not only the offer of a money bribe or of other advantages but also alternatively attempts at intimidation are regarded as falling within the scope of contempt of Parliament.

The intention of the Leader of the Opposition is clear and unambiguous. This is not intimidation from outside the Parliament but from within.

In case the nature of the intimidation was not understood, on the evening of Thursday, 23 May the Leader of the Opposition appeared on Channel 9 news and said:



We are giving you five days now in which to decide how you want to arrange your financial affairs.

It is an interesting comment from the Leader of the Opposition - it is very generous! The comment regrettably demonstrates the fact that the Leader of the Opposition not only does not understand the privileges of the House but totally wishes to ignore and trample on them.

No member of this House could be under any illusion as to the intention of the Leader of the Opposition: he is clearly proposing to visit a pecuniary loss on honourable members on account of their conduct in Parliament. That action is specifically set out as contempt at page 124 of the 21st edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice.

As you mentioned, Mr Speaker, a parallel but less general matter was found to satisfy requirements for a prima facie case by Mr Speaker Edmunds following a complaint by the then honourable member for Balwyn. That these threats are conditional on the Leader of the Opposition being elected at some subsequent election does not diminish the threat.

The Parliamentary superannuation entitlements of honourable members are set out in the Parliamentary Salaries and Superannuation Act and are a contract between each honourable member and the Crown. Under that contract we are required to pay 11.5 per cent of our salaries to the fund and as a consequence we and our families are entitled to receive legally defined benefits on certain contingencies such as death, disability, defeat or retirement.

In that contract honourable members are not different from the community as a whole, and I remind honourable members, particularly those opposite, of what Peter Cole-Adams said in an article that appeared in the Age of 25 May under the heading "Super opportunism":

It would set a precedent that should alarm every government and, for that matter, private sector employee.

Consider what the employer, in this case the State, contribution to superannuation is. It is not a golden handshake or redundancy settlement,let alone a discretionary parting gift from a grateful boss to a loyal servant. It is deferred pay, something that has already been earned by the employee and provided for by the employer. It is part of the contract of employment. This is as true of the Parliamentarians' superannuation scheme as it is of those available to workers in industry.

The view put forward by Mr Cole-Adams, who is obviously attacked by honourable members opposite, has been endorsed widely by those who have examined the statement of last week. Even this morning, the Reverend John Howells, speaking after the Anglican synod's condemnation of the threat, made it clear that the way the Leader of the Opposition was acting was clearly such as to place at risk all members of our community, not just particular members of this Parliament.

Mr Elder - Are you on the synod?



Mr ROPER - I remind the honourable member for Ballarat North of what the Reverend John Howells said, as I am sure the honourable member needs to understand. He said:

These days superannuation is increasingly the way in which people provide for their retirement and it involves a contract between the employer and employee and this should be safe and secure for the people and to have security questioned and threatened, in this case for political reasons, but if it can be done then it could be done for industrial reasons or when there was a personal problem.

Who will contract to provide services, commence major developments or lend money if their business is subject to the retrospective whim of a Leader of the Opposition? Who will work for the Crown if their salaries and superannuation can be cancelled at the whim of the political party in power at the time?

Mr Spyker - Of a madman!

Mr ROPER - Yes, a madman in this particular area - I suppose that is a defence.

Superannuation arrangements in the public and private sectors are a contract, and contractual obligations must be met at the appropriate time.

The Leader of the OppOSition threatens that members of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund, currently all equal, will lose that equality according to their political allegiance. Unless they bow to his intimidation by tomorrow night, he will seek to deprive them of their entitlements. The Leader of the Opposition makes no suggestion of a judicial process.

Mr Kennan - He would sack the judges, anyway!

Mr ROPER - Just thuggery, not fair play. That needs to be emphaSised: just thuggery, not fair play.

The attempt by the Leader of the Opposition at intimidation of members is both dangerous and premeditated. The processes of its development were laid bare last Thursday monling on radio station 3A W. I quote from an interview:

KENNETT - Well, the procedure has already started. I have just briefed a couple of my staff members who have gone through the documentation and they're excited.

He did not mention anything about superannuation. He continued:

I will be having a leaders' meeting at 11 o'clock just to bring the coalition leadership together again, with the exception of the three that are over in China representing our interests and the coalition shadow Cabinet will meet at 11.30. The coalition itself will meet at 1.30 and I expect to be announcing to the public at 3 o'clock the fourth stage in this overall strategy.

In answer to another question he said:

Well, with the exception of the other seven leadership members and one staff member it has been totally withheld.

Earlier he had actually said he had met with a couple of staff members. He added:

PARLIAMENTARYPRnnLEGE


In other words, no-one else, no shadow Cabinet, no-one outside the Parliamentary leadership group has had a clue.

The interview continued:

MITCHELL - Oh well, they must all be speculating on it when they talk about it. KENNETI - Yes. MITCHELL - Is it dramatic? KENNETI - Yes. MITCHELL - Is it the most dramatic thing in Victorian politics for some years? KENNETI - Yes. MITCHELL - How long? KENNETI - I can never remember anything as dramatic as this ever being done.

It is almost as if he should have had his sign on saying, "Stay tuned!"

I remind the House that all honourable members, in their different ways, and with their different views, came to Parliament to serve Victorians. Nowhere is this more clearly spelt out than in the Minister's oath of office.

I, and presumably the Leader of the OppOSition before me, affirmed that I would "at all times and in all things discharge the duties of my office according to the law, and to the best of my knowledge and ability without fear, favour or affection".

The Leader of the Opposition wants to overturn those vital principles.

Mr Kennan - He thinks it's funny.

Mr ROPER - Yes, he thinks it is very amusing. The Leader of the OppOSition, who laughs foolishly, wants to overturn this system. He wants to overthrow the Westminster system with politics of retribution and revenge.

The House, when considering this matter, should consider the effect of this proposal on individual members of Parliament. For example, my colleague, the Minister for Sport and Recreation and the honourable member for Geelong North, was first elected to Parliament in 1964. After 27 years of distinguished and devoted service in Geelong and VictOria, his entitlements - we are told by the Leader of the Opposition - are now at risk if he does not act as the opposition demands.

I suggest the Leader of the Opposition speaks in particular to the sporting community which will tell him clearly about the huge contribution the honourable member for Geelong North has made both as a member of Parliament and more particularly as Minister. There are members opposite who also believe that as well.

The wife of the honourable member for Dandenong, Julia Blake, puts the choice facing her husband graphically:

... Terry is scrupulously honest. He has two choices, he either refuses to take the bribe, loses his pension or he crosses the floor of the House to vote with Jeff Kennett. He then becomes corrupt for the first time in his life at the hands of the man who wants to be the next Premier of this State.



Well I hope he doesn't. I don't want my husband to be corrupted. I'd rather go without the money.

2507

Who knows whether the threats made against government members may not in the future be extended to Liberal and National party members who incur the wrath of the honourable member for Burwood!

Let anyone who doubts the seriousness of this matter look at the coverage it has received over the past few days and look at the outrage expressed by groups of people in the community of all political persuasions.

Mr Bildstien interjected.

Mr ROPER - Really the honourable member for Mildura must be pulling his leg or trying to pull some other leg to suggest it is an orchestrated program. The Geelong Advertiser on Friday asked:

What other draconian measures, for instance, might a Premier Kennett deploy against others - and the public - if they pose a threat to his power? And power is the key word in this whole controversy. Mr Kennett appears more obsessed with winning it than he does with tackling the many problems facing Victoria.

To use the threat of this action to induce me and other honourable members to resign from Parliament is a clear and unequivocal contempt of Parliament. Honourable members need to be clear that it is a clear and unequivocal contempt of Parliament.

If a person wanted to secure one's vote or an absence from a vote and offered one a bribe he would be guilty of contempt. If instead of bribing one he threatened one with violence he would be guilty of a contempt of Parliament. If instead of a bribe or violence he threatened confiscation of one's property he would be guilty of contempt of Parliament.

That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has done. He has threatened to remove the entitlements of selected members of Parliament unless they carry out his wishes. That constitutes, by the standards of our Parliamentary system, a breach of privilege and a contempt of Parliament.

The matter must now be dealt with by the Privileges Committee of this House so that all honourable members can continue to carry out their duties, free from blackmail and intimidation. I strongly urge the passage of the motion.

Mr I. W. SMITH (Polwarth) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker -


The SPEAKER - Order! I suggest that if the Ministers for transport and police and emergency services wish to remain for the debate, they remain silent.

Mr I. W. SMITH - My point of order is that I ask you to rule on this matter: I have looked at the list of members on the Privileges Committee and I notice that the honourable member for Whittlesea, Mr Macdonald, and the honourable member for Oakleigh, Mr Mathews, are serving members of the Privileges Committee. I should have


2508 ASSEMBLY Tuesday. 28 May 1991

thought that those members had a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of the Privileges Committee deliberations, and therefore would render themselves ineligible. I ask you to rule on their suitability, on those grounds, to hear the charges levied by the Treasurer.

Further to my point of order, Mr Speaker, I direct your attention to Standing Order No. 2 on page 12 of the Standing Orders and Rules of the Legislative Assembly, under "General Rules", which states:

No member shall be entitled to vote in the House, in Committee of the Whole, or in a Select Committee upon any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any member so interested shall be disallowed.

The SPEAKER - Order! Honourable members will be interested to know that this question was dealt with in 1978 when a matter was raised by the then Leader of the OppOSition, Mr Frank Wilkes, and at that time the ruling, which I intend to uphold, was that members in the categories described by the honourable member for Polwarth are not ineligible. The purpose of a Privileges Committee is a fact-finding purpose. It does not make a decision. The final decision, if any, is to be made by the House. There is no point of order.

Mr KENNETI (Leader of the Opposition) - The proceeding today is the act of a discredited, dishonest, dispirited and leaderless government. It purports to raise a matter of Parliamentary privilege but it is nothing more than a miserable attempt to silence the critics of this administration.

Right from the outset, I have a message for the Victorian Labor Party: firstly, I will not be silenced; secondly, the coalition will not be silenced; and thirdly, the people of Victoria will not be silenced.

The proceeding today is not a matter of privilege, it is an extraordinary abuse of the forms of Parliament by a desperate government. It is driven by motivations of malice, fear, greed and self-interest - the hallmarks now of this Victorian Labor government.

Never has the description "indefensible calamity" been more relevant to the Australian Labor Party. Mr Speaker, if you want a message for that, look at the person who has raised this matter with you: the third most senior government Minister, the Treasurer, the man who currently seeks Parliamentary approval retrospectively for $35 million of public moneys from the Consolidated Fund that was spent without the authority of Parliament. The Auditor-General has said of this Treasurer that he has entered into a range of illegal, artificial financial transactions involving public moneys. It is not the coalition that should be in the dock today but the Treasurer and all the members of the Labor Party.

The coalition argues that this motion is an abuse of the Parliamentary process and a misuse of Parliament. This House is the last refuge in Victoria where the Australian Labor Party can claim majority support. Nowhere else in Victoria - not in the Parliament of Victoria but only in this House - does this group of men and women claim majority ~ilpport, and through it control of the Privileges Committee.



The government, through this motion, wants to gag the coalition and deny the public its voice in this place, because the policy enunciated the other day was not the policy I put together, but a policy of the coalition.


The SPEAKER - Order! The Treasurer was heard with very little interruption and the Leader of the Opposition is similarly entitled to be heard without interruption. It is becoming difficult even for the Chair to hear some of the honourable member's remarks, and I particularly ask the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Police and Emergency Services to remain silent because I do not wish to deny them the opportunity of participating in the proceedings.

Mr KENNETf - As I was saying, the motion seeks not just to gag the coalition, but to deny the public a voice in this House. The government will not debate the substantive issue, which is the need for a fresh election.

The Treasurer, in his letter to you, Mr Speaker, which was kindly passed on to me before the debate started, states that the coalition has intimidated the Labor Party members, including himself. The actions of the coalition cannot be regarded as contempt in the sense of either bribery or intimidation. The Victorian Parliament is a sovereign legislature and it has the constitutional powers to enact any law it sees fit on whatever ground it sees fit. That is obviously why government members are so upset, because they realise what I say is correct. Ultimately the public will decide this issue, and what we have proposed can be put into place. I am trying to explain why it can be done and why it will be done.

Within the constitutional power this Parliament can enact any law it wishes on whatever ground it sees fit. This great power flows from its character as a democratically elected Assembly of the Victorian people. In order that Parliament be free to exercise that power on whatever grounds and to whatever end it believes to be appropriate, it necessarily follows that members of Parliament must be free to advocate whatever change in the law they feel to be appropriate and to fearlessly articulate the reasons why such a course is to be followed. On this fundamental basis my announcement that the future coalition government would legislate in a particular way if specific action is not taken by government members of Parliament cannot be condemned.

All the coalition advocates is the passage of an Act of Parliament, which is the highest constitutional act of the State of Victoria. It cannot be a contempt of Parliament to assert that a future Parliament can and will make such legislation as it sees fit on such grounds as it sees fit; otherwise the freedom of the Parliament is a sham.

If the coalition's position today is determined, as it probably will be because the government has the numbers, as a contempt, consider how this House may react when next environmentalists call for particular legislation and threaten that they will campaign against political parties or individual members of Parliament. Is that a contempt? Is that intimidation? Or will such people be called to the Bar of the House?



What about when the Premier's personal friends, Mr John Halfpenny, or Mr Wally Curran, or the Victorian Branch of the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen, which is on strike today, state that if particular changes are made to the law they will strike? Are they then to be charged with contempt? Is that intimidation?

To take the government's argument to its logical conclusion, what is one to say of the practice of the Australian Labor Party whereby a member of Parliament faces expulSion and loss of preselection with all the attendant financial consequences if he or she follows his or her conscience on a particular matter and votes against the party line in Parliament? If the government is so concerned about the intimidation of members of Parliament, it should look closer to home in bringing charges of contempt.

What is the Treasurer so upset about, as outlined in the letter he sent to you, Mr Speaker? We have announced a policy in advance of an election and that policy asks the public to decide which, if any, of the ALP members of Parliament they believe to have discharged their duties well and should therefore be rewarded for their outstanding service and achievements in government. In short, we are making government members accountable to their employers - to the public.

I was interested in the Treasurer's comments about the relationship between the employer and the employee. I shall say more about that in a moment. It should not be forgotten that we are employed by the public. It is not your money, and it is not my money-we are talking about the public's money, and the public is entitled to hold us all accountable. What is so extraordinary about being accountable? Most people in the community are accountable.

Further, the opposition has given the government and its members until midnight tomorrow night to rearrange, if they wish, their financial affairs. What could be fairer? We could have announced the policy without giving them any time at all, so the moment we go and give them a break to rearrange their financial affairs they are upset about it!

Let me further announce now to the House and to the public that that deadline will not be extended. The opposition believes all Parliamentarians are accountable to those who employ them, the public. It has asked the government in the letter - -

Mr Thomson interjected.

Mr KENNETI - The opposition has asked the government to allow a change in the Constitution so that a fresh election can be held without a constitutional crisis. The government has refused that offer three times. The Premier said on air last week and earlier this week that she did not have the authority to go to an election. That is not so. The Constitution of this place is decided upon by both Houses of Parliament.

If there is goodwill and if the government wants to be accountable to the public, Parliament can change the Constitution. It is not good enough for the Premier to go around saying she has not got the power and cannot do anything about it. Of course she can. The trouble is she is not prepared to. The reality is that the Premier is not prepared



to take into account the very real needs of this community right through the State who are overwhelmingly calling for a fresh start.

Later today the opposition will give the government yet another opportunity to put the interests of the people ahead of its own.


Mr KENNElT - If it refuses, as appears it will, judging from the sounds that are coming from the government benches, it should accept responsibility for its actions and any loss of the public component of its superannuation if the public so directs in responding to the opposition's policy at the next election.

The opposition has done the right thing in giving the government a chance. All it is saying is that, given the condition of this State, the government has a responsibility to go to the people. If the government were prepared to do that it would allow an election to be held within three years and avoid a constitutional crisis. It can be done. It would assure that the office of Governor is never asked or called in to arbitrate. No public servants, their families or members of the public would be disadvantaged; neither would members of the government and their families or members of the Labor Party and their families.

All the opposition is saying is that there is overwhelming evidence, be it among the community - -

Mr Thomson - You can't wait, that's the only problem!

The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Pascoe Vale is out of order.

Mr KENNETT - The opposition is more than happy to wait. The question is whether, if it waits, more damage is done to the State and the community by you lot remaining in office. That is the key. The honourable member for Pascoe Vale who made such a contribution to the Parliament two weeks ago says we can't wait.

The real question here is - and it should be a test for all members of this House regardless of what side they are on - what is right now in the best interests of the people of Victoria? Is it to cling to office or is it to take on board the decline in private sector investment? Is it the lack of confidence by the business community? Is it the doubling in unemployment? Surely the public are entitled to a fresh start.

If the government were prepared to agree to this particular strategy of changing the Constitution, which it can, the Premier and her government could quite obviously remain the government in office during the conduct of any election campaign.

I have said and I say again if the government decides to reject this offer - and that is its option - it has to accept the consequences of what follows. It cannot argue, if we go into this election and the public gives us a clear message, if this policy is put in place.

Mr Speaker, in the Treasurer's letter to you he clearly does not express concern about the retrospective nature of our policy. He is currently seeking retrospective approval

PARLIAMENTARYPRnnLEGE


from Parliament for the way he treated the over-expenditure of public money. The concern of the government members today is not about public money but about their entitlement to more of the public's money. This motion is to try to silence us as the government continues to fail to be accountable to the public.

The real question the Victorian public should be answering is clearly: where has the Labor government's concern been when it has lost public moneys through its own mismanagement and incompetence and failed to disclose it to the public? In fact, it has tried to cover up the facts.

Mr Spyker interjected.

Mr KENNETT - How much was it? It was $4 million.


The SPEAKER - Order! Again I ask the Minister for Transport to remain silent. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to ignore interjections and I ask him to keep his remarks relevant to the motion b~fore the House.

Mr KENNETT - My remarks are relevant because the Treasurer is saying that this is a matter of privilege; that it is a matter of intimidation that we seek to take away government members' entitlements. If this is not to be a jumped-up kangaroo court, where was the government's concern when it lost thousands of millions of dollars of taxpayers'money?

The SPEAKER - Order! On the motion.

Mr KENNETT - It is on the motion, Sir. When the honourable member for Footscray oversaw the loss of $100 million of VEOC - -

The SPEAKER - Order! I advise the Leader of the Opposition that he must relate his remarks to the motion before the Chair. This is not an opportunity for an attack on unrelated matters concerning other members or other people.

Mr KENNETT - This motion was not put by me; it was put by the government whose members are more concerned with their loss of access to public moneys. Therefore, Sir, to call into account the loss of public moneys is relevant. Because of the losses and the deceit, we are putting forward this policy. The government and it members must be accountable for what they have lost and that is the whole basis of the policy we have put forward.

Between them the honourable members for Bundoora and Doveton have lost thousands of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. Where was the concern? What about the people who lost their jobs? The Minister for Conservation and Environment, in his first portfolio, botched up an early retirement scheme in the public transport sector at a cost of tens of millions of dollars. What about the sale of rolling stock that the public owned that we now lease back?




Mr KENNETI - The Premier asks what that has to do with democracy. The government was in a special position of trust. I guess that is why we are in this position today. When the losses of public money are recounted, the Premier of the State interjects: what has it to do with democracy? The public of Victoria has had a gutful of the way this government has lost public assets but the Premier sits there and asks what it has to do with democracy.

What about the people who have been affected by the bad decisions of the Deputy Premier who failed to act on Pyramid and then imposed a 3 cents a litre cost on all Victorians to make up his failure? Is not part of democracy how he does his job? What about the $100 million he lost through the Met ticket scam?

All government members in this House have presided over the greatest loss of public assets in the history of this State. Yet they ask us what right we have to put forward a policy that will have employers hold us to account. The Premier asks what that has to do with democracy. It has everything to do with democracy.

What is clearly being demonstrated today, as always, is that the government is greedy; it is motivated by self-interest. The government is not interested in being held accountable. Over the past eight years that the government has been losing public moneys, it has continued to deny and refused to accept responsibility. Now, when for the first time it may be held to account, the government screams and comes in here and moves a motion concerning privilege.

The bottom line is that not once did the government express concern for the loss of public moneys with which it was entrusted. Not once! Nor has it expressed concern for the growing social problems facing the community as a result of its economic mismanagement and deceit, particularly the increase in unemployment.

Yet now, when the government may be held to account to the public, when it wants to hang on to another $15 million of public moneys, when it has lost thousands of millions of dollars, it says that is unfair.

All the opposition has done is to enunciate a policy. It has put down a policy for the people of Victoria to decide upon, and the people of Victoria will decide upon it at the next election. I have no doubt that when the next election comes, whenever it is, members of the government in this place may lose $15 million or part thereof, being the public component of their superannuation entitlements. But that will be decided by the electorate.

The moment the opposition mentions such a policy the government screams intimidation. It screams privilege. It seeks to silence the democratically elected opposition from representing the community interest. It is the government that should be in the dock. It is the government that will be held to account when the day comes.

Today, through this motion, the government has displayed not only its absolute disregard for this place and its forms but also for the public it was elected to serve. In



every act the government has put its own interests before the public interest. In every thought the government's first instinct is for its own survival, and the public be damned!

Today the government seeks to accuse the coalition of a breach of Parliamentary privilege, but it is the government, which is in a position of privilege and trust, that has betrayed that trust.

Nothing exemplifies that better than the fact that based on the numbers in this House I, as the representative of the coalition, may be sent to the Privileges Committee, a committee to the ranks of which only a few weeks ago the government tried to appoint the honourable member for Thomastown - yet the honourable member for Thomastown has already admitted to lying and to having been involved in the Nunawading Province re-election scam.

The SPEAKER - Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw his reflection on the honourable member for Thomastown.


Mr KENNETf - Mr Speaker, he said it. He admitted it. How can I withdraw something if he admitted it himself?

The SPEAKER -Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw.

Mr KENNETI - I withdraw. The government obviously controls this House and through this House the Privileges Committee. Therefore many would argue that the result of deliberations here today or in a week or two's time is a foregone conclusion. The government has the numbers in this House - and we accept that - but this is the only place where it has the numbers!

I say to the failed Premier, the discredited Treasurer and to all members of the government that they should have the courage not to pass the matter now to the Privileges Committee but to take control of the matter here and now. It is in their hands. Have the Parliament resolve the matter, rather than sending it to the Privileges Committee. If you will, censure me today, or expel me today - -


Mr KENNETf - The government will not, just as the Premier, the Treasurer and the Minister for Conservation and Environment backed away from taking criminal proceedings against me.

It all boils down to the fact that the Privileges Committee is the only place other than this House where the government has control of the numbers, so it believes it is the only place where I should be tried. If that is so, put me in the dock; put the opposition in the dock!




Mr KENNETI - The Minister for Labour said, ''Don't bet on it". It is obvious from what you are saying that you are moving to take criminal action. Are you going to take criminal action?


Mr KENNETI -If you are, do it.


Mr KENNETT - This is the only place where the government feels secure because only here does it have majority control.

Ms Kirner interjected.

Mr KENNETI - Regardless of what happens -


Mr KENNETT - "Got you this time", says the Premier. I can tell you, I am sweating about that!


Mr KENNETf -It really worries me; I am really sweating about that.


Mr KENNETf - The school bell will ring shortly.


Mr KENNEIT - Mr Speaker, the Premier says by interjection that I have had it If I have had it I am feeling very relaxed and well, I assure you. Whatever the govenunent --


Mr KENNETI - Through you, Sir, I challenge the Premier to get up next and make a contribution.


Mr KENNETI - Over the past few weeks you have allowed everyone else to carry the leadership - -

The SPEAKER - Order! The Leader of the Opposition, through the Chair.

Mr KENNETI - I am being provoked by interjection! If there were a leader of government --


The SPEAKER - Order! It is impOSSible for honourable members to hear the Leader of the Opposition because of vociferous interjections from a relatively small number of members. I ask all honourable members to remain silent so that the Leader of the Opposition can be heard.



Mr KENNETI - Whatever the government does today and whatever may happen before the Privileges Committee, nothing will silence the coalition and nothing will stop it from carrying out its duties and responsibilities.

Ms Kirner interjected.

Mr KENNETf - That is very difficult to ignore! I challenge the Premier to get up next. You be a leader! You show it! Over the past couple of weeks the Premier has not been a leader. That has fallen to the Deputy Premier and to the Treasurer.

The SPEAKER - Order! On the motion.

Mr KENNETf - Regardless of which side we are on we are in Parliament to protect the public interest. Importantly, we on this side of the House are here to protect the people of Victoria from this scandalous and incompetent government; and we will honour our contract with the Victorian people.

Every Victorian knows that the government no longer has the capacity or the commitment to begin the rebuilding of this State. Every Victorian knows that the actions of the government have caused the crisis of confidence in this State, which has also affected the national economy.

The 45 members of the Parliamentary Labor Party in this House in real terms are now the ones who go into the dock because the public has forsaken them. Now their duty is to go to the polls and give every Victorian family and every Victorian business new hope and a fresh start.

At the end of the day each and every one of the government members will be held accountable not by the coalition but by the public of Victoria at the next election and if the honourable members on the other side do not believe it, let me say it again: every member on the other side will be held accountable by the Victorian electorate at the next election. We have given them the option to put the public interest first and if they refuse that, do not come back --

Mr Norris interjected.

Mr KENNETf - It is not another threat; it is a recognition that according to the way Parliament is put together, members have the right to articulate policies and ultimately the public will decide. Now the public will decide based on this government's clear greed, where it has put self -interest before the thousands of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money that it has lost.


Mr I. W. SMITH (Polwarth) (Speaking covered) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the members on the government side who are also members of the Privileges Committee and who also have pecuniary interests in this matter have remained in the Chamber to vote. They therefore should exclude themselves from membership of that committee.



ASSEMBLY 2517

The SPEAKER - Order! There is no point of order. Similar points of order have been resolved in the past. Honourable members are entitled to remain in the House.

Ayes, 45

Andrianopoulos, Mr Hill, Mrs Rowe,Mr Baker,Mr Hirsh, Mrs Sandon,Mr Barker, Mrs Jolly,Mr Seitz, Mr Batchelor, Mr Kennan,Mr Sercombe, Mr Cain,Mr Kennedy,Mr Setches, Mrs Cole, Mr Kimer, Ms Sheehan, Mr A. J. Crabb,Mr Leighton, Mr Sheehan, Mr F. P. Cunningham, Mr McCutcheon, Mr Shell,Mr Dollis, Mr (Teller) McDonald, Mr Simmonds, Mr Emst,Mr Mathews,Mr Spyker,Mr Fordham, Mr Micallef, Mr Thomson,Mr Garbutt, Mrs (Teller) Norris, Mr Trezise,Mr Gavin,Mr Pope,Mr Vaughan,Or Hamilton, Mr Ray,Mrs Walsh,Mr Harrowfield, Mr Roper,Mr Wilson,Mrs

Noes, 39

Austin, Mr Jasper, Mr Plowman,Mr BHdstien, Mr John,Mr Reynolds, Mr Brown,Mr Kennett, Mr Richardson, Mr Clark,Mr Lea, Mc Ross-Edwards, Mr Coleman, Mr Leigh,Mr Smith, Mr E. R. Cooper, Mc Mc<;rath,MrJ.F. Smith, Mr I. W. Delzoppo, Mr McGrath, MrW. D. Steggall,Mr Dickinson, Mr McNamara, Mr Stockdale, Mr Elder, Mr (Teller) Maughan,Mr Tanner,Mr Gude,Mr Napthine, Or Wade,Mrs Hayward,Mr Perrin, Mr Wallace,Mr Heffernan, Mr Perton, Mr (Teller) Weideman, Mr Honeywood, Mr Pescott, Mr Wells, Or

Motion agreed to.


RETROSPECfIVE LEGISLATION Mr KENNETI (Leader of the Opposition) - I refer the Premier to her numerous

recent public statements that she opposes retrospective legislation, and I ask: how does the government propose to recover the $35 million that was spent by the Treasurer without the authorisation of Parliament, without resorting to retrospective legislation?

2518



Ms KIRNER (Premier) - In the debate that has just concluded the Leader of the Opposition showed exactly how little he understands about the real issues before the House.

The real issue on the retrospectivity to which he refers was that it was recommended unanimously by a committee of this Parliament, and I would expect that the Leader of the Opposition, if he has any respect for the Parliamentary processes, would agree with a recommendation of that committee, and put it through.

CONDUCT OF CORPORATIONS Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - I refer the Premier to the law

governing the conduct of corporations and particularly a section of the Corporations Act dealing with offences relating to the incurring of debts or fraudulent conduct, and I ask: is the government satisfied that the corporate law fully protects the interests of ordinary shareholders against maladministration of company directors?

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - It is a very complicated question. I suspect it is a matter for the Commonwealth government rather than the State government, and I would like you to so rule, Mr Speaker.


Ms KIRNER - I would like you to so consider.


Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, perhaps the Premier might like the House to pause while she is briefed by the Deputy Premier!


Ms KIRNER (Premier) - My view is that the matter that has been addressed by the Leader of the National Party is a matter for the Commonwealth government. I would like you to consider that matter, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER -Order! It appears to the Chair that if the Premier is of the view that this is a Commonwealth responsibility, and that is her answer, that is sufficient reply to the question. It does not require a ruling by the Chair.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION Mr COLE (Melbourne) - Has the Attorney-General examined the implications of the

International Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Convention for Victorian legislation in this field?

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I thank the honourable member for his question and for his interest in this area. Honourable members will probably be aware that the Federal Constitution authorises the Federal Parliament to legislate with respect to external affairs, and members of this Parliament ought to be aware that this power



ASSEMBLY

includes the power to implement international agreements and treaties to which Australia is a party, and it is a power which has been recognised as being sweeping.

2519

It gives the Commonwealth Parliament the power to override State Parliaments and State legislation which are inconsistent with international treaties on, for instance, civil and political rights. As a judge in one case said, in recent years it has not been questioned that the treaty-making power in this country is unlimited.

On 13 August 1980 the Fraser government ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is a fundamental covenant from which all rights of equal opportunity, fairness, impartial courts and so forth are established and, in many respects, it is the fount of human rights Bills. For instance, in article 14 the international treaty expressly provides for the right of people in countries that are signatOries to an independent and impartial judiciary.

I have had this examined because it is of fundamental concern that there have been continuing threats now by the opposition to remove judges and to remove public servants on the ground of political discrimination. It now appears from a question on notice from the opposition that the magistracy in this State is also under threat from the opposition. What we have is a clear breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and a breach of the relevant Commonwealth legislation. It is the duty of the Commonwealth, being a Signatory to that covenant, where a State wants to transgress in the way proposed in a number of senses by the opposition, to override the State legislation that is in violation of the international treaty.

There are a number of other relevant articles. For instance, article 19 of the international treaty, to which this country is a Signatory, provides that citizens ought to be able to hold their opinions without interference. We have the most blatant proposed interference with this by the opposition when, as it has through the office of the Leader of the Opposition in the other House, it telephones public servants and asks them to name people in departments who hold political opinions that do not agree with the opposition's -people who they say have cooperated with this government.

There is no doubt that this is a banana republic approach to which the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is directed. It is unfortunate that we have to raise this matter in Parliament, but there are people out there who are becoming increasingly worried that the opposition has no respect for fundamental political and civil rights. The opposition threatens to sack judges and magistrates.

Mr DELZOPPO (Narracan) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, it is clear from the Standing Orders that during question time questions are asked to seek information, not to provide an opportunity for debate, as the Attorney-General is doing. I ask you to bring him back to order.

The SPEAKER - Order! I uphold the point of order. The Attorney-General has the opportunity to provide information but may not debate the matter.

2520



Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - By way of further information, I direct the attention of the House to article 25, which provides equal access to the Public Service in countries that are signatories to the covenant.

We have also seen threats from the opposition to the system of prosecutions in this State and attempts to stand over the police on this issue. It is a continuing campaign by the opposition to try to denigrate the fundamental principles upheld --

Mr DELZOPPO (Narracan) - On a further point of order, you have already ruled, Mr Speaker, on my last point of order and I ask you now to bring the Attorney-General back to order because he is defying your ruling.

The SPEAKER - Order! I remind the Attorney-General that he must confine himself to the points of the question and provide information, not argument. To that extent I uphold the point of order. I also ask the Attorney-General to round off his answer in view of the length of the reply.

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - In rounding off I mention also article 26 of the international covenant which states that all people have equal rights before the law and the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, political or other opinion.

Whether the opposition likes it or not this country has ratified that treaty as have all other countries which consider themselves to be civilised democracies and it is clearly within the power of the Federal Parliament, if legislation does not already exist, to override the actions of any State or any contradictory legislation.

CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT MEMBERS Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton) - I thought the mark of an oppressive regime was that

it threw its opposition leaders into gaol. I refer the Premier to her support for laws governing the conduct of directors of corporations and I ask: is it a fact that the Premier will act on the basis that the same standards should not be applied to members of her government who undertake and supervise improper and illegal financial transactions in the pursuit of their duties?

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - I expect my Ministers to act with Ministerial responsibility. They do.

TRICONTINENTAL ROYAL COMMISSION Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - The Premier will be aware that Tricontinental Corporation

Ltd is using the law firm Clayton Vtz at the Tricontinental Royal Commission. Is the Premier aware of the conflict of interest of this law firm in that it has concluded legal documentation for companies named in the inquiry as having received substantial loans from Tricontinental and, if so, is she concerned about this matter?

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - If the honourable member has any concerns about matters at the Tricontinental Royal Commission he should take them up with the commission.



ASSEMBLY

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION

2521

Mr W. D. McGRA TH (Lowan) - The Minister for Labour would be aware of the massive amount of managerial litigation initiated by the Accident Compensation Commission against current and former employees of the ABC, Channel 10 and others. Is it a fact that approximately $1 million has been expended to date on barristers' fees, staff time and so on, and what does the Minister intend to do to contain costs which primarily are directed at the actions of two of his officers?

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - I ask the honourable member to repeat his question. I could not wlderstand the first part of the question and I wonder also whether the matter is sub judice.

Mr W. D. McGRATH (Lowan) - The Minister for Labour would be aware of the massive amount of managerial litigation initiated by the Accident Compensation Commission against current and former employees of the ABC, Channel 10 and others. Is it a fact that approximately $1 million has been expended to date on barristers' fees and staff time, and what does the Minister intend to do to contain costs which are primarily directed at the actions of two of his officers?

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - I am not sure whether the matter is currently before the courts. I am also not aware of the amount of money that the honourable member says is being expended. On the general issue of administrative costs and medical and legal costs, I have instructed the Accident Compensation Commission management to start containing those costs because they were getting out of hand. With respect to the alnowlt of use of barristers and so on, I shall get back to the honourable member with an answer to his question.

STATE TAXES

Mr KENNEDY (Bendigo West) - I direct my question to the Treasurer and ask whether he has examined the Australian Bureau of Statistics release on State taxes. If so, has he had those figures analysed and what are their implications for Victoria?

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - I thank the honourable member for Bendigo West for the question. Last week I think those who were examining the issue of relativity between New South Wales and Victoria were not surprised when the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) produced its report on State taxes, fees and fines which clearly demonstrated, on its independent measure, that New South Wales has clearly been the highest taxed State over recent - -

Mr HONEYWOOD (Warrandyte) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has apologised to the New South Wales government for getting it wrong. Is the Treasurer referring to the wrong figures put out or the right figures put out?


2522


ASSEMBLY Tuesday. 28 May 1991

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) -Obviously the honourable member is very sensitive to what has occurred in New South Wales over the weekend.

The document made it clear that taxes, fees and fines in New South Wales were $104 a head higher than in Victoria. In fact the figures were higher in New South Wales than in Victoria for almost every revenue item: $29 a head higher for land tax; $71 a head higher than taxes on motor vehicles; and significantly higher in all the other areas.

The ABS demonstrated also that State taxes had increased in that five-year period at a lower rate in Victoria than in New South Wales and, indeed, in other States. Also - and this might be of interest to the honourable member for Warrandyte - the ABS made an apology for overstating New South Wales's payroll tax, but after allowing for that adjustment New South Wales was still more than $100 a head higher in taxation than Victoria.

Mr Sandon - How much?

Mr ROPER - More than $100 a head. If Victoria had had New South Wales's level of taxes in that financial year there would have been an additional collection here of $450 million. Since that date, and looking at last year's Budget figures, the difference between the two States will still be in the order of $100.

What the voters of New South Wales clearly said was that they did not approve of the high-taxing Greiner government in New South Wales, and it is important that honourable members in this place and people outside contrast the low level of tax increase in this State over the past half a dozen years with that in New South Wales and the fact that every Victorian is charged an average of $100 less than every New South Wales person.

TRICONTINENTAL ROYAL COMMISSION

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) -Further to the Premier's answer to my previous question regarding the clear conflict of interest of Tricontinental's legal representative, I ask: will the Premier give an absolute and unqualified assurance that there is no connection between Clayton Vtz and any current or former Cabinet member or of the Tricontinental or State Bank boards?

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - I have already answered that particular question, and I said that if the honourable member has concerns he should --


Ms KIRNER - You might wash your mouth!

Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the Premier got it wrong. It was not me.




ASSEMBLY 2523

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - That is this time, one would have to say. I have already given the answer to the question asked by the honourable member for Hawthorn and I have said to him that if he has concerns - -


Ms KIRNER - You know what happened to Greiner's education policy, and it is exactly the same as yours.

Mr Hayward interjected.

The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Prahran should come to order.

Ms KIRNER - He was a star performer on the 7.30 Report!

The SPEAKER - Order! I suggest that if the honourable member for Prahran wishes to remain in the House for the remainder of the day's proceedings he should exercise some self-control.

Ms KIRNER - As I said, the honourable member for Hawthorn is fully aware that if he has those concenlS he should refer them to the Royal Commission.

DEVELOPMENT OF METROPOLITAN PARKS Mrs GARBUTI (GreellSborough) - Will the Minister for Conservation and

Environment advise the House of progress being made in developing Plenty Gorge park?

Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) - I thank the honourable member for her question and her continued support of the government's program for extending metropolitan open space, particularly in her area of interest.

The Plenty Gorge Metropolitan Park will be a major new open space feature of Melbourne and is a key part of the government's open space program linking Port Phillip Bay to the ranges. The government is committed to and continuing with the progressive purchase of some 1400 hectares of land along the Plenty River stretching some 24 kilometres.

There has been extensive consultation involving friends groups, residents and the local council, and the continued development of the park was unanimously supported. It was with some surprise, therefore, that I read comments by an honourable member for Templestowe Province in the other place, Mr Miles, who has called for the park to be abandoned. He said there is no valid reason for the park and added that he believed it was an "unnecessary and restrictive proposal". It is astonishing to me that any member of Parliament would consider the establishment of a metropolitan park to be either unnecessary or restrictive. However, that point of view is put forward by some members of the opposition.

I hasten to add that the support for the park from the opposition spokesperson on conservation, Mr Birrell, has been unequivocal. However, when one adds the comments of Mr Miles, an honourable member for Templestowe Province in the other place, to the

2524



recent comments of the honourable member for Berwick, who told representatives of the Australian Conservation Foundation that "the environment movement should start getting used to be being in the political wilderness", one has some concern about the opposition's intentions regarding metropolitan open space, not to mention the wilderness.

It is disappointing that a member of the Upper House has opposed something as universally popular as the establishment of a metropolitan park. It is incumbent on the opposition to bring its backbenchers into order.

TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION REHABILITATION CENTRE

Mr BROWN (Gippsland West) - I refer the Minister for Transport to the fact that since 1986 the Transport Accident Commission has owned and operated a twenty-bed outpatient and in-patient rehabilitation centre at Glen Waverley, and I ask: is it a fact that the commission is seeking to dispose of the centre; if so, will the Minister advise the House who has been approached to purchase the facility, whether private enterprise has been invited to tender, and whether he intends offering any recurrent or capital funding as part of the disposal deal?

Mr Leigh - Hoon!

Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) - I would sooner be a hoon than a goon. Honourable members can understand the tension of the honourable member for Malvern. He is running around all over the place looking for a seat, but no-one will have him.

The honourable member for Gippsland West would be well aware that, under the legislation, the Transport Accident Commission makes its decisions independently. The Minister for Transport has the power to appoint the board, but I have no intention of suggesting any guidelines or interfering with the decision-making processes.

EMERGENCY SERVICES SUPERANNUATION SCHEME Mr STEGGALL (Swan Hill) - I refer the Premier to the government's arrangement

with the Emergency Services Superannuation Scheme, which was forced to borrow $220 million because the government has not paid the debt it owes to the scheme. Is it not a fact that this arrangement both disguises government debt and creates hidden debt commibnents for the next government?

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - The whole matter of superalUluation and its relationship to the debt is currently being examined by the government and we will be taking action to ensure that debt is reduced.

DANGEROUS GOODS TRANSPORTATION Mrs WILSON (Dandenong North) - I ask the Minister for Labour whether he will

advise the House of the progress of his efforts to clamp down on the illegal transportation of chemicals.



ASSEMBLY 2525

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - As of midnight the government has put in place a three-day blitz on two major highways. Road blocks have been set up on both the Western Highway in Horsham and the Hume Highway at Broadford and Tallarook.

The Roads Corporation, the highway task force of the Victoria Police, and the Environment Protection AuthOrity are manning the road blocks, and dangerous goods inspectors from the Department of Labour also are located at the road blocks. As at lunchtime today, some 792 trucks have been stopped and of those trucks carrying dangerous goods, 80 per cent did not comply with all the rules and the legislation.

That is a disgrace because, obviously, if a spill were to occur the emergency services would have great difficulty coping with the situation without any manifest of the goods being transported. Some 29 of the vehicles that were inspected proved to be unroadworthy and one or two had to be taken off the road immediately.

Given that dangerous chemicals are an important part of the chemical industry - an industry that is worth billions of dollars, is well regarded by the government and is necessary for the economy - the industry has to ensure that the handling and transportation of chemicals are done safely. It would appear from the blitzes we have conducted that transport companies have a great deal to learn about the transportation of chemicals.

We are presently conducting a number of blitzes and it is hoped the situation will improve. I assure transporters that the alternative routes are also being covered by Roads Corporation officers, dangerous goods inspectors and the police. If fines are not successful in curtailing the activities of non-compliance I can assure everyone that I will name the companies who are not complying with the various laws and regulations of the State. Irrespective of what the opposition might say, the government cares about the situation of chemicals being transported throughout the State and we want to ensure that they are transported without harm to either commuters or residents in the towns they go through.

GOVERNMENT CHEQUES Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick) - I ask the Premier whether she has received or

requested any advice from the Treasurer as to how many government cheques were formally dishonoured by banks due to insufficient funds in various bank accounts of the State between the months c;>f February to May this year. I direct the Premier's attention to the fact that at least six cheques to my knowledge have been bounced by the banks. Was this a matter discussed with the international credit agencies before Victoria's credit rating was downgraded?

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - I do not know what the opposition thinks it is using question time for but it is not on about getting information and it is certainly not on about anything that helps the State of Victoria.

In terms of the future of Victoria nothing is clearer than the fact that we have to address a series of major issues, including debt and the reduction of expenditure and the priority

2526



issues in those areas of social justice, the environment and the economy. The honourable member for Berwick comes into the House and constantly undermines the status of the State of Victoria. Every question asked by the opposition is about undennining the State of Victoria.

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the question was about the government's bounced cheques, not about a debate with the Premier about the state of opposition opinion on the State of Victoria. The government has been bouncing cheques and I want the information from the Premier about that matter.

The SPEAKER - Order! I do not uphold the point of order at this stage of the Premier's reply. I remind the Premier that her reply must be relevant to the question that has been asked.

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - I was making the point that at every opportunity, whether in questions without notice or outside Parliament, the opposition takes the opportunity to run down the State of Victoria. Why do they do it?

Mr Maclellan - How many cheques have bounced?


Ms KIRNER - How many preselections have you bounced? If the honourable member for Berwick's concern is about a constituent or a company that is concerned about not receiving payment he should raise it with the appropriate Minister. If he wishes to use Parliament to denigrate the State of Victoria, I will not be party to that.

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick) - On a further point of order, Mr Speaker, the Premier should know that I raised it with the Treasurer and with the Auditor-General.


INFORMATION AND COUNSELLING FOR SMALL BUSINESS Mr F. P. SHEEHAN (Ballarat South) - I have the honour of asking the first question

of the Minister for Small Business since he took up the portfolio. Will the Minister adviSE the House of the progress of efforts by his department to improve the provision of information and counselling services to small business in Victoria?

Mr HARROWFIELD (Minister for Small Business) - I thank the honourable member for his question and for ~ interest in the small business sector in Victoria. When the new portfolio of small business was established in January of this year the Small Business Development Corporation was transferred across as the main service delivery agent for the Department of Small Business.

I remind honourable members of the valuable role the Small Business Development Corporation has played over a number of years in delivering valuable support services to the people of Victoria. The corporation has a very impressive track record in providing support both to those people wishing to set up small businesses and to those in need of continuing support in their enterpriseS.



ASSEMBLY

I am pleased to advise the House of a developing role for the Small Business Development Corporation in prOViding additional outreach services to the small business community throughout Victoria. Over the past several weeks - -

2527

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - On a point of order, I realise the Minister is new, but it is unusual for a Minister to read the entire answer to a question. I ask the Minister to make his notes or the full answer available to the House.

The SPEAKER - Order! I ask whether the Minister was reading and, if so, whether he is prepared to make the notes available to the House.

Mr HARROWFIELD (Minister for Small Business) - I was referring only to notes, but I am happy for honourable members to have access to them. The Small Business Development Corporation has engaged in a series of outreach activities including seminars and information days in metropolitan Melbourne and country Victoria.

A number of information days have been extremely well received, including in the Wodonga area where the corporation recently held a meeting and an open day for the small business community. This was well attended, as was the open day in Horsham, in the electorate of the honourable member for Lowan. More than 750 people from the Horsham district attended. It was hosted by the corporation and the Wimmera Development Association. I hope the local member welcomed that initiative by the corpora tion.

A series of seminars held in the metropolitan area have been extremely well supported by the small business community in areas such as Prahran, Heidelberg and Altona. More than 1000 people were attracted from the small business community. The seminars have provided valuable support to those people.

I hope honourable members opposite will avail themselves of the opportunity of participating in future activities organised by the corporation in areas such as Moorabbin, as I am sure will those on this side of the House. Those activities are in fact supported by all members of the House.

The Small Business Development Corporation continues to play an important and valuable role in providing counselling, advice and support to the small business community. It is an integral delivery arm of my new Ministry and I welcome its activities in encouraging sinall business in Victoria to continue to participate in the way it has already done.

DEFERRED BUDGET PAYMENTS

Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton) - I refer the Premier to the $69 million of so-called deferred payments, which the government bumped from this year's Budget to the 1991-92 financial year and I ask: will she condone the Treasurer repeating this irregular practice of deferring payments into the next financial year, well knowing that this Labor government will not be in office by the end of it?



Ms KIRNER (Premier) - I wonder what the honourable member for Brighton proposes he might do with the deferred payment if we were unfortunate enough for him to be in a position where he could break contracts with organisations. On the matter of deferred payments, in times of difficulty the Catholic schools have an arrangement in place, which is satisfactory to both the banks and the schools, that those payments will be made over an appropriate period that allows the schools to work effectively.

In terms of libraries, again that is a matter that will be looked at in the forthCOming Budget. I find it interesting that the honourable member for Brighton should be so interested in the forthCOming Budget. It is fascinating that the Greiner New South Wales government - if it is still the government - has in fact almost paid the price for exactly the same sort of slash-and-burn policies on the public sector that are being proposed by the honourable member for Brighton and the Leader of the Opposition.

I would rather be in the position of working through the issues, whether they are libraries or Catholic schools, with a sense of priority and respect for the community than engage in the slash-and-bum policies of the opposition with no respect for the public sector.

DEFICITS IN NON-BUDGET SECTOR AGENCIES Mr J. F. McGRATH (Warrnambool) - I direct the attention of the Premier to the fact

that the government is responsible for deficits and losses in non-Budget agencies such as the Liquor Licensing Commission and I ask: what steps does she intend to take to ensure that these financial fiascos will not be passed on to future governments and future generations of Victorians?

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - There is always room to improve the efficiency of non-Budget sector agencies, and the record of our government is significant in terms of how it has improved that area. Take a look at the Transport Accident Commission (TAC), for example --

Mr Perrin interjected.

The SPEAKER - Order! I wanl the honourable member for Bulleen. He continued to interject immediately I cautioned him. I shall not warn him again and, if necessary, I will take the appropriate action.

Ms KIRNER - Not only is the Transport Accident Commission an efficient agency, but it is an effective agency - a word that is often forgotten by the opposition - in its delivery of service to the community. The TAC has been extraordinarily effective in changing the view of the community on the major issue of road safety.


Ms KIRNER - The honourable member for Brighton is anxious to claim some of the credit. At least the honourable member's interjection is an acknowledgment that the question asked is one that can be answered by the government. A number of agencies such as the Transport Accident Commi.ssion, the State Electricity Commission - which



ASSEMBLY 2529

still needs a lot of improvement but is moving to greater productivity - and the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works - which is improving its operations specifically in infonnation technology - are improving their operations.

When the government came to office these non-Budget sector agencies did their own thing. This government has brought them back and is making them efficient and effective agencies. That record is improving constantly.

CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAMS Mr SERCOMBE (Niddrie) - Will the Minister for Police and Emergency Services

advise the House of the progress of his efforts to further develop the effectiveness of the government's crime prevention program?

Mr SAND ON (Minister for Police and Emergency Services) - I inform the House that the Mayor of Epinay Sur Seine, Monsieur Gilbert Bonnemaison, will be visiting Australia in June and will come to Melbourne to be involved in a crime prevention seminar. Honourable members would be aware that Mr Bonnemaison is the architect of the very successful French crime prevention program, a community-based program, and we are looking forward to his assessment of the sorts of programs running in Victoria through our Good Neighbourhood program.

I know this will be of particular interest to the Leader of the Opposition because he has changed opposition policy on law and order. He has dropped the cherished idea that the only way you can manage crime is by recruiting additional police. I hear cries from the opposition backbench, but on 17 May in Ballarat the Leader of the Opposition stated:

Police in themselves are not the answer.

It is a change in the law and order policy of the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has indicated that you need more than just additional police to solve crime and assist in crime prevention. It would appear he has undermined the whole position of the Leader of the National Party, who will not be able to go around pleading in his electorate or anywhere else that it is only police numbers that will solve the crimes. Perhaps it reflects that the Leader of the OppOSition has been doing some research for once.

Indeed, it appears that he has a better wlderstanding than the opposition spokesperson that it is necessary to take account of both proactive and reactive measures within the police department. Mr Speaker, this government has an outstanding record when it comes to supporting the Victoria Police. This government has increased police numbers by some 20 per cent since it has been in office. Police numbers have increased by 1720 in the period we have been in office.

We have also increased the number of public servants within the Police Force to free police from doing clerical work to do operational work. That is a further indication of real commitment, but we go further. The govenlffient has also introduced protective service officers, again to free police from having to guard public buildings.

77841/91-82

PETITIONS


This government has taken account of the need for real increases in numbers and also, very importantly, of the need to understand the correlation between proactive and reactive policing. With Mr Bonnemaison coming out to examine the sorts of initiatives we have under our Good Neighbourhood program - most honourable members would have Good Neighbourhood programs in their electorates - the government has been able to provide an excellent mix of what is necessary in dealing with crime and crime prevention.

PETITIONS

The Clerk - I have received the following petitions for presentation to Parliament:

Bus service for Melton To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Victoria respectfully asks that the Victorian government recognise Melton's rapidly expanding population growth and acknowledge its status as an outer metropolitan area of Melbourne:

by the introduction of more practical bus services that more effectively and efficiently meet the needs of its people;

specifically by restoring the Melton to Sunshine hourly bus service on a Saturday;

by the introduction of a Melton to Sunshine bus service on Sundays and public holidays; and

by restructuring existing bus routes that reflect the present needs of the travelling public in Melton.

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

By Mr Cunningham (114 signatures)

Funding for disabled children To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria:

Objects strongly to the lack of adequate funding to enable the successful integration of disabled children into our mainstream schools and kindergartens.

Your petitioners therefore pray that while the numbers of integration children are increasing each year, there also needs to be a corresponding increase in funds. This will ensure that what has been a successful program will continue. These children have the right to reach their full potential, but like all children they must be given the opportunity to do so.

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

By Mr Wall ace (1451 signatures)

Safety helmets for bicyclists To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS


That your petitioners are gravely concerned that the introduction of the bicycle helmet wearing mandatory regulation has the effect of increasing the risk of having an accident by the combined reasons of 1 to 7 as listed:

1. Increased fatigue due to the extra weight on the head.

2. Increase in head temperature.

3. Giving the rider a higher centre of gravity, making turning less stable.

4. Peripheral vision reduction in some cases.

5. Noise effects: many cyclists experience noise increase which reduces their awareness of approaching traffic.

6. Reduction in the head's ability to move quickly in observing traffic, due to increased weight and chin strapping.

7. Having a feeling or sense of being safe, reducing caution and taking increased risks.

The combined risks of 1 to 7 being reflected in the Victorian accident statistics for years 1984-89 as cyclists aged 17-50 years old had a 119 per cent increase in accidents.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Parliament will change the law to ensure that for bicyclists over eighteen years old there is no legal requirement to wear a helmet.

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

By Mr Wallace (1005 signatures)

Laid on table.

ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

Ms KIRNER (Premier) presented Administrative Arrangements Orders Nos 89 to 91 of 1991.

Laid on table.

REPORT OF SUPREME COURT JUDGES

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) presented, by command of His Excellency the Governor, report and supplement of Supreme Court judges for 1989.

Laid on table.

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION

WorkCare

The SPEAKER presented AcCident Compensation Commission quarterly report for March 1991 given to the Speaker pursuant to Accident Compensation Act 1985.

Laid on table.

PAPERS


PAPERS Laid on table by Oerk:

Broadmeadows College of TAFE - Report for the year 1989. Coleraine and District Hospital- Report and Statement of Accounts for the year 1989-90. Hawthorn Institute of Education - Report for the year 1989. Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 - Report by the Treasurer with respect to the recommendations made by the Economic and Budget Review Committee's report on Program Budgeting. Planning and Environment Act 1987 - Notices of approval of amendments to the following Planning Schemes:

All Planning Schemes - No. S15. Alexandra Planning Scheme - No. L17. Ararat (City) Planning Scheme - No. Lll. Benalla (City) Planning Scheme - No. L19. Bendigo Planning Scheme - Nos L21, L23 Part 2, L25, L26 Part 1. Brunswick Planning Scheme - Nos L2, L6 Part lo Bulla Planning Scheme - Nos L41, L45. Caulfield Planning Scheme - No. LIlo Daylesford and Glenlyon Planning Scheme - No. L2. Dundas Planning Scheme - No. 1.3. Echuca Planning Scheme - No. LB. Frankston Planning Scheme - No. L24. Geelong Regional Planning Scheme - No. R45 Part 2. Gisborne Planning Scheme - Nos LI0, L14. HunUy Planning Scheme - No. L20. Lillydale Planning Scheme - No. L74 Part 2. Melbourne Planning Scheme - Nos L67, L68. Mornington Planning Scheme - No. 1.31. Oakleigh Planning Scheme - No. L16. Prahran Planning Scheme - No. L22. Preston Planning Scheme - No. RL121. Ringwood Planning Scheme - No. L10. Rosedale Planning Scheme - No. 1.30. Sandringham Planning Scheme - No. L4. Talbot and Clunes Planning Scheme - No. L9. Tambo Planning Scheme - No. L41. Warrnambool City Planning Scheme - No. U8. Yackandandah Planning Scheme - No. L6.

State Training Board - Report for the year 1989-90. Statutory Rules under the following Acts:

Agricultural Chemicals Act 1958 - SR No. 85. Fisheries Act 1968 - SR No. 86. Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 - SR No. 87. Public Service Act 1974 - Public Service Determination No. 14.

CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY) BILL (No. 2)


Proclamations fixing operative dates in respect of the following Acts pursuant to Order of the House dated 25 October 1988:

Corporations (Victoria) Act 1990 - Section 98(2); 22 May 1991 (Gazette No. G19, 22 May 1991). Courts (Amendment) Act 1990 - Section 13; 1 June 1991 (Gazette No. G18, 15 May 1991). Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Further Amendment) Act 1990 - 15 May 1991 (Gazette No. G18, 15 May 1991).

CONSTITUTION (DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY) BILL (No. 2)

Mr KENNElT (Leader of the Opposition) - I desire to move, by leave:

That Standing Order No. 64 be suspended in so far as it would prevent the consideration of the Constitution (Dissolution of the Legislative Assembly) Bill (No. 2), which contains provisions the same in substance as that previously rejected by the House in the course of proceedings on the Constitution (Dissolution of the Legislative Assembly) Bill during this current session.

Leave refused.

Mr KENNElT (Leader of the Opposition) - That being so, I desire to give notice that tomorrow I will move:

That Standing Order No. 64 be suspended in so far as it would prevent the consideration of the Constitution (Dissolution of the Legislative Assembly) Bill (No. 2), which contains provisions the same in substance as that previously rejected by the House in the course of proceedings on the Constitution (Dissolution of the Legislative Assembly) Bill during this current session.

PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - I desire to move, by leave:

That this House grants leave to permit the Privileges Committee to meet and take evidence during the sittings of the House in relation to the matter referred to the committee for examination and report by this House on 27 May 1991.

Leave refused.

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - As the opposition is so sensitive, I desire to give notice that tomorrow I willlnove:

That this House grants leave to permit the Privileges Committee to meet and take evidence during the sittings of the House in relation to the matter referred to the committee for examination and report by this House on 27 May 1991.

Mr PERRIN (Bulleen) -On a point of order, Mr Speaker, today's date is 28 May. I understand the matter referred to the Privileges Committee was referred today and not yesterday, which is the date mentioned in the motion.

The SPEAKER - Order! The date in the motion refers to the date on which the complaint was made not the date of resolution by the House. There is no point of order.

CRIMES LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL (No. 2)



Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I desire to move, by leave:

That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to consider new ~lauses to the Crimes Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (No. 2) to provide that-

(a) for the purposes of clause 15 (8)(a) and 16 (1)(a) of Schedule 5 to the Magistrates' Court Act 1989, proceedings for offences that commenced before 1 June 1991 must be taken to commence on 1 June 1991; and

(b) the validity of certain orders made at a committal proceeding before 1 June 1991 are not affected; and

(c) certain orders that a defendant not stand trial are of no effect and must be taken never to have had any effect; and

(d) for the purposes of those clauses a proceeding in relation to an indictable offence triable summarily commencing on or after 1 June 1991 must be taken to commence on the day the Magistrates Court decides that a committal proceeding must be held because the conditions for a summary proceeding set out in section 53(1) of the Act are not satisfied; and

(e) an order pursuant to clauses 15(9) or 16(2) of Schedule 5 that a defendant not stand trial for an offence does not take away the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions to make presentment at the Supreme Court or County Court of the defendant for that offence.

Motion agreed to.

APPROPRIATION MESSAGES

Messages read recommending appropriations for:

Deakin University (Victoria College) Bill

Racing (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill

CASINO CONTROL BILL

Order of the Day read for resumption of debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Norris) -Order! I am of the opinion that this Bill requires to be passed by an absolute majority.

Second reading

Debate resumed from 14 May; motion of Mr KENNAN (Minister for Major Projects).

Mrs WADE (Kew) - In September 1990 the coalition announced its support for the establishment in Victoria of a world-class casino. The announcement followed the recommendations of an inquiry established by the coalition, which found considerable public support for a casino in Victoria.

CASINO CONTROL BILL


That finding proved to be correct, because following the coalition's announcement of its support for a casino in Victoria the Morgan gallup poll organisation conducted a poll on the issue, which shows that 68 per cent of Victorians interviewed were in favour of a casino being established.

Following the Morgan poll results the government decided it had better catch up with both the initiative taken by the coalition and the views of the Victorian public, and shortly thereafter announced that it favoured the establishment of two casinos, one of which was described as a world-class casino and the other as a small club casino.

The Casino Control Bill should be regarded as a coalition initiative. However although the coalition is prepared to take credit for the policy of establishing a casino in Victoria, it is not prepared to take responsibility for the detail of the Bill, which I shall comment on later. Suffice it to say that, as is the case with Bills introduced by the Minister in his capacity as Attonley-General, the Bill requires substantial amendment in this House, even after which it will still contain defects.

It is Significant that the Bill is being handled by the Minister in his capacity as Minister for Major Project~, not as Attorney-General. At first I thought that the development side of the Casino Control Bill would be handled by the Minister for Major Projects with his development hat on and that the regulatory aspects of it would be handled by the Attorney-General with his regulatory hat on.

On that basis I first asked for a briefing on the regulatory aspects of the Bill from the Attorney-General's Department. Officers of the department informed me that they had nothing to do with the Bill and that it was purely the initiative and responsibility of the Major Projects Unit. I was then referred to the unit for a briefing, which I subsequently received. I doubt that the Major Projects Unit has the expertise to deal with the regulations required for the establishment of a casino or the supervision of a facility that could attract criminal elements.

The establishment of casinos involves a lot more than their mere development; it involves the setting of new taxes and licence fees and ensuring that proper controls are instituted - especially when the history of casinos in other parts of the world shows how easily criminal elements have infiltrated their management structures.

Over recent years Australian Royal Commissions have revealed the presence of organised crime in this country. Evidence has been provided to show that there is no doubt not only that money can be laundered through casinos but that it is and has been laundered through apparently reputable cash businesses.

Little has been done to improve the situation, and I understand that the Royal Commission into Western Australia Inc. may reveal information very relevant to the consideration of the Bill if it is not prevented from doing so by the Western Australian govenunent.

The coalition has given a very high priority to the examination of the regulatory aspects of the Bill. As shadow Attorney-General I am handling this Bill on behalf of the coalition

CASINO CONTROL BILL


because of the extreme importance of those regulatory aspects. In considering the Bill I have been assisted by expertise from other areas, and particularly by the shadow Minister for sport recreation and racing, the honourable member for Gisborne, who has examined the effect a casino may have on the racing industry; and by the shadow Minister for Major Projects, Mark Birrell, in another place.

There is no doubt that Victoria needs more job opportunities and the creation of more new jobs. A casino would provide many more jobs in Victoria.

A casino could be housed in an existing building and several buildings have been suggested as being suitable for the accommodation of a casino.

Mr Maclellan - ALP headquarters.

Mrs WADE - What about the Trades Hall? Suggestions include the old Spencer Street railways building, the Royal Exhibition Building and a number of my constituents have suggested the Willsmere buildings as appropriate to house a casino. Also, various buildings in Collins Street would be suitable. Any buildings suggested as suitable for consideration will require major renovation and reorganisation of the interior, as has happened with the Adelaide casino.

Alternatively, a new world-class casino could be established in a new world-class building, thereby creating thousands of jobs in the building and associated industries. Once in operation a casino will create many job opportunities, particularly for young people; that is important because they are suffering from the lack of jobs in Victoria. Victoria's unemployment situation is worse than that of any other State.

Jobs are likely to be created in ancillary industries, including tourism, because of the establishment of a casino. The tourism industry is very supportive of the casino proposals. It believes a casino would add to the attractiveness of Melbourne as a tourist destination. Some say it would attract additional tourists while others are of the opinion that it will keep tourists who may already visit Melbourne in this city for an additional night or two, with the consequent expenditure of additional tourist dollars.

Whatever happens, there is little doubt that a casino will result in an increase in domestic and intenlational tourism, thereby resulting in more jobs and more money for Victorians. The Victorian Tourism Commission has said international tourists spent $660 million in Victoria in the 1989 calendar year.

Casinos provide an additional revenue source for governments. There will be no dispute that a casino can be a very attractive revenue source because it may be regarded as an optional taxation source. No-one is forced to gamble. Revenue from gambling is from citizens who gamble voluntarily. Notwithstanding the fact that it is an optional contribution, the community benefits from any revenue.

One argument suggests that compulsory taxation should not be increased when people are able to pay voluntary taxation, and enjoy themselves while doing so. Victoria already collects substantial revenue from gambling; in 1989-90 it collected $464 million.

CASINO CONTROL BILL


Although at least initially the introduction of a casino may result in a downturn in revenue from other forms of gambling, the overall revenue would rise significantly.

2537

The coalition has not overlooked concerns expressed about the effect of any casino on various Victorian racing codes. In Victoria the racing industry provides a large number of jobs in a number of different areas and is an important source of tourist income.

The experience in other States demonstrates there has been no substantial decrease in totalisator turnover after the introduction of casinos. It is unlikely that the Totalizator Agency Board revenue in Victoria will decrease because of the opening of a casino. That aspect has been of particular interest to the honourable members for Gisbome and Warmambool; I am sure they will continue to apply more detailed considerations to the effect of any casino on the racing industry.

Everyone is aware that potential Victorian revenue is being lost to interstate casinos, and particularly to poker machines in New South Wales, because of the absence of casino gambling facilities in Victoria. That leads me to the major point about the establishment of a casino: if people wish to gamble in a casino is it the role of government to prevent the establishment of a casino particularly when the consequent benefits will apply to everyone in the State? The answer is common to both sides of the House: it is not the proper role of a goven1ffient to prevent the establishment of a casino unless the disadvantages of such establishment outweigh the advantages.

I have already referred to the major disadvantage, namely, that in the past organised crime has been associated with casinos. However, there is little evidence that criminals have infiltrated legal casinos in Australia, largely because of the very stringent vetting of applications for casino licences and because of the very intense supervision over Australian casinos. But high profit tunlover may be very attractive to criminals because the consequent opportwlity for money laundering may be created.

That fact is of great concern because money laundering occurs in businesses that have a high cash turnover. On a number of occasions I have said there is a demand for businesses where additional cash can be disguised, applying particularly to small retail businesses - including cinemas - where large amounts of cash may be spent. It is difficult to know how much is outlaid and how many people are attending a particular business on a particular day in such industries.

Extensive gambling can attract loan sharks who charge high interest rates on their loans. Some people are concenled about the increase in pawnbroking businesses and loan businesses following the introduction of a casino.

The final point made to the coalition parties by people concerned about possible criminal elements becoming involved in casinos is that casinos give people the possibility of identifying public figures involved in important decision-making areas who may also have gambling habits, and whose decisions are subject to influence if their gambling habits are not controlled.

CASINO CONTROL BILL


The government has referred the issue of the establishment of a casino to Mr Xavier Connor, QC, who has presented two reports covering the issues involved and has indicated that an examination of Australian casinos does not lead to the conclusion that the matters to which I have referred are major problems in Australia.

However, the key to permitting people who want to gamble in casinos to do so is keeping out criminal elements who may wish to use a casino for any of the purposes I have mentioned. Therefore the coalition considered the Casino Control Bill with a view to determining whether the Bill provided sufficient powers for and obligations on the proposed Casino Control Authority to ensure that criminal elements would be kept out of any casino established in Victoria, that is, whether proper control of the casinos would be exercised and appropriate vetting of potential casino operators would be undertaken.

Unfortunately, an examination of the Bill does not provide the answers to the questions asked. The Minister's second-reading speech also was uninformative, although it did give some clues as to his thinking.

The Bill seems to be a masterpiece in this regard; it is comprised of 89 pages and really tells honourable members very little about how it is proposed the casinos will be controlled under this government. For instance, no indication is given of the type and the number of casinos that are proposed to be established, whether the casinos will be limited to being established in Melbourne or whether the possibility exists that under this government casinos will be established in country Victoria.

The Casino Control Authority, to be established under the provisions of the Bill, will be able to grant exclusive rights to a proposed casino operator. That is, the authority will give an undertaking not to grant a licence to another casino operator for another casino of a specified type within a specified distance of the first casino. Those exclusive rights can be conferred only with the consent of the Minister. No indication is given of the basis on which such rights will be granted. No indication is given of how it can be determined or how the Minister would view such grants of exclusive rights. No indication is given of whether these exclusive rights will be considered when the government is calling for tenders, as recommended by Mr Connor, or whether the exclusive rights will be negotiated later with the successful applicant.

Clause 7 gives the Minister considerable powers. It provides:

The Minister may from time to time give a direction in writing to the Authority as to anyone or more of the following matters:

(a) the maximum permissible number of casinos;

(b) the permissible locations for casinos;

(c) the required style and size of casinos generally or of any particular casino;

(d) any other prescribed matter involving casinos.

No indication is given as to when those directions will be given, whether they will be given prior to the expressions of interest being lodged or prior to the tendering for a

CASINO CONTROL BILL


casino licence, and no indication whatsoever is given of the basis on which the Minister will give the directions.

The clause does not even make it clear who exactly is the Minister referred to in the Bill. One assumes it is the Minister for Major Projects, that is, the Minister administering the Act, but under the Administrative Arrangements Act the Act could be split up among a number of Ministers. It might be possible that the Minister referred to in clause 7 will be the Treasurer, in which case the Minister might be interested only in maximising the revenue gained from the casino and directions he might give under clause 7 might not be based on the best possible place in town planning or community benefit terms but merely on the best revenue terms.

I should be interested to hear a comment from the Minister on who exactly will administer the Act and what other safeguards could be put in place for the exercise of this discretion.

The Bill enables the government to establish an unspecified number of casinos; it is silent on the number of casinos. The Bill indicates that casinos - plural - will be established but otherwise no indication is given of how many casinos and what sorts of casinos are proposed to be licensed by the government.

Certainly in moving the second reading of the Bill the Minister spoke of /la world-class casino" and "an unobtrusive club casino". Interestingly, the Minister did not repeat what I understood to be the government's commitment on the world-class casino being in the Docklands area; he was silent on that point. I invite the Minister to clarify this during his response. Does the government intend the major casino to be in the Docklands, and, if so, how is this to fit into the planning of the Docklands and what sort of timetable does he envisage for its construction?

If the government does envisage that the major casino will be in the Docklands, is it clear that people wishing to establish a world-class casino on other sites are to be excluded from the expressions of interest process that he has announced he will be putting in train in the next month or so, or are the expressions of interest that will be called for in the next month or so limited to his "unobtrusive club casino"? All these issues should be before the House during the course of the debate on the Bill.

Another problem is that the Bill provides no basis for equity among casinos. A possibility exists that several casinos could be licensed but the provisions of the Bill can apply differently to each casino that is established. The period of the licence for a casino is not specified; it will be specified in the licence or possibly in an agreement between the government and the casino operator.

The Bill provides for various types of payment to be made. A tax will be payable for three years after the clause containing the provisions relating to the tax is proclaimed. Apparently the tax will be phased out after that time. It would apply to a casino coming into operation in the first three years after the legislation is proclaimed; it would not apply, apparently, to any casino established after that time. I should be interested to hear an explanation from the Minister as to why that should be so.

CASINO CONTROL BILL


In addition to the tax, an annual fee will be payable for the licence. Like the tax, the annual fee can vary from casino to casino. No basis on which it is established is made clear by the Bill. Apparently it is a matter for negotiation between the government, the Casino Control Authority and the proposed casino operator.

An annual levy is payable in addition to the tax and the annual fee. The levy will go to various good causes, also unspecified in the Bill. Each of these payments also can vary from one casino to another.

The Minister owes honourable members an explanation on these provisions, if not some amendment to the Bill. He should explain how the provisions will operate because the Bill says nothing about the level of the taxes, the fees or the levies that are mentioned in it.

Another odd feature of the Bill is that it does not indicate to whom the taxes or the fees will be payable. One has to assume they are payable to some organ of the government but the Bill does not indicate who will receive the taxes and fees. It is extraordinary that this is so because the Bill is supposed to be modelled on the Queensland legislation, which makes it quite plain that the fees and taxes are payable to the government. It may be that part of these moneys is to go directly to prOViding for the expenses of the Casino Control AuthOrity and the director of casino surveillance, but again the Bill says nothing about that. It is a Bill you have when you do not want anyone, least of all Parliament, to know exactly what you are proposing to do.

In the Minister's second-reading speech he said that the Bill is the result of the Connor Board of Inquiry into Casinos in Victoria. Honourable members will recall that Xavier Connor QC recommended against a casino for Victoria, following an inquiry that he undertook on behalf of the government in 1982-83 and Mr Connor has made it quite clear that he has not changed his mind, that he believes Victoria would be better off without a casino.

Nevertheless, he was asked by the government to undertake a study of the type of legislation and control that would be necessary if the government went ahead with its one big and one small casino policy of last year. The government asked Mr Connor to do this on 19 December 1990, immediately before Christmas, and he was asked to report the outcome by 14 February, so Mr Connor was limited to eight weeks over the Christmas/New Year period to look at the whole question of the control, regulation and establisrunent of casinos in Victoria.

Of course, he had the expertise behind him of his previous inquiry, but his previous inquiry recommended that there should not be a casino, so this time he was starting with a totally different proposition - that there would be not one but two casinos, and in that eight-week period he had to come up with an acceptable proposal for the regulation of those casinos.

In fact, he has done an excellent job in that short time. He has made a number of recommendations to the government, including detailed recommendations on proposed

CASINO CONTROL BILL


legislation. Not all of these recommendations have been included in the Bill, and I should like to run through a few of the recommendations that have not been included.

One was the recommendation for the establishment of a Casino Control Authority. The whole system of casino control in Victoria will depend on the integrity, the capacity and the experience of the people who comprise the Casino Control Authority. Mr COlU\or recommended that the Casino Control Authority be chaired by a full-time president who is a barrister and solicitor of at least ten years standing. The Bill does pick up that recommendation, but it also adds as an option a person who has been a magistrate for not less than ten years, and the Minister should explain to the House whether that addition results from the fact that anyone in particular has been chosen for this job and, if not, why it was thought that a magistrate of ten years standing would be particularly appropriate.

The COlU\or report also recommends disciplinary provisions and secrecy provisions similar to those operating in the Queensland Act, and again I ask the Minister why the very detailed provisiOns of the Queensland Act have not been incorporated in the Bill. In fact, several pages of the Queensland Act were substituted in this Bill with a couple of much less detailed provisions.

On pages 94 and 95 of the report there is a recommendation for an appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court against a decision of the Casino Control AuthOrity on a number of grounds. The COlU\or report recommended that there be no appeal to the courts on the merits of a decision by the Casino Control Authority, but there was a recommendation for appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court by way of review on the grounds of a breach of the rules of natural justice, failure to observe procedures required by law to be observed, lack of jurisdiction, a decision not being authorised by the Act, an error of law, or fraud.

That seems a sensible recommendation and it covers all the areas one would expect an appeal to cover, given that the recommendation was that there was not to be an appeal on the merits of an application. However, the appeal given by the Bill is an appeal on the grounds of a failure to observe the rules of natural justice or any other prescribed grounds, and it is not to the Full Court of the Supreme Court but just to the Supreme Court. I have been given to understand that some amendments may be made to this clause, and I trust that they will pick up the recommendations of the Connor committee.

I should also like to ask the Minister where clause 149 of the Bill came from. It states that the Liquor Control Act 1987 does not apply to a casino operator or to the sale or consumption of liquor in a casino except to the extent that the regulations otherwise provide.

I can find nothing in either the COlU\or report or the Queensland legislation which is in any way similar to this clause, and I cannot understand why it should be necessary. One would imagine that while there may be a need to give exemptions from some of the provisions of the Liquor Control Act it does seem to be very flexible these days, and one cannot understand why it could not apply to a casino.

CASINO CONTROL BILL


I also query the drafting of the clause. Having just read it aloud, I cannot see why a casino operator, just by being a casino operator, should be totally free of the provisions of the Liquor Control Act, whether he is in his casino or elsewhere.

The Bill as it stands at present seems to suggest that once you are a casino operator you can go wandering around establishing premises for the sale of liquor anywhere in Victoria, and this is totally out of the control of the liquor authorities or indeed the police. The Minister for Major Projects, who is also the Attorney-General, might like to go around telling us how much he favours plain English, and perhaps this is a plain English provision, but if one reads it as plain English it states:

The Liquor Control Act 1987 does not apply to -(a) a casino operator ... except to the extent that the regulations otherwise provide.

The Minister for Major Projects, as I said, is also the Attorney-General and he is now saying that the casino operator can be brought into line under the Liquor Control Act by the regulations. That is the complaint that I have been making since I started analysing the Bill. It does not tell one anything. Anything one wants to know about the Bill is to be found in Ministerial disCretions or regulations, not in the Bill.

As I said, the Connor report recommended that the legislation be modelled on the Queensland Casino Control Act with certain specified changes. The legislation is far more general than the Queensland Act. Much more information is contained in the Queensland Act. In this Bill much is left to Ministerial discretion, the discretion of the authorities, or to regulations.

I do not want to misrepresent the Minister, but the second-reading speech suggested that the Bill closely mirrors the New South Wales draft Bill and said that the two Bills are almost identical in format and wording.

Mr Kennan - I'm a bit uncertain about that this week!

Mrs WADE - The Minister has just indicated that he does not know whether, if there is a change in government in New South Wales, he will be able to get along with his Labor colleagues as well as he appears to think he has been getting along with the coalition government there. I imagine that is true because, after all, the New South Wales ALP campaign was based on the slogan of, ''Don't let things in New South Wales get as bad as they are in Victoria". .

The ACflNG SPEAKER (Mr Evans) - Order! The ~onourable member should continue her remarks on the legislation.

Mrs WADE - Yes, Mr Acting Speaker, I was distracted by the Minister for Major Projects.

I inquired about the situation in New South Wales before the election and found that the Bill was nowhere near ready to be introduced to Parliament. They were surprised that the Victorian Bill had been introduced to Parliament. I was told that the Bill was still b€ing drafted in New South Wales. One assumes that the New South Wales

CASINO CONTROL BILL


draftspeople are endeavouring to avoid some of the defects in this Bill because I understand we will have about 54 government amendments, many of which have been occasioned by typographical errors. One hopes the New South Wales Bill will not be in identical format, whichever government is returned.

The coalition wants to ensure that any casino established in Victoria is on an appropriate site, is of high quality, is conducted honestly and to a high standard, remains free of criminal influence, is economically viable and provides revenue,which will be useful in getting this State back on its feet again once we get rid of this government, a casino which will promote tourism and provide benefits to Victoria. We cannot make judgments on the basis of the Bill and the information provided by the Minister.

I direct attention to page 62 of the Connor report, which states:

It is worth noting that there are no major cities either in Australia or overseas which have two casinos coexisting in the manner suggested by the Victorian government. Thus for the purposes of this report, analysis of the potential effects of this policy approach can be only speculative. A much more thorough evaluation of the financial and town planning implications of a dual casino development will be necessary before the government makes a final decision.

The Minister said in his second-reading speech that any agreement with the casino operator would be submitted to Parliament for ratification. I have searched through the Bill but found no provision that would give Parliament the opportunity of making the assessments that would be required about the proposed casino. There is no provision for an agreement to come before Parliament for ratification, yet as I have said because of the lack of detail in the Bill it is impOSSible for Parliament to make a judgment at this stage. Maybe the Minister overlooked the provision for ratification. It is something that should be considered. The opposition believes it is preferable for Parliament to consider a proposed agreement before it is entered into by the government, and to authorise the government to enter into an agreement rather than ratifying an agreement after it has already been Signed. I shall come back to my reasons for that shortly.

The opposition believes the Bill shows all the signs of the Minister's approach of '1egislate first and think about it later". We will raise numerous aspects of the Bill during the Committee stage as we consider the Minister's 54 amendments. However, I shall foreshadow a number of coalition amendments directed at ensuring that Victoria gets a worthwhile casino that is in the most appropriate location and of a high standard.

One of the most important aspects of the casino report is that information should be available to potential operators so that the best possible proposals are put forward for consideration by the government. I refer honourable members to page 4S of the report, which states:

Ideally the advertisement for expressions of interest should contain information about potential or designated sites, required ancillary features, proposed taxation and licence fees, proposed exclusivity provisions and financial proposals with an indication that the latter may be negotiable.

CASINO CONTROL BILL


That would mean that many of the details which I have been asking about and which are not covered in the Bill should be made available to potential operators so that they know what they are expressing interest in or whether their expressions of interest are relevant to government policies, and so that the government receives the widest range of expressions of interest available.

The Connor report also recommended that there be no undue haste in establishing a casino. I refer members to page 49, at which recommendations made in the earlier report are repeated. Paragraph 16.04 of the earlier report, the original Connor report, is quoted:

Almost as important as bipartisanship is the quality of patience. If a decision is taken to introduce casinos the best way for government to get into trouble is to rush its fences. In my view it is absolutely essential to have sOWld legislation and a well chosen licensing and investigative authority in place before inviting applications for casino licences.

This has been wlderlined by the experiences of the Wran and Unsworth governments in New South Wales, which had that report available to them. They should have taken notice of that advice. The Wran government rushed into getting tenders for a casino prior to any casino legislation, and approved a tender by Hooker /Harrahs, which was associated with Mr Herscu. The Wran government subsequently discovered there might be some problems with Mr Herscu and backed out of the agreement. Subsequently Mr Unsworth called for further tenders and those tenders were considered but none of the tenderers were found to be suitable. As a result of the Wran and Unsworth governments trying to rush into casinos without the appropriate legislation being in place, when the Greiner govenlffient came in in New South Wales it had to make significant payments - up to $30 million - to compensate people who had been involved in those tenders. We do not want to see that situation occurring in Victoria.

In another capacity, the Attorney-General has already lost $11 million on what could be called a gambling-type initiative with scratch tickets. We do not want to put him in the situation where he is tempted to enter into an agreement that could involve us in that sort of payment. We do not want this Bill in any way to add to the State's financial problems.

We will be proposing a number of amendments. I do not have them available at the moment. I was speaking to Parliamentary Counsel about them and they hope to have them available shortly. Certainly the amendments are not available this afternoon and I trust we will not have to go ahead with the Committee stage before they are ready.

However, I shall indicate the sort of amendments we are proposing. In accordance with the Connor recommendations we are proposing that the directions the Minister is empowered to give under clause 7 should be given in regulations and should be given prior to the calling of any expressions of interest for a casino, whether they be for a world-class casino or an unobtrusive club casino.

We will also propose amendments to stop the government getting carried away and entering into any agreement in undue haste. Certainly we would not want the gvvernment to get involved in an agreement immediately before an election so we will

CASINO CONTROL BJLL


propose an amendment that no agreement shall be entered into either by the government or the casino control authority before 1 December 1992. We will also be proposing an amendment to ensure that no liability can be incurred by the State prior to an agreement being entered into.

We will also put forward amendments for the disallowance of any regulations by either House and a prohibition of regulations of a similar nature within the following six months after any disallowance. We will also propose that the term of appointment of the director of casino surveillance be reduced from five years to three years, which is the same period for the Casino Control Authority members. Additionally we will be proposing that the exemption from freedom of information legislation be removed from the Bill.

A number of other aspects of the Bill are of concern but possibly they may be addressed by the Minister in his response or in the Committee stage and we will take his comments into account.

Mr HONEYWOOD (Warrandyte) - In joining debate on the Bill I must point out that what the government is on about is a gambling-led recovery in this State because earlier today the Attorney-General, who is at the table, gave notice that he would introduce a Bill to regulate gaming machines throughout Victorian clubs and now we are debating the Casino Control Bill.

Given the Labor Party has been in power in this State for almost ten years and the former Premier, the honourable member for Bundoora, held the line at no more gambling initiatives and no casinos - no gambling initiatives whatsoever - one must question this posthaste rush headlong into all manner and forms of gambling.

I caution the House today that if we allow the government to carry on with its sudden rush of blood to the head to a gambling-led recovery - it has nothing to offer the manufacturing industry - we will find a completely uncoordinated gambling industry in this State. Every corner pub and every little club in every town throughout Victoria and heaven knows how many casinos in Melbourne and throughout Victoria will operate their own autonomous businesses. The Bill will result in personal and corporate bankruptcies, an incredible amount of waste and people will not know whether they are coming or going.

In the dying days of this government we are becoming well used to such initiatives being introduced willy-nilly without any concern for coordination or any type of rational approach. I should know this because along with the Minister for Major Projects I was recently involved in debate on another Bill, the Docklands Authority Bill, when we heard the government argue for the post-industrial economy.

However, the government did not define "post-industrial economy". I take it it means that we cannot get our goods off the wharf in Melbourne because we have nothing to sell overseas. Therefore we convert the wharf into a Docklands project, put our manufacturing industry policy to one side and build bigger and better casinos to extract

CASINO CONTROL BILL


more money from Victorians to keep the economy gOing. That seems to be the extent of this government's policy on the economy.

In this regard, recently during the Supply debate, the Deputy Premier accused the Leader of the Opposition of populism. The Deputy Premier looks up at the media gallery every day and is constantly waving his finger for attention. One could accuse him of the type of populism he claims others espouse because gambling is nothing but a populist cause. It appeals to those in the community who want to have a dabble but it does not provide any substantive reform of morals, of fundamental issues about the manufacturing industry or of gearing up for re-employment.

It is interesting that the Deputy Premier has handled this Bill, which is a regulation control Bill, not as an Attorney-General matter, as is being done on this side of the Chamber, but as Minister for Major Projects. The Bill attempts to set out a range of important regulations and controls on gambling practices. It does not supply a site or design for a specific casino but the Premier and presumably the government -although we do not know who is driving whom at the moment - believe it is a major projects Bill.

Why is this so? Is it simply because the government has become so carried away with its monumentalism and red-ink pyramid-building philosophy that it sees the casino only as a cash-cow to prop up consolidated revenue in its dying days? As the shadow Attorney-General mentioned, another Labor government north of the border in its dying days went into a headlong rush with the Hooker, Herscu and Hilton organisations to try to get a casino licence issued but it was a complete and utter disaster which the subsequent government had to spend $30 million of taxpayers' money to try to get out of. We know where the principal of a company involved in that interesting arrangement with the Unsworth government has finished up: one is in a Queensland gaol at this very moment.

Is it simply because the government has been carried away with its monumental ideological disasters? We have the debt-ridden National Tennis Centre and the $400 million World Congress Centre. Is the government trying to put up monuments or is it because, as a major projects Bill rather than as an Attorney-General's Bill, it allows this Minister a better opportunity of grandstanding and in doing so camouflages genuine concern on control mechanisms in this Bill? Or, is it because the government has already done a deal behind the scenes with a particular developer and a particular city council on the basis of receiving a heavy up-front licence fee and who knows what else?

It is interesting that we have an election funds disclosure Bill before Parliament. One might ask the Minister for Major Projects whether the licence fee of the developer will be privy to that funds disclosure Bill.

If the scenarios are correct, as we believe they are, this government is concerned only with grabbing the money and running and leaving others to pick up the pieces later. As a responsible opposition we did not allow this Minister to bludgeon us into taking a

CASINO CONTROL BILL

Tuesday. 28 May 1991 ASSEMBLY

stand on this Bill posthaste without the <?pportunity to conduct the widest possible community consultation.

2547

Whether or not the government likes it, this Casino Control Bill does not impact just on the Major Projects Unit but also on the law courts and our system of justice, as the honourable member for Kew has outlined, and on sporting, recreation and racing groups, as the honourable member for Gisbome will note. Has the Minister consulted with the different racing groups in Victoria? We know their revenues will decrease substantially. They are the biggest employers in this State, yet as a result of this Bill they will suffer the consequences.

We know that this Bill impacts on social justice. It is something that we do not hear the Labor Party talking about very much any more, but this Bill really is fundamental to what social justice is all about.

Dame Phyllis Frost, who is a constituent of mine, has made representations to me in her capacity as the Chai~n of the Victorian Relief Committee, and has suggested that the government funds quite well groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous whereas it has made no provision for funding Gamblers Anonymous, which has been operating for quite some time in Victoria. Where is the provision for funding services for gambling addicts, the need for which we know will arise as a result of the implementation of this Bill?

In talking about social justice and the problems of excessive gambling, I refer the House to an excellent paper produced by our own Parliamentary library. It is a background paper on casinos entitled Casinos for Victoria - Pros and Cons. I refer specifically to page 28 which contains various comments under the heading, "Excessive Gambling":

One of the predominant social costs charged against casinos is their contribution towards excessive gambling within the community. The Australian Institute of Criminology believes that the problems associated with excessive gambling are significant in terms of costs to the individual, the family and the community at large. This is echoed by the Caldwell report which states that, on average, each excessive gambler causes some significant harm to ten other people in his or her life.

The background paper goes on to say:

According to studies conducted by the United States. Commission on the Review of the National Policy towards Gambling, an increase in the legalisation of gambling leads to an increase in the number of pathological gamblers.

The Parliamentary Library report goes on to state:

While regular gamblers may flirt with a new form of gambling such as casinos upon their introduction, research indicates that in the longer term they tend to remain loyal to their prior form of gambling. Thus the casino market consists of regular gamblers who are spending a higher proportion of their disposable income on more than one form of gambling, as well as new gamblers.

Finally, at page 30, the background paper goes on to say this about excessive gambling problems:

CASINO CONTROL BILL


Unlike the United States, however, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, State governments in Australia have "failed in their social responsibilities" to research the extent of excessive gambling in the community, or set up counselling and treabnent programs for those seeking help. One State government has claimed that because there is no real data quantifying the extent of the excessive gambling, ergo, there is no problem with gambling of any consequence. Yet at the same time governments have not, and do not set up the structures with which to gather the data required.

Of course, this government has done exactly that. It has gone for the headlines in the newspapers. It has rushed the Bill in without proper community consultation. It has tried to bludgeon the opposition by saying we are trying to hold something up that the people of Victoria want and has therefore tried to rush us through our community consultation period and has given us lecture after lecture when we have asked for an extension of time; yet the government has not done its homework.

If the government wants to uphold social justice, why has it not included in this Bill some provision for funding for Gamblers Anonymous? Why has it not provided any research or data on the problems of excessive gambling? Why has it not given us a coordinated policy on gambling instead of the mishmash of new legislation on gaming machines for pubs, new legislation on casinos here, there and everywhere and other gambling legislation? Last week the Minister for Sport and Recreation carried on about legalising two-up,which is another gambling initiative.

All the government's talk about a post-industrial economy amounts to a gambling-led recovery to get us out of the mess we are now in. Therefore, what we find is that this government is concerned only with grabbing the money and running. As I said, we took the responsible position and did not allow the Minister to bludgeon us.

It is not surprising that we have taken a cautious and coordinated approach. That is why we have the shadow Attorney-General handling this Bill and that is why we will have input on this Bill from the shadow Ministers for major projects, sport and recreation, and tourism. It is a threefold approach. It impacts on a range of community groups and interests.

I refer now to the specifics of the Bill. I commend the Minister on his statement in his second-reading speech that:

The Bill will enable the establishment of the casinos and is the result of the recommendations of the Connor report.

This is a laudable objective and the Bill lives up to it in part. But it is not correct for the Minister to then suggest in other parts of his second-reading speech:

In order to exclude criminal activity and influence from the casinos, legislation designed to provide strict control over all aspects of the operation of casinos is required. The government believes the Bill will achieve that objective, based on the Connor report and the experience of interstate and overseas legislation.

Again we have to point out a lie there because it is drawing a very long bow indeed to say that this actually draws on the Connor report.

CASINO CONTROL BILL


As the shadow Attorney-General has indicated, Xavier Connor was very cautious in a number of recommendations in his second report and the Minister has not given any regard to those cautions. Let us examine what Xavier Connor actually recommended and where, if at all, this Bill reflects some of his concerns. For instance, Mr Connor was careful to state:

Cabinet should not be the body to issue the licence for a casino operator because of the problems that would occur with lobbying.

As we know, political lobbying can involve some very bad practices, as we note has occurred in New South Wales. Therefore, if you extend Mr Connor's line of argument, the Minister should not have been provided with the array of powers he has given himself under this Bill.

I refer specifically to clause 7, which deals with Ministerial directions as to requirements of casinos and states:

(1) The Minister may from time to time give a direction in writing to the Authority as to anyone or more of the following matters: (a) the maximum permissible number of casinos; (b) the permissible locations for casinos; (c) the required style and size of casinos generally or of any particular casino; -

I think that means carpet and anything else -


'That is interesting. It says "any other prescribed matter involving casinos". Therefore, this Minister who purports to be concerned about keeping crime and other elements out of casinos has given to himself unilateral powers to dictate to the people of Victoria how casinos should operate, who should operate them, and what the colour of the carpet should be in the building!

'That is an extreme clause, and it differs greatly from the thrust of Xavier Connor's report. As I noted, Mr Connor was careful to say Cabinet should not be the body to issue a licence. If one takes that argument, I truly believe Xavier Connor would also say that it is even less appropriate for one person, the Minister, to issue a licence.

As the shadow Attorney-General pointed out, the Connor report also highlighted the need for bipartisanship and patience when issuing licences. Honourable members know an election is around the corner and the government is rushing to get the licence organised, to appoint someone and to get money in its coffers. That is the concern of the opposition. Far from applying the Connor principles, the Bill varies substantially from the report's recommendations.

Mr Connor recommends that a specially trained unit of the Victoria Police should be specifically seconded for the surveillance of the casino. However, the Bill contains nothing to suggest that that will be the case; the Bill is silent on whether surveillance personnel will come from a training program provided by the Police Force. Does that mean surveillance will be carried out by TNT security guards? Will migrants be

CASINO CONTROL BILL


specifically brought to the country to do the surveillance work? The silence of the Bill on this matter is of grave concern.

Other clauses in the Bill are also of concern, and some contain abuses of civil rights. For example, clause 4 defines an "associate", and subclause (1) states:

For the purposes only of section 11, a person is an "associate" of an applicant for a casino licence ...

The word "associate" is used in a number of clauses in the Bill, but its definition applies only to clause 11. That is a strange situation, although it is not atypical of the government's approach. It is also not atypical for the opposition to discover that the government will propose some 60 amendments to the Bill. Although the government is trying to rush the Bill through Parliament, it will propose 60 amendments which the opposition has not had the benefit of seeing. Softly, softly is the necessary approach in that regard.

Clause 10(2) empowers the Casino Control Authority to require a person being investigated as to his suitability to manage a casino to provide palm prints, fingerprints and so on, and to require that they be referred to the Chief Commissioner of Police. It is ironic that an applicant who does not consent to having his or her fingerprints taken will not get a licence to run a casino. For many years this government has allowed criminals to refuse to provide fingerprints or blood samples. RapiSts in this State, as opposed to those in other States, can refuse to have blood samples taken, and there are currently cases before the courts that hinge on evidence provided by blood samples and fingerprints.

After ten years the government is suddenly not concerned about civil rights, and this Bill makes it mandatory for fingerprints and palm prints to be taken. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that the government will legislate to make it mandatory for suspects in criminal cases to provide fingerprints, blood samples and so on.

How far does the government expect the opposition to extend the definition of "associate" for the purposes of the Bill? Is an associate the girlfriend of the friend of the manager of the casino? How many people will be required to have their fingerprints taken because they happen to be a friend of a friend who runs a casino? I call on the government to tighten up that provision if it has not already done so in the 60 amendments it will propose during the Committee stage.

The other civil rights question that needs to be addressed applies to clause 155, which deals with appeal mechanisms to the Supreme Court. The clause limits the rights of the Supreme Court and amends the Constitution Act and, therefore, the Bill requires to be passed by an absolute majority. Clause 155 states:

An appeal lies to the Supreme Court from a decision of the Authority on the grounds of a failure by the Authority to observe the rules of natural justice or on any other prescribed grounds.

CASINO CONTROL BILL


A unanimous decision of the five-member casino authority is necessary for a decision to be taken. The Bill provides only limited rights of appeal for someone who feels hardly done by because of the action of the authority. A casino operator could lose millions of dollars by having his casino closed down by the authority and having to wait upon a Supreme Court decision to reinstate the licence. The operator may have been unfairly dealt with by the authority, and that civil rights issue must be addressed.

Clause 15(1) states:

The Authority must not grant a licence unless there has first been entered into an agreement in writing between the Minister for and on behalf of the State and the proposed casino operator identifying the casino to be the subject of the licence and containing any terms and conditions that the Minister thinks fit.

The clause gives a Minister unprecedented unilateral powers to engage in a management agreement. Clause 15(2) states:

An agreement referred to in sub-section (1) may be varied by the parties.

Mr Connor has expressed concern to a number of opposition members about the wording of the clause. He believes, as do members of the opposition, that it provides the Minister with powers that are too wide ranging.

The opposition cannot support the Bill in its entirety because it has a nwnber of legitimate concerns about the extent of Ministerial powers, the government's grab-the-money-and-run philosophy, social justice principles and the concept of having a coordinated approach to and policy on gambling in Victoria.

The Minister and the government have not done their homework; they have done a lot of window-dreSSing by grabbing headlines and appealing to the interests of Victorian clubs and people who are attracted to gambling. It may be a good objective to allow Victorians to participate in gambling activities offered in other States, but the Bill is being rushed through and it contains major deficiencies.

The government claims the Bill accommodates recommendations of the Connor report, but nothing could be further from the truth. The government has also claimed that some provisions in the Bill have been taken from the Queensland and New South Wales legislation. However, the shadow Attorney-General has clearly indicated that the New South Wales Bill is only a draft. Given those reasons, the opposition cannot support the government in its gambling-led recovery.

SENTENCING BILL


Debate adjourned on motion of Mr WALSH (Albert Park).

Debate adjourned until later this day.

SENTENCING BILL

Committee

Resumed from 14 May; further discussion of clause 109 and Mr KENNAN's amendments:

32. Clause 109, line 12, after "Table" insert "or in any two or more of those ways". 33. Clause 109, line 14, omit "level" and insert "term". 34. Clause 109, line 17, after "any" insert "or both". 35. Clause 109, lines 20 and 21, omit "level of". 36. Clause 109, Table, heading to column 3, omit "Maxium" and insert "Maximum", 37. Clause 109, Table, omit the heading to Column 4 and insert "Community-based order with

community service condition attached (maximum number of hours)".

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - There are a number of amendments I wish to proceed with and I indicate to the honourable member for Kew that it is my wish that the Bill proceed through this House today so that it can go to the Upper House. I wish to endeavour to reach agreement with the opposition before the matter is brought on in the Upper House so that those matters which have not been agreed on between the opposition and the government can be agreed on before it is brought on for debate in the Upper House.

Mrs WADE (Kew) - The Attorney-General has moved a number of amendments to clause 109 of the Bill. I also propose to move amendments and they cut across some of the amendments put forward by the Attorney-General.

I shall outline the coalition's concerns with clause 109. A major concern is the table in the clause which deals with terms of imprisonment, fines and community work and sets out 13 levels, ranging from level 1, which is life imprisonment, through levels 2, where the maximum term of imprisonment is 15 years, 3, 4 and so on to level 13; levels 12 and 13 carry a fine as the only possible penalty.

The coalition is concerned that this table appears to offer options to a court in relation to some serious offences to impose imprisonment, a fine or a community-based order. For instance, at level 2 the maximum term of imprisonment is 15 years which is expressed as 180 months. The alternative is a fine of $180 000 or 500 hours of community work over a twelve-month period.

At page 100 of the Bill an explanatory note to Schedule 2 refers to the sorts of offences which would be punishable by imprisonment of up to 15 years, which include accessory to treason, kidnapping, aggravated burglary and taking control of an aircraft by force or fraud, and there are several other offences that would have a maximum penalty of 15 years.

SENTENCING BILL


It does not appear to the coalition to be appropriate for those offences or indeed offences which attract maximum penalties of 10 years or even less to be listed in a way that suggests it is appropriate for a court to sentence people to community work. In fact, the coalition believes it would be totally inappropriate for kidnappers and rapists to be sentenced to corrunwlity work. It would be unsuitable for them to be in the community.

I believe the last time we considered this Bill the Attorney-General suggested it was perfectly appropriate for a person convicted of a theft such as stealing from a shop to be given a community service order. Indeed, that may be appropriate. I think it is possible that the amendment I put forward would make that impossible and we would be prepared to reconsider it.

I do not believe there are any circumstances in which a rapist, for instance, should be given a commwuty-based order. That is also true of persons convicted of armed robbery, which is also on the Attorney-General's list of a 15 year maximum, although the opposition will propose that should be raised to 20 years.

There are unusual cases where somebody is charged with armed robbery in circumstances that are not serious. In fact, one case that was quoted to me concerned a couple of children who, with a knife, held up somebody on the Hume Highway and asked for money. That is serious but when the person, who was a hitchhiker, produced $20 in various notes they took enough for a hamburger and gave him back the change. It was put to me that armed robbery in these circumstances was perhaps a case where one might think of a community-based order. I do not believe a community-based order is an appropriate sentence in that sort of case. It may well be that a suspended sentence is appropriate. I do not see that there is any necessity to provide community-based alternatives to imprisonment for serious offences usually involving violence.

I do not think the table in clause 109 should be given to a court like a sort of smorgasbord saying, "Here is a table, you can give the offender fifteen years or a lesser period of imprisonment, or a fine of $180000" -which does not appear to equate to fifteen years of imprisonment - "or 500 hours of community work over two years". I do not think it should be presented in that way to the court, as if each of those penalties is equally appropriate. The opposition is prepared to look at an alternative which meets its and the government's concerns on the clause.

Mr KENNAN (Attonley-General) - I hear what the honourable member says and I will be happy to discuss it with her, particularly in relation to the offences of rape and kidnapping. I agree that armed robbery, while it is serious, can occur in a range of circumstances that might be relatively less serious than one could possibly conceive rape to be: rape is almost always very serious and it is a question of how aggravated it is.

In a sense armed robbery can get down to a semi-farcical situation and still be teduucally an anned robbery. It may be that no money changes hands and the person is not even frightened in particular circumstances. In those circumstances I would be reluctant to see any change. I am sure this is another matter where discussion can take place while the Bill is between here and another place.

SENTENCING BILL


Mrs WADE (Kew) - I would like to underline the point by saying that I have recently received a letter from the Law Institute of Victoria concerning this point which in the final sentence suggests:

A logical progression would seem to indicate that offences which fall into categories 2, 3 and 4 should establish a minimum proportion of imprisonment in combination with other options allowed in the table.

Perhaps when the draftsman is considering alternatives to this he might like to take that into account.

Amendments agreed to.

Mrs WADE (Kew) -I move:

18. Clause 109, Table, column 4, omit the items opposite levels 2 to 6 in column 1.

19. Clause 109, page 87, after the Table insert -

"(4) An offence that is described in an Act, subordinate instrument or local law as being punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of less than 6 months is, unless the contrary intention appears, punishable (in addition to or instead of imprisonment) by -

(a) a fine of the number of penalty units that is 10 times more than the number of months imprisonment that may be imposed; or

(b) a community-based order with a community service condition attached requiring a maximum of 50 hours of unpaid community work to be performed over a 3 month period; or

(c) both such a fine and community-based order as are referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).".

I have already spoken on this amendment.

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I have also spoken on this amendment. We oppose this amendment for the same reasons. Again I indicate that I believe some compromise can be reached while the Bill is between here and another place.

Amendment negatived; amended clause agreed to; clauses 110 to 115 agreed to.

Clause 116

Mrs WADE (Kew) - I move:

20. Clause 116, page 90, after line 19 insert-

"(3) Regulations made under this Act may be disallowed in whole or in part by resolution of either House of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of section 6(2) of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1962.

(4) Disallowance of a regulation under sub-section (3) must be taken to be disallowance by Parliament for the purposes of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1962.".

This is the usual disallowance of regulations clause.

SENTENCING BILL


Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 117

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I move:

38. Clause 117, after line 34 insert-

"(4) For the purposes of this section a sentence imposed by an appellate court after the commencement of this section on setting aside a sentencing order made before that commencement must be taken to have been imposed at the time the original sentencing order was made.".

This amendment is necessary because it is not clear in the current Bill what the situation is if a person appeals where the original sentence was imposed before the new legislation relating to the abolition of remissions came into effect.

The amendment is designed to make it clear that a sentence, passed on appeal where the court sets aside the earlier sentence, is to be treated as if it were imposed while the earlier provisions were in force.

This amendment ensures that an offender whose original sentence would have attracted a remission of sentence will not be disadvantaged under the new system but will attract the same consideration with regard to remissions as he or she would currently attract and that an offender is not penalised by his or her exercise of the right to appeal.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 118 agreed to.

Clause 119


39. Clause 119, line 12, omit "30" and insert "29".

This amendment omits "30" and inserts "29". It is consequential and because of further amendments to the Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act 1991 the change should be made.

Mrs WADE (Kew) - I do not quite understand this amendment. This most unusual clause amends section 20 of the Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act, which passed through Parlialnent in this sessional period. The clause amends that Act by inserting into section 20(3), which will amend Schedule 2 of the Sentencing Act 1991, the repeal of paragraphs 15 to 30 or, if the Attorney-General's amendment is accepted, paragraphs 15 to 29. This is obviously all to do with the commencement of the various provisions. I do not understand, and I would be grateful if the Attorney-General would explain to me, why it is necessary.

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - The amendment prOVides, through the Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act, for the removal of paragraphs 15 to 29 of Schedule 2.

Mrs Wade interjected.

SENTENCING BILL


Mr KENNAN - Yes, of the Sentencing Act. The error provides for paragraphs 15 to 30 when it should provide for paragraphs 15 to 29.


Mr KENNAN - That is another question I shall take on notice.


New clause AA


40. Insert the following new clause to follow clause 25: 11 AA. Breach of intensive correction order

(1) If at any time while an intensive correction order is in force the offender fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any condition of it, the offender is guilty of an offence for which he or she may be proceeded against in the supervising court on a charge filed by the Director-General of Corrections or a community corrections officer.

(2) If on the hearing of a charge under sub-section (1) the supervising court is satisfied by evidence on oath or otherwise that the offender has committed an offence under sub-section (I), the court may impose a fine not exceeding level 11 and in addition may-(a) vary the order; or (b) confirm the order originally made; or (c) if the order was made by the Magistrates' Court cancel it (if it is still in force)

and, whether or not it is still in force, commit the offender to prison for the portion of the term of imprisonment to which he or she was sentenced that was unexpired at the date of the offence under sub-section (1); or

(d) if the order was not made by the Magistrates' Court, commit the offender to custody or release the offender on bail (with or without sureties) to be brought or to appear before the court by which the order was made.

(3) If under sub-section (2)(d) an offender is brought or appears before the Supreme Court or the County Court and the court is satisfied by evidence on oath or otherwise that the offender has committed an offence under sub-section (I), the court may impose a fine not exceeding level 11 (if the supervising court did not do so) and in addition may -(a) deal with the offender in any manner in which the supervising court have under

paragraph (a) or (b) of sub-section (2); or (b) cancel the order (if it is still in force) and, whether or not it is still in force,

commit the offender to prison for the portion of the term of imprisonment to which he or she was sentenced that was unexpired at the date of the offence under sub-section (1).

(4) If a court orders an offender to serve in prison the unexpired portion of the term of imprisonment, the term must, unless the court otherwise orders, be served -(a) immediately; and

(b) concurrently with any other term of imprisonment previously imposed on the offender by that or any other court.

(5) A fme imposed under this ~on -

SENTENCING BILL


(a) does not affect the continuance of the order, if it is still in force; and (b) must be taken for all purposes to be a fine payable on a conviction of an

offence.".

2557

The new clause reinstates, as does new clause BB, provisions that currently exist in the current Penalties and Sentences Act. It is being reinstated because it is thought that the provision in the Bill will, in the end, be more cumbersome than that in the existing legislation - that is the Penalties and Sentences Act - so we are duplicating those existing provisions by putting them in the Bill.

New clause agreed to.

New clause BB


41. Insert the following new clause to follow clause 46: ''BB. Breach of community-based order

(1) If at any time while a community-based order is in force the offender fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any condition of it, the offender is guilty of an offence for which he or she may be proceeded against in the supervising court on a charge filed by the Director-General of Corrections or a community corrections officer.

(2) If on the hearing of a charge under sub-section (1) the supervising court is satisfied by evidence on oath or otherwise that the offender has committed an offence under sub-section (1), the court may impose a fine not exceeding level 11 and in addition may-(a) vary the order; or

(b) confirm the order originally made; or (c) if the order was made by the Magistrates' Court cancel it (if it is still in force)

and, whether or not it is still in force, subject to sub-section (4), deal with the offender for the offence or offences with respect to which the order was made in any manner in which the court could deal with the offender if it had just found him or her guilty of that offence or those offences; or

(d) if the order was not made by the Magistrates' Court, commit the offender to custody or release the offender on bail (with or without sureties) to be brought or to appear before the court by which the order was made.

(3) If under sub-section (2)(d) an offender is brought or appears before the Supreme Court or the Ceunty Court and the court is satisfied by evidence on oath or otherwise that the offender has committed an offence under sub-section (1), the court may impose a fine not exceeding level 11 (if the supervising court did not do so) and in addition may-

(a) deal with the offender in any manner in which the supervising court could have under paragraph (a) or (b) of sub-section (2); or

(b) cancel the order (if it is still in force) and, whether or not it is still in force, subject to sub-section (4), deal with the offender for the offence or offences with respect to which the order was made in any manner in which the court could deal with the offender if it had just found him or her guilty of that offence or those offences.

2558

SENTENCING BILL


(4) In determining how to deal with an offender following the cancellation by it of a community-based order, a cowt must take into account the extent to which the offender had complied with the order before its cancellation.

(5) This section applies also to a community-based order made under Division 4 in default of payment of a fine or an instalment under an instalment order but if the court considers that the orders that it may make under this section in respect of such a comnumity-based order are not adequate in the light of -(a) the nature of the offence; and (b) the characteristics of the offender; and (c) the offender's wilful refusal to pay the fine or instalment and to perform

unpaid community work -the court may impose a sentence of imprisonment of 1 day for each $100 or part of $100 then remaining unpaid up to a maximum of 24 months. (6) A fine imposed under this section-

(a) does not affect the continuance of the order, if it is still in force; and (b) must be taken for all purposes to be a fine payable on a conviction of an

offence.".

This clause is inserted for the same reasons given for new clause AA.

New clause agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2


21. Schedule 2, page 97, paragraph 31, omit '75A(2),". 22. Schedule 2, page 97, after paragraph 41 insert -

"4lA. in section 75A(2), for "25" substitute "20".

Schedule 2 sets out the new maximum penalties for various offences. As I explained earlier the Bill reduces the maximum penalty for armed robbery from 25 years to 15 years. I understand a recommendation of the sentencing task force was that a number of other offences which currently attract a twenty year maximum penalty, such as sexual offences, were also to be reduced to fifteen years, but the Attorney-General has decided to leave those penalties at twenty years.

We do not believe it is appropriate to move the maximum penalty for armed robbery from 25 years to 15 years. We believe the same attitude should be taken on armed robbery as the Attorney-General has taken to sexual offences and the penalty should remain at twenty years, when it is considered that such an offence often has devastating effects on the innocent people involved.

1 also raise the penalty for kidnapping, which is currently twenty years. The Bill proposes to reduce that penalty to fifteen years. As a c<?nsequence of the kidnapping of a number of children recently in Melbourne, and particularly the case of the child that is still missing, we do not believe it is appropriate that the maximum penalty for

SENTENCING BILL


kidnapping, which can involve a serious circumstance such as this, should be reduced from twenty years to fifteen and I ask the Attorney-General to reconsider this while the Bill is between Chambers.

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I agree with what the honourable member for Kew has said. I accept her amendments in this case regarding armed robbery and I am happy to introduce an amendment on kidnapping in another place.

Amendments agreed to; amended schedule agreed to; schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4

Mrs WADE (Kew) - I move:

23. Schedule 4, page 111, omit item 13.7.

This amendment is in substitution for an amendment previously circulated in my name. This amendment is consequential on the provisions relating to directors. I am not sure that this amendment is still required given what has happened to the previous amendments. Perhaps this is something which should be looked at while the Bill is between Chambers.

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I am unsure about that as well. We will treat it as being still on foot for decision as the honourable member for Kew has reserved her position and we respect that.

The ACfING CHAIRMAN (Mr Evans) - Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Kew withdraw the amendment to leave it for discussion while the Bill is between the Chambers.

Mrs WADE (Kew) - I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. We will be pursuing it in another place because the amendment put forward by the Attorney-General is not acceptable to us. It is not appropriate at this stage.

The ACfING CHAIRMAN - Order! Is leave granted for the amendment to be withdrawn?

Mr Kennan - Granted.

Amendment withdrawn by leave.


42. Schedule 4, item 14.8(a), omit "or 91(b)" and insert ", 91(b) or 93(1)(b)".

43. Schedule 4, item 14.9(a), omit "or 91(b)" and insert ft, 91(b) or 93(1)(b)".

This amendment corrects an error in the Bill. The amendments to the Mental Health Act should have included the hospital order and the hospital security order as referred to in clause 4(1). Amendment No. 43 also corrects an error in the same matter.

COURTS (CASE TRANSFER) BILL


Amendments agreed to; amended schedule agreed to.

Reported to House with amendments.

Report adopted.

Third reading

The SPEAKER - Order! I am of the opinion that the third reading of this Bill is required to be passed by an absolute majority.

Motion agreed to by absolute majority.

Read third time.


Second reading Order of the Day read for resumption of debate.

The SPEAKER - Order! I am of the opinion that the second reading of this Bill is required to be passed by an absolute majority. As there is not an absolute majority of the members of the House present, I ask the Clerk to ring the bells.

Bells rung.

Required number of members having assembled in Chamber.


Read second time.

Committed.

Committee Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3


1. Clause 3, line IS, before "In" insert °(1)". 2. Clause 3, line 16, omit °6" and insert "7". 3. Clause 3, after line 32 insert

"'Proceeding" means civil proceeding.'. 4. Clause 3, page 3, after line 7 insert -:-



"( ) For the purposes of this Act a court only has exclusive jwisdiction to hear and determine a proceeding if it is wholly or partly of a type that neither of the other courts has jwisdiction to hear and determine, whatever amount or value is either claimed or involved.".

Amendment No. 1 makes a consequential numbering amendment to clause 3. Amendment No. 2 changes the numbering of the Parts as a new Part 6 is introduced by these amendments I am moving. This Part will be discussed when I come to House amendment No. 22. Amendment No. 3 clarifies the meaning of "proceeding" in the definition to make it clear that this is a reference to civil proceedings.

Amendment No. 4 clarifies the meaning of "exclusive jurisdiction" by stating that a court only has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine a proceeding if it is wholly or partly of a type that neither of the other courts has jurisdiction to hear and determine, whatever the amount or value either claimed or involved.

Mrs WADE (Kew) - The amendments the Attorney-General has moved to this clause illustrate the problems the opposition has with virtually all of the Bills introduced by him. During this session he has introduced a large number of Bills - and there are even more to come - and the major feature of them has been the enormous number of amendments. The Bill Parliament gets is not the Bill honourable members are being asked to put through.

I am reminded that the Clerks told me when I first came to this House that amendments were really available for opposition members to put forward suggestions to Bills and they were not intended to be used in large quantities by the government, although the govenunent could, if it found an error in a Bill, correct it by way of amendment. It is not intended in Parliamentary practice that Bills be totally rewritten by way of amendment.

The amendments the Attonley-General has moved to this clause illustrate the point. He has foreshadowed a new Part 6 which is to overcome some of the bureaucratic problems that the coalition pointed out when this Bill was first introduced. It is to ensure that existing mechanisms for moving cases from one court to another are not caught up in the bureaucratic structure that this Bill creates.

Amendment No. 3 defines "proceeding" to mean civil proceedings. I should have thought that was a basic provision that should have been included. If anyone had read the Bill carefully in the first place it would have been there and would not have required an amendment.

Amendment No. 4 is a similar example. It is making it clear that for the purposes of the Bill a court does not have exclusive jurisdiction by reason only of the jurisdictional money limits and those limits are not a reason for refusing to transfer a case from one court to another. These things are all basic and should have been picked up if the Bill had been carefully considered and retunled to the Case Transfer Committee, which I gather has looked at it again.

Perhaps if it had been referred to the Council of Judges those issues might have been picked up in the first place and we would not have to consider these amendments. I

77841/91-83

2562



understand the situation is that the Supreme Court judges were very concerned that the Bill in its original form was totally unworkable and would have tied them up in knots with massive bureaucratic requirements and, as a consequence, it needed substantial redrafting.

I have spoken at length about these particular amendments because I do not intend to make exactly the same comments on everyone of the 28 amendments that the Attorney-General is proposing to move. There are 28 amendments, but the last one inserts three or four new clauses so we are really talking of something like 32 different amendments to this Bill.

To save both my time and the time of honourable members, I ask the Attorney-General to try to get his Bills right. As the honourable member for Warrandyte said earlier, if the Attorney-General did not keep so much of his attention on the press gallery he might do better with his Bills.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 4


5. Clause 4, line 9, before ''The'' insert "(I)". 6. Clause 4, line 11, after "powers" insert "or duties". 7. Clause 4, line 11, after "power" insert "to make agreements under section 6 or 24(1), the

power". 8. Clause 4, after line 12 insert -

"() The Council of Judges or magistrates (as the case requires) of a court may delegate to a committee of the Council any of its powers under this Act, other than the power to approve the making of case transfer rules and this power of delegation.".

These amendments alter the original delegation provision of the Bill. New clause 4(1) deals with the delegation of the senior judicial officers. New clause 4(2) concerns delegation by the Council of Judges and/or magistrates.

Amendment No. 6 adds that the power to delegate is a power to delegate both powers and duties under the Act. Amendment No. 7 excludes from those things that can be delegated the power to make arrangements for a general transfer under clause 6, or a circuit transfer under clause 24(2). Amendment No. 5 is a consequential amendment.


Clause 5

Mr KENNAN (Attonley-General) - I move:

9. Clause 5, line 17, after "transfer" insert "or a transfer under Part 6".

This adds to the list of proceedings that can be transferred by a court order under new Part 6.




Clause 6


10. Clause 6, line 28, before "A" insert "(I)". 11. Clause 6, line 31, after "court" insert "and that there should be a transfer of an agreed

number of proceedings". 12. Clause 6, after line 31 insert -

"( ) An agreement under sub-section (1) is of no effect unless it has the approval of the Council of Judges or magistrates (as the case requires) of both courts.

( ) An approval under sub-section (2) may be given before or after the making of the agreement." .

Amendment No. 10 makes a minor numbering amendment consequential to amendment No. 11. Amendment No. 11 provides for agreement between senior judicial officers that a general transfer must take place and for general agreement as to the number of cases to be transferred.

Amendment No. 12 adds that an agreement by designated judicial officers to transfer a certain number of cases is of no effect unless it has the approval of the respective Cowlcils of Judges and/ or lnagistrates. The second proposed new subclause adds that the approval may be given either before or after the making of the agreement. The amendment reflects the concern that a major decision taken under the Act should be subject to the approval of the councils. To add flexibility, however, this approval can be given before a transfer or can be ratified after the event.


Clause 7


13. Clause 7, line 2, after "making" insert "and approval".

This is consequential on amendment No. 12.


Clause 8

Mi KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I move:

14. Clause 8, line 23, omit "under any enactment".

This amendment and I think the next two, although they deal with two different clauses, deal with the same substance. The amendments delete the words "under any enactment" from the reference to a proceeding only being transferred if a court does not have exclusive jurisdiction wlder any enactment. This has been suggested to cover a

2564



situation where a court by common law and absence of statutory provision has exclusive jurisdiction.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 9 to 12 agreed to.

Clause 13


15. Clause 13, page 7, line 12, omit "under any enactment".

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.

Clause 16


16. Clause 16, line 30, omit "under any enactment".


Clause 17


17. Clause 17, page 9, after line 9 insert-

"( ) A step or further step must not be taken under this section with respect to a proceeding if the court in which it is pending (constituted by a judge or magistrate, as the case requires) has by order declared that it is not in the interests of justice that the proceeding be transferred having regard to the stage to which it has progressed.".

This provision has been added to address a concern that, under the original Bill, a fractious litigant could, on the day of the trial for instance, frustrate the hearing by initiating the process for which clause 17 provides. It was never the intention of the civil justice committee to enable a case to be transferred for such a reason.


Clause 22


18. Clause 22, page 11, line 28, omit "under any enactment".

This amendment also deletes the words "under any enactment" from the reference to "exclusive jurisdiction" for the reasons referred to in amendments Nos 14 to 16.




Clause 25

Mr KENNAN (Attomey-General) - I move:

19. Clause 25, line 25, omit "or 3" and insert If, 3 or 6".

This amendment adds transfers under Part 6 ("Other Transfers'') to the list of types of transfers permissible after a circuit transfer has already occurred. Circuit transfers are open to re transferring provisions to ensure flexibility in the circuit transfer system.


Clause 28


20. Clause 28, line 29, omit "in the case of a proceeding transferred under section 27".

This amendment extends the exception to cover clause 26 transfers also. This matter was raised to address the concern that a court would be under an obligation to ensure that a matter be heard and determined no later than if it had not been transferred when an administrative transfer takes place. As the transfer in this case is not taking place for the benefit of the court, but purely for the benefit of the parties, this obligation on the court is not appropriate.


Oause29


21. Clause 29, page 14, line 2, omit "or 4" and insert If, 4 or 6".

22. Clause 29, page 14, line 2, after this line insert

"PART 6 - OTHER TRANSFERS".

These amendments have been made for the same reasons as earlier amendments.


Oause30


23. Clause 30, line 6, for ''Magistrate may" substitute ''Magistrate (with the approval of the Council of Judges or magistrates, as the case requires) may jointly".

This amendment provides that the rule-making power of the Chief Justice, Chief Judge and Chief Magistrate is conditional upon the approval of their respective councils.




Clause 36


1. Clause 36, omit this clause.

Clause 36 increases the jurisdictional limit of the Magistrates Court from $25 000 to $40 000. The coalition opposes the increase in the jurisdictional limit for a number of reasons, which 1 mentioned in detail in the second-reading debate. I shall briefly outline them to the Committee.

The Magistrates Court has always been a court that has been able to provide speedy and accessible justice. If the jurisdictional limit is increased to $40 000 it will take it way above the average arulual income. It could make a significant difference to a party wlluung or losing a case if sums of up to $40 000 are involved; and in cases involving counterclaims some $80 000 may be in dispute.

If these matters were to go before Magistrates Courts longer hearing times would be involved. Often more complex matters would be involved. Cases would involve significantly higher amounts of money. There would be more demand for additional documentation, such as discovery and interrogatories, and other procedural matters taking up the time of the court.

There would be a greater possibility for delays in Magistrates Courts if the jurisdictional limit were increased. The coalition has been informed by practitioners in these courts that court facilities are not appropriate to meet this increase in jurisdictional level. That is particularly the case where courts are being closed down and cases are being transferred to other courts. Facilities are being stretched to the limit.

The Victorian Bar Council has pointed out that library facilities in Magistrates Courts are not appropriate for complex cases. If there are to be any cost savings they will be eaten up by an increase in the number of appeals that will stem from these cases having been heard in Magistrates Courts.

For those reasons the coalition proposes that clause 36 be omitted.

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - The government is pleased with the opposition's support of the Bill generally and with its support of the County Court jurisdictional increase. However it remains bemused by the coalition's opposition to increasing the Magistrates Court jurisdiction, especially when the coalition parties like to advertise themselves as encouraging accessible justice and, particularly the National Party, as supporting regionalised justice. In the rationalisation of courthouses no-one screams louder than opposition members if courthouses are closed.

The jurisdictional lllcrease proposed is much less in proportional terms than has already happened over the past four or five years in Victoria. There was an increase from $3000 to $20 000 in one hit as a result of the civil justice committee report. The amount of $25

CASINO CONTROL BILL


000 was a compromise figure for a further increase after a previous attempt to increase it to $40 000.

The majority of magistrates have now been appointed from the ranks of the legal profession. There has been a transformation in the professional qualifications and experience of the magistracy, and practitioners usually with ten or fifteen years experience, sometimes even more, are being appointed as magistrates. Many of these practitioners have spent the majority of their recent years working in higher courts.

The government believes the Magistrates Court is well able to cope with this workload. The number of additional cases would not be significant.

It is true the Bar Council has opposed the provision, but I am bemused by one of its arguments and wonder whether it has thought carefully about it. It suggested that appointments had been made and accepted on the basis of jurisdiction considerably different from what is now proposed. If that were so, one would never be able to increase the jurisdiction of any court.


Mr KENNAN - I did not suggest the opposition Originated the argument but it has relied on the Bar Council and has expressly referred to this argument and asked for the government's comment on it.

I find it bizarre that such a suggestion has been made. If that were the case the County Court jurisdiction would still be 2000 pounds. I do not understand the argument.

Mr Chairman, given the hour it may be helpful if I report progress and seek leave for the Committee to meet again later this day.

Progress reported.

Sitting suspended 6.31 p.m. until 8.3 p.m.

CASINO CONTROL BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from earlier this day; motion of Mr KENNAN (Minister for Major Projects).

Mr COOPER (Mornington) -In her response on behalf of the opposition the honourable member for Kew made it clear that although the opposition will not oppose the Casino Control Bill it has many concerns about the legislation, and I join with her in expressing those concenlS. The last thing that Victoria needs at present is another hastily cobbled together disaster on the eve of an election, but it appears that that is what we are about to get.

Mr Maclellan interjected.

CASINO CONTROL BILL


Mr COOPER - As my colleague the honourable member for Berwick says, the Bill is Tabaret revisited.

Because the establishment of a casino is such an important step, we must proceed with caution. In a major policy announcement some months ago the opposition parties said that when in government they would establish a casino. But the opposition is concerned about some of the provisions in the Bill as well as some of the statements contained in the Minister's second-reading speech, which have been addressed by the honourable members for Kew and Warrandyte.

Certain clauses in the Bill also give rise to major concern. According to what is in the Bill and, to a lesser extent, what is contained in the Minister's second-reading speech, the Bill will enable the govenunent to establish casinos Virtually anywhere in Victoria, which I do not believe is a realistic aspect to what is a major initiative.

Gambling is a major Australian industry. Gambling statistics for Australia for the year 1988-89 prepared by the Tasmanian Gambling Commission in association with Peter Bennett and Associates Pty Ltd show that for that year in New South Wales some $1220 million - $1.2 billion - was spent on poker machines, compared with total gambling expenditure for that State of just over $2.02 billion.

Real per capita expenditure on poker machines in New South Wales was $63.58, compared with total real per capita gambling expenditure of $92.94, evidence of the Significant hold gambling has in New South Wales.

In Tasmania, where the first Australian casino was established at Wrest Point and where another is situated in Lawlceston, $39.8 million was spent at the casinos compared with total gambling expenditure of $92.95 million, a Significant sum. Further, a total of $404.6 million was spent in Australian casinos in 1988-89, compared with total legal gambling expenditure of $3991 million. In other words, the money spent on gambling in Australia's eight casinos represented 10 per cent of all gambling expenditure.

There is no doubt that casinos attract many visitors, not only from interstate and overseas but also locally, which shows up in the statistics published showing the number of people visiting Australia's casinos.

Last year, when the opposition was giving careful consideration to its position on the establishment of casinos in Victoria, the then Leader appointed a four-person committee to examine the issue and to provide him with information and recommendations. As one of the members of that committee I visited New South Wales and spoke to Ministers and members of the government about the matter, and I also visited Western Australia for an in-depth look at the way its casino was operating.

I was in Perth during the Christmas period in 1985 when the Burswood Casino was opened. I was appalled by the facilities available to the general public. The government of the day was so determined to have the casino opened by no later than 31 December 1985 that it offered generous incentives to the developer to ensure its opening on or

CASINO CONTROL BILL


before that date. As a result when the casino opened public facilities such as toilets were inadequate, to say the least.

Nonetheless, the Burswood Casino has been a major success, and one has only to look at the numbers of visitors to the casino to understand how successful it has been. From Monday to Thursday an average of 7000 people per day visit the casino; from Friday to Sunday the average number increases to 12000 per day. Based on the information provided to me about 30 per cent of the visitors to the casino come from interstate and overseas and 70 per cent are West Australians, most of them residents of Perth. About 50 per cent of the tun"lover in the Western Australian casino comes from locals, with the other 50 per cent being from overseas and international visitors. A local casino must have a considerable local gambling base. Casino developers have said that because of their population base the two most attractive places for the installation of casinos in Australia are Sydney and Melbourne. It is interesting that at the moment the two major Australian cities that do not have casinos are Sydney and Melbourne. Questions should be asked about why those cities are dragging the chain in that regard.

The quick answer from those opposed to casinos is: because of organised crime. Governments in New South Wales and Victoria have shied away from casino development because they believe they attract organised crime. Whenever that matter is discussed people immediately refer to Las Vegas and, perhaps to a lesser extent, Atlantic City in the United States of America. They say the overwhelming evidence is that organised crime is prevalent in the USA, and therefore it will be attracted to and involved in the operation of casinos in Australia.

I do not resile from the situation of organised crime being involved in casinos in the USA, particularly in Las Vegas because that city was built by the Mafia; Las Vegas is a Mafia city. Of course organised crime is involved in casinos in Las Vegas; however, it does not mean organised crime will be involved in casinos established in other parts of the world.

I have visited Australian casinos and conducted a particularly in-depth examination of the casinos at Adelaide and Perth. It was obvious that if organised crime is involved in casino operations in those cities it is very well covered. From my investigations, organised crime is certainly not involved in casino operations in Australia.

It is important for everyone to understand that the most important issue is how a casino is established. That will test whether a casino will be tainted. I paid dose attention to what I was told by authorities in Western Australia, by those who are nmning the gaming commission, and by members on both sides of the Western Australia Parliament about what should and should not be done.

This Bill makes a number of rather basic errors and pays little attention to the experiences elsewhere in Australia, and particularly to the success stories about casino operations in Queensland and Western Australia. The first lesson from the interstate experience concerns the amount of involvement by politicians; it should be absolutely zero. When political involvement in casino operations, or in the establishment or

CASINO CONTROL BILL


selection of anything to do with a casino - whether it concerns the operator, the equipment or the location - becomes evident, you are left open to charges not only of corruption but also of taint so far as political donations and other forms of corruption are concerned.

The advice I received in Western Australia, based on its experience, was to keep the whole process as open as possible but this Bill does not achieve that. It walks away and leaves the door open for all kinds of clandestine or in-camera meetings about the selection of people to be involved in the running of a casino, whether it be the licence-holders or those who will be policing the licence-holders. Victoria cannot afford to do that. We should establish a control board headed by a person of absolute repute, with people of the same ilk around that person. Everything done regarding licensing of a casino operator must be in the open; nothing should be in camera.

If licence-holders or applicants for licences do not wish to disclose their affairs in a public hearing, in front of the public and to the media so that their affairs are on the record, they do not deserve to be granted licences. That is how the system should operate but the Bill does not contain such a provision. It leaves a grey area as to the way in which applications for licences will be dealt with. It is wrong to commence on that footing; otherwise you will end up with the situation now applying in Western Australia.

My investigations at all levels in Western Australia revealed that the operation of that casino is fair and reasonable. I do not believe gamblers there are being ripped off or that anything illegal is happening in the casino operations but questions must be asked about how those who operate the casino were able to receive their licence. Those questions are about to be asked and investigated in some depth at the Royal Commission in Western Australia.

Senior journalists and politicians in Western Australia put to me that the reputation of that government regarding back-door and other shady deals should not have been disregarded in the granting of a licence to the operator of the Burswood Casino in Perth. Because they had been caught out in so many other areas regarding dirty deals suspicion must be aroused about the granting of a licence for that casino.

Today those sorts of accusations and beliefs would not be in the minds of people particularly in Western Australia had the authorities started from the point I and others there believe should have been the commencement stage. Everyone has seen the inevitability of what happens when you try to avoid public scrutiny; it only leads to a Royal Commission because nothing will get you into that forum quicker than suspicions about major gambling problems in places like casinos. Everything about any casino in Victoria should be in the open. To avoid future problems nothing should be done in camera.

My other concern is about political interference. The Bill sets a breathtaking scene. Clause 7 gives the Minister absolute power to intervene in any way, shape or form. It allows the Minister to set out and direct what will happen regarding casinos. It states:

CASINO CONTROL BILL


(1) The Minister may from time to time give a direction in writing to the Authority as to anyone or more of the following matters: (a) the maximum permissible number of casinos; (b) the permissible locations for casinos; (c) the required style and size of casinos generally or of any particular casino;

And then the coup de grace:


How open would anyone want a clause to be? Clause 7(d) provides that the Minister may give direction on "any other prescribed matter involving casinos". How much power should a Minister be given in respect of the operation and control of casinos? If it was desired to give a Minister total power over and complete involvement in the matter, clause 7 will achieve that end.

I invite honourable members to imagine just what a Minister could do under the provisions of clause 7. A Minister could prescribe or constrain the Casino Control AuthOrity in its decisions on the types of gambling machines that will be located in a casino, the brands of those machines, and where they will be purchased. He could direct the authority in respect of the purchase of all the other equipment, including the furnishings, and on its choice of catering. The clause allows the Minister to interfere with and intervene in any of those matters.

I do not know what the members of the government had in their minds when the Bill was drawn up or what was in their minds when clause 7 in particular was drawn up. If members of the govenlffient want to leave themselves open to the charge that they want to be involved in a situation in which at some time in the future they could be accused of all kinds of graft, corruption and whatever else might crop up, clause 7 is the way to go about it.

The clause should be taken out of the Bill and rewritten. If the government does not rewrite the clause it is leaving itself open to charges it can well do without. The government has done enough damage to itself without becoming involved in some major future scandal relating to the operation of casinos.

The Minister for Major Projects could not, on reflection, be looking forward to becoming involved in another major disaster in this State; over the past few years he has had enough disasters on his plate without looking to add another one to them.

Finally, I encapsulate the two points I have made. The first is that the procedures relating to the granting of licences must be open with nothing under cover or in camera. The procedures must be conducted in the open by an investigating and licensing body that works in full view of the public. Its work must be done without question; the process must be absolutely clean with unequivocal decisions being made.

If that process is not followed, people will be entitled to ask questions. The way things are these days, the people of Victoria would have every reason to ask questions about the legitimacy of such a process.

CASINO CONTROL BILL

2572 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 28 ¥ay 1991

Secondly, in respect of the political interference or involvement that clause 7 allows, it should not be at a minimum; it should be at absolute zero level. When the Bill is passed and its provisions are being implemented, if members of this government have any commonsense they will ensure that no opportunity exists for a Minister of any government in this State to intervene in or interfere with the running of casinos at any time in the future.

Members of the opposition acknowledge that the time has come for casinos to be established in Victoria. However, we express concern about the processes undertaken by the government and the speed with which it has suddenly flipped over from its previous stance and decided this is the time to introduce this important piece of legislation. Members of the opposition do not believe the government has done its homework. The proposed legislation has been hastily drafted. It is designed to capture the public imagination as Victorians approach an election.

The opposition invites the government to reconsider the process and change clause 7 so that the Bill is right. The opposition invites the government to have a good look at what has happened in other States, particularly in Western Australia and Queensland. The government might get the Bill right if it considers not just the legislation in other States but also the experience gained from running casinos.

Mr J. F. McGRATH (Warrnambool) - The previous speakers on the Casino Control Bill, the honourable members for Kew, Warrandyte and MOmington, have referred to the major issues surrounding the establishment of a casino in Victoria. The idea of establishing a casino has created a high level of interest in the Victorian community. All members of the House could produce a file full of letters and submissions from a range of people who are concerned about the establishment of a casino, particularly if one takes the arguments both for and against such a project.

Members of the coalition and of the general community consider management to be the key issue in the establishment of a casino. That message has come through loud and clear in all the submissions put forward on the establishment of a casino. Concern has been felt and expressed about what level and style of management will be implemented if a casino or casinos are established in Victoria.

Members of the coalition have a strong view about the matter. Clause 7 attempts to make provision for a number of casinos in a variety of locations but members of the coalition maintain that one casino of international standing should be established. I shall return to that issue.

One could certainly question the ability of the Labor Party to manage a casino effectively in line with community expectations, given the performance of members of the Labor Party.

I invite honourable members to consider how the Labor Party could run a Victorian casino. If its activities were akin to what it has done in recent times, in its involvement in a range of activities where large amounts of money were required to be managed, then its record is not good. One could probably classify the Victorian Economic Development

CASINO CONTROL BILL


Corporation (VEDC) as a world-class financial casino and honourable members know what the government did with that! Money was certainly changing hands faster than one would see it moving in the casinos at Monte Carlo or Las Vegas. At those places one hears the call, "Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen", and that was certainly the cry emanating from the VEDC.

It is fair to say that the punters came in their huge numbers not just from Victoria or interstate but from all around the world. They came to try their luck with the VEDC, a world-c1ass financial casino. Honourable members know that the underwriters of the exercise were the taxpayers of Victoria. They had to pay the dividends in the end; they are still paying them and will be paying them for a long time to come.

It is interesting to consider the performance of the Labor Party in respect of Tricontinental Corporation Ltd. One needs to consider that performance when one is considering handing over to the Labor Party the responsibility for the conduct of a casino in Victoria.

Tricontinental was another casino. People could come and play the money game for all sorts of reasons. It was not a matter of rolling the dice, playing roulette or even going into a back room somewhere and playing two-up. People had only to present themselves to Tricontinental and they could enter the money game. The stakes were good and they did not have to put up any significant collateral. They could get the money easily, with the underwriter being the Victorian taxpayer. The taxpayer was out there working away, day in day out, attending to his job, getting up early in the morning, coming home late at night, feeding his family; and underwriting it all was the taxpayers' fund propping up this great conglomerate that followed the VEDC.

It is fair to say that the Tricontinental casino became very popular, and why wouldn't it? The manager was a friendly sort of person; in fact, someone described him as charming - not too bright but, nevertheless, charming. The fact is that we really made it into the world class of high-rollers and the world-c1ass punters with the Tricontinental casino, and that is what we are endeavouring to do here with the management strategy we will enter into if the Labor Party has its way and a number of these casinos are established here in Victoria and all over the place.

Will we have the same charming, friendly types of people running the places and making sure we get the high-rollers from all over the world? Those are the sorts who entered the Tricontinental casino. They came from Spain, Malaysia and even the United States of America and many of them are lying back in their armchairs at home now saying, '1 broke the bank of Melbourne".

That is the claim that gamblers like to make, and in this particular case they were able to go home with the notches on their moneybelts because of their successful flutterings and persistence at the massive casino called Tricontinental. They can now rest on their laurels, having taken the bank of Melbourne and this once great State to its knees.

CASINO CONTROL BILL

2574 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 28 ¥ay 1991 j

We do not hear the Premier contribute to debates these days; but although she does not debate the issues she would have us believe Victoria's economic recovery will ~ based on a casino-style proposal that she refers to as a gambling-led recovery.

I certainly do not join with the Premier in her aspirations that Victoria will be restored to its rightful place in the nation by such flippant means as a gambling-led recovery because there is nothing less than hard work and some very innovative hard-nosed policies that will put this State back on the road.

It is interesting that the Premier is using the phrase "work not words". It would be great if she would implement that phrase because we are sick of hearing her words about all the sorts of recoveries we will have. Mr McGuinness from the City of Melbourne has condemned the government's crane-kissing mentality and the disaster that resulted for the city of Melbourne. It is still having an enormous impact on the financial investors of this State.

We need to face the fact that the government has no money and therefore we are relying on these financial investors to get the State up and running again, but that is not happening. The Premier really has to fly above that sort of rhetoric when she does speak, which is largely to the media at a press conference she might choose to call, rather than in Parliament, where she will espouse another quick-fix solution to some of the problems.

The reality is that the Premier is a responsible and intelligent person. She knows she is gone and she ought to admit that to the Victorian public.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Shell) - Order! The honourable member for Warmambool, who is the lead speaker for the National Party on the Bill, has been given a certain amount of latitude in the debate, but it is now time for him to address the Bill before the Chair and I ask him to do so.

Mr J. F. McGRATH - Thank you for your direction, Mr Acting Speaker, but I would like to say this: I was referring to the Premier's comments in relation to a gambling-led recovery and relating those comments to the Bill before the House, which is a casino control Bill. I thought that perhaps they were relevant to the argument because the Premier has made quite a deal, publicly, of this gambling-led recovery.

It is part of the Preritier's program. She is going to have to provide Victorians with a greater demonstration of innovation and policy direction to convince Victorians, and I was merely making the point that in her own heart she knows that the Bill does not do that.

The Premier knows that her stocks out there in the community are low and that the Bill will not address that problem. The Bill touches on some of the major issues in community debate. Two years ago approximately $800 million was spent on gambling in Victoria; I do not know what the annual increase is but it could now be $1000 million.

Interstate casino experience indicates that casinos have merely transferred across to their rp-venues up to 50 per cent of the gambling dollar from within the State distribution. A

CASINO CONTROL BILL


similar transfer of revenue from within Victoria to a casino will have a significant impact on the State's existing recipients of gambling revenue.

2575

One of the concerns of the coalition is the lack of any provision in the Bill for the correct management of such a casino and to ensure that the right people are placed in charge to impose the levels of control that are experienced in some of the casinos I have visited within Australia and overseas.

When visiting a casino in Western Australia, Queensland, Darwin or Adelaide one can see what appears to be a firm degree of control on people and their behaviour within the casino. I have observed that the manner of dress required of people to gain admittance to an Australian casino is quite different from the dress standards overseas. Last year when I was in Las Vegas I was amazed that in some of the casinos young children were allowed to run around the casino. It has been demonstrated quite clearly in Australian States that it is possible to introduce controls to prevent that sort of situation. That was one of the stark differences between Las Vegas and Adelaide, Perth and the other casinos in Australia.

Interestingly, of the several Las Vegas casinos I visited I saw only one person affected by drink in all the time I was there, which was something else that made an impression on me. Obviously there is either a different cultural attitude or a different control in that area. Of the hundreds or thousands of people visiting those places daily, I considered that fact to be quite Significant.

The coalition's policies on casinos would see the former Chief Commissioner of Police, Mick Miller, as the appropriate type of person to head the group that would be responsible for the maintenance of an orderly and legally conducted casino. Given the credentials of Mr Miller and the credibility he earned during his term as Chief Commissioner of Police, which he received from all sides of the political fence as well as in the comnumity, it is clear he would be the appropriate person to help put together a detailed procedure and plan that would lead to the responsible establishment of a casino in Victoria.

A casino must be of international standard if it is to exploit - if I can use that word -the greatest potential we have as a State and a nation in tourism. People who have visited casinos in Australia and overseas note that members of the Asian community are keen gamblers. They seem to enjoy the challenge of gambling. If we are to tap into the Asian market, which must be a growth area for Australian tourism, we must develop a casino of international standard. If we are not prepared to aim tourism promotion in that area, I believe we are underselling our potential to capitalise on tourism.

To move in that direction we must have a casino of high standard -a single casino; not any of the nonsense about having three or four dotted here, there and everywhere, which would mean we would end up with a makeshift, second-rate facility that would encourage only the sorts of activities that the coalition considers to be the ones that we should be completely free of. There are plenty of opportunities for organised crime in

2576


ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 28 t y 1991

such developments and we do not have to talk at length about the opportunity fpr laundering money and so forth.

We should have a facility of international standard -just one casino for Melbourne, which is the basic decision of the coalition; it agreed to a one-casino policy - ~d have someone like the former Chief Commissioner of Police, Mr Miller, administering the establishment of the plans and management procedures for the casino. I believe that would be dealing responsibly with the issue.

There is much opposition to the establishment of a casino but if the committee formed to investigate the issue dealt with all of those aspects - although you will never please all of the people all of the time - the coalition believes most of the major concerns of the commtmity would be addressed.

The coalition is not opposed to the concept of casino legislation. The shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Kew, will be seeking to amend provisions of the legislation either here or while the Bill is between here and another place because that would be the only basis upon which we would support the Bill. Although we support the notion of a casino, we believe precautions are necessary to ensure that the Bill reflects what our committee has been able to reveal and what other committees outside Parliament have been able to tell us that the community expects if we are to go ahead with the establishment of a casino.

I look forwarded to the Committee stage of the Bill and hopefully the acceptance of amendments put forward by the shadow Attorney-General so that the establishment of the casino can run along the lines that the coalition believes would be appropriate.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr THOMSON (Pascoe Vale).



Committee

Resumed from earlier this day; further discussion of clause 36 and Mrs WADE's amendment:

1. Clause 36, omit this clause.

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I am disappointed that the opposition is not supporting this clause. The honourable member for Kew referred to the Bar Council and the Law Institute. The Law Institute has written a further letter that I do not think the honourable member for Kew has read. I a'm happy to make it available to her and her party while the Bill is between the Houses.

The thrust of the letter is similar to that of the earlier one, which indicates support for an increase in the Magistrates Court jurisdiction, subject to a number of matters, including



ASSEMBLY 2577

the provision of recording facilities for proceedings in the court, which is something that the Attorney-General's Department is considering in any event.

Both Parliament and lawyers who oppose this increase in jurisdiction are, if I may say so, being short-sighted because I believe the future confidence in the court system is based on the court system's being accessible and Parliament's expressing confidence in it. I do not believe there is any magic about $25 000 or $40 000. There is an agreement between New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria that we move towards the sorts of limits that we have proposed.

I have difficulty in understanding the arguments about libraries and the Magistrates Court, because it is not practical to provide libraries in the Magistrates Court, and, in any event, there are often not libraries for practitioners' use in the circuit County and Supreme courts. Those cases are prepared prior to the case being heard, dealt with and argued in the court in any event. We believe the figures -and I shall have to provide further detail to the opposition if necessary - show that only about 2000 extra cases a year are issued, and possibly another 180 to 200 cases are actually heard. The amount is fairly small; it is between $25 000 and $40 000. Of course the number of cases is enormous at the bottom end of the monetary scale but it diminishes dramatically as it goes up the scale. It is important for a litigant who has, for instance, a motor car damages case of $30000, to have the capacity to deal with it in the Magistrates Court rather than in the County Court because the costs are lower.

It is true that the County Court has also effectively diminished its backlog and no longer has long delays but we believe this is an appropriate break-up of jurisdiction between the courts and we wish to press on with it. We ask the opposition to reconsider its position when the Bill is between Houses and we will certainly provide the opposition with a copy of the Law Institute of Victoria letter.

Mrs WADE (Kew) - The Attorney-General has raised a couple of questions about the proposed change in jurisdictional limit. I was particularly interested to hear him say that few cases involving amounts between $25 000 and $40 000 would be heard. In those circumstances his case transfer mechanism should be adequate to deal with those cases and it does not appear necessary to change the jurisdictional limit. I should be grateful if the Attorney-General could explain why we are going through this if we are talking about only 180 cases.

Mr Kennan - Actually heard.

Mrs WADE - If those cases could be better heard in the Magistrates Court the obvious stage to transfer them would be when the case transfer mechanism comes into play.

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) -Of course it is true to say the case transfer provisions are in many instances of greater importance than the monetary limits, whatever those limits might be, and the honourable member for Kew is perfectly right in pointing that out. However, it is a different thing to say we should rely simply on a case transfer and not worry about re fixing monetary limits.

2578



The difficulty I have with the opposition's view about that is we have already dramatically increased the monetary limit of the County Court. We have taken an unlimited extent in the personal injuries list that comes into effect on 1 June. We are taking it to $200 000. On our estimate 20 000 writs would be issued but 10 per cent or less come on for contest and actually proceed to hearing so we would come out with a figure of 200 cases or fewer that would be heard. To rely on the case transfer routinely to refer down those cases from the County Court to the Magistrates Court hardly provides certainty for litigants or practitioners.


Mr KENNAN - Part of the point about the case transfer is to overcome the bluntness of the monetary limit as a weapon or a technique or device for sorting out the easy legal points from the hard legal points. A motor car accident case of $5000 might have more complicated matters than a Rolls Royce accident involving $80 000. Therefore, those cases may well be heard in the one court. There is no magic in legal complexity about a bigger or a smaller case. Hard or difficult points can arise in both and the purpose of the case transfer is to resolve exactly those issues.

Overall guidelines are still needed and in this day and age, especially as a lot of these cases are motor car cases or cases about buildings, having regard to the costs involved it is not unreasonable to give litigants the opportunity of litigating in the Magistrates Court for cases under $40 000, and that is all we are suggesting.

The reverse argument can be put. If people have a case under $40 000 in the Magistrates Court that cannot be dealt with by the Magistrates Court, that might end up in the Supreme Court for review and it can be taken there under the case transfer mechanism. I do not want to spend an undue amount of the House's time tonight on this issue but the government is serious about this and has not put it in the Bill lightly or without consideration. We think the provision is harmonious and consistent with a substantial increase in the limit in the County Court.

I am not hopeful of persuading the honourable member for Kew here and now on this issue but I am happy to discuss it further and to provide the further letter from the Law Institute of Victoria on this issue.

Committee divided on clause:

Andrianopoulos, Mr Baker,Mr Barker, Mrs Batchelor, Mr Cain,Mr Cole,Mr Crabb,Mr Cunningham, Mr Dollis, Mr Emst,Mr

Ayes, 44 Hill, Mrs Hirsh, Mrs Jolly, Mr Kennan,Mr Kennedy,Mr Kimer,Ms Leighton, Mr (Teller) McCutcheon, Mr McDonald, Mr Mathews,Mr

Sandon,Mr Seitz, Mr Sercombe, Mr Setches, Mrs Sheehan, Mr A.I. Sheehan, Mr F.P. Shell, Mr Simmonds, Mr Spyker,Mr Thomson,Mr


Fordham,Mr

Garbutt, Mrs

Gavin,Mr

Hamilton, Mr (Teller)

Harrowfield, Mr

Austin, Mr

Bildstien, Mr

Brown,Mr

Clark, Mr (Teller)

Coleman,Mr

Cooper,Mr

Delzoppo, Mr

Oickinson, Mr

Elder, Mr

Evans,Mr

Gude,Mr

Hayward,Mr

Heffeman, Mr

Honeywood, Mr

Clause agreed to.

Oause37


ASSEMBLY

Micallef, Mr

Pope,Mr

Ray,Mrs

Roper,Mr

Rowe,Mr

Noes, 40

Jasper, Mr

John,Mr

Kennett,Mr

Lea,Mr

Leigh,Mr

Lieberman, Mr

McGrath, Mr J.F. McGrath, Mr W.O.

. Madellan, Mr

McNamara,Mr

Maughan,Mr

Napthine, Or

Perrin,Mr


24. Clause 37, line 5, after "consent" insert "in writing".


Trezise, Mr

Vaughan,Or

Walsh,Mr

Wilson,Mrs

2579

Perton, Mr (Teller)

Pescott, Mr

Plowman,Mr

Reynolds, Mr

Ross-Edwards, Mr

Smith, Mr E.R.

Smith, Mr I. W.

Steggall, Mr

Tanner,Mr

Wade,Mrs

Wallace,Mr

Weideman, Mr

Wells, Or

These amendments, as do the next two amendments, add to the requirement that a reserve judge must obtain the consent of the Chief Justice or the Chief Judge, as the case may be, before taking up another appointment, by requiring that such consent be in writing.


Oause38




These amendments are necessary for the same reasons I outlined for the previous two amendments.




New clauses


28. Insert the following new clauses to precede the Part heading before clause 30 -11 AA. Other transfers

(1) The Supreme Court (constituted by a judge) or the County Court (constituted by a judge) may, of its own motion or on the application of a party to a proceeding pending in that court, order that the proceeding be transferred to a lower court.

(2) An order may only be made by a court under sub-section (1) if it is satisfied-(a) that it does not have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the

proceeding; and (b) that-

(i) the lower court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceeding; or (ii) the parties consent to the transfer; and

(c) that in all the circumstances it is desirable to make the order. BB. Consequences of order under this Part The following provisions of this Act apply to a proceeding transferred under this Part in the same manner as they apply to a proceeding transferred under Part 3 -

(a) section 21(2); (b) section 22(1)(b), (c), (e) and (f); (c) section 22(1)(g) with the omission of the expression "or an undertaking required

to be given by a party as a condition of the transfer otherwise provides. CC. This Part additional to other Parts The provisions of this Part are additional to, and do not limit the operation of, the other provisions of this Act. DD. Only further transfer under Part 4 possible A proceeding that has been transferred to a court under this Part is not capable of being again transferred under any other Part of this Act except Part 4.".

My comments on proposed new clause AA relate also to proposed new clauses BB, CC, and DD. It addresses the concern that, where a judge of the Supreme Court declines to exercise jurisdiction in a case where one of the other courts has jurisdiction, there should be a mechanism for the judge then and there to order transfer to the court with jurisdiction. In this Part, a judge in the County Court has the same power in respect of a case within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court.

There is no provision under the current Bill that permits a transfer to be initiated by a judge when the matter is within the jurisdiction of the lower court, nor one that allows transfer on the basis of consent by the parties, irrespective of jurisdictional limits.

I thank the Committee for its cooperation.

New clauses agreed to.

Reported to House with amendments.

BEHA VIOUR OF LEGISLATIVE COlJNCIL MEMBER


Report adopted.

Third reading

The SPEAKER - Order! I am of the opinion that the third reading of this Bill requires to be passed by an absolute majority. As there is not an absolute majority present, I ask the Clerk to ring the bells.

Bells rung.

Required number of members baving assembled in Chamber:


Read third time.

BEHAVIOUR OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL MEMBER

2581

The SPEAKER - Order! I wish to make an announcement to the House. On Thursday, 16 May, the last sitting day, the honourable member for Springvale raised a point of order, which is reported at page 56 of Daily Hansard. The honourable member is reported as saying:

Mr Deputy Speaker, just a moment ago I was walking out of the House when a member of the Upper House in the gallery said to me, "You are a nice pack of bastards". I resent being spoken to like that by a member of the Upper House. I ask you to take action.

Upon the complaint being referred to me and my being advised of the words allegedly used, which I now find were different from those reported in Hansard, I wrote to the President of the Legislative Council directing the matter to his attention. Today the President sent me a copy of a letter received by him from the Honourable Ken Smith, MLC, and I shall read the letter to the House:

Dear Mr President,

I refer to the letter from the Speaker concerning my behaviour in the gallery of the Legislative Assembly.

The facts are that I was present in the Legislative Assembly and became upset by the proceedings. At this time, the member for Springvale left the House and after he passed through the Bar of the House, I leaned over and said to him that: ''You are a pack of bastards". I spoke to him only and I believe no-one else could have heard what I said.

I believed that as he had left the Bar of the House, I was entitled to speak to him. I now understand that as I was in the gallery of the House I was not entitled to do so, and accordingly, I apologise for my behaviour.

I emphasise that I did not offer a threat as suggested in the letter from the Speaker. My words were simply descriptive, and they are verified by the statements made by the member for Springvale and recorded in the proceedings of the Hansard on that day.

I regret my error and request that you convey my sincere apology to Mr Speaker.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Smith, MLC

2582

'CORRECTIONS (REMISSIONS) BILL

ASSEMBLY

CORRECTIONS (REMISSIONS) BILL

Committee Resumed from 10 April; further discussion of clause 1.

Clause agreed to; clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3

Tuesday. 28 May 1991

Mr SANDON (Minister for Police and Emergency Services) - I move:

1. Clause 3, after line 16 insert -1/(4) For the purposes of this section a sentence of imprisonment imposed by an

appellate court after the commencement of sub-section (1) on setting aside a sentencing order made before that commencement must be taken to have been imposed at the time the original sentencing order was made.".

The amendment takes account of clause 11 of the Sentencing Bill, which the House has just passed.

Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - I ask the Minister to give a more detailed description of the effect of the amendment and the purposes of bringing it into line with the provisions of the Sentencing Bill.

Mr SANDON (Minister for Police and Emergency Services) - The amendment removes any retrospectivity. The rights of appeal are provided for where someone is sentenced by a first court as a result of the introduction of the Bill.

Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - What steps will the Attorney-General take to ensure that members of the judiciary will be made aware of the processes? The government must ensure that sentences are adjusted appropriately to take account of the abolition of remissions. Although changes to sentencing provisions are included, there may be a lack of awareness in some quarters as to the appropriateness of the severity of sentences.

Mr SANDON (Minister for Police and Emergency Services) - That is a valid point, and I shall ask the Attorney-General to consider the comments made by the Leader of the National Party.

HISTORIC BUILDINGS (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL



Reported to House with amendment.

Passed remaining stages.


Order of the Day read for resumption of debate.

The SPEAKER - Order! I am of the opinion that the second reading of this Bill requires to be passed by an absolute majority.

Second reading

2583

Debate resumed from 7 May; motion of Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housi..-tg).

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick) - The Historic Buildings (Further Amendment) Bill was introduced by the government as a result of community consultation of which I was in a sense mercifully unaware until having the responsibility for historic buildings thrust upon me. I discovered that the community response to the discussion paper is some considerable size. The Review of the Historic Buildings Act Discussion Paper of August 1989, which the Ministry was kind enough to allow me to have a copy of, runs to some 42 foolscap pages, as they used to be described.

The Historic Buildings Council itself is something of a disaster zone under this government. Let us get the facts straight. There are about 2000 unprocessed nominations before the council; in other words, busybody nominees have nominated some 2000 items for the council. The council processes a limited number each year due largely to a lack of resources from this miserable government, which has spent millions of dollars on State Bank Victoria, the Victorian Economic Development Corporation and all the other wasted things but cannot find $1 million to properly handle historic buildings.

On my estimation it would take 35 years for the Historic Buildings Council to process what is in the in-tray at the moment; in other words, the work it has pending is sufficient for it for the next 35 years. At the same time the council is anxious to move forward into the area of buildings constructed in the 196Os. I bring this to the attention of honourable members because if they were to have the Prime Minister as a guest and he were to drop dead in the guest room the council would be on them in a flash. You are not safe simply because your building or property is uninteresting. It could become interesting simply because it becomes famous for one reason or another.

It could be a neighbour or a friend or indeed somebody who is neither of those things who decides to nominate your place for examination. You will then have the pleasure of waiting for the Historic Buildings Council. Not only are individuals affected. Indeed, the legislation is attracting attention from the highest and the lowest, the powerful and the



powerless, the great and the humble, and I shall leave honourable members to imagine at which end of the scale certain people come.

In the meantime this Minister has presided over a planning empire, and we can ignore the $3OOO-odd in the loss-making arm of his Ministry, Housing and Construction Victoria, where he loses more than the entire rent collections of the Ministry in repairs and administration. I do not know any other Ministry which is capable of actually producing figures like that. In the planning area he has a staff of between 450 and 500, probably at the 450 end of the scale. Those members of staff, including 107 planners at the last count, are costing $45 million a year.

What do we get for $45 million a year? We get a lot of planning. Many people get ''No'' as the answer for their applications. Among the $45 million the Minister cannot find the extra $1 million that is needed for the Historic Buildings Council to do its work properly. It is costing about $650 000 a year at the moment and with another $1 million - that is slightly more than double their budget - they believe they might be able to catch up with some of the backlog of nominated buildings.

I wish to put on the record a reaction to the Bill from one group within the community. It is a letter addressed to the Leader of the OppOSition so it begins, '1Jear Mr Kennett". It is dated 7 May 1991 and a copy of the letter was prOVided directly to me. It is signed by His Grace the Archbishop of Melbourne, Sir Frank Little. It is a brief letter which I shall put into the record because I shall be pointing out to the Minister that certain amendments will have to be made to the legislation either in this House or another place if the Bill is to proceed. He writes from St Patrick's Cathedral:

Dear Mr Kennett,

It has just been brought to my notice that the government has introduced into Parliament the Historic Buildings (Further Amendment) Bill.

The revision of the Historic Buildings Act 1981 and proposals for various amendments have been discussed by the Inter Church Administration Group for some time. In particular, it has been concerned to ensure that the Historic Buildings Act is not amended in any way which will make it more difficult for the churches to manage and use their properties in the pursuit of their own religious purposes.

The present amendments would extend the jurisdiction of the council to entirely new matters. This will undoubtedly increase the time and costs of considering applications for the registration of buildings under the Act. The reason for extending the matters that may be taken into consideration is not apparent to me. I refer in particular to the new sections 18(7) and 9(5) and (6).

Those sections specifically extend the matters to be considered by the council in examining a building to include "aesthetic", "scientific" and "social value" of a building and also "any relevant guidelines or statements of policy adopted by the council". More worryingly, section 9(6) would give statutory effect to such guidelines in the proposal.

In my view and in that of my legal advisers this effectively gives the council its own power to make the law as it goes. This is a matter of concern to me and I have requested the Premier that this section be amended.

There are a number of other aspects of the amendments which also give me concern including the size of committees and the apparently unlimited power to prescribe a fee for permits. As I



said in a letter to the Premier these amendments clearly require further discussion and negotiation to make them acceptable.

2585

May I request that you take account of these concerns when this Bill is being considered. I have sent a copy of the letter to the shadow Minister for planning, Mr Maclellan.

With cordial greetings and best wishes, I remain,

Yours sincerely, Frank Little, Archbishop of Melbourne

So far as the opposition is concerned this Bill will be amended to take into account the views of Sir Frank Little and other religious leaders or it will not pass this Parliament. Let us be perfectly frank and have it on the table. The Bill will be amended to take into account the criticisms of the churches or it will not pass this Parliament. This is a matter for the Minister and I suggest that he urgently get the churches together with a view to finding an amendment which will say that nothing in the Bill will have the effect of interfering with the religious practices of any denomination or church group within society. It could go beyond the traditional church groups but it will not affect those things in any way. The coalition is determined that the religious forms of observance of the various churches will not be dictated by the Historic Buildings Council. It is inappropriate, offensive and in our pluralistic society it just will not happen. It should not happen wlder this government and it will not happen under a coalition government. That may be the distinction: that it should not happen under a Labor government and it will not happen wlder a coalition government.

In welcoming this Bill to Parliament the Minister issued a press release. There is nothing unusual about the fact that a Minister might issue a press release - I suppose under this government it was not wlusual at all when one thinks that release told only a fraction of the truth; it forgot to mention that the Bill provides for fees.

I point out to honourable members on the government side that I know there is a sort of voguish ideology going around, perhaps internationally, which seems to be based on the user-pays concept, but perhaps it should apply where users are willing or free or voluntary users and not where they are compelled to use.

Where you have a building which has been nominated for the attention of the Historic Buildings Council or has been declared under the processes you are not thereafter a user, if I may put it that way: you are then required to apply for permits to undertake certain works.

I thank the Minister for the briefing we received from officers and the Chairperson of the Historic Buildings Council because it gave me a much better insight into the inadequacies of the govenlffient's funding of the Historic Buildings Council and into how that might be wlscrambled with as little as $1 million.

I also discovered the startling fact that certain people must apply for a permit to paint to llildercoat the interior of a room of a historic building; they may then have to apply for a permit for the top coat of paint; and may have to apply for further permit to wallpaper another part of the building; and so it goes on.



I can understand that if somebody were about to spray paint the Walter Withers panels in a Western District mansion the Historic Buildings Council may need to act quickly and the law should be appropriate to prevent that sort of vandalism. But when somebody wishes to paint a room in their house, even though they may mistakenly paint it a colour which is not quite to my taste or to the taste of the Historic Buildings Council, it seems to be recoverable by applying a different layer of paint at a different time in a different colour. It seems to be unnecessary to impose application fees for permits to paint houses that have already been painted.

I go further and say that it seems singularly inappropriate but totally predictable of this government that it would bring in a Bill to provide for unlimited fees. When you ask why it wants the fees the government says it is because the Historic Buildings Council does not have enough money to do its job. When you ask how much money the fees are expected to raise the government goes for the defence mechanism.

The defence mechanism is to think that the coalition has control of another place and you had better not scare or spook them, so you say that you do not expect to raise very much from the fees. When answering the question the government says, "$50 000 a year". We are all meant to keep a straight face and say it is going to make a material difference to the Historic Buildings Council if it receives fees of $50 000 a year to augment its miserable budget under this government.

At first sight one might think $50 000 is $50 000 better than nothing, except when it is pointed out that it is necessary to appoint someone to collect the fees and issue the receipts. Under this government it would cost more than $50 ()()() to have somebody to receive the fees and issue the receipts, so it would probably work at a dead loss. 'This is the government's sort of modem management or modem muddle or what they seem to do par excellence.

It is the same situation as with the tram conductors. The tram conductors are the people on the trams who collect the Inoney to pay the people who collect the money on the trams. Nothing actually goes to the govenlffient or towards a better tramways service. Having heard about the Phantom of the Opera-led recovery, the poker machine-led recovery, the casino-led recovery and the arts-led recovery all I can say is that it is only a matter of time until we have the tram conductor-led recovery where the government will proceed to put ten tram conductors on every tram, each collecting different fares because each of them will collect enough to pay each of their salaries. That will provide jobs for all and the trams will become totally beyond everybody's means, but that will not matter to the government. It is the user-pays principle - or is it the rip-it-off-them-if-you-can principle? It is exemplified by this Bill.

Let us be frank again and say that either the fees come out of this Bill or the Bill does not go ahead. It is up to the Minister; I do not mind. It does not worry me if he does it here, if he does it while the Bill is between here and another place or if he does it in another place, but either the fees come out of the Bill or the Bill does not pass. It is quite simple.



All the work that was done in consultations, in the 1989 discussion paper and then the November 1989 responses - it is a mighty document when one visits it, a mighty set of consultations and responses -will go down the tube unless amendments are made to the legislation to, firstly, take account of the pOSition of the churches and, secondly, to remove the fees.

It is inappropriate for governments to interfere in religiOUS observance. It is not for a former Methodist minister, with great respect to the Minister, to be telling His Grace the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne whether he can have his high altar in the middle of the transept, in the northern end of the transept or anywhere else in the transept. Let religiOUS belief and religious forms and observance be appropriate to the particular denomination. It is not for us to be telling the great Synagogue of Melbourne that it cannot do this or it cannot do that. It is not for us to tell a Muslim community how it will set up its mosque.

As a Parliament we must learn to respect other people's religious beliefs and the form of religious service they follow. If that means making changes to buildings which are their buildings and which they have looked after for generations and brought down the generations for us as part of our heritage, that respect is all important. That is fundamental in our community and will be fundamental in the coalition's approach to historic buildings legislation.

I say these things to signal to the Minister that the bid has gone too far: the days of the power seekers, the bureaucrats and administrators who want inconvenience, fees, user pays and screw them into the earth are going and will soon be gone. The days when someone who believed a building warranted an historic listing and was faced with inconvenience, delays and bureaucratic hassles are dying, they will soon go.

This morning I attended a conference in the Rialto. The Minister may well have been ten floors above in the same building. I was on the ground floor where the Historic Buildings Council was deciding whether some poor citizen of this State, who bought a house in Camberwell that was designed by a respected Victorian architect and was classified under the historic buildings classification, could put another storey at one end of the house. The house has only two bedrooms, but she has five children.

The file on the house rivals the bulk of the discussion paper on the review of the Historic Buildings Act. The file is full of photographs, plans and correspondence. The members of the Historic Buildings Council went out to inspect the house at apprOximately 10 a.m. The hearing was to be held at 10.30 a.m. but they did not gather until 11 a.m. I left at approximately 11.30 a.m. I have no objection to the way in which the hearing was conducted - or the part that I observed.

I believe the chairman gave a frank explanation to the architect acting on behalf of the poor landowner. I say poor land owner because during today's consideration she has probably been told that she cannot put a double storey extension on the building because it is believed to be an architectural gem or masterpiece that must be maintained in its present condition.



An offer should be made quickly to buy her out or to more importantly tell her what she can do to have the number of bedrooms she wants for her family of five. Of course her children are grown up but in these hard economic times no-one has to look far to find 25, 26 or 27-year-olds returning home to live because they have found that it is too expensive to live away. The hardships are pressing ever increasingly on the community with the "recession that we had to have" from the Federal Treasurer, the Honourable Paul Keating, or the recession we had to exaggerate from the Premier, the former Premier, the honourable member for Bundoora, and the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Doveton.

Mr Micallef interjected.

Mr MACLELLAN - And the honourable member for Springvale!

Mr Micallef - What about Greiner's position?

Mr MACLELLAN - What about Greiner's pOSition? I believe the honourable member for Springvale is worried about what is happening in New South Wales.

The ACI1NG SPEAKER (Mr Delzoppo) - Order! Interjections are disorderly and will be ignored.

Mr MACLELLAN - I shall do my best to ignore the honourable member for Springvale. It might be that he is tired and emotional as it is after dinner and it is probably beyond his concentration span.

Mr Micallef - You are a patrOnising tart!

Mr MACLELLAN - I shall ignore the honourable member for Springvale. Instead of being worried about the situation in New South Wales I am more concerned about the situation in Victoria where we have raging unemployment, bankruptcies and insolvencies. We have bureaucracies that are totally out of control and life is being made more difficult for Victorians.

If the Historic Buildings Council were dedicated to getting effective compromises and quick answers for people rather than seeking further powers we might have some sympathy with the Bill and the approach of the government, but it is hard to have sympathy when one turns to the explanatory memorandum and finds that clause 5 provides that "committee" is to be substituted for "subcommittee" in subsection 1 of section 11 so as to ensure some consistency in the Act.

Clause 5 amends section 11 to enable an officer of the council to have delegated powers with respect to placing a building under examination and for issuing interim preservation orders. In other words the Historic Buildings Council and the government seek to enable the delegation of power to the council or to its officers so a bureaucrat will be able to deal with the issuing of interim preservation orders.

Clause 5 also amends subsection (3) to ensure that any power, discretion, function or authority delegated from a council to a committee is consistent with the delegation to an officer.



This again means the council will be able to delegate much of its authority to the committees and to its officers. If one asks whether those committees or officers will be answerable in a similar way, I can say only that we will find from practice that this will encourage the bureaucracy.

Clause 6 inserts a new section 11A, which enables the Minister to delegate to the director any powers of functioning of the Minister under section 32D in relation to alterations to designated buildings - that is those buildings included on the Register of Government Buildings. Here again we have a slightly different approach. The Minister apparently wishes to be able to delegate powers to the director and this will enable the director to exercise powers which had previously been exercised by the Minister. There is no suggestion in the second-reading notes as to why this is a good or appropriate idea, just that this will be done.

Clause 7 inserts a new subsection (lAAA) and (lAAB) after section 18(1) to enable any applicant to amend an application or provide additional information in relation to the application to add a building to the Historic Buildings Register at any time prior to the hearing being held pursuant to section 18(8).

Normally one would say that the addition of information at a later stage is entirely sensible and reasonable if there is no objection, but then it can also be used in a most perniciOUS way if someone wishes to make life uncomfortable for someone else and decides prior to a hearing to dump a whole lot of new information that must be digested by those representing both public and private groups and also private individuals before the hearing.

The Bill promotes the delegation of powers and responsibilities to others. It substitutes for section 18(7) new subsections (7) and (7 A) which set out the values - aesthetic, scientific, architectural, historic or social -which the council must consider when conducting an examination. This is the matter to which the archbishop referred which he believes gives too much scope to the Historic Buildings Council in regard to buildings which for many years have been primarily used for religiOUS purposes and which may still be used for religious ceremonies, such as cathedrals and church buildings.

The archbishop says the Historic Buildings Council is about to unleash consideration of strictly religious matters in "respect of religious buildings to go beyond questions of values of aesthetic, scientific, architectural, historic or social values, in which case the Historic Buildings Council could, if it wished, decide that no alterations or indeed no proposals would be entertained in regard to church buildings because aesthetic considerations should be taken into account.

It may be that Vatican IT has made some international change about the way in which the mass is said throughout the world, yet the Historic Buildings Council may decide --




Mr MACLELLAN - The honourable member for Springvale is returning to his childhood when he studied Latin. I always predicted that he would return to his faith prior to coming to his deathbed. I am concerned that this power, used inappropriately, could inhibit the proper and progressive changes that might be made in religiOUS practices and the way buildings are established for those who wish to practise a more modem form of religious observance. That is exactly what the archbishop is saying in his letter. Parliament needs to consider that issue and ensure it honours those aspects of social life in our society. The coalition believes those philosophies should be implanted in the Bill prior to its passing through Parliament.

Clause 16 inserts after section 43(3)(a) a new paragraph (aa), which requires that all fees paid under this Act, including permit fees, be accrued to the Historic Buildings Fund. The coalition has no objection to that clause except that it objects to the fees and, therefore, clause 16 is inappropriate.

Clause 21 inserts after section 63(l)(a) provision for prescribing fees for permits, making regulations to charge for and schedule fees for permits with different fees for different cases or classes of cases and enable the director to waive or rebate fees in certain specified circumstances.

Clause 21 states:

(1) After section 63(l)(a) of the Historic Buildings Act 1981 insertlIand

(aa) prescribing fees for applications for 5 permits; and". (2) After section 63 (2) of the Historic Buildings Act 1981 insert -

"(3) A regulation under sub-section (1) (aa) may -(a) prescribe different fees for different cases or classes of cases; and

(b) empower the Director to waive or rebate the payment of a fee in specified circumstances." .

This is the modem tax nonsense which the government has which makes it totally discretionary. In other words, a simple regulation can prescribe any fee in respect of any amount and may be used to deter people from their proper course in relation to their historic building.

The coalition is not prepared to give the government carte blanche to propose any fee and give a rebate to anybody it likes, because we suspect that the government would give rebates to anyone it likes. That is the trouble with the government: it gives rebates to people it likes and imposes fees upon people it does not like. The coalition will not give that sort of discretion to the Minister, a bureaucrat or a system which is seen to be out of control.


Mr MACLELLAN - The honourable member for Springvale ought to attend to the legislation which passes through the government caucus because it is flawed and will have to be sorted out before it passes Parliament; it will not pass with the offensive



clauses in it which have been implanted as a result of the review and a lack of a clear-sighted principle by the government.

2591

Often we hear the government say, 'Where are your policies; what policies do you have? You do not have policies but you are making a grab for power". I state clearly that the opposition's policies regarding historic buildings are that there will be no fees or interference in the chosen religious observance of religious groups that have buildings which might be part of the heritage of the community.

Instead of pursuing words like ''historic'' we ought to look back more closely at the word ''heritage''. So much of what is of interest to the Historic Buildings Council is the heritage of Victoria. If we use the word ''heritage'' instead of trying to pretend that 1960 buildings are historic we could preserve the best examples of relevant periods and ensure they are kept intact, or as nearly intact as pOSSible, for future generations.

We do not have to do it on a wide scale or do it without proper regard to the people who own those buildings and we do not have to disregard the fact that the curators, custodians or owners of the buildings will have to bear a burden. We do not have to make the situation so impossible that it might take as long as 35 years to find out whether the building is historic unless the government threatens to do something to it, in which case it gets fast-track treatment. That situation is ridiculous. The council is burdened with enough work for the next 35 years and has not been given the financial resources from a miserable and inattentive government which is more interested in the appearance of action rather than real action.

If only the government could find $1 million a year for real action in the area of historic buildings I am assured by the council, which advises the Minister and the government, that it could clean up the mess and fix up the matters that are presently awaiting its consideration. Perhaps the legislation would assist in the process.

Unfortunately the govenunent does not believe in including the opposition in the process of consultation but believes that a fortnight's adjournment of the debate on the Bill is sufficient, after which it proposes that the Bill be rubber-stamped. The rubber stamp days are over; the days when legislation gallops through Parliament without being examined are over. If the legislation has to wait for the spring sessional period, wait it will, because unless the coalition is satisfied that the government is prepared to remove from the Bill the fees provisions - which, as I have pointed out, are counterproductive because the cost of collecting the fees will probably exceed the amount of fees collected - the Bill will not pass.

The fact that the ANZ Bank building happens to be an historic building and part of the heritage of Melbourne does not seem to be an excuse for not just insisting on having building permit fees for work done on the building, but for inflicting on it a second set of fees for historic buildings to smarten up the administration of the Historic Buildings Council.

The govenunent has missed a golden opportunity to establish its credentials in the heritage and historic buildings area. It has missed its opportunity by starving the



council of the relevant funds that are necessary for it to do quality work promptly. If I were to announce further to the Minister what the coalition's policy will be, I would say it is to give additional funds to the council, not just through mickey mouse fees that will provide $50 000 a year, but a real injection of funds that will speed up its work and re-establish its credibility with the public.

We cannot have an historic buildings system that is so far behind the times and causing such hardship to individuals and a wider group of people so that it is totally unsafe to buy a building in this State. Anyone can nominate anything and many do. If we had to go around the State and consider a few opportunities, would it not be a good opportunity to think for a minute about the Regent Theatre.

I suppose it was nine years empty under a Liberal government and about nine years empty under a Labor govenunent. I do not know of any other city in the world which would claim to be a world-class city and would have a 3OOO-seat auditorium in the centre of its central business and activity district empty for eighteen years. Lustig of Bavaria could have done better than that.

I must be a member of one of the last generations that actually sat in seats in the Regent Theatre and saw National Velvet or something when Elizabeth Taylor was a teenager. We actually went there and used the place. I am sure government members would never have been to anything in the Regent Theatre.

Mrs Barker interjected.

Mr MACLELLAN - Have you ever been to anything in the Regent Theatre?

Mrs Barker - I am too young.

Mr MACLELLAN - The members opposite are too young; they cannot remember what it is like but they want it preserved and kept as it is. I think David Marriner missed a golden opportunity to put on The Phantom of the Opera at the real site; he could have put it on in the Regent TIleatre in Collins Street and everybody would have believed the theatre was designed for it.

If the Minister for Planning and Housing were to travel to the corner of Williams Road and Toorak Road - particularly with his Methodist background - and see the Methodist church there, he would see that it is only about two-thirds of a Methodist church.


Mr MACLELLAN - The honourable member for Springvale says "vandalised", but it is still there. What are we going to do? Are we going to rebuild it the way it was, complete the vandalising or clean it up? It must be one of the great tourist attractions in Melbourne for anybody who misses the Como stop and goes a few stops too far, to see that thing!

I could not imagine a better stop to launch the planning policies of the coalition than that. It says volumes about this government. It is a silent memorial to the failure of the



planning policies of the Labor government. Nine years and that structure is still there. Nine years and it has still got one-third knocked out of it. What are we waiting for? Are we waiting for the Lord to rebuild it? Are we waiting for the Lord to give us the message and then we can say, ''Hallelujah, we have discovered the answer." Are we waiting for Lustig to come to the Regent Theatre? If one wants to go to more working-class areas --


Mr MACLELLAN - I should say effort areas; "working-class" may be patronising! If one went out to near the San Remo ballroom, just near the corner of Alexandra Parade there is a very nice old 1890s boom - I should not mention the 1890 boom, I should be talking about the 1891 crash because Victoria has had the 1991 crash - but there is this building and it has had galvanised iron sheets covering the window holes right throughout the Labor govenlffient's term.

For the Minister's benefit I cannot remember whether that was on the corner beside a bluestone Methodist church that was pulled down or not. Anyway, there was a church beside that too. The government seems to have a thing about churches; it is almost as though there is sOmething about the churchiness that gets it. If it is churchy, it seems to hang around for a long time in this State, either half wrecked, unloved, unused or sadly neglected. All I can say is nine years of mucking around is more than enough.

If it is nine years of Liberal mucking around added to nine years of Labor mucking around making a total of eighteen years, I can assure the Minister and this House that under a coalition government it is going to end. If that means that the Toorak Methodist church is levelled and the happy owner is able to sell all the bricks, then that is what will happen. There has to be a resolution of the issue.

Mr Baker interjected.

The ACI1NG SPEAKER - Order! The Minister for Agriculture is out of his place and out of order.

Mr MACLELLAN - The Minister for Agriculture would, I think, deserve one of the first bricks as a sort of memento of the inability of his government to come to decisions.

Mr Coleman interjected.

Mr MACLELLAN - Two bricks if it will help. Mr Acting Speaker, King Lustig is not going to come and save the Regent Theatre. The Lord is not going to come and save the Toorak Methodist church and if He does there are not any Methodists left for Him to save. If He comes back they will not even know Him.

For heaven's sake let us clean up the mess, and the mess is the Minister's mess and the government's mess. This Bill is not clearing up the mess; it is creating all-time new opportunities to make an even bigger mess. If I have used two or three recognisable examples can I say that in the in-tray of the Historic Buildings Council there could be up to 2000 other applications awaiting processing and doubtless among the 2000 one could

77841/91-84



find a few more examples for the entertainment of the House and for the disgrace and embarrassment of the community.

I do not think our community is any better off for having a partly wrecked Methodist church or an empty and abandoned Regent Theatre. If I hear another lord mayor announce another revival project for the Regent Theatre, I think we will all go out of our minds. Can anyone name anyone of the last lord mayors who has not announced something about the Regent Theatre? Surely there was not one who forgot. There might have been one or two. It was always going to be saved by one thing or by another. It seems you always know when the municipal year is coming to its magnificent conclusion because there is another press conference and another announcement.

We have had the arts-led recovery and it looks as though we are going to have the Lustig-Ied recovery. Knitting was one offering from the Premier in distinction to the words "value added". I thought value added would be a better way of putting it. Certainly value added is the way the Nationals and the coalition put it. We look at adding value to things. I suppose that marks the difference between the coalition and the government. The government looks at phantoms and fantasies and the coalition looks at adding value. I wish the Minister for Agriculture would realise that adding value to the primary products of this State is a better way out of the recession than hoping that the poker machines or the arts-led recovery, or whatever it is that it wants to fantasise about, is going to get it out of the deep, dark hole of the recession we had to have. This is the recession your Federal Treasurer said we had to have. It was not an evil coalition government in Canberra. It was a splendid, working-class Federal Labor government that decided we all had to have a recession because it was going to be so good for us. It was going to cleanse our economy. It was going to get rid of all the excesses. Instead of rich people buying Porsche cars we would be back to basics. Well, we are getting back to basics with a rush: basic unemployment; basic homelessness; a basic recession.

The ACfING SPEAKER - Order! Will the honourable member for Berwick come back to the Bill?

Mr MACLELLAN - And basic Bills that muck things up more and more. This Bill is symptomatic of the govenunent's approach: more bureaucracy; more interference; more consideration of unimportant issues; and more procrastination.

The 2000 unprocessed matters before the Historic Buildings Council ought to be upon the conscience of every government member. It is not that the council has not been doing its job but that the government wasted the money and resources that would have allowed it to do the job properly. I have been assured that for an additional $1 million the council would do it. That probably means a few more planners, a few more bureaucrats, a few more typists and a few more executives for the council and a few less for the Department of Planning and Housing.

Where is the revolution? The government can transfer a few resources to the Historic Buildings Council to allow it to do the job properly because it is behind in its work. It is



a public scandal. The ills and obligation of the whole thing are being visited upon ordinary property owners who have looked after their properties faithfully and well and who are now being put through the hell of not knowing exactly what the status of their properties is. The government does not care enough to fix up the matter. It does not care enough to get rid of the scandal of the former Methodist church in Toorak Road. It does not care enough to take effective action on the Regent Theatre.

It does not care enough to take the sheets of galvanised iron off the publicly owned buildings that are in a state of decay and are an embarrassment to anyone who moves around the city. If one accompanies a visitor to Melbourne and is asked, ''What is that?" one quickly gets the visitor to look the other way rather than witness the disgraceful sights of public neglect and public indifference. It is the public sector not the private that is letting us down.

A journey along Spencer Street used to be a journey of abysmal shame. What was wrong with it? It was the dead hand of government. It did not matter whether it was the police department or its crumbling hotel. Heaven thank the Lord, the hotel site has been sold to private enterprise. What about the old mail exchange? Heaven knows, somebody will make an application that it be declared historic and it will become No. 2001 on the waiting list.

On the other side of Spencer Street the railway yards are not an uplifting Sight. The government is talking about the docklands being developed beyond that. It is a zone that looks like Beruit, the Nevada of the future. What does the Minister for Planning and Housing say about the docklands? little, I am pleased to say, because he has been outrun by other government Ministers. This is the planning opportunity of a century. We talk about the need for increased densities in the metropolitan area. We talk about trying to stop the urban sprawl before it gets to Orbost.

Mr Baker - Look at the densities within the Liberal Party!

Mr MACLELLAN - The Minister for Agriculture may suggest ther~ is plenty of density within the Liberal Party, but he is not aware of our penchant for saving historic buildings.

The ACI'ING SPEAKER - Order! I wonder how many times I have to direct the attention of the Minister to the fact that interjections are disorderly.

Mr MACLELLAN - I should not think too many times, Mr Acting Speaker. The Minister gets very tired and emotional at a quarter past ten, so we will not have to put up with him much longer. He has gone to his corner and will soon be in slumberland, I hope.

The government tries to inflict densities equivalent to the size of Springvale on the outer reaches of the Shire of Pakenham because it does not want the sprawl to continue. Yet what does the government do in the Docklands project area? It talks about the Docklands area as being for casinos. If I heard the Attorney-General correctly today, there is to be a large, popular casino - the one that would have been in Nevada - in



the Docklands area. That is where the people will go because the small and exclusive one - if as I Wlderstand the honourable member for Melbourne is to cop it - will be in the basement of the Regent Theatre. The more popular one will be in the Docldands area. Of course, it might be a bit lonely down in the Docldands area. I recognise that in the Docklands area those sorts of things have been going on for generations, but this proposal says it all about the government. How twisted and confused it is. What used to be the Plaza Theatre, which was King Lustig's lower basement at the Regent Theatre, will be the exclusive casino thanks to the fake fur and tiara club.

What does the government think we are? What does it think the poor besotted Victorian public is? Does it really think we will believe the nonsense being spouted by a tiring government and a Lord Mayor who is about to see out his term? He must be desperate. The local government elections are coming up. It is a real problem.

The ACfING SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Berwick on the Bill.

Mr MACLELLAN - These items are historic Wlder the Historic Buildings Council. If they are not yet nominated they soon will be. As soon as someone thinks Mr Lustig is going to get a casino in the bottom of the Regent Theatre, he or she will have only to nominate it to the Historic Buildings Council. That will be the end of Mr Lustig's opporhmity to get the casino because he will then have to go through the whole council process.

Mr Cole - Leave Mr Lustig alone.

Mr MACLELLAN - Isn't that nice. That is really a warm compliment!

The ACI1NG SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Melbourne is out of his place.

Mr MACLELLAN - He gives us a real recovery glow. There is a glimmer at the end of the tunnel. It is, ''Just hold on long enough and all will be well. Mr Lustig will give us a casino boutique at the bottom of the Regent Theatre and the tiara club will lose enough to save us all from our follies".

Mr Cooper - A roulette-led recovery!

Mr MACLELLAN -It will not happen. As the honourable member for Mornington suggests, the government wants a roulette-led recovery. Before that there will be a constitutional crisis within the Parliament of Victoria. An election will be held and there will be a change of government. The Historic Buildings Council will have a new sense of direction because the coalition will increase its funding and resources so that the council can catch up on the many projects it has been unable to successfully deal with under this govenlffient. The coalition will be more decisive. Buildings as obvious and embarraSSing as a partly demolished, or unsuccessfully demolished, Methodist church will be dealt with. The owners should be encouraged to get rid of it. If it were anywhere else a demolition order would be issued to the owners on the ground that the building was dangerous. Under this government such things go on almost endlessly because it refuses to put the money in the right places. Instead the government has been too busy losing



money through the National Safety COWlcil of Australia, the Victorian Investment Corporation, the Victorian Economic Development Corporation and Tricontinental.

2597

I know where the money is that would have enabled the Regent to be completed: it has been invested in some half-baked, half-finished resort on the Sunshine Coast. The historic building at the end of MOWlt Alexander Road could have been restored had the government not given a Western Australian brickworks money to play with.

The money that would have enabled the Historic Buildings Council to process the 2000 applications referred to was squandered by loans to the National Safety Council for boxes of air! On the basis of boxes specially constructed to have nothing in them and to enable them to be easily counted by aerial survey, the council was able to borrow more and more money.

I hesitate to say that the money that could have improved the processes of the Historic Buildings COWlcil was invested in the Whipstick goldmine, because nothing actually went into the development of the mine. Instead the money lent to the mine owners was laundered within the gold system - and we are leaming more about the gold system and investment in stamps from the Western Australian Royal Commission.

In that case money was lent to people convicted of illegally manufacturing amphetamines - and, of course, cyanide, which is a necessary part of the goldmining process, is also the reagent used for making amphetamines! The whole operation was working out nicely but they became too greedy: they wanted a government loan to make amphetamines, and this government was stupid enough to allow that to happen. That money could have been used to unscramble the Historic Buildings Council mess.

Some of the money could have been used to solve the problems faced by the lady with five children who wanted a couple of bedrooms built on to her house in Camberwell, but who has been well and truly mucked up.

We all know that a favourite saying of the honourable member for Bundoora, the former Premier, is 11 Anyone for tennis?". Victoria has a very clever tennis centre. I do not doubt that it will be classified as an historic building, if it is not already, because it will become known as a memorial to John Cain Jnr. It has a very clever opening and shutting roof. The fact that it takes so long to shut may say something about the government.

The ACTING SPEAKER - Order! On the Bill.

Mr MACLELLAN - No doubt it will become an historic building, and it will have to survive the intricacies of debates such as those that have occurred on this Bill.


Mr MACLELLAN - The honourable member for Springvale, where there are no high-rise flats, asks about high-rise flats. Like the Sports and Entertainment Centre, which the Historic Buildings COWlcil may classify as an historic building because of its architectural worth, doubtless a representative group of Singapore or Swedish-style high-rise flats could be selected as an example that should not be followed in the future.



Certainly it would be worthwhile reminding future generations that high-rise flats are not the way to go in public housing. That is not to say that people should not be allowed to live in high-rise buildings, but that high-rise buildings are singularly inappropriate for families and virtually inappropriate as models for public housing.


Mr MACLELLAN - There are many reasons why, which I do not need to lecture the honourable member for Springvale about.

Mr Cole interjected.

Mr MACLELLAN - The honourable member for Melbourne is off again.

Mr Cole - You didn't maintain them when you were in government.

The ACfING SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Berwick should ignore interjections; and the honourable member for Melbourne is out of order and out of his place.

Mr MACLELLAN - The honourable member for Melbourne claimed by interjection that Liberal govenunents neglected to maintain high-rise flats. What a classic statement in a debate about historic buildings for the honourable member for Melbourne to say that Liberal governments failed to maintain things when this government is cutting expenditure, cutting maintenance programs and cutting jobs in the public sector because the State is now facing its worst recession in living memory.

The honourable member for Melbourne is a supporter of a government with a twisted sense of priorities.


Mr MACLELLAN - The honourable member mentions bribery and corruption.

Mr Cole - You are all guilty of it.

Mr MACLELLAN - Mr Acting Speaker, I ask you to ask the honourable member for Melbourne to withdraw the comment he made that all members of the opposition are guilty of bribery and corruption.

The ACfING SPEAKER (Mr Evans) - Order! The honourable member for Berwick has asked for the statement to be withdrawn. I ask the honourable member for Melbourne to withdraw the statement.

Mr COLE (Melbourne) - I will not withdraw the statement.

The ACfING SPEAKER - Order! I regret that I was not listening to what was said at the time, but I wlderstand the statement made by the honourable member for Melbourne was that all members of the opposition are guilty of bribery and corruption. If the honourable member confirms that that is the statement he made, he should withdraw it. I ask the honourable member to withdraw the statement.



Mr CO LE (Melbourne) - They were the words I used. lhat is what I said; that is what I believe. But I will withdraw the statement.

Mr Lea interjected.


The ACTING SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Berwick without interjection.



The ACTING SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will desist from making interjections and the House will come to order!

2599

Mr MACLELLAN - The Historic Buildings (Further Amendment) Bill seems an unlikely vehicle to provoke disturbances such as those that have recently occurred in the House, but I have to say that I regret the suggestion made by the honourable member for Melbourne about members of the opposition. It is a pity the honourable member did not withdraw more generously, given his reflection.

Mr LEA (Sandringham) -On a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, I ask the honourable member for Springvale for an unqualified withdrawal or to make that statement outside the steps of Parliament House. Already we have had aspersions cast by the honourable member for Melbourne on the validity and truth of members of Parliament. Casting asperSions should not be tolerated by this Parliament without proof and I suggest there are a large number of members on this side who would like individually to accommodate the remarks of the honourable member for Melbourne outside this House - -

The ACTING SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Sandringham.


The ACTING SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Sandringham should make his point of order, and make it concisely.

Mr LEA - I have been called an animal by the honourable member for Springvale. I ask for an unqualified withdrawal from the man who disgraces this House.

The ACTING SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Sandringham claims that the remark made by the honourable member for Springvale is offensive and he is entitled to ask for that remark to be withdrawn. I ask the honourable member for Springvale to withdraw the remark.

Mr Baker - Pistols or cutlasses!

Mr MICALLEF (Springvale) - I did insult animals and withdraw on that basis.



The ACfING SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Springvale will make an unqualified withdrawal of the remark or I will be obliged to report his actions to the Speaker.

Mr MICALLEF - I said I withdraw on that basis.


The ACfING SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member will make an unqualified withdrawal or I will have no alternative but to report his refusal to the Speaker.

Mr MICALLEF - I will make an unqualified withdrawal on that basis.

The ACfING SPEAKER - Order! I ask the honourable member for Springvale to make an unqualified withdrawal of his remark.

Mr MICALLEF - On the basis of what you are asking me to do I withdraw. I cannot make it any clearer.

The ACfING SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member has withdrawn. He will resume his seat.

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick) - In the view of the coalition the Historic Buildings (Further Amendment) Bill is flawed because it is introduced by a government that has not established clear-sighted desires and needs in the area of heritage. The Bill will not pass through Parliament unless the government agrees to amend it in the two matters I have raised during the debate. The first matter related to religious observance and the second to fees.

In the debate I have attempted to make it clear that the coalition policy about heritage and historic buildings will be to increase the resources available to the Historic Buildings Cowlcil to enable it to do its work properly, to enable it to catch up on the many applications pending in the "in" tray and to give it resources to do the job properly.

It is a scandal that people are put to the trouble of not knowing whether they are expected to maintain a building as an historic building or as a classified building or whether they are free to use the building as any other citizen may be entitled. The resources in excess of $1 million to enable the council to do the job properly have been squandered and wasted by a government that lacks proper responsibility and is unable to face or answer the Victorian public.

The sooner the govenunent goes the better. The sooner we have an election and a change of government the better. The better it will be for the heritage of Victoria and the better for the proper application of historic and heritage principles of buildings, and the quicker the end to the scandal of the maladministration that has been characterised by and is characteristic of the govenunent.



The situation involves the need certainly for some decisive action on a few high-profile and spectacular projects which have simply been neglected. They may have been neglected perhaps by previous governments but certainly neglected in the past nine years by this govenunent. I see the need for us to resolve issues and have them decided.

I do not really express any sense of outrage that someone wishes to paint their inside rooms in different colours. If we wish to impose heritage colours on the interior of heritage buildings that choice of colour made by the owners can easily be changed by a further application of paint at a later stage. That would be wise and sensible. I have said that certainly acts of vandalism which may for all time change a heritage should not be allowed or tolerated.

Certainly the present delays and inadequacies in the operation of the Historic Buildings Act should not be allowed to continue. I commend the government for its attempt at consultation. We cannot criticise the consultation process but I do criticise the outcome of that process because of the inadequacy in the outcome and the failure to consult churches about church buildings although churches are overwhelmingly the custodians of the buildings and ought to be in the front line in the granting of wider powers of consideration to the Historic Buildings Council when it is something like 35 years behind in its work.

Why we would wish to add "aesthetic", "scientific", "architectural", ''historic'' or "social" to the list is not adequately explained by the Minister in his second-reading speech. The ambitions of the council to leap upon 1960s buildings and to preserve and examine buildings built in the 1960s -whether it be a block of six-pack flats or a cream brick building in the suburbs - represents an ambition that ought to be deferred while the council catches up on some of the more important heritage buildings yet to be assessed. The priorities seem to be stretched and over-stretched, and the sights about prospective heritage and historic buildings seem to be clouded.

The inadequacy of direction by the Minister could be part of the reason. The distraction of the government with its factionalism and inadequacies in administration means the government has run out of steam in its administration of the State. It no longer really knows what it wants to do. Therefore, legislation is introduced which is inadequately explained, insufficiently justified and leads to community resentment and reaction; and - in the case of His Grace Archbishop Sir Frank Little - a reaction which was sharp, to the point and one that was raised with the Premier.

I should have thought that when the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne takes the trouble to raise with the Premier a matter about legislation before the House we would have heard an appropriate government response from the Minister. Certainly the forms of the House do not allow that easily in the formalities of this place.

The Bill was introduced a for blight ago and was adjourned until today. Debate has been resumed on the motion of the coalition. I have not heard privately from the Minister. I have not heard in any other way from the Minister except about the objections raised by the Catholic Church. It is the major custodian and has traditionally had a heavy



responsibility in looking after ecclesiastical and other heritage buildings within and associated with the church and its role ought to be recognised.

It is scandalous that this government has been issuing press releases praising its Bills on their introduction while simply ignoring the fact that such measures give an unlimited taxing power. I cannot see how the government expected to get away with charging the Catholic church a fee for making an application to move something within an historic church building. I do not know how the government expected to get away with charging anyone an additional fee for wanting to paint a bedroom a different colour, or even wanting just to paint a bedroom in an historic building.

I do not know how the government expected to get away with allowing bureaucrats to fix whatever fees they consider appropriate and then grant $50 000 to a struggling Historic Buildings Council. The council should not be struggling; it should be properly funded and resourced and allowed to get on with the job that has accumulated over so many years. If that means reducing the number of new applications, then reduce the number of new applic~tions. If that means leaving the consideration of 1960s buildings for another decade, then leave the consideration of 1960s buildings for another decade.

People should not be without their rights. They should have a clear determination of the merits or demerits of buildings which they own and in which they wish to get on with their living. Many people are proud and pleased to have historic status associated with the building in which they are living. If that is so, good luck to them.

Many others find such status a source of annoyance and a cause for emotional turmoil and considerable hardship. These hardships must be resolved and under a coalition government they will be resolved. A coalition government will provide the necessary resources for the Historic Buildings Council to catch up with its backlog of work. As I said earlier, it has some 35 years of work not yet processed. A coalition government will provide the resources necessary for the work of the council and the heritage branch of the Ministry for Planning and Housing.

If the Minister for Planning and Housing cannot understand why the matter is important, it will be for the next Minister to make the decision. I can only recommend to the Minister that instead of having one of his staff members sitting in the library at the Olderfleet Building he consider what she might be doing. One of his members of staff is leaving in July but, because she has no more work to do, the only thing she can do is sit in the library and read a book. As she is leaving in July, presumably she will sit and face a wall for the next four or five weeks - or is it six weeks? She will sit there with a book, on full pay, until she leaves!

I became aware of this situation quite casually while I was waiting, as others might, for a meeting of the Historic Buildings Council where an issue was to be considered today. Honourable members might be interested to hear on whose behalf I was waiting. I was there for a woman who is emotionally distressed because she feels she is not getting a fair go and things are not being adequately explained to her.



As I have said previously, I have no quarrel with the way the chairperson put the matter to the applicant and the applicant's solicitor, but the correspondence I saw in the file the woman has simply does not allow her to have clear and precise advice as to what she can do with her property. Everybody is ready to tell her what she cannot do with her property; it seems no-one is ready to tell her what she can do with it.

This sort of Bill, introduced at this sort of notice, without telling honourable members what is the position of the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, without disclosing that the fees that will be charged will be $50 000 and therefore will probably have a negative effect on the Historic Buildings Council, probably represents the low point to which the government has gone.

The government is reducing staff as Victorians await the June economic statement. Presumably it will intensify the recession, intensify unemployment and intensify the restrictions on the public sector. Victorians can look forward to the situation only getting worse under this government because it simply has not got its priorities right.

The govenunent knows the direction in which the Historic Buildings Council and the heritage branch of the Ministry wish to go. Members of the opposition are very clear on the matter. We maintain that a clear-Sighted approach must be taken and effective decisions must be made. Decisions must be made so that the scandals of the Regent Theatre and the one-third wrecked Toorak Methodist church stop.

If it is a case of the Prahran City Council having to be told what to do, or the owner of the one-third wrecked building being given advice as to what can be done in respect of that building and how much the government and the people of Victoria want the mess cleaned up, then the sooner that is done the better.

The ambitions the government might hold for the Historic Buildings Council to start work on the consideration of buildings erected during the 1960s will have to be delayed. So far as I am concenled they will have to be delayed for some time, until some of the backlog of the council's work is completed.

Mr McCutcheon interjected.

Mr MACLELLAN - The Minister for Planning and Housing has just said that it is time for me to stop talking and allow others to participate in the debate. I am grateful for his comments because they indicate to me that the Minister has got the message and changes will be made by the government. If not, the Bill will not pass. If the Minister wishes to resume debate on the Bill without having made clear that changes will be made to the Bill and the proposals made to him by the opposition will be adopted, I indicate that any further discussion of this Bill in this sessional period of Parliament will be time wasted for the government. That time could perhaps be better spent on getting some of the other Bills further processed.

I suggest also that if the Minister for Planning and Housing wants the Subdivision (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill-which is another he has on the Notice Paperdealt with in this sessional period, as I believe it must be, he should reach an

WATILE PARK LAND BILL


accommodation with the coalition on this Bill and reach it quickly and expeditiously and he should reach a compromise with the coalition on the subdivision Bill. It will be a great pleasure to me to see the two Bills passed during this sessional period.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr MICALLEF (Springvale).


WATTLE PARK LAND BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 18 April; motion of Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport).

Mr COOPER (Momington) - The Bill effectively transfers the ownership and maintenance of Wattle Park from the Public Transport Corporation over to the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. The Bill has its genesis in a report given to the Public Transport Commission a few years ago by Tract Consultants. A couple of other people were involved in that consultancy whose names I cannot remember, but the principal consultants were Tract.

The report into the running of Wattle Park by the Public Transport Corporation was a saga of incompetence and neglect that had resulted in this Significant asset of the people of Melbourne being allowed to deteriorate quite Significantly.

The short facts of the matter were that the park was being run at a Significant loss and that some of the assets, which were or could be money earners, were not being allowed to earn at a relevant rate to nearby or commercial enterprises.

Most honourable members would know that Wattle Park comprises a large area of open space as well as a nine-hole golf course and tennis courts and a chalet. I read the consultant's report last year, and as I recall it the prices being charged for the use of those facilities, the tennis courts and golf course in particular, were well below the rates that could have been charged elsewhere or were being charged elsewhere, and as a result the running of the park was showing a Significant loss each year.

I suppose when one works out what is going on in the Public Transport Corporation it is no wonder that Wattle Park was showing a loss. Why not? Everything else the Public Transport Corporation does is showing a significant loss, and here we have an organisation charged with the running of public transport in Victoria, losing $2 billion of taxpayers' funds per year at an enormous rate, more than $3500 a minute, and yet, by an historical quirk of fate, it was in charge of a significant metropolitan park.

We therefore had an investigation and a consultant's report into the park, and it showed that not only was it losing a large amount of money, but the park was deteriorating Significantly.

WAITLE PARK LAND BILL


It is to the credit of the government that it has recognised that Wattle Park is important, and that it is important that it be put in the hands of an organisation with some expertise and qualifications in this sort of land management use. The Board of Works has established its credentials over many years with the running of the chain of metropolitan parks around Melbourne, and Wattle Park will now become part of that park network.

Some important parts of the Bill that should be put on the record in the debate include the fact that the Bill ensures the continuation of Wattle Park as a park, and that of itself is very Significant.

Also, under the management of the Board of Works hopefully those assets of the park, particularly the golf course, tennis courts and chalet, will start to return to the managers a reasonable amount by way of usage charges.

The opposition has consulted with the two major municipal organisations that abut the park. The park is actually completely within the City of Box Hill but it abuts the City of Camberwell and both of those municipalities support the transfer of the park into the hands of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works as do the local members of Parliament.

I hope this will be the first of a number of initiatives by the government in looking after the asset register of the Public Transport Corporation and divesting that corporation of all of these sorts of activities on the periphery of its mainstream activities.

Many people probably do not know that the Public Transport Corporation has run its own printing works which have now either been closed down or are about to be closed down. The corporation runs its own clothing factory and its own furniture manufacturing business, and it is quite ridiculous for the corporation to be involved in these kinds of activities.

To demonstrate how ridiculous it is, the corporation's furniture manufacturing activities are now in the process of being marketed in the general community in competition with the beleaguered furniture manufacturing industry operating in this State. That is clearly a nonsense, and it should not be allowed to continue.

As I said earlier pretty well everything the Public Transport Corporation does it does badly under the present government so it is important that it be allowed to do as little as possible. It should concentrate on its core activities. These core activities are to provide public transport services and to provide a safe, reliable and convenient public transport system throughout the State, not to be running parks, furniture manufacturing bUSinesses, clothing factories, printing works and a whole range of other activities that it cannot do well and which end up costing the taxpayers of this State an absolute fortune.

It is in that vein that the opposition does not oppose the Bill, and in so doing it trusts that the future of Wattle Park will be a bright one indeed. The track record of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works gives some hope that Wattle Park will return to being the kind of park that all people can be particularly proud of, especially

HEALTH SERVICES (CONCILIATION AND REVIEW) (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL


those who live in the municipalities of Box Hill and Camberwell, who probably have a closer interest in the park than many others. On that basis the opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) - I thank the honourable member for his brief contribution and I do apologise to the House for not being here at the beginning of his speech.

Mr Plowman - It is an important Bill!

Mr SPYKER - I agree. For the people who enjoy Wattle Park it is an important Bill. My family has enjoyed Wattle Park, like many other families, for many years. It is indeed an historic park and it has been loved by the local community.

The reason for my late attendance is that I am pleased to announce that the transport strike is over and normal train services will run first thing in the morning. That is why I was not able to be in.~e·House at the beginning of the Bill, but I thank the honourable member for Mornington for his comments and I agree that it is not the role of the Public Transport Corporation to be running parks. We have a responsibility to run a public transport system.

I believe the original grandeur of the park when it was established early this century can be returned because the Board of Works is in a much stronger position to look after the park.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Passed remaining stages.

The SPEAKER - Order! The time appointed by Sessional Orders for me to interrupt the business of the House has now arrived.

Sitting continued on motion of Mr ROPER (Treasurer).

HEALTH SERVICES (CONCILIATION AND REVIEW) (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL

Returned from Council with message relating to amendments.

Ordered to be considered next day.




Second reading

Debate resumed from 7 May; motion of Mr KENNAN (AttomeyaGeneral).

Mrs WADE (Kew) - Before I deal with the content of the Bill, I shall raise an important issue. I believe the Attorney-General has misled the public in a serious way. When he moved the second reading of this Bill on 7 May he suggested one week's adjournment. The Bill contains a number of different provisions. It is a miscellaneous amendments Bill and includes three unrelated series of provisions.

One of those is to abolish the year-and-a-day rule in relation to murder. 'That rule has been in force for between 600 and 700 years and to the best of my knowledge is not causing a serious problem in Victoria at present. It may be that there is a case for removing that rule but we would have liked more than a week in which to consider it.

Other provisions in the Bill will repeal a sunset provision that was inserted in the Crimes (Blood Samples) Act last year. The third set of provisions relates to the establishment of a new office of Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions.

One would have assumed that the Attorney-General would like the support of the coalition parties for each of those proposals. However, he apparently thought we would be able to consider the Bill in one week with no time to investigate and research it properly and no time to consult a number of interested organisations that are particularly concerned about the Bill. We take our job in this Chamber seriously. We knew there was considerable interest in the Bill. We knew that, in particular, the blood samples provisions had been subject to considerable debate last year when they were first brought in, and the Attorney-General referred to public concern when those provisions were introduced.

We knew the Law Institute and the Bar Council were concerned, that the Federation of Community Legal Centres was concerned, and that the Australian Medical Association was also concerned about the Bill. We believed there may be considerable opposition to some provisions in the Bill, so we suggested that it would be more appropriate to have a two-week adjoununent on the Bill, which would enable the Bill to be dealt with before the expiry of the sunset provisions, which are due to expire on 1 June.

That is the case. The Bill is being debated tonight and it can be dealt with in both Houses before the expiry of those sunset provisions. Therefore, I was disappointed that, following the exchange in the House on the time for the adjournment, the Attorney-General put out a press release on 8 May headed, "Opposition threat to police powers Bill". It states that the Bill is at risk from opposition blocking tactics and states:

Mr Kennan said urgent legislation was required in this session of Parliament, or the provisions in the Crimes Act on the taking of blood samples from suspects would expire.



The Attorney-General said the government had introduced the Crimes Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (No. 2) to remove the sunset clause and allow the amendments to continue in operation. The press release states:

11 And yet, incredibly, despite having had the last twelve months to think about a position on this important legislation, last night the opposition asked for more time.

We asked for two weeks instead of one week. The Attorney-General said a fair bit more in the way of abuse of the opposition parties on this issue. I am not complaining about this on behalf of the opposition, although I believe the coalition position was significantly misrepresented in that press release. Following the Attorney-General's press release, the police apparently briefed the press about a particular murder case in which a suspect has refused to give a blood sample under the existing legislation. The police have said that if the legislation does not pass that crime suspect will walk free without their being able to charge him.

These details were published in the Herald-Sun and the Geelong Advertiser. The murder referred to by the police took place in Geelong; it was the murder of a young woman, and her family live in Geelong. Members of that family were extremely upset by the suggestion that those provisions may not go through and that the blood samples legislation may therefore fail with the alleged offender walking away free. I have been approached by members of that family, who have been extremely upset about those reports. This case shows how dangerous totally inaccurate reporting can be.

I have also been approached -by the family of another murder victim which has similar concerns. There was no need for those concerns to have arisen. There was absolutely no need for those families to have been worried in that way. As I said, I am not concerned about the misrepresentation of the coalition position, but I am extremely concerned that those people should have suffered in that way purely from the Attorney-General putting out that press release. The Attorney-General had no indication whatsoever that the coalition would oppose the blood samples provisions. All we ever said was that we wanted time to consider those provisions. I mention at this stage - and I shall come back to this later - that the blood samples provisions in this Bill are substantially different from the blood samples provisions in the Bill with the sunset clause that was passed last year.

A number of aspects should be raised in the light of the Attorney-General's press release. The Attorney-General should be called upon to make some explanation. He should explain why the repeal of this sunset clause was contained not in a Bill that just dealt with the sunset clause or maybe the sunset clause combined with the amendments to the blood samples provisions.

That Bill could have been dealt with easily and quickly but included in this Bill are two totally unrelated things; that is, the repeal of the year-and-a-day rule in murder and the provisions for the appointment of a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions has meant that the coalition has had to give consideration to those provisions, too.


Tpesday, 28 May 1991 ASSEMBLY 2609

I also ask the Attorney-General why the Bill was not introduced until 7 May. It would have been possible for the Attorney-General to introduce this Bill on the first day of the session and that would have given us plenty of time to consider it. I remind the Attorney-General that he did give me a copy of the Bill a few days before he introduced it but that copy was not available to other people who had concerns about the Bill and I received my copy only at the beginning of May. .

In fact some of the organisations which have expressed concern about both this Bill and the Bill last year have still not had time to respond to the coalition's queries about their attitude to the repeal of the sunset clause. However, we have had the opportunity of discussing it with the Australian Medical Association and the Federation of Community Legal Centres. I would stress that had this Bill been introduced at the beginning of the session there would have been no need for concern on anyone's part.

I also point out to the Attorney-General that even if by some chance something happened and the Bill was not able to be debated by 1 June that he could have reinstated the blood samples provisions with retrospective legislation just as he is doing with the other provisions and there need have been no gap whatsoever in the blood samples provisions.

The Attorney-General might think he is a smart politician by putting out press releases of this sort but I suggest in future he thinks of the effect it might have on families and the considerable distress it did cause to families caught up in murders of family members and that he does not do this sort of thing in the future.

I shall move on to the substantive provisiOns of the Bill. In view of the circumstances I have just adverted to I point out to honourable members and to anyone who might be reading Hansard that the first provisions about taking blood samples from alleged offenders was introduced by the Liberal Party. The first provisions that would have enabled the police to take blood samples even from people who were not consenting were introduced by the Honourable Bruce Chamberlain in another place in November 1988. That Bill was not supported by the government and it did not go through in that year. Indeed nothing was done through 1989 and it was not until 1990 that the government brought in its own provisions to enable blood samples to be taken. Had the government supported the original blood samples legislation introduced by the Honourable Bruce Chamberlain in 1988 there may have been cases which have not been solved during the period up to the introduction of the government's legislation which could have been solved.

When the government introduced its legislation in 1990 it was not opposed by the coalition parties and it went through. However, the Attorney-General said in his second-reading speech on this Bill that there was considerable public concern expressed about the ability to make orders for compulsory blood tests and, as the Attorney-General also said in his second-reading speech, it was not just concern on the part of the coalition but the government was also concerned about these provisions and a sunset clause was inserted in the Bill so the administration of these proceedings could be carefully monitored over a twelve-month period.

CRIMES LEGISLA nON (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL (No. 2)


That monitoring has taken place and the Attorney-General's Department has given the opposition some details of the blood samples that have been taken during that period. In total there have been blood samples taken from 153 suspects. In all except nine cases those blood samples were given by consent. In those nine cases it was necessary to obtain a court order and applications were made. In six of those cases the orders were granted. I believe two cases are still proceeding and in one of those cases the suspect consented to the sample prior to the court proceedings actually taking place.

I understand in general the blood samples in all cases have been taken by police surgeons. I am not aware of any problems having occurred. In those circumstances we do not oppose the provisions relating to blood samples and I should like to mention that some people might wonder why there was concern on the part of both the coalition and the government about forcibly taking blood samples from suspects.

Perhaps I could give an example. It was put to coalition members by the Federation of Community Legal Centres that the Bill before the House together with the legislation passed last year would enable a blood sample to be taken without consent from a twelve-year-old child involved in a fight after school. That may be correct. The court certainly has power to grant an order in those circumstances and the reason is that this Bill goes much further than the legislation we put through last year. Again it underlines the need to carefully consider this Bill.

Last year the provision compelling a person to give a blood sample without consent was restricted to circumstances where the offence alleged was murder, manslaughter or a series of sexual offences. This Bill extends those powers to cover all indictable offences. This extension takes place in a context where experts are still questioning the reliability of DNA testing.

Mr PLOWMAN (Evelyn) - On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been in this House for a number of years now and I have never yet witnessed a situation where the Minister responsible for a Bill has spent most of his time sitting up on the back bench yarning to one of his mates. It is a disgrace that he has such little concern for Parliament and his responsibilities that he is not prepared to sit, as is customary, at the table and take note and consideration of what the opposition is saying. If he is so arrogant, I do not know why he bothers to grace the House with his presence and I would like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to suggest to the Attorney-General that he accept his responsibilities, return to the table and take some note of the debate.

The DEPUlY SPEAKER - Order! There is no point of order.

Mrs WADE (Kew) - In looking at legislation of this kind it is tempting to just look at the position of a victim or a victim's family, but one has to consider not only the rights of victims but also the rights of innocent people who may be suspected of an offence and who may be required to give blood samples.

There is one aspect of this Bill which we heartily support and that is the prOvisions that have been inserted regulating the way in which blood samples may be obtained from people who do not have the capacity to consent. This issue was left up in the air by the


T.esday, 28 May 1991 ASSEMBLY

legislation that was passed last year. It is an issue relating to intellectually disabled, mentally ill, and brain-damaged people.

2611

The Bill makes it dear that in circumstances where those sorts of people are alleged to have committed an offence and a blood sample is required it is not sufficient for the person to consent to the blood sample being taken but an order must be sought from the court. Before I move on from these particular provisions I make it dear that we are supporting all the provisions relating to blood samples.

I turn now to the provisions relating to the appointment of a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions. The Attorney-General has explained the need for this office by saying that it will ensure the proper operation of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. There is already provision in the Director of Public Prosecutions Act enabling an acting director to act during the absence of the director because of illness or other cause or during any vacancy in the office of the director; and the acting director, while so acting, has all the powers and duties and may exercise any of the functions of the director.

Therefore, it would seem that there is no need for a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions in circumstances where the director is absent from his office or where there is any vacancy in the office, so we are talking only about a situation where the director is in Melbourne and on duty but where he is perhaps otherwise engaged.

It has been said that he might be engaged in appearing in court. People who appear in court do not appear in court all day. The director has a very large office. He has a solicitor and a deputy solicitor, and no doubt they can do a lot of the research and other work involved in making decisions. The director will obviously be present in his office for a certain portion of the day, and we see no reason why we should support what is obviously a very ·expensive solution of appointing a deputy to a person who is, I understand, on the salary of a Supreme Court judge. Therefore, the deputy will have to be well paid and reasonably well housed and, no doubt, have secretarial assistance. This seems to be an unnecessary expense.

I point out to the Attorney-General that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions already seems to be a fairly expensive operation. I note that the budget for that office was exceeded in the 1989-90 financial year. The budget for salaries and associated costs was $6 791 312, while the budget estimate was $6 729 000. Perhaps more importantly, the operating expenses were considerably higher than was anticipated in that year, with an actual outlay of $7 125 140 when it was estimated at $4 760 000.

This cost overrun appears to be almost solely due to the enormous increase for the funding of professional assistance for that office, which was budgeted to be $3 951 822 but the actual expenditure was $6 251 754. The Attorney-General should come to grips with that sort of budget overrun before he starts increasing the costs of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I turn now to the issue of the abolition of the year-and-a-day rule for murder. As I said earlier, the year-and-a-day rule has been in operation for between 600 and 700 years as I understand it. I asked the Attorney-General's office to explain the problems that have



arisen in Victoria as a result of the year-and-a-day rule still being in operation and I was told that there was one case where a person would have been able to be charged with murder had the year-and-a-day rule not been in operation. I have yet to ascertain whether that person was charged with any other offence.

In his second-reading speech the Attorney-General said that the reason for the abolition of the rule was to deal with cases where a person was attacked by someone and infected with the AIDS virus. I should like to explore this further with the Attorney-General. As I understand it, in some cases of people being infected with the AIDS virus it may take ten years or more before they die. It seems the Attorney-General is suggesting that no action should be taken against a person who inflicts an injury of this kind on another person until such time as ten years has expired.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Kew, quite justifiably, has been distracted by the conversations that continue in the Chamber. If honourable members wish to converse, I ask them to kindly leave the Chamber.

Mrs WADE - It appears to me that the Attorney-General is suggesting that where a person deliberately inflicts an injury on another person causing him or her to be infected with the AIDS virus we should sit around for ten years or more to see whether or not the offender should be charged with murder. That is clearly unsatisfactory and not in keeping with the general rule that charges should be laid as soon as possible.

I have discussed with both the police and Crown prosecutors whether in those circumstances one could charge someone with another offence immediately after the assault took place, such as intentionally causing grievous bodily harm, so that the offender could be charged, convicted and imprisoned for that offence; and whether, ten years later, when the victim dies, the offender could also be charged with murder. There seems to be a difference of opinion on this point and I should be interested to know whether the Attorney-General has received any advice on this point.

I understand that the Law Reform Commission is about to produce a report on homicide and that it does cover the year-and-a-day rule. Having had an advance piece of information from the Attorney-General's Department in a briefing, I believe the commission's report does recommend the abolition of the year-and-a-day rule. The coalition would like to see the commission's report, which I understand is fairly close to completion.

If the report does, in fact, recommend the abolition of the rule, we would like to know the reasons for it and whether other amendments to the law will be proposed as a result of this abolition because it appears to us that it is not just a matter of abolishing the year-and-a-day rule but that it may well be that other changes are also required to deal with situations such as a person deliberately causing somebody to acquire AIDS. I should have thought the coalition's suggestion earlier this year that a specific offence be created of intentionally infecting someone with AIDS, with a penalty similar to that for murder, would be a more appropriate way of dealing with the situation. The coalition is willing to consider that issue. The coalition is not saying it will never consent to the



abolition of the year-and-a-day rule. It does not want to hold up the Bill while the matter is Wlder consideration.

Finally, I refer to an amendment that I understand the Attorney-General wants to have debated in the Committee stage. I have been given a copy of the amendment, which is a retrospective provision that the Attorney-General wants as a matter of urgency.

The matter has already received considerable publicity, but not in this case at the instigation of the Attorney-General. I refer the House to an article in the Herald-Sun of 22 May which is headed "Killers could go free" and is subheaded "Scramble to alter new law". The artiCle explains the provision as well as anyone could explain it. It states:

Killers, drug traffickers and armed bandits may walk free from Victorian courts after a legal ruling exposing a loophole in a newly introduced law.

Four men charged in relation to an attempted murder walked free from court last week because the charges were more than six months old.

Senior police have been stunned to learn that cases prepared on murder, drug trafficking, armed robbery, serious fraud and other major crimes may now be worthless.

Major cases where people were charged in the last three months of last year are in jeopardy.

I refer to the history behind the newspaper headlines by reminding honourable members of the new Magistrates' Courts Bill that was introduced in 1989. The Bill included some sudden death provisions in tenns of prosecutions. The provisions were to the effect that if certain alleged offences were not brought before the courts within a certain time frame they could not be brought before the courts at all, the alleged offenders would go free and no charges could be brought against them. The time limit in cases of sex offences was three months and the time limit for other offences including murder, attempted murder, armed robbery and fraud was six months.

In 1989, when coalition members debated the Bill, we expressed concern about the sudden death provisions. Although I have not had time to examine the debates in this House I believe our concerns were raised with the government. If they were not it was because the debate on that Bill was severely guillotined and honourable members did not have much time to talk about the details of the Bill.

At that time the coalition believed the government could not be trusted with provisions of this sort. Members of the opposition were well aware of the administrative failures in Virtually every department and it appeared to them that this provision was just asking for trouble.

I pointed out to the Attorney-General that there are other ways of tackling this issue rather than allowing alleged murderers and sex offenders to walk free from courts. I suggested posters on the walls of prosecutors and police officers' offices advising them that if they did not get these cases to court within three or six months they would no longer be employed in their offices. I thought that might have a salutary effect. It would certainly mean that murderers, attempted murderers, armed robbers and people accused of fraud would not walk free.



If one wanted to be less hard on these people one could devise a poster that gave another message that would be just as effective.

Mr Kennan - Confiscate their houses, retrospectively!

Mrs WADE - Perhaps the Attorney-General would prefer we did not go along with him on this retrospective legislation. He seems to be having second thoughts about it. I know he is not really in favour of retrospective legislation. If he wishes to change his mind about the provision we are certainly prepared to listen to him.

This is not the first time we have had this problem with the Attorney-General. At present the House is considering the six-month limitation involving murderers, attempted murderers, drug traffickers and people involved in fraud. In the spring session the House considered the three-month provision for sex offenders. I have not had time to refer to my files but at that time there were newspaper headlines "Sex offenders could go free". Retrospective legislation was required to ensure that the sex offenders could be charged and their cases could be heard before the courts. At that time a number of coalition members pointed out that the Attorney-General needed some flexibility in his legislation or he would find himself in a similar position. Fortunately the Attorney-General listened to that advice. He included a proviSion with some flexibility in a Courts (Amendment) Bill then before the House. In addition to advising him he needed flexibility I also counselled him about ensuring that he actually read the Bills he introduced into Parliament to ensure that things were done to meet the time frames. I think there was about three-quarters of a page of Hansard where I counselled him on getting his legislation into order.

Mr Plowman - He does not have the capacity to listen!

Mrs WADE - The Attorney-General does not listen. He sits over in the corner chatting to his friends or to other people in the box. Although he listened to our advice on flexibility he did not listen to our advice on his staff actually reading the Acts he put through Parliament. Again we have had the position where legislation was passed by Parliament but not proclaimed until 1 January, so there was a gap involving cases heard between I September and 1 January.

Honourable members are faced with the opposite problem they were faced with last time. Last year the staff did not know the time limit had been inserted. This year they apparently knew flexibility had been inserted but did not know the Act had not been brought into operation. If the Attorney-General does not listen to what I am saying, I hope someone in his department will read Hansard and ensure that this does not happen again.

In conclusion I make it clear the coalition is not opposing any of the blood sample provisions in the Bill. It is not opposing the amendments that the Attorney-General proposes to bring forward to prevent these murderers, attempted murderers, drug traffickers and other people going free. Although the coalition opposes the prOvisiOns for the appointment of a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions and the abolition of the

ADJOURNMENT


year-and-a-day rule, there is no reason whatsoever for the blood sample provisions not to be passed by both Houses of Parliament within the next 24 hours.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr ROPER (Treasurer).

Debate adjourned until next day.

ADJOURNMENT


That the House do now adjourn.

Expenses of Public Transport Corporation employee Mr COOPER (Morning ton) - I direct to the attention of the Minister for Transport,

or in his absence the Treasurer, some matters involving a Mr Norman Walker who is currently the Acting Chief Executive of the Public Transport Corporation (PIC) but who is normally the Director of Passenger Services for the PIC. It involves some expenses for which Mr Walker has claimed reimbursement from the Public Transport Corporation. On 9 February this year, which was a Saturday, Mr Walker apparently entertained Mr Ken Gilbert and Clare Drew in a private home. He supplied $49.64 worth of liquor, which he bought from the Mentone Tuckerbag supermarket. For three people, that was a good booze-up. He made a claim for reimbursement on 14 February this year.

It is extraordinary that Mr Walker would entertain a couple of people in a private home on a Saturday night and claim it as a business expense. He bought $49.64 worth of liquor and charged it to the taxpayers of the State. That is extraordinary under any circumstances and should be investigated. However, Mr Walker's activities do not cease with that effort.

In a claim dated 4 September 1990 Mr Walker applied for reimbursement of expenses he incurred during August 1990 totalling $450.30. Those expenses include three visits to the Mitre Tavern for meals at a cost of $250. One of those visits was on 3 August, a Friday night; another was on 15 August, a Wednesday; and the third visit was on 20 August, which was a Monday. On 8 August he visited the Bridge Hotel and booked $56.30 worth of meals to the taxpayers of the State. On 22 August he went to a restaurant, the name of which was indecipherable on the chit, and had a meal worth $30. He followed up on 28 August with a $122 claim for a meal at the Hotel Rex. As I said before those claims amount to $458.30 for August 1990.

From the documents I have I have learnt that on 5 November which, interestingly enough, was the day before Melbourne Cup Day, Mr Walker went to lunch at a restaurant, the name of which is again indecipherable. He claimed expenses of $80.55 for that meal. On 9 November, a few days later, he treated himself to a nice lunch at the Pier Restaurant at Port Melbourne for $280. Included in that amount was a $15.15 tip. Mr Walker is a generous man with taxpayers' money.

ADJOURNMENT


What I have uncovered with regard to Mr Walker's expenses is the tip of the iceberg. I have made a freedom of information request to obtain the gentleman's expenses, but I understand that he is now the Acting Chief Executive of the Public Transport Commission and he is refusing to allow the freedom of information manager to supply me with documents the manager believes I am entitled to receive. Mr Walker is covering the dipping of his snout into the trough.

I have documents that fell off the back of a truck, and they show Mr Walker has some explaining to do. He has an obligation to make available to me the documents that should be supplied under the Freedom of Information Act.

Industrial disputes in meat industry Mr W. D. McGRATH (Lowan) - I should have thought the Minister for Agriculture

would be present tonight.

Mr Gude - He is a big drinker!

Mr W. D. McGRA TH - As the honourable member for Hawthorn said, he is a big drinker. I want to know where the Minister stands in relation to industrial disputes in the meat industry. I shall provide the House with some statistics from a review by the Victorian Farmers Federation pastoral group. It shows that industrial disputes in Victoria's export meat industry are costing the State apprOximately $6.5 million a month in export earnings. Since 30 June 1990 stoppages have averaged more than 10 000 man-days a month, and during the past eighteen months more than $50 million has been lost in export earnings as a direct result of an industrial campaign by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. That has cost producers approximately 25 cents a kilo dressed weight.

The number of cattle being sent interstate for slaughter in the first four months of 1991 was more than 50 000 at an average cost of $80 to $100 a head. That compares with 33 000 cattle sent interstate in 1989.

Dr Napthine - We used to be importers!

Mr W. D. McGRA TH - That is exactly right, but not any more. The number of export works has been reduced to seven with another two running at 50 per cent of their capacity. Two other licensed premises have closed. That is the current situation in export meat abattoirs.

On 12 May, a couple of weeks ago, in a newspaper article the Minister for Agriculture is reported as saying:

The problems racking the industry remained of extreme concern and the continued disruption could eventually hold back the planned expansion of the industry into the Asian market. While we have these problems the State is losing vast amounts of money.

Dr Napthine - What is he doing about it?

Mr W. D. McGRATH - That is what I want to know. The Minister is sitting on his hands too frightened to attack Mr Curran because he is too close to the Premier. When

ADJOURNMENT


he goes to the cOWltryside the Minister claims he supports the farmers. However, when he is in the city and must make representations to the Harrison meat inquiry or prepare a submission to justify the tough position taken by the government, he is not prepared to do it.

Two weeks ago I asked the Minister whether he was prepared to put a genuine submission to the Harrison inquiry on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, but he was not prepared to do that. He does not want to get his fingers burnt or have his wrist slapped by Mr Curran and the Premier. It is hypocritical of the Minister for Agriculture to make the statements that appeared in the Herald-Sun of 12 May and yet sit here and do nothing.

Why can the Minister not take direct action and go to the Harrison inquiry? Because the inquiry appears to be going against the unions, I understand they are pulling back from it. The Minister has a wonderful opportunity to show he is genuine in supporting a farming industry that will make export opportunities for Victoria, thereby improving the State's financial position.

Advertisement of education position Mr THOMSON (Pascoe Vale) - In the absence of the Attomey-General, I ask the

Treasurer to pass on my request. I want the Attomey-General to refer to the Equal Opportunity Board and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission apparent breaches of the Equal Opportunity Act by the placement of an advertisement in the Age of 22 May announcing that the honourable member for Prahran was inviting applications for the position of director-general of education.

The Ministry of Education and Training is currently under the supervision of Ms Ann Morrow. She holds the position of chief executive, which is equivalent to the position of director-general. Section 21(1) of the Equal Opportunity Act states:

It is tmlawful for an employer or a prospective employer to discriminate against a person on the ground of status or by reason of the private life of the person -

(a) in determining who should be offered employment; (b) in the terms on which the employer or prospective employer offers employment ...

"Private life" is defined under the Act as pertaining to the holding of political views.

Section 41 of the Equal Opportunity Act provides for the Equal Opportunity Board to refer matters to the commissioner for investigation once the board has become aware of possible breaches of the Act.

I am concenled that the activities of the honourable member for Prahran have gone beyond what can be considered reasonable conduct in relation to individual rights, particularly those concerned with the employment of public servants.

The matter is also a prima facie breach of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, Commonwealth legislation, which applies to Victoria by virtue of section 4 and which empowers individuals to inform the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission of instances that may be inconsistent with or directly contrary

ADJOURNMENT


to any human right. The actions of the honourable member for Prahran appear to contravene articles 17 and 19 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights to which Australia is a signatory.

Article 17 states:

1. No-one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 19 states:

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression ...

The placing of the advertisement is a blatant attempt to intimidate Ms Morrow in the carrying out of her important responsibilities as head of a department. It is her task to carry out government policy, just as it is the task of every public servant to loyally serve the government of the day, no matter what its political complexion.

The opposition is trying to intimidate Ms Morrow with this advertisement, just as the honourable member for Polwarth is seeking to intimidate, bully and threaten Victorian public servants with his hit list, said to be a computer data base containing the name of any public servant who has actively carried out government policy, something public servants are obliged to do under the Westminster system, which the opposition neither understands nor respects.

Recently I was contacted by a Victorian public servant concerned by a telephone call he received apparently from Mark BirreU's office inviting him to dob in or provide the names of public servants who were enthusiastically carrying out government policy and who were seen to be government sympathisers. The public servant was provided with names of public servants and asked to comment on their performance and loyalties.

Such actions take us back to the worse excesses of the McCarthyist era. Since the new Leader of the Opposition has taken over we have seen nothing but bullying, threats, blackmail and intimidation of public servants and members of Parliament rather than any attempt to develop policy.

I urge the Attorney-General to take these matters to the Equal Opportunity Board and the I-Iuman Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission so that they can be fully investigated.

Accident Compensation Commission Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - The matter I direct to the attention of the Minister for

Labour follows a question asked in the House earlier today about the cost of legal action being undertaken by Accident Compensation Commission (ACC) management.

As I understand it the ACC has engaged the law firms Corrs, Phillips, Fox, Blakes and others at various stages. The commission has also engaged barristers of the calibre of

ADJOURNMENT


Jeff Sher, Steve Kaye, Richard Tracey, Tony Cavanaugh and others, and the House will be aware of the costs that attach to legal cases.

I have a list of 26 cases that have been listed for hearing or are being heard: ACC v. John Bolton; ACC v. Gary Mutimer; ACC v. Forrester; Roux v. ABC; Rogers v. ABC; Markwick v. ABC; Williams v. ABC; Mutimer v. ACC; Forrester v. ACC; Wallace-Bruce v. ACC - and the list goes on.

The legal costs incurred by the commission are in excess of $100 000; but when one contemplates the prospect of Supreme Court hearings and other legal processes, costs in excess of $1 million for litigation are in prospect, and the figure is increasing daily.

All the actions proposed seem to concern Ian Rogers, his wife, Pearl Markwick and, supporting them, the chief executive of the commission, Michael Roux. Some of the accusations and claims made are extremely concerning. For example, Mr Rogers is purported to have said to Gary Forrester that Gail McLean and Nii Wallace-Bruce were ungrateful niggers.

The honourable member for Pascoe Vale raised what he described as a matter for the Equal Opportunity Board. I should have thought the government would put its house in order before commencing to throw stones and break glass all over the place!

Ian Rogers is alleged to have told Nii Wallace-Bruce that he was Ita little monkey who should climb a tree"; and Rogers is alleged to have told Forrester that Nii Wallace-Bruce looked like a little monkey climbing a tree. I should have thought the making of such shocking statements by any govenlffient official was inappropriate.

Gary Forrester has issued proceedings for defamation against Eileen McMahon, the commission's communications manager. He is seeking damages from Ms McMahon and the commission arising from statements made to the Age after Forrester claimed that Ian Rogers had ordered staff to follow the former Chairman of the Accident Compensation Commission, Ron Sackville. Mr Forrester has also launched a freedom of information action in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to gain access to certain commission documents.

The opposition is extremely concerned about the way public funds and the funds of Victorian employers who contribute to WorkCare are being used by an officer of a major government agency in matters of personal defence that are beyond comprehension and totally unacceptable by any decent standards.

Taking up points raised by previous speakers, I believe if the government were fair dinkum Rogers and Markwick would have been dismissed a long time ago. That aside, I ask the Minister for Labour to ensure that a full inquiry into the matter is carried out and the results made known to the Parliament and the people of Victoria. The spending of $1 million on legal actions such as those I have referred to is the sort of thing that has led this govenlffient into total and absolute disrepute.

2620

ADJOURNMENT

ASSEMBLY

Gippsland Waters Coalition


Mr WALLACE (Gippsland South) - The matter I direct to the attention of the Treasurer concerns the accountability of the Gippsland Waters Coalition (GWC) public ftmd. The coalition, which lists its address as PO Box 463, Moe, is the main catalyst for radical conservation groups that choose to have an impact on water-related issues in Gippsland from time to time.

The coalition was formed in 1987 to oppose the building of the Latrobe Valley outfall sewer. Although it claims to represent member groups in the Gippsland region, it may more accurately be said to reflect the views of its founder, Mr Neil Grigg, a unit controller employed by the State Electricity Commission, who lives at 15 Parer Avenue, Moe.

The organisations affiliated and associated with the Gippsland Waters Coalition are: the Australian Conservation Foundation - Gippsland Branch; the Concerned Residents of East Gippsland; the Lake Tyers Dolphin Protection Group; the Latrobe Valley Field Naturalists Club; the Orbost and District Environment Group; the Rosedale Action Group for the Environment; the Rosedale Ratepayers and Residents Association; the Sale Stop the Outfall Sewers Group; the Save the Ninety Mile Beach Committee; the Snowy River Improvement Trust; the Stop Ocean Sewers Awareness Group; the Upper Brodribb Protection Committee; the West Gippsland Conservation Group; the Friends of Mallacoota; the Latrobe Valley Community Forum; the Trafalgar Water Catchment Protection Group; the Victorian National Parks Association - Marine Parks Committee; and the Yarram District Conservation Group.

The Concerned Residents of East Gippsland and the Lake Tyers Dolphin Protection Group, the Upper Brodribb Protection Committee and the Sale Stop the Ocean Sewers Group do not appear to exist despite numerous inquiries concerning their background. The GWC is an incorporated association under the Incorporation of Associations Act 1987 (Victoria). The application for incorporation was lodged on 12 October 1988. The Act places specific responsibilities and requirements on such incorporated associations as the furnishing of annual returns, financial statements and so on. In this regard the responsibilities of the association's public officer are the same as those of a public officer of a company. The public officer for the GWC is Mr Neil Grigg.

A search of the association's office records show that the GWC is in breach of the Act because no return has been lodged since December 1989. The GWC return for that year indicated an amount of $7560.43 as current liabilities owing to eight members as unsecured loans. The financial return also shows that most of this amount resulted from the members' travel expenses and that the so-called loans would be paid out as soon as ftmds permitted.

This raises the question: is it right and proper for people who publicly claim to be motivated only by community interest to want to be paid travel expenses for attending the very meetings they have promoted? It also raises a more serious question: is any

ADJOURNMENT


public money - that is, government grant money - being used to pay these so-called public spirited agitators.

There are a number of things of concern. It has received public funding and has not accounted for its activities, including expenditure of public funds for the year 1990. Notwithstanding the government grants made to it, the GWC continues to attack the government over its decisions on waste water; that is, ocean outfall.

The GWC continues to attack APM and by its actions threatens not only the jobs of workers at Maryvale but the prospect of further expansions. It claims to have 1200 members and that is only 1 per cent of the electorate of the whole of Gippsland. This is a very serious matter and I ask the Treasurer to look into it.

Labelling of consumer items Mr HAMILTON (Morwell) - I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for

Consumer Affairs in another place and ask the Treasurer to convey it to him. It concerns a review of food labelling regulations and was brought to my attention by the Shire of Traralgon which is one of the rural municipalities in the Latrobe Valley.

The Shire of Traralgon has received a letter from the Shire of Leighton in New South Wales which contacted all the municipalities of Victoria, especially those in the rural areas, to encourage them to become involved in a grassroots version of the "Buy Australia" campaign. Part of the campaign - and I believe it is one which should be supported - is that they are seeking from the government a clearer and bolder labelling of the country of origin on both domestic and imported products.

What they hope will happen is the consumer will make a deliberate decision to buy the Australian-made product. I commend that campaign and the Shire of Traralgon for bringing it to my attention. I hope it will be picked up across the State.

The other part of the campaign is that, through good marketing and word of mouth, we should emphasise the benefits of buying Australian-grown and produced items. This will certainly make a big improvement to the rural products and we should support our own producers.

Mr Coleman - "Buy Victoria", not "Buy New South Wales"!

Mr HAMILTON -It is the ''Buy Australia" campaign. The shires intend to suggest that a consumer boycott of imported foodstuffs when Australian products of equal quality and the same price are available should be encouraged. In the course of the campaign they are going to contact local supermarkets and food outlets and encourage them to stock only Australian- grown and produced products. The campaign itself will probably start off in a fairly small way but it is hoped it will grow in strength and Australians are encouraged to buy Australian-made products.

Mr Coleman interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Syndal will cease interjecting.

2622

ADJOURNMENT


Mr HAMILTON - This will keep Australian producers in work and put Australian products on supermarket shelves. I raised a similar matter in regard to encouraging the purchase of Australian-produced papers, again because of the importance to our own industries. I believe that if as a community and a Parliament we encourage Australian producers and consumers to do that it can only be of benefit to this country.

I ask the Minister for Consumer Affairs to examine the matter and ensure that proper, clear and distinct labelling appears on all products so the consumer can decide to buy Australian products and support the Australian producer.

Visit by Minister for Conservation and Environment to Mildura

Mr BILDSTIEN (Mildura) - I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Conservation and Environment. I want to know whether the Minister is going to have the common decency to alert the local members of Parliament in the North Western Province to the fact that on 2 June he is coming to the area to proclaim the Murray-Sunset National Park. He has shown typical arrogant style by not advising the local municipalities and members of his visit.

We have heard on the grapevine that he is going to march into the area with the press, make an announcement, create a warm inner glow for the government and media, which are sympathetic, and march out again.

Will he do the local members, municipalities, population and community the courtesy of advising that he is coming, when he is coming and where he is going to make the announcement?

Responses

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - The honourable member for MOmington raised a matter for the Minister for Transport. The honourable member for Lowan raised a matter for the attention of the Minister for Agriculture concerning the meat industry. The honourable member for Hawthorn raised the cost of legal actions, a matter he raised with the Minister for Labour during question time. The further issues he has raised will be drawn to the attention of the Minister.

The honourable member for Gippsland South referred to the Gippsland Water Coalition which he claims to be almost a non-existent body. I would have to say the attacks on the government from that body certainly get more coverage than would be expected from a non-existent body, and particularly its attacks when the government was attempting -and finally, successfully - to ensure the provision of an adequate sewerage outlet for the valley.

I am unsure whether it is an organisation that does not exist. Certainly I felt its sting in the newspapers in the areas represented by the honourable member and the honourable member for Morwell. I will draw those matters to the attention of the relevant Minister.

ADJOURNMENT


The honourable member for Mildura referred to the Murray -Sunset National Park which one would have to say, if I recall, he very stoutly resisted in his original proposition.

Mr Bildstien - I still want to know when it will be proclaimed.

2623

Mr ROPER - He says he still persists. I will draw that matter to the attention of the Minister. I am sure when it is proclaimed it will be done with proper fanfare because it is a very significant development of public land.

Mr Bildstien interjected.

Mr ROPER - The honourable member asks when it will occur so he can release a press release boycotting it. That certainly saves the expense of a letter by the honourable member because he has already announced his intentions.

The honourable member for Morwell raised for the attention of the Minister for Consumer Affairs the ''Buy Australia" campaign and the need for clear food labelling system to identify non-Australian foods.

Some rather inane interjections were heard from the front bench of the opposition about Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. The important fact about the l'8uy Australia" campaign for Australia and Victoria is that it encourages us to buy products sourced here rather than imports. In terms of primary produce or manufacturing industry it is important that it be Australian produce and it is to our advantage indeed as an exporter of a whole range of products to the rest of Australia. I will draw the matters raised by the Shire of Traralgon to the attention of the Minister for Consumer Affairs and the food labelling matter to the attention of the Minister for Health.

The honourable member for Pascoe Vale raised important issues concerning equal opportunity and human rights legislation and the actions of the honourable member for Prahran in advertising the position of director-general of education. The honourable member raised serious issues, and I will ensure that the Attorney-General has those examined to see what action can be taken.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned 12.14 a.m. (Wednesday).

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE WAGES AGREEMENT

Documents

Transcript of QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE WAGES AGREEMENT