PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) 20… · PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL...

EXTRACT FROM BOOK

PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-SIXTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

Tuesday, 13 October 2009

(Extract from book 14)

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

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

The Governor

Professor DAVID de KRETSER, AC

The Lieutenant-Governor

The Honourable Justice MARILYN WARREN, AC

The ministry

Premier, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister for Multicultural Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. J. M. Brumby, MP

Deputy Premier, Attorney-General and Minister for Racing . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. R. J. Hulls, MP

Treasurer, Minister for Information and Communication Technology, and Minister for Financial Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. J. Lenders, MLC

Minister for Regional and Rural Development, and Minister for Skills and Workforce Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. J. M. Allan, MP

Minister for Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. D. M. Andrews, MP

Minister for Community Development and Minister for Energy and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. P. Batchelor, MP

Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and Minister for Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. R. G. Cameron, MP

Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Small Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. Helper, MP

Minister for Finance, WorkCover and the Transport Accident Commission, Minister for Water and Minister for Tourism and Major Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. T. J. Holding, MP

Minister for Environment and Climate Change, and Minister for Innovation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. G. W. Jennings, MLC

Minister for Public Transport and Minister for the Arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. L. J. Kosky, MP

Minister for Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. M. Madden, MLC

Minister for Sport, Recreation and Youth Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. J. A. Merlino, MP

Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development, and Minister for Women’s Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. M. V. Morand, MP

Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Community Services and Minister for Senior Victorians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. L. M. Neville, MP

Minister for Industry and Trade, and Minister for Industrial Relations. . . . The Hon. M. P. Pakula, MLC

Minister for Roads and Ports, and Minister for Major Projects . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. T. H. Pallas, MP

Minister for Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. B. J. Pike, MP

Minister for Gaming, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister Assisting the Premier on Veterans’ Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. A. G. Robinson, MP

Minister for Housing, Minister for Local Government and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. R. W. Wynne, MP

Cabinet Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr A. G. Lupton, MP

Legislative Council committees

Legislation Committee — Mr Atkinson, Ms Broad, Mrs Coote, Mr Drum, Ms Mikakos, Ms Pennicuik and Ms Pulford.

Privileges Committee — Ms Darveniza, Mr D. Davis, Mr Drum, Mr Jennings, Ms Mikakos, Ms Pennicuik and Mr Rich-Phillips.

Select Committee on Train Services — Mr Atkinson, Mr Barber, Mr Drum, Ms Huppert, Mr Leane, Mr O’Donohue and Mr Viney.

Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration — Mr Barber, Ms Broad, Mr Guy, Mr Hall, Mr Kavanagh, Mr Rich-Phillips and Mr Viney.

Standing Orders Committee — The President, Mr Dalla-Riva, Mr D. Davis, Mr Hall, Mr Lenders, Ms Pennicuik and Mr Viney.

Joint committees

Dispute Resolution Committee — (Council): Mr D. Davis, Mr Hall, Mr Jennings, Mr Lenders and Ms Pennicuik. (Assembly): Mr Batchelor, Mr Cameron, Mr Clark, Mr Holding, Mr Lupton, Mr McIntosh and Mr Walsh.

Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee — (Council): Mrs Coote, Mr Leane and Ms Mikakos. (Assembly): Ms Beattie, Mr Delahunty, Mrs Maddigan and Mr Morris.

Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee — (Council): Mr Atkinson, Mr D. Davis and Mr Tee. (Assembly): Ms Campbell, Mr Crisp, Mr Lim and Ms Thomson.

Education and Training Committee — (Council): Mr Elasmar and Mr Hall. (Assembly): Mr Dixon, Dr Harkness, Mr Herbert, Mr Howard and Mr Kotsiras.

Electoral Matters Committee — (Council): Ms Broad, Mr P. Davis and Mr Somyurek. (Assembly): Ms Campbell, Mr O’Brien, Mr Scott and Mr Thompson.

Environment and Natural Resources Committee — (Council): Mrs Petrovich and Mr Viney. (Assembly): Ms Duncan, Mrs Fyffe, Mr Ingram, Ms Lobato, Mr Pandazopoulos and Mr Walsh.

Family and Community Development Committee — (Council): Mr Finn and Mr Scheffer. (Assembly): Ms Kairouz, Mr Noonan, Mr Perera, Mrs Powell and Ms Wooldridge.

House Committee — (Council): The President (ex officio), Mr Atkinson, Ms Darveniza, Mr Drum, Mr Eideh and Ms Hartland. (Assembly): The Speaker (ex officio), Ms Beattie, Mr Delahunty, Mr Howard, Mr Kotsiras, Mr Scott and Mr K. Smith.

Law Reform Committee — (Council): Mrs Kronberg and Mr Scheffer. (Assembly): Mr Brooks, Mr Clark, Mr Donnellan, Mr Foley and Mrs Victoria.

Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Committee — (Council): Mr Elasmar, Mr Guy and Ms Hartland. (Assembly): Ms Green, Mr Hodgett, Mr Nardella, Mr Seitz and Mr K. Smith.

Public Accounts and Estimates Committee — (Council): Mr Dalla-Riva, Ms Huppert, Ms Pennicuik and Mr Rich-Phillips. (Assembly): Ms Munt, Mr Noonan, Mr Scott, Mr Stensholt, Dr Sykes and Mr Wells.

Road Safety Committee — (Council): Mr Koch and Mr Leane. (Assembly): Mr Eren, Mr Langdon, Mr Tilley, Mr Trezise and Mr Weller.

Rural and Regional Committee — (Council): Ms Darveniza, Mr Drum, Ms Lovell, Ms Tierney and Mr Vogels. (Assembly): Ms Marshall and Mr Northe.

Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee — (Council): Mr Eideh, Mr O’Donohue, Mrs Peulich and Ms Pulford. (Assembly): Mr Brooks, Mr Carli, Mr Jasper, Mr Languiller and Mr R. Smith.

Heads of parliamentary departments

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

Parliamentary Services — Secretary: Dr S. O’Kane

MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-SIXTH PARLIAMENT — FIRST SESSION

President: The Hon. R. F. SMITH

Deputy President: Mr BRUCE ATKINSON

Acting Presidents: Mr Eideh, Mr Elasmar, Mr Finn, Mr Leane, Ms Pennicuik, Mrs Peulich, Ms Pulford, Mr Somyurek and Mr Vogels

Leader of the Government: Mr JOHN LENDERS

Deputy Leader of the Government: Mr GAVIN JENNINGS

Leader of the Opposition: Mr DAVID DAVIS

Deputy Leader of the Opposition: Ms WENDY LOVELL

Leader of The Nationals: Mr PETER HALL

Deputy Leader of The Nationals: Mr DAMIAN DRUM

Member Region Party Member Region Party

Atkinson, Mr Bruce Norman Eastern Metropolitan LP Leane, Mr Shaun Leo Eastern Metropolitan ALP Barber, Mr Gregory John Northern Metropolitan Greens Lenders, Mr John Southern Metropolitan ALP Broad, Ms Candy Celeste Northern Victoria ALP Lovell, Ms Wendy Ann Northern Victoria LP Coote, Mrs Andrea Southern Metropolitan LP Madden, Hon. Justin Mark Western Metropolitan ALP Dalla-Riva, Mr Richard Alex Gordon Eastern Metropolitan LP Mikakos, Ms Jenny Northern Metropolitan ALP Darveniza, Ms Kaye Mary Northern Victoria ALP O’Donohue, Mr Edward John Eastern Victoria LP Davis, Mr David McLean Southern Metropolitan LP Pakula, Hon. Martin Philip Western Metropolitan ALP Davis, Mr Philip Rivers Eastern Victoria LP Pennicuik, Ms Susan Margaret Southern Metropolitan GreensDrum, Mr Damian Kevin Northern Victoria Nats Petrovich, Mrs Donna-Lee Northern Victoria LP Eideh, Mr Khalil M. Western Metropolitan ALP Peulich, Mrs Inga South Eastern Metropolitan LP Elasmar, Mr Nazih Northern Metropolitan ALP Pulford, Ms Jaala Lee Western Victoria ALP Finn, Mr Bernard Thomas C. Western Metropolitan LP Rich-Phillips, Mr Gordon Kenneth South Eastern Metropolitan LP Guy, Mr Matthew Jason Northern Metropolitan LP Scheffer, Mr Johan Emiel Eastern Victoria ALP Hall, Mr Peter Ronald Eastern Victoria Nats Smith, Hon. Robert Frederick South Eastern Metropolitan ALP Hartland, Ms Colleen Mildred Western Metropolitan Greens Somyurek, Mr Adem South Eastern Metropolitan ALP Huppert, Ms Jennifer Sue1 Southern Metropolitan ALP Tee, Mr Brian Lennox Eastern Metropolitan ALP Jennings, Mr Gavin Wayne South Eastern Metropolitan ALP Theophanous, Hon. Theo Charles Northern Metropolitan ALP Kavanagh, Mr Peter Damian Western Victoria DLP Thornley, Mr Evan William2 Southern Metropolitan ALP Koch, Mr David Frank Western Victoria LP Tierney, Ms Gayle Anne Western Victoria ALP Kronberg, Mrs Janice Susan Eastern Metropolitan LP Viney, Mr Matthew Shaw Eastern Victoria ALP Vogels, Mr John Adrian Western Victoria LP 1 Appointed 3 February 2009 2 Resigned 9 January 2009

CONTENTS

TUESDAY, 13 OCTOBER 2009

CONDOLENCES Indonesia and Samoa: natural disasters ..................4845 Hon. Brian William Mier ..........................................4845

ROYAL ASSENT............................................................4847

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Bushfires: arsonists .........................................4847, 4848 Employment: government initiatives ........................4848 Housing: Moorabbin.......................................4849, 4850 Financial services: government initiatives...............4851 Planning: urban density..................................4851, 4852 Climate change: California conference ...................4853 Planning: growth areas infrastructure

contribution .................................................4854, 4855 Singapore Airlines: Singapore–Melbourne

service....................................................................4855 Bushfires: fuel reduction .................................4856, 4857 Planning: government initiatives..............................4857

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Answers .....................................................................4858

PETITIONS Buses: Bendigo..........................................................4858 Police: Ashburton......................................................4859 Water: Thomson River supply ..................................4859 Equal opportunity: legislation ..................................4859 Planning: growth areas infrastructure

contribution ...........................................................4859 Housing: Moorabbin.................................................4859 Housing: Bentleigh....................................................4860

GAMBLING REGULATION AMENDMENT (RACING CLUB VENUE OPERATOR LICENCES) BILL Introduction and first reading...................................4860 Statement of compatibility.........................................4860 Second reading..........................................................4861

SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE Alert Digest No. 12....................................................4861

PAPERS..........................................................................4862

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE General business .......................................................4863

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE Reporting date ...........................................................4863

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Geelong Football Club: premiership .......................4864 Water: Victorian plan ...............................................4864 Buffalo Stadium, Woodend .......................................4864 Western Health: nurse awards .................................4865 Parliament: Remembrance Day ...............................4865 St Mary’s House of Welcome, Fitzroy ......................4865 HMAS Cerberus: art exhibition................................4866 Grantville and District Memorial Park: opening.....4866 Livestock: greenhouse gas emissions .......................4866 Abortion: legislation .................................................4867 Water: stormwater harvesting ..................................4867

GAMBLING REGULATION FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL Second reading ......................................................... 4867 Committee ................................................................. 4876 Third reading ............................................................ 4878

POLICE REGULATION AMENDMENT BILL Second reading ......................................................... 4878

ADJOURNMENT Rooming houses: task force report........................... 4889 Government: advertising .......................................... 4890 Public transport: myki ticketing system ................... 4891 Bushfires: preparedness ........................................... 4891 Schools: Seymour...................................................... 4891 Skills training: tertiary courses ................................ 4892 Roads: emergency repairs........................................ 4893 Police: numbers ........................................................ 4893 General practitioners: eastern suburbs ................... 4893 Water: charges.......................................................... 4894 Parks Victoria: Chewton resident ............................ 4894 Police: Ashburton ..................................................... 4895 Responses .................................................................. 4895

CONDOLENCES

Tuesday, 13 October 2009 COUNCIL 4845

Tuesday, 13 October 2009

The PRESIDENT (Hon. R. F. Smith) took the chair at 2.04 p.m. and read the prayer.

CONDOLENCES

Indonesia and Samoa: natural disasters

The PRESIDENT — Order! I seek the support of the house and ask members to be upstanding and observe a minute’s silence as a mark of respect for those who died as a result of the natural disasters in Indonesia and Samoa.

Honourable members stood in their places.

Hon. Brian William Mier

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I move:

That this house expresses its sincere sorrow at the death on 12 September 2009 of the Honourable Brian William Mier and places on record its acknowledgement of the valuable services rendered by him to the Parliament and the people of Victoria as a member of the Legislative Council for Waverley Province from 1982 to 1996 and as Minister for Prices, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister for Consumer Affairs from 1990 to 1991.

Brian Mier was 74 years old when he passed away, and he was one of only seven MLCs to serve in this house as a member for the then Waverley Province — a great distinction, I might say.

Brian served this Parliament very well. He became an MLC in a by-election shortly after the election of the John Cain, Jr, government. When Tony Van Vliet tragically passed away, Brian was preselected by the Labor Party to be the candidate for Waverley Province and was subsequently elected in the by-election. Six years later he was re-elected to the Parliament.

During his time in this house, Brian served on six parliamentary committees, and he also served for 500 days as Minister for Prices, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister for Consumer Affairs. He was selected for those positions after the resignation of Evan Walker.

In addition to his contributions to the Parliament he also served with great distinction as an official and a member of the plumbers union from 1964 to 1975, during which time he was both an organiser — he later became the assistant state secretary of that union — and the national vice-president of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union.

Brian’s union involvement led him to become involved in the Labor Party, of which he was a member for 53 years. He was also an official of the Labor Party from 1975 to 1982. When Brian joined the Labor Party it was at the time when John Cain, Sr, was losing office; 27 years later he was elected to Parliament shortly after John Cain, Jr, became Premier. He served through a difficult 27 years in opposition, but he never lost faith, never lost enthusiasm and always worked to assist working people, because he saw the union movement and the Labor Party as vehicles to assist the lives of working people.

In addition to his involvement in the union, the Parliament and the party, Brian was a great community man. He played football for Footscray in his early years in the western suburbs of Melbourne and was involved through the past players and officials association in a range of community activities.

In addition, during his time in Parliament he spent time at the Waverley RSL. He held the distinguished position of vice-president of the Victorian Parliamentary Former Members Association, which many people in this place probably do not aspire to join as soon as they might. He was also a passionate Bulldogs supporter and, as I said, a member of various associations with the Footscray and then Bulldogs football clubs.

Brian was also a passionate family man whose own family grew up in the western suburbs of Melbourne. He was married to Sheila for 51 years, and they had three sons, David, Paul and Philip, and three grandchildren, Regan, Sam and Sophie.

Brian’s roots were in the western suburbs. He was educated at the Geelong Road State School, Williamstown High School, Footscray Technical School and the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. As with many people of his generation, he served in the army; he was a national serviceman. Following his service in the army, he was a plumber and a union official.

Brian was a laconic bloke. He was comfortable in any environment. He would have been comfortable in his workplace; he would certainly have been comfortable at Trades Hall on Thursday nights when union and party officials would gather year after year. He was very comfortable in any environment when mixing with working people.

His first speech in this place, coming here as a former union official, stressed the importance of reform of workers compensation laws. He was strongly of the

CONDOLENCES

4846 COUNCIL Tuesday, 13 October 2009

view that it was very difficult for workers and working families to get redress after an industrial injury when they were appealing in tribunals day after day. His inaugural speech in this place was passionate about the stresses working families faced and their severe financial hardship, his role as a representative of working people and the role of the party he loved dearly in redressing some of the wrongs from history.

Our deepest sympathies go to Brian’s wife, Sheila, his sons David, Paul and Philip, and his grandchildren, Regan, Sam and Sophie. They have lost a husband, father and grandfather, and Victoria has lost a champion of the working people.

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — I too wish to associate myself with this condolence motion for the Honourable Brian William Mier. People from whatever party who serve in this place make a remarkable contribution, not only to this place and the governance of the state but to their communities as well. Reading the list of activities that Mr Mier was involved in over so many years it is clear that he was a great community person. As the Leader of the Government has pointed out, he was Minister for Prices, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister for Consumer Affairs in 1990 and 1991, following the resignation of Evan Walker.

He was married for 51 years, as the Leader of the Government also pointed out, and had three sons and three grandchildren. Clearly his family was very important to him. His involvement with national service and football and his links into the western suburbs are examples of the sorts of links that so many people from that time had with the community. According to the notes I have, Mr Mier joined the Labor Party in 1956, which would have been a very difficult time given that the split was around then. He was clearly a loyal servant of the Labor Party through those many years.

But I think those community links are what stand out to me as I look through that list of things he did: his involvement with preschool centres, the football club, the Waverley RSL and other organisations in the community. His membership of this place saw him take part in a number of important committees: the Legal and Constitutional Committee, the Estimates Committee, the Natural Resources and Environment Committee, the WorkCare Committee, the Printing Committee, the Standing Orders Committee, the Economic Development Committee and the Road Safety Committee — a range of involvements across a number of areas of government as well as those links with the community.

On behalf of the opposition, I am very pleased to put on record our support for his family at this difficult time and our recognition of the service he gave to this Parliament and the people of Victoria.

Mr HALL (Eastern Victoria) — Over the years you meet some characters in this house, and Brian Mier was one of those. I say that in the kindest possible way, because I genuinely liked Brian and got to know him quite well during the time in which we served together in this chamber — between 1988 and 1996. In describing Brian some of the adjectives that come immediately to mind are ‘colourful’, ‘passionate’, ‘determined’, ‘pugnacious’ and ‘adamantly loyal to the ALP’, and he was a witty person with a rather dry sense of humour.

I can best recall that sense of humour by way of an example. Former Liberal Party member James Guest was speaking in this chamber one evening. In the very cultured tones in which he expressed himself James was making accusations against the then Cain government for trying to flog off the family silver, to which Brian quickly retorted, ‘We would, if we could get it out of your mouth’.

I know Brian was a passionate Footscray supporter. I did not know that he had been a Footscray player. Nor did I know until I received the notes just recently that he was born in Footscray. However, because of the nature of Brian, it does not surprise me. He was a very determined, dogged person who had the spirit of the fighting Bulldogs of the west. Brian was not reluctant to tell you what he thought, and in doing so he pulled no punches. That spirit was applied literally in the chamber one evening in an incident which is often recalled by some of us.

The other lasting memory I have of Brian is the exchanges he engaged in with Ken Smith across the chamber. They were both former plumbers. They were at each other — cat and dog — across the chamber, and they enjoyed the repartee they shared. Brian’s passionate loyalty to the ALP simply could not be questioned. In the eight years that I knew Brian I do not think there was ever an occasion when he thought the opposition did something right. Nor was there ever an occasion when he thought the ALP did anything wrong. He was that sort of a loyal person — something that is not always evident in politics today.

Brian served this Parliament well for the best part of 14 years. He rose to the position of minister. From humble beginnings to what he was able to achieve, he did himself proud, did his family proud and did his party proud. Today I join with the government and

ROYAL ASSENT


others in this chamber in expressing our sincere condolences to Brian’s wife and family and their extended families on the sad passing of a great bloke, Brian Mier.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan) — I would also like to join in this motion and extend my condolences to the family of Brian Mier: especially to his wife, Sheila, his three sons, David, Paul and Philip, and his grandchildren, Regan, Sam and Sophie. Brian’s son David is a very close friend of mine, and we have worked together for well over a decade on a number of issues. I have to say David is a very honest person of great conviction. He is a credit to Brian, as I am sure are his brothers, Paul and Philip.

I will briefly touch on positions Brian held before he came into Parliament. Brian did his schooling at Footscray Technical School and a plumbing and gasfitter apprenticeship after that. He started his apprenticeship in 1954 and joined the plumbers union as an apprentice. He held roles in the Plumbers and Gasfitters Union as an organiser. He held a number of positions on the committee of management before he was an organiser for 15 years. He was also a shop steward on a number of major projects. He became chairman of the Victorian branch in 1963. In 1964 he became an organiser.

In 1967 Brian was elected to the federal council of the plumbers union, and held the position of federal vice-president. He also represented the union on boards that were very important to plumbers: the Victorian State Wages Board and the Plumbers and Gasfitters Registration Board. Plumbers hold those boards in high regard as far as their trade is concerned. In 1982 Brian Mier was employed by the Department of the Premier as a liaison officer with the industrial relations task force.

As I said, Brian started his working career as a plumber in an age when it was not uncommon for asbestos to be used for insulating plumbing pipes. Unfortunately it was asbestos that led to the illness that caused him to pass away recently. This is common among people who worked in that industry in the 1950s. It is a sad result of working with a material that at the time these workers believed was safe.

A lot of respect was shown from the labour movement at Brian Mier’s funeral. Two former premiers — Joan Kirner and John Cain, Jr — were there, as well as a number of former ministers. There were also many representatives, obviously from the plumbers union but also from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and Trades Hall.

One of Brian’s long-term friends gave a great speech about Brian’s life outside the labour movement. One of the interesting things he mentioned was that when Brian was a plumber working at Melbourne Airport his apprentice was Bob Skilton and in the breaks they used to go and kick the footy. Brian Mier always claimed credit for Bob Skilton’s skill at kicking with both feet and for his winning three Brownlow medals.

Brian used to say to his old friends, ‘Who would have believed that a boy from Footscray Tech would one day become a cabinet minister?’. I think that was not by luck; that was by hard work and putting in a lot of hours. I think it was also a sign of a healthy democracy. The history of this state shows that people from varied backgrounds have represented people in this Parliament. I will finish by reiterating my condolences to Brian’s family.

Motion agreed to in silence, honourable members showing unanimous agreement by standing in their places.

Sitting suspended 2.23 p.m. until 3.32 p.m.

ROYAL ASSENT

Message read advising royal assent to:

22 September

Justice Legislation Further Amendment Act

29 September

Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Bushfires: arsonists

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. I refer the minister to his role as minister responsible for state forests and Victorian national parks and to the role of the department he oversees — the Department of Sustainability and Environment — in the prevention of bushfires. What steps has the minister taken to advocate for or implement the greater control and management of convicted arsonists as a practical and overdue step to prevent bushfires in Victoria’s state forests and national parks?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — In the framing of his question Mr David Davis is correct in terms of my ministerial



responsibility. He is correct in making the assumption that I am well and truly committed to making sure we improve fire mitigation activities across the public land estate, which includes parks and state forests. On many occasions he has heard me outline to the chamber the way we are increasingly devoting resources, staff and community engagement activities to supporting that fire mitigation effort. So he is quite correct in all those embedded assumptions in his question.

He is quite correct to assume that I am part of a government that is committed to making Victoria fire ready by allocating greater resources and support to our community and our firefighting agencies in responding to the risk of fire and to try to drive a greater degree of public understanding and appreciation of the challenging nature of climate change scenarios and the fire risk that our community confronts now and in the future. And he is quite right to make the assumption that the Victorian government is determined to try to make sure that our efforts are ongoing and is vigilant and determined in trying to achieve a greater degree of fire readiness and safety in our community.

The issue that is raised in relation to the way in which arsonists may be investigated, monitored or apprehended by the Victorian police, I believe quite appropriately, is a police operations matter. It is not my responsibility, publicly or privately, to be making comment on the way in which the police undertake their operational matters, and I will not be doing so.

Supplementary question

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — I appreciate the minister’s general comments and the general focus that he has given to the response there, but he actually does have some specific responsibilities as well as those general advocacy rights. Will the department be making checks and regular patrols of areas of public land, identifying suspicious action and questioning or reporting about the activities of people on state land?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I can understand why Mr David Davis may be desperate for me to start traversing what I have just described to him and the chamber in relation to understanding not only the demarcation of my ministerial responsibilities but also the separation of powers principle that applies in Victoria, and I understand both of those concepts. In terms of vigilance, in terms of monitoring behaviour on public land, yes, indeed, that activity is undertaken. In fact part of our preparation for the fire season is that we have major lookout facilities that are scattered throughout the

Victorian landscape to make sure that we have fire-spotting activity that is immediate and can be responded to in real time. Do we actually have fire crews, do we have park rangers who are on public land to stay throughout the course of the fire season to monitor the outbreak of fire and doing what can be reasonably expected of those officers to prevent fire from occurring? Of course they do that, and they will continue to do so.

But in the area of particular police enforcement matters, police operational matters, I do not think Mr Davis or the community has the expectation that we will be establishing vigilante groups, at either a public sector or a community level, to undertake these activities. I think it is very appropriate for these matters to be handled within the consideration of police operations and the way in which the police monitor, investigate and apprehend arsonists — anyone engaging in totally inappropriate and irresponsible arson activity in the state of Victoria.

Employment: government initiatives

Ms DARVENIZA (Northern Victoria) — My question is to the Treasurer. I ask the Treasurer to inform the house what the Brumby government is doing to protect jobs and whether he can identify what threats there are to jobs in Victoria.

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I thank Ms Darveniza for her question and her interest in protecting jobs in Victoria at a time of ongoing global financial crisis.

This government has a number of core strategies for protecting jobs in Victoria. We acknowledge that we have to have a very strong and competitive economy, whether that be through reducing red tape or making our taxes competitive. We acknowledge that we certainly need to build on the skills of our workforce, and we have done that through our skills statement with a very strong investment in getting 172 000 more Victorians skilled up over four years to give them greater opportunities in the workforce itself and also in a contracting workforce to give them opportunities in new areas. We have also invested very heavily in infrastructure. Between federal and state government agencies in Victoria over $11.5 billion has been invested in capital works this financial year to secure 35 000 jobs.

Ms Darveniza asked about what we are doing in the area of jobs and what the threats are. The reckless calls from some to cut the stimulus program now are a significant threat to maintaining jobs in today’s



environment. There are populists out there who somehow or other believe they can wave a magic wand and wind back the state and federal stimulus packages. Think about the logic of some of these arguments — that somehow or other, by saying it now as a populist, you can wind back the $1000 package given to pensioners and other low-income earners late last year or wind back the $900 package given to middle-income earners earlier this year. It is too late to wind back some of this stimulus, as it has already boosted the economy and saved jobs.

There are also some who say you should wind back the stimulus going forward. Someone who does not think that is Dr Ken Henry, the federal Secretary to the Treasury — —

Mrs Coote interjected.

Mr LENDERS — Mrs Coote interjects. Dr Henry was appointed by her good friend Mr Costello when he was the federal Treasurer. I quote Dr Henry, as reported by the ABC website on 9 October:

If all the stimulus scheduled to impact in 2010–11 was cancelled, that would mean a further detraction of 1.5 per cent from GDP growth and the loss of up to an additional 100 000 jobs.

Dr Henry went on to say:

It’s unlikely that the recovery in private sector demand would be sufficiently strong for the economy to withstand such a sudden withdrawal of public sector activity without significant costs in terms of lost output and higher unemployment.

Dr Ken Henry, respected economist, head of the federal Treasury, says that the stimulus needs to continue and that if we wound back that 2010–11 stimulus — not 2009–10, but 2010–11 — it would cost 100 000 jobs.

We need to look at what that stimulus is. I said before that we have had direct cash stimulus to consumers. That is in the system and it has done what it was meant to do — it has boosted confidence and created jobs. But if we go forward to what is left to do, we find that Senator Coonan, the federal shadow minister, was recorded on the same website on the same date as having said:

What we disagree with is that the economy at this stage needs to have an expansionary fiscal policy.

If we were to wind back the stimulus, what could we wind back on? We could wind back on social housing, but that would have a bad outcome and also cost jobs today. We could wind back on schools and on school construction in round 3 of Building the Education

Revolution. I note that a member for the South Eastern Metropolitan Region interjected. In that region, for example, we could go to Dandenong North Primary School and say we are going to cut out the $5.48 million for classrooms, or we could go to Chelsea Primary School and say we are going to cut out the $2 million for the rebuild of the school. Not only would we disappoint the local school, we would also disappoint the local construction industry.

In round 3 of Building the Education Revolution 582 schools worth a total of more than $875 million are still to be built. If people are saying, ‘Let’s stop the stimulus’ — and I did hear Mr Finn make a comment before about stopping the stimulus — I would suggest they go to Keilor Primary School and say why the $3 million for classrooms, as part of round 3 of Building the Education Revolution, is not worthwhile.

What I say in response to Ms Darveniza’s question is that the third wave of Building the Education Revolution is commencing now. Contracts are being tendered now. Every one of those schools is a local community expecting better facilities next year or the year after. Attached to every one of those schools are plumbers, bricklayers, architects, planners and all the ancillary workers who go with these projects. They are jobs. This is a measured, sensible stimulus for long-term infrastructure, designed to create jobs now. I am with Dr Henry in saying that now is not the time to wind back on stimulus spending, but Senator Coonan and the Liberal Party are out there wanting to shed jobs now.

Housing: Moorabbin

Mrs COOTE (Southern Metropolitan) — My question is directed to the Minister for Planning. The minister has expediently bypassed local involvement and allowed two totally unsustainable social housing developments in Moorabbin, in the Bentleigh electorate. The local community is incensed at the minister’s lack of consultation. Why did the minister not consult with the local residents before he allowed the proposal for the high-density social housing development at 999 Nepean Highway, Moorabbin, to proceed?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — I welcome Mrs Coote’s interest in these matters. It is only because Mrs Coote is probably one of the more genteel among the opposition members that I do not take up the opportunity to savage her in this place. Had any other member of the opposition asked the same question, I would have savaged them comprehensively, but Mrs Coote is such a nice lady that I feel I have to be



very well mannered when it comes to addressing her — and I will be.

What I can say about her question is that if it is the project I believe it is, then I think there might be a bit of misinformation out there. I think the project she was referring to and talking about was approved by the council. If it is the project to the rear of what is often known as Moorabbin town hall, my understanding is that that project has been approved by the council. It has received, in a sense, no direct approval because I have not been the relevant authority in this matter. The council has been the relevant authority and has made its decision accordingly.

I find it interesting on two fronts that Mrs Coote should ask this question: firstly, that she should seek that I interfere with local government decisions, because if I remember accurately one of the accusations in this chamber was that I was interfering with local government decisions and opposition members gave me a slap around the ears for it. But in this case the opposition is wanting me to intervene in local government decisions. I wonder why I come to work some days, and I end up scratching my head about the opposition.

The other interesting front is that Ms Lovell did not have sufficient intestinal fortitude to ask the same question, and I know why she did not dare ask the same question — because she is the very member of the opposition who often gets up and says the government is not doing enough for public housing.

How can the opposition come in here with such extreme positions? It does not know what the right hand and the left hand are doing when it comes to not only the public and strategic planning process but also public housing.

It is only that Mrs Coote is such a genteel woman in this place that I feel as though I should not savage her; I have not done so on this occasion, but what I have done is highlighted to the chamber the inconsistency of the opposition when it comes to planning matters and matters of public housing.


Mrs COOTE (Southern Metropolitan) — I thank the minister for that extraordinary answer and I hope his hair has not been spread so thin that he is not able to answer this supplementary question, which is: who did the Minister for Planning consult before allowing the four-storey, 49-apartment development at Corbie Street, Bentleigh, to progress to this point? Did he consult

Mr Rob Hudson, the member for Bentleigh in the other place?

The PRESIDENT — Order! I ask Mrs Coote to put the supplementary question again. I am a bit confused at the references to Moorabbin and Bentleigh.

Mrs COOTE — The supplementary question?

The PRESIDENT — Yes, relating to the original question and answer.

Mrs COOTE — The original question was about the Bentleigh electorate, and Moorabbin is in the Bentleigh electorate. My supplementary question is: who did the minister consult before allowing the four-storey, 49-apartment development at Corbie Street, Bentleigh, to progress to this point? Did he consult Mr Rob Hudson, the member for Bentleigh?

Honourable members interjecting.

Mrs COOTE — President, would you like me to do the whole thing again? I did say right at the outset — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! If I do, I will certainly ask Mrs Coote. But I thank her for her assistance.

Mrs COOTE — Please feel free.

The PRESIDENT — Order! In reference to the supplementary question, I remind members that a supplementary question has to be related to the answer given to the original question. I am of the view that asking the question about a property in Bentleigh as opposed to one in Moorabbin, whilst it may be in the same seat and involve the same member, is not consistent with those guidelines. On that basis I will rule the supplementary question out.

Mrs Peulich — On a point of order, President, I am sitting near Mrs Coote, and I can see quite clearly that in her preamble she refers to the two developments. In fact I see that the supplementary is completely within order, given the mention of the two developments in the preamble.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I am not convinced that the original question did not refer to the Moorabbin property at 999 Nepean Highway. Mrs Coote could assist me by restating the question.

Mrs Coote — I would like to explain the preamble again, President. The minister has expediently bypassed local involvement and allowed two totally unsustainable social housing developments in the Bentleigh electorate, in Moorabbin. The local



community is incensed at the minister’s lack of consultation. Why did the minister not consult with the local residents before he allowed the proposal of the high-density social housing development at 999 Nepean Highway, Moorabbin, to proceed?

On the point of order or whatever we are up to here, the issue is that I explained in the preamble that the question involved two properties. The minister knew I was speaking about two properties. Because the minister did not talk about the two properties in his answer does not mean to say my supplementary question is out of order.

Mr D. Davis — On the point of order, President, in her initial question Mrs Coote referred to two properties in the Bentleigh electorate and talked about the process of consultation. I put it to you, President, that her question was apposite to the minister’s response about consultation. Mrs Coote asked about the processes of consultation with respect to the second property in her supplementary question.

The PRESIDENT — Order! Would Mrs Coote be so kind as to allow me to read her original question? The attendant, I am sure, will assist.

Having read the question, I am convinced that my original ruling is correct. The supplementary question is not relevant to the original question. The preamble is not a question.

Financial services: government initiatives

Ms HUPPERT (Southern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Financial Services. Can the minister update the house on what the Brumby Labor government has been doing to drive investment in Victoria’s financial services sector?

Mr LENDERS (Minister for Financial Services) — I thank Ms Huppert for her question and her lack of need to workshop with a number of people before she asked it. Financial services make up 9 per cent of the Victorian economy — that is, 100 000 jobs. As Mrs Coote and Ms Huppert well know, our electorate of Southern Metropolitan Region is the epicentre of where those 100 000 people live. It is a large and growing part of the Victorian economy and is a strong part of our future.

Ms Huppert asked what we are doing to grow more jobs in this particular area. The government, firstly, has recently launched its financial services statement, which I took as a prospectus to four East Asian cities during the parliamentary break, to go to hedge funds and various other institutions to show why investing in

Melbourne and Victoria is a good business proposition for financial services in the East Asian region and also a fantastic business proposition for those Victorians who are looking for jobs at a time of global financial contraction.

I can certainly say to the house that I met with hedge funds in a number of cities; I also met with monetary authorities in Hong Kong and Singapore; and I met with investment corporations, the main ones being in Singapore and Seoul in Korea. The story Victoria has as a place to invest and create jobs is a very good one.

I can assure the house that when you actually say to an international company that Australia is the fourteenth largest economy in the world but it has the fourth largest amount of funds under management anywhere in the world, it gets people’s attention. That is a great legacy of the Hawke and Keating governments in the 1980s that brought in compulsory superannuation, but the reality now is that, even after the ravages of the global financial crisis, more than US$1.25 trillion is under management in Australia, of which 70 per cent is under management in the city of Melbourne. My message to the international investors was that Victoria is a good place to do business and to create jobs so it can build on the 100 000 jobs it already has in financial services.

I can also say I spoke to the organisers of the swift international banking operations seminar, or SOBOS, in Hong Kong, where every three years 6500 bankers go to a city for a conference. It will be a great economic get for Victoria for that to happen. I am confident we have the right measures in place to grow financial services jobs in the state of Victoria. Whether they be in banking, whether they be in insurance or whether they be in ancillary services that go with those industries, these are good jobs for Victorians.

I thank Ms Huppert for her question. I say to anybody from the global financial community listening to the Hansard live audio broadcast today that Victoria is a great place to do business, a great place to invest and a great place to employ talented people — because it is a good place to live, work and raise a family.

Planning: urban density

Mr GUY (Northern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Planning. Noting the release of the government’s guidelines to encourage higher density developments on Melbourne’s fringe, I ask: given densification was the central thrust of the discredited Melbourne 2030 plan, why were these targets not introduced seven years ago when Melbourne 2030 was



introduced, and is this not just a case of too little, too late?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — I welcome Mr Guy’s interest in these matters. These are important matters, particularly the precinct structure guidelines. I will not go into great detail about them, but the important component of the precinct structure guidelines has been widespread consultation. It is important, because whilst we may have ambitions as to how suburbs are developed, what is particularly important is that the development community, which actually physically delivers, makes investments and makes investment choices about how it develops these suburbs in new communities, also has to be confident and have confidence in the government about the positioning around the master planning or the precinct structure guidelines.

What we would not want is to implement precinct structure guidelines that are so ambitious that we scare away developers. This has no doubt taken a long time. I note Mr Guy’s comments in the media — he believes it has not happened soon enough. But I am pleased we have made this announcement. I think it has created some debate, and that is a good thing, but the other component is that because we have brought all of the stakeholders with us, because we have brought the development community with us and because we are actually seeing the development community wanting to move in this space, we can be confident that complementary arrangements have been delivered in the precinct structure planning guidelines, and we will see them delivered in the future. I look forward to seeing that intensification.

Some people believe we are maybe being too prescriptive and interfering too much, but the important component to this intensification is that we are talking about averages. We are not telling people how they should live; what we are telling the industry and the market is that they need to provide a choice, particularly when — I have mentioned this here before and I have mentioned it publicly — we are seeing a shift in the types of households that are established. We are seeing a move away from what has traditionally been the family-type established household to a model where that is less the case.

I have quoted this figure once before, but I will quote it again: currently around one-third of all households are traditional family-style households. In 15 or 20 years that figure will move to a quarter of all households. People are living longer, establishing their households later and living in smaller households, but they are also living for shorter periods of time in those formed

households. More people are wanting to live on their own for longer periods of their lives and for larger percentages of their lives.

I look forward to members on the crossbenches accepting the fact that, even if they have a no-growth policy, even if they want to bring nobody else into the state — even if that is their policy position; I am not sure it is but somehow I suspect it might be — we still have to build more houses and different types of dwellings. Let us not lose sight of that fact as an aspiration for the overall community, particularly in these new suburbs.

Mr Guy is interested in this matter. His comments reflect the fact that what we need is a concentration of smaller type dwellings with greater density around the main street shopping centres and the opportunity for people with bigger families to choose bigger dwellings, but the net average across the development is particularly important.

I am pleased to be able to announce that the industry is supportive of this position, and I look forward to the opposition also being supportive of it as we see these communities rolled out across the growth areas of Melbourne.


Mr GUY (Northern Metropolitan) — I thank the minister for his roundabout way of getting to my question, but I ask him to advise the house what discussions he had with his fellow ministers — the ministers for transport and roads — before the release of these new guidelines to ensure that the mooted new infrastructure is rolled out at the time of urban development, or has he had no discussions and were the guidelines simply just government spin?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — What has been particularly important about all these matters is that they are supported broadly across government, and the consultation I have spoken about has been extensive, particularly within government departments and authorities such as the Department of Transport, VicRoads and many of the agencies that might deal with these issues from their own perspectives and with an emphasis on their own priorities. Consultation has been undertaken to seek their views and they have been brought together in a way that is broadly supported not only by government agencies and the industry but also by local governments and, we would anticipate, by the broader community.

I am very enthusiastic about them. The important component is that we look to have more, in a sense,



livable suburbs. Many of the existing suburbs are also very livable, but I mean livable in the sense that transport is a key priority, making these suburbs walkable, with the ability to ride a bike around them and with access to shops without having to get in a car every time you need something from the shop because there is no local shop.

We anticipate that there will be local shops and that they will be in reasonable proximity for people to access them without necessarily getting into their cars, but also that public transport — whether it be buses or hard rail in some of these locations — will be available so that people do not necessarily need to be as car reliant as has been the case in some of the established suburbs.

I am very enthusiastic about this measure. I think it is best practice, and I look forward to seeing it implemented and rolled out in the future and being particularly well supported by the development community. I am very proud of it. I know there will be those who say we interfere, but I note that in the editorials of last weekend’s newspapers one said I was interfering too much and the other said I was not interfering enough, so it is a bit like the three bears and the porridge — I have probably got it just right on this occasion. I look forward to the opposition supporting these precinct structure planning guidelines as they are implemented well and truly into the future.

Climate change: California conference

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Northern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, who is also the Minister for Innovation. Can the minister inform the house of how the Brumby Labor government is working in partnership with subnational jurisdictions overseas to further enhance Victoria’s leadership role in a number of areas including climate change and stem cell research, and several others I dare say?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I thank Mr Theophanous for the opportunity to talk about some other matters, may I dare say. I take the opportunity to inform the house of an important summit convened by Governor Schwarzenegger in California, USA, within the last fortnight, which I had the good fortune to attend on behalf of the people of Victoria.

The summit brought together about 60 subnational jurisdictions around the globe to talk about a momentum to Copenhagen in terms of the role subnational governments, including the state of

Victoria, may play in trying to drive momentum for reform beyond the limits of what national agreements may be at Copenhagen. Well-informed people within the environment movement and the community would understand the value beyond emission trading schemes and mechanisms of international trade that may be established at a national level to lead to the transformation of our economy, to drive it to greater greenhouse gas abatement and to try to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. There will be a lot of work that needs to be undertaken in jurisdictions such as Victoria.

Certainly there is the work that we have embarked upon to try to make sure that our community understands the need to have adaptation strategies, the way we drive structural adjustment and the way we take account of climate change projections in terms of our land-use planning, whether it be on our coasts or streams. We need to know that state provincial governments around the world will play a leading role in terms of adaptation strategies and those that build on the mitigation effort that may come through emission trading schemes and similar mechanisms. Certainly that was the momentum that was established in California, and it is a momentum that will continue to be traversed around the global community on the way to Copenhagen later in December when, hopefully, an international agreement will be reached.

The state of Victoria has a very mature relationship with California, not only in terms of energy and renewable energy policy but also in our approach to firefighting and to water conservation and water infrastructure issues. We have established a very mature relationship where we exchange knowledge: it is a two-way street in relation to the transfer of knowledge and capability between our jurisdictions.

I had the good fortune to meet with my equivalents in the Californian system, who are known as secretaries of portfolios. I met the Secretary for the California Environmental Protection Agency, Linda Adams, the California Secretary for Natural Resources, Mike Chrisman, and the Secretary for California Emergency Services and Homeland Security, Matt Bettenhausen. Each of those secretaries was very happy to explore the way in which Victoria can collaborate with them now and into the future. We spent a lot of time talking about water management, fire and emergency response, the capability of our jurisdictions and our ability to work together within a framework where by showing leadership on an international stage of subnational governments we can play a very important role.



Having had the opportunity to chair a panel and participate in other panels during the course of the conference, I had a follow-up from our sister province in China, Jiangsu Province. I took the opportunity to try to develop an understanding about the way in which we can support one another in relation to environmental management and expertise that may be available from the state of Victoria to support Jiangsu and the potential for major renewable investment from Jiangsu and capability coming into Victoria. That was a very forward-looking conversation, and we think Victoria can be an international collaborator of the first order.

One of the reasons I say this is that I took the opportunity to reacquaint myself with Professor Alan Trounson, who is from Victoria but is currently the head of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. In the last 12 months Victoria has entered into a collaboration with that institute in terms of some stem cell research. We took the opportunity to announce a further funding round to support that research in terms of immunology and the role which stem cells may play in immunology into the future.

We think there is potential for great science to come out of Victoria, just as there is for great momentum in renewable energy, for momentum for climate change policy and for an approach at a subnational level to adaptation strategies. Victoria understands the dimensions of these issues and will work comprehensively with those states. The trip to California was an excellent opportunity to explore the potential for those collaborations.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I draw to the attention of the house something that I consider to be a reasonable protocol — that is, if a member asks a question, it is only reasonable that that member sit in their place to hear the answer.

Mrs Coote interjected.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I remind Mrs Coote that I am on my feet.

Planning: growth areas infrastructure contribution

Mr GUY (Northern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Planning. I note that the minister told this house just five weeks ago that there was no GAIC (growth areas infrastructure contribution) U-turn in the offing, yet over the last week he has been in discussion with industry over the timing of a growth areas infrastructure contribution change, and I ask: with ordinary land-holders comprising the great bulk of the

number of people who will pay the GAIC, does the minister intend to speak to any of them in this second round of GAIC deliberations, or has he no interest in hearing from everyday Victorian land-holders?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — I welcome Mr Guy’s questions today. I can see he has a fair quota today, which I am pleased about. I am pleased to see that the handwriting he reads from is more legible than the handwriting Mrs Coote reads from.

As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, I have been conscious of the concerns expressed by many land-holders. When I visited the Melton community and was confronted by a number of land-holders at the gates of the Melton Harness Racing Club, where I attended a breakfast event to talk on these matters, I got the impression from members of the opposition and the Democratic Labor Party that they thought I might have been a bit insincere when I spoke to these land-holders. I said a couple of things to them. I said to them, ‘If you do not want me to rezone your land, put up your hand now and I am happy not to do it’. They did not take up that option. But I also said to these land-holders, ‘I am happy to take what you have said back to my colleagues to have this matter discussed’. That was my form of words.

There is no doubt that there has been a lot of discussion, but there have also been representations from a lot of local members, particularly on our side of the Parliament and in the other chamber, who have expressed a great deal of concern about these matters. We have also conducted conversations with industry. I look forward to having ongoing conversations about these matters prior to our resolution of these matters. These matters have to be considered by stakeholders and industry. However, regardless of what stakeholders, industry and land-holders alike agree to, we have to be conscious of the opposition, because we have to put a viable proposition to this Parliament so it can be passed through the Parliament.

I look forward to having the legislation presented to the Parliament. I look forward to seeing it being supported by all members of this chamber. I look forward to seeing the resolution of all these matters either prior to the presentation of the bill to Parliament or, once it is presented to the Parliament, within the Parliament, because the great thing about this state and about Melbourne as the capital city of this state is that we have some of the most affordable housing not only on the eastern seaboard but across Australia. That is why at the end of the day people want to come to live here. The house-land exercise, whatever shape or form it



might take, is one that is very affordable, and we want to maintain that.

The other great thing about this state — and my compliments to my colleague the Treasurer over here — is that we have one of the best economies in Australia. We have a diverse economy, which means that even when there is a bit of an economic slowdown across the world we are able to maintain jobs in this state.

If you are a skilled worker from overseas living in Australia and you are looking for opportunities and want to put the whole package together — an affordable lifestyle in a very livable place where job opportunities present themselves and exist well into the future — why would you not want to come to Victoria? Why would people not want to come to Melbourne? We want to maintain that situation, and we need to maintain it to attract a skilled workforce. I note some of the concerns of the media today. One of the broadsheet papers was discussing the need to make sure that we have a skilled workforce going into the future.

I look forward to making sure that, whatever shape or form this legislation is in when it is finally presented to the Parliament, it is one that can be predominantly supported by all members of this chamber. I look forward to the opposition’s support for the legislation when it is presented to this Parliament.


Mr GUY (Northern Metropolitan) — I thank the minister for his answer. I note that the government’s original GAIC proposal provided an exemption on GAIC payments for all land not deemed developable, so I ask: given that land may be deemed undevelopable later in the planning stages, what compensation mechanism for these land-holders will feature in GAIC proposals for land on which the GAIC has already been paid but which is subsequently declared exempt from future development?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — Certainly I am conscious of all these matters as part of the way the technical aspects of this legislation will need to be presented. No doubt these technical matters are of interest not only to the industry in particular but also to any land-holders who are in the system — that is, whether they develop the land with developers or whether it is developed after they have released the land to a developer. We are conscious of those matters.

I look forward to receiving input from the industry as we progress the resolution of this legislation so that, whatever we do in terms of this space, it gives the

industry, land-holders and anybody in the housing, building construction and development industries the confidence that this is the place to do business so that we can maintain the competitive edge which has taken so long to build up. We want to maintain that so we can continue to proudly say that in one of the world’s most livable cities we have some of the most affordable dwelling prices anywhere in the world.

Singapore Airlines: Singapore–Melbourne service

Mr TEE (Eastern Metropolitan) — My question is to Minister for Industry and Trade. Can the minister advise the house of any recent successes in attracting additional aviation capacity from the Asia-Pacific region?

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade) — I thank Mr Tee for his question. I recently had the opportunity to step on board the brand-new Singapore Airlines Airbus A380 on the day last week that the daily Melbourne–Singapore service was launched. This will be Melbourne’s first daily A380 service, and we as a government recognise that it is a critically important one.

That is why when I was on the way back from G’Day UK I stopped in Singapore and met with Singapore Airlines at a meeting facilitated and attended by Tim Dillon, Victoria’s commissioner for Kuala Lumpur. At that meeting I urged Singapore Airlines to give strong consideration to commencing a daily A380 service direct from Singapore to Melbourne. Certainly as a government we were very gratified when shortly thereafter Singapore Airlines made the decision to do so.

Singapore is proving to be one of Victoria’s most resilient sources of international visitors, with 74 000 Singaporeans visiting Melbourne during 2008–09, which was a 15 per cent increase on the previous financial year. This new daily Airbus A380 service will increase access to that market. It will boost Singapore Airlines’ capacity into Melbourne by about 10 per cent and will mean an extra 35 000 inbound seats through Singapore each year. That is important, because the Singapore Airlines network covers 38 countries and 93 ports across 5 continents. This new service is not just about Melbourne–Singapore; it enhances our links with all of those ports beyond Singapore.

Just one example of that enhancement is our greater access to the UK and European markets and their greater access to us. Those markets are strongly served by Singapore Airlines, and they accounted for around



30 per cent of all international visitor nights to Victoria last financial year. In Melbourne, 14 per cent of all of last year’s international visitors arrived on Singapore Airlines flights, which was second only to Qantas, with its 25 per cent market share. This new A380 service joins a long list of recent Victorian aviation wins and achievements. I know I go on about it, and my predecessor Mr Theophanous went on about it, but we are very proud of it, because it is a reflection of our strong economy; it is a reflection of our major events strategy; and it is a reflection of our strong, world-class attractions and our proactive approach to developing aviation and tourism.

They are new services which provide our state with a long-term economic boost. With as much as 70 per cent of this state’s tourism growth over the next decade expected to come from international markets, developments like this new A380 service are very important. They will help us to build further on Melbourne Airport’s very impressive international passenger numbers, which grew by 3.2 per cent last financial year and by over 7 per cent year on year through to August 2009, when they reached 416 000.

As I have indicated in this place before, the current expansion of international carriers and international services into Melbourne Airport facilitates increased inbound investment — and we have seen fantastic inbound investment figures recently. Those key air links are a major consideration for international investors when they consider where to set up shop. As I have already indicated in this place, those improved air links also improve our freight export performance. Those freight exports have grown through the first six months of 2009.

The Brumby Labor government has continued and will continue to attract more direct international flights to Melbourne because they improve tourist visitation, help improve our investment facilitation and improve our export performance. It is a job of which this government is rightly proud.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — On a point of order, President, bearing in mind your earlier comment, which was directed at me — and I have been a member here for 21 years — I am not aware of a standing order which says that when you ask a question you have to actually sit in the same place to hear the answer. As far as I knew, members could move around and sit wherever they liked to hear the answer to a question. Is this another new Bob Smith special rule that we have to abide by?

The PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Theophanous can refer to me as President all day, if he likes, but when I am here in this position, he will not refer to me by my first name. That is not a courtesy that I will extend to anyone in this house whilst I am in the chair.

Secondly, Mr Theophanous raised a point of order. I remind him that he is entitled to raise a point of order at the time. His time has well passed, but as a courtesy to him I would be more than happy to explain it to him, chapter and verse, in my chambers at any time he chooses. There is no point of order.

Bushfires: fuel reduction

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) — My question is to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change and relates to fuel reduction or cold burning strategies in Victoria. Long before the last fire season various commentators were claiming that the amount of fuel reduction or cold burning done in Victoria was not adequate. Since the disastrous fires of February this year some members of this house have argued that fuel reduction or cold burning is not an effective strategy for minimising the effect of bushfires. My question is: with the next fire season almost upon us, what is the government’s position as to the adequacy or otherwise of the fuel reduction or cold burning that was done before the last fire season?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I thank Mr Kavanagh for his question. He is concerned about the environment and about our citizens, and his question about fuel reduction burning and the role it plays in reducing the risks to our environment and community is a very important one — one that I have commented on many times in the last two years as Minister for Environment and Climate Change.

I can say to Mr Kavanagh that over the last 20 years there have been no two years in succession when the amount of fuel reduction burning has exceeded the average in the way it has in the last two years whilst I have been in this job.

When the government responded to the Environment and Natural Resources Committee inquiry in December last year, I indicated to the chamber that it was the intention of the government not only to consolidate the fuel reduction burning program but to grow it over time; to appreciate the dimensions of the requirement for us to be more sensitive to community aspirations and to vegetation types across the ecological landscape; to try to be strategic in the way we undertake a fuel reduction burning program; and to try to introduce a



large, landscape-scale mosaic burning regime throughout Victoria to deliver on that expectation. Indeed that continues to be the policy and commitment of the government.

The government is determined to increase the order of magnitude of the program, to undertake it in a way that achieves the appropriate balance of the factors I have described and to try to work out the strategic placement of fuel reduction in the landscape to protect environmental values, community assets and community life. That is what we intend to do.

In this spring season officers of the Department of Sustainability and Environment are working in collaboration with Parks Victoria, the Country Fire Authority and other members of the community to undertake fuel reduction burning programs. Depending upon climatic conditions and community acceptance, we will continue to work right up until the fire season to increase the strategic nature and placement of fuel reduction.

Next year, hopefully after a fire season that is reduced from what the state of Victoria experienced last summer, we will embark upon a fuel reduction program in autumn, which is the appropriate time to undertake a large, landscape-scale fuel reduction burning program. If we are safe from the climatic conditions that drove the terrible fires of last summer well into March, we would like to maximise the period of fuel reduction burning from March through to June, as we did this year. This is a feature of our drive and our program currently and will be next year and into the future.

I suggest to Mr Kavanagh, the chamber and the community that we will do our very best to maintain and consistently grow the program at a level that we have not seen over the last 20 years in Victoria.

An honourable member interjected.


Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) — Can the minister give an indication of the increase in fuel reduction burning that we can expect to see over the next one or two years?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — As I was sitting down I was subjected to an interjection which indicated that the pattern for the last 10 years is different from the pattern of the 10 years before that. That does not stand up to scrutiny. I invite anybody who would interject to that effect anywhere — in the chamber or publicly — to

have a look at it, because in fact the 10-year pattern is not terribly different.

An honourable member interjected.

Mr JENNINGS — Have a look. The important thing is that we will grow the program and that we will do it in a way that takes landscape-scale mosaic burning to a level we have not seen before in this state, but we will try to get the balance right in terms of protecting ecological values in the way in which we undertake those burns, their intensity and timing to be respectful of the biodiversity of the vegetation types across the landscape.

We will try to do it in a strategic way rather than having a broadacre burning regime where we do our best to just stack up the hectares as distinct from stacking up the strategic nature of the burns. That is the important nature of it. For instance, we could be out burning thousands of hectares in the Mallee but not protecting one life through that landscape-scale burning. Take as an example the burning being undertaken this week in Plenty Gorge — a very intense area in terms of the peri-urban fringe of Melbourne; a lot of houses are on the edge and perimeter of Plenty Gorge. We are undertaking a strategic burn there on a much smaller scale — in the tens of hectares — that will potentially protect thousands of homes. It is the combination of the strategic placement and the appropriateness of it that will ultimately lead to the protection of human life. That will be the driver.

I am reluctant to dive headlong into wholesale hectare targets, because they may or may not relate to the strategic and community support that we need to provide. What the government is determined to do is to continue to drive the program to meet the balance of those expectations to deliver a greater fire mitigation effort in Victoria into the future.

Planning: government initiatives

Mr EIDEH (Western Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Planning. I refer the minister to the Brumby Labor government’s commitment to make Victoria the best place to live, work and raise a family, and I ask the minister to update the house on how the government is delivering on that commitment in the growth areas of Melbourne.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — I thank Mr Eideh for his interest; I know he is interested in these matters, particularly in the growth corridors in the western suburbs, but I remind members that the growth areas are right across the outer suburbs.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


The areas of the likes of Casey, Cardinia, Hume, Whittlesea, Melton, Caroline Springs and Wyndham are all great places to live, work and raise a family. The great thing about these areas is that they provide families with a secure lifestyle. That is a very important element of the opportunity for people to locate in these areas. As part of that — their release has already been mentioned in this place — the precinct structure planning guidelines have certainly set a new benchmark for what we anticipate and expect for urban developments across the community.

I note that members of the opposition were concerned that it has taken so long to get to the final point of releasing the guidelines. I remind the house that I released the interim guidelines for the precinct structure planning in September 2006, but it has taken close to three years to get everybody, particularly the industry and all the relevant agencies, on board.

The idea of these new precinct structure guidelines, or the master plans themselves, is in many ways to change the feel but also the operation and function of these new suburbs and to turn them into communities. That is important. We want well-connected communities that are affordable but offer local jobs, transport access, which is also important, open space, other services and culture. We want to also reflect, in a sense, the historic and cultural aspects and features that go with the land use in those areas. As part of this new strategic approach we are confident that in bringing everybody with us, the industry in particular, we will now see a new relationship with the suburbs in those growth areas.

The aim is to provide a structure for all new suburbs to be within walking distance to local centres, transport and potentially jobs as well. We have the ambition of having one job for every household by creating businesses that are close to homes and offer a broader range of jobs in these areas. There is an impression among some that these new suburbs are filled with blue-collar workers, whereas in fact they are not; there is a fairly reasonable balance of blue-collar and white-collar workers. We have to provide jobs for white-collar workers as well, to make sure they are not travelling long distances when commuting to their workplaces.

As well as that we want to make sure that we attract a broad range of residents and employers. As I said, diversity in housing stock is important to attract a diversity in those who settle in these communities. We also want there to be increased housing density, and the new efficiency check when it comes to testing developers’ plans against the criteria will give greater

certainty to the industry, a greater ability to progress these things at a more rapid rate and a certainty to local government as to what to expect in these new communities and what they should demand of the developers or proponents of these developments. These guidelines are committed to delivering communities, not just suburbs.

The other aspect that is particularly important is not just planning things so that one day they might arrive, but having them planned and delivered from day one. That is our great challenge, and we look forward to doing more of that because of these precinct structure guidelines. As well as that we want to maintain housing affordability and provide housing choice. But all of this is about the competitiveness, the livability and the attractiveness of Melbourne and giving people an affordable choice about the way they live, as well as continuing our commitment to ensure that Melbourne is, as part of all of Victoria, a great place to live, work and raise a family.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Answers

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I have answers the following questions on notice: 2833, 3025, 3033–4, 3088, 6823, 7516, 8414, 8745, 9062–7, 9146–53, 9325, 9337–44, 9429, 9444, 9446, 9448, 9453–5, 9457–92, 9497, 9502, 9504, 9506, 9509–10, 9514, 9551, 9553, 9556, 9559, 9560, 9563, 9570, 9581–2, 9621–32, 9636, 9658.

PETITIONS

Following petitions presented to house:

Buses: Bendigo

To the Legislative Council of Victoria:

The petition of certain citizens of the state of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council their concern that due to the Brumby government’s decision to re-route every city bus down Bendigo’s busy Mitchell Street, businesses, shoppers, pedestrians and traffic have been severely disrupted.

Your petitioners therefore request that the state government immediately review Bendigo’s bus routes and establish alternative arrangements that suit the needs of all parties concerned including traders, shoppers, motorists and bus users.

By Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (24 signatures).

PETITIONS


Laid on table.

Police: Ashburton

To the honourable the President and members of the Legislative Council assembled in Parliament:

The petition of certain citizens of the state of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the Victorian government’s massive cutback in services at the Ashburton police station.

We oppose the massive reduction in services at the Ashburton police station, the removal of police from the local area and call on the Victorian state government to reverse their decision and restore all officers to the Ashburton police station.

By Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (101 signatures).

Laid on table.

Water: Thomson River supply


The petition of certain citizens of the state of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council their total opposition to the Labor government’s decision to take a further 10 billion litres of water from the Thomson River to top up Melbourne’s water supplies, with the knowledge that this action will have a disastrous impact on the health of the Thomson River and the Gippsland Lakes, and particularly when the government has made no meaningful effort to utilise the 300 billion litres of wastewater each year going out to sea and the 250 billion litres of stormwater falling on Melbourne’s roofs, roads and footpaths.

The petitioners therefore request that the government abandon its plan to take a further 10 billion litres of water from the Thomson River.

By Mr HALL (Eastern Victoria) (1243 signatures).

Laid on table.

Ordered to be considered next day on motion of Mr HALL (Eastern Victoria).

Equal opportunity: legislation

To the members of the Legislative Council:

The petition of certain citizens of the state of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the objection of the Victorian community to the proposed changes to the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 which will:

1. seriously threaten the educational freedom of independent or faith schools and remove or restrict the freedom of faith-based schools to operate in accordance with their beliefs and principles;

2. remove or restrict the right of schools to employ staff who uphold the school’s values;

3. provide the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission with the power to launch investigations of ‘systemic discrimination’ whether or not it has received a complaint;

4. allow the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission to enter schools, small businesses and churches to conduct searches and seize documents and other material as part of their investigations;

5. remove sporting and recreational clubs from having a single-sex membership base.

The petitioners therefore respectfully call on the state government to abandon its plan for the removal of the exemptions to the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 which currently serve to protect the core interests of our faith schools, single-sex clubs and small business.

By Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) (1261 signatures) and Mrs PETROVICH (Northern Victoria) (29 signatures).

Laid on table.

Ordered to be considered next day on motion of Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan).

Planning: growth areas infrastructure contribution


The petition of certain citizens of the state of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the concerns of the local community that the proposed growth areas infrastructure contribution of $80 000 per hectare for land brought into the urban growth boundary (UGB) in 2005 and $95 000 per hectare for land brought into the boundary in or after 2009 is a grossly unfair tax.

Imposing this tax at a flat rate per hectare on the first property transaction places an unfair burden on landowners as it does not take into account differing property values, development potential or the nature of the property transaction.

Your petitioners therefore request that the state government immediately withdraw the proposed tax in its current form and consult further with affected landowners to create a fairer outcome.

By Mrs PETROVICH (Northern Victoria) (78 signatures).

Laid on table.

Housing: Moorabbin

The petition of certain citizens strongly opposes the decision to build a seven-storey development at the back of the Kingston town hall and draws to the attention of the Legislative Council that this federally funded and state ‘fast-tracked’ social affordable housing/public housing development accommodating 150 to 200 people and notes:

GAMBLING REGULATION AMENDMENT (RACING CLUB VENUE OPERATOR LICENCES) BILL


1. that the seven-storey public housing development would be a gross overdevelopment of the site, which already suffers from a chronic shortage of car parking;

2. the site is not suited to public housing where families and children would have minimal open space and be sandwiched between the danger of the Moorabbin railway line and congested Nepean Highway and South Road;

3. that this development undermines the viability of the heritage-listed and well-utilised Moorabbin-Kingston town hall and the Kingston Arts Centre and limits the future potential of the Moorabbin station precinct, which should be redeveloped into a modern, subregional transport facility with greater park-and-ride facilities and mixed-use shops to strengthen Moorabbin’s commercial future.

The petitioners call on Premier John Brumby and the state and federal governments to immediately suspend this project to identify a more suitable site and to prevent an act of planning vandalism.

By Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (380 signatures).

Laid on table.

Housing: Bentleigh


The petition of certain citizens of the state of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the proposed high-density social housing development at 973 Nepean Highway and Corbie Street, Bentleigh, situated directly opposite the high-density, seven-storey social housing development at the Kingston city hall. The four-storey project containing 49 apartments will be federally funded and fast-tracked by the state government as part of the social housing initiative and economic stimulus plan.

The petitioners consider the proposed site is not suitable for such a project, noting:

it is poor planning to have such a concentration of social housing;

it is situated on a busy major highway and intersection experiencing severe traffic problems;

a chronic parking shortage already exists;

there are no recreational facilities in the immediate vicinity.

The petitioners therefore call on the planning minister to reject the proposed social housing development at 973 Nepean Highway and Corbie Street, Bentleigh.

By Mrs COOTE (Southern Metropolitan) (986 signatures).

Laid on table.

Ordered to be considered next day on motion of Mrs COOTE (Southern Metropolitan).

GAMBLING REGULATION AMENDMENT (RACING CLUB VENUE OPERATOR

LICENCES) BILL

Introduction and first reading

For Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning), Mr Jennings, by leave, introduced a bill for an act to amend the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to provide for certain transitional arrangements that will apply to venue operator licences held by specified racing clubs, and for other purposes.

Read first time.

Statement of compatibility

For Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning), Mr Jennings tabled following statement in accordance with Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Gambling Regulation Amendment (Racing Club Venue Operator Licences) Bill 2009 (the bill).

In my opinion the bill, as introduced in the Legislative Council, is compatible with the human rights protected by the charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of the bill

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to provide for certain transitional arrangements that will apply to venue operator licences held by specified racing clubs.

Human rights issues

1. Human rights protected by the charter that are relevant to the bill.

The provisions in this bill do not raise any human rights issues.

The obligations under the provisions of the bill only fall upon persons who hold a venue operator’s licence. The Gambling Regulation Act 2003 provides that a venue operator cannot be a natural person.

2. Consideration of reasonable limitations — section 7(2)

As the bill does not raise any human rights issues, it does not limit any human right and therefore it is not necessary to consider section 7(2) of the charter.

SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE


Conclusion

I consider that the bill is compatible with charter of human rights because it does not raise a human rights issue.

Hon. Justin Madden, MLC Minister for Planning

Second reading

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — By leave, I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Honourable members will be aware that the government has recently introduced legislation to implement the new gaming machine arrangements that will take place from 2012. Under these arrangements, Victoria will transition from the current duopoly gaming operator system to a venue operator structure.

Hotels and clubs interested in operating a gaming venue under the new structure will need to acquire 10-year gaming machine entitlements by way of the pre-auction club offer or the gaming auction to be held in the second quarter of 2010.

In order to operate a gaming venue under the new gaming machine arrangements a person must hold a venue operator licence. To protect the integrity and not-for-profit nature of clubs, the government previously introduced house amendments to the Gambling Regulation Amendment (Licensing) Act 2009 including the introduction of two types of venue operator licences, one for clubs and one for hotels.

To assist current venue operator licence-holders, the government introduced transitional provisions that allow venue operators to be deemed as either holding a club venue operator licence or a hotel venue operator licence, without requiring them to undergo an application process before renewal.

However, it appears that those transitional provisions did not deal with some of the complex legal structures of the particular racing club entities identified in this bill. The government has considered these particular racing club entities to be bona fide clubs.

This government continues to support the good work and endeavours of racing clubs in Victoria.

The bill before the house will amend the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to extend the current transitional provisions to a small number of identified racing clubs and enable them the appropriate restructure to ensure they fall within the club category of venue operator licences. They will be given adequate time to do this

prior to the new gaming machine arrangements to take effect in 2012.

The proposed bill responds to concerns about the fair treatment of these racing club entities and their ability to continue to participate in the new gaming machine arrangements as clubs.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr GUY (Northern Metropolitan).

Debate adjourned until next day.

SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

Alert Digest No. 12

Mr EIDEH (Western Metropolitan) presented Alert Digest No. 12 of 2009, including appendices.

Laid on table.

Ordered to be printed.

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) — I move:

That the Council take note of the report.

I do so on the basis of some of the commentary and observations made by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee in the Alert Digest just tabled. The right to a fair hearing is one of the fundamental tenets that has been developed for a long time through common law. That right has been incorporated into section 24 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act. Subsection 1 of that section states:

A person charged with a criminal offence or a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing.

Three bills are reported on in this Alert Digest that all raise concerns about the right to a fair hearing. There are arguments about the extent or significance of the infringements on this right, and in the commentary provided by the ministers there is some analysis of the interplay between the right and the objectives in the respective bills. But, as a general observation, it does concern me that in three separate pieces of proposed legislation on the same day this right is potentially impacted. I will mention two of the three situations in particular that concern me.

PAPERS


Clause 4 of the Sentencing Amendment Bill 2009 arguably introduces retrospectivity. It introduces a new statutory sentencing factor to a proceeding, and it does so potentially to a proceeding that is either on foot, appellable or about to proceed, meaning that since the time of an alleged incident a new sentencing factor is being introduced. That goes against practice, and I raise it for the attention of the house.

In the Statute Law Amendment (Evidence Consequential Provisions) Bill that has been reported on in this Alert Digest, clause 52 expands the definition of ‘unavailability’ — that is, the unavailability of a witness to give evidence. Potentially there are reasons for this, although I note that issues of personal security and the like can in the most part be addressed via a closed court or via remote evidence being given by a witness. It is concerning that a situation is being introduced where on more occasions evidence may be led but the ability to cross-examine will not be given to an accused. I again raise that for the concern of the house.

Finally, I thank Minister Hulls, the Attorney-General, for clarifying the Personal Property Securities (Commonwealth Powers) Bill in his correspondence. He has clarified that the charter does not apply to acts where a power is referred to another jurisdiction. In most cases that is the commonwealth but in some situations that could be to another state as part of a national scheme. The committee has raised this issue previously and until now had not received a satisfactory answer; it is worth noting that the charter will not apply when a head of power is referred to another jurisdiction. I will quote from the relevant section of Minister Hull’s letter, where he states:

From the date of enactment of a referral act by a state Parliament, the matter referred is in the commonwealth’s hands to which the commonwealth’s interpretive and other measures apply. The resulting commonwealth legislation, including subordinate legislation, is accordingly not subject to the charter …

Motion agreed to.

PAPERS

Laid on table by Clerk:

Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 — Minister’s Order of 17 September 2009 giving approval to the granting of a lease at Shepparton Public Garden Reserve.

Duties Act 2000 — Treasurer’s reports of exemptions and refunds arising out of corporate consolidations and reconstructions for 2008–09 (two papers).

Estate Agents Act 1980 — Notice of approval of registered education and training organisations under section 10C(i) of the act.

Gambling Regulation Act 2003 — Amendment to the Category 2 Public Lottery Licence pursuant to section 5.3.19(4)(b)(ii) of the act.

Planning and Environment Act 1987 — Notices of Approval of the following amendments to planning schemes:

Ballarat Planning Scheme — Amendment C123.

Banyule Planning Scheme — Amendment C61.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme — Amendment C95.

Boroondara Planning Scheme — Amendments C64 and C104.

Brimbank Planning Scheme — Amendment C110.

Cardinia Planning Scheme — Amendments C123 and C136.

East Gippsland Planning Scheme — Amendments C72 and C77.

Glen Eira Planning Scheme — Amendment C72.

Glenelg Planning Scheme — Amendment C51.

Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme — Amendment C114.

Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme — Amendment C66.

Knox Planning Scheme — Amendments C76 and C100.

Mansfield Planning Scheme — Amendments C14 and C17.

Maribyrnong Planning Scheme — Amendments C80 and C81.

Mildura Planning Scheme — Amendment C59.

Mitchell Planning Scheme — Amendment C68.

Monash Planning Scheme — Amendment C65.

Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme — Amendments C84 and C95.

Mount Alexander Planning Scheme — Amendment C23.

Moyne Planning Scheme — Amendment C39.

Murrindindi Planning Scheme — Amendment C22.

Nillumbik Planning Scheme — Amendment C61.

Surf Coast Planning Scheme — Amendment C43 (Part 2).

Victoria Planning Provisions — Amendments VC59 and VC60.

Warrnambool Planning Scheme — Amendment C55.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Whitehorse Planning Scheme — Amendment C92.

Whittlesea Planning Scheme — Amendment C117.

Wyndham Planning Scheme — Amendment C129.

Yarra Planning Scheme — Amendment C119.

Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme — Amendments C82 and C91.

Primary Industries Department — Report under section 30L of the Surveillance Devices Act 1999, 2008–09.

Public Record Office Victoria — Report, 2008–09.

Special Investigations Monitor’s Office — Report for the period 1 January to 30 June 2009, pursuant to section 30Q of the Surveillance Devices Act 1999.

Statutory Rules under the following Acts of Parliament:

Associations Incorporation Act 1981 — No. 113.

Gambling Regulation Act 2003 — Nos. 108 and 114.

Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 — No. 107.

Infringements Act 2006 — No. 106.

Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 — No. 110.

Road Safety Act 1986 — Nos. 115 and 116.

Sheriff Act 2009 — No. 112.

Supreme Court Act 1986 — No. 111.

Supreme Court Act 1986 — Coroners Act 2008 — No. 109.

Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 —

Minister’s exception certificates under section 8(4) in respect of Statutory Rule No. 109.

Ministers’ exemption certificates under section 9(6) in respect of Statutory Rule Nos. 106, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116 and 117.

Proclamations of the Governor in Council fixing operative dates in respect of the following acts:

Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Resolution Conference) Act 2009 — 15 September 2009 — (Gazette No. S319, 16 September 2009).

Road Legislation Amendment Act 2009 — Section 10 — 1 October 2009 — (Gazette No. S332, 22 September 2009).

Sheriff Act 2009 — 1 October 2009 — (Gazette No. G40, October 2009).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

General business

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — By leave, I move:

That —

(1) precedence be given to the following general business on Wednesday, 14 October 2009:

(a) notice of motion no. 26, standing in the name of Mr D. Davis, relating to the production of certain MAMS expenditure reports;

(b) notice of motion no. 28, standing in the name of Mr D. Davis, relating to the production of certain documents relating to the Working Victoria and Shine advertising campaigns;

(c) the notice of motion given this day by Mr D. Davis relating to the establishment of a select committee on government corruption in Victoria;

(d) resumption of debate on orders of the day nos 17 to 22, to be debated concurrently pursuant to an order of the Council on 15 September 2009;

(e) resumption of debate on order of the day no. 16, relating to wastewater and stormwater; and

(f) resumption of debate on order of the day no. 14, relating to registered training organisations; and

(2) this house authorises the President to permit notices of motion, general business, nos 26 and 28 to be moved and debated concurrently.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Reporting date

Mr DALLA-RIVA (Eastern Metropolitan) — By leave, I move:

That the resolution of the Council of 10 September 2008, as amended on 13 November 2008, 31 March 2009 and 30 July 2009, requiring the Standing Orders Committee to inquire into and report by 31 July 2009 on the establishment of new standing committees for the Legislative Council, be further amended so as to now require the committee to present its report by 30 November 2009.

Motion agreed to.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Geelong Football Club: premiership

Mr KOCH (Western Victoria) — I would like to congratulate the Geelong Football Club on winning the 2009 AFL (Australian Football League) Grand Final on the last Saturday of September.

The players, club staff, directors and supporters did the Geelong region proud not only by blowing St Kilda Football Club away but also by the manner in which they conducted themselves through the entire season, in particular during the weeks preceding the grand final.

Gary Ablett’s Brownlow Medal, Paul Chapman’s Norm Smith medal and Max Rooke, the champion from Casterton who kicked the opening and closing grand final goals, will go down in history.

The efforts of Matthew Scarlett, Corey Enright, Joel Selwood, Paul Chapman and Gary Ablett during the season were also highlighted by their inclusion in the AFL’s all-Australian team for 2009. There were many unsung heroes contributing to Geelong’s successful season. Another standout was 23-year-old Harry Taylor, a quiet achiever, who stripped St Kilda’s courageous captain Nick Riewoldt of any glory on this sport’s biggest day.

The achievements of the Geelong Football Club over the last decade have been unparalleled. Frank Costa and his colleagues, Brian Cook and his team, Mark Thompson and the coaches along with all of the players will be long remembered as Geelong continues to celebrate this monumental season.

Western Victoria should be proud of the Geelong Football Club’s achievements. We are not Melbourne; we are Geelong — the greatest team of all. Geelong Football Club and its members, along with the community, look forward to more success in 2010.

Water: Victorian plan

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria) — A sigh of relief can be heard across the Wimmera, Grampians and Ballarat areas this week in households, at sporting clubs and in public open spaces. Yesterday Grampians Wimmera Mallee Water announced an easing of water restrictions for over 40 towns including Horsham, Stawell and Ararat. Stage 4 water restrictions will be replaced by stage I restrictions from tomorrow, and today Central Highlands Water announced that water restrictions for Ballarat will also be eased. Residents will soon be able to water their gardens twice weekly,

which is welcome relief after three years of stage 4 restrictions.

A decade of drought has hit western Victoria hard, but the combined effects of good rainfall, reduced consumption and significant investment in infrastructure that creates massive water savings is returning dividends. Central Highlands Water users reduced household consumption to become amongst the lowest water users in the state. They wrote the book for campaign 155.

Before the goldfields super-pipe the Ballarat region had around four months supply of water. There is now enough water in storage for the next two and a half years, and the $688 million Wimmera–Mallee pipeline project is capturing billions of litres of water by replacing over 17 000 kilometres of open channels with 8800 kilometres of pipeline. When this is complete it will save over 100 billion litres of water. This is welcome news this week for communities that have been doing it tough for years; communities that will, I am sure, continue to use water efficiently.

The Brumby government’s water plan is ensuring we will have enough water as we face ongoing drought and climate change. The benefits of the water plan to all Victorians and our environment have been superbly illustrated this week.

Buffalo Stadium, Woodend

Mrs PETROVICH (Northern Victoria) — Today I would like to commend and support the efforts of a very active group of people in my home town of Woodend. As many people know, I am immensely proud to be part of the Woodend community, and, not surprisingly, I am not alone, as this town has a lot to offer and a lot going for it for a number of reasons that I would be more than happy to expand upon at length, but time does not permit.

However, as we grow, so too do our needs for better facilities; in this instance sporting and recreational facilities. A group of forward-thinking people have formed the Buffalo Stadium user group and are working towards expanding our Buffalo Stadium so that it can cater for the growing number of basketball, netball and soccer players. As it stands, many juniors are being turned away each week because there is simply not enough court time.

The benefits of young people participating in sport are unquestionable, and we need to be able to deliver in spades in this area. In addition, as in many country communities, an expanded Buffalo Stadium could be

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


used for many other purposes. In particular I have in mind a relocation centre for disaster management and a place for coordinating emergency services. In the wake of Black Saturday, I believe we need these vital resources for the safety and protection of country communities throughout Victoria. With millions of dollars being thrown around by our federal government for infrastructure projects — and a lot of it being wasted on superfluous buildings — it would be great to see some of that fall on the Buffalo Stadium redevelopment. And if the local member were doing her job, she would be strongly advocating for this community and be able to deliver some funding from the state’s coffers. I am certainly putting my support behind this project to make the plan become a reality in the very near future.

Western Health: nurse awards

Mr EIDEH (Western Metropolitan) — It gives me great pleasure to recognise the talented people who serve the people of Victoria in a host of capacities. When I received a media release from the Minister for Health, Daniel Andrews, I must admit that I was proud to see that two exceptional nurses from Western Health had been recognised at the 2009 Victorian Nursing and Midwifery Excellence Awards for excellence in their roles. For that I congratulate Western Health, but most especially the nurses themselves: Susan McGregor, a blood transfusion clinical nurse consultant who was recognised for excellence in nursing practice; and Jennifer Orr, manager of the aged care liaison service.

Nursing is one of the toughest careers that a person can take on, and yet from the many nurses whom I have met I hear many stories of how personally rewarding they find their roles and just how much they love helping the community. To be a nurse is to be one of the most special people in the community, and I know that many people owe them a great debt in so many ways. That is why I regard such awards as these to be truly appropriate and exactly what the community would expect of its government — to recognise talent, to honour commitment and to acknowledge the hard work and commitment, often far above the requirements of their duties, of nurses. I wish Susan McGregor and Jennifer Orr every success in the future, and I thank them for their dedication to the western suburbs.

Parliament: Remembrance Day

Mr HALL (Eastern Victoria) — I wish to record my strong protest against the government’s decision to schedule a parliamentary sitting day on 11 November 2009 — Remembrance Day. Remembrance Day is a

day on which local communities across Australia gather to commemorate the end of hostilities in World War I. We commemorate the signing of the armistice on 11 November 1918, and scheduling a sitting of Parliament for that day means members of Parliament, and particularly country members of Parliament, are prevented from joining their local communities to commemorate this important event in Australia’s history. Many in our communities see this as an affront to the families and descendants of those who served in the Great War and indeed an affront to the community organisations, particularly the Returned and Services League clubs, which organise commemorative services.

I share this view and call on the government to reschedule the sitting day of the 11th of the 11th. This year that date occurs on a Wednesday. There is no reason the sitting week could not be rescheduled so that we sit on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday rather than Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. I ask the government to give due respect to the fallen and allow MPs to fully participate in Remembrance Day services by rescheduling the sitting week so that Remembrance Day can be observed by all.

St Mary’s House of Welcome, Fitzroy

Ms HARTLAND (Western Metropolitan) — Today I had the privilege of attending morning tea at St Mary’s House of Welcome in Fitzroy. I was able to speak to a number of people who attend St Mary’s, such as Suzanne Hunt Tuzo, who is taking part in the Catalyst-Clemente program. This free program has enabled Suzanne to do four university units this year, with assistance from the Australian Catholic University. She will be able to attend the Australian Catholic University next year as a second-year arts student.

St Mary’s proves that great things can be done to assist people who are homeless, who are on low incomes or who are just down on their luck, so that they can get back into the workforce and life in general. One of the things that is very noticeable about what happens at St Mary’s is that people are treated with dignity and respect, and even if they are homeless, have a mental illness or are just on a low income, they are seen as true people with a great deal to offer society.

St Mary’s House of Welcome, Fitzroy

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — I begin by expressing my personal condolences to the families of the victims of the recent earthquakes and tsunamis in both Indonesia and Samoa, and I express my sympathy and sorrow to members of those communities affected

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


overseas but also to their loved ones living here in Australia.

Like Ms Hartland I had the opportunity this morning to attend, as part of Anti-Poverty Week activities, the preparation and serving of breakfast to many of our fellow Australians at St Mary’s House of Welcome. For a number of years now parliamentarians have had the opportunity to visit this very important institution in Brunswick Street, Fitzroy, and assist Victorians in their time of need through the provision of a meal to them.

I have on a number of occasions had the pleasure of visiting this important centre, and I take this opportunity to commend St Mary’s House of Welcome, which is run by the Daughters of Charity, for the important work it has done in providing support to homeless and disadvantaged people since 1960 by not only providing meals for 6000 Victorians a year but also providing a welcoming environment.

HMAS Cerberus: art exhibition

Mrs COOTE (Southern Metropolitan) — Last week I had the great fortune of going to see an art exhibition in honour of HMAS Cerberus. It was an art exhibition commissioned by Tamsin Davidson, director, Pivotal Galleries, and Ted Browne was there as well. Tamsin Davidson organised for various artists to do contemporary drawings of the Cerberus to remind us of what it looks like today and in the past. The exhibition was attended by a number of dignitaries, who were all there as supporters of the Cerberus.

The Cerberus has been supported by representatives of all political parties, particularly David Kemp and Andrew Robb from the Liberal Party. It is also supported by members of the Labor Party, and Mary Delahunty gave money for it. In fact it has been supported by people of all political persuasions.

It is therefore particularly disappointing to see that in the heritage grants for Victoria Peter Garrett, the federal Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts, has overlooked the opportunity to give an estimated $2 million to Cerberus to brace it for the present conditions. It is particularly disappointing to see that it is the Rudd federal government that has let the Cerberus down.

I commend Pivotal Galleries for putting on an excellent show for all. I also commend the people who were there to celebrate and who had an interesting night looking at some great artwork.

Grantville and District Memorial Park: opening

Mr SCHEFFER (Eastern Victoria) — Last Sunday I was privileged to open the new Grantville and District Memorial Park in conjunction with the mayor of the Bass Coast Shire, Cr John Duscher, and the chair of the Grantville and District Memorial Park committee, Cr Veronica Dowman. The establishment of the memorial park is the culmination of the sustained work and active engagement of many community members who imagined the vision and negotiated the planning and construction of what is now a remarkable site.

Congratulations are deserved for the boldness of the idea of the memorial park. The design takes community memory seriously and, through considered plantings and interpretive story boards, the historical experience of the Bunurong people and the European settlers from first contact, through the rise and decline of the timber industry, the expansion of agriculture, the sufferings of war, the impacts of depression and the building of prosperity can be recalled by resident and visitor alike.

Sunday’s proceedings were opened by the Young Spirit Dance Group from Sale, and students from the Bass Valley Primary School recited a short poem they had written collectively. The proceedings ended with a brilliant musical history of the Grantville area entitled Tales from the Waterline, written and narrated by Libby Skidmore, featuring vibrant local artists.

The Grantville and district community raised a remarkable $90 000 towards the park, the Bass Coast Shire contributed around $250 000 and the Victorian government contributed just over $140 000.

I congratulate everyone involved in the establishment of the Grantville and District Memorial Park for their efforts and for hosting a magnificent opening ceremony.

Livestock: greenhouse gas emissions

Mr VOGELS (Western Victoria) — I recently criticised the handbook released by the CSIRO encouraging us all to become vegetarians and claiming that this would lead to significantly better outcomes for the environment.

While livestock do emit greenhouse gases — according to the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory dairy farming produces 1.6 per cent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and livestock in total produce approximately 11.5 per cent — human beings have evolved over millions of years into omnivores, and that

GAMBLING REGULATION FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL


is why we can and do eat almost anything. Dietitians recommend a well-balanced diet. This would include vegetables, fruit, meat, fish, dairy products, grains, herbs and so on.

There are many better ways of reducing greenhouse gases. They would include cleaning up coal-fired power stations, driving less by shopping locally, buying Australian, growing your own vegetables, installing a rainwater tank and solar panels et cetera.

I have received many comments both for and against the CSIRO handbook, but must admit I was somewhat taken aback by the venom expressed by certain individuals who have absolutely no idea of the extent to which Australian farmers care for and nurture their animals. In an article in the Geelong Advertiser on 6 October a well-known vegetarian activist, Will Schmidt, who wants to force a vegetarian lifestyle on those who choose a traditional balanced diet, raised my contribution to the abortion debate to attack me. Because I oppose the killing of babies right up to the moment of birth, he claims I am a hypocrite when I stand by to watch livestock being killed for human consumption, cows being milked and fish being consumed.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Finn) — Order! The member’s time has expired.

Abortion: legislation

Mrs KRONBERG (Eastern Metropolitan) — Last Saturday, 10 October, marked the anniversary of the passing of the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008. Everyone in this chamber realises full well that this law has ushered in the freest abortion laws in the world. Many Victorians from all walks of life and from right across the spectrum of faiths and beliefs, young and old, remain vigilant about and deeply disturbed by this law and the deep moral dilemma it wreaks on the people of this state.

As an expression of their abiding concern as to the impact of the law, in particular in relation to late-term abortions, thousands of concerned citizens marched through the streets of Melbourne and assembled outside on the steps of this Parliament. It was the march of the babies.

This law also represents a stripping away of the rights not only of the unborn, but also of doctors and nurses in this state who have a conscientious objection to any involvement in abortions. These doctors and nurses who have deeply held pro-life beliefs have had their basic human rights cast asunder by the tenets of

section 8 of the act. Should this law be enforced, it is likely to have direct consequences on the livelihood of Victoria’s medical practitioners. How did the denial of the right to have a conscientious objection ever become swept into the abortion debate in the first place?

Bernie Finn and the organising committee of the march of the babies are to be congratulated and applauded for the timely reminder of yet another example of the steady corrosion of our society and its values by this destructive Labor government.

Water: stormwater harvesting

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — Today I raise the matter of stormwater capture and stormwater run-off. Everyone in this chamber who has been near Melbourne in the last few weeks will know that in September rainfall was modestly higher than usual and in areas close to Melbourne, for example Boroondara, there were some high levels of stormwater run-off.

Examples included Dights Falls on the Yarra, with a peaking of flow on 28 September at 5089.055 megalitres per day, the largest flow in 12 months; and Ashwood, where the monitoring station recorded typical flow surges in tributaries lifting from a minimum per day in September of 4.165 megalitres to a massive 1588.392 megalitres.

The Yarra and its tributaries provide a fertile ground for stormwater capture at times of peak flow, and I make the point particularly that hard surfaces like footpaths, roads and roofs offer a great opportunity for the capture of water, and more should be done to collect that water. The state government could have put proper capture in place in the form of rainwater tanks, rain gardens and wetlands to slow the surge of water and capture these sorts of flows. This is a lost opportunity, and has been for 10 years under this government, to capture the stormwater as it surges towards the sea.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Finn) — Order! The member’s time has expired.


Second reading

Debate resumed from 3 September; motion of Mr LENDERS (Treasurer).

Mr GUY (Northern Metropolitan) — It is indeed a pleasure to speak on the Gambling Regulation Further Amendment Bill 2009. In doing so I think it is



important from this side of the house to note the chaos that appears to have surrounded the minister’s office in the preparation of this bill. We have just before had the second reading of the Gambling Regulation Amendment (Racing Club Venue Operator Licences) Bill 2009, which is in reference to the bill that we are now debating. There appears to have been a somewhat chaotic 2 hours leading up to today’s debate, or should I say a chaotic day leading up to today’s debate, when it was not known whether the bills would be moved together or moved separately, or whether the new bill would be moved as an amendment to the current bill.

I hope that, before going to the third-reading stage when the minister comes in to make some comments, he is able to clarify at what point the Minister for Gaming became aware of the necessity for a second bill to facilitate parts of the Gambling Regulation Further Amendment Bill 2009 to avoid a repeat of the situation that we have had over the last 12 hours or so. I am giving him plenty of notice. I note that it is not the fault of the Government Whip or people on that side of the chamber, with the exception of those in the minister’s office it appears, and maybe some others beyond that. However, I do not propose to be further sidetracked on that issue as I want to make some comments on this bill.

It is a quite lengthy bill and it makes some amendments to the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to improve its operation. The opposition will not be opposing this bill. We accept the need to encourage streamlining in the application process, although we have some concerns with elements of the bill, and I will come to those. If those concerns develop after the passage of the bill, we will ask the minister to review those points of the operation that have been approved by the passage of this bill.

The bill facilitates the transition to the new gaming machine regime in 2012: the new wagering licence, the new keno licence and the new monitoring licence. It will have some important effects should it be passed, and no doubt other speakers from this side of the chamber and I am quite sure the Greens and even government speakers will have much to say about that.

The bill makes several amendments to the application approval process for those who are seeking approval of a venue for gaming and for altering the conditions of a venue operator’s licence by, for example, varying the electronic gaming machine (EGM) numbers at a specific venue. Applicants have to state the number of machines they intend to acquire for the premises and provide a copy of the application to the relevant municipality in which they are located. The council will

then have a 37-day period to notify the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation (VCGR) whether it intends to make submissions and a further 60 days to lodge the submission subject to a 30-day extension for exceptional circumstances. We understand that is an important facet of the bill.

The VCGR then has 60 days to assess and determine the application. If it fails to make a decision within 60 days, the bill states that it will be deemed to have refused to grant the approval. This is similar to many of the planning instances with councils where the applicant will have to appeal the decision and take it to Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for proper consideration.

There are also restrictions on the applicant’s ability to amend the application following its submission, such as only being permitted to amend the number of machines they intend to acquire within 30 days of submitting their application, and any amendment later than that time requiring a new application. As I said, we have some concerns about that provision, although it is one of the major provisions in the bill. The coalition is concerned that in streamlining the application process for new gaming venues and amendments to conditions for existing gaming venue licences, shortening the period for consideration by the VCGR to just 60 days consideration and restricting its powers to extend the time for councils to make submissions to 90 days, it could be argued that these amendments will reduce the opportunity for community debate over expanding gaming venues. I think that is a legitimate point to make. It is a very short period of time for some communities to consider the importance of gaming machine venues being expanded in their town, municipality or suburb, however large the locale, and it could be argued that the process should be longer for communities to consider that kind of presence of gaming machines being expanded in their area.

I think there are recent examples where councils have taken polls of communities to ascertain their view of poker machines either coming into that community or being expanded. They found that some communities — and an obvious example is Romsey — did not want poker machines to come to their town at all. It could also be argued that a reduced time frame will lead to a reduction in the quantity and quality of evidence that can be put before the VCGR by objectors which could tilt the process in favour of applicants, and that is an important factor for the government to consider.

The deemed refusal provision is also one that may raise concerns. It has occurred in my portfolio of planning in that difficult decisions could be avoided by the primary



regulator through delaying decisions; instead VCAT would be used as the de facto decision-maker. As anyone who is familiar with the VCAT process knows, that will come with consequential delays and inefficiencies to the process, and that is something that would need to be factored in. Any inquiry currently to determine an application by a venue for the increase in electronic gaming machine numbers is required to be held in public unless there are special circumstances. The bill proposes that an inquiry need only be held in public if the proposed increase in EGM numbers is 10 per cent or more above the current numbers, or where a further increase is sought within two years of a previous increase in EGM numbers.

The VCGR may also determine an application to amend a venue operator’s licence to increase the maximum EGM numbers at a venue without conducting a public hearing where the relevant local council has not made a submission or where the council and the venue operator have agreed to the VCGR not conducting a public hearing. In any event the decision of the VCGR must be delivered in public.

The proposal to allow applications for smaller increases in gaming machine numbers at venues without an inquiry, which as I said before is up to 10 per cent, is of concern. While it would require the agreement of the relevant council and the applicant, it could be argued that the broader community should have the opportunity to be heard on such matters at a public hearing. With no obligation on the VCGR or the applicant to advise the fact of an application having been made, it puts a great deal of responsibility on local councils to ensure the community is informed of applications to amend conditions on gaming venues. We accept there will be concern about the lack of public scrutiny of the expansion of some venues. As I mentioned before, there are examples such as Romsey and other municipalities and towns and suburbs that have significant problems with poker machines being in their communities, let alone the possible expansion — whether it is by 10 per cent or more — of their numbers without public scrutiny.

The minister may issue a temporary monitoring licence or direct the VCGR to appoint a monitoring services provider and may amend a monitoring licence at any time should the bill be passed. Monitors have their civil liability limited and may be directed to enter into agreements relating to the monitoring by the minister. Where the minister amends the number of gaming machines permissible in a region or reduces the number of EGMs across Victoria, this bill sets out procedures for the making of offers to affected gaming machine

entitlement holders by the minister to buy back the affected entitlements.

In the case of regional cap reductions, which I think we have talked about in the past, entitlement holders will have options to transfer entitlements to other regions, assuming there is room under the government’s EGM cap. They can sell those entitlements on the secondary market or accept the minister’s buyback offer. Failure to accept one of those options, which could lead to a breach of a regional cap, would lead to a forfeiture.

There are also provisions in the bill for large-note acceptors and unrestricted autoplay facilities on electronic gaming machines. The bill repeals a section that allowed machines located in an area specified by the VCGR to be exempt from the rules banning machines from having large-note acceptors, or what are called ‘autoplay’ facilities and having spin rates not less than the satisfactory requirements. My understanding is that three venues and only 15 machines across the state are affected by this, and I note that the casino is exempt from this change.

The Liberal Party and The Nationals believe the removal of the regulator’s powers to exempt EGMs from player protection measures, including things such as spin rates and large-note acceptors, is appropriate, but there has not really been an adequate explanation as to why the casino is exempt from this change. I think that has been a feature of a number of gaming bills which have come before this Parliament, where we have seen one rule for other venue operators and one rule for the casino. While I do not disparage the casino directly, it is obviously a question of consistency of policy if the government is not explaining provisions properly to the Parliament and to the shadow minister, the member for Malvern in the other place, Michael O’Brien.

The bill will also change the formula for calculating electronic gaming machine taxes for gaming venues. Rather than basing taxes on the number of EGM entitlements in use over a calendar month, my understanding is it will be based on the number of EGM entitlements per day, divided by the number of days in each month. This deals with situations where EGMs are moved between venues to ensure that tax is calculated only for those days where the EGMs are in a venue. That makes a great deal of sense. The minister may also give written direction to a gaming operator to provide information that may be relevant to what the monitoring licensees will do and may require the monitoring licensees to provide relevant material to the minister.



I know the bill has some detailed points in it which no doubt other contributors to the debate will allude to later, but there are some issues on wagering and betting-related amendments in part 3 of the bill to which I want to make reference from the opposition’s point of view. Clause 81 in part 3 of the bill commits to legislation a government promise to conduct a review of the tax rate for wagering and betting to be completed and laid before the Parliament on or before 31 December 2012. We know 2012 is important as we try to pair up licensing in this state. The bill also provides powers to issue a temporary — in this case, 90-day — wagering and betting licence in addition to current powers to issue longer-than-three-year temporary licences. The government advises that only one licence would ever be in operation. That is in part 3 of this bill. The minister will have powers provided to him or her to amend the wagering and betting licence and to introduce related agreements to the licence.

We have some concerns about some of those changes, especially the future funding of racing, despite government promises of a ‘no less favourable’ funding outcome for Victorian racing industries. My colleague the shadow Minister for Racing in the lower house, Denis Napthine, has made some points about that which are immensely important and go to the heart of racing and the certainty of securing racing venues in Victoria. I would hope the government, when we are talking about ‘no less favourable’ funding outcomes for racing industries, would rethink some of its ideas about country racing in this state, which in my view have been deplorable over the last couple of years.

We also have some concerns that these changes will introduce increased risk to holders and potential holders of Victorian wagering and betting licences, which will reduce the value of the licence currently subject to a tender process. They are concerns which we have relayed in public before and put on the table again.

I briefly want to talk about Club Keno agreements. I understand the bill will provide that the value of any prize unclaimed after six months will be paid to the Treasurer, who must meet the claim should the winner make a demand. I am sure the Treasurer of Victoria is grateful for that part of the bill being factored in, given that he is a little strapped for cash at the moment and is having to look at stinging land-holders on the outskirts of Melbourne to find some extra cash. The Treasurer himself might be hoping that some Club Keno ticket-holders do not in fact take their claim. I understand, for the basis of recurrent revenues, that Treasury would be very happy if that were the case.

The bill also authorises the Minister for Gaming to require a Club Keno operator to provide information relevant to the application process for that new keno licence and to disclose that information to an applicant. The minister will also be able to order the keno licensee to enter into an agreement with the minister or another person at the minister’s direction. There is also provision for the minister to issue temporary keno licences for 90 days if necessary. The VCGR is authorised to give directions to the keno licensee with which the licensee must comply.

Before I conclude it is also interesting to note that, as we are talking about keno and bingo, cash payments of $1000 or more must be paid by cheque and payments of bingo prizes of any amount must be paid by cheque at the request of a person with a venue prize of any size, which reflects the requirements for gaming venues. I think that is a good and quite sensible point, and those on this side of the house are very happy to support it.

As I said, there are aspects of the bill that are of concern to the coalition, particularly regarding the streamlining of gaming venue application processes, which I understand members will talk about further. This would certainly reduce the opportunities for community input.

We have concerns about that; however, it is fair to say that, on balance, what the government is offering in the way of changes is mainly facilitative of transitional phases for the new 2012 environment. That is something we have been on record as supporting. As I said from the outset, the coalition will not be opposing the passage of this bill.

Mr TEE (Eastern Metropolitan) — I am very pleased to speak on the Gambling Regulation Further Amendment Bill. This bill builds on the work that the government has done in transitioning from the gaming operator structure to a venue operator structure. It will bring to an end the duopoly that is in place and will allow venue operators to own their own gaming machines. It is a great move forward in that area.

The bill builds on that transition model and sets out a number of the changes needed to achieve that outcome. The outcome will be that a bidding process will be put in place that will allow venue operators to bid to operate machines for 10 years. The criteria for tendering will be very strict. They will require venue operators to hold a current venue operator’s licence, have gaming machine entitlements and have access to approved premises and they will be able to obtain gaming machines and gaming equipment as well as being linked to a monitoring system that will be put in place. An independent monitor will be appointed



through the issuing of a single monitoring licence, which again will be achieved through a competitive process. The role of the independent monitor will be to ensure the integrity of the transactions in venues.

Currently information sessions and information packs have been provided statewide in many locations around Victoria to assist in the process. Those information sessions for the industry will continue to be rolled out in the days, weeks and indeed months ahead, so that everyone who has an interest in this will be able to understand both the process and the requirements that must be met. The information process is under way. As I said, the bill builds on the framework that is in place and ensures that there is a more efficient operations model without comprising in any way the standards that have been put in place.

The framework provided for by the bill has a number of features. The first of those features is that the bill allows for a government buyback of gaming machines should a government decide to do so. It is not the intention of this government to reduce the number of gaming machines, but future governments may wish to exercise this prerogative. The bill provides a vehicle for buyback mechanisms should a decision be made in future to reduce, for example, the regional or municipal caps or limits. The first step that will be required to be taken as part of a buyback will be a market-based approach, whereby the government will offer to buy back gaming machine entitlements from willing venue operators. Those venue operators will have an option to apply to the regulator, the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation (VCGR), to have the conditions on their entitlements amended so that they can use their entitlements in other geographic areas that are not affected by any regional or municipal cap or to transfer their entitlements to another venue operator. There are a number of options built into the buyback scheme.

The second feature of the bill relates to the monitoring system that is being put in place. An independent monitor will oversee the integrity of the system. The bill deals with the consequences where, for whatever reason, there is no monitor. It ensures that, in the absence of a monitor, gaming machines will be able to continue to operate. It is possible to envisage theoretically that the monitor is no longer in place because the monitoring licence is cancelled or suspended or there is some other reason for a failure in the provision of monitoring services. The bill picks up what is to occur in those circumstances by empowering the minister to appoint a manager to operate the monitoring system on an interim basis until an alternative monitoring arrangement is put in place.

Other features of the bill deal with the issue of liabilities. They ensure that with a failure of the monitoring system there is protection for the state so that the state does not have to carry any risk in the provision of monitoring services. The bill also ensures that players are protected, by providing that the monitor will be liable where a prize cannot be paid because of the failure of the monitoring system.

A number of provisions of the bill streamline the process for applications for premises approvals. The bill picks up a current issue where there are applications for minor changes in the number of gaming machines and there are lengthy delays that are unnecessary and do not add any value to the operators, local councils or the community. The bill deals with applications for changes of no more than 10 per cent in the number of gaming machines and allows for the commission to deal with those matters on the papers, where the local council has not lodged a submission on an application — that is, it picks up the situation where there is no opposition from the council. Instead of having an unnecessary public hearing, the commission can deal with an application on the papers.

Equally, there is currently a requirement for the VCGR to obtain the views of certain parties, including the council, before it is able to proceed with an application. That means that often there are delays where, for example, a council does not have a view, or at least not a positive view, about an application to the commission. Unless and until that council expresses its view, the commission is unable to act. That unnecessary hurdle is repealed by the bill. Where the council has an objection, there is a requirement for public hearings to continue, so the bill provides protection where there are objections from councils.

Another issue the bill deals with is problem gambling. Again Victoria is very much leading the way nationally with some of the responsible gambling measures we have in place, including, for example, banning automatic teller machines from gaming venues. The bill builds on that commitment by removing some of the exemptions that now apply under provisions such as those that allow for unrestricted gaming machines in specified areas. Currently the player protection features, including the banning of large denomination notes and so on, do not apply. The bill removes those unrestricted areas and ensures that problem gambling measures in place elsewhere apply throughout the venues. With those words, I commend the bill to the house.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — The Greens support the broad thrust of the bill save for two related clauses, the first being clause 15. I inform the



house that we have amendments to undo this attempt to repeal a provision of the principal act. I am happy for those amendments to be circulated now.

Greens amendments circulated by Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) pursuant to standing orders.

Mr BARBER — Clause 15 of the bill repeals section 3.3.7(4) of the principal act. That section says:

If the relevant responsible authority does not make a submission under section 3.3.6, the Commission must seek the relevant authority’s views on the application and must consider those views (if any) in determining the application.

For the purposes of what we are talking about, that authority would frequently be the local council.

Mr Tee has just told us that this is an unnecessary and in some ways a redundant step. I ask him and other members to consider why this sort of thing appears in so many other pieces of legislation and of course in planning schemes. The idea that a certain decision-maker must refer an application and seek the views of a particular agency on it is pretty well entrenched. There are provisions in the Water Act for one minister to consult another minister even though the second minister may have no opinion and may provide feedback along those lines. Frequently within our planning schemes a whole range of applications are automatically referred to VicRoads, the Department of Sustainability and Environment, catchment management authorities and other agencies with their own responsibilities.

There is nothing uncommon about a provision like this. If this were particularly undesirable, you would think the government would try to eliminate such provisions wherever it could — or perhaps it just believes the issue of poker machines, and particularly the expansion of venues and a range of other matters regarding the operation of venues, is trifling. I can assure the government that communities see it totally differently. Therefore I see no particular reason not to maintain the status quo.

However, there are further provisions within the bill in which voting for clause 15 could have knock-on effects. I refer to the other clause of the bill we are attempting to have removed, clause 109. In short what is happening here is that if a council, which is no longer required to be consulted, fails to provide a submission, then the commission is no longer required to hold a public hearing — that is, a hearing out in the open.

Mr Tee indicated that having a public hearing where, in his mind, there is no real interest in the matter is just

another redundant step. First of all, a local council is perhaps the only group that is in a position to talk about the broad interests of its community as a whole. This became particularly important in the Romsey case, which established for the first time that the benefits and disbenefits of gambling that a decision-maker might need to consider include the general views of the community — that is, if the community itself did not want poker machines, then having them would be a disbenefit.

The Court of Appeal judges ruled — and I am pretty sure this is a direct and accurate quote:

… if the approval of gaming at particular premises is likely to cause unhappiness or discontent in that community (or any part or parts of it) — —

Mr Drum interjected.

Mr BARBER — Mr Drum chuckled to himself, as he knows full well that that applies to just about every community. I continue to quote:

that consequence is a ‘social impact of approval’ —

the judges themselves were quoting here —

which will be ‘detrimental to the wellbeing of the community’. It will be detrimental to wellbeing because it diminishes the citizens’ sense of happiness with, or contentment in, their community.

The court stated:

The views which members of a community have about the kind of community in which they wish to live will reflect a whole variety of interests, aspirations, beliefs and experiences.

We know the state government constantly attempts to minimise discussion and a broad understanding of the extent of gambling-related harm in our community. It constantly plays with statistics in an attempt to indicate that if there is an impact, it is small and manageable. We believe the incidence of gambling-related harm, as opposed to the incidence of those who meet a particular test for being problem gamblers, is wide. It has to be, because the amount of money that is being lost on poker machines is now huge. Whatever your definition of ‘problem gamblers’ is, they are concentrated in those communities and amongst those groups that can least afford to be gambling. Even a broad opinion poll shows that the community’s attitude reflects that.

How is a community’s attitude to be taken into consideration in one of these decisions? It seems it will only be taken into consideration in a serious way if its council makes a submission. Effectively communities will now have to lobby their councils to make sure that



on each relevant application the council reserves its right and then goes ahead and makes a submission.

Then we have to talk about what is in the submission. It might be assumed that councils can just go out and make thorough submissions on any occasion, and that is up to them. I would have to say that councils are up against applicants who have had months, or even years, to consider their applications and gather the necessary evidence to support their case, where in this instance councils will have weeks, or in some cases a couple of months, to respond.

They will not have the sorts of consultants backing them up that the industry generally has behind it. This could occur in a council area where there was little action in the realms of changes to poker machine venues, in which case you could see why a council might be caught flat-footed if in the past it had not had to prepare, or had only rarely prepared, such submissions. Or, in the other instance, where they are happening all the time, the council can continue to be completely overwhelmed by the issues it is facing. In any instance, the council is at further disadvantage, and therefore the community is at disadvantage. In any case, how would the community know that this time line is looming and that it is something for its council to consider? Quite simply, that is our objection to the removal of this clause.

To summarise, the legislation as currently written assumes that the council acts as proxy for its own community’s views and opinions and aspirations for wellbeing, and that linkage, already weak, is being further limited. Those concerns were very much echoed by Mr Guy when he spoke earlier. I would therefore hope that the other non-government parties are willing to support our amendments.

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I also wish to make a few remarks about an industry that is of significant importance to Victorians, to Victoria’s budget and to the community in terms of not only its prevalence and the amount of revenue that is generated but also its effects.

This bill adds another 112 pages to the 1138-page Gambling Regulation Act. This is further proof that the Brumby government has really struggled to get on top of this portfolio. Often the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, and this bill, with provisions in relation to monitoring, poker machine entitlements, wagering, lotteries and keno, really shows that the entire process of the gaming policy has very much been one of developing policy on the run.

To this day almost all of Victoria’s hotels and clubs are unaware of the processes involved, for example, in the bidding for gaming entitlements, which is making them and the banks, which have to finance these venues, very nervous indeed. I hear this claim on an almost daily basis.

This bill essentially patches some holes in the amendments which were passed in this place through previous bills, but there are some significant concerns. Before I get onto that, clause 11 relates to the prohibited interest in gaming machine entitlements; it will now become unlawful for an entitlement holder to hold a prohibited number of hotel gaming machine entitlements or club gaming machine entitlements on or after the day declared by the minister.

That follows on from the previous amendment provided that no club in Victoria would be able to hold more than 420 club gaming machine entitlements and no one owner would be able to own more than 35 per cent of the hotel gaming machine entitlements. The minister gave his assurance in another place that the cut-off day will be within 28 days after the settlement of the gaming machine entitlements.

Clause 13 provides that a proposed application for the approval of premises must be given to the relevant responsible authority before it is made. Council is then given 37 days to notify the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation whether it intends to make a submission and then a maximum of 60 days to make that submission. Many people would — at least, I certainly would — be very concerned about such a heavy reliance on local governments to engage with the local community and the level of activity that is required to seek the views of the community on whether or not a new gaming machine venue will be acceptable to the local community.

Recent examples of consultation in relation to, say, social housing show that it has been grossly deficient — in fact, dare I say, dishonestly manipulated by some. There needs to be some sort of prescription, possibly by regulation, for a process that is explicit in terms of the requirements — including, for example, cross-border consultation on municipal boundaries — to make sure that there is an overall picture of saturation through the number of gaming machine venues.

We have seen the economic stimulus plans for social housing generate a lot of uncertainties, and these must be avoided by devolving much of that to a fairly ambivalent local government process which may not have the prescribed oversight. The state government is



putting the burden on local councils to notify residents and businesses about plans for new venues. We may find out that local councils — particularly, say, Labor-dominated ones — are told to keep quiet, perhaps over some controversial new gaming venue, maybe in a marginal seat, in return for a substantial donation to a campaign.

They are the sorts of things that I and most Victorians do not want to see happen in Victoria. Without the existence of an anticorruption commission, the fragmentation of the gaming industry heads in a very dangerous direction. It should be of enormous concern to those who have seen such gross mismanagement of gaming policy under this government.

The potential for this government to procure and secure donations in return for favours for mates is unprecedented. I place on record my serious concerns about how this may be abused, especially where there are Labor-dominated councils. We saw an example in Brimbank; there are 9 out of 11 Labor councillors in the City of Monash; and at the City of Kingston, although there is not a majority of Labor councillors, nonetheless Labor holds the upper hand. These matters can be subjected to party political processes that can generate some undesirable outcomes for the community.

Some councils may be genuine in how they consult. Some may direct mail local residents and businesses concerning proposals; others may choose to advertise in an obscure column in a public notice section of a local newspaper that no-one ever sees, and as a result no objections will be received. I emphasise that a statewide standard is essential if we are to involve local government in the process of consultation on new gaming venues. This needs to be open and transparent, and it needs to have oversight. The performance of local governments has been mostly patchy. This is too important an industry for that to be allowed to mar it further.

Clause 108 proposes to restrict the opportunities for public hearings on amendments to venue operators’ licences to increase gaming machine numbers. At the moment hearings of the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation are pretty much conducted in public unless exceptional circumstances apply, which is a very good thing. The bill proposes some circumstances where decisions of the VCGR will not be made through public hearings; rather, applications to increase the number of gaming machines at particular approved venues will be done on the documents provided. I consider this to be a diminution of probity that applies in the consideration of those applications.

Clauses 108 and 109 provide that if there is a proposed increase to the licence of a venue that is an increase of 10 per cent or less of the number of gaming machines at that venue, then the commission may determine the application without conducting a public hearing. I am not sure exactly how that will work, but I would hate to see a system where a venue may come in for an incremental increase of 10 per cent every year, thereby avoiding a process which offers public scrutiny. That would be like the salami approach, where you get a slice of the salami now, which is your 10 per cent, and another 10 per cent slice of the salami next year until the community has the entire length of salami. That might cause a lot of indigestion for a community that is not welcoming of an additional number of gaming venues.

Recently the VCGR released its 2008–09 figures in relation to gaming machine expenditure throughout Victoria. Victorians lost $2.7 billion — a $96 million increase on the previous year’s total losses. The capacity to invigorate this industry further and at the same time to fragment the probity system that applies and the oversight it is given is, I think, a recipe for disaster for the Victorian community, for the vulnerable problem gambler and, more importantly, for the compulsive gambler.

I have a particular interest in compulsive gambling. Compulsive gambling is a term used by psychologists, not social workers. Social workers are more concerned with problem gamblers. Compulsive gamblers may constitute approximately 3 per cent of our population, and when they need assistance they need to be able to access it here and now, not at a community health centre 6 to 8 or 12 weeks later. Any system that fails to deliver a necessary service to the compulsive gambler is a system that has failed, and this system has failed.

Of the $96 million in increased losses, $55.3 million, or 58 per cent, came in just three months after the Rudd government’s economic stimulus package months of December 2008, leading to a $29.2 million increase and a further $26 million increase in April and May 2009. Effectively, Mr Rudd sent out the stimulus cheques and unfortunately Premier John Brumby banked them on behalf of Victorians, using the electronic gaming machines merely as a conduit. The rate of loss also increased sharply, growing by $96 million in 2008–09 compared with $68 million in 2007–08. Losses increased in 17 of the 19 capped areas — areas which were targeted by the Brumby government as problem gambling hot spots. This is absolute proof of the failure of the Brumby government’s gaming policy.



On a local level, the figures show that $123 318 443.85 was lost in Casey poker machines this financial year. This figure represents a 5.15 per cent increase on last year and an 18.72 per cent increase since the Brumby government implemented smoking bans as part of its problem gambling strategy. This shows yet again how the problem gambling strategy has failed Victorians and Victorian communities. The figures also show that $73 857 640.29 was lost in Frankston poker machines this financial year. This figure represents a 7.92 per cent increase on last year and a 20.91 per cent increase since the Brumby government implemented smoking bans as part of its problem gambling strategy. That is a 20.91 per cent increase in Frankston.

The figures further show that $121 121 650.63 was lost in Greater Dandenong poker machines for the financial year. This figure represents a 4.35 per cent increase on last year and a 17.42 per cent increase since the Brumby government implemented smoking bans as part of its problem gambling strategy. Lastly, the figures show that $90 074 552.04 was lost in Kingston poker machines for the financial year. This figure represents a 3.02 per cent increase on last year and a 13.06 per cent increase since the Brumby government implemented smoking bans as part of its problem gambling strategy. This demonstrates quite clearly that all its initiatives have failed to deliver any substantial improvements in key areas of gaming policy.

One issue that is currently a concern in the community is the lack of updates on the VCGR website in relation to regional statistics. The latest figures for the regional statistics are from 2006–07. This is clearly unacceptable and is a matter that should be addressed as soon as possible. It is too important a matter to conceal by not updating those figures on a regular basis. Population figures in the regional statistics for 2006–07 are significantly outdated, especially in growth areas I represent in Melbourne’s south-east. Therefore they do not allow for a correct analysis of the gaming machines available to local government areas under the regional caps program and the Brumby government’s policy of 10 electronic gaming machines per 1000 adults.

Unfortunately, I have had to use outdated population figures in researching the available increases in gaming machine entitlements for local government areas in the future, and as the population increases in Melbourne’s south-east, the number of available gaming machines that can be within a local government area also increases. This is possibly the reason why the Brumby government has not updated its regional statistics on the VCGR website — because that enables it to pump more machines into an area without raising public awareness.

Currently the city of Frankston is entitled to an extra 334 gaming machines, the city of Casey is entitled to another 680 machines, the city of Kingston is entitled to another 160 machines, and the city of Monash is entitled to another 149 machines. Previous changes to the Gambling Regulation Act placed a cap on the number of machines per 1000 of adult population; local councils that exceeded that amount would be stripped of poker machines, and that was the case in Greater Dandenong. However, local municipalities that were under the Brumby government’s target would be forced to accept the excess machines. Early last year council representatives from the City of Frankston were naturally concerned that Frankston would become a target for the excess machines, and that process has already started to occur.

It is time for the Brumby government to admit that its smoke-and-mirror initiatives have not stopped or reduced problem gambling and have only accelerated Treasury’s greedy tax grabs. Gaming has been mismanaged substantially, and unfortunately a lot of that burden has fallen on members of my community. I will not call it maladministration, but the poor administration of the Community Support Fund means that little comes back to those communities most directly affected.

In closing, the opposition has warned this government on a range of pending gaming failures: lottery licences, club entitlements, regional caps, machine relocations, problem gambling strategies and gaming machine entitlements, as well as the Tattersall’s and Tabcorp alignment. Unfortunately the opposition has been right on every single occasion. I will certainly keep a very close eye on the impacts of this legislation, especially the role of local councils in providing notification of proposed gaming venues.

I hope it does not go down the same path as we have seen in planning where it is much more about no planning than good planning. With those few words, I indicate that the opposition is not opposing the bill, but I did want to use the opportunity to place on record the concerns of constituents of South Eastern Metropolitan Region about its impact on businesses as well as members of the community.

Sitting suspended 6.27 p.m. until 8.02 p.m.

Mr ELASMAR (Northern Metropolitan) — I rise to support the Gambling Regulation Further Amendment Bill 2009. I have already spoken in this house on previous amendments to gambling legislation, which have been necessary because Victorian problem gamblers have at times needed protection from



themselves. Introducing the cash payout limit of $1000 and requiring sums of more than $1000 to be paid out by cheque has stopped gamblers from immediately ploughing substantial winnings in excess of $1000 back into poker machines. The new provisions give problem gamblers breathing space so they can bank a cheque and perhaps spend the money on other personal needs. The amendment bill currently before this house provides for the same measures to be applied to bingo winnings in excess of $1000.

Because many bingo games operate in pokie venues it would appear that the same scenario is playing itself out — no pun intended! Bingo winners are playing their winnings in the poker machine part of the bingo venues. Importantly, the amendment currently before the house also clarifies and defines a more transparent and accountable structure than was previously in place.

The new licensing arrangements, set to come into force in 2012, have been controversial. Many small clubs believe they will be getting a raw deal with the new licensing arrangements. This is not the case. This legislation sets out proper bidding processes and mechanisms to allow equity and fairness into the bidding and gambling system in Victoria.

The Brumby Labor government has also instituted a single independent monitoring system which will oversee the integrity of gaming machine transactions in gaming venues from 2012 and beyond. However, the reality is that some amateur clubs have literally gone broke in previous years, possibly due to the fact that many committees of management comprise volunteers who may be good hearted but lack any professional business expertise.

One of the many positive aspects of these proposed amendments is a provision that ensures that small venue operators, mainly not-for-profit associations and sporting clubs, can access financial and business training so they will be better equipped to professionally manage their small gaming venues. Importantly, a progressive tax system will provide assistance to smaller venues with low revenues and deliver a tax-free threshold for clubs. The legislation will also protect venue operators by discouraging speculative bidding and profit sharing.

Throughout July well-attended statewide information sessions were undertaken by the Department of Justice, which informed the gaming industry of the proposed changes to the gaming machine arrangements and what they will mean to the gambling industry after 2012. The Brumby Labor government is committed to consulting the gaming industry in Victoria on any further changes

that may occur in the future. Streamlined application procedures are proposed to cut time and reduce stress or uncertainty for gaming machine applicants. The provision of transparency and accountability by all the parties concerned will ensure a healthy leisure industry, which Victorians enjoy and, in the main, understand they have to pay for. I commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clauses 1 to 14 agreed to.

Clause 15

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I need to ask the minister a question about clause 21 in order to inform members of the house in relation to how they may wish to vote on my amendment to clause 15. I just need a little bit of latitude in that respect.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Leane) — Order! That is fine.

Mr BARBER — I ask the minister in relation to clause 21: if I understand this new procedure correctly, a venue operator seeking an amendment to their licence has to give a copy of its proposed amendment to the local council before it formally applies to the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation (VCGR). Is that right?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — I am informed that is correct.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — My concern about this particular clause — and I would be happy for the minister to disabuse me — is that a venue operator could be seeking an amendment, it could apply to the council, and the council then would have 37 days to decide whether it wanted to make a submission. Quite possibly on the 38th day it could make an application to the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation. The impact would be that before an ordinary citizen knew an application was even going to be made, the council would have already had its chance to consider what it wanted to do and no-one would even be aware that the council was making that decision. Is that correct?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — I am informed that councils are entitled as part of their own processes to advertise to their communities or



notify their communities that these issues are being considered. In many ways that process about information available within that community is up to the council.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I still think this is a further concern. Above and beyond the arguments I made in my contribution to the second-reading debate, this is now of further concern because, yes, the council is free to tell whoever it wants to tell that it has received an application but does not have to, and because in a way an application has not really been made, nobody other than the council is going to be aware that someone has written a letter to it.

For the benefit of members of this place who are considering my proposal, this is further evidence that there will be a real chance that a community can be locked out of this process if its council decides not to participate and if citizens do not know that their council has made or is making that decision. The knock-on effects of that then become that a hearing is not even required to be held in public. If you dip out because your council is not concerned, you dip out on directly expressing your concern. For that reason, I would like to see members support my proposal that clause 15 not continue to be part of the bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! At this stage is Mr Barber looking for a response from the minister to those remarks?

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — No, I am sorry if the Deputy President missed the first part of that. I have already had my response. I invite members to vote against this clause. My amendment would require the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation to seek the view of the local council in all cases when such an amendment is being made to a venue operator’s licence.

Committee divided on clause:

Ayes, 36 Atkinson, Mr Lenders, Mr Broad, Ms Lovell, Ms Coote, Mrs Madden, Mr Dalla-Riva, Mr (Teller) Mikakos, Ms Darveniza, Ms (Teller) O’Donohue, Mr Davis, Mr D. Pakula, Mr Davis, Mr P. Petrovich, Mrs Drum, Mr Peulich, Mrs Eideh, Mr Pulford, Ms Elasmar, Mr Rich-Phillips, Mr Finn, Mr Scheffer, Mr Guy, Mr Smith, Mr Hall, Mr Somyurek, Mr Huppert, Ms Tee, Mr Jennings, Mr Theophanous, Mr

Koch, Mr Tierney, Ms Kronberg, Mrs Viney, Mr Leane, Mr Vogels, Mr

Noes, 4 Barber, Mr (Teller) Kavanagh, Mr Hartland, Ms Pennicuik, Ms (Teller) Clause agreed to.


Clause 109

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Barber intends to invite the committee to vote against this clause. I regard this as a test for his proposed amendments 3 and 4.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I invite the committee to vote against the clause. With the new amendments, including the provisions of clause 108, the circumstance we now face is that if a council fails either to put in a submission or seek to put in a submission, then applications which meet the test of clause 108 — that they do not increase the number of machines by more than 10 per cent — would not require a public hearing. It is free to the VCGR to do this in a public and open fashion, but it is also free to it not to do that.

Perhaps it is only some of us who have enough gaming machine venues in our areas, or perhaps all members want to think about what this could mean, because if you had a number of venues in your electorate and each of those venues sought every two years to increase its machine numbers by 10 per cent, you could have a massive expansion of poker machine numbers in your area and none of those applications would necessarily get a public hearing.

So while 10 per cent every two years might not look a big number for one venue, if your electorate had a number of venues you could be looking at a lot more than a 10 per cent increase in the number of machines over the space of two years.

For that reason, leaving aside clause 15, which the committee has now determined, there are still plenty of good reasons to support my invitation to vote against clause 109, which gives the commission the opportunity to hold all its hearings in private if it chooses.

Committee divided on clause:

Ayes, 36 Atkinson, Mr Lenders, Mr

POLICE REGULATION AMENDMENT BILL


Broad, Ms Lovell, Ms Coote, Mrs Madden, Mr Dalla-Riva, Mr Mikakos, Ms Darveniza, Ms O’Donohue, Mr Davis, Mr D. Pakula, Mr Davis, Mr P. Petrovich, Mrs Drum, Mr Peulich, Mrs Eideh, Mr Pulford, Ms Elasmar, Mr Rich-Phillips, Mr Finn, Mr Scheffer, Mr Guy, Mr Smith, Mr Hall, Mr (Teller) Somyurek, Mr (Teller) Huppert, Ms Tee, Mr Jennings, Mr Theophanous, Mr Koch, Mr Tierney, Ms Kronberg, Mrs Viney, Mr Leane, Mr Vogels, Mr

Noes, 4 Barber, Mr Kavanagh, Mr (Teller) Hartland, Ms (Teller) Pennicuik, Ms Clause agreed to.


Reported to house without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

I thank all members for their contributions.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.


Second reading

Debate resumed from 31 March; motion of Mr LENDERS (Treasurer).

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I have a number of comments to make on the Police Regulation Amendment Bill and its tortured progress through this Parliament. It is now 13 months since this bill was first presented to the Council, if I remember rightly, at the regional sitting. The fact that it has not been debated to date is no fault of the non-government parties. The fault lies with the government.

It would be fair to say that in that 13 months I have had one or two discussions on this bill with government members, including the minister. A long time ago, back in the mists of time in 2008, representatives of the other non-government parties and I were invited to a briefing on the bill with the then Chief Commissioner of Police and one of the assistant commissioners. Since then there has been a change of commissioner.

In that time there have been a few discussions, including some — in 2008 — subsequent to the meeting with the commissioner that I had with the minister and some other staff regarding amendments that we thought were crucial to the bill. That also took place last year. Apart from that, the whole progress — or non-progress — of this bill has been punctuated with very long silences and no movement.

According to the second-reading speech, the bill contains three elements. It creates a new misconduct and performance management model based on the recommendations of the director of police integrity. It implements enterprise bargaining commitments for a more flexible police force, and it creates a new and clearer regime to better support police members subject to civil action arising out of the course of their duties.

To some extent everyone would agree with those aims. This bill comprises a rewrite of the police disciplinary system with some welcome aspects but also with some very problematic aspects, including a huge increase in powers to the police commissioner. These powers are largely unfettered and completely unjustified in terms of fairness and equity not only for police from an industrial relations point of view but also for members of the community who come into contact with and may have a complaint against the police.

It also proposes amendments for which there is no strategic justification or any underpinning review or report. Herein lies a very big part of the problem with this bill. As I said in the procedural debate to adjourn the bill on 31 March this year, when the government came in with a large number of amendments, after a very long silence and no communication about the bill, some 50 amendments were plonked on the table just before the bill was due to come on for debate. As I said then, the substantial amendments to the Police Regulation Act that this bill proposes, and particularly the controversy those amendments are attracting in the community, are a matter of public importance; they require public scrutiny.

I am strongly of the view, and I have made this clear, that the government should take the lead from other jurisdictions and conduct a very open and public review



into the operation of the current Police Regulation Act; it should use that as the basis for a new police regulation act. The way this bill has come before us is far from satisfactory and is not in the public interest.

Instead of being the product of a full, comprehensive, open and public review of the Police Regulation Act, this bill is the product of an Office of Police Integrity (OPI) review and report, and the apparent wishes of the former and current chief police commissioners in consultation with the minister’s office. This was acknowledged explicitly by the minister in his second-reading speech on 9 October 2008, when he stated:

We have a great Chief Commissioner of Police in Victoria … If you have a look at the things she has done … and the way she has tackled reform within the police force, you will see it has been excellent … She has done what she can under existing laws, but she has wanted these laws for a long time. That is why the chief commissioner has put forward these proposals.

I agree that the former chief commissioner did some very good things, and she was within her rights to put forward proposals. But hers was not the only input that there should have been in rewriting and proposing significant changes to the way police are regulated in Victoria.

You would have to say there has been a cloak-and-dagger approach to this whole exercise, and that is unsatisfactory and unacceptable. I know the government will say, ‘The bill has been sitting on the notice paper and hanging on the website for 13 months, but there has been no public interaction and there has been no attempt by the minister to engage with the stakeholders on this bill.

I have had to speak separately to a range of interested groups including the Police Association, the Federation of Community Legal Centres, the Law Institute of Victoria, Liberty Victoria and various industrial relations and legal practitioners to find out their views because the government’s process has been a cloak-and-dagger exercise.

Every group and expert I have spoken to have serious concerns about aspects of this bill. They do not all share the same concerns, and in some cases they contradict each other. But there are concerns about how this legislation will regulate the police force. The bill is attracting so much concern that it has to be of concern to me and to the people of Victoria.

Since this bill was presented to the Parliament more than a year ago the vast remainder of Victoria’s industrial relations legislation has been ceded to the

commonwealth under the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Bill; it included reference to provisions in the Police Regulation Act. I do not know how that affects this bill but there have been no changes to this bill as a result of that legislation, which was introduced after this bill was drafted.

The Minister for Police and Emergency Services said that the bill’s new streamlined misconduct and performance process is a response to the ‘own motion’ review in 2007 by the director, police integrity into the administration of discipline in Victoria Police. The OPI review, A Fair and Effective Victoria Police Discipline System, states:

A modern policing service must have the highest level of ethical and professional standards among its members. One way standards are maintained and improved is by having an effective performance management and discipline system.

I do not think any member would disagree with that statement from the OPI or would have an issue with the OPI report, which was prepared by the director when he was also the Ombudsman. However, it has to be said that the OPI report and the OPI’s views on the regulation of the police force are a necessary but not by themselves a sufficient input into any process of changing the way the police force is regulated in Victoria.

Victoria Police has been regulated by the current act for more than 50 years. The act has been amended from time to time but this bill contains much more than just a few small amendments. It is a comprehensive rewrite of the act and as such, it warrants the open participation of the Victorian community and the various interested parties. This has not happened.

In his report at page 19, the former director of the OPI acknowledges that his report only looked at the disciplinary system and not at other important aspects of the Police Regulation Act. The introduction to his review also says it identified four fundamental changes necessary to reform the Victoria Police disciplinary system. They are to:

Shift the focus from a punitive system bent on establishing guilt to one that concentrates on providing remedial assistance to individuals …

Simplify the system and remove the numerous intermediate sanctions for less serious misconduct that currently exist …

Streamline and speed up the dismissal process, without compromising fairness to the individual facing dismissal …

Ensure that managers at all levels take an active role in managing people effectively … and monitoring their performance.



I agree with those things, but on reading the bill and looking at what is proposed to be taken out of the current act and what is proposed to replace it I do not think those things would happen, particularly the last two — that is, fairness to the individual facing dismissal and ensuring that managers at all levels take an active role in managing people and monitoring performance.

There is hardly any mention of that in the bill. It basically talks about what the chief commissioner can do in dealing with misconduct. There is very little talk in the bill about managing people in a fair and effective way. If that is what the bill is trying to achieve, it will not achieve it.

As I said, the director of the OPI looked only at the disciplinary system. On page 19 of his own report he said:

Without detracting from the importance of the discipline system, it is but one of the systems in Victoria Police aimed at ensuring the highest ethical and professional standards. Other systems, particularly the complaints and the performance management systems, interrelate with elements of the discipline system, but an extensive examination of systems that relate to the discipline system were beyond the scope of this investigation. They are only discussed in this report where they interrelate with the Victoria Police discipline system.

That is a big problem with the bill. It extensively rewrites the discipline system but does not match that with changes to the complaints system, for example, that are based on any review or any evidence. The changes to the complaints system skew the whole process away from justice and rights of members of the public who were the subject of police wrongs.

That is why I will move a reasoned amendment to this bill and ask that it be circulated. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted with the view of inserting in their place ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government has conducted a full public review of the operation of the Police Regulation Act 1958, including calling for public submissions and conducting public hearings and publishing the findings and recommendations of the review’.

A primary reason for my moving this reasoned amendment is to attempt to ensure that any significant changes to the Police Regulation Act 1958 result from open and public debate and that as much as possible there is a shared consensus about what is to be achieved and why. This is currently not the case. There has not been wide public consultation on this bill. The Police Association says it has not been contacted or listened to throughout the process, that the minister will not meet with it without the chief commissioner present. That is

ridiculous. Other community stakeholders were consulted before the bill was drafted but have had no further input, in particular on any amendments that may or may not be moved or agreed to here.

It is mainly for those reasons that this bill, which provides for the involvement of only the minister and the chief commissioner, should not be ferreted through the Parliament but needs to be open to public scrutiny. Amendments that are moved by the government or by us really do not get to the heart of the problems with the bill. Whatever amendments might be made to the bill — to delete or to amend so as to soften the edges of one or other clause — the fact is that the bill is peppered with problems and is fundamentally flawed in its approach as it focuses on the discipline system, not on the complaint system. The discipline system therefore is not fair and, I would suggest, not effective.

The reasoned amendment I have moved, if adopted, would not be fatal for the bill’s passage. My purpose is not to obstruct reform of the Police Regulation Act but to ensure that such reform is not done behind closed doors. It should be the result of an open and public process, because the Police Regulation Act must be reformed in the interests of the community, including victims of crime and the legal system that works alongside the police. Reforms must by and large be supported by the police, or the legislation will not work.

I believe the government needs to conduct an open and public review that builds upon the work done by the Office of Police Integrity in its review of and report on the issue. The OPI indicated in its review that it had looked at recent reviews conducted in comparable jurisdictions. In appendix 5 the OPI mentioned recent changes to other police and bodies. The report mentions that these reviews found similar problems and made similar recommendations or changes to the respective laws governing police. The report states:

This analysis reveals similar problems exist for police discipline systems that share a common past. The majority of the reviews of police, conducted by Fitzgerald, Wood, Kennedy and Fisher in Australia, Morris and Taylor in the United Kingdom and Bazley in New Zealand have made remarkably similar recommendations to overcome those problems.

That is all true, but, as I will later turn to, these jurisdictions follow quite comprehensive processes in reviewing their acts, which has not been the case in Victoria.

I would like to refer to New Zealand for a start: it reviewed its police regulations and legislation in 2008. That followed an extensive public consultation and review. Just to let the chamber and the people of



Victoria know what can be done, the scope of the review took into account and considered the following themes: the principles of policing — reinforcing the fundamental basis of policing; governance and accountability — maintaining the independence of police within a public management framework; human resources — appointing, deploying and managing staff; community engagement — policing in and within communities; police powers; relationships — recognising a wide range of police partners; administration — enabling the day-to-day of work of a large organisation; conduct and integrity — reinforcing ethical behaviour.

There was a time frame, and members can look this up on the New Zealand government website. In April and May 2006 there was the scoping consultation and from June to December 2006 there was the phase 1 consultation. From January to August 2007 there was the phase 2 consultation, which generated a summary of responses to the issues papers that were released during phase 1 and developed a discussion document for more public consultation, and there was cabinet approval for release of those documents. From August to December 2007 there was a phase 3 consultation. From April 2006 to December 2007 there were public consultations and papers were released and there was more consultation on those papers. In the phase 3 consultation there was an analysis of the submissions and development work on a new bill, there were drafting instructions and an exposure draft was released for more public consultation and feedback. The first reading of the new police bill occurred in 2008 — almost two years after the consultation process started.

Members will be interested to know that all the documents, including the cabinet documents, regarding that two-year review of how the police in New Zealand are regulated are available on the New Zealand government website. I contrast that with what has been going on with this bill.

The Parliament of New South Wales went through a similar process. In January 2002 there was an agreement to undertake a review of the Police Act. A report on the outcome of that review was due on 31 December 2002 — that is, a year later. The stakeholders identified to be consulted with included the police, the Police Association, the public service association, the New South Wales Crime Commission, the Police Integrity Commission, the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission, the Ombudsman, the Premier’s department, the cabinet office, the Attorney-General’s department, Treasury, the Department of Industrial Relations, the Community Relations Commission, the Department of Aboriginal

Affairs, the Office for Emergency Services, the Department of Fair Trading, the audit office, the antidiscrimination board, the privacy commissioner, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the joint parliamentary Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and Police Integrity Commission, the law society, the New South Wales Bar Association and the Labor Council of New South Wales.

I contrast that with what has happened here in Victoria. Again, in the review submissions were called for and received and the bill was based on that open public process. Obviously nobody will get everything they want, but at least in such a review the public has a chance to participate, all stakeholders have a chance to be heard and justifications are made for changes.

As I mentioned, the government indicated that the review that led to this particular bill was based on the Office of Police Integrity’s own motion. I make the point that that involvement by the OPI is a necessary but not sufficient condition. It was but one input of about 25 inputs into the New South Wales review.

I mentioned also that the Police Association has said that it has not been consulted. I presume that any amendments that the government has discussed with the opposition parties have not been discussed with the Police Association. I sought to find out whether this is the case in another major jurisdiction, such as Queensland. My information is that the Queensland Police Association has been consulted on any changes to the way that the police in Queensland are regulated. The Police Act in Western Australia has been amended twice in recent years, in 2002 and 2006. Again, that went through a public process. I have moved this reasoned amendment so that this bill about the regulation of the police will go through an open and public process with hearings, submissions, discussion papers and consultations and then be presented to the Parliament.

I will spend a few minutes on the major issues that I have with the bill. I preface that by saying that I had indicated to the government that even with those problems removed from the bill I was still not able to support it. I mentioned before that late last year I had discussions with the minister and as far as I knew we had come to some agreement about certain amendments to the bill that could be agreed to. I had those and a copy of the bill in my top drawer and did not hear much more from then on. I know that the government has been looking at other amendments and discussing those with the opposition. They were shown to me — I think it was during the last sitting week



when I first saw them. I say this because someone has to open up this process because, as I said, it is a cloak-and-dagger situation which is completely inappropriate.

One of the particular problems with the bill is that clause 3 removes the cap on the number of deputy commissioners. Currently the act provides that there can be only four deputy commissioners. The bill omits that cap so that there can be any number of deputy commissioners. There is no justification for that. I do not remember seeing that in the report of the Office of Police Integrity. The bill provides that the Chief Commissioner of Police can delegate to deputy commissioners powers, including the power to dismiss police members. That is not the case under the current act, and it is not clear why that should be the case under the bill.

Clause 4 gives the chief commissioner, and by delegation deputy commissioners, quite a lot of what I would call unfettered powers, such as the ability to appoint, promote and transfer members and to reduce or waive periods of probation. There are periods of probation for obvious reasons. Why the police commissioner should be able to reduce or waive them without any justification is not clear. The clause also provides that the chief commissioner may pay allowances or gratuities et cetera. It is quite a long clause, and it gives the chief commissioner a lot of powers.

I understand that after long discussions the government is prepared to delete that clause, and I think it needs to go, so that would be an achievement in terms of the bill. The government has also indicated that it is prepared to move on clause 6, which provides for the delegation of the power to dismiss a member of the police force.

Other provisions in the bill that have caused concern — we have concerns about them, and I know the Police Association also has concerns about them — include provisions for the suspension of members who are seconded to other duties, including with the Police Association, and regarding how the entitlements of such members would be preserved. That is not a bad thing as long as police members do not lose their entitlements, but I know the Police Association has concerns about that.

In part 4 of the bill, headed ‘Remedial procedures and dismissal’, clause 19 substitutes a new division 2 for division 2 of part IV of the Police Regulation Act, which refers not only to disciplinary procedures but also to complaints and how they are handled. That

division will come out and be replaced with only a disciplinary division.

We come to one of the other major concerns we have with the bill, which is the issue of vicarious liability under clause 32 of the bill. New section 118ZE, headed ‘Circumstances in which court must not find Crown vicariously liable’, says:

A court must not find the Crown vicariously liable for a tort committed by a member concerned if the court is satisfied that the conduct giving rise to the tort —

(a) was serious and wilful misconduct; or

(b) was not committed by the member … in the performance, or purported performance —

of their duties. That means if police commit serious and wilful misconduct while on duty — that is, if they commit a wrong against a person while on duty and that is serious and wilful misconduct — the court cannot hold the Crown vicariously liable. That is not the case with any other employment. It is even worse for it to be the case with police, because the state, the Crown, gives police powers. Police can be intimidating to other people even if they do not mean to be. They can engage in serious and wilful misconduct while they are on duty. They can cause damage to people, injure people, make wrongful arrests and bully and harass people while doing so.

I am not saying that all police do this by any means, but, and I am sure all police would agree, if police do engage in that sort of behaviour while on duty, the Crown should be liable. This is because if the Crown is not liable, that leaves the victim of the wrong with only one avenue of redress — taking a civil action against the police officer concerned — and if that police officer has no assets, then there is no compensation available to the victim of the police wrong. This is an unacceptable part of the bill from my point of view.

I know all members would have received an open letter about this provision signed by Liberty Victoria, the Law Institute of Victoria, the Victorian Bar, the Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria and the Uniting Church’s justice and international mission unit, synod of Victoria and Tasmania — all raising concerns about this provision. If a person is going to take civil action against a police officer, that police officer will by definition have engaged in serious and wilful misconduct for that person to want to take action against them in the first place. That serious and wilful misconduct could have resulted in serious, even incapacitating, injury to that person, who will be left without any redress. My view, the view of others who have written to the government and other members in



this house is that the state, the Crown, should be liable for the wrongs committed by police while they are on duty.

I know members of the government will say, ‘The reason we do not want to do that is that we want to deter police from engaging in wilful and serious misconduct by making them personally liable, which will stamp out such misconduct’. It will not do that; the only effect of this provision will be that the person who is wronged will not have any redress. I do not see why the wronged person should have to bear the brunt and pay the price of the serious and wilful misconduct. The clause also provides that the chief commissioner may pay allowances or gratuities et cetera. It is quite a long clause, and it gives the chief commissioner a lot of powers.

That should be paid by the state, which not only gives police powers, but gives them weapons. There are many cases where police use their weapons — be they batons, be they capsicum spray or be they firearms. People who are on the receiving end of that have nowhere to go under this bill.

Under this bill there is also a change to the provision of admissibility of evidence, where the chief commissioner, under the new section on misconduct, can undertake an investigation. In the case of misconduct, as is the case already in the Police Regulation Act, the police member who is suspected or accused of misconduct can be required to answer questions. Section 86Q(3) of the current act, on the evidence so taken by a direction that a person must answer the question, deals with inadmissibility. It states:

Except in proceedings for perjury, for a breach of discipline under section 69 or for failure to comply with a direction, or review proceedings under Division 1 of Part IV, any information, document or answer given pursuant to a direction is not admissible in evidence before any court or person acting judicially.

New sections 74 and 78A provided for in this bill will replace that with an expanded definition of what is not admissible. Under the current bill we end up with any things said or done or any document gathered in the course of the investigation being inadmissible, and it would be inadmissible in a civil action because a civil action is not excluded. So not only is a person who is the subject of a wrong by a police person not able to act under clause 32 of this bill, but any evidence or thing said or done in the course of an investigation would also be inadmissible. That is a much broader expansion than is the case under the current act. I have had some conversations with people in the legal profession about

this, and they have expressed grave concerns about new sections 74 and 78A in this bill.

The vicarious liability provisions in the bill are not good. They are not good for members of the community and they are not really good for the police either. The bill should be amended to remove new section 118ZE(a). I have raised this matter with the government many times, and it does not want to budge on it. It maintains that if members are personally liable, that will stop them engaging in serious and wilful misconduct. My view is that that will not happen; it will just mean that people will not have any access to justice. If the police have an issue with serious and wilful misconduct there are provisions for them to deal with that in a fair way.

The whole of clause 19, which provides for the insertion of new sections on discipline for misconduct and underperformance, appears to give the Chief Commissioner of Police a lot of power. It does not seem to be balanced in terms of fairness towards police members, who we must remember are discrete officers. Police officers are able to exercise their own discretion. I know that part of the idea behind this rewrite of the legislation was to establish some sort of employer-employee relationship between the police commissioner and members of the police force. But this has to be done in such a way that it is fair to police members and to the community, and I do not believe that has been achieved with this bill.

Going back to vicarious liability, if the government is saying, ‘The chief commissioner is the employer now’, then the chief commissioner, as an employer, should be vicariously liable for wrongs done by the employees — as every other employer is. I will not repeat the problems with that, because I have made those fairly clear.

The government has indicated that it is prepared to move in some way on clause 32, and that is to change the provision that a court must not find the Crown vicariously liable — that is, the Crown may deny it is vicariously liable. That still leaves in the phrase ‘serious and wilful misconduct’ so that the Crown could say, ‘If the conduct was serious and wilful, then the Crown is not liable’. It is completely unacceptable to leave that in there. It gives people who have been wronged by police nowhere to go.

There is another problem with the bill. Under the current act, if a police officer is dismissed the Police Appeals Board can hear evidence and set aside the dismissal, and the wrongfully dismissed member can be reinstated. This bill takes out reinstatement so that a



police member who has been wrongfully dismissed can only be compensated for 12 months pay. We are not talking about a police member who has been found to have done something wrong; we are talking about a police member who has been wrongfully dismissed. If someone has been found to be wrongfully dismissed they should be reinstated in their employment. Otherwise someone who has done nothing wrong will have been wrongfully dismissed and had their employment taken away. How can that be fair when they have not been found to have done anything wrong?

I completely agree that police who have done the wrong thing — who have engaged in serious and wilful misconduct and have committed an offence — should be dismissed. I think everybody in Victoria agrees with that. I do not think there is anyone who does not agree with that. We agree with that, but when we are talking about underperformance the processes should involve natural justice and due process and they should not involve — as this bill does — coercive questioning. Coercive questioning is appropriate in the case of serious and wilful misconduct, where somebody may have seriously wronged a member of the public, as opposed to cases where someone is chronically late for work or is not filling out their paperwork satisfactorily or some other underperformance issue. They should not involve any sort of coercive questioning, nor should they involve reverse onus of proof, which is provided for by this bill, so that the person has to prove that they are innocent rather than the management or police command having to prove that they are in the wrong.

We need to have due process and natural justice provided for by this bill. In an effort to be able to dismiss members of the police force who should be dismissed we will not have provisions to reinstate members who have been found to be wrongfully dismissed. Let us face it: people can have vendettas and people can have accusations made against them that are not true and that could result in their being dismissed. In some cases a police officer who is actually doing the right thing, reporting some wrongdoing, might be ganged up on by other police officers and be dismissed as a result of that and then, having been found to be innocent, have no redress. I understand the government has indicated that it is prepared to move on that issue.

I am standing here now, having outlined the main general concerns with this bill, and I could stand here for another 20 minutes and go clause by clause through other problems with it. But the things I have already mentioned are bad enough and should give people cause to agree with my reasoned amendment that this whole thing should go to a public inquiry. Everybody

who has an interest in and wants to have a say on the bill should have a say. The rewrite of the Police Regulation Act should be done in a public, open and transparent way and not in the way it has been done in this process, 13 months of silence and a cloak-and-dagger approach.


Ms PENNICUIK — I notice some people over there are having a laugh. I do not think there is too much that is funny about what is going on here. I have raised these concerns with the government. I am standing here now and I do not know if the government is going to move the amendments that it says it has prepared. The government has had a discussion with me in the last day or so. To be fair to the government member in the upper house who has brought forward this bill, he did call me a week into the break. I still had not finished my consultations on the large number of amendments that I was finally presented with more than 12 months after the bill came to the house.

I had already gone through a process of speaking with the government about amendments, such as the deletion of clause 4. I do not know what the status of those amendments is, because the government’s amendments and my amendments have some crossover. Some of the amendments that the government and I formally agreed to do not appear in the government’s current amendments. I have to take home the message that things government members were saying they could agree to nearly 12 months ago — certainly 10 months ago — they now cannot agree to and other things that they could not agree to then they can agree to now. I am not sure what status the bill has if bits and pieces can be agreed and not agreed to or amended and not amended.

In closing, which I am sure people are looking forward to my doing, any of the amendments that I have seen, even my amendments, could not amend the bill to the extent that it needs to be amended. I probably would have needed 100 or so amendments. I just chose to deal with the worst aspects. My amendments together with the government amendments will still not fix the bill. I urge members to agree to the reasoned amendment which the clerks have assured me is worded in such a way that it is not fatal to the bill. We have had a precedent in this session of the Parliament where a bill went away and was able to be brought back after a reasoned amendment. The amendment is worded as it is because I do not want to obstruct the process, I just want to open it up to public scrutiny so that everybody who is interested and directly affected can have a say about the bill. In conclusion, if we do get to a



committee stage I will be proceeding with my amendments.

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — It has been some time since this bill was before the house and that is because since introducing the bill last year the government has made a genuine attempt to negotiate proposed amendments with the other parties. We have entered into discussions with the other parties in good faith. In fact, amendments were circulated in this house. The government is now indicating to the house that we will not be proceeding with those amendments because we had circulated them with a view to seeking to reach a negotiated outcome. Unfortunately that has not been possible, but we believe this bill is an important piece of legislation that should proceed and become law in this state.

In relation to the reasoned amendment moved by Ms Pennicuik, the government will not be supporting it. The reason for that is that this bill is based largely on recommendations made by the DPI (director, police integrity) in its police discipline report. In developing that report the DPI engaged in a process of public consultation and sought and received public submissions. The Department of Justice also had discussions with the Police Association of Victoria and other relevant stakeholders. The government takes the view that the public consultation process that Ms Pennicuik is seeking through her reasoned amendment has already occurred. There is therefore no reason to further delay the passage of this important piece of legislation.

In relation to the bill itself, as I said, it is based largely on a report by the DPI. The DPI police report had its origins in an earlier own-motion review conducted by the DPI into police misconduct and corruption. I remember some time ago speaking about that important report in this house. The DPI’s report, Past Patterns — Future Directions: Victoria Police and the Problem of Corruption and Serious Misconduct, was tabled in the Parliament in February 2007. The DPI found that the ability of unsuitable police members to evade the discipline system was a problem that needed to be addressed. For that reason the DPI then went on to undertake a further own-motion review of the police discipline system.

The police discipline system report criticised the disciplinary provisions of the act as being excessively formal and legalistic and found that the adversarial and punitive approach was counterproductive to encouraging police members to fulfil their responsibilities. The report advocated a remedial approach with a focus on rehabilitation to encourage

and support police members to meet required standards and improve their performance and a streamlined process to enable the dismissal of those members whose conduct or work performance indicates that they are unsuitable to remain in the force.

I want to begin my contribution, before I get into the recommendations of the report and the provisions of the bill, by saying that during my years as a parliamentarian and in my previous role as Parliamentary Secretary for Justice I have always found Victoria Police to be a professional organisation. Members of Victoria Police work hard and are dedicated to doing their jobs in a responsive and effective way. I am sure most of us here would agree that the vast majority of members of Victoria Police are good officers who take their jobs seriously. I am sure that they too want to ensure that those rotten apples that exist in Victoria Police are weeded out and that Victoria Police can maintain the highest integrity and the full confidence of the Victorian public. In this respect I want to put on the record — I am sure Mr Finn, who will follow me in this debate, will have some words to say in relation to this — my thanks to the former Chief Commissioner of Police, Christine Nixon, for her fine contribution to Victoria Police over the eight years she was chief commissioner. She was unwavering in her determination to eliminate police corruption and improve the overall culture of Victoria Police both within the organisation and through its partnership with the community. As a parliamentarian in this place I have been disappointed to hear Mr Finn on many occasions berate Chief Commissioner Nixon.


Ms MIKAKOS — It is in anticipation to some degree, but Mr Finn has been consistent with respect to this. I can anticipate some of the things he is going to say in this respect. Chief Commissioner Nixon was a good chief commissioner. She engaged the community and promoted the role of community policing, which is an important aspect. The new chief commissioner, Simon Overland, will follow the footsteps of Christine Nixon in relation to the critical fight against police corruption. We need to ensure that the chief commissioner is armed with appropriate abilities to weed out police corruption.

What the bill does is implement many of the recommendations of the DPI report in establishing a new policing regime for Victoria Police. The DPI, for example, recommended that there be a disciplinary process for Victoria Police that has two parts: a remedial process for all police misconduct and poor performance issues other than where the conduct



justifies termination and a dismissal process where the conduct justifies termination. The bill implements this recommendation with a new section 70 to allow the chief commissioner to give a member who has engaged in misconduct a notice to show cause why they should not be dismissed. After considering any response from the member the chief commissioner may dismiss the member if satisfied the dismissal is warranted. Alternatively, if the misconduct does not warrant dismissal, new section 73 allows for remedial action linked to the member’s performance development plan to be undertaken. It is a positive step forward in terms of promoting a professional police force that the bill also implements the recommendations made by the DPI to provide for a process by which all police members have professional development plans.

The bill also establishes a limited right of review where a member believes remedial action is unfair or inconsistent with the legislative framework. The bill does this by giving police members the right to seek an impartial internal review of any adverse action taken with respect to the member’s employment other than dismissal.

In relation to introducing a more streamlined dismissal process, the bill implements the recommendations of the DPI report by introducing new sections 71 and 76 to provide that police officers must be given a notice advising that they must show cause as to why they should not be dismissed for misconduct or underperformance. The alternative to dismissal is remedial action, including an undertaking to be of good behaviour and/or a remedial plan. Failure to comply with the undertaking can result in dismissal. Failure to comply with the remedial plan enables the chief commissioner to issue a show cause notice for dismissal. Being charged with an offence that is found to be proven is misconduct that can give rise to the show cause dismissal process.

Mr Barber — ‘Solidarity forever, for the union makes us strong’.

Ms MIKAKOS — I can hear some of the banter going on in the background there. I find it a bit rich that members of the Greens have come into this place and sought to be the great defenders of the Police Association when every time we have a debate about police powers in this place members of the Greens are predictable in arguing that the police should have fewer powers. I take the view that the police do a very important job, but they are also given enormous powers, powers far beyond that of any other public servants in this state. Therefore the opportunities and potential for corruption and misconduct are greater. For

this reason the disciplinary process should be an effective one that is commensurate with the powers that police exercise in this state. There should be adequate protections.

An appropriate balance has been struck in regard to this issue in the legislation. As I said, the government was prepared in good faith to undertake discussions with the various parties. It is unfortunate that that has not led to proposals from the other parties that the government is prepared to accept. We have before us here a reasoned amendment moved by Ms Pennicuik to defer the bill indefinitely. This bill seeks to provide an effective police disciplinary system to provide an effective relationship between the chief commissioner and members of Victoria Police. These amendments are necessary to address longstanding problems that have existed.

Mrs Peulich interjected.

Ms MIKAKOS — I indicated that, had you been listening. At the outset of my contribution I said the government was not proceeding with the amendments that have been circulated. I urge members opposite to support the bill.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) — As the weeks have gone by and as the weeks have turned into months — —

Mrs Peulich — Like sands through the hourglass.

Mr FINN — Like sands through the hourglass — indeed, Mrs Peulich! I have sat in my office and have wondered whether I would live long enough to see this bill come on for debate. I have to say it is somewhat of a surprise to come here on 13 October 2009 to debate a bill that first saw the light of day in this chamber over one year ago. As members may recall, at the introduction of this bill over one year ago the government told the chamber how urgent this bill was; it said then that the future of the police force was dependent on this bill and it had to be passed — and it had to be passed now — —

Mrs Peulich — Otherwise it was going to implode.

Mr FINN — We might all implode at this rate. Over one year ago the house was told by the government that the future of law and order in this state was on the line and that this bill had to be passed as soon as possible. For over 12 months this bill has sat on the notice paper, during which time the government has come up with various stories as to why it would not proceed with it.



I have been enthusiastic about wanting to debate this bill, because I think it contains some important points. I am keen to point out to rank-and-file members of the Victorian police force — and I still call it ‘the Victorian police force’ — what their government has in store for them if it is allowed.

As I have pointed out to this house before, there is no question about this government hating police. It proves that time and time again — and this bill proves it yet again.

Ms Mikakos — Rubbish!

Mr FINN — The genesis of this bill — and Ms Mikakos can get ready for this; she has been looking forward to this for quite some time; she is really getting excited about the whole thing — goes to a distant past when an individual called Christine Nixon was chief commissioner of the Victorian police force.

Ms Mikakos — I have heard it all before.

Mr FINN — You have not heard this, Ms Mikakos, let me tell you! We all know that Christine Nixon was something of a control freak, just to understate it. She set out at the beginning of her tenure as chief commissioner to destroy the Victorian police force as we knew it, and I have to say she succeeded admirably. A lot of people around the place think she was a disaster as chief commissioner, but I have to congratulate Christine Nixon — she achieved what she set out to do. Brick by brick she destroyed the Victorian police force as we knew it.

She ripped the morale of the Victorian police force to its lowest ebb ever. She ripped up the culture of the Victorian police force to the point where the majority of Victorians now have no confidence in Victoria Police. That is a tragedy for our state. It may have been great for the feminist movement, but it was a disaster for law and order in Victoria. It has to be said that Christine Nixon caused more damage to policing in Victoria than Ned Kelly, Squizzy Taylor and Alphonse Gangitano combined.

For over eight years the Victorian police force bled as a result of the alleged leadership of Christine Nixon. Despite all of that, she is the reason this bill is before the house. I could go into her role in deposing a former Minister for Police and Emergency Services, André Haermeyer, but let us leave that aside for a moment and just remember that she was in reality the minister.

We all know that the present Minister for Police and Emergency Services, in name only, Bob Cameron, has not got a clue. We all know he has been made the

minister for that very reason — he does not have a clue. He makes the Minister for Water, Tim Holding, the previous minister, look like a genius in comparison. He does not have any idea of his portfolio or what he should be doing. He allowed Christine Nixon to do whatever she wanted. She was the real police minister of this government. She was a Labor apparatchik appointed to the position of chief commissioner. She was the police minister of the state. It has to be said her successor has followed in her footsteps. I will get to him in just a moment.

The tragedy with this bill and with the former chief commissioner’s role in supporting this bill and its genesis, as I mentioned, is that Christine Nixon regarded the rank and file of Victoria Police as the enemy. That was the bottom line. She regarded the men and women on the thin blue line as her enemies. She came down here from New South Wales and made it very clear she believed the Victorian police force was corrupt. I think she said that at her first press conference as chief commissioner.

She said that the Victorian police force is no more or no less corrupt than the police in New South Wales. That is just nonsense. It was nonsense then and it is nonsense now, because we all know just how corrupt the police force has been over many years in New South Wales. That sort of thing just does not go on in Victoria because over a long period we have had within Victoria Police the ability to root out those who are corrupt. We have the ability to find out who they are and to get rid of them, and that is something that we as Victorians have been proud of.

It is interesting to note that when I talk about our police force members of the government are over there chuckling away. They think it is highly amusing that we are debating measures against members of the police force that are unreasonable, to say the very least. It has to be said that whilst the former Chief Commissioner of Police was conducting a war of attrition against her own members — the members of Victoria Police — the criminal elements in Victoria were running amok. Over recent weeks I have mentioned the crime statistics, particularly in the western suburbs, in great detail here. Minister Madden will be interested to hear that in Moonee Valley the homicide rate was up 700 per cent last year.

This sort of increase has happened right across Victoria. As the former chief commissioner has taken on her own membership, as she has pursued members of the Victorian police force for crimes, perceived or real, the real criminals have been getting away with muggings, bashings, robbery, rape, murder and many other crimes



because the police force has been preoccupied with this internal war between Christine Nixon and the members of the police force.

It was interesting to note the attitude of members of this government — members of the Australian Labor Party — when that chief commissioner pursued a war against the Police Association. The government was put there by the trade union movement, but then it allowed its chief commissioner — as I have said, a Labor apparatchik, a politician in her own right — to pursue the Police Association in a way that was most unbecoming and most detrimental to law and order in this state.

As we know, earlier this year the former chief commissioner, Christine Nixon, retired from the position — to much jubilation, it has to be said. From one end of the state to the other I doubt there was a police station in Victoria that did not throw a party when Christine Nixon hung up her hat for the last time. But the bill remained, and the tragedy for the police force and those police members who were celebrating the departure of Christine was that the new chief commissioner was, if anything, worse than the one who was leaving. I think it is safe to say that the current chief commissioner, who supports this bill, has never been on the beat one day in his life. He is what is known around the traps as an academic copper.

He has never been on the van, never been on the beat; he does not know what real police go through on a day-to-day basis. Yet he pursues the same agenda that the former chief commissioner pursued. It is little wonder that he is known from one end of the state to the other as the son of Christine, because that is what he has shaped up to be.

He is continuing the policies of the past as he sits in his office looking at reports from Amnesty International and telling us how we should be treating criminals in Victoria, but he might like to consider that Amnesty International’s principles and recommendations also apply to police. Police also have rights in this state, as they should have.

Under this bill they will have very few. In fact if this bill is passed, criminals in this state — murderers and rapists — will have greater rights than police. That is a blight on the state, and members of the government should hang their heads in shame at daring to bring such a preposterous piece of legislation into this house. It is a disgrace.

Is it any wonder that morale in the Victoria Police is as low as it is? I have absolute respect and support for the

men and women of the Victorian police force. To protect us those men and women go out on the van, often after dark, into places they are not sure of and into places that you and I certainly would never go into.

We talk about military heroes who protect us, perhaps overseas, perhaps in a war zone; but we have within our community men and women of the Victoria Police who are true heroes, who put their lives on the line day in and day out so that we can live a peaceful, happy and harmonious existence. They go out there and put in extraordinary hours. They put up with amazing stress, they put up with dangers that you and I would not tolerate. And what do they get? This nonsense, this rubbish from a government that holds our police in total contempt. That is what they get. It is a despicable way for a government that does not care about our police force and cares even less about law and order to act.

At this point I am tempted to talk about the role of the Attorney-General and his efforts at stacking the judiciary. I have referred in the past to some members of this house and this Parliament who are particularly good at branch stacking, but the Attorney-General has excelled at bench stacking. He has put all his mates — —

Ms Mikakos — On a point of order, Acting President, I draw to your attention the fact that Mr Finn is casting aspersions on members of Victoria’s judiciary. I understand that is contrary to standing orders and I ask that he withdraw that last statement.

Mr FINN — On the point of order, Acting President, at no time did I mention any particular judge or member of the judiciary. It is totally ludicrous for Ms Mikakos to suggest that I have cast any aspersions on any member of the judiciary. At no time have I mentioned any particular member of the judiciary, as tempting as it may have been.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Eideh) — Order! Mr Finn, to continue.

Mr FINN — Thank you, Acting President. As I was saying, these men and women who put themselves on the front line for us every day, every night, are true heroes. They deserve more than legislation like this, because this legislation is a total insult to every single copper in this state. Every single police officer in this state is insulted by the sort of legislation that has been put forward by this government.

Given that the bill has been in this place for over a year and given all this discussion and all this negotiation, surely this bill would have to be a ripsnorter, a bobby dazzler, the sort of legislation that will go down in the

ADJOURNMENT


history books with the Magna Carta or perhaps the United States Bill of Rights. Perhaps not; perhaps it is a total unmitigated stuff-up by this government. This government that specialises in stuff-ups has outdone itself this time with this legislation.

I have here a series of amendments. I understand there are 53 of 67 that were under discussion as late as this afternoon. We were prepared, understandably as the opposition in this house, to discuss the amendments. You would have thought, given that we have been negotiating these amendments since March and it is now 13 October, that the government would be keen to put its negotiation skills to the test and put to the test in this house the agreements that it has come to with the opposition — with the Liberal Party, The Nationals and perhaps even the Greens.

Ms Pennicuik — We did not see them in March.

Mr FINN — You did not see them in March? That is very sad. But what happened here tonight? Ms Mikakos got up and pulled the whole lot. She pulled every single one of them. After all this negotiation, after all this time, after all this finetuning, Ms Mikakos got up and did the Ernie Sigley, ‘Only joking’.

Mr Leane — Who?

Mr FINN — She did an Ernie Sigley! What is going on in this state? How serious is this government about the police force? How serious is this government about law and order when it can negotiate for month after month, but when we finally get to the stage of voting on the agreed amendments, it pulls them there and then on the spot? How fair dinkum are members opposite? The only conclusion that anybody can come to is that these members have not got a clue, nor do they care.

Mrs Peulich — No wonder things are out of control on the streets of Melbourne.

Mr FINN — It is little wonder, Mrs Peulich, that things are out of control on the streets of Melbourne, because the police do not know what is going on. The police ‘leadership’ — and I use that term in inverted commas — must be absolutely bamboozled by this, because this bill, as it is presented to the house tonight, with or without amendments, is an absolute and total dog’s breakfast. As I mentioned earlier, it is an insult to every police officer in this state.

Mrs Peulich — And to every Victorian.

Mr FINN — As Mrs Peulich says, ‘and to every Victorian’, because there are a number of victims who should be taken into consideration as well.

The Greens have moved a reasoned amendment, and I have considerable sympathy with that. Members should listen to this, because it will not be said too often: I have considerable sympathy for the position of the Greens as it has been put by way of this reasoned amendment. However, the opposition believes that this bill is so far gone that it does not matter how often you inquire into it. It does not matter how often you negotiate or look at it again, because it is a dead duck — it is floating face down. This bill is dead. The government should take it out and bury it. In the name of all that is good and decent, get rid of it.

I support the police. I support those men and women who are on the streets of Melbourne and throughout Victoria, defending us as we speak in this Parliament tonight. I support those men and women, I support the thin blue line, and I vehemently oppose this bill.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

ADJOURNMENT

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Eideh) — Order! The question is:

That the house do now adjourn.

Rooming houses: task force report

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) — The matter I raise is for the attention of the Minister for Housing and regards the Brumby government’s rooming house task force. My request is for the minister to immediately release the task force’s full report and recommendations and to take urgent action in response to the findings.

When the Premier announced the task force on 15 July, he said the task force would:

… report back to the government within six weeks on a new set of minimum standards and enforcement of standards for rooming houses.

Thirteen weeks has now passed and we are still waiting for the government to release the rooming house task force recommendations.

It appears the Brumby government chose to delay the release of the recommendations until after the coroner released his findings into the tragic deaths of Mr Christopher Giorgi and Miss Leigh Sinclair in a rooming house fire in Brunswick in 2006. These

ADJOURNMENT


findings were released to the public about two weeks ago. It has been three years since that tragic night, yet the state Labor government moved to appoint a task force to address rogue rooming house operators only a few weeks before the coroner was due to release his findings. There is no doubt the Labor government has known about this problem for years; action should have been taken a long time ago — years before the fatal 2006 rooming house fire.

On 13 September 2002 an article was published in the Herald Sun detailing the state of the rooming house sector in Melbourne, in which journalist Philip Cullen wrote:

About one in three private rooming homes … inspected by the Metropolitan Fire Brigade lack basic fire safety.

Garbage, furniture and even bread crates block emergency exits. Many smoke alarms, fire hoses and extinguishers are either missing or don’t work.

The Labor Minister for Planning at the time, Mary Delahunty, promised new safety regulations for budget accommodation. In the same article Ms Delahunty was quoted as having said:

We want to make sure that low-budget accommodation is a safe alternative for the hundreds of Victorians and overseas tourists who rely on cheaper accommodation …

It is cheaper but it should be just as safe.

Obviously insufficient action was taken by the state Labor government. Mr Giorgi and Ms Sinclair died a few years later in an illegal rooming house which lacked basic fire safety measures.

Unfortunately there are hundreds of vulnerable Victorians who are currently living in similar circumstances, and more must be done to stamp out rogue rooming house operators and improve the safety of Victoria’s rooming houses. The Minister for Housing, Richard Wynne, must immediately release the rooming house task force’s full report and recommendations and ensure that the Brumby government takes urgent action in response to these recommendations and the coroner’s recommendations.

Government: advertising

Mr KOCH (Western Victoria) — My matter is for the Attorney-General and relates to the undue influence being exerted by the state government in its dealings with the media, particularly government advertising in smaller regional communities where daily newspapers do not exist. Maintaining the integrity of information presented to the public is a cornerstone of the relationship between politics, newspapers and their

readership. Newspaper proprietor independence has always been a hallmark of small country press.

My office has recently received complaints from media proprietors and editors concerned with directives made by the Brumby Labor government through correspondence from the Victorian Country Press Association. The directive, sent to at least 67 organisations and involving over 100 individual mastheads, involved the purchase of advertising in exchange for editorial space, the material for which would be provided by the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. These newspapers were told that state government advertising was subject to the provision of additional text from the minister — in this case Minister Jennings on behalf of the Department of Sustainability and Environment — which, and I quote from correspondence provided to the newspapers, ‘must run without being subbed’ by editorial staff. The correspondence clarified the Brumby government’s booking is ‘conditional on this factor’.

Many of the newspapers approached are small local operations in western Victoria that are struggling to come to terms with the conflicts associated with balancing their books and keeping their readers impartially informed in a harsh economic climate. Dangling a carrot in the form of advertising dollars under the nose of an industry that has been struggling with falling advertising revenue demonstrates the lengths this Labor government will go to in flexing its muscle to avoid negative editorial comment.

In recent months we have seen Labor attempt to leverage the provision of capital projects at schools against positive comments from school principals. Further, schools that have received government funding are being forced to display government advertising material on school property up until the next election. The muzzling of school principals and school representative boards that are unhappy with the mismatch of capital projects with their schools’ actual needs has left a sour taste in the mouths of many educators and school councillors who would otherwise speak out.

The manipulation of free speech is something this government has been brazen enough to attempt, but threatening to withdraw advertising dollars through an industry body should its demands not be met is stooping to a new low. My request of the Attorney-General is that he review the approach taken by government to paid advertising, which demands country newspapers forgo editorial rights in order that government propaganda is compulsorily published without independent editorial scrutiny.

ADJOURNMENT


Public transport: myki ticketing system

Ms HARTLAND (Western Metropolitan) — My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Public Transport, Lynne Kosky, and concerns the new myki transport ticketing system equipment. Many of the train station vending machines and station-bus-tram readers are in place and ready to be switched on. Unfortunately, in a very short space of time a substantial amount of vandalism has been inflicted on this new equipment. I have had reports of people seeing smashed-up screens of ticket vending machines and graffiti all over the fare payment devices at train stations.

Articles in August and September in the Herald Sun reported that:

Up to 60 per cent of the new myki transport ticket machines have been subjected to vandalism or graffiti …

The spokesman for the Transport Ticketing Authority said 74 cases of ‘severe, malicious damage’ had occurred. An inspection of the Pakenham, Werribee and Upfield train lines showed that 6 in every 10 card readers had been vandalised. It is clear that vandalism occurs more frequently at unstaffed train stations. Surely it would be more cost efficient and safer for the travelling public to staff all train stations.

I call on the Minister for Public Transport to provide a document which details the frequency and nature of vandalism on myki ticketing equipment to date, and specifically what proportion of equipment has been damaged at unstaffed stations across the train network in Melbourne.

Bushfires: preparedness

Mr P. DAVIS (Eastern Victoria) — I wish to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for the Environment and Climate Change, and it relates to fire prevention. My concern is that there is a real disconnect between the actions on the part of the government in advising communities to prepare for the coming bushfire season with particular prioritisation of 52 towns in Victoria as being at extreme risk and some of the measures that would enable members of the community to better prepare.

We have a disconnect between state government and local government, particularly in respect of the management of the local rubbish tips and the inevitable accommodation of the significant loads of vegetative matter that is being cleaned up from around homes in country towns. I cite, for example, the Shire of East Gippsland, which has two of these designated high-risk communities, being Cann River and Mallacoota. The

township of Mallacoota is surrounded by national park and state forest, and some members of that community are taking the warnings seriously and trying to do the right thing and clean up their own environment, albeit they are critical of the government’s efforts to undertake fuel reduction burning in the forest.

But in order to clean up they are being charged between $7 and $10 per trailer load of green waste that they are taking to the local tip. That is a significant burden; one person who is a particular example has spent more than $50 already and has much green matter to remove. In addition, he has done some burning off around the home. Mallacoota has a tip which is open for a free green waste weekend on the weekend of 31 October and 1 November. That is a bit late and more importantly it is not providing sufficient time for residents to properly clean up their local estates.

I am concerned that the government has not done enough work with local government to facilitate a proper response to the urgings by the government to have the community prepare for this bushfire season. I would therefore ask that the Minister for the Environment and Climate Change, who has responsibility for waste management, work with local government to ensure that communities throughout Victoria can better access disposal opportunities for their waste.

Schools: Seymour

Mrs PETROVICH (Northern Victoria) — My matter today is for the Minister for Education and concerns the surprise announcement last month of funding for the amalgamation of four schools in Seymour. There is a large degree of alarm in the Seymour community that this $4.15 million of state government funding, which miraculously appeared out of the blue, will mean that the plan to amalgamate four schools — Seymour Technical High School, Seymour Primary School, Seymour East Primary School and Seymour Special School — is being steamrolled ahead without giving the respective communities a chance to consider the pros and cons.

Not everyone is in favour of this super-school and not everyone has had the opportunity to have a say. Certainly there is a huge question mark about the long-term success of these types of super-schools, and I wonder why there is such a rush. As we have seen in Bendigo, there is little doubt that the government, not the local school councils, is controlling the agenda. The Seymour plan will result in a considerable reduction in staff numbers, and budget allocations in the future will

ADJOURNMENT


be on the basis of one school, not four. This will include moneys for maintenance and capital works.

This government’s track record on funding for Seymour schools is woeful. It took more than 10 years for a performing arts centre to be established at Seymour Technical High School — and that is all it got. Despite a desperate need for a drastic update, this school has received nothing from this government. There is a big question mark over the area set aside for the new school. Already there are concerns it will not be big enough, and there is definitely no room for growth.

There are many major concerns about how the students from the feeder primary schools — including Puckapunyal, Tallarook, Pyalong and Avenel — will assimilate when other students will have been there since day one. The special school is a wonderful asset to this community and provides fabulous education to a broad catchment of special needs students. It is important to recognise it has its own set of special needs.

As it stands, there seem to be a number of flaws in the current plan, not least of which is the shortfall in funding provided. Even the combination of funding from the state and federal government falls about $20 million short of the requirement.

It is all well and good to say this will be for stage 1 and the funds will follow for the next stages, but we know only too well from the Wallan experience that it is a struggle to get funding on time for the next stages. Wallan is currently under enormous pressure. The community was promised a year 7–12 school. Stage 3 is finally under way, albeit about 18 months behind schedule and with five portable classrooms.

The first intake of students will be going into year 11 next year and the facilities for these students will be stretched to the limit because of the delay in funding. The school really has its hands tied behind its back, because, despite lots of interest, until it has guaranteed funding for stage 4 it really cannot accept any more enrolments.

The action I seek is that the minister as a matter of urgency provide details of the total project plans for this amalgamation, including the time line for when the current school will be closed and when additional funding will be allocated to take this project through to completion.

Skills training: tertiary courses

Mrs COOTE (Southern Metropolitan) — My adjournment matter this evening is for Jacinta Allan, Minister for Skills and Workforce Participation. The Victorian government publication Securing Jobs for Your Future — Skills for Victoria has a number of interesting aspects to it. The Premier says in the preamble:

Victoria’s unprecedented prosperity over the past decade has been created by our most important resource — the many skilled people who drive the performance of our industry sectors and hundreds of thousands of businesses across the state.

He finishes by saying:

It will position us as the national leader in skills development and most importantly secure the jobs that will deliver a strong future for all Victorians.

He is speaking about skills and workforce participation in Securing Jobs for Your Future. Further, under the ‘skills deepening’ segment it states:

Skills deepening courses are at diploma and advanced diploma level. These are for people who are progressing to a higher level within an industry area in which they already have employment or who wish to enter employment at the more skilled, specialised or paraprofessional level.

I was therefore very concerned to receive a fax which seems to carry a Victorian government letterhead. It is badged ‘A Victorian government initiative’ and is by Job Ready Australia. It says, ‘Diploma of business, a Victorian government initiative, $750 only’. It goes on to say:

There is a shortage of skilled workers across a range of industries in Victoria, including business, and the Victorian government is offering existing workers the opportunity to gain a diploma, without the expense.

These were going to be for only eight days and cost $750 for a diploma. It says:

There is no limit to the number of diplomas your organisation can apply for.

The classes will be held over two days per month at a convenient inner city location or on site and completed within four months. The action I seek is for the minister as a matter of urgency to explain to Melbourne University, Monash University, RMIT and other educational institutions in Victoria the difference between their business diplomas, which take between two and three years to complete, and this eight-day diploma course.

ADJOURNMENT


Roads: emergency repairs

Mr VOGELS (Western Victoria) — I raise an issue for the Minister for Roads and Ports. It concerns section 37 of the Road Management Act. Under ‘Post-notification of works’ it reads:

(1) On completion of works (including emergency works) a notice should be forwarded to the coordinating road authority in accordance with clause 13 of schedule 7 of the act, unless the works are exempt from such a requirement, in accordance with the Road Management (Works and Infrastructure) Regulations under the Act.

This is the issue I am describing here: a water main bursts in the middle of a council-controlled road. A water authority attends and repairs that main and restores water supply. Normal practice is to backfill the area and apply a temporary seal until reinstatement can be arranged. This can be days, weeks or sometimes months later. In other words, an emergency situation has been temporarily dealt with, and a notification is given to the coordinating road authority that the emergency had occurred and been dealt with.

Now we are in the grey area. Local government is of the view that once the emergency works have been carried out, the normal pre-consent conditions apply for final reinstatements, whereas the water authority claims when they undertake the final reinstatement it is still classed as an emergency work; therefore no prior consent is required nor a permit fee payable. Councils claim they incur significant costs associated with inspections and monitoring the reinstatement to ensure it meets council standards; they therefore believe a permit is required.

The action I seek from the minister is to clarify this section of the act. Everybody agrees that emergency works need to be carried out as soon as possible, as in the example I have given. However, is a council correct in pursuing a water authority to obtain a permit for the programmed works carried out after the initial emergency reinstatement works have been completed? Can the water authority in this case claim that the programmed works conducted weeks or even months later still constitute emergency repairs, thereby absolving itself from normal permit requirements?

Police: numbers

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. As I am sure the house is aware, last Saturday was the first anniversary of the passing of the Abortion Law Reform Act in this state. To commemorate that particular date, the first March for

the Babies rally was held through the city, culminating on the steps of Parliament House. I am the chairman of the organising committee of the march. At the beginning of last week, preparations were coming along very nicely. Permits had been issued, marshals were ready to go and so many other aspects were under control until last Monday, when we received a call from Victoria Police, requesting a meeting as soon as was humanly possible.

I, along with a couple of other members of the committee, went to a meeting with Victoria Police at headquarters in Flinders Street. The police told me of their plight and asked for our consideration. They informed me that they would not have enough police officers to control our march on last Saturday morning. They said they could find only 10 police to manage intersections. They were aware that we posed no threat of violence, damage or anything else, but they could not find enough police to control the intersections along the route that we had previously been given permission to march along, and asked that we truncate the march, which we readily did.

It made me think: if the Victorian police force has enough trouble getting police to perform normal duties on a Saturday morning, what hope does it have of getting police to where it really matters on a Saturday evening, to some of the trouble spots in the city and some of the inner city areas?

Mrs Coote — Prahran.

Mr FINN — Such as Prahran, as Mrs Coote says. I ask the minister to take into consideration my experience of the last week and to convene a meeting with the Chief Commissioner of Police. I would be very happy to attend that meeting to relate firsthand my experiences. I ask the minister also to inform the chief commissioner of the parlous state of the police force in this state, particularly in the central business district. I ask both the minister and the chief commissioner to devise a plan to do something about the problems that our police are facing on a daily and, perhaps more importantly, nightly basis.

General practitioners: eastern suburbs

Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) — My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Health. I indicate to members of the house that I was somewhat alarmed recently to receive a communiqué from the Melbourne East General Practice Network that detailed a survey it had undertaken of general practitioner services in the eastern suburbs.

ADJOURNMENT


That survey revealed a marked shortage of GPs, leading to significant unmet demand across the region. Indeed the survey suggests that a further 72 full-time GPs — an increase of around 14 per cent on the current number of doctors in practice — are required to satisfy the current patient needs in Melbourne’s eastern suburbs. The current GP-to-population ratio is 1:1448 people. With the increase proposed, the ratio would be reduced to 1:1200, closer to the recommended ratio of GPs servicing a population.

As can be appreciated, the eastern suburbs is an area where there is a significant ageing population. There are considerable demands on the health network and obviously one can be penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to GPs, because if there are not GPs practising and providing services to people, those people inevitably turn up at the doors of the hospitals, in accident and emergency departments, and overcrowd the hospital system and cause further costs for government.

The Melbourne East General Practice Network has made a number of recommendations as to how some of the shortage might be tackled. They include some federal subsidies for practice nurses to support and enhance the work of existing GPs, federal subsidies to improve practice infrastructure to accommodate more GPs and practice nurses, encouraging GPs to engage in teaching and research to support new doctors, and improved remuneration to attract doctors in training to general practice.

Some of those are federal matters. What I seek from the Minister for Health is that he look at opportunities to increase the intake of doctors to university places and expand teaching and research to support new doctors as recommended by the Melbourne East General Practice Network as one of the steps to be taken towards improving the ratio of GPs to population in the eastern suburbs.

Water: charges

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Water. It flows from communication I received from Mr and Mrs McDonald of Beaconsfield, who are concerned and disappointed that, notwithstanding the efforts they have made in the spirit of preserving water and reducing their water consumption, their water bills have gone up in price. That is as a result of increases in the fixed charges for water customers.

For the benefit of the minister, I quote from the invoice they received from South East Water in June 2008,

when the total for service charges was $52. That can be compared with the bill they received in September 2009, when the total of the service charges had increased to $75.85, which is significant. Notwithstanding that increase in the total of the service charges, their actual water consumption per day has decreased by approximately 50 litres, which, as I said, is as a result of their efforts to reduce their water consumption.

The signals that the government is sending in this regard seem to be at odds with the message of conserving water. It would appear that even as efforts are being made to conserve water, the cost of water increases. I note that in its June 2009 report entitled Inquiry into Melbourne’s Future Water Supply the Environment and Natural Resources Committee set out on page 112 recommendation 3.27, which is that:

The pricing structure for water moves towards a higher proportion of the bill allocated to consumption and a lower reliance on fixed charges.

That accurately sums up the situation which has been raised by Mr and Mrs McDonald, that consumers are being penalised notwithstanding the efforts they are making to reduce their per capita water consumption in the spirit of preserving this most important resource. The action I seek from the minister is that he review the way the water authorities charge for water usage and connection to the system so that a higher proportion of bills is for water usage and therefore efforts to conserve our water are more appropriately reflected in water bills.

Parks Victoria: Chewton resident

Mr DRUM (Northern Victoria) — My issue is for the attention of the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Mr Jennings. It has to do with a pensioner in the Chewton area, near Castlemaine, who inquired of Parks Victoria how he could have it trim and cut down trees on Parks Victoria land that were overhanging his property and dropping branches and pine cones. One particular gum tree was leaning dangerously over his property. He asked that Parks Victoria make those trees safe for his property.

He was told that the best thing he could do was prepare a plan so that he could cut down the trees himself. As a 70-year-old pensioner he did not believe it was his responsibility to do that. He thought the government had a duty of care to keep parklands, state forests and national parks appropriately maintained on behalf of the state. He believed that the risk from the overhanging trees was the government’s responsibility and that it also had the responsibility of being a good neighbour.

ADJOURNMENT


He said that the fire risk associated with bringing the forest all the way through to residents is something that needs to be addressed by Parks Victoria, but not by giving pensioners the right to do the government’s work for it.

Since the 7 February bushfires the government has asked everybody to be diligent in relation to fires and the way they prepare their land, so he did not think it was fair for a government department to ask a 70-year-old pensioner to prepare the land that belongs to the government.

I call on the minister to clarify the legal responsibility of Parks Victoria to maintain its own property in a manner that is appropriate as a neighbour of thousands of Victorian residents right across the state. My understanding is that the responsibility is clearly the government’s. It is clearly the responsibility of Parks Victoria, and for it to shed that responsibility on to individuals — whether they are pensioners or anyone else — is simply illegal. The government cannot break the law.

Police: Ashburton

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — My adjournment matter tonight is for the attention of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. It concerns a matter that has been discussed in this chamber before — that is, the number of police officers and the adequacy of policing in and around the Ashburton area. The minister has recently gone into print in response to a local community campaign for more police services and resources, including adequate resources at the police station itself.

A number of particularly tragic incidents have occurred in and around Ashburton, and the community is determined to see an improvement in the quality of policing through lifting the standard of the police station — indeed at a public meeting I hosted recently there were motions carried to that effect — and through the restoration of the number of police, which has been cut from 11 to 1. A number of aspects of the overall policing effort in and around the Ashburton area have been affected as police have been cut out of Boroondara and moved across into Camberwell and Kew, causing great irritation for the local community.

What I am seeking today is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services to visit Ashburton to meet with community groups, including those that are particularly worried about the future of policing in and around the Ashburton and Ashwood areas. I offer to host such a meeting and introduce the minister to

groups like the Ashburton Traders Association and local neighbourhood watch groups. I am particularly interested in speaking to him about the possibility of upgrading the physical facilities at Ashburton police station and ensuring that if and when police are restored to the area there will be a facility of a modern standard, one that will be of sufficient quality to support the finest policing efforts that the community deserves.

Responses

Mrs Coote — On a point of order, President, the papers office today published the Legislative Council adjournment matters awaiting response. It lists all the adjournment matters that are outstanding in this place. Pursuant to standing order 5, I ask the minister for an explanation. I personally have 16 adjournment matters that have not been answered, 5 of which go back 12 to 18 months ago. I ask the minister to find out what has happened to those 16 adjournment matters and let me know as soon as possible when I can expect answers.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — Specifically in relation to Mrs Coote’s inquiry, I have a list of 39 responses in relation to adjournment matters raised from March this year to as recently as this September. Two of these specifically relate to Mrs Coote, so this might cover some of the matters she inquired about. I am happy to make inquiries of my cabinet colleagues in relation to the others. As you would appreciate, President, it is not always easy to get responses from our parliamentary colleagues in the other chamber. However, I will endeavour to find out where those responses are. As I mentioned, I have a list of 39 responses to adjournment matters raised earlier.

Wendy Lovell raised a matter of the findings and report of a task force into rooming houses. I will refer this to the Minister for Housing.

David Koch raised a matter of government advertising for the Attorney-General. I will refer this to the Attorney-General.

Colleen Hartland raised a matter regarding myki equipment. I will refer this to the Minister for Public Transport.

Philip Davis raised the matter of waste management in relation to fire prevention. I will refer this to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change.

Donna Petrovich raised a matter of schools in Seymour. I will refer this to the Minister for Education.

Andrea Coote raised the matter of certificate and business diploma courses and some confusion around

ADJOURNMENT


what sort of courses they might be. I will refer this to the Minister for Skills and Workforce Participation.

John Vogels raised a matter of protocols or guidelines for emergency works by agencies in relation to local government. I will refer this to the Minister for Roads and Ports.

Bernie Finn raised the matter of police numbers. I will refer this to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services.

Bruce Atkinson raised the matter of GPs in the eastern suburbs. I will refer this to the Minister for Health.

Edward O’Donohue raised the matter of water billing, particularly in relation to specific residents in Beaconsfield. I will refer this matter to the Minister for Water.

Damian Drum raised the matter of — —

Mr Drum — Parks.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — national parks and the obligation of the Department of Sustainability and Environment or national parks in relation to — —

Mr Drum — Or Parks Victoria.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — Parks Victoria in relation to overhanging trees on state forests and national parks. I will refer this to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change.

David Davis raised the matter of policing issues in Ashburton. Once again I will refer this to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The house now stands adjourned.

House adjourned 10.38 p.m.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) 20… · PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL...

Documents

Transcript of PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) 20… · PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL...