R.€¦ · I am painfully aware that I do not have any ace up my sleeve. Having informed the House...

SUPPLY (1991-92, No. 1) BILL and WORKS AND SERVICES

1944 COUNCIL Thursday, 30 May 1991

was not I but the Auditor-General who described as illegal the issue of Treasury bills by the Victorian Development Fund to a value of $316 million. Mr Van Buren was carrying on before. That puts you right on the spot, Mr Van Buren. The Auditor-General has described the actions of your government as illegal. Does that let you sleep well at night? If I were in your position I would be extremely worried about the standards of those I was meant to support. When the chief critic says that you have been acting illegally I suggest it is time to worry.

In another context the Auditor-General said that $197 million of interest he identified had been paid out of borrowings. Never mind about whether it is illegal, the facts are that no-one can survive by borrowing more to pay the interest on the previous debt.

The Auditor-General has identified almost $200 million which has gone in precisely that direction under this administration. How do you feel about that, Mr Van Buren? Would you do that in your private business? You are contemplating allowing it to happen in the public sector under your stewardship of the public purse. You have not raised one argument about the standards involved. You have let it go through to the keeper.

Then we are told how the VDF has used the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works as a front to get $870 million in via the back door and enticed funding from private fund managers using the MMBW to launder the funds.

Hon. W. A. Landeryou - That's crap!

Hon. R. M. HALLAM - I agree with that interjection. It is an extraordinary situation when an instrumentality under the Crown and under this administration is prepared to bend the rules to such an extent. Not only will the government carry out the sin itself but it will use another agency as a smokescreen. What depths we have plummeted to!

The worst example is the $100 million which Tom Roper gained by way of the interest swap. The contrivance which is euphemistically entitled "an interest swap", where he authorised expenditure without the authority of Parliament, has since been the subject of investigation by the Auditor-General. It is our Auditor-General who has said that he will not acquit that particular expenditure. The list goes on and I intend to give additional examples following the suspension of the sitting.

Sitting suspended 1 p.m. until 2.3 p.m.

Hon. R. M. HALLAM - Prior to the suspension of the sitting I had made a detailed criticism of the technical structure of the Supply Bill. I had poured scorn on the explanations that had been provided for the tradition of Supply. I suggested that the Supply Bill was flawed, given the Budget from which it had been derived and on which it was based, and I gave evidence of that as well.

In a general sense an argument can be put that the Supply Bill should be refused because of the government's record of incompetence and deceit. I gave the House several instances of shoddy and misleading accounting practices and I shall add a further two examples which in my view qualify most decidedly as shoddy practices.


Thursday, 30 May 1991 COUNCIL 1945

I refer particularly to the World Congress Centre, with its unreported and massive deferral of liabilities, which will in my view constitute a landmine in the path of the incoming government, but which now, at least, as a result of the initiative taken in this House is under scrutiny and investigation by the Auditor-General. I look forward to his report to the House about the funding of the World Congress Centre.

One of the latest fiddles is the $100 million which I spoke about earlier in respect of the Commonwealth payment and I described the way in which a very simple device has been used to employ the agency of either VicFin or the Victorian Development Fund to accept responsibility for the annual payments the government was contracted to make, allowing it effectively to defer a further substantial component of liability into the Supply period. I explained in that instance how that artificially bloated the Supply Bill.

Those are examples not merely of incompetence or poor management but of something far worse and much more sinister. I believe they are examples of connivance and contrivance and in some cases conspiracy. I suggest they are evidence of complicity and duplicity at the heart of the government structure. If nothing else they certainly represent instances of camouflage and cover-up. I believe the Victorian electorate is entitled to much better standards of government.

It is my view the government has long since given up the right to expect any consideration at all. The government is not in a position to demand anything under the guise of protocol or precedent. In other words the government deserves to be tipped out of office. That is the message I get loud and clear wherever I go across Victoria.

Victoria wants the government out of office. It appears to me that it is not all that fussy about how that is achieved and so the fundamental premise - that we also support -namely that governments win the right to govern at the polls, is no longer applicable to this government under the current circumstances.

Despite all that, the coalition takes the view that although the government certainly deserves to be denied Supply, the Bill will be passed. It will be passed on one simple and central consideration, the impact on the Victorian electorate if a course other than to allow it to pass through the House were taken.

The key issue considered by the members of the coalition was that a denial of Supply would not necessarily have led to an election. The inescapable fact is, if we were to refuse Supply, the only outcome we could guarantee would be a constitutional crisis for Victoria. Victoria would be plunged into chaos and perhaps irreparable damage would be caused to the Parliamentary system and to the office of Governor.

Our stance on the Bill is no thanks to the government. In fact, we have made the decision to pass the Bill not because of anything the government has done but in spite of what it has done. Our view is that the government could not be trusted to do the right thing and go to the polls. That is our concern and it is on that basis alone that the decision was made by the coalition not to oppose the Bill.



In other words, it is our fear that the government would hang tenaciously to office and to the power of government. That could cause more harm to Victorians and on that basis the Bill will be allowed to pass.

However, I direct two specific messages to the government: firstly, it cannot read anything into the decision other than the immediate effect. Do not presume on any decision that may be taken in the future. This is a stand-alone decision relating to the position on Supply with the Bill before us.

Hon. C. F. Van Buren interjected.

Hon. R. M. HALLAM - Read anything more into that at your peril, Mr Van Buren. That is the first message.

Hon. R. A. Mackenzie -It has nothing to do with Mr Greiner's position?

Hon. R. M. HALLAM - No, it does not.

The second message is that the government can take no comfort from this decision. This is not a decision of absolution; that is not what the message is. This is simply a reprieve because eventually, whatever else is said and done, governments must face their makers. This government must ultimately go to the polls, and I suggest that the 'more delay the greater the ultimate price it will pay.

I have sought a number of quite specific responses to individual issues inherent in the Bill. I have posed a number of specific questions of the government and of the Treasurer in particular. I am painfully aware that I do not have any ace up my sleeve. Having informed the House that this Bill will pass, that the coalition will not oppose it, I literally have nothing left to barter with. I have no inducement to offer the government to respond to those specific requests, but I have to say that what I have sought is not extraordinary. It is not at all untoward. It is nothing more than members of this House should be entitled to. It is nothing more than the notion which, in my view, is basic to Victorians: they are entitled to know the real position and the truth of our financial circumstances.

So, I appeal to the Ministers in the House at the moment, Brian Mier and Caroline Hogg, to ensure that responses are prepared. I say to the Ministers who are now in the Chamber: if you have any hope of re-establishing a vestige of credibility in the eyes of the Victorian electorate it is necessary that you come clean on the financial circumstances of Victoria and, in that context, the Supply Bill would be the best place to start.

In conclusion, while it is my firm conviction that the Supply Bill is fundamentally flawed, it has been a decision of the coalition that to refuse its passage under the existing Constitution would visit even greater anguish on Victorians and it is on that basis that the coalition has taken a decision, albeit reluctantly, that the Bill will not be opposed.

Hon. C. F. V AN BUREN (Eumemmerring) - I support this important Supply Bill. I am disappointed with the stand taken by the new Leader of the Opposition on this Bill. With its recycled Leader the opposition wanted to play games in its usual manner and take this State into a bad situation with the Supply issue.

SUPPL Y (1991-92, No. 1) BILL and WORKS AND SERVICES


The Leader of the Opposition had a five-stage plan for how to stop us, but it is not good for this State. Why was all this action taken? It has divided the community. People are asking where the opposition's policies are. The opposition criticises us. Mr Hallam speaks very well in criticism, and the government may take on board some of his suggestions. However, generally the opposition has no policy.

We have seen regular changes in the leadership of the opposition. One minute it is Mr Brown, another minute Mr Kennett and the next minute somebody else. It is musical chairs. Unfortunately, the new recycled Leader of the Opposition has no policies. He is all confrontation and is not trying to bring harmony into the community to get people working together. That is what he should be about, instead of dividing the community.

The divisions within the opposition are so wide that when the change in leadership took place the Leader of the Opposition in this place did not know about it. That is how far trust goes in the opposition; they do not trust each other. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this House, a person who very much stands for principles and things I believe in, Haddon Storey, was challenged for his job. Those sorts of divisions occur all the time in that party.

The current Leader of the Opposition is like all advertising people; he is very good on one-liners but there is no substance in what he says. He thinks it is an election campaign all the time. His Parliamentary colleagues - -

Hon. R. M. Hallam - What about the Bill?

Hon. C. F. V AN BUREN - I am leading to it. You know what your Parliamentary colleagues think of him. He is very much an unguided missile. The people of Victoria know that--

Hon. ROSEMARY V ARTY (Nunawading) - On a point of order, Mr Deputy President, the debate is supposed to be about the Supply Bill. We have not heard one word from Mr Van Buren on the subject of Supply. We are hearing a diatribe about the so-called deficiencies of the opposition, which bears no relationship to issues in the Supply Bill.

The DEPUrY PRESIDENT (Hon. K. I. M. Wright) - Order! On the point of order, the thought had been running through my mind as well. Considerable latitude is given to honourable members in speeches on the Supply Bill, but I feel Mr Van Buren has had ample time to make preliminary remarks and should now direct his remarks to the Supply Bill.

Hon. C. F. V AN BUREN (Eumemmerring) - I have been speaking on the Supply Bill. The point I was trying to make is that these are not normal circumstances and since I have been here we have seen a change in attitude by the opposition. We all know that we are going through a downturn, not only in Victoria but also throughout the world. Victoria is the manufacturing base of this nation and under this Labor government it had the highest level of employment for a long time, but it has now been hit very hard. Nobody denies that. However, by comparison with other States, we are not doing so



badly. In New South Wales the unemployment figure is only slightly lower than ours, and that is after eight years of our government being in office.

The government has taken action to try to remedy the situation. Opposition speakers have been calling for the government to restructure industry, and the goverrunent has done that. It has restructured industry and reduced jobs in the public sector, but is then constantly attacked for creating unemployment. The opposition cannot have it both ways. The government has made every effort in this recession - and it is a difficult period - to try to rectify the situation. In fact, when I say Victoria is not doing so badly that is so because it was recently publicised that we pay fewer taxes and charges than people in New South Wales pay.

The Premier of this State, who is doing a great job in this climate, will issue a statement in June. Mr Hallam asked why the Premier did not issue the statement in May. The reason is that the Premier is going to Canberra to the Premiers Conference tomorrow and she will be putting the Victorian case. I understand she is working in close cooperation with the current Premier of New South Wales, Mr Greiner, because both States have the same battle for a proper share of the cake. Whether people like it or not the fact of the matter is that the two major States are subSidising the smaller States. After the Premiers Conference the Premier will have the total picture and she will be able to make a statement. She cannot make that statement now because she has to go to the Premiers Conference first. That statement will allow the people of Victoria to look into the future. They will know what direction the State is taking.

I am a little concerned - or disgusted - that the opposition denigrates Victoria. Instead of going out and trying t~ sell Victoria the opposition preaches doom and gloom and runs down the State.

I shall relate a recent story about business in this State. A printing company, Hannan's Print Works, which prints the Reader's Digest and all the high technical colour printing in this country, has its headquarters in Sydney. Recently it bought the Gillette factory site on the Princes Highway and I was invited to visit the site. The engineer in charge of construction said he gets sick and tired of coming to this State and hearing the people talking themselves down. He said they do not look ahead. That company is spending an enormous amount of money in Victoria. It has the latest technology and the latest printing machine that costs $80 million or $90 million. It is a big company which has to subsidise other companies but it is willing to back this State because it recognises that it is a good place.

The engineer I spoke to said that he caught a taxi from the airport when he arrived here and the taxi driver started talking of doom and gloom and what the conservative forces would do. He said he gave him a blast and told him that that was what was wrong with this State.

I shall give another example of business investment in this State. Tip Top Bakeries invested $30 million in Melbourne, $24 million in the Dandenong area and $6 million in Brunswick. That company has a major redevelopment program. That shows that there is



confidence in this State. As the local member I take an interest in the area and know what is going on. I was at the opening of the new site and I saw the modern equipment that was being installed. That equipment will increase production. In the Dandenong plant production has gone from 230 ()()() units to 385 ()()() units already this year and in Brunswick it has gone from 80 ()()() units to 95 ()()() units this year. That is because of the positive attitude of the management and by working closely with the union movement.

That result could not be achieved by the opposition because it would take a confrontationist approach with the unions and that would lead to problems. That is the difference between members on this side of the House and members on the other side. That same company also had the confidence to spend $6 million in the Bendigo area. I know the honourable member for Bendigo West was very pleased with that. That is the sort of investment one can talk oneself out of. The government is certainly not going to do that; it will be positive because things will turn out for the better.

The Kirner government has a done a number of things for this State. We have released a $160 million package aimed at cutting unemployment. We recognise the difficulties people face when they lose their jobs. I know more than anybody else because of my working background. I understand the difficulties of a recession and I know the main concern of this government is job creation which must be done in cooperation with the private sector.

The package is designed to preserve the skills base of the work force and encourage private sector investment and job growth. The government intends to work with private industry and the business community. That is what we do all the time despite the criticisms from the opposition. The package provides training opportunities for approximately 14 ()()() people. In this day of modern technology we know the importance of training and the Labor government is committed to that course of action.

The government recognises that in this changing world of new technology people must be trained with modern skills. The package will create 4500 jobs. It will protect our skills base. The tendency in a recession is to cut back on the migration program and the skills base suffers. The key elements of the package include an overhaul of leasing arrangements in Victoria's ports to encourage the private sector to upgrade port facilities and boost productivity. That is expected to generate waterfront investment of up to $100 million.

I have heard opposition members denigrate the restructuring work that is going on on the waterfront. I spent a whole day on the waterfront with the union movement and I met someone from overseas who said our progress in restructuring was going extremely well compared with, for instance, Amsterdam, where it took ten years to achieve what we have done in a couple of years. One of the key factors that was explained to me was that we do not have the volume of traffic. A ship was being unloaded on the waterfront at the time and there was one crane worth $40 million unloading that ship at one end and then it went to the other end and did the same and the ship was completely unloaded.



I was advised that in Amsterdam or Singapore if traffic on the wharves is heavy ther~ are three cranes unloading a ship. While the third crane is completing its operations the first and second cranes can be unloading another ship or reloading that ship. The fundamental problem with Australia is the lack of volume on our wharves. It is necessary to restructure the waterfront, and that is the intention of the Labor government.

The government has created several hundred job opportunities in constructing public housing. The government has the policies and the vision to get Victoria out of the recession.

Hon. K. M. Smith - Where? You don't have any policies!

Hon. c. F. V AN BUREN - The Liberal Party has no policies. That was highlighted at a recent Municipal Association of Victoria conference where there was an internal squabble about the former Leader of the OppOSition and there was a change of Leaders. The Liberal Party said it had no policy on local government. The Deputy President described the Liberal Party as having no policies. He said the opposition was not ready to govern.

Hon. K. M. Smith - Who said that?

Hon. C. F. V AN BUREN - The Honourable Ken Wright said that.

Hon. K. M. Smith - Is he our local government spokesman?

Hon. C. F. V AN BUREN - It is the same for local government. The opposition's policies were not ready. The recycled Leader of the Opposition says he will get rid of public servants and m~e cuts in all areas. He has no re~ plan of what to do.

The Labor government has some direction. It brought out a legislative program with 50 Bills to be passed by Parliament to help the State out of the recession. What was the reaction? At first the opposition said all the Bills would be opposed. There was then a turnaround and the opposition said some Bills would be accepted and others would be gradually worked through.

Honourable members interjecting.

Hon. C. F. V AN BUREN - The Premier announced that there will be $600 million worth of cuts in public spending. The government will not adopt the opposition's tactics and say that public servants will be sacked because they are opposition sympathisers, or they have links with the opposition parties or spoke to a shadow Minister at some time. The government will work in partnership with the Federal government and private industry to create jobs. It will prOVide the necessary incentives to boost job opportunities.

The Supply Bill provides funding for four months. The government has a right to expect the Bill to be passed. I am glad the Liberal and National parties have ~n the light. A basic democratic right is that governments are formed in the Lower House not the Upper House. That is the Westminster system. Even the House of Lords does not have the powers of this House. I am relieved that the Victorian opposition will not attempt to block the Supply Bill.



The Kimer government has a wider vision for the State. The people of my electorate have benefited from government assistance. Funds have been provided to build schools, preschools and other projects throughout the electorate. The government is aware of the needs of young families.

The Minister for Education and Training is a regular visitor to my electorate. The opposition has uttered nonsense about education in Victoria. What has the Minister been doing? He has been talking to school principals, visiting schools and in growth corridors has opened schools funded by the government.

Hon. K. M. Smith - Whereabouts?

Hon. C. F. V AN BUREN - I refer to the Noble Park English Language School, the St Kevin's Parish Community School in Hampton Park, the Reema Preschool in Endeavour Hills, the Maramba Preschool in Fountain Gate, the Coral Park Primary School in Hampton Park and stage 1 of the Eumemmerring Secondary College. Not only has the government built schools but it has also provided funds to upgrade schools in my electorate.

Hon. K. M. Smith - Favouritism for Labor Party members!

Hon. C. F. V AN BUREN - I refer to school upgrading at Dandenong High School, Rosewood Downs, Heather Hill High School and the building of stage 2 at Eumemmerring Secondary College. Is Mr Smith going to tell the people of Berwick and Pakenham that that is favouritism? The Kimer government has the vision for what should be done in education. It will provide the lead in education for the rest of Australia to follow.

What else will be made available by the Supply Bill? The government is building a new police station in Dandenong, which will create 370 jobs. Construction works are going on all the time. The Palm Plaza in my electorate is another example of the government at work with local councils. New shops will mean new businesses are brought to the area. The Dandenong shopping centre is set in a beautiful environment. The government works for the people. It is interested in work, not just glib words like those used by the opposition.

Before I conclude I place on the record that I was outraged by the threat made by the Leader of the Opposition to take away the superannuation rights of Labor MPs. I thought we lived in a democracy. But Mr Kennett believes if you belong to a party you will be penalised. What will be the consequences for other members of the community under a Liberal-National government? What will he do to the ordinary workers? The last dictator to adopt such tactics was Hitler. If one disagrees with the new liberal Leader, one will lose one's right to superannuation or whatever. He will put people in gaol if his orders are not carried out.

Honourable members know about the opposition's attitude towards workers. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Phil Gude, said his answer to industrial disputes would be to bring out the Army.



I am pleased that the Supply Bill will be passed.


Hon. C. F. V AN BUREN - The editorial in the Geelong Advertiser of 24 May sums up the position:

The latest move by the State opposition leader, Mr KeIUlett, to force an election reeks of desperation. Rather than bite the bullet and block Supply, yesterday's threat to deny Labor MPs $15 million in superaIUluation is one from the opposition's' dirty tricks' bag. The Premier, Mrs Kirner, suspects it might be an abuse of privilege ...

Hon. ROSEMARY V ARTY (Nunawading) - On a point of order, Mr Deputy President, again Mr Van Buren seems to be straying a long way from the Supply Bill because he is now talking about remarks attributed to or made by Mr Kennett which have little if any relationship to the Supply debate.

Hon. C. F. V AN BUREN (Eumenunerring) - On the point of order, Mr Deputy President, I was speaking to the Supply Bill. If you recall, Mr Kennett said that if some members of my party did not rat on the government he would knock off my superannuation. That is what he meant by the words he used.

Hon. W. A. LANDERYOU (Doutta Galla) - On the point of order, for a long time it has been the tradition in this House, if not in all Houses that follow the Westminster system, that when Supply Bills are being debated members can range far and wide. It is a contradiction in terms to try to restrict, as Mrs Varty has suggested, any honourable member who wants to address a matter of concern so long as it is relevant to matters of government administration.

I do not believe the point of order is relevant, let alone in order.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! As I have previously ruled, the Supply debate is a wide-ranging debate because it concerns matters of expenditure, not simply the provision of money. I have been listening carefully to what Mr Van Buren has had to say. When the point of order was raised he was discussing the issue of superannuation - and that, of course, is an item of expenditure.

While he was doing that he referred to comments made by other persons such as the Leader of the Opposition in the other place. However, at this stage I rule that Mr Van Buren is in order, and I invite him to continue to speak on the Bill.

Hon. C. F. V AN BUREN (Eumenunerring) - The superannuation issue is of concern not only to me but to all workers: everyone in the State is concerned about superannuation, which was the point I was making that caused Mrs Varty to get upset.

At a meeting I attended on Sunday I spoke to a union person who asked me whether he would be affected because his union had a superannuation trust fund and everything seemed to be all right. I said to him, "Remember, if this can happen to people like me, what will happen to workers' superannuation?" If a coalition government gained control of both Houses workers' superannuation would be affected. They are the facts of life.

CRIMES LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) (,ILL


Hon.. K. M. Smith - They are not the facts of life.

Hon. C. F. V AN BUREN - If a coalition government intends to do that to members of Parliament, what will it do to workers who refuse to toe the line?

Hon. K. M. Smith interjected.

Hon. C. F. V AN BUREN - In summary, a coalition government - -


The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon. K. I. M. Wright) - Order! As I understand it Mr Van Buren is about to conclude his remarks. Members of the opposition will have ample opportunity to elaborate on the matters they are interjecting about, some of which are not relevant to what Mr Van Buren is talking about.

Hon. C. F. V AN BUREN - In conclusion, I shall quote from the editorial in the Geelong Advertiser of 24 May, which says:

What other draconian measures, for instance, might a Premier Kennett deploy against others -and the public - if they pose a threat to his power? And power is the key word in this whole controversy. Mr Kennett appears more obsessed with winning it than he does with tackling the many problems facing Victoria. The glaring proof of this is his abject failure to flesh out his power bid with any real policies.

The fact of life is that the opposition has no policies. My concern about the superannuation issue is that if I can be threatened I wonder what will happen to workers' superannuation, because superannuation is fundamental to people's security.

On that note, I support the Supply (1991-92, No. 1) Bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. M. T. TEHAN (Central Highlands).

Debate adjourned until later this day.

CRIMES LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL

Second reading

Hon. M. A. L YSTER (Minister for Health) - I move:

That this Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill contains a number of measures which will enhance the operation of the criminal justice system. Its major components are as follows:

1. To enable the provisions in the Crimes Act on the taking of blood samples from suspects to continue to operate, and to make other amendments to those provisions and related fingerprinting provisions;

2. To establish the position of a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1982;

3. To abolish the common-law year-and-a-day rule; and



4. T~ amend Schedule 5 of the Magistrates Court Act 1989 with respect to time limits applicable to criminal proceedings.

BLOOD SAMPLES

In 1989 the Crimes Act was amended to regulate the circumstances in which police may obtain blood samples from suspects for criminal investigation purposes. Blood samples obtained under the Act are used for DNA profiling to establish or confirm the identity of offenders. The DNA composition of blood taken from a suspect is compared with a DNA profile taken from organic material found at the scene of the crime which is likely to be from the person who committed the offence.

The amendments were based on recommendations of the consultative committee on police powers of investigation, which was chaired by Mr Justice Coldrey in his former capacity as Director of Public Prosecutions. This report was part of the committee's ongoing review of police powers. Early in 1989 the committee produced a summary of its recommendations on the taking of body samples. These recommendations and a draft Bill were circulated for public comment. The Bill that was finally enacted was based on the extensive consultation undertaken that year, and on the committee's final report which was released in September 1989.

The committee recommended that if a person suspected of committing an indictable offence refuses to consent to a procedure in certain circumstances a court may order that the person provide the body sample. The recommendations related to a wide range of body samples and procedures, including physical examinations, the taking of samples of hair, swabs and residues from the body, fingernail scrapings and blood samples.

Consultation on the proposals revealed wide community concern about the introduction of such compulsory procedures. The procedures can be seen as an unwarranted invasion of a suspect's person and dignity. In addition, the Coldrey committee was divided on the question of whether it is permissible to allow reasonable force to be used to obtain a sample pursuant to a court order where a suspect continues to refuse to provide a sample. The other option was to allow a court to draw an adverse inference from the suspect's failure to cooperate.

The advantages and disadvantages of each option were weighed carefully by the government, and it decided to support the reasonable force option. However, as a result of this decision and the general concerns raised the government determined that the amendments would be confined to blood samples and would authorise a compulsory procedure only in relation to a limited range of serious offences.

The opposition shared the government's concern not to act in haste in this area. It suggested the inclusion of a sunset clause in the Bill which was to operate one year after commencement of the relevant provisions. If this sunset clause is not repealed the provisions relating to the taking of blood samples from suspects in the Crimes Act will cease to operate on 1 June 1991.



Victoria Police has advised that, of the samples taken voluntarily between the commencement of the provisions in June 1990 and March 1991, 66 have been provided by persons suspected of committing rape or aggravated rape. Forty-seven samples have been taken with consent from persons suspected of committing murder or attempted murder. Nine applications for court orders have been made. As the provisions have been in operation only since June 1990 there has not been sufficient time for many cases involving the taking of samples under the Act to be dealt with by the courts. However, it is clear that Victoria Police has made use of the prOvisions of the Act in investigating these serious offences against the person. On this basis the government is prepared to repeal the sunset clause to enable the current provisions to continue in operation.

At present a court order can be obtained only to compel a suspect to provide a sample where the offence in question is murder, manslaughter or a sexual offence. It is proposed to extend the power to all indictable offences against the person as DNA analysis is likely to have a probative value in relation to a range of such serious offences. The extension will apply to offences such as kidnapping, conduct endangering life and causing serious injury. The offence of armed robbery is also to be included.

DNA profiling is a technique which is changing rapidly. A number of different techniques are patented, and questions about the reliability of these methods have yet to be considered in detail by the courts. At present DNA analysis of blood samples appears on the whole to be the most satisfactory way of obtaining identifying evidence. For this reason it is proposed that the compulsory powers will not be expanded to authorise the taking of other body samples. This means that the common law will continue to regulate this area. Police may lawfully obtain such samples only with the consent of the suspect.

A blood sample may be taken from a suspect who gives his or her informed consent. "Consent" can be given only by persons who have capacity. This will involve appreciating the effects of the consent, and include an understanding of the nature and consequences of the procedure, and of one's rights.

An application may be made to the Magistrates Court for an order only when a suspect refuses to provide a sample. A question arises, however, where a person without capacity does not refuse but, for example, purports to consent. This may occur where the suspect is mer'tally impaired to such an extent as to be incapable of legally consenting. The Bill remedies this defect by providing that a court may consider whether to make an order in such a case.

The amendment is intended to cover cases of incapacity as a result of a mental impairment, such as intellectual disability, mental illness, brain damage or senile dementia. It is not intended to apply to a person who suffers from a temporary incapacity, for example, due to intoxication. In such a case police should wait until the person regains his or her capacity and then ascertain whether the person wishes to consent to the procedure.

These amendments will complement recent changes made to the instructions by the Chief Commissioner of Police to police officers on dealing with intellectually-impaired



suspects. These instructions provide that an independent person is to be present whenever an intellectually impaired person is being interviewed or is requested to provide fingerprints or a blood sample. Where such a person is considered incapable of consenting a court order may be sought, if appropriate. The Public Advocate is then to be contacted. The amendments in this Bill are consistent with and will reinforce these procedures.

To ensure consistency the Bill also amends the equivalent provisions in the Crimes Act dealing with fingerprinting. The amendments will place impaired persons incapable of consenting in the same situation as children, where a blood sample or fingerprints can be taken only under a court order. A similar protective regime should apply to impaired persons.

AMENDMENTS TO THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ACT 1982

The Bill amends the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1982 by creating the poSition of a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions. The director is to be empowered to delegate any of his or her functions to the deputy. This is necessary to ensure the proper administration of the office during the director's temporary absence to appear on behalf of the Crown in court. It is also consistent with the establishment of deputies or associates in other States and in the Commonwealth.

ABRCX;A TION OF THE YEAR-ANO-A-DA Y RULE

There is a common-law rule in Victoria that for a homicide charge to succeed against an accused, the victim must die within a year and a day after the infliction of the injury that caused the death. This rule has existed for many centuries. Its origins can probably be traced to the fact that prior to the development of modem medical science it was felt that the lapse of a long period of time between the initial infliction of an injury and the subsequent death of a victim made it impossible to establish whether the accused had actually caused the victim's death.

It is no longer desirable to retain such an arbitrary rule. One illustration of the inadequacy of the rule is the case of the deliberate infection of a person with the AIDS virus. An offender may attack another with a syringe that contains infected blood. As it takes an average of ten years for a person to develop AIDS and as the person may live for some time after this occurs, the year-and-a-day rule currently operates to protect an offender from prosecution for murder. Even in a case of death caused by a severe bashing, the use of life support technology could result in a victim dying after a year and a day from when the attack occurred. It is completely unsatisfactory for an accused to avoid prosecution in such a case.

Last year the New South Wales Parliament enacted legislation to abolish this archaic rule. Other States are reviewing the law in this area. Sufficient scientific expertise is now available to enable juries to consider whether an accused has caused the death of a victim who dies some time after the initial infliction of injury. It is no longer appropriate to prevent juries from considering such cases. The Bill therefore abrogates this outdated common-law rule.



COMMITTAL5

Clauses 15 and 16 of the Fifth Schedule of the Magistrates' Court Act required a committal proceeding to commence within three months - in the case of sexual offences - or six months - in the case of other indictable offences - of the filing of a charge. Subject to limited exceptions, if a committal proceeding had not commenced within the relevant period the court had to order that the defendant not stand trial. The time could be extended but not after the limitation period had expired.

These time limits have something of a history. In 1976 the Rape Offences (Proceedings) Act introduced a requirement that a committal proceeding for rape commenced within three months of the laying of a charge. If it did not the court had to order that the defendant not stand trial unless it found there were special circumstances, in which case it could extend the time limit.

So far as we are advised, that has never resulted in a defendant being ordered not to stand trial because a committal proceeding did not commence within time. During the Committee debate on that legislation the then Attorney-General, Haddon Storey, expressed the hope that by the middle of the following year the time limit specified in the Bill would be the ordinary rule in relation to the hearing of all criminal prosecutions.

In 1988 the Law Reform Commission recommended applying the rape time limit to certain other sexual offences. The introduction of time limits for other offences was endorsed in 1989 by the criminal delay reduction program. A working group of that committee, on which police were represented, recommended that a power to fix by regulation the times from the date of charging within which certain steps must be taken should be provided for in the then proposed Magistrates' Court Act.

Before the commencement of the Act police were generally working to the time standards contained in the Act, bringing sexual offence prosecutions to committal within three months and other offences within five months. However, when the Act commenced on 1 September 1990 several prosecutions were already then out of time. The Magistrates' Court (Amendment) Act revived those prosecutions by recommencing the prosecutions from the date of its assent - 28 November 1990 - and invalidating any orders made that the defendant not stand trial. Further amendments were made to the schedule in the Court.:i (Amendment) Bill to allow the court to extend the time limit and to refrain from ordering the defendant not to stand trial where there were "exceptional circumstances" or where there was 11 another good and sufficient reason".

A further amendment was made in that Bill to deal with a difficulty arising out of the establishment of the committal mention court. A committal mention date is the day on which criminal proceedings that are to be heard by way of committal first come before the court.

The procedure set out in clauses 15 and 16 of Schedule 5 was amended by the Courts (Amendment) Act, commencing 1 January 1991, so that: the court could fix an extension of time outside the original time limit where it believed there were exceptional circumstances or other good and sufficient reason which warrant it doing so, and in such



circumstances the court was not required to order that the defendant not stand trial; and, the colllll'iittal proceeding commenced on the committal mention date.

Some magistrates have recently ruled that those amendments do not apply to prosecutions commenced between September and December 1990 and therefore a person charged during that time had to have the full committal hearing as opposed to the committal mention within the time limit, not simply the committal mention date. That ruling is presently subject to appeal in the Supreme Court.

It was always the intention that the amendment would affect all committal proceedings irrespective of whether the date of commencement of the proceedings to which they relate was before or after 1 January 1991. That intention still applies and is reinforced by this Bill.

Clause 17 of this Bill inserts a new clause after clause 14 of Schedule 8 to the Magistrates' Court Act 1989. Schedule 8 contains the transitional provisions.

Clause 15(1) "restarts the clock" for all proceedings commenced before 1 June 1991. It provides that for the purposes of clauses 15(8)(A) and 16(1)(A) of Schedule 5 a proceeding for an offence that commenced before 1 June 1991 must be taken to commence on 1 June 1991.

Subclause 15(2) states that clause 15(1) is intended not to affect the validity of:

(a)· an order committing a defendant for trial; or

(b) an order discharging a defendant in respect of an offence;

where that order was made before 1 June 1991 at a committal proceeding. This provision is intended to forestall any challenge to the validity of orders which have already been made under a system of time limits which is subsequently declared by this Bill not to have applied.

Subclause 15(3) provides that an existing order that the defendant not stand trial is of no effect and is to be taken never to have had any effect. We know of a number of cases in which the defendant currently has an order that he shall not stand trial. In each of these cases we believe the order was made before the substance of the committal proceeded. These cases will now recommence on 1 June and be dealt with under the normal rules applying after that date.

Clause 18 of the Bill inserts two new provisions into clauses 15 and 16 of Schedule 5 of the Magistrates' Court Act. Subclauses 15(8)(b) and 16(1)(b) allow a court to extend the time in which a committal must commence (if it has not commenced within time) when it is satisfied "that in the interests of justice a longer period should be fixed ... because of the existence of exceptional circumstances or another good and sufficient reason". These provisions were inserted by the Courts (Amendment) Act 1990.

During the consideration of those amendments in the Committee of this House last year I gave some indication as to what was intended to be covered by the phrase" exceptional circumstances or other good and sufficient reason". I noted that the loss of a file and other

CRIMES LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) P,ILL

Thursday, 30 May 1991 COUNCIL

similar sorts of administrative errors may, if not exceptional, be a good and sufficient reason to extend the time limit.

1959

Another example of what may constitute exceptional circumstances or another good and sufficient reason arises in the context of less serious indictable offences which may be heard summarily. The court normally assumes that such cases will proceed as summary hearings rather than by way of committal, but this cannot happen without the defendant's consent. Where a case does not come on for a summary hearing until after the time limit expires and the defendant then refuses to consent to have a summary hearing, the case would be out of time for a committal. It is in those circumstances that a court would be expected to grant an extension of time.

The government is of the view that in considering these issues the court should have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the seriousness of the offence and the overall interests of justice. Where extremely serious charges are involved competing considerations would need to be extremely compelling for a court to order a defendant not to stand trial. While it is our view that such issues can be and are considered under the present wording of clauses 15(9) and 16(2), this provision is inserted for the avoidance of any doubt.

Because new clause 15(1) of Schedule 8 restarts the clock in relation to all offences for which proceedings commenced before 1 June 1991, the court will be obliged to take the "seriousness of the offence and the overall interests of justice" into account in every matter which comes before it after that date.

Clause 19 inserts a new clause 17 into Schedule 5 of the Magistrates' Court Act. New clause 17(1) provides that an order that the defendant not stand trial does not take away from the power of the Director of Public Prosecutions to proffer a direct presentment. The present formulation "shall order that the defendant not stand trial for the offence" is drawn directly from the provisions which have applied to rape prosecutions since 1976. It is unclear why that form of words was used as opposed to an order that the defendant be discharged. There is a view that the present wording may not preclude direct presentment, although the better view would appear to be that it does. This amendment makes it clear that a direct presentment is not precluded.

Subclause 17(2) provides that where an order has been made that the defendant not stand trial, direct presentment may be made only with the leave of the trial court. The requirement of leave is intended to prevent the use of the direct presentment procedure from becoming a matter of routine. Its effect is to get the matter before the trial court, which will then exercise a general discretion to allow the DPP to proceed on the basis of the circumstances of the particular case.

Subclause 17(3) makes it clear that the seriousness of the offence and the overall interests of justice are factors which the trial court is to take into account when considering whether or not to allow a direct presentment to proceed. Subclause 17(4) makes it clear that the power of direct presentment applies whether an order that a person not stand trial was made before or after 1 June 1991.



These am~ndments are necessary because of the difficulties which have accompanied the introduction of committal time limits. The restarting of time limits will provide a further opportunity for systems to be put in place to ensure that the time limit requirements are understood and complied with. To ensure that this happens, the Attorney-General has agreed to establish a high level implementation committee to provide close monitoring of the operation of the system and to provide early warning of potential problems before they arise.

CONCLUSION

The Bill makes a number of important amendments to crime-related legislation. It will also repeal the sunset clause in the Crimes (Blood Samples) Act 1989. This clause must be repealed before 1 June 1991 to allow the blood samples provisions in the Crimes Act to continue in operation. I therefore request that the House gives this Bill its urgent consideration today.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Hon. J. V. C. GUEST (Monash) - The Crimes Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill has a unifying fact associated with it: the sloppy administration and inattention to detail of the Attorney-General, whose role in Parliament is quite eVidently the pretender to the Premiership rather than the first law officer of the Crown.

Hon. W. A. Landeryou interjected.

Hon.J. V. C. GUEST -So far as I can understand him Mr Landeryou says Mr Kennan is doing a pretty good job in achieving the Premiership for a short period. Not only is he doing that but he is not doing his job as Attorney-General. This proposed legislation is the result of bad drafting in the past and the inattention to detail in Bills that the Attorney-General brings forward - as a result of poor staff work and poor administration - and a failure to ensure that the relevant people are informed about the legislation they are required to take part in administering.

It is now quite evident that resort is being made to the innovation of the past ten years or so which requires the courts in interpreting the legislation, if necessary, to consider what is said in Parliament. So little confidence has the Attorney-General in this proposed legislation that it is quite obvious that much of the last third or so of the second-reading speech delivered by the Minister for Health was designed to say to the courts, "We may not have got it right yet again, but please take note that this is what we mean".

The second-reading speech has considerable candour about it. This urgent legislation is to ensure that accused persons that the Crown still wishes to prosecute are not discharged by the misadventures of administration that have largely already been described.

We have provisions amending the Magistrates' Court Act concerning committal time limits. The second-reading speech says:

These amendments are necessary because of the difficulties which have accompanied the introduction of committal time limits. The restarting of time limits will provide a further



opportunity for systems to be put in place to ensure that the time limits requirements are understood and complied with.

1961

It should have happened months ago; proper notices in police stations and circulars sent out in simple language were required. It goes on:

To ensure that this happens, the Attorney-General has agreed to establish a high level implementation committee to provide close monitoring of the operation of the system and to prOVide early warning of potential problems before they arise.

The form of words used is interesting: the Attorney-General has agreed to a high level implementation committee. The Attorney-General, who failed to institute a high level implementation committee when those innovations were introduced last year, has now agreed under pressure that his administration is no good and he needs a high level implementation committee. The words provided for the Minister for Health to read to the House indicate that agreement.

I invite honourable members to consider again the internal evidence of the problems surrounding the proposed legislation. One of the suggestions made by plaintiffs to the courts about how they should read the legislation this time around is that they should find a good reason for making an exception to rules designed to protect defendants and to ensure proper diligence by police officers and other prosecutors about the loss of a file. It might be a good and sufficient reason to extend the time limit.

I invite honourable members to picture the situation in the Attorney-General's Department where officers of the department are so conscious of the likelihood that files will go missing that they have to tell the courts such a circumstance will prevent so many prosecutions getting off the ground that they must make provision for it.

Hon. M. A. lyster - That was a matter raised by the police!

Hon. J. V. C. GUEST - The Minister for Health suggests that the police raised the matter.

Hon. M. A. lyster - It was raised by the police when the debate was conducted last year.

Hon. J. V. C. GUEST - The administrative efficiency was a matter for the government.

I have made some remarks about the additions to the legislation. The Bill is urgent because of the administrative deficiencies of the Attorney-General. Tomorrow the time limit set by Parliament on the Crimes (Blood Samples) Act runs out. The sunset provision was insisted on because the compulsory taking of blood samples was rightly thought by this Parliament to be a fairly important legislative innovation and something touching on the liberty of individuals that should be looked at carefully.

I pause to give credit to Mr Chamberlain who first introduced a private member's Bill with the support of other members of the opposition. Two or three years ago his Bill was



resisted by the government but it gave rise to the eventual enactment of the Crimes (Blood Samples) Act 1989.

Hon. W. R. Baxter - He was absolutely condemned by Mr Kennan at that time!

Hon. B. A. Chamberlain - And he said it would never be allowed to happen.

Hon. J. V. C. GUEST - As Mr Chamberlain and Mr Baxter have said, the Attorney-General condemned Mr Chamberlain and said that it would never be allowed to happen. He said that with his civil libertarian' s hat on - never mind what words he uses or how he plays the part; he looks good in his civil libertarian' s hat, which is just one of the hats he wears.

Now the Attorney-General comes back with proposed legislation that extends the original legislation enacted more than a year ago to allow blood samples to be taken compulsorily in the case of certain serious offences. To cover up his deficiencies he introduces the legislation on 7 May, short of the usual raft of amendments he customarily brings forward during the course of the passage of legislation.

The Attorney-General introduced the Bill on 7 May and said it is very urgent. When the opposition sensibly required a couple of weeks - as usual - to consult with interested bodies and experts on the various matters raised by the Bill, the Attorney-General issued a press release condemning the opposition for threatening the procedures in respect of prosecutions for serious offences. He managed to stir up considerable anxiety, and, indeed, indignation among some people in Geelong who are concerned particularly about a vicious murder that was committed there. The Attorney-General quite irresponsibly misrepresented the opposition's position.

I make it clear that the opposition supports the extension of the blood samples legislation. We are making a point of ensuring that the essential parts of the Bill pass today so that no prosecutions can possibly be said to fail because we have not provided for the legislation to be extended. The opposition welcomes some of the detail of the blood samples legislation as contained in the Bill. It makes provision that is proper for a court order in the case of a person who is mentally impaired; that is, a person suffering from brain damage or intellectual disability and so on. Such a person's consent will be genuine consent if it is his or her consent; if he or she is incapable of giving consent the protection of a court order is available for taking a blood sample or, indeed, fingerprints.

The opposition is not enthusiastic about the newfound enthusiasm of the Attorney-General for extending the legislation to relatively minor offences. As I read the proposed legislation, it relates to alleged offences such as concealment of the birth of a child; or possibly in the case of a twelve-year-old who has got into a scuffle after school and raised a fist to another, a court would be able to order that a blood sample be taken compulsorily.

The provisions are naturally of considerable concern to all of us who do not wish any compulsion or force to be used unnecessarily on anybody and particularly dislike the idea of invasive proceedings. When the taking of a blood sample is visualised as two



large police persons holding down someone so that a needle can be inserted, it becomes unattractive indeed.

Members of the medical profession are generally against being put in that position. Their attitude is understandable and highly desirable and they should not be compelled to do it.

Experience with the legi.slation is that, of the 153 cases that have arisen since the original legislation was passed, only nine required orders to be made for blood samples to be taken. In every other case consent was given and in two cases the consent was given when it became apparent that an order might be sought.

Police surgeons are exclusively or almost exclusively the persons who take the blood samples. To the extent that there is an ethical problem for the medical profession or for those of us who would like to think our own GP would not take a blood sample without our actually requesting him or her to do so, there is some isolation, some quarantining of that dilemma.

Hon. M. A. Lyster - They didn't need to use force even in those cases with court orders. Eventually those people were compliant.

Hon. J. V. C. GUEST - It is good to hear from the Minister what one might expect -that on the whole people would prefer not to be held down while a needle is being inserted into them.

Nonetheless, this is the sort of legislation one has to take seriously, as it applies to individuals. It does not surprise me that the Attorney-General in a government which has introduced the community protection legislation should have now lost his sensibilities and found it easy to extend legislation that he originally opposed so that it applies even to people alleged to have committed relatively minor offences.

In short, the opposition supports part of the Bill enthusiastically, and in relation to the taking of blood samples and body samples it gives cautious assent.

The opposition will amend the Bill to delete certain other provisions. One of those provisions is the appointment of a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions. The main objection to this provision is. the costly and inefficient administration of the Attorney-General's Department. The costs recorded in the Budget Papers for the previous year almost double the estimates provided for the operation of the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions. The opposition sees no reason to add to the existing ability of an acting director, invariably a highly competent person, to act when the director is for any reason not available.

We see no reason to add a highly paid deputy when other excellent professional people - solicitors employed within the department who do a great deal of excellent work already - are available, should it be necessary for the Director of Public Prosecutions himself to be in court for a considerable time.

However, even if he is in court for a considerable time he is not in court for 12 hours a day; he is not incapable of having conferences like any other barrister who looks at other



matters before or after court and determining whether the work has been done satisfactorily by his subordinate professionals.

As Mr Chamberlain says, by interjection, the role of Director of Public Prosecutions is not just to be in court. Indeed, that should be a minor part of his role. It is quite understandable that he would not wish to lose his forensic skills or let them go rusty. In a jurisdiction where it is no longer usual for the Attorney-General to be an active court advocate - it is quite understandable that he may be occasionally the advocate for the Crown in important appeals - it is inevitable that he has an administrative job to do, involving many cases, and considering them in relation to each other. He must form judgments and develop consistent policies, which can hardly be done on the run, after appearing in court day after day, giving his full attention to the conduct of the cases in court.

As many honourable members would know, appearing in court - and just as many solicitors as barristers in this Chamber have appeared in court - is a taxing business. One does not come out of a day arguing a case in court feeling as fresh as one felt in the morning, and it is not something one would hope the Director of Public Prosecutions would be doing more than occasionally.

Hon. M. A. Lyster - So you would prefer to have an assistant director?

Hon. J. V. C. GUEST - The Bill also provides for an acting director, and some of the senior people available to serve in that office are excellent.

The other provision opposed by the opposition at this stage is the year-and-a-day provision in clause 4. The reasons for making it possible in future to prosecute someone for murder where the person has died more than a year-and-a-day after the Act which is alleged to have brought about the death relate to so few cases and are so lacking in recognition of the difficulties that I wonder whether we will ever see this proposal back again.

Currently the opposition is waiting on a report from the Law Reform Commission. We have been led to believe that the commission is considering whether the year-and-a-day rule should be abolished, and it is certainly a matter of amazement to us that the Attorney-General should, in his usual cavalier and careless way, introduce the proposal without waiting for a solidly researched report.

Hon. M. A. Lyster - Has it been a problem in New South Wales?

Hon. J. V. C. GUEST - I think the Minister said, "Has there been a problem in New South Wales?" I think she is suggesting that in New South Wales the rule has been abolished and it creates problems.

Hon. M. A. Lyster - I am asking whether it has.

Hon. J. V. C. GUEST - The reason for changing a law made by the government is so that it will improve something and the example of the AIDS case is ridiculous. Who will infect another person with AIDS? Almost certainly someone who, himself, is suffering or



has the HIV virus. So far as medical knowledge can tell us so far, that person will not be in a condition or indeed will not be alive to be charged with murder in five or ten years time.

Hon. D. E. Henshaw - A carrier can live for years and years!

Hon. J. V. C. GUEST -It is hardly likely to be a deterrent to that sort of person.

Hon. B. A. Chamberlain - What do you do with the assailant in the meantime?

HOIl. J. V. C. GUEST - I cannot hear the various interjections but I will develop the argument: that eliminates some of the cases but let us suppose that somehow or other someone has obtained a needle which can reliably infect somebody else with the HIV virus and the first person actually jabs it into the other person. What will happen in the meantime? Is it seriously suggested that the person who stabbed the other will not be charged with a serious offence? All of these cases constitute another serious objection to the provision. All of the cases of delayed death where a charge of murder or manslaughter might be considered are cases where proof is difficult. What caused the death? In an AIDS case, clearly it would be subject to legal argument that the death was caused by an adventitious infection of some kind or other, such as pneumonia.

It would be far easier to prove many years later that the causation of the precondition for the failure of the system was the HIV virus. In a hypothetical case of someone whose life support system was removed after a year and a day, who can possibly expect a jury to say that the death was caused by the original blow or injuries and that somehow life was preserved for this year and a day or more? At the very best one would find enormous difficulties of proof. Surely justice would be best served by a serious charge being brought long before a year and a day is up. What happens if a serious charge is brought and a person has been in gaol for several years? Will that person, several years later, be charged with murder for the same offence?

One is talking about circumstances that are so remote and unlikely that Parliament should wait for the Law Reform Commission to make its recommendation.

The Bill has four main elements to it: one relates to blood samples, which the opposition supports; one relates to the appointment of a Deputy Director of Prosecutions, which the opposition will oppose; one relates to the year-and-a-day rule, which the opposition will oppose, and the other relates to fixing up the mess that the government has made over the committal period, which the opposition will support with the proviso that it will not wish the courts to read the report of the second-reading debate and conclude that whatever the Minister has said is a good reason for enacting the legislation is indeed a good reason to be taken into account by the courts when deciding what exceptional circumstances and good or insufficient reasons are.

Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western) - The Bill, as its title indicates, deals with a number of miscellaneous amendments that have been covered by my colleague Mr Guest, and during the Committee stage I shall speak to a number of the proposed amendments that my colleague will move.



The House will recall the initial reaction of the Attorney-General to the proposal to take blood samples which I put forward in 1986 during the debate on the Crimes (Police Powers of Investigation) Bill. The proposals I introduced at that time to improve the powers of the police to investigate crime included the power to require people to state their names and addresses. That has not happened yet. Chicken inspectors, dog inspectors, dog catchers and just about anyone else - even a parking attendant - can ask for someone's name and address, but police have no such powers. The Bill included the power of fingerprinting, and that is now a general power. It included the power to provide for medical examinations, including obtaining body samples. Again legislation was passed last year that went part of the way towards achieving that aim.

The ability to conduct interception of telecommunications was also included as a provision of my 1986 private member's Bill. No way was the government going to be involved in that! Parliament legislated in concert with the Commonwealth Parliament on that issue about three years ago.

When I put forward the proposal that forensic examination could be important in helping to solve crime the then Attorney-General, who is now again the Attorney-General, threw up his hands in horror and said there was no way he would ever agree to the invasion of the bodies of individuals by the taking of body samples.

He also said that forensic evidence was only valuable in solving approximately 2 per cent of all crimes. It is interesting to compare that statement which he made in this House vigorously with the fact that in the short time the power to fingerprint has been in operation, since early 1990, it has been used quite vigorously by the police. In the nine months it has been utilised on 153 occasions. On an annual basis that is 204. For a power that the Attorney-General said was virtually useless and should not be resorted to, over a relatively short period it has been vigorously used.

As an analytical tool DNA testing is becoming more and more important. It is important not just for connecting the suspect with the crime, but it is also important in exculpating people who had nothing to do with the crime. The figures provided by the government indicate that on sixteen occasions the use of blood samples specifically exculpated a person from connection with the crime. That is very important. The crimes for which blood samples were important were serious crimes: rape, rape with aggravated circumstances, sexual penetration and murder. Again the proposals in the Bill will expand that category of crime considerably, as Mr Guest pointed out, to a range of crimes which many people would not regard as serious.

It is interesting to reflect once again that the government is trying to catch up with the opposition, which set out the game plan five years ago and the government is now catching up.

The coalition supports elements of the Bill and because of the sunset clause which expires tomorrow will naturally support its passage, but it is not happy to support other provisions in the Bill which Mr Guest has outlined and which will be outlined in greater detail during the Committee stage.



The PRESIDENT - Order! Before I put the question that the Bill be now read a second time, in another place absolute majorities were sought and obtained on the second and third readings. On an examination of the Bill I see no reason for such a need; however, for the sake of consistency and to avoid the possibility of doubt I direct that the bells be rung so that we may see as a matter of interest whether an absolute majority exists.

Bells rung.

Required number of members having assembled in Chamber:

Motion agreed to by absolute majority.

Read second time.

Committed.

Clause 1

Committee

Hon. J. V. C. GUEST (Monash) - I move:

1. Clause 1, page 2, lines 3 to 9, omit paragraphs (d) and (e).

2. Clause 1, page 2, line 10, omit "(E)" and insert "(d)".

These are simply consequential on the proposal to delete clause 4 and clauses 11 to 16 and to amend clause 10. These prOVisions relate to the year-and-a-day rule and the appointment of a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions.

The CHAIRMAN - Order! It would be in order for Mr Guest to canvass those now.

Hon. J. V. C. GUEST - I think I canvassed them sufficiently in the debate on the second reading of the Bill, Mr Chairman. However, my colleague Mr Chamberlain has a great knowledge of aspects of this Bill and may want to say more. By and large I will leave it to what I have already said.

Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Westem) - I should like to deal with the issue of the year-and-a-day rule which appears in clause l(e). I should like an explanation from the Minister for Health, even though she might accept the amendment. With the year-and-a-day rule - that is, the concept that, to constitute the crime of murder, death must occur within a year and a day of the assault.

It goes back many centuries and in retrospect our forebears did a good job in setting any sort of time limit. As I understand it, the government's view is that where causation between the assault and the death can be established, the year and a day is just an arbitrary limit and should not preclude the assailant from being charged with murder.

If I assault somebody and that person is comatose for eighteen months and then dies directly as a result of the assault, most honourable members would agree that that should be treated as if it were murder.



Hon. M. A. Lyster - Isn't that why we are removing it?

Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN - I am going to point out the difficulties. Let us assume the person is comatose not for one or two years but for six or seven years - or one can take the Minister's own example of the infection with an AIDS virus where a person may never die or may die ten or so years after. In that sort of case what do you do with the assailant? Honourable members will remember we recently amended the Health Act to provide a specific offence of deliberately infecting someone with the AIDS virus.

In relation to an assault with a deadly weapon or some other assault there are a whole series of existing crimes which would be met by those circumstances. The question is, if you do not charge the person with murder because the victim has not died, what do you charge him or her with?

If you charge a person with some other offence such as assault with a deadly weapon and that person is convicted and serves time in gaol, what do you do after that period of time? Is it possible to charge the person with another crime arising out of exactly the same set of circumstances? In briefing the opposition members on this issue, the briefing officers assured us that there were authorities which would indicate that, if death did subsequently occur, the assailant could be charged with murder, even though he may have served a term in gaol for assault with a deadly weapon or some other series of offences.

Will the government say how it intends to handle those sorts of issues in the event of this provision being passed?

Hon. J. V. C. GUEST (Monash) - I told the Minister that I would answer a concern she expressed to me after I spoke on the second reading of the Bill. I said that the opposition could not be taken to agree with every one of the reasons expressed by the Minister relating to the Bill. I make particular reference to a statement in the second-reading speech.

I noted that the loss of a file and other similar sorts of administrative errors would be, if not exceptional, a good and sufficient reason to extend the time limit. I mentioned it in connection with what I took to be administrative sloppiness, but I also mentioned it in connection with the reasons that might be regarded as sufficient for a court to allow the prosecution to continue.

I make it clear that the opposition does not want to stop prosecutions on technicalities, but it does not want to allow this government, on two days notice and without any opportunity for the opposition to consider the matter, to insert something into the law simply on the basis of a statement in a second-reading speech. The Minister raised the possibility of the loss of a file at the time of the government's last effort to legislate on this matter, and if that should occur, no doubt the courts could give it proper consideration.

I emphasise that it is rather artificial to suppose that all members of this Parliament have given detailed consideration to every Bill. It is a particularly outrageous departure from the facts to suppose that, on less than two days notice, the opposition, which, on balance,



supports some parts of the proposed legislation, should be taken as supporting all the reasons put in the second-reading speech.

That properly puts the matter in perspective. I also add that I am not aware that the courts, if given a discretion, would take much notice of the Minister's second-reading speech or any other speeches when exercising that discretion to decide what is a good and sufficient reason, when it is to them that a broad discretion has been given.

1969

It is still rather the rule that courts should look to speeches in Parliament to resolve real ambiguities and real difficulties in making some sense of legislation. In some cases it would not even be a case of ambiguities, but provisions to which it might be very difficult to give a meaning to at all or to determine what might have been in the minds of its proponents.

Hon. M. A. L YSTER (Minister for Health) - These amendments foreshadow the amendments that will be moved by Mr Guest in the course of the Committee. The government will be opposing those amendments. I shall refer Mr Chamberlain's question to the Attorney-General for his response.

Hon. B. A. ChamberlCl;in - We were supposed to have a response before this Bill was called on.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 4


3. Clause 4, omit this clause.

Clause negatived.

Clauses 5 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10


4. Clause 10, lines 8 and 9, omit "5, 6, 7 and 8" and insert "4, 5, 6 and 7".

This amendment is simply consequential upon the removal of clause 4.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Part heading preceding clause 11


5. Part heading preceding Clause 11, omit this heading.

1his is also a consequential amendment.



Amendment agreed to; Part heading negatived.

Clauses 11 to 16

Hon.J. V. C. GUEST (Monash) -I move:

Clauses 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, omit these clauses.

These clauses relate to the office of the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions. I have already given the reasons for the coalition's opposition to those clauses.

Clauses negatived.

Part heading preceding clause 17


12. Part heading preceding clauses 17, omit "5" and insert" 4".

Again, this is a consequential amendment.

Amendment agreed to; amended Part heading agreed to; clauses 17 to 19 agreed to.

Long title

Hon. J. V. C. GUEST (Monash) - 1 move:

13. Long title, omit "and the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1982".

This is also a consequential amendment.

Amendment agreed to; amended long title agreed to.

Reported to House with amendments, including amended long title.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Hon. M. A. L YSTER (Minister for Health) - 1 move:

That this Bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT - Order! 1 direct that the bells be rung.

Bellsnmg.

Members having assembled in Chamber:

The PRESIDENT - Order! The question is:

That this Bill be now read a third time.



To enable me to ascertain whether an absolute majority exists for that proposition, I invite honourable members supporting the third reading of the Bill to rise in their places.

Required number of members having risen:


Read third time.


(ANCILLARY PROVISIONS, 1991-92, No.l) BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from earlier this day; motions of Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development).

Hon. M. T. TEHAN (Central Highlands) - The Supply Bill that the House is debating this afternoon comes at OI\e of the most critical times in both the economic and social history of Victoria. Never in the history of Victoria have the economics of the State been at such a low ebb. Never has the Supply Bill been introduced in a period or at a time of such dire economic problems and with such lack of public support and confidence.

A huge majority of the public does not want this government to continue to govern. There has been widespread support for the idea of blocking this Bill and forcing an early election. Unfortunately there are other constitutional constraints which the government would not take upon itself to remove, so we are forced to accept this Bill for the time being. However, let me put it in context.

Over the past twelve months, and certainly since the 1988 election, we have seen a downgrading for Victoria by the international ratings authorities on two occasions. Twice Victoria has had the embarrassment and the ignominy of being told that Australian Ratings and International Ratings believe that we do not have sufficient control of the economy or the criteria that are needed to be able to sustain the rating that it held for many years.

We have unemployment figures that are as bad as we should ever hope to see them again. In 1982 the unemployment rate in Victoria was 6.1 per cent. In April 1991 it was 10.7 per cent - an increase of 4.6 per cent over the past nine years. The rate of 10.7 per cent is the highest unemployment rate seen in this State since the war, and hopefully the highest unemployment rate we will see for some time to come, but I doubt it.

The recession affecting Victoria has not yet plummeted to its depths; we are still to see higher unemployment rates. They impact on country Victoria, which currently has an unemployment rate of 8.4 per cent. Unemployment among people aged between fifteen and nineteen years is 27.4 per cent.

SUPPLY (1991-92, No. I) BILL and WORKS AND SERVICES


Earlier I spoke of the economic fabric of the State and the social environment into which the Supply Bill has been introduced. One has only to consider the domestic problems caused by the recession to realise that the youth unemployment rate will affect the fabric of the entire society. All honourable members will have some knowledge of a young person who is out of work. They will know of a young person with all the vitality, knowledge, skills and desires to work, contribute and prove what he can do who is languishing because he is not being given that opportunity.

I have spoken before in this House about a single advertisement placed in a suburban newspaper for a job at a Macdonald's restaurant for which more than 3000 young people applied. I know what it is like for young people to continue to apply for jobs, write curriculum vitaes, wait with bated breath for appointments and to go to interviews and be turned away. I know what happens when that occurs four or five times: young people lose their confidence, their self-esteem and their will to keep trying. Instead, they stay home and do not get up early in the morning. When they do get up they sit in front of the television. Such a situation creates tension that can destroy families and communities.

If the parents are working and trying to pay the rent or the mortgage and to keep their families clothed and fed, tremendous problems are created if they come home to find young people sitting around having achieved nothing all day. As I said, we are yet to see the final outcome of the high rate of youth unemployment. It is not just a matter of statistics; it has a demeaning and desperate impact on society.

Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show a reduction in Victoria's investment level over the past three months of 22 per cent and an anticipated reduction of 25 per cent over the next three months. The number of bankruptcies in Victoria is at record level and the March Niemeyer report shows spending in excess of revenue amounting to $1069 million for the first nine months of this financial year. The government's expenditure is out of control and is adding to the State's debt.

People know the Auditor-General has announced that the debt of the Budget and non-Budget sectors amounts to $27000 million. They know about the $16 000 million in unfunded superannuation liabilities; they know of $2480 million in unfunded WorkCare liabilities; they know of the losses and liabilities of the Victorian Economic Development Corporation and the liabilities involved in the repurchase of units in the Victorian Equity Trust; they know the State's general indebtedness amounts to $54 153 million, which equals $12 296 for every man, woman and child in Victoria.

My family consists of 2 adults and 6 children - 8 persons. Under that scenario my family is responsible for the payment of approximately $100 000 of Victoria's debt. One can understand the lack of confidence in the government and the lack of willingness to continue to be governed by a party that has plunged Victoria, which was once prosperous and led Australia in retail, business and manufacturing sectors, into the current situation.

If members of the government, especially members of the Cabinet, had been directors of a private or public company and had burdened each of their shareholders with a debt of



$12 296, they would be answerable to the shareholders. They would be brought before a meeting and asked to explain and they would be voted out of the corporate sector. One has only to consider the fate of John Spalvins and Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd. He no longer heads the company he took to its glorious heights because he was forced to resign. Members of the government have no intention of resigning and they cry, "Foul, foul" when it is suggested that they should be held responsible for the position in which they have placed the State and its economy.

It was interesting to hear Mr Hallam point out the defects in the Supply Bill. Not only has it been introduced in an absolutely appalling economic climate but it is an absolute insult to the government and certainly to Parliament. The Supply Bill prOVides the money for this Parliament to allow - I add the word "reluctantly" - the government to continue to operate for the first four months of the new financial year.

As Mr Hallam explained, a precise amount of money is to be allocated for the four months. It is usual that 33 per cent of the Supply necessary for the financial year is made available in the Supply Bill. When Mr Hallam examined the Bill he found instances where the current expenditure was double the accepted rate of 33 per cent. Mr Hallam referred to the arts budget, Programs Nos 142, 143 and 144, which has a recurrent expenditure of 65.5 per cent of the 1990-91 Budget. When Mr Hallam looked for an explanation of that in the Supply Bill he could not find any details. He wrote to the Treasurer for an explanation, but even that was not satisfactory.

Mr Hallam also referred to the Treasurer's budget, Programs Nos 722 to 729. The total recurrent expenditure of those programs is 65.1 per cent of the 1990-91 Budget, 25.1 per cent more than should be the case. Mr Hallam blamed the situation on moneys that need to be paid and should have been accounted for in the Budget being deferred into this Supply period. Mr Hallam alerted honourable members to the danger signals, and I sound the same warnings. The whole Budget process is putting Victorians in the worst possible economic situation, and the Supply Bill is phrased in an underhanded and unsatisfactory way.

[ suggest that this Bill should remain in this House until some satisfactory answers are given to Mr Hallam in respect of the very pertinent and important questions he raised and until it is at least a satisfactory Bill and its passing - and reluctantly we are going to pass it - can be explained to the public.

I turn briefly to the health component of the Supply Bill. In round figures it is $3000 million. It is one of the largest areas of expense for any government, and that is a very large sum of money in anyone's thinking. The Supply Bill contains an allocation of $809 JOO million for the first four months of the next financial year, which is 37.4 per cent of the 1990-91 Budget. One must ask: what is the public getting for that amount of money?

[ have heard the commendable efforts of the opposition indicating to the House and the public that in spite of the $3000 million in the health portfolio there are waiting lists of lust on 28 407 people. Despite all the money going to that area, 28 000 people are still waiting to get into the public hospital system for elective surgery. There are more closed



beds at this time of the year than there were earlier in the year because the hospitals have run out of money. They are given a limited amount of money to spend and the only way they can stay within budget is to close beds and wards.

1 am receiving more and more anecdotal information from each of the major hospitals, who say, "We have had to close this ward until the end of the year". Beds are closed because there are insufficient funds to enable hospitals to treat patients. That is the superficial view. The real problem is that hospital managers do not have the freedom to stay within budget limits. They are constrained by other imperatives which do not allow them to manage within the financial constraints they have been given. The only way they can stay within budget is to close beds and wards.

Morale is at an all-time low in hospitals. Our doctors, nursing staff and specialists are absolutely appalled at the conditions in which they have towork, the constraints being imposed upon them and the lack of proper priorities being given to the health area. They feel the money they are given is totally unsatisfactory.

A professor of medicine at the Royal Melbourne Hospital rang me and said, "1 could treat many more patients if I did not have to have cleaners emptying the waste paper basket three times a day. If it was emptied once a day, there would be more money for patient care. There are cleaners who empty the waste basket three times a day and I have patients who cannot get into wards and beds. We are operating the wards only five days a week but three lots of cleaners come in seven days a week. Some do the floor level, some do up to eye level and the rest do above eye level".

That is inefficiency in the workplace. Money is there but it is not being directed to patient care. Problems of WorkCare have been raised with the Minister in two questions this week and the Minister did not even know that the changes to the regulations will impact severely on hospital funding. She did not seem to know that of the 3.5 per cent levy -not the penalty or "the bonus component of WorkCare but the levy itself - is costing hospitals hundreds of thousands of dollars but what they get back is equivalent to 1.2 per cent of the budget.

Public hospitals are subsidising WorkCare to over 2 per cent of the hospital budget which is just on $2000 million. It is no wonder that WorkCare is not looking so bad. The government can send out quarterly reports and say the unfunded liability is coming down but that is because it is being paid for in a mammoth amount by public hospitals, and they do not have the resources.

The Hospitals Superannuation Fund found its unfunded liability unacceptable. Actuarial advice says they must increase the contribution to the ongoing fund because the liabilities are running far ahead of the moneys being paid in. The hospitals are told they have to pay it.

When 1 last heard of negotiations between the Health Department and hospitals through the Victorian Hospitals' Association Ltd the message was, "You find it yourself; we have no money, so we cannot pay any more towards the public sector Hospitals Superannuation Fund".



Tomorrow the Premier is going to Canberra to seek an amount of $300 million in order to reduce the public sector by 10 000 persons. I suggest that of the 10 000 people, each and every one has been added to the public sector during the lifetime of this government. There has been a massive escalation of public sector employment in the past nine years.

Hon. P. R. Hall -It is 10.4 per cent.

Hon. M. T. TEHAN - Thank you, Mr Hall. Over the past nine years it has risen by 10.4 per cent. That is a huge increase and we cannot afford it. We are in a bind which the coalition has been pointing out for years and which the Premier has recognised at long last. The public sector is bloated and not necessarily giving direct services and we cannot afford it. We cannot afford to pay them and we cannot afford to get rid of them either.

If the Premier does not get approval for an additional $300 million borrowings from the Federal government, what will we do? While she goes and borrows that money who will service it and eventually pay for it? Can we be sure it will be used to fund that reduction of 10 000 people in the public sector?

Recently the Tasman Institute and the Institute of Public Affairs for Project Victoria issued a document called Victoria - An Agenda for Change. The institutes consider a number of things and the chapters of the document are entitled: "Victoria in perspective"; "Sorting out the roles of government and the private sector"; "State Budget sector spending"; "State revenue"; and "Borrowing and the burden of debt".

Chapter 3, entitled "State budget sector spending", examines health services. It contains a table of recurrent spending on health by States and the figures are per head. The conclusion is that in 1989-90, Victoria spent over $700 per capita on health services, which is almost 14 per cent more than is necessary to provide a standard level of service and the highest actual per capita expenditure, even though Victoria is assessed as having the least difficulty in providing such service.

Victoria's above standard spending was equivalent to about $370 million. Why did Victoria spend $81 more per capita on general medical services - that is all medical expenditure -for no obvious increase in standards? The institute put it down to the inefficient use of capacity and labour costs.

Victoria had the highest utilisation rate, which does not explain its high level of expenditure in the public hospital system. Nor did the case mix or quality of health care professionals appear to be a factor. It was put down to the labour costs in the Victorian public hospital system. This substantiates why the Premier is taking a trip to Canberra tomorrow.

It was found by the institute that the reason for Victoria's relatively high expenditure on public hospitals in 1985-86 lay in its staffing policies. Average total staffing levels varied significantly across the States. Victoria had the highest total staff level measured by full time equivalent staff for each occupied bed at 11 per ~ent above the average for the six States and the Territories. This compared unfavourably to the other larger States, New



South Wales was minus 5 per cent and Queensland was minus 10 per cent. The institute says:

The most striking feature of the composition of Victoria's public hospital staffing levels was the relatively high proportion of administrative, clerical and domestic staff and the relatively low ratio of salaried medical officers and other professional staff. A reduction in administrative, et cetera staff to New South Wales levels would have "saved" almost 1600 staff.

Hon. R. A. Mackenzie - I bet Geelong Hospital was not included in that!

Hon. M. T. TEHAN - Perhaps Geelong Hospital was not because it has a most effective in-patient ratio, but the cost of its outpatient level is extremely high. The Tasman Institute concludes:

As with education, this suggests that the influence of the union movement, which is strong in the health area in Victoria, has been an important influence on staffing levels in Victorian hospitals. Moreover, particularly given that professional staffing levels are relatively low in Victoria (salaried medical staff per occupied bed were 5 per cent lower than the average for the State and the Territories) there can be no implication that higher staffing levels translate to a higher quality service; rather the contrary.

The institute says that more than $352 million could be saved by cutting non-technical staff in public hospitals. That gives some indication of where our money has been spent and why we have not seen anything for it. We are well above average in staffing levels in our public hospitals. There is no money but yet the government will not do anything about the problem.

This morning I specifically raised with the Minister for Health the closure of the Royal Melbourne Hospital Central Linen Service -which she announced yesterday. She said the government was hoping to build a laundry with private investment but under a public management component.

One has only to read the review of the service and staffing levels and work practices that take away all the flexibility within the linen service to understand what is creating the problem, but the Minister expects private enterprise to invest money so that public management can run the laundry.

Recently in Newcastle in New South Wales a private laundry operation was built, which entered into contracts with all the public hospitals to do their laundry for considerably less than the hospitals were paying. In addition, the laundry is taking in other work and because of the economies of scale it has been able to establish it is paying royalties to the public hospitals.

The New South Wales government has saved capital expenditure because private investors have built the laundry on the basis of its competitive linen contracts with public hospitals. The laundry makes a profit on the other linen work it does, on which it pays a royalty to the public hospitals. Yet this Minister will not consider this sort of initiative that could make huge savings for the State. We will never get out of this economic plight under the government because it will not examine initiatives such as this. It will not consider moving those services to private enterprise, which can do it better.



The linen problem is a prime example of this. I give notice that when I am Minister for Health, the first thing I shall examine will be where the laundries are needed, allow private enterprise to build them and provide it with linen contracts. The first people to applaud will be the hospitals because they know they are paying for things that are not necessarily their prerogative, and which do not give them value for money.

That is only a small instance of what can and should be done, but the government has no will to ~ckle any of those problems. The government has no will to examine the staffing levels that were pointed out by the Tasman Institute. The government has no will or capacity to deal with the work practices in transport, health and education that are holding our economy by its neck.

The opposition reluctantly will pass the Bill, but it points out to the people of Victoria that they have been sold a lemon since 1988 and they will continue to have a bitter taste in their mouths until such time as there is a change of government.

The Supply Bill is inadequate; it does not provide enough details. There are more questions than there are answers given. The answers should be forthcoming. Each day the government clings to power Victoria is getting deeper into debt. Our international rating will continue to drop, our unemployment figures will continue to rise, our investment levels will continue to fall and bankruptcy figures will continue to increase. The family which is an important part of the fabric of our society will continue to pay the price until there is a change of government.

Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) - The debate on the Supply Bill is usually a good opportunity for members of the opposition to deliver a few broadsides to the government. I do not profess to be any different from any other opposition members and I intend to deliver a few broadsides of my own. We are certainly not the only people delivering broadsides at the Labor government in Victoria. During the recent State election in New South Wales the New South Wales Labor Party used a car bumper sticker as part of its election campaign which read:

Nick Greiner is doing to New South Wales what John Cain did to Victoria.

If you want to deride your enemy, you present the worst possible scenario and try to associate him with it. It is interesting that the New South Wales Labor Party believed the worst possible scenario to compare the Greiner government with was the performance of the Cain government in Victoria.

Even their interstate Labor Party colleagues feel strongly about what is happening in Victoria with the poor performance of its government. What a poor reflection it is on the performance of the Labor government in Victoria that its own interstate colleagues are casting those sorts of aspersions on it.

I find it extraordinary that we are expected blindly to pass Supply Bills in this House, of which we have two a year, when all we can expect is more of the same. There is no significant change in direction or policy. Despite this State going rapidly downhill at 100 miles an hour, the State government refuses to change the fundamental directions of its



policies. It seems it is hamstrung with its socialist ideals and trade union domination of its policies.

It is easy to list the abysmal record of the State government. I shall not list it in full but make a few points about the lengthy list. A few people have talked about State debt during the debate. In 1981-82 when Labor first came to office in this State the State debt was $11.1 billion. Now, nine years later, on the government's own figures it is an estimated $27.2 billion; it has doubled from what it was nine years ago. Yet we also find that this year's State Budget is running over and we are expected to increase that debt by at least another $1 billion because of the overrun in the Budget.

We could talk about State public employment, which Mrs Tehan mentioned. Between 1983 and 1990, using the latest statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, State public employment increased by 10.4 per cent, whereas the average increase in public employment in the rest of Australia was 4.2 per cent, less than half what it was in Victoria. That is what is costing money, and that is why we are not balancing the Budget. We are increasing public expenditure on more public employment.

Hon. R. A. Mackenzie - We are creating jobs.

Hon. P. R. HALL - We are creating jobs but subsidised jobs, and we are all paying that subsidy.

After eight Labor Budgets expenditure has increased in real terms by 2.1 per cent for every year of the past eight years. We could also talk about the proportion of revenue from State sources needed to meet interest commitments on debt alone. Under Labor's first Budget, 14.8 per cent of State revenue was used on interest payments; that figure is now 23.1 per cent. Nearly one-quarter of every dollar raised in this State is being used to pay the interest on our debt alone. The government is even borrowing to payoff the interest on its debts, 'and we all know what happens when people resort to such desperate measures - if you have to borrow money to pay interest on borrowed moneys you know you are heading rapidly towards bankruptcy.

We could talk about the non-government sector of this State. For example, the State Electricity Commission (SEC) has a debt of $8.1 billion, which is not part of the $27.1 billion State debt; it is in addition to that. So 43 cents in every $1 raised by the SEC is used to pay its interest. Almost half of the electricity bills that you and I and everyone else in this State pay is used to pay the interest on the massive debts that organisation has. I understand the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works is just as badly off as the SEC.

We could also talk about State taxation, which has trebled in eight years of Labor government, which means an increase in real terms of 55.4 per cent. Without a doubt on a per capita basis Victoria is by far the highest taxed State in Australia.

Hon. D. R. White - What? Haven't you read about New South Wales?

Hon. P. R. HALL - The figures show Victoria to be the highest, and I could produce the figures to show that to you.


,Thursday, 30 May 1991 COUNCIL

We could spend an hour or two speaking about the abysmal record of the Labor government, and some of my colleagues will pick up on other points I have not mentioned. Every day we read in the newspapers about that record.

Hon. D. R. White interjected.

1979

Hon. P. R. HALL - We look forward to your contribution to this debate, Mr White. You are obviously not happy about some of the things we have to say about your government.

Every day there is more bad news and more criticism of the Labor government. I have deliberately picked out an article from the Age because the government seems to have an obsession about the Herald-Sun, believing it is a media outlet that is biased against the government's policies. The comment, by Michael Bamard, in the Age of 23 April was:

Here in Victoria we have had a reign of mismanaging "entrepreneurial" Labor goverrunent that has sunk us into such massive and excruciating debt that our children are likely to be left bleeding all the way to their graves - and probably ending up in lease-back coffins at that.

I thought that was an adequate description about the way we are heading with the policies of the Labor government and the massive debts future generations will have to pay, with lease-back arrangements that are transferring that debt to future years and future generations.

What do the people of Victoria have to look forward to? That is the real issue. The Premier has promised us a major economic statement next month. We are concerned about what surprises are in store for us in that major economic statement. As my colleague Mr Hallam said earlier, it would be more appropriate to have the economic statement now because it is extremely relevant to the Supply Bill and should be debated with the Supply Bill. .

Let us think about what might be in store for us in that economic statement. I do not think there is much hope of major change in policy and direction. One thing I am sure of is that there will be change in taxation. Everyone in Victoria will be hit with higher taxes to pay for the profligate activities of the Labor government. The Treasurer himself admits there will be increases in taxation.

Once again in the Age of 4 May an article states:

State charges, including transport, electricity and gas, are likely to rise in next month's economic statement --

That would be particularly relevant for the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development.

At a media conference, Mr Roper would not rule out higher charges, despite a commitment 11 days ago by the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development, Mr White, that electricity prices "will continue to be no greater than the consumer price index".

Perhaps next month's economic statement will see the Treasurer, Mr Roper, agreeing with the statements that have been put on the record by the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development.



It is with much anticipation that we wait for the economic statement next month. I am sceptical that there will be any major changes in directional policy in that statement. I am certain we will be hit with further taxes in this State, but quite frankly I do not think there will be a change in direction because, as I have said before, the government is so hamstrung by its socialist ideals and trade union domination that it does not allow it to implement the sorts of policies that would be effective in the current economic climate.

What should the government do? The government has asked the opposition where its policies are and what its ideas are. It has asked what we think we should be doing. I believe we should be adopting the central thrust of the document entitled Victoria - An Agenda for Change that Mrs Tehan referred in her contribution to the debate.

That document was produced by the Institute of Public Affairs and the Tasman Institute and, I might point out strongly, it was paid for virtually by the entire spectrum of business organisations in Victoria which felt so strongly about this State that they were prepared to put their hands in their pockets and commission and produce a blueprint for the future of Victoria. Terry McCrann of the Herald-Sun on 30 April made a summary of relevant points about that document. He said in his article:

The basic thrust of the report espouses universal truths about governments and State governments in particular and in more pragmatic terms it details the competitive challenge which might face an old-style administration.

The core of the report is that Victoria has a very serious problem, which goes beyond bad luck or even mismanagement and certainly beyond our national malaise. It is a problem of fundamentally incorrect ideology and political economic strategy.

Now the central foundation of the report's program for action can be summarised as getting the government out of things it should not be in. This would mean Victoria using its resources, all its resources, better.'

In simple terms that document called for major cuts in government spending, an attack on the huge public sector debt and an extensive privatisation program. They are the sorts of issues that a coalition government will focus on when we take government in this State and those are the sorts of issues the Labor Party here in Victoria should be addressing now.

I wish to focus on some issues relevant to my electorate and tie them in with the comments I have already made. I have already mentioned that the State Electricity Commission of Victoria (SEC) has a debt of $8.1 billion. It is paying 43 cents in every $1 to cover the interest payments on that debt alone.

I also mentioned that the future ownership of Loy Yang Bl and B2 has been the subject of much debate in my electorate. Those power stations must be completed by the mid-l990s to satisfy the future demand for power in Victoria. If they are not producing by that time Victoria will end up buying power through the interstate grid from Oaklands in New South Wales, which is soon to be built, and possibly also from Tasmania. That is what will happen if those power stations are not built. We will have to buy electricity at a higher cost from some of our neighbouring States.



The cost of completing Loy Yang Bl and B2 units is in excess of $3.2 billion. The SECV sensibly has a no-new-debt policy. It already has an $8.1 billion debt and it cannot afford to increase that. How then are we to pay in excess of $3 billion to have these power stations completed? One obvious way is to increase electricity tariffs right across the board so that you and I and every business and every farm will end up paying more for electricity. That measure may raise enough revenue to help build those power stations.

An altemative is to privatise power generation units such as Lay Yang Bl and B2 and I assure the House there are several interested buyers ready to purchase those power stations and complete their construction. I might add that the completion of those units is vital to the Latrobe Valley area. In the past eighteen months SEC has shed 3000 jobs as part of its restructuring process. I am the first to admit that that was necessary but it has left an unemployment figure of something like 27 per cent in the Latrobe Valley.

What we need is a stimulus to the local regional economy. We will not get it if the SEC slowly builds those power stations over many years and we will not get it if those power stations are not built and we are purchasing electricity from New South Wales or Tasmania. We need an injection of private capital into the Latrobe Valley now to get those units built and create employment opportunities for the people.

The issue of privatisation has caused much debate. If Loy Yang Bl and B2 were privatised it would mean only 12 per cent of this State's power generation capacity was privately owned. We are still looking at 88 per cent of our production capacity being publicly owned. If privatised Lay Yang Bl and B2 would still only be a small proportion of our production capacity, but what it would do is to introduce competition.

I was reading in the April edition of one of the SEC internal.magazines, Contact, of an interview with Dr Rob Booth from CRA Ltd and he spoke about comparing Lay Yang Bl and B2 with the proposed Oaklands power station in New South Wales. This is what he said about competition:

It doesn't matter if you're State-owned or privately owned, it's when you're put in a competitive situation that you perform better. That's the key to getting some efficiency into the system.

That is what the coalition has been espousing for a long time: we need to privatise some of the services the government should not be involved in and we need to introduce competition. I am not talking about setting up private monopolies. We must start introducing competition into the public sector. That is why private investment is absolutely necessary and that is something the coalition government will be prepared to back. That is the sort of step the government should be taking.

If Mr Theophanous were in the Chamber he would say the government already has an excellent caucus committee looking into the operations of Lay Yang Bl and B2 and that committee will report back to the government next month. This country needs open and balanced debate. Why have a select caucus committee looking into the options of Lay Yang Bl and B2? That committee should be opened up and other people allowed to give their views. The opposition should be invited to participate in that committee. These things are vital for this State and if we are honest and fair dinkum about improving them



a cooperative effort is needed. However, we are closed off from considering the future of issues such as Lay Yang Bl and B2.

If the government really wanted our assistance in lots of other areas it should invite us to help and be part of the decision-making process rather than expecting us to do no more than grant all of its wishes contained in Bills before the House.

I conclude that -the SEC is a classic example of where privatisation could produce competition which would lead to efficiencies. We must be efficient if we are to save dollars.

The other area I wish to mention is youth unemployment. Mrs Tehan touched on this subject, and it is a serious and important subject because our students coming out of school today are faced with real hardship in trying either to gain employment or to make the decision to go on to higher education or vocational training and it is a serious problem with which they are faced.

In 1985 the Premier announced the Youth G~arantee scheme. Most honourable members would remember something about that scheme. What has happened to it? It does not seem to be around any longer. In 1985 it was a scheme guaranteed by the government that every person between fifteen and eighteen years of age would have either employment, education or training. They had those three options or a combination of them.

What do we have today? In Victoria more than 28 per cent of fifteen to nineteen-year-olds are unemployed. That is not counting the people in schools in that age group; that is, the fifteen to nineteen-year-olds who have left School and are not in tertiary training. In some regions of Victoria that percentage is even higher and it has been suggested to me that in the Latrobe Valley that figure is horrific - it is something like 74 per cent according to some sources in that area.

It is fine for the government to talk about an increase in retention rates at schools. That is commendable. The retention rate is now at 70 to 75 per cent, but let us not kid ourselves. A factor in the higher level is that there are no jobs for the students to go to. Many students currently studying at years 11 and 12 in an attempt to get the Victorian certificate of education would be better off in the work force earning a living. But there are no jobs available for them. Instead they remain at school and contribute to the increased retention rate.

The government, as part of its Youth Guarantee, offered training as a further option. I have pointed out this fact in earlier debates but as it is important I shall repeat it. This year 35 ()()() students who qualified for places in T AFE institutions in Victoria could not get a place. There were no funded positions available for 35 ()()() people. Another 9000 students who qualified for places in Victorian universities were unable to gain places. That is a total of 44 ()()() young Victorians who could not get a place in a university or TAFE college. So where is the guarantee about training? Some 35 ()()() students missed out on the guarantee because the government was unable to fund places for them in T AFE colleges.



Hon. Rosemary Varty - What about apprentices?

Hon. P. R. HALL - Yes, the classic example is in the State Electricity Commission. Up to two years ago the SEC took more than 100 apprentices each year; today the figure is fewer than 20. That is the plight many young people who would normally go into training positions or apprenticeships are facing. There is strong competition to get into the scarce positions now available in the apprenticeship field. That imposes immense pressur~ on young people.

The Youth Guarantee scheme seems to have gone out the door. Honourable members do not hear much about it. I think it has been replaced by a new scheme, Work Start. One can talk about Work Start, Job Start or Job link, but it is no good having programs that assist people to search for jobs if no jobs are available.

Governments should be involved in assisting private enterprise in creating these jobs. The types of programs the government has spent our money on, such as the Youth Guarantee and Work Start programs, are like putting the ambulances at the bottom of the cliffs to pick up the kids. We need to put the barricades at the top of the cliffs to stop people from falling off in the first place.

Victoria requires policies to assist the private sector to create the jobs. That is not the role of the public sector. The Labor government's policy of increasing public employment only adds further to the State debt. We cannot afford that. We must rely on the private sector to create job opportunities. That is the direction the government should follow.

There are many other aspects of the Supply Bill I could discuss but I will reserve my right to speak on them in the Committee stage of the Bill when honourable members can refer to individual programs.

I conclude my remarks by directing to the attention of the House my earlier comments and the extent to which changes need to be made to the direction and policies of the failed Labor government. I am sceptical about whether the government will make any significant changes. The opposition anxiously awaits the June economic statement and hopes only that the government has the courage to adopt some of the bold new initiatives that are desperately needed in Victoria. Realistically the next few months may be the last opportunity the government will have for many years to do something positive for the State of Victoria.

The opposition's support for the Supply Bill in no way indicates that it is happy with the way the government is travelling. The government can be assured that every step it takes over the next few months, or for as long as it remains in government, will be closely scrutinised by the opposition.

Hon. B. E. DA VIDSON (Chelsea) - The passage of the Supply Bill will enable the continuance of good government in Victoria, the reliable and responsible government that Victorians need. Labor Party policies - the same policies that restored the Victorian economy in the early 1980s - will continue.

Hon. K. M. Smith - The same ones!


1984 COUNCIL Thursday, 30 ~y 1991

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - With the passage of time we will lift Victoria back into its rightful place in Australia. For eight consecutive years Labor policies ensured that Victorians enjoyed the best employment statistics in Australia. Those figures continued month after month, year after year, for eight years. It was not a fluke. It was no coincidence. It was the result of good Labor Party policies.

Hon. Robert Lawson - Are there any?

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - Yes, we do have policies. When the government took office in 1982, after 27 years of neglect by the former Liberal government, as well as neglect by Federal governments, Victoria's economy had been driven into stagnation. Almost nothing moved in the city of Melbourne. People almost despaired that nothing would happen. But along came the Labor government in the early 1980s and things started to blossom again.

Hon. R. A. Best - And in the early 1990s they burst.

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - The Garden State really bloomed.

Hon. R. A. Best - This is a fairy tale!

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - Mr Best has been up the country. If he were in Melbourne he would recall the pre-second world war red rattlers. They were all replaced by new trains after the Labor Party took office. The railway switching gear then in place was not even electrical. It has since been replaced by electronic gear. Much of our equipment had been left to wither on the vine. New trams then replaced the old.

My father-in-law was a tram driver, an honourable profession, and drove trams for 3D-odd years out of the Malvern depot. When he finished driving trams he got out of the very same trams he ,first got into. They were not just the same models, they were the same trams. Such was the legacy of 27 years of Liberal government rule in this State.

Hon. K. M. Smith - We had the new rolling stock!

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - I recall the new rolling stock introduced by the former government. It had four trams which were driven up and down Bourke Street.

Hon. K. M. Smith - I remember all the trams you had lined up at Christmas the year before last!

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - With the passage of this Bill Labor's good policies will continue. The Labor government was responsible for building the world-class National Tennis Centre and the Monash Medical Centre. The Arts Centre was paid for. Projects such as the psychogeriatric centre in my electorate were completed.

Hon. K. M. Smith - That's because you were driving everyone crazy!

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - They were the kinds of things neglected in the past by the Liberals. It took the government a little while to get around to it, but then there was so much the Labor government needed to catch up on.

SUPPLY (1991~92, No. I) BILL and WORKS AND SERVICES


No new prisons had been built in Victoria since the turn of the century, and prison remand yards were not fit for animals. Now Victoria has a new remand centre with modem facilities. That members of the opposition can laugh at such matters drives me to despair. Because we live in a democracy it is possible that one day some of the members opposite will occupy the government benches - although I hope it is not in my lifetime.

The passage of the Supply Bill will enable the government to do what it did in April this year when it gave the Victorian Farmers Federation $20 000 to enable struggling farmers to be given financial advice - a worthwhile project, as I am sure Mr Best and Mr Hall will agree.

Hon. G. R. Craige - How much?

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - Twenty thousand dollars. The Ballarat ambulance station has been refurbished at a cost of $28 000.

Hon. G. R. Craige - How much did the scratch tickets cost?

Hon. K. M. Smith - Answer him!

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - I thought his job was to pull the strings behind you, Mr Smith.

We now have new court premises at Hawthorn East at a cost of $160 000, and the list goes on. They are the sorts of things that the passing of the Supply Bill will allow the government to continue to do.

In my electorate, the City of Frankston is currently considering an Urban Land AuthOrity proposal for the development of 94 home sites. The authority is currently selling blocks of land at a price 20 per cent below value on the proviso that the construction of houses begins within six months.

Hon. G. R. Craige - From when?

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - Six months from the date of the purchase - that is a condition of the purchase of the land. The building of some 4500 houses will follow - -

Hon. K. M. Smith interjected.

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - You should listen, Mr Smith, because these are the things that will help kick~start the economy.


Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - You must have policies - -

Hon. G. R. Craige - What about your social justice policy?

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - It is a very good one indeed. The boost to the housing construction industry will be of great benefit to Victoria. It is sad to see members opposite laughing at such initiatives. Obviously they do not understand the value of having


1986 COUNCIL Thursday, 30 M,ay 1991 I

policies. They have done without them for so long that they think there is no need for them.

Members opposite argued that the government has increased taxes and charges at a rate greater than the increase in the consumer price index. The Greiner government is held up by members of the coalition as a shining example for other State governments to follow. But under a conservative government in that State, the average New South Wales family pays $50 per annum more in taxes and charges than the average Victorian family.

Hon. K. M. Smith - Are they the true figures or the false ones?

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - The recent election in New South Wales showed that the people of that State have wised up. They realise they made a mistake in electing a Liberal Party government, which they will not make again, because it has cost them $50 - -

Hon. K. M. Smith - Is that all?

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - State taxes and charges --

Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern) - On a point of order, Mr President, Mr Davidson has just quoted the figure of $50. I would like him to tell the House whether that is a true figure or one of the false figures put out by the Federal government just before the recent New South Wales election.

The PRESIDENT - Order! There is no point of order. Mr Davidson has made a claim and it is for him to decide whether he will substantiate it.

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON (Chelsea) - Victoria has been hit hard by the recession, but the effects of the recession are being felt Australia wide. Because Victoria is the engine room of Australia's manufacturing industry and Melbourne is Australia's financial capital, Victorians have been hit hardest by the recession. It is only natural that a State with a high level of industrial activity will be hit hard when there is a downturn in the national economy - just as Victoria's recovery from the recession will be more rapid than in other States because we have the capacity to take up the slack.

The passage of the Supply Bill will enable the government to get on with the task of providing more jobs for Victorians, a vital ingredient of economic recovery. This is no time for gimmicks and stunts; nor is it time for Victorians to take a quantum leap into the unknown. The power-crazed antics of a clown and his acolytes are no substitute for well reasoned and thought-out policies.

Hon. G. R. Craige - Tell us where the jobs will be.

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - The passing of the Supply Bill will enable the government to continue with good economic management and to get on with the job.

Hon. R. S. de Fegely - Will it be okay with Trades Hall?

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - How strange it is that the coalition should change leaders just a few short weeks after - -



Hon. Robed Lawson - That's job creation!

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - With the change of Leader has come a concentration not on policies but on the passage of the Supply Bill, which is what everyone has been concentrating on over the past few weeks.

Hon. K. M. Smith - We have released all of our policies; where are yours?

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - All the opposition has produced in the past few weeks has been gimmicks and publicity stunts. We have heard of no policies, unless you can call sacking hospital cleaners a policy. The people of Victoria and, in particular, the press are waiting to hear from the opposition about the policies it has developed. Rather than lis.tening to flim-flam the people of Victoria want to know whether the opposition has any policies.

To emphasise my point I shall quote from some newspaper editorials that highlight the dearth of coalition policy initiatives. The first is an editorial in the Australian Financial Review of Wednesday, 29 May 1991. Honourable members will know that that newspaper is not known as a supporter of the Labor Party.

Hon. Robed Lawson - That's because my son writes the editorials.

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - I can believe that, Mr Lawson, especially an editorial that is headed "Kennett's reckless road". I shall quote the last two paragraphs from the editorial:

These are not times for fanciful leadership. Mr Kennett ought to know that the mandate he must seek is about prudence, stability and accountability. The authority for those things is not his own, but the expression of public trust contained in oaths of office and Acts of Parliament. In the interests of his community - one anxious for a new, more hopeful direction - he must quickly restate a commitment to stability and reconstruction in a manner that has meaning. On his present course, things can only get worse.

Hon. G. R. Craige - What about job creation?

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - The next quotation is from the Australian of 29 May -another newspaper not known for its socialist leanings. I do not suppose Mr Lawson's son also wrote this editorial because it is headed, "Bullyboy style suits Kennett not at all". I quote the final two paragraphs:

Victorians want to know what Mr Kennett and the Uberals will do if they get into power. They want to be presented with intelligent, well-researched policies - not Rambo-style head kicking and blacknlail threats.

If Mr Kennett wants to be Victorian Premier (and there can be no doubts about his naked ambition), he should use the next twelve months to develop a leadership team and policies that voters will be unable to resist. Over the last week all Mr Kennett has managed to do is make a galah of himself.

Hon. P. R. Hall - What about Victorian newspapers rather than the Australian Financial Review?

Hon. B. E. DAVIDSON - The coalition lusts for power. With a changed leadership the coalition wishes to be led out of the wilderness. They want some colour - -



Bon. ROSEMARY V ARTY (Nunawading) - On a point of order, Mr President, the debate seems to have got away from the Supply Bill and seems to be about when the oppqsition takes over government. While that may flatter us I am sure it has no relevance to the Bill.

The PRESIDENT - Order! Traditionally appropriation and Supply debates have enabled the opposition to canvass the whole gamut of government administration and policy, and have enabled government members in return to canvass the gamut of opposition policies and actions.

Bon. B. E. Davidson - That won't take long!

The PRESIDENT - Order! Mr Davidson is in accordance with the traditionally wide range that has always been allowed.

Bon. K. M. Smith - What a shame!

Bon. B. E. DAVIDSON (Chelsea) - As I was saying, with the change in leadership the opposition sought a Messiah to lead it out of the wilderness.

Bon. K. M. Smith - He will.

Bon. B. E. DAVIDSON - What the opposition got was a Pied Piper who led it to the abyss for a quantum leap!

Bon. G. R. Craige - Where did you get that from?

Bon. B. E. DAVIDSON - Talking about quantum leaps, a member of the opposition has been going around defining a quantum leap. He says it is a bungee jump without the string attached. That is a joke of one of your people, and I apologise if it lacks poise.

Bon. K. M. Smith - It sounds like a David White joke.

Bon. B. E. DAVIDSON - Despite all the advertising agency tricks and the flim flams in the past three weeks it appears that the Supply Bill will be passed. I look forward to the passage of the Bill. I look forward to getting on with the job for the next few years and I look forward to doing the job that Victorians want. They want jobs, not words and gimmicks. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bon. ROSEMARY V ARTY (Nunawading) - If we have to rely on contributions similar to that which we have just heard from the government side, heaven help the future of Victoria.

This Bill grants Supply for the next four months, beginning 1 July. Victoria is in the most parlous financial, economic, social and psychological position not only of all States in Australia but also in the proud and long history of this State - through the major depressions of the 18905 and the 19305, and through two major world wars.

Never has there been a time of greater need for a sign or glimmer of hope or some spirit of renewal but that will not come under the reign of this government, It will eventuate only with a change of government because this government is paralysed by indecision,



racked by financial scandal and incapable of putting the State back on the road to recovery.

1989

I firstly examine the way the government keeps hiding the true financial position of Victoria. I can do no better than look at comments made by a government Minister in the other place, the Minister for Finance, Tony Sheehan. During his appearance before the Estimates subcommittee we were questioning him about the Niemeyer statement. That is the only set of financial trading results that we as the opposition have on which to base assumptions about the direction in which Victoria is heading.

Mr Sheehan was asked about the Niemeyer statement and, if I may quote from the 2 May 1991 transcript, he said:

Niemeyer statements are very much retrospective statements. A Niemeyer statement is a snapshot in a distance race. Those statements do not really tell you all that much. They do not tell about seasonal variations or where something fits into a trend and we do know where things fit into a trend. '

He was telling the subcommittee that they are not much good, yet they are the only documents we have on which to base any assessments. He then proceeded to talk about the Niemeyer statement and said:

The Niemeyer statement began in the 1930s and commenced with that sort of accounting. As I said, if we are talking about relying on the Niemeyer statement I agree with you that we do not rely on that. That is simply a statement of a series of snapshots. We have better information.

That is a very telling statement. He says, "We have better information". Obviously that is information not available to the opposition. We questioned him further about this aspect. Mr Hallam asked:

Do you have a better system than the Niemeyer statements?

Mr Sheehan replied:

Yes.

I then asked him about why the information was not made public. He then started to become very reticent about talking further on the other means or the way in which the government assessed the financial position of Victoria. The very sad fact is that shortly after his comments we had to abort the Estimates subcommittee hearing because a Minister of the State was not prepared to answer questions put to him by an all-party Estimates subcommittee about the financial state of Victoria. The Minister for Finance would not comply with rather simple requests from that Parliamentary committee. That further indicates how the government is treating the taxpayers of Victoria with utter contempt.

Hon. R. A. Mackenzie -It could be contempt of Parliament.

Hon. ROSEMARY V ARTY - As Mr Mackenzie points out, it could very well be seen as a contempt of Parliament; I understand Parliamentary committees have the right to expect that Ministers will give information that is requested.



Every other Minister who appeared before the subcommittee was most cooperative and forthcoming with relevant information relating to the performances of the departments. Those Ministers were able to clear up some of the concerns members of the Estimates subcommittee had about not only the functions of departments but also the way they operated.

That was not the case with Mr Sheehan: he just clammed up and would not answer. In addition, he accused the subcommittee of being party political. That is an absolute travesty for Victoria and shows how low the government has sunk. If government members of the Estimates subcommittee choose not to attend meetings of the subcommittee, that is not the opposition's fault; it is the fault of the government. The chairman of the subcommittee was present but no other government members attended.

I turn to the Niemeyer statement. Even if the statement does not disclose all that we need to know it is the only basis we have for making an assessment of what is happening in Victoria. It is clear that more questions are raised in the statement than answers provided. The statement was released a couple of days ago and is for the ten months to the end of April, so one would expect it to show, on a pro rata basis, roughly 83.3 per cent of expenditure expected for the whole year, but that is not so and Ministers are telling us that there are fluctuations in the flows of revenue and expenditure in some months. One should be able to get an accurate comparison, however, by comparing it on a year-by-year basis.

Before I do the year-by-year comparison I wish to look at the various classes of expenditure and revenue to see what is happening in those areas as an indication of part of the difficulty the State is in. Payments are currently ahead of Budget, which is quite clear when one compares what is happening at this time of the year against the whole year - we are looking at ten-twelfths of the year and comparing with the whole year -and recurrent receipts are under Budget by some 7 per cent.

When one looks at a more detailed assessment in some of the revenue areas one sees that sales of assets are only 39.1 per cent of target for the year, when at this time of the year they should be 83 per cent. Asset sales are well behind. I am sure everyone would acknowledge that in the current economic climate it is more difficult to sell assets. However, it could also be argued that the figure was set too high at the beginning of the year; an unrealistic figure was presented to Parliament in the Budget.

What about things like debt charges? Debt charges are well over Budget. If they continue at the same rate by the end of the financial year they will be about 6 per cent over Budget. If transport expenditure proceeds at the same rate for the next two months it will be nearly 12 per cent over Budget and health expenditure will be about 3 per cent over Budget.

If one looks at some of the specific revenues like payroll tax and stamp duty, one sees another very interesting picture. Because of tight economic times when revenues in some areas will not meet expectations the government has had to make up those revenues in other areas.



It is very clear that in the Budget that was presented to Parliament last August many of the figures were incorrect. Last year we knew there was an economic downturn and that jobs were being lost and the government budgeted for a decrease in payroll tax. However, the figure was nowhere near the amount that one would have expected if the present downturn in the economy continued. One would have thought that there could have been a much better assessment of what the figure should have been rather than an overstatement of what could have been expected.

In relation to stamp duty the government also budgeted for a 16 per cent decrease because of the economic downturn. However, we see that at this time of the year the government is $200 million behind in the collection of stamp duty. Stamp duty makes up approximately 34 per cent of State revenues - a very large part of the revenues.

While stamp duty is behind the government has more than recouped that shortfall in the areas of land tax and payroll tax. Land tax is only 2.5 per cent of total State revenue yet the government has recouped an extra $180.5 million. That means that a very small sector of the State economy is being expected to pick up shortfalls in other revenues. It is totally unacceptable for that sort of situation to occur.

When one looks at the expenditure side this year compared to last year one sees that debt charges have increased by 15.1 per cent, pensions have increased by 12.1 per cent, hospital funding has increased by 10 per cent and there have been increases in other health areas of 6.5 per cent. While the opposition agrees that additional funds need to be allocated in some of those areas one really has to question whether those amounts have been directed in the best possible manner.

An area that is absolutely critical is the huge increase in debt servicing charges. That shows that debt levels are still far too high and that there needs to be a better way of utilising that 23 cents in the State revenue dollar; we can get much better value for money.

Interestingly, the April Niemeyer statement has a new piece on the bottom of it, a bit that has not been seen before. Now the statement refers to setting out transactions, excluding the cash management account. What that really tells us is that the April statement for 1990 was wrong; if one carries that to its logical conclusion, it is really indicating that the April 1990 statement understated what the amount was. It should have shown a deficit of $879 million; but it did not because it excluded the cash management account. The result is a neat reconciliation that attempts to show that this year is better than last year. The only way that this year can be better than last year on the facts is if a fiddle of the books has been undertaken. The little bit on the bottom seems to make that sort of admission.

The other thing that can occur in relation to revenues in this statement is that no way is provided of knowing whether some of those are all in a Budget sector or whether some revenues in there relate to out-of-Budget areas which are for on-passing and which have not been passed on. There is a timing difference in the collection of some of those moneys and later they will appear as a payment, maybe not until the next financial year.

I ask also: are there any other Federal government moneys offset against expenditure? Last year the extraordinary circumstance arose where the Treasurer authorised the



offsetting of an amount of money - some $35 million - that was an up-front payment on an interest swap and was offset against an expenditure.

How·do we know that has not occurred again? For instance, in the Ministry of Transport, additional revenues have been received from the Commonwealth government. How have those additional revenues been accounted for in this statement? Have those moneys been offset, like up-front payment on interest swaps last year?

I ask also: what is the state of creditors listings at the end of April? No statement about things like that appears in the Niemeyer statement, so we do not know the total of sundry and trade creditors outstanding in the departments as at the end of April. We have no aged creditors analysis to tell us.

We do not know, either, whether payments have been received in advance for services not yet rendered. That is another neat trick sometimes used by government to get some up-front payments for services that are to be rendered further down the track. No statement about any of that appears.

I am concerned about the timing of some of the payments and some of the revenues that come in and some that have to be paid out. I have a gut feeling and an intuitive feeling that something is not right in this statement. It is just too neat in the way the flows of revenues and expenditures have been going. I shall be most interested to see the Auditor-General's report when he does his check. Of course, we will not know about his findings for a few months yet.

Already we know from the Auditor-General - again this has all been knowledge after the fact - that it has happened. The fact that it has occurred suggests it is likely to happen again but in a different form.

I am sure all sorts of creative accounting will be conducted in the Department of the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance. Some pretty cluey people work down there and I am sure they will be working out ways of deferring payments or accounting for revenues to try to get the books balanced at the end of June.

I invite honourable members to consider some of those things we already know about -for example, the superannuation funds. The government has in effect borrowed $1100 million because it has failed to put its contribution into some of the State superannuation funds. People have been paid out; they have got their superannuation after being paid out by the fund. The contribution the government should have made to those funds has not been forthCOming.

The same thing has happened with the Emergency Services Superannuation Scheme. The government owes $200 million that we know about to that superannuation fund. Again that is a disguised form of borrowing.

The government has compelled a number of agencies to make early payment to the Budget because of the government's cash flow crisis. I list just a few of them. I refer to the early recall of loans from the Government Employee Housing Authority, which forced that authority to borrow $27 million at high interest rates. I refer also to the early



collection of public authority dividends, amounting to $65 million, from the State Electricity Commission and the Board of Works. The government sought advanced collection of moneys from the racing industry so that $8.2 million due in the next financial year was paid in June 1990. I refer also to borrowings of $90 million from the Victorian Development Fund to be repaid at a later date through the proceeds from sales of assets.

I have already referred to the early revenues. I refer also to the deferral of government payments, that is, delayed payments of $9.5 million to local libraries. I ask Mr Davidson whether he means to tell us that he has not had representatives from libraries in his province complaining. I will bet that he has!

I refer to delayed payments of $42.4 million to non-government schools and delayed payments of $17 million to municipalities for pensioner rate concessions.

In addition to that, the Labor government has imposed extra future obligations on the Budget through leases, with lease commitments payable after 1991 amounting to at least $636 million.

Then we come to State Bank Victoria. The day that this House finally passed the Bill that allowed the State Bank to be sold would have to be one of the blackest days in the history of this State. The bank was sold for $1.6 billion, at least $55 million less than it should have been sold for.

Mr Davidson talked about New South Wales. I invite honourable members to consider the overall Budget figures in Ne~ South Wales. If one considers the total revenues of New South Wales, to the end of March 1991 the undercollection amounted to $593 million but in Victoria the undercollection was $869 million.

In expenditure terms, New South Wales had an underexpenditure of $510 million, while Victoria had an overexpenditure of $124 million. The figures show that the blow-out in New South Wales was $83 million but in Victoria it was $1093 million. Mr Davidson really must do his homework a bit better, because he tends to tell just half the story.

But what of the future? I will talk later about how we see the future. But how do other people see it? One would expect the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, to which this State saw fit to sell the State Bank, to have a fair idea of the way things are going, and in its publication titled "Economic Newsletter" for April 1991 it focuses particularly on the Victorian economy:

Victorian economy is at present substantially weaker than the national economy. In part this weakness reflects the impact on consumer and producer confidence of adverse developments in the Victorian finance sector.

It is also due to pressures on the public sector to reduce outlays and increase revenue to combat the severe deterioration in Victorian government sector finances.

The Victorian economy was already slowing prior to these developments, however, due to the impact of tight macroeconomic policy.



The coalition is not quoted here, it is the Commonwealth Bank talking about the severe deterioration in Victorian government sector finances, and they talk also of retail spending, which is especially weak in Victoria.

Demand for motor vehicles has also declined sharply. Dwelling commencements in Victoria reduced by 22 per cent in 1989-90 and on business investment they say comprehensive data on investment spending in Victoria, although only available up to the September quarter 1990, shows investment weakening at a faster rate than nationally during 1990.

Labour market conditions have deteriorated sharply. Over the year to February 1991 total employment Australia-wide fell by 63 700 and most of those jobs were lost in Victoria where over the same period total employment has fallen by 58 400. So it is not just us saying it, it is a bank as reputable as the Commonwealth Bank. It sees the prospects for 1991-92 in these terms:

Given this outlook there is a risk that the Victorian economy may be slower to recover than the rest of Australia.

Those words really say it all and one would have to say that that economic newsletter from the Commonwealth Bank is a reputable representation of the state of the economy.

When we talk about what is happening in the business sector it is clear that the downturn has not reached the bottom. Employees are still losing their jobs, there has been a record rise in bankruptcies in Victoria and it is clear from statistics that bankruptcies rose by an extraordinary 75.2 per cent to March 1991.

Of course that means that businesses are going down the tube faster than they were in 1990 when the figure even then was running at a high of 65.1 per cent. Victoria has suffered the highest number of bankruptcies among all the States and Territories.

In the unemployment area my colleagues have mentioned the difficulties and it is important to reiterate what that means: in April 1982 Victoria had an unemployment rate of 6.1 per cent. In April 1991 the figure is 10.7 per cent. Those figures compare with the 1982 Australia-wide figure of 6.4 per cent - so we had a lower unemployment rate than the Australian average in 1982 - but the April 1991 Australian average is 9.9 per cent, which means that Victoria is nearly 1 per cent higher than the Australian average in April 1991.

Again using the April 1982 and 1991 figures, Victoria had 25.3 per cent of Australia's unemployed in 1982 but in 1991 the figure is 27.7 per cent.

The business sector shows in other ways also how the current economic climate is impacting. I will use the private rental market to instance that. When investors buy private property and then rent it, they do it on the assumption that there will be people available who can afford to rent their properties. In March 1990 there was a vacancy rate in the private rental market of only 2.4 per cent. However in March 1991 that vacancy rate has increased to 3.4 per cent.



My real estate friends tell me that this is happening because people just cannot afford to pay the rents currently being asked. Where are these people going? Many of them are returning to live with their families or friends, some have moved into caravans and some have gone out on to the streets. It is an indicator of the hidden problems.

If one examines the number of flats advertised in Apri11990 the figure weekly was 1139 flats. In April 1991 the figure is 2490 flats. It shows more flats are available, but it is not because of money being injected into that investment area, because investment has been going into factories and other commercial developments not into the private rental market. We need to be aware of just how much further the economy will go down because the figures give some sort of indicator of what is happening.

Victoria is the worst hit in retail turnover decline. New vehicle registrations in Victoria have declined by 15.8 per cent over Australia, but 25.7 per cent in Victoria. Even more critical is private capital expenditure and while that decreased in Australia by 0.07 per cent, the decline in Victoria was 10.9 per cent. All of these figures indicate that what government members are saying about everything being rosy in the garden State is just not true.

What perceptions do people other than representatives of the Commonwealth Bank have? Some people could say that perhaps the bank has some reason for putting forward that statement. Moody's Investors Service has further downgraded Victoria's credit rating. Surely all Victorians would have felt a cold shiver go down their spines when the news came out of that further downgrading, because the taxpayers will have to foot the bill. The cost of borrowings, not just by State instrumentalities, but by the private sector - because the downgrading affects all borrowings - means that an even greater proportion of State revenue will be allocated to service debt. As loans come due and are rolled over, the new interest rate will apply. All Victorians will be paying for that downgrading.

On 8 May the Age contained an article by Mr Harold Mitchell. I knew Mr Mitchell some years ago when I was working in the advertising industry. He is a media buyer-a person who packages media deals. If one has a number of clients who want to advertise in television, the print media or radio, one goes to Harold Mitchell because he can negotiate good deals. Mr Mitchell was reported as saying that he has never seen the media industry floundering as it is now; that this is the worst recession he has experienced, and he has been in the trade for 32 years. He said in that report that the recession was worse than what occurred in 1961 when the Menzies credit squeeze put the clamp on many media operators and advertisers.

I refer to Victoria - An Agenda for Change, prepared by the Tasman Institute and the Institute of Public Affairs. The document was funded by major industry organisations in the State - organisations of some repute: the Australian Chamber of Manufactures, the Building Owners and Managers Association, the Business Council of Australia, the Insurance Council of Australia, the Real Estate Institute of Victoria, the Retail Traders Association of Victoria, the State Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Vic), the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, the Victorian Brick Manufacturers Association, the



Victorian Employers Federation and the Victorian Farmers Federation. No-one could say that was an unrepresentative group of organisations.

The document examined not just what has happened, but proposed policies for the future. The report states that the reforms proposed:

amount to a major restructuring of the expenditure programs of the government of Victoria, as well as a broad-based strategy for increasing productivity and living standards, by privatising, corporatising and contracting out many current services of government.

It then goes on to detail why that is necessary and why the current financial state of Victoria exists. The report further states:

But the reason the business environment deteriorated even more rapidly in Victoria seems in large part because the pump-priming and interventionist policies of the Victorian government created a perception that government would virtually underwrite economic performance in this State.

That is a damning indictment of the socialist policies of the government, which was trying to turn the State into a command economy. We have seen what has happened to command economies in Eastern Europe! The report continues:

Without major changes, the outlook is not encouraging. But the" good news" is that adversity instils a resolve for change. The community may accept, even demand, a coherent and strategic change of the Project Victoria variety, once the choices are fully understood.

The report refers to the government relinquishing control in some areas to corporatisation and privatisation.

One of the significant comments it makes about the State enterprise sector is:

For each public enterprise the government should immediately form a privatisation committee, serviced by a specialist unit in the government to make sure that the efficiency and other gains from privatisation would be obtained.

The coalition could not have said it better in terms of its policies on privatisation. We have said continually that the larger instrumentalities should be privatised. First they must be corporatised because government business enterprises such as the State Electricity Commission, which controls all the elements of production of electricity, cannot ascertain the costs for each of those elements. A corporatised model will be established first so that costs can be attributed to each of the sectors: mining, generating, the grid system, the transmission of power, the reticulation of power and the servicing of the network. Until that is done there is no way of making an assessment about privatisation.

There is no merit in exchanging one monopoly for another if competition is not increased. The coalition's agenda is to obtain a more efficient use of the taxpayers' money because it is clear from the Industry Commission report that public sector utilities are inefficient. Many State instrumentalities are overcapitalised and have overcapacity - in some instances up to 35 per cent. Taxpayers have to pay for that. It may be acceptable to have from 10 to 15 per cent overcapacity to allow for breakdowns or the reconditioning of equipment, but it is not acceptable to have 35 per cent overcapacity. For instance, the



community has not suffered any ill-effects because the Dartmouth dam is out of production. If capital is freed up from the public sector it can be utilised by the private sector for wealth and job creation so that the State can get back on the rails.

Tough times lie ahead and the building industry is only too well aware of that. The Victorian Employers Federation report of 3 May contains an article about the building industry. It states:

Prospects for private engineering construction have finished with the economic downturn. This has also had a marked impact on metal and engineering construction, with little recovery expected before 1992.

We are only half way through 1991 and a significant element of industry in this State is saying there will be little recovery expected before 1992. In fact the Australian Chamber of Manufactures did its normal quarterly survey of Victorian manufacturing and found that nearly three in every five manufacturing companies surveyed, in other words, 58 per cent, expected the depression conditions to continue or worsen in the period ahead.

The survey confirmed that production trends in Victoria have fallen to the lowest level since the first quarter of 1983. Four out of every five are operating below 80 per cent of capacity. That is, 20 per cent of the capacity is being utilised. Employment prospects also remain bleak with two in every five companies reporting further job losses during the March quarter.

As I said before, we have not reached the bottom of the barrel yet. Wait until the June quarter figures come out; they will be even worse. The Australian Chamber of Manufactures also states:

At the same time, one company in every four reported a decline in investment and only one in ten reported an increase.

This survey was carried out at the end of March following the government's industry statement and the findings are in line with a similar survey done in New South Wales.

Mr Davidson spoke about the good things the government was doing. He spoke about debt reduction. I do not know what principles the government based its debt reduction strategy on because this year the government will sell some $2600 million business enterprises and $710 million other assets, $3310 million worth of assets which one would have thought would have gone to reducing debt. Guess what? Debt will in fact go up by $570 million in this financial year. In other words, asset sales, in whatever form they are, whether it is selling off business enterprises or whatever, will go to finance the current Budget deficit. It will not even do that in total because we will be $570 million worse off.

The government talks about the possibility of Loy Yang. That has not gone anywhere so far. The meat industry that ten years ago employed 7000 workers, thanks to Mr Curran, now employs 2000 workers. The meat industry has been absolutely destroyed as an export industry. That means some 5000 jobs have been lost, many of them in the rural sector, because this government does not have the guts to deal with the union boss.



It is not only that, because even if we could produce the meat and get it to the wharves, the costs of operating the ports and wharves makes it prohibitive and puts us behind in any export-oriented industry.

All sorts of attempts have been made to reduce staff in transport but huge numbers are going on the redeployment list and sitting there because the government cannot afford to pay redundancy packages. When the government did make an attempt to do that, in some cases they lost the most experienced and valued people in the system. The only ones who took up the early retirement scheme knew they could get jobs outside the system and a lot of them have even come back so it was a huge loss with no net reduction.

What about public expenditure restraint? I have not seen any yet. We know that in many areas if it were not for the unions preventing proper surveys being done we could make huge savings of public money, but this government allows union bosses to dictate and we cannot get into those areas to clean them up.

With regard to the privatisation element, in the private sector it is expected that there is at least a 15 per cent return on capital. That is a normal expectation - and it happens. The public sector makes a 2 per cent return.

Hon. D. M. Evans - Look at what Lindsay Fox did with the SEC.

Hon. ROSEMARY V ARTY - Exactly, and that is what should be happening because 2 per cent is not an acceptable return on this State's assets. Other areas that should be looked at - and we would certainly do so - is the privatisation of the insurance sector, WorkCare and third-party insurance because WorkCare has cost this State a huge amount. .

It is fine for the government to say WorkCare is coming good. It is coming good only because the government has put up the premiums. The government was going to reduce the cost of WorkCare insurance but the opposite has happened. The costs are back up to nearly what they were before. WorkCare has become a benevolent social security system.

Until we get better management in the public sector and have cutbacks in over-manning and waste of government money this State will not get back on the rails and that can happen only with a change of government. We would redirect resources to service delivery. Too many government departments have a culture of servicing public servants rather than servicing those people to whom those services should be delivered.

We would change that culture in a number of departments because public money cannot be expended merely on propping up rushy jobs for acolytes who will not get off their butts. When one has only 20 cents in $1 going to service delivery, real questions must be asked about efficiency. A coalition government would have no more loss and funny money schemes such as the Victorian Economic Development Corporation or Tricontinental Corporation Ltd. That was pump priming at its worst.

We would reduce over-manning in those areas where there is currently such huge over-manning. We know it happens in the health and the transport areas. We know it is happening in the upper levels of education. That must all stop. There must be a proper



debt reduction strategy, not this Mickey Mouse scheme that the government has where it says it will reduce debt but in fact increases it. We would reduce debt.

With regard to industrial relations we have made it clear that we see the union movement as a necessary part of our total society. However, we do not accept the unbridled misuse of union power by union bosses. Unionists come to me begging and pleading, saying, "Can't you please do something about those bosses who will not let us work and do the job that we want to do?" That is an absolute travesty. Union membership is falling and the opposition will make it fall even further because it will remove the requirement for compulsory unionism. One should not be compelled to have a ticket to have a job; that is blatant discrimination.

The opposition says that people should have the right to join or not join a union. If businesses want to opt out of the system they should have the right to go into an enterprise bargaining situation. Of course there will be minimum standards; no-one says that there should not be; the opposition says that should be so. Businesses should be able to negotiate with their employees for the conditions that best suit that particular business to maximise productivity for the benefit of everyone, workers included.

We have seen an enormous number of cases of unions interfering in that concept and preventing that happening. Australia and Victoria cannot allow that to continue to happen. Mr President, the opposition has made it clear that it will not prevent this Supply Bill from passing, but it gives no guarantees; it is not prepared to plunge this State into further chaos. The community of this State is currently putting up with too much chaos and the opposition is not prepared to place a further burden on the community.

I join my colleagues in saying that the opposition very reluctantly agrees to pass the Bill.

Hon. D. M. EV ANS (North Eastern) - The Supply Bill before Parliament tonight gives us an opportunity to judge the performance of the Kimer and Cain governments that have been in power in this State since 1982. On any criteria this government does not fare very well at all; in fact, it fares very badly. It is a misery to itself and to the people of Victoria and the sooner it is gone and replaced with a sensible, competent and efficient government the better. That is the judgment of the people of this State, this House and of the Parliament.

There is no heart in the people of Victoria while this government remains. I am sure people are holding money back because they have no confidence. While this government remains in office there will be no lift in investment to get this State off the bottom rung, to get things going again, get some heart into the community, get jobs and a little bit of get up and go for which Victoria has been famous in the past.

There will be no lift in employment until there is a lift in investment and this government is gone. Because the community and the private sector have lost confidence there is no investment. This Budget does nothing to address any of these issues. The only thing this government can do for the benefit of Victoria is to go as soon as it decently can.



Honourable Members - Hear, hear!

Hon. D. M. EV ANS - When this government has gone and there is an effective and responsible coalition government in office, people who understand what working means and who understand, Mr Mier, what petrol pricing is - -

Hon. B. W. Mier - Who is going to lead it?

Hon. D. M. EV ANS - When this government goes and a responsible coalition government is in place with people in Ministerial positions who understand what they are on about and who have not just come from windy corner, confidence will begin to flow back into this State. That is what the people of Victoria are crying out for, that is what the coalition has sought to achieve in the past weeks. That is what the coalition has suggested time and again to the government, a government that has produced this apology for a Budget.

The people of Victoria want this government to go decently and bury itself and let somebody who is competent take its place. When that happens the State's finances will improve. These figures of $30 billion, $40 billion, $50 billion or whatever the figure is, if anyone can work it out - -

Hon. G. R. Craige - They don't even know!

Hon. D. M. EV ANS - At least there will be some opportunity to begin to redress the problem, to get the State back on the rails again and give the young people of Victoria some hope. With a responsible coalition government that pick-up will start and the people will feel confident with the government in power.

Victoria's biggest problem is a lack of taxpayers. There are not enough people making enough money to get tax into the coffers of the government to do the things that are necessary to provide the services that a government should provide - not the services that governments should not be involved in. With a coalition government in power that will begin to happen. The people of Victoria's quarrel is not just with the Supply Bill before the House today - if it were, the opposition would throw it out and go on. It is much more than that; it is the accumulated mistakes of this government since it took office in 1982. It took over a State that was in good order and in good heart, exactly as the Labor government in Queensland has taken over a State in good order and in good heart.

The Budget has done nothing to address the accumulated mistakes of this government. Mr President, it is a Budget of desperation when this State wants a Budget of hope. Let us look at the things that are not addressed, such as unemployment. Honourable members will remember the claims made by the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Doveton, month after month, that Victoria had the lowest unemployment in Australia for 70 months, 80 months, 85 months.

Hon. K. M. Smith - How can we forget?

Hon. D. M. EV ANS - How can we forget? There was a litany: never was Victoria on the bottom rung as far as unemployment was concerned. Now look at the bitter harvest



of Labor's government over the past eight or nine years of neglect. Let us look at where unemployment is at the moment.

Hon. Robert Lawson - The year of the lotus-eaters!

Hon. D. M. EV ANS - Victoria is not now at the end of the 88th or 89th month as the State with the lowest unemployment; it is now one of the highest. That is a total turnaround. Let us face it, we cannot even be sure that that is correct.

The school retention rates are extraordinarily high. Universities are bulging at the seams because they have got 5000 and 10 ()()() more students than they expected to have. There is a 75 per cent retention rate for years 11 and 12 in our secondary schools. This is because young people have not been able to obtain jobs and,instead of obtaining productive employment - and I am sure many of them would want that - they have remained at school in the hope that further education will improve their job prospects.

They are not there so much to get additional education as because they have not got jobs. The unemployment figure in Victoria is not only around 9.9 per cent, because there are a huge number of hidden unemployed in our schools. My colleague in another place, the honourable member for ~wan Hill, informs me that in his electorate unemployment is in the region of 50 per cent and beyond.

From a State with good employment and a good economy this government has run it down. Victoria has a burgeoning Public Service. Members of the opposition in this House and in another place have pointed out the numbers of additional people who are being employed in the Public Service. In the headlines of the Herald-Sun today the Premier says that 10 000 jobs in the Public Service are going to be axed.

Hon. K. M. Smith - We have heard it all before; nothing has happened.

Hon. D. M. EV ANS - Yes, we have heard it all before but there is more than that: $300 million is going to be paid in redundancy payments, provided it can be obtained from the Commonwealth.

The government has created jobs for its friends. It has taken on make-work schemes for card-carrying members of the Labor Party. I am sure Mr Smith will expand on that in his contribution. The Premier referred to $300 million to be allocated for redundancy payments. I am sure if the unions go around to the Premier's door on Monday morning, after she gets back from the Premiers Conference, and ask who she is going to sack, the Premier will say, "No, we will not sack anyone. The jobs will be lost through attrition. The people who want to retire or go out and do something else will be the ones who will be affected".

If it is natural attrition, the government should already have planned to have the necessary payments - severance, long service leave or accumulated sick leave -budgeted for, but we are told the Premier needs another $300 million just to meet that demand. I suspect this is nothing more than a con job. The Premier knows how many people will leave their jobs over the next twelve months but cannot afford to pay them out. The Premier is going to the Commonwealth on the pretext of needing redundancy



payments to get $300 million that the government does not have and needs to pay its debts. This is just another stunt to get more money from the Federal government.

Hon. M. T. Tehan - They are getting an opportunity to borrow more funds.

Hon. D. M. EV ANS - Yes. The government is trying to hide its money. I suggest it is attempting to hide an even larger shortfall from the community. The government set up the Public Service explosion. It hired additional public servants. It expanded the numbers as part of its make-work scheme.

It is not the fault of public servants. It is not their fault if they are doing mic key mouse jobs. They cannot be blamed for not giving real value to the community. It is not their fault if there are in-built inefficiencies in their departments. One does not have to go very far to discover significant in-built inefficiencies.

In a question without notice I asked of the Minister for Education and Training a few weeks ago I pointed out that at the Rialto building there are three people representing unions on the Teacher Appointments Board who have no set tasks. They simply sit there when they should be out in the schools providing integration services and other services that students and parents have been told they can expect but for which there is no money to pay the necessary staff.

Hon. Robert Lawson - They won't get the sack!

Hon. D. M. EV ANS - No, they are quite happily sitting around at the Teacher Appointments Board. I am sure if one went through every government department one would find similar situations. People who should be out in productive employment are just sitting around. It is the Labor government's fault that this has been allowed to occur.

Instead of there being one desk for a piece of paper to be passed over for a signature there are five, seven or ten desks. In private industry there would be only one desk, and that person would get a kick in the pants if he or she did the wrong thing. I suggest that is how it ought to be in the Public Service. That is the type of efficiency that will be introduced when the coalition takes office. There will not be significant job losses. People will shift from unproductive labour into productive labour. That will benefit public servants, the community and the government. As a result of the generation of such activity private industry will earn more dollars for the State and more dollars will be available for the services Victorians require.

It is not the fault of government employees if they are not provided with the resources to do the job. It is the fault of the government if its employees cannot work productively. It is the fault of Ministers of the Crown for not properly administering their departments. The Supply Bill misses that obvious point.

Many people who are now the leaders of the government are at fault. Ministers of the Crown and government backbenchers in this House and the other place must bear the responsibility. The Premier, the Treasurer and Ministers of the Crown are trying to hang on to power. It is at their door that the buck must stop.



Hon. W. R. Baxter - But they are showing no signs of accepting it!

Hon. D. M. EV ANS - No, they are still living in a fool's paradise. They believe everything is as good as it was when they took office in 1982. But they no longer refer to "after 27 years of neglect". When the Labor Party took office nearly everyone in the State had a job. The State's debt was under control. Victoria had a strong industrial climate. People had jobs, and school students believed they were educating themselves for jobs in the future. That has all gone.

The government does not have the courage to recognise that fact and to take the necessary steps. The government should resign.

Mr Ha,llam referred to delayed payments in such fine and devastating detail in his contribution today, as he has so capably done in the past. He referred to the bottom drawer syndrome, or is it the bottomless pit?

Honourable members have heard about all the cheques that have been sent out. In this case it is not that the cheque is in the mail but that the cheque is in the bottom drawer.

Hon. K. M. Smith - What about the ones that have bounced?

Hon. D. M. EV ANS - Either the government says it does not have the money or it sends out the cheques and they bounce. On 12 April VIe ROADS told the Shire of Shepparton, "Sorry, we have no money to meet the April instalment for the roads". Although the government made the arrangements to pay for the roads it ran out of money. Where did the money go? The shire is still looking for it, and it is not the only authority that has suffered this problem.

I turn now to school buses.

Hon. G. R. Craige - There are not too many around!

Hon. D. M. EV ANS - No, there are not. School bus operators were told, "Sorry we are a bit slow in paying you, the Bankcard has run out; you had better borrow some money. But you will be paid after 30 June". Honourable members know a business is going down the tube when people are slow in paying their bills. Businesses are forced to borrow more money on higher interest rates and their credit rating goes down. Again it is the fault of the government if delayed payments are in the bottom drawer. If people are forced to wait the whole economy slows down. If businesses cannot meet their debts they are in serious trouble.

Sitting suspended 6.28 p.m. until 8.3 p.m.

Hon. D. M. EV ANS -It is pleasing to note the number of Ministers who have returned after dinner to hear what I have to say!

Hon. G. R. Craige - They won't be here long.

Hon. B. W. Mier - That was my cue.



Hon. D. M. EV ANS - I am not pleased to see the Minister for Consumer Affairs leaving the Chamber.

Prior to the dinner adjournment I was commenting on a number of issues concerning the financial area in this State and I had just concluded some remarks on the fact that the payment for school buses appears to be being held back until after the end of the year and that those who own the buses are being asked to borrow money in order to keep going.

Further to that I refer to the fact that very often in the Public Service - and this is particularly so in some of the departments, such as the Department of Conservation and Environment - people who are prepared to work are unable to do so or are severely inhibited in carrying out their tasks simply because there is no fuel to put into the machinery. On many occasions I have heard about machinery breaking down and waiting to be fixed because nobody was prepared to come to fix it: they knew they would not be paid because this State government and the departments concerned cannot afford the cost of repairs for the machinery they have.

I refer also to the registered schools. I know this item is part of the Budget that was passed through this House at the end of last year, but the registered schools, which have a right to expect a contribution from the taxpayers' dollars - to which the students' parents themselves contribute - have found that this year, instead of having that contribution made in February, they will have to wait until the end of the year to receive it. They will have to carry the State government for what, in financial terms, should be theirs by right.

Hon. P. R. Hall- They're suffering too!

Hon. D. M. EV ANS - Yes, as Mr Hall points out, those schools are suffering. It is worth noting that the cheapest education for the taxpayers' dollar that can be given in this State is that provided by the registered schools, where so much of the resources and financial contributions necessary to carry out their tasks are provided by the schools themselves, the parents or by endowments. It costs the State government a lot less to keep a student in a private school than it does to keep the same student in a State school because there is a parent contribution.

Hon. P. R. Hall - Two-thirds less.

Hon. D. M. EV ANS - Yes, it costs two-thirds less to keep a student at a registered school. Yet, the State government is not prepared to keep its side of the bargain and make its payments on time, putting substantial additional pressure on those schools. To my mind that sounds like very bad business becal,lse if the students are forced out of those schools and into the State school system it will cost the taxpayers of this State a great deal more.

Even Parliament itself - this House and another place - are not immune. Mr President, the Foley-Russel1 report which you and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly commissioned some months ago and which was presented to Parliament, points out very



clearly the inhibitions placed on the democratic process and the operation of this place simply because Budget restrictions are put in place that can hinder the work, particularly of committees. We know all about the problems that we have had in the dining room.

Hon. G. R. Craige - What are you talking about?

Hon. D. M. EV ANS - We haven't got a dining room. We know of the problems we have had in regard to the provision of services in this place.

Again I direct the attention of the House to the fact that our committees are being severely inhibited in the very valuable work that they do. The Select Committees and the all-party Parliamentary committees give the ordinary citizen the opportunity to give evidence before a Parliamentary committee. In fact, they represent the only real opportunity that a citizen of this State has to appear in a Parliamentary process, have his or her views recorded, receive the protection of Parliamentary privilege, and make those views known directly to members of Parliament in a formal manner.

The committee sessions of this place are placed in jeopardy simply because there is not adequate finance or because of the restrictions and inhibitions placed on those committees in carrying out their work.

Hon. D. R. White - Where do you want to travel to?

Hon. D. M. EV ANS - I point out that the committee of which I am a member has not travelled outside the State for a considerable period. In fact, the committee has adequate work to do within the State and we wish we had the resources to carry it through.

In addition, those committees are now being starved of references and the very great resource that they provide to the community and Parliament is not being used properly. I direct attention to that fact.

I turn now to an area of great interest to me: education. As the House will know, I have been a member of the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Board since its inception. I am one of the three Parliamentary members originally appointed to the board; there are still 5 or 6 left out of the 22 or 23 who were part of the original board. A lot of work has gone into the development of the Victorian certificate of education (VCE). I know there are controversial aspects of it and I have had some criticism about the way in which the VCE was arrived at, but I have always tried to react in a helpful and constructive fashion to proposals relating to the provision of education in this State.

I recognised that the VCE was going to be introduced and therefore it was essential that the best possible system should be put in place; the students in this State should never be placed at risk by an inferior education system. I have adopted that attitude at all times with the VCE. I recognise there are some excellent portions of it and that it introduces some excellent concepts, as well as areas in which some justifiable criticisms can be made.

I have some concern - and it has been echoed in newspaper articles - that adequate resources may not be made available in this critical phase of the introduction of the VCE for some of the essential functions that need to be carried out to make it work. I direct



that matter to the attention of the Minister, not to be critical but to emphasise that the government must be prepared to provide the resources to enable the Victorian certificate of education to be introduced in the best possible way. Students must be given the resources they need to successfully complete the certificate and teachers and schools must be given the means to ensure the maintenance of verification standards and uniformity of assessment. Otherwise, the new system will not succeed.

In 1982-83, at the beginning of the Labor government's term in office, Robert Fordham, the then Minister of Education, agreed to salary increases and improvements in conditions for teachers as the consummation of a deal made with the teacher unions prior to the 1982 election to ensure the Labor party's success.

Not only did the Minister grant increases in salaries to teachers - which may well have been justified - but teachers' terms and conditions were improved to an extent that could not have been justified had any amount of money been available. Face-to-face teaching hours in secondary schools were reduced by approximately 1 hour per week, and the maximum class size was reduced from 28 to 25 students. The reduction in teaching hours and maximum class sizes were luxuries the education system could ill afford, and Victoria is still paying for the excesses of the first years of the Labor government.

Some areas of education are being starved of funds. Adequate numbers of ancillary staff are not being employed; those that are employed by the Ministry are not being adequately paid, and Budget factors make it unlikely that that situation will improve.

Cyclical maintenance programs are being deferred because insufficient money is available. Buildings are wasting away for lack of maintenance, which will cause problems for this and future governments. Many of our schools were built using the light timber method of construction. Most of those are 30 years old and are reaching the end of their design life. Extra life will be gained from them only through renovation and structural improvement - but again, the money is not available.

The education system in Victoria is rapidly running down, which is why I am particularly critical of the government and of the Bills the government is asking the House to consider. The government of Victoria should consider itself on trial every time it presents a Budget to this House. It is proper that it be called to account if the affairs of the State are not carried out properly and efficiently. The evidence I have given in my remarks tonight shows that the government's record in managing the affairs of Victoria is extraordinarily bad.

The government's economic management is responsible for creating a crisis of confidence in this State. Victoria has gone from being the State with the lowest level of unemployment to a State with one of the highest levels of unemployment, a direct result of the lack of investor confidence in the State caused by the government's disastrous economic mismanagement. Because of all those factors the revenue-raising capacity of the government has been severely curtailed, which is why the government is facing a Budget revenue shortfall of approximately $1000 million.



For those and other reasons once again the Premier will have to go cap in hand to the Commonwealth government, which itself is running out of cash, to ask for money to keep the State running. Because Victoria is so short of cash it is unable to either pay its bills or pay them on time. Victorians and Victorian businesses are having to go short simply to bank roll the State government. The money is in the bottom drawer - if the cheque is not in the mail, it will be found in the bottom drawer!

That is why the State government stands condemned. It is why the sooner it does the decent thing and accepts the opposition's invitation to go to the people, the better. Of course the people of Victoria have the right to return a Labor government; but this government ought to give the people the opportunity to pass judgment on its record over the past two or three years, in particular.

I believe it is right that the Supply Bills should be passed tonight so that the business of the State can continue. Nevertheless I believe the situation will be different come October or November this year, because the government's three-year term will then be up. That is the time when a further judgment will need to be made of the government.

I accept that the Bills will be passed, but the government must recognise that, at the most, it has only three or four months to put its house in order and to prove its worthiness to the people of Victoria. It would do the decent thing by the people of Victoria if it took some hard decisions by starting to put departments in order, seeing that the people of Victoria are productively and effectively employed and working on the economic turnaround that the State so desperately needs.

If the taking of hard decisions means that the government becomes unpopular, it has no-one to blame but itself because it did not take the necessary tough decisions years ago. If it fails to do so now, the government will deserve to feel the full wrath of the people of Victoria - as I am sure it will feel when the people of Victoria are given the chance to vote at an election.

With those comments, although I accept that the Supply Bills will be passed tonight, I am extremely critical of the provisions contained in them. The Bills lack imagination and they are evidence of the lack of performance of a government that is no longer able to govern.

Hon. G. R. CRAIGE (Central Highlands) - The Supply Bills are viewed with a great deal of reservation by members on this side of the Chamber. The government's mismanagement of Victoria's economic affairs speaks for itself, and that will be reflected when the people of Victoria have their chance to vote on the government's economic performance at the forthcoming election.

I refer to a matter which, although small in itself, is significant for the constituents of mine who reside in the shires of Kilrnore and Broadford. It concerns the Sunday Creek dam, the faults in its construction, the blow-out in costs and the dam's overall safety. I shall comment in particular on the government's involvement in the erection and management of the dam and its failure to control expenditure.



The darn was built to supply water to the Broadford, Wallan and Kilmore districts, and the bodies involved were the Broadford Waterworks Trust, which is now known as the Broadford Water Board, and the Kilmore and District Waterworks Trust, which was taken over by the Shire of Kilmore.

In March 1982 the two shires involved in the construction of the darn reached an in-principle agreement on the future of the water supply for residents of both shires and the erection of the Sunday Creek darn. The Shire of Kilmore commissioned the firm of Gutteridge Haskins and Davey Pty Ltd as consulting engineers, and the Shire of Broadford commissioned Van Hoof and Byrne Pty Ltd as its consultants.

Both consulting engineering companies produced independent reports: Gutteridge Haskins and Davey produced a report for the Kilmore and District Waterworks Trust and Van Hoof and Byrne produced a report for the Broadford Waterworks Trust. Van Hoof and Byrne commissioned the geotechnical consultants Golder and Associates, considered to be the best geotechnical engineers in Australia. Their reputation in the construction of dams is well known both in Australia and overseas.

During the past three months I have obtained many documents through the Freedom of Information Act, and I shall refer to some of them to develop my argument about the government's lack of management of the Sunday Creek darn. I shall show that the government was directly involved in the project.

Gutteridge Haskins and Davey was concerned about some of the earlier reports issued by Van Hoof and Byrne. In 1982 Gutteridge Haskins and Davey advised the Kilmore trust that the consultants for the Broadford trust had the details wrong. Even in the early stages a company of engineers said the consultants used by the Shire of Broadford had got it wrong.

Gutteridge Haskins and Davey also said it was likely that the darn would leak. Investigations have since been carried out and water has been seeping from the dam. That is caused by a particular problem in the Kilmore district, a problem of which many people were aware.

Hon. B. E. Davidson - This has got a lot to do with Supply!

Hon. G. R. CRAIGE -It does have a lot to do with Supply because the government failed to address a situation it had the power to address. The government allowed a $2 million project to blowout to $8.8 million. Members of the government consider that to be a laughing matter, and I arn sure the Minister for Consumer Affairs will continue to laugh because he thinks wasting $6 million is an insignificant matter.

The Kilmore area is known for dispersive clay, which does not hold together when used in the construction of darn walls; the sand dissolves when subjected to water under high pressure.

In the initial stages of the project a dispute occurred between the Kilmore and District Waterworks Trust and the Broadford Waterworks Trust as to which company would be employed as the engineers. Kilmore wanted Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, and



Broadford wanted to use Van Hoof and Byrne. The then State Rivers and Water Supply Commission was left to make the decision, and it selected Van Hoof and Byrne. One of the reasons for that selection was the fact that a former employee, Mr Milton Speedie, was to act as one of the consultants.

When the construction of the dam was being considered Mr Speedie worked for the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission. However, an agreement was made that when he left the commission he would become a consultant for Van Hoof and Byrne. I put it to the goverrunent that Van Hoof and Byrne won the job simply because a former employee of the then conunission was taken on as a consultant by that engineering firm.

In June 1982 Van Hoof and Byrne completed a preliminary design and environmental report. Gutteridge Haskins and Davey reviewed the report and sent a copy to the Secretary of the Kilmore and District Waterworks Trust. I shall quote from the review dated 29 June 1982:

Foundation seepage could be a problem. Investigation drill holes show relatively high permeabilities in the siltstone.

Already doubts had been cast upon the Viability of the dam. The review continues:

Minimum details are given regarding the spillway excavation. It is noted in the cost estimate that the estimate is based on rippable rock whereas Golders report refers to blasting being required over at least part of the depth.

The review also refers to clay moisture content and states:

Obviously this matter requires further investigation as such matters can result in contractors claiming Significant extra costs in the field.

There was doubt about the preliminary reports supplied by Van Hoof and Byrne, the engineers selected by the then State Rivers and Water Supply Commission. Gutteridge Haskins and Davey raised the concerns in its review, which it sent to the commission some four days after it was released. The conunission would have been aware of the problems that would confront the engineers when building the dam.

The commission approved the project and on 24 August 1982 the Minister at the time approved the commencement of construction. The Kilmore and District Waterworks Trust had some concern about the ability of Van Hoof and Byrne to control a project of that size. The trust sent letters to the commission alerting it to the deficiencies in the preliminary design. Two letters dated 7 September 1982 and 21 September 1982 outline the deficiencies. The letters attempt to bring to the attention of the then Minister the severe deficiencies in the plan.

In November 1982 the Kilmore trust wrote to the commission expressing concern about the ownership of the dam. The acting secretary of the commission, Mr F.C. O'Connor, replied stating:

The commission apologises for the delay in the official approval to this proposal being given together with the finalisation of associated matters, such as water entitlements ...



Mr aConnor had some conversations with the Broadford Waterworks Trust. He stated that the role of the then State Rivers and Water Supply Commission (SRWSC) was to keep both trusts well informed of matters as they proceeded. In his letter he also states:

The draft agreement between the Kilmore and District and Broadford Waterworks Trusts for the construction, operation, maintenance and administration of the proposed Sunday Creek storage which you submitted to the Commission for comment has been perused and amended ....

Quite obviously the picture I am trying to paint is that the government played a major role in the approval for construction of the dam. That was obvious at the end of 1982. He said that Van Hoof and Byrne had consulted with the design engineers. There had been involvement from that government body.

The Kilmore trust was assured it would not suffer from the selection of Van Hoof and Byrne because according to Gutteridge Haskins and Davey Pty Ltd the SRWSC would closely monitor the dam design and structure. Everyone now knows that was a joke. It turned out to be false because the monitoring was somewhat shabby.

In February 1983 the senior design engineer of the commission, Mr Graeme Mc Lellan, sent a memo to the principal design engineer at the commission noting that arrangements had been made for the embankment outlet works and spillway, and that they were considered satisfactory. Until that stage there had been problems with the design but alterations had been made which apparently made it satisfactory.

A report by the then Director-General of Water Resources, Or John Paterson, to the former Minister, Mr McCutcheon, dated 14 June 1985, stated that the plans and specifications for the dam were submitted for approval by the commission engineers. Approval had obviously been given for the overall plans by the government body.

Documents have also shown that the commission was heavily involved in the drafting agreement between the Broadford trust and the Kilmore trust for the construction of the Sunday Creek dam. It is pointless for the government today to say that it had no involvement. That involvement occurred from day one.

All the documents are important because they clearly show the SRWSC had a control over every aspect of the project in its early stage. The dam was to be completed within ten months and was to cost $2 million. The costs were to be shared between the Kilmore trust - its share being 43.8 per cent - and the Broadford trust - with a 56.2 per cent share - and the Australian Paper Manufacturers - which was to pay $69 0000 a year for rights, or 16.4 per cent.

The construction became a disaster from the start. It appears that those involved in the operation at the site level were on the take and it was heavily dominated by union disputation. Van Hoof and Byme charged for work not done and subcontractors walked away from the job with heavy payouts. Most of the problems were those of Van Hoof and Byrne because shortcuts were taken. No heed was paid to advice sought from their own geotechnological consultants, Golder and Associates. The shortcuts were taken to try to reduce costs.



However, the costs substantially increased. Many problems were encountered. Rock had to be brought from a different site because the rock in the area was unsuitable for use in the reservoir wall. These problems could and should have been avoided if the commission and its engineers had done the job properly and examined all aspects. The problems should have been obvious before the project started, and not halfway through construction.

The coJ.lUlUssion engineers were reputedly competent at their job. I argue that they failed to take notice of advice from Gutteridge Haskins and Davey throughout the building project. That firm had built about 46 large dams throughout Australia. Van Hoof and Byrne had no such expertise. One would have thought that had the commission engineers any level of expertise they would have seen that Van Hoof and Byrne was not capable of erecting such a dam, and that it should have gone to those people who had the expertise and credibility.

Towards the completion of construction the intended 1700 megalitres capacity of the dam was increased to 2350 megalitres because of population growth in the area. The SRWSC instigated moves to increase the capacity. Why was that dam not built to the correct size from day one? Why could the figures concerning the growth pattern not have been projected to take account of the increase in population, so that the dam would need to have a certain capacity? That evidence was before the engineers at the commission, yet they failed to see it.

However, four years later when the dam construction was nearly completed they realised it would not be large enough. Construction was completed in 1985 at a final cost of approximately $8.8 million - more than four times the original cost! The government knew what was happening because successive Ministers continued to sign documents for loans taken out by the water authorities to cover dam construction.

I refer to some of those documents. The first is dated 27 Apri11987 from the then SRWSC to the Broadford Water Board. It states:

I refer to your letter of 27 March 1987 requesting approval for the board to borrow $725 000. You are advised that the Minister for Water Resources on 23 April 1987 approved of the board borrowing the above sum to meet the cost of capital works.

That letter was signed by Robert Skinner, Acting Director-General.

A letter of 8 June 1984 signed by the Director of Water Resources and addressed to the Broadford Waterworks Trust states:

... the acting Minister for Water Supply on 17 May 1984 approved of the Trust borrowing $400 000 to meet the cost of subsidised water supply works and $408 000 for unsubsidised works.

In a letter dated 23 February 1984 to the Secretary of the Broadford Waterworks Trust the Director of Water Resources said:

You are advised that the Minister of Water Supply on 23 February 1984 approved of the trust borrOWing the sum of $500 000.



A letter dated 3 March 1983 to the Secretary of the Broadford Waterworks Trust from the Secretary of the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission said:

You are advised that the Minister of Water Supply on 4 March 1983 approved of the trust borrowing the sum of $450 000 to meet the cost of water supply works.

In a letter dated 28 March 1985 to the Secretary of the Broadford Water Board the Director-General of Water Resources Victoria, Or John Paterson, said:

You are advised that the Minister for Water Resources on 20 March 1985 approved the board borrowing $317 000 to meet the cost of storage construction.

The picture I am trying to paint is that the government has continually laid the blame at the Broadford Water Board and the Kilmore Water Board for the blow-out in cost to this dam. Clearly, these letters show that right from 1985 the Minister approved the loans that allowed the expenditure and yet at no stage did the government do anything about it. Its mismanagement in this case is evident.

It did not say, "Let us stop and see what is happening and find out why we have this blow-out". The Minister kept approving funds well beyond the budgeted amount of $2 million. He approved $8.8 million. The government cannot wipe its hands and lay blame at the Broadford or Kilmore water boards. It played a significant role in the whole matter and it cannot walk away from it.

There are some larger matters. One is that, as a requirement of the then Department of Water Resources, the boards had to measure the inflow of water into the dam and they erected some telemetry system which was run by sonar panels linked to a Telecom cable linked to a computer at Broadford. It cost $100 000. It never worked.

Hon. K. M. Smith - It never worked?

Hon. G. R. CRAIGE -It never worked! The $100 000 worth of computer equipment linked to a Telecom cable with sonar panels to measure the water inflow and outflow has never been operational. There is $100 000 of taxpayers' money down the gurgler and it was approved by this State government.

One of the major concerns about the dam which became evident is the safety problem. On completion of the dam in 1985 there were two major leaks in the wall. In fact, another leak developed last year and this is a serious matter. When leaks occur in a dam such as this it can undermine the wall which nobody can see until the wall collapses.

Hon. D. R. White - What erection was this?

Hon. G. R. CRAIGE - This should be of grave concern because there is a housing estate in the area. I would be very worried if I were one of those residents because of the overall credibility of the dam wall.

Hon. B. W. Mier - Where is this?

Hon. G. R. CRAIGE - At Clonbinane. The Kilmore Shire Council, which had responsibility for water in that district, at this stage was feeling as though it could not get



as much water and it had no control over how the money was spent in the construction of this dam. It was told that everything would be all right. In fact in 1988 the Kilmore Shire Council sought legal and engineering advice as to whether it could recover some of the cost of the dam.

The ratepayers of Kilmore and Broadford are being accused along with the shires of failing to do the proper thing. My view is the government led and controlled them and had direct involvement all the way to the blow-out of costs of this dam and it cannot walk away from it. The ratepayers in both Broadford and Kilmore are the highest paying ratepayers in respect of water and sewerage in the State and I put the onus for allowing such a situation to occur on the government.

In July 1988 the Kilmore Shire Council commissioned the consulting engineers Camp Scott Furphy Pty Ltd to conduct an independent review. The company commissioned Coffey and Partners Pty Ltd to look at the whole geological and technical aspect of the project. Coffey and Partners are not only Australian authorities but world authorities on dam construction. Both companies make some large claims. In fact, they both say that the dam was built back to front and that the rockfill zone in the dam was placed on the upper stream rather than the downstream side which is the normal construction of a dam. They also say there is no filter zone on the downstream face.

I have a report dated 1 March by Camp Scott Furphy and Coffey and Partners which states:

... the basic design of the dam is unusual in two ways:

The rockfill zone is placed upstream, with no rockfill zone downstream;

There is no filter zone in the downstream face.

The technical significance of these features is that the design would appear to result in a significantly greater chance of uncontrolled leakage through the dam which could cause damage to the structure.

The report goes on to say that the long term adequacy of the dam is a problem. Obviously they were very concerned about the safety aspect of the dam. In a report dated 23 February Coffey and Partners said when referring to seepage:

This aspect of the dam design and construction represents a long-term concern for the embankment integrity and should be the subject of further investigation to assess potential piping problems in more detail.

Further the report states:

Foundation leakage losses are probably not critical to the stored volume, but they could affect overall embankment stability by allowing higher piezometric levels than assumed, and they could allow piping through the foundation. Piezometers would be required in the foundation to assess the effect of any foundation leakage on the piezometric levels.

This is a report by world authorities on dam construction. It goes on to say:

The seepage observed on the downstream face at the end of the project represents a real concern for a potential piping problem and continuing observation of these and other areas is imperative.



The unusual zoning of the dam, and the lack of changes to the zoning during construction seemed to have caused high cost as a result of material wastage, and extensive foundation preparation under the clay foundations.

The report states:

Piezometers should also be installed in the downstream foundation and embankment to confirm assumed piezometric levels. This work should still be done to confirm the piezometric levels in comparison to design assumptions and to check the long-term safety of the dam ... We consider there is sufficient evidence in the documentation sighted to warr~t a detailed review of the dam safety, apart from any legal action which may be taken as a result of costs.

This company put together a report which went to the government. The shire went to the expense of consulting not only engineers who were experts in the area but also lawyers. They found there was a problem with the safety aspects of the dam. It is not something that is a figment of my imagination or of the imaginations of others, it is information contained in several reports indicating that the dam had real safety problems. I have spoken to the representatives of Coffey and Partners Pty Ltd and they have told me that there is a potential that a hole may develop in the dam wall.

The basic question is how real that threat is and, if it is a real threat, how long it will take. It really requires some analysis to discover what the potential problems are. Dams of this size do seep from time to time but the problem with the Sunday Creek dam is that because of its unorthodox design it is difficult to establish what internal damage is occurring to the wall during seepage.

Piezometers are generally installed in dam walls as a safety warning system but the Sunday Creek dam does not have any. In my view that was a further act of negligence by Van Hoof and Byme and the dam's overseer, the former State Rivers and Water Supply Commission of Victoria, the body that had the ultimate responsibility for commissioning and constructing the dam.

The Rural Water Commission undertook an inspection of the dam on 8 April 1989 after it had been notified of concerns raised by Camp Scott Furphy Pty Ltd and Coffey and Partners Pty Ltd. Or K. J. Langford, the then Acting General Manager of the Rural Water Commission, wrote a letter of 8 October 1989 to the Broadford Water Board forwarding a copy of a report on the inspection of the dam by Mr Phillip Cummins, the chief designing engineer for the commission. The letter states:

While it has been concluded that the dam presents no imminent danger to the public it would be prudent to review those issues raised by Coffey and Partners Pty Ltd.

The report sets out some of the problems identified by Mr Cummins, who inspected the dam. The report says in part:

... however, it is possible that the foundation seepage is occurring beneath the wall ...

No conclusions could be drawn on the long-term stability of the embankment or on the hydrological or hydraulic adequacy of the spillway.

It is evident from the report made in 1989 that the Rural Water Commission was concerned even at that late stage and yet nothing was done.


Thursday,\lO May 1991 COUNCIL 2015 \

While the r$l problem is the safety of the dam another concern is the blow-out in costs to $8.B million,labout which nothing was done by the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission\and the cost of which the ratepayers of Kilmore and Broadford have borne ever since.

Hon. Robert Lawson - They got a crummy dam!

Hon. G. R. CRAIGE - Not only did they get a crummy dam but they have a dam with a Potential danger factor. This matter requires the considered involvement of the government to at least commission independent studies to test the overall safety of the dam.

Coffey and Partners, in other claims centred around the poor preliminary testing by Van Hoof and Byrne, raised grave doubts about aspects of the costing of the dam. Coffey and Partners claim that Van Hoof and Byme received payment when the firm should have absorbed the costs itself and should not have been paid by the government or the Broadford Water Board. It appears that Van Hoof and Byrne were clearly rorting the system. Camp Scott Furphy Pty Ltd go even further and describe some activities of Van Hoof and Byrne as incompetent.

Kilmore Shire Council took legal advice from solicitors Maddock, Lonie and Chisholm. A report dated 1 March 1988 from that firm states:

We think that a prima facie case of negligence exists against Van Hoof and Byrne ...

An action would be for negligently inflicted economic loss.

The real picture is that the government was involved because it allowed this to occur, yet nothing has been done to deal with the situation.

The principals of Van Hoof and Byme Pty Ltd must have really seen what was going on because in the 1986-87 financial year it transferred its assets to a related company called Van Hoof and Byrne (Consulting Engineers) Pty Ltd. The former company of Van Hoof and Byrne Pty Ltd was registered in March 1979. It was a $3 company, with one $1 share issued to Peter Van Hoof of 9 Berkeley Court, Mount Eliza; one $1 share issued to William Stanley Lister Byrne, then of 4 Two Bays Road, Mount E1iza; and the third share jointly held by Peter Van Hoof and Bill Byme.

Van Hoof and Byrne later changed its name to Hecton Pty Ltd, a company that had few assets. Van Hoof and Byrne has since been involved in a small engineering project which has also ended up as a disaster. It appears that Van Hoof and Byrne got away with thousands of dollars while the people of Kilmore and Broadford have been left with a huge debt for a dam that leaks and is a huge threat to their safety.

Van Hoof and Byrne are not the only devils in this matter. Quite clearly the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission was fundamentally responsible for looking after the public interest and failed to do so - it failed miserably. That commission pushed the waterworks trust into the Sunday Creek dam project right from the start and when things got a bit rough moved away from it.

CASINO CONTROL BILL


In 1991 the Office of Water Resources is trying to push Kilmore and Broadford water boards to amalgamate with the Seymour Water Board to form the Mid-Goulburn Regional Water Board. Is it going to be another disaster by the government? There are huge debts of $11 million hanging over Broadford and Kilmore. Those debts were the responsibility of the government and not of the ratepayers of Broadford and Kilmore. The project should have been stopped before it even got off the ground.

This is a clear example of the government's inability to manage Victoria's financial affairs. Although it is a small part of the overall picture it is an issue which affects the residents in the Wallan-Kilmore-Broadford area.

When it is involved in such an important issue as this dam, the government has a moral responsibility to do something about it and not just to lay the blame at other people's feet. With the risks involved, the government should do something now.

The Supply Bill contains many other hidden factors. Since 1982, when this government came to power, many stories have been told about how the government has not implemented proper financial management procedures. Sadly the Supply Bill will pass and the people of Victoria who have been cheated by the government will continue to be cheated. The situation will continue until a change is made to the responsible and effective money managers in a coalition government.

Debate adjourned for Hon. R. I. KNOWLES (Ballarat) on motion of Hon. K. M. Smith.


CASINO CONTROL BILL

Introduction and first reading

Received from Assembly.

Read first time on motion of Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development).

BA YSIDE PROJECT (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL



Read first time on motion of Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development).

MARTIAL ARTS CONTROL (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL


MA~TIAL ARTS CONTROL (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL



Read first time on motion of Hon. B. W. MIER (Minister for Consumer Affairs).

HISTORIC BUILDINGS (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL



Read first time for Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) on motion of Hon. D. R. White.

BROILER CHICKEN INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) BILL



Read first time for Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) on motion of Hon. D. R. White.

SUSPENSION OF SESSIONAL ORDERS

2017

Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - I move:

That so much of the Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent motions for the second readings of Bills to be taken after 10 p.m. during the sitting of the Council this day.

Motion agreed to.


(ANCILLARY PROVISIONS, 1991-92, No. 1) BILL

Debate resumed from earlier this day; motions of Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development).

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) -It is after some considerable debate and popularly expressed concern that the coalition has decided to allow the passage of the Supply Bill. It is with a heavy heart; recognising that most Victorians want to have an election conducted as soon as possible and that the defeat of the Supply Bill may have caused an election to be called, thereby meeting the expectations of the public.



However, as was announced today by the Leader of the Opposition, Jeff Kennett, the liberal and National parties are not prepared to allow Joan Kimer to create even greater economic hardship for Victoria by not calling an election after the coalition blocked the Bill, and arrogantly ensuring that there was disruption and economic controversy as a result of not calling an election. For those reasons the Bill will pass.

However, the Uberal and National parties give no commitment on the passage of the Budget. The coalition puts the government on notice about that fact and makes it clear that its members have nothing but disrespect for the govemn'lent. We have nothing but disrespect for the members of the government and we have nothing but disgust for the track record of the government.

In 1991 the track record of this government has reached an even lower level of acceptance than it had before. Australian Ratings Pty Ltd and Moody's Investors Service Inc. have both announced a downgrading of the Victorian government's long- term debt credit rating. That credit rating drop is a measure of the failure of this government to attract economic respectability to itself. U the government were to announce an economic policy it would be the equivalent of creating a horse laugh from here to Perth; it has no economic credibility! The government cannot attract any confidence in its policies or its pronouncements.

The greatest measure of the failure of the economic credibility of the government is in terms of unemployment. If one considers the individuals who have suffered as a result of the failure of the Cain and Kirner governments, one is considering those who have lost their jobs, in particular the breadwinners of families who have lost their jobs and whose families are therefore suffering.

In May this year, unemployment in Victoria jumped to 127 300, with the rate soaring from 9.2 per cent to 10.5 per cent. Therefore unemployment in Victoria has increased in just one year by 94.3 per cent. Far from the boast of the previous government that the employment rate was one of the best in the country now we are trailing the field. Australia's unemployment rate has increased by 40.3 per cent in one year, while Victoria's has increased by 94.3 per cent. Tragically, twice as many Victorians are out of work and looking for jobs than there were twelve months ago. Another measure of the economic situation is the job vacancies, which have shown a decrease of 74.3 per cent in Victoria, compared with 44.9 per cent in Australia.

The list of Victoria's woes goes on. Retail turnover in real terms has declined 1.6 per cent over the rest of Australia, but in Victoria it has declined by 6.8 per cent. New car registrations have declined by '15.7 per cent in Victoria compared to a fall of 15.8 per cent for the rest of Australia.

Private new capital expenditure has declined by a massive 10.9 per cent in Victoria whereas in the rest of Australia there was a fall of 0.7 per cent.

These are measures of the economic bankruptcy caused by the incompetence of the Kimer government and its inability to introduce economic policies that will assist the engine of Victoria's economy - private enterprise.


Thursday, ~O May 1991 COUNCIL 2019

The ALP has betrayed the potential of our great State. Tax increases are another memory of the Cain and Kimer governments. Payroll taxes are up 11.1 per cent and petrol taxes, induding royalties, are up 39.1 per cent. Uquor taxes, which have again increased in the last Budget are up 26.8 per cent.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous interjected.

Hon. R. S. de FEGEL Y (Ballarat) - On a point of order, if Mr Theophanous wishes to make inane interjections he should at least do so from his own seat.

The PRESIDENT - Order! All interjections are disorderly. As the current interjections have been drawn to my attention I ask that there be no interjections.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) - Thank you, Mr President; although interjections by Mr Theophanous cannot be regarded as a threat to anyone's intelligence. One has nothing to fear from Mr Theophanous when making a speech.

The government does not care about the impact it has had on the ordinary family. The observations the shadow Cabinet has made when it has gone out into the suburbs to visit community groups and meet the real people is that the Labor Party's behaviour has affected its traditional supporters. It is no wonder Labor Party support is at the lowest level in its existence.

This year the Labor Party celebrates its 100th anniversary. I like the. idea of celebrating that at a time in its history when its support is at its lowest ebb. It is a pariah of the past.

When we come to government the greatest hazard that we will inherit is the Labor g<;>vernment's debt. Debt charges are 15..4 per cent above the level for the same period last year. Increasing tax dollars go to pay the interest on borrowings by the government. We know there are poison pills that we must face when we are elected to government. Those poison pills are the many debts that will fall due during our first years in government.

We can do nothing about that ~ituation. We have to tolerate it. We regret the fact that we as the future government will be hobbled by the legacy of the Cain and Kimer governments. In all key areas of State government responsibility, with the single exception of education, there have been massive blowouts in expenditure. The increases are double and treble the projected inflation rate in the key cost centres of State government responsibility, because costs, including transport costs and debt charges, have blown out to an alarming degree.

We call on the government to act and we say with heavy heart that we agree to pass the Supply Bill.

Let us look not only at 1991 but at the record of the government over the years, which demonstrates the capacity of the Labor Party to bring the State to its knees.

In 1984 the government put in place a ten-year economic plan, which was unveiled in a glorious release. The government said it wanted to promote the expansion of the Victorian Economic Developmen~ Corporation and State Bank Victoria. In the government's language that meant that the VEDC then failed and the State Bank had to



be sold. Some achievement for the Labor Party that is meant to represent the battlers and which believed in public institutions! Its actions killed those institutions.

Losses of $135 million have occurred in the Victorian Investment Corporation. The cost of the sale and lease back of rolling stock exceeded $754 million. WorkCare has an accumulated deficit of $2.493 billion. The former Premier, Mr Cain, measured Victoria's economic success by the number of cranes on the horizon. That was the simplicity of his judgment. Those cranes were building offices that are now considered the worst architectural contributions made to the City of Melbourne. Most of those buildings of which he was so proud are now unoccupied and it will take ten years and thousands of people to fill them.

Last year the Farrow group of building societies collapsed. Honourable members should examine the Labor Party's complicity. It promised to bail out those building societies. It said the people's investments were safe.

The Treasurer approved a $46 million deal to help meet the State Bank debts. The deal was done without Parliamentary approval. The Treasurer was not only caught out for being incompetent but also for acting illegally.

The Labor Party's incompetence has now spread to the Federal level. It is interesting to note the words of the Federal Treasurer, Mr Keating, when in early February he analysed the economic situation and then blamed Victoria for the recession. He distanced himself totally from the situation in Victoria because he knew it was an economic liability and more importantly he knew it was politically blighted.

It will take twenty years to repair the Labor Party's political reputation. The government is beset by political inertia. Opposing factions have got together to save their own skins and to put some halfwits into Parliament. The decision to support these halfwits is something that will haunt the Labor Party for many years. The Labor Party has not put people into Parliament who have the capacity to lead but instead it put in dead wood and time servers. It has preselected people who can be regarded only as rejects.

One should never forget the influence of the far left unions and the officials who can be regarded as the greatest failures of the Labor Party organisation. People such as Wally Curran, whose capacity was demonstrated in the scandal of the government's submission to the meat inquiry. If one wanted to pick a bad angle of the Labor Party all one would need to do would be to pick the true believer of the 1990s, Wally Curran. It is people who are so discredited and who are so full of hate they call themselves Wally Curran.

The government cannot face the tough decisions. Key people in government want to sell Loy Yang B power station. They knew it was the only way to ensure that funds would be available for further expansion in the State, but the Labor Party cannot make the tough decisions because it will not offend its mates and therefore the new determination of the Labor Party, the clear thinkers, was defeated. The fact that there had been a privatisation move within the Labor Party ranks is a measure of the fact that it has failed to deliver in the 19905, even though many saw it as being able to deliver in the early 19805.



There are divisions within the Labor Party over the leadership - the Leader they cannot support, do not respect and wish they did not have - and over the financial crisis that they have left in this State.

No-one, and in particular the traditional Labor voters, will forget the Tricontinental scandal, the State Bank scandal and the VEDC scar\dal. They will never forget the fact that the Labor Party betrayed their interests. When one looks at the waste and mismanagement, the financial scandals, the growth in the bureaucracy and the continuing increases in government expenditure in real terms we see a government that has lost touch and has failed to deliver for ordinary Victorians.

Clearly it opens up opportunities - the redirection of resources to higher priority areas, the saving of wasted funds and ensuring that we deliver services to those in need in the areas of health, education, public transport, infrastructure. We need to get back to basics and we need the vision that the Uberal and National Party coalition offers. Today however the government is so much on the way out that it has become the subject of national scorn.

I turn in my final remarks to a specific issue of concern to a regional city which has perhaps been hit hardest by the incompetence of the Australian Labor Party, and that is Geelong.

That city has seen massive unemployment, and industrial downturn and it has borne the brunt of the lies of Labor politicians over the Pyramid issues. It is a city that deserves help.

The concern I specifically want to raise relates to the Geelong Regional Commission and the development that should have worked long ago and given life back to Geelong but which has failed because of the incompetence and mismanagement of Labor politicians, the failures of the staff of the Geelong Regional Commission, and the incapacity of Ministers to intervene and ensure that the Baylink development got off the ground rather than remaining as a wasteland.

The Baylink development proposal has the strong support of the coalition in principle as being a concept worthy of expansion and development. However, the Geelong Regional Commission has now proved itself incapable of ever ensuring that this development gets off the ground; and the people of Geelong are the dear losers.

I have been concerned about this issue for some time, after frequent visits by shadow Ministers to Geelong and the recognition that the project is pivotal to the psychological recovery of the area.

There is a dear need to wipe the slate dean and get some new action going on this bold proposal. In 1981 the green light was given for the Baylink development by the then Uberal government. Nothing has occurred since then other than chronic mismanagement and unprofessional leadership by the Geelong Regional Commission and Labor Ministers.

Worse than that, documents released to me under the Freedom of Information Act show that the Geelong Regional Commission is now so determined to cover up its failings and

SUPPLY (1991.;92, No. 1) BILL and WORKS AND SERVICES

2022 COUNCIL Thursday. 30 May 1991

obscure its inadequacies that it is lying about attitudes and issues relating to that development.

The documents released to me show that the Geelong Regional Commission has been unprofessional and secretive about the development of the Baylink project and that it has not acted professionally to e~e that Baylink can go ahead.

The chairman of the Geelong Regional Commission, Mr Colin Atkins, must take personal responsibility for the failure of the Baylink development over the past decade. He is living in a fool's paradise if he believes this development will ever get off the ground under the leadership of the existing commission staff.

The documents released to m~ indicate that there has been a gross distortion of the attitudes of the coalition to this development. My Budget speech on 25 September 1990 in Hansard at pages 431 to 436 records my concern about failure of the government to achieve any progress on the Baylink development.

That speech exposed, in particular, some of the story about the gross mismanagement of public funds on the purchase of jU\ Imax theatre for the Geelong Baylink development -a purchase of $2 million worth of theatre equipment for the Baylink development -despite the fact that there was significant economic doubt about the project, and despite the fact that even the discredited Department of Management and Budget thought the finances were dodgy.

Two million dollars of public funds have been spent on theatre equipment that has been sitting in a crate for two years; never used, never installed, and with no site chosen for the installation of the theatre, let alone any plans to open the theatre.

But following that speech the Geelong Regional Commission was so desperate to cover up its inadequacies that in a secret minute to the commission members it distorted that speech and said that the State coalition supported the actions of the Geelong Regional Commission. I wish to use this debate to outline the documents released to me under the Freedom of Information Act which make two things quite clear: firstly, the Geelong Regional Commission has been unprofessional, and secretive in its dealings about the Baylink development proposal.

Secondly senior Geelong Regional Commission employees have distorted the truth to justify their position and to manufacture support for their unpopular actions.

Worse still, deliberate lies have been spread by senior Geelong Regional Commission staff to create the facade that there is bipartisan support for actions taken by Mr Colin Atkins and some of his employee colleagues.

In fact, the State coalition supports the concept of the development but believes many of the decisions taken by the c~n.urussion have been wrong.

As was indicated in my speech on 25 September 1990 we believe the investment of $2 million of public funds in the Imax theatre was mistaken. The coalition also believes the planned enclosure of Eastern Beach Road as part of that development is mistaken.



But in a memo to the Geelong Regional Commission commissioners in October 1990, followed by my speech to Parliament in September, that position was distorted. In a document released to me under the Freedom of Information Act entitled "Geelong Regional Commission Baylink Development, October 1990" and with the words "responsible officer: M. aShaughnessy /1. McCartney" at the top of the page a number of allegations were made which are demonstrably untrue. They prove that senior employees of the commission have resorted to lying instead of facing up to their failures.

In that document it was stated under the summary that "the closure of Eastern Beach Road has bipartisan political support and this was stated in Legislative Council on 25 and 26 September 90." That is untrue. No such statement was made.

The people who were responsible for writing it can only be described as barefaced liars. On page 2 the document states:

The closure of this section of Eastern Beach Road has bipartisan political support and this has recently been reiterated in State Parliament.

It then quotes me in the following terms:

... the opposition's support is illustrated by the Honourable M.A. Birrell's statement in Parliament on the 25th September, "The Baylink project must not remain nothing more than a vacant space or derelict buildings. The people of Geelong must not be deprived of a development opportunity ... ".

In reality that is a carefully constructed and devious reporting of what I said and is designed to ensure that the readers of the memo gain the false impression that the coalition supports the Geelong Regional Commission (GRC) plan to close Eastern Beach Road, which the GRC believes integral to the Baylink project. That is not what I said, nor is it the view of the coalition.

In fact, the quotation which was used to demonstrate my alleged support for the Eastern Beach Road closure and which was relied on in the memo prepared in 1990 for the GRC by senior commission staff was a report of my speech in Hansard of 25 September 1990, where I am recorded as saying on page 435:

The Baylink project must not remain nothing more than a vacant space or derelict buildings. The people of Geelong must not be deprived of a development opportunity because of bureaucratic bungling and Ministerial incompetence.

The quote used in the memo conveniently left out the last words which referred to bureaucratic bungling and Ministerial incompetence, therefore giving the impression that the coalition supported the controversial action being taken by the GRC when my entire speech was dedicated to criticising those controversial actions.

Hon. W. R. Buter - We recall it.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL - Thank you. Indeed, my speech gained considerable coverage in the Geelong Advertiser of that week. The memo prepared for the commission also failed to advert to the fact that during my speech I spoke of:

... a misguided commission, misusing public funds.



I also talked about the commission's failure to act in the public interest.

Under the Freedom of Information Act I accessed this document as part of my search of the commission's plans for the Baylink development. I was dismayed and distressed to see such unprofessional behaviour by well paid public sector employees and I call Mr Colin Atkins, the GRC chairman, to account. He must take responsibility for these lies.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS Oika Jika) - On a point of order, Mr President, I realise that during the Supply debate considerable scope is given to honourable members to discuss a variety of topics. For some time now Mr Birrell has been attacking the role of the Geelong Regional Commission and officers of that commission. Although it may be appropriate to set the record right in a different context, I have been waiting to hear Mr Birrell refer to the Supply Bill. I ask you, Mr President, to ensure that Mr Birrell's comments are more relevant to the debate.

Hon. R. I. KNOWLES (Ballarat) - On the point of order, Mr President, Mr Birrell is referring to a position that is paid for by public funds and to a project which receives funding from consolidated revenue. He is in order to refer to the way public employees act. If Mr Theophanous disagrees with Mr Birrell he will have the opportunity during the debate to advance arguments contrary to what has been said.

Mr Birrell is talking about the way public moneys have been spent and the way public employees act and, therefore, he is clearly in order.

The PRESIDENT - Order! A similar point of order was taken by a member of the opposition against a member of the government party earlier this evening who was allegedly ranging too widely. The Appropriation Bill, the Supply Bill, and the Address-in-Reply give the three opportunities for the widest possible ranging debate on matters of government administration, whether those are within departments or instrumentalities controlled by Ministers.

The Geelong Regional Commission is a statutory authority under Ministerial direction and control. It is subsidised by the Budget and hence is the subject of both the Appropriation Bill and the Supply Bill. Furthermore, in his remarks Mr Birrell has been holding the chairman of that commission and the Minister to account. What he is doing is clearly within the traditions of the Supply Bill debate, which exists specifically to enable criticisms of this nature to be made.

Government members also have the widest possible opportunity to criticise the attitude of the opposition on these matters and neither will be truncated.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) -It is tragic that after ten years no action has occurred with Baylink and, worse than that, as I have exposed, the only real action of the Geelong Regional Commission has been to cover up or deceive people about the truth.

I turn now to a separate aspect of the Baylink development, which is its economic viability and the way the commission has sought to say it will be viable. In the same agenda document released to me under the Freedom of Information Act, dated October 1990, the following statement is made by senior employees of the commission:



The viability of the Baylink project hinges on the success of the commission submission for the Tabaret.

I had already explained in my Budget debate speech on 25 September 1990 that the then Department of Management and Budget had stated:

The project revenue generating capacity may need to be enhanced before the project is committed.

Now we find the commission saying that the entire viability of this interesting development proposal rests on the Tabaret being sited at Baylink. Can you imagine anything more distressing than saying that the project would only be viable if it got a Tabaret within its precincts! What is quite clear is that Mr Colin Atkins and the GRC employees are clutching at straws to justify the financial viability of their own project. Is it any wonder that the project has done nothing to show any signs of success over the past ten years?

Of course, since the memo was written in October the Tabaret has not been allocated to the Baylink development and it would be no surprise if the Tabaret, being as objectionable and unpopular as it now is, is not even on the short list of commission objectives.

What this displays is both the fact that the old Department of Management and Budget questioned the economic viability of the Geelong Regional Commission plans and the commission, in trying to leap at any glimmer of hope, was prepared to say the whole viability of the project rested on getting a Tabaret. I doubt that very Inuch but it is an echo of the past because only a few years ago the commission was saying that the viability of the project rested on' the installation of the Imax theatre.

The lmax theatre will not go away just through the passage of time and that $2 million piece of equipment still sits in a crate gathering dust in Geelong. It was purchased by the Geelong Regional Commission in a highly speculative investment in April 1988. It arrived in Geelong in May 1989, two years ago.

An Honourable Member - Who is paying the holding costs?

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL - They are being paid by the commission on behalf of the ratepayers of Geelong and on behalf of the taxpayers of this State. That crate is sitting in Geelong; it has not been opened; the equipment has never been used; a film has never been shown and a date has never been set for the opening of the Imax theatre. The commission is living in a fool's paradise if it thinks it will make the Baylink project viable. Up to $90 000 a month is apparently being expended in holding costs and interest charges to the Imax theatre and associated developments.

We will never forget that Labor Ministers gave the Imax investment their approval which was required before the Geelong Regional Commission could expend any funds. This was another Labor Party investment that has gone wrong. This is a $2 million white elephant that is an embarrassment to Geelong because what it needs is some genuine assistance. It could be regarded only as a speculative and high risk venture.

mSTORIC BUILDINGS (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL


The purchase of the lmax theatre was based on the misguided hopes and unsophisticated guesswork of the Labor Party and the Geelong Regional Commission. It was a stab in the dark at the expense of the taxpayers and Geelong's ratepayers and it has failed. 'This monumental mistake will hang around and haunt the Labor Party for as long as it remains in power.

On behalf of the coalition I call on the government to do a public audit of this investment and to come clean on whether this piece of capital equipment will ever be removed from its box. We also call on the government to ensure that the concept of the Baylink development never dies because it is a concept we support even though, as my colleague Mr Chamberlain made clear in an article in the Geelong Advertiser in February this year: we do not support the closure of the Eastern Beach Road as part of that development.

There is no need to adopt the controversy of the road closure when the government will not even face up to the shortcomings of its own mismanagement over the infrastructure investment. For some people this is perhaps only $2 million, but others care about $2 million. The government has shown it is capable of losing billions of dollars and its betrayal of commonsense has seen it drive Victoria into an economic crisis but I will not let this example of the Labor Party's mismanagement go when I am confronted with documents released to me under freedom of information which show up senior employees of the commission as being barefaced liars. I have doubted their managerial competence in the past and I hope the authors of this document are exposed and that Mr Colin Atkins, Chairman of the Geelong Regional Commission, takes responsibility for it and apologises for its contents. In the absence of that there will be nothing but a relentless pursuit of another of the Labor Party's failures.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R. I. KNOWLES (Ballarat).

Debate adjourned until next day.


Second reading

Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - I move:


In 1988, the government made a pre-election commitment to review the Historic Buildings Act 1981.

In February 1989, the then Minister for Planning and Environment, the Honourable Tom Roper, announced that a review of the Historic Buildings Act would be undertaken as a result of concerns across the spectrum of user groups - owners, developers and the conservation movement.

The aims of the review were:



to look at drafting ambiguities and anomalies such as the inability under the Act to provide financial assistance to lessees on Crown land;

2027

to look at the scope of the Act. It is currently limited primarily to buildings but should it include gardens or archaeological sites for instance?

to examine procedures for handling permits quickly and efficiently; and

to examine how the backlog of building nominations should be dealt with.

Following preliminary consultation with 80 interested groups an options paper was released on 31 July 1989 for public comment. Submissions were received and assessed and a final paper put to the then Minister. The paper presented a consensus view on most issues with the exception of that of the scope of the Act. All of the options upon which consensus was reached pertain to administrative streamlining of the council's procedures and operations.

The ability of the Historic Buildings Council to operate efficiently is hampered by the processes, time limits and administrative requirements contained in the 1981 Historic Buildings Act. These problems have been long recognised by both the Historic Buildings Council and its user groups. The proposed amendments address procedural and administrative problems which have been identified.

Before the scope of the Act is addressed it is necessary to ensure that the Historic Buildings Council is operating at maximum efficiency within the context of the Act's current scope.

The proposed amendments do not in any way alter the current role and functions of the Historic Buildings Council but w~ll allow it to operate more efficiently within limited existing resources and with minimal delays to building owners seeking permits or financial assistance from the Historic Buildings Council. The amendments will improve the council's capacity to deal with nominations for addition to the Historic Buildings Register.

The proposed amendments seek to bring financial reporting procedures in line with current government practice. The penalties and offences provisions have also been updated and revised.

Measures to improve the council's ability to ensure that historic buildings are afforded sufficient protection are proposed by making the serving of interim preservation orders simpler and more efficient.

The proposed amendments will also allow the Historic Buildings Council to charge for permit applications and will require applicants to pay for advertising costs pertaining to applications. These measures, which are consistent with the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act, will assist in resourcing the council. The amendments contain provision for permit fees to be waived and it is intended that provision, by way of regulation, will be made so as not to disadvantage appli<;ants seeking approval to carry out works of a minor nature only.




Debate adjourned for Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western) on motion of Hon. R. s. de Fegely.



Second reading

Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - I move:


The principal purpose of this Bill is to alter the membership structure of the Victorian Broiler Industry Negotiation Committee to improve its effectiveness in carrying out its functions under the Broiler Chicken Industry Act 1978.

The committee was formed in 1975 as the result of instability in the chicken meat industry, following periods of overproduction and depressed prices. The committee provided a forum for negotiation between processors and chicken growers and established a process whereby affected parties could be assisted to resolve problems and negotiate agreements.

For a number of years the committee worked effectively and contributed to a high level of stability in the industry. In recent years, however, the committee has had increasing difficulty in reaching decisions, especially in determining a standard price to be paid by processors to growers for chickens grown under contract. On three occasions in the past six years it was necessary to refer the matter of a standard price to an arbitrator because the committee was unable to agree. This increasing use of arbitration has been costly and disruptive to both the industry and government.

Industry groups and the government have recognised that legislative changes to the committee's structure are necessary if the committee is to be able to carry out its functions effectively. Industry expectation is that the Act will be amended in the autumn sittings and that failure to amend the Act will exacerbate the difficulties currently being experienced, possibly resulting in a total breakdown of the committee.

Late last year in response to a proposal put forward by the government for reform of the committee, industry groups representing both processors and growers reached agreement on changes which they considered should be made to the committee. The Bill implements the structural changes agreed to by the industry.

At present the committee consists of six representatives of processors and six representatives of growers together with a non-voting chairman drawn from the Department of Agriculture. The committee can determine a matter only if at least 75 per cent of its members vote in favour of it.

Under the Bill, there will be four members of the committee representing the interests of processors, four representing the interests of growers, two independent members

SENTENCING BILL


possessing commercial expertise and an independent chairperson. All eleven members of the committee will be entitled to vote, and matters before the committee will be decided by a simple majority.

The proposed structure should ensure that decisions are made on a more rational and commercial basis. Growers and processors will be forced to present well-prepared and considered arguments to gain the support of the independent members.

There were differing views from industry groups on the question of retaining in the Broiler Chicken Industry Act the provision which enables matters unresolved by the committee to be referred to arbitration. After consideration of the relevant issues, it is proposed to retain the provision allowing recourse to arbitration. The restructure of the committee, however, should significantly reduce if not eliminate the need for matters to be referred to arbitration.

At the request of the industry, provision for the secretary of the committee to be an officer of the Department of Agriculture is also to be retained. However, industry groups have given a firm undertaking that the operation of the committee, including the secretary, will be funded by industry.

The Bill will give the committee the ability to carry out its functions more effectively under the Act. The restructuring of the committee has the full support of industry, and the government looks forward to all groups in the industry supporting the new committee and cooperating with it in its work.


Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R. S. de FEGEL Y (Ballarat).


SENTENCING BILL

Second reading



This Bill completely overhauls sentencing law in this State. It contains some of the most fundamental changes to sentencing law ever introduced into Victoria. It is the end product of a long and painstaking re-examination of sentencing law and practice in this State.

The fundamental building block of that reform was the 1988 report of the Victorian Sentencing Committee chaired by Sir John Starke, QC. The research and consultation which went into that report took over three years and resulted in a three-volume report. Since that time the recommendations of the Starke committee have been the subject of considerable debate, further research and wide consultation.

SENTENCING BILL


TRUTH IN SENTENCING

One of the most fundamental changes effected by this Bill- in conjunction with the Corrections (Remissions) Bill- is to implement a policy of truth in sentencing. This policy recognises that the public has a right to know what period of imprisonment will be served by a person who receives a prison sentence in a Victorian court. It is no longer acceptable to the Victorian public that administrative interventions like remissions and early release should reduce the period fixed as the minimum term by the sentencing judge.

Truth in sentencing is a measure aimed at the public's right to know and to ensure that the public has confidence that the sentence passed is the sentence served. It is not about increasing sentences. Abolition of remissions without corresponding adjustments in sentencing law would increase sentences and cause a concomitant increase in the prison population of up to one-third.

Indeed, abolition of remissions in New South Wales has led to an explosion of the prison population and severe problems in prisons. Victoria has learned from this unhappy experience. The legislation must make it clear that it is not intended that the abolition of remissions will in itself lengthen the period served. Rather, it means that the period served reflects the sentenc;e passed.

The Starke committee recognised these problems. While it recommended the abolition of remissions, this recommendation was part of a package of measures aimed at avoiding sharp increases in the prison population. The government accepts the Starke committee view that abolition of remissions must be part of a package.

A major recommendation of the Starke package was the reduction of maximum sentences fixed by legislation for offences overall. The committee argued that by lowering the statutory maximum penalties, Parliament would indicate to the courts that the abolition of remissions should not lead to an across-the-board, unjustified increase in the actual time served in prison.

The scale of maximum sentences proposed by the Stiuke committee was the subject of a special review by the sentencing task force under the chairmanship of Mr Frank Costigan, QC. In line with the recommendations of the task force, the Bill contains a 13-level scale with 10 custodial levels and 3 non-custodial levels defined in terms of maximum penalties.

All offences under the Crimes Act are allocated to one of these levels. The Bill implements the recommendations of the sentencing task force with one exception. No maximum penalty for a sexual offence will be reduced. For example, the maximum sentence for aggravated rape - currently twenty years - will remain and will not be reduced as proposed by the task force.

The Starke committee also proposed that remissions be abolished over a five-year period. This was to allow the courts to adjust to the abolition of remissions and for the

SENTENCING BILL


government to make any necessary amendments if prisbn numbers should begin to escalate too sharply.

2031

However, the government has decided to abolish remissions for future sentences upon proclamation of the Act. That decision requires an additional measure - similar to those contained in New South Wales and Commonwealth legislation - but without the defects pointed out by the courts in both the New South Wales and Commonwealth legislation. Clause 11 of the Bill requires judges and magistrates to take account of the fact that remissions have been abolished and reduce the sentence accordingly.

Thus, where previously a judge would have set a nine-year minimum sentence but because of remissions the offender would be released after six years, the judge would now fix a six-year sentence. The public will know that this is the sentence that has to be served without any scope for administrative tampering.

I repeat, the purpose of this provision is to achieve truth in sentencing; it is not to increase the length of sentences.

SENTENCING GUIDELINES

The Starke committee found that lack of consistency in sentencing constituted a Significant injustice. One of the measures suggested as a means of promoting consistency in sentencing - the Judicial Studies Board - has already been the subject of legislation passed last year. When operational, the Judicial Studies Board will enhance consistency in sentencing by carrying out sentencing research, offering seminars on sentencing to judges and magistrates, and making up-to-date statistical information available to sentencing judges and magistrates. In addition, it is intended that the Judicial Studies Board will have the opportunity· of conducting seminars on the new Act - that is this Act - after it has passed.

This Bill promotes consistency in sentencing in a number of ways. Firstly, in clause 5, the Bill sets out the principles governing sentencing in this State. The clause enshrines the principle that prison is a punishment of last resort. Secondly, in clause 7, the Bill provides that the Full Court may issue guideline judgments for the guidance of the courts in relation to a variety of matters, including choosing among sentencing options; the purposes which should be pursued in sentencing offenders for particular offences; and the criteria to be used in determining the seriousness of particular offences.

This provision will allow the court to issue guideline judgments and resolve general sentencing problems without the need to wait for a particular case or the particular issue to come before the Full Court in litigation.

INTENSIVE CORREcrION ORDER

The Bill introduces a new sanction - the intensive correction order. This measure is designed to provide a severe punishment just short of imprisonment but more severe than a community-based order. When a court is considering imposing a term of imprisonment of no more than twelve, months it may impose an intensive correction order instead. The intensive correction order will have stringent core conditions attached

SENTENCING BILL


regarding intensive supervision by community correction officers, attendance at community corrections centres to perform a minimum of 12 hours per week in unpaid community work, and treatment programs. In addition, program conditions may be imposed requiring the person to undertake residential and/ or community-based programs to address personal factors which contributed to their offending behaviour. Examples include anger management programs, alcohol and drug programs, and programs designed to develop living skills and personal responsibility.

FINE DEFAULT PROVISIONS

There has been considerable concern about the existing provisions in relation to fine default under which people with thousands of dollars of fines can cut out those fines by spending a weekend in gaol. This anomaly has been cured in the Bill by raising a presumption that the gaol term imposed in default of multiple fines will now be presumed to be consecutive rather than concurrent. While prison remains an option of last resort - especially in cases of fine default - it is clear that some people are flouting the system. People will be given every chance to pay their fines and those who are bona fide and cannot pay will not be sent to prison. However, for those who abuse the system and wilfully refuse to pay, realistic prison sentences must be available.

INCREASING MINIMUMS ON LIFE SENTENCES

Under current law it is not possible to increase the minimum term for those sentenced to life imprisonment. Thus, if a person serving a life sentence with a minimum of 25 years for murder commits another murder in prison, the sentence for the second murder has to be concurrent with the first. This means that, in effect, the person's minimum term will not be increased. Clause 14 of the Bill makes it possible to increase the minimum term.

CONVICTION/NON-CONVICTION

The current law about whether a conviction may be imposed after a finding of guilty and which sentences are available in either case has become hopelessly complex. The Bill rationalises and simplifies the law on the topic.

ENFORCEMENf OF FINES AGAINST CORPORA nONS

Another abuse cured by this Bill is the use of the corporate veil by unscrupulous company directors to avoid personalliability.oFor example, an unscrupulous director who runs up thousands of dollars in parking fines on a car leased by a $2-dollar company will now be caught. The fines will be enforced against any director of that company who knowingly allows the company to attract the criminal liability in the full knowledge that the company does not have the assets to pay the fines incurred. These provisions are contained in clause 66 of the Bill.

CONCLUSION

This Bill is the result of a major reform effort over five years on a topic of major community concern. Sentencing is a matter on which there will never be unanimity, but



this Bill represents a remarkable consensus on the major issues. It is vital that we seize this opportunity to make these major changes.


Debate adjourned for Hon. J. V. C. GUEST (Monash) on motion of Hon. M. A. Birrell.



Second reading

Hon. B. W. MIER (Minister for Consumer Affairs) - I move:


As honourable members will recall, in 1986 the government responded to increasing concerns at the lack of any effective controls over the martial arts industry by introducing legislation to establish a Martial Arts Board.

It was the government's wish that the industry should establish its own regulatory processes but it was reluctantly concluded after extensive investigation and consultation with key sections of the martial arts industry that self-regulation was not practicable.

The Martial Arts Control Act received Royal assent in November 1986 and two sections of the Act were proclaimed to come into operation from March 1987. These were section 11, which provides for the appointment of the Martial Arts Board, and section 17, which provides for the making of regulations. The Act was subject to a sunset clause date of 1 September 1989.

There then followed an important but protracted process of consultation in the development of regulations and the preparation of a regulatory impact statement which resulted in the remaining sections not being proclaimed until August 1989. The sunset date of the Act was consequently extended until 1 September 1991.

Last year the government also acted on recommendations by the Martial Arts Board by amending the Act to more closely define martial arts and martial arts instructors for licensing purposes.

In considering whether the sunset clause should be allowed to take effect or whether it should be revoked, my department has consulted within the martial arts industry. This process of consultation has confirmed that the legislation has been generally well received by the martial arts fraternity and that the Martial Arts Board, under the chairmanship of Mr Adrian Strath, is held in high regard.

The purpose of this Bill therefore is to repeal the sunset clause in order to provide continuity for the legislation beyond September 1991. Repeal of the sunset clause will also assist the Martial Arts Board in its work by removing the uncertainty that has prevailed within the martial arts industry with regard to the long-term application of the legislation.

BA YSIDE PROJECT (FURTHER AMENDMEN'l) BILL

2034 COUNCIL Thursday. 30 May 1991


Debate adjoumed for Hon. J. G. MILES (femplestowe) on motion of Hon. R. S. de Fe.ly.

Debate adjoumed until next day.

BAYSIDE PROJECf (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL

Second reading



When the Bayside Project Bill 1988 was introduced it was pointed out that the project was unique and raised novel issues not capable of resolution within the framework of existing legislation, thus requiring the drafting of special legislation. That Bill drew heavily on previous project legislation for solutions to problems associated with major developments.

In particular the Bayside legislation was required to address issues related to subdivision of land for a large mixed-use development. Under the Bayside Project Act, land may be subdivided under the Subdivision Act or under the law as it existed at the time the Bayside Project Act was passed. In so doing it added a further layer of complexity to an already complex legal framework relating to property in Victoria.

As the project has progressed a number of deficiencies have been identified in the Bayside Project Act. Many of the amendments contained in this Bill relate to subdivision and are to take into account amendments made to the Subdivision Act and to ensure consistency .

Accordingly, the Bill includes provisions to:

recognise that a member of a body corporate may be a body corporate itself;

replace references to "unit entitlement" and "unit liability" with the expressions "lot entitlement" and '1ot liability" as used in the Subdivision Act; and

enable amalgamation of bodies corporate where one is a "conventional" Subdivision Act body corporate and the other is a body corporate created under the Bayside Project Act.

In most areas of the State the local council is the responsible authority under the relevant planning scheme and also certifies plans of subdivision. At Bayside, however, the Minister for Planning and Housing is the responsible authority. The Bill therefore makes the Minister responsible also for the final administrative step of certifying plans of subdivision at Bayside.

ADJOURNMENT


The Bill also deals with the creation of access routes within the Bayside site and the change of status of those routes to public roads by using a plan under the Subdivision Act prepared by, or with the consent of, the Minister for Planning and Housing.

2035

In the second-reading speech for the Bayside Project Bill 1988 it was pointed out that in a complex project such as this, which will take over seven years to complete, other legislation may be identified which inadvertently creates legal obstacles for the development. Although every effort has been made to anticipate and address foreseen legal obstacles, this special legislation applying to the project will require ongoing review and possible further amendment in the future.


Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra).


ADJOURNMENT


That the House do now adjourn.

Alternative truck routes Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) - The matter I raise for the attention of the

Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs, who is the representative in this place of the Minister for Transport, concerns the closure of Macaulay Road, North Melbourne, to trucks and the impact that closure is having on the residents of the City of Essendon. The closure of Macaulay Road to trucks is not a matter that is resisted at all by the Essendon City Council or its residents. It is a principle that is suppurted.

Nevertheless, the council and residents are concerned about the impact that the closure is haVing on their municipality because one of the two alternative routes suggested for trucks to get from the docks to the Tullamarine Freeway includes using Epsom Road, Ascot Vale Road and either Pascoe Vale Road, Mount Alexander Road or Kent Street in the City of Essendon. The council believes that a disproportionate number of trucks are being redirected through the municipality.

Hon. D. R. White - Which council?

Hon. W. R. BAXTER - The Essendon City Council. The council has sought a deputation to the Minister for Transport to discuss this proposal. That request has not been granted. It had requested a deferment of the closure pending further investigation. That has not been granted, and the council now seeks an undertaking that in six months there will be a review with a view to having a western region truck route identified, in consultation with all municipalities concerned, rather than an ad hoc decision made as a

ADJOURNMENT


one-off decision to close one particular street without taking into account impacts on adjacent municipalities.

I thought there had been established - and I am sure there has been established - a truck operations committee which was intended and designed to identify appropriate truck routes on a regional basis. Clearly it has not worked on this occasion. I invite the Minister to take this matter up with her colleague and request that he might be good enough to meet with the Essendon City Council or at least have the matter reviewed.

HBA Ltd Hon. UCIA KOKOCINSKI (Melbourne West) - The matter I direct to the attention

of the Minister for Health relates to comments that Mr Connard made in one of his speeches yesterday about the financial standing of HBA Ltd. I was very concerned about that allegation and I know that many of my constituents who rely on HBA for private insurance would also be a little upset and concerned about it. I asked the Minister earlier today whether she could investigate the claims made, and I now ask her to inform me whether she is in a position to state what the real position of HBA Ltd is.

Head lice treatment lotion Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern) -I address my matter of concern to the Minister

for Health and, in doing so, I remind her that it is Mr Tricarico' 5 birthday today.

Hon. M. A. Lyster - Whose birthday is it?

Hon. K. M. SMITH - The Usher of the Black Rod.

Hon. M. A. Lyster - Oh, Matt - happy birthday!

Hon. K. M. SMITH -I shall now address my matter of concern to the Minister. A problem that is occurring in the Cranbourne area - and I am sure she will know about it - is that of head lice.

Hon. D. R. White -Head lice?

Hon. Haddon Storey -It doesn't affect me.

Hon. D. R. White - It doesn't affect me, either.

Hon. K. M. SMITH - The problem that I raise -

Hon. D. R. White - Just buy one of those combs, Ken.

The PRESIDENT - Order! Mr Smith's time has almost expired.

Hon. K. M. SMITH -1his is a matter of grave concern because, as the Minister will realise, there is a need for a particular lotion to be put on the heads of the children, and Health Department Victoria, the Minister's department, is responsible for supplying this lotion.

Hon. D. R. White - What is it?

ADJOURNMENT


Hon. G. R. Craige - What's it called?

Hon. K. M. SMITH - ''The lotion".


2037

Hon. K. M. SMITH - This is not a funny matter! The problem that we have is that the Minister's department is suffering - -

Hon. G. R. Craige -Hey, Smithy, they're not moving, are they?

Hon. K. M. SMITH - People in the Cranboume area are suffering because the lice are now in plague proportions.

The reason I have been pressed to raise the matter with the Minister is that the Cranboume council has run out of supplies of the lotion usually provided by the department. When the council applied for more lotion - and this is the sad part - it was told it could not have any more because the department did not have any.

The lice are out of control in Cranboume! The council is unhappy; the children are in danger of scratching themselves to death; and there is hardly a soul left in the schools in the Cranboume area. The barbers have all had to close!

Hon. W. R. Baxter - I think we've all got the message.

Hon. R. I. Knowles -Is there an upside?

Hon. K. M. SMITH - The upside is that I ask the Minister to take urgent action so thafthe people in Cranboume can be put out of their misery and that the lotion that is now unavailable can be made available. Although the matter I have raised has been the cause of some hilarity, I ask the Minister to carry out an urgent investigation of her department and ensure that truckloads of the stuff are sent out to Cranboume before I get back there tomorrow!

Yea police subdistrict Hon. G. R. CRAlGE (Central Highlands) - I direct a matter to the attention of the

Minister for Health, who is the representative in this place of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. The problem I raise has been caused by the rationalisation of police services in the Yea area. The shire has advised me that it has recently come to its notice that the size of the Yea police subdistrict has been increased to take in the whole of the Shire of Yea, some 140 ()()() hectares, which stretches from Kinglake in the south to Highlands in the north.

I should have thought an increase in the size of the police subdistrict would have meant an increase not only in police numbers but also in the number of police vehicles to service the area. The shire has been advised, as have local police, that the increase in the size of the subdistrict does not warrant an increase in vehicles. The local community is disturbed that its claim for more vehicles has been rejected. I urge the Minister to investigate the problems caused by the increase in the size of the Yea police subdistrict.

ADJOURNMENT


Drink-driving questionnaire Hon. R. S. de FEGELY (Ballarat) - I raise a matter with the Minister for Health. I

understand that last October a drink-driving progrcun for offending drivers was expanded Statewide under the administration of two people. It has been suggested that that number is inadequate to service the entire State. However, a more serious matter is a recent evaluation questionnaire regarding the program. It has been suggested that the questions being asked are unethical.

I have been requested to ask the Minister whether the questionnaire was researched by an ethics committee. It has been put to me that the questions are an intrusion on people's rights and liberties. I ask the Minister whether she is aware of the questionnaire; if she is not, I ask her to investigate the matter and ensure that the questionnaire is reviewed.

Recycle 2000 Hon. G. P. CONNARD (Higinbotham) - I direct to the attention of the Minister for

Education and Training, who is the representative of the Minister for Conservation and Environment in the other place, the government's recycling and waste reduction draft plan, commonly known as Recycle 2000. The object of the project is to fund local government activities relating to the reduction and improvement of kerbside rubbish collection. The plan is to balance collection of recyclable materials with the ability of industry to reprocess and market recyclable goods.

A plan for the project has been released, and it states:

The industry recycling plans will be a critical mechanism for maintaining a balance between supply and demand.

It is an excellent project and is well supported by local councils, although it will place the burden for the collection of appropriate rubbish on the councils.

Concerns have been expressed by the Brighton City Council, which belongs to one of the four metropolitan regional disposal groups. A Parliamentary committee has recommended that local government be encouraged to accept a much larger responsibility in the waste management industry, and that is accepted by local councils. However, the draft plan contains some matters of concern, and I ask the Minister to consider them.

The representation on the proposed authority may be dominated by one group, and that is of concern to local government. A balance of representation is needed to provide the wisdom that is required. There is also an apparent inequity in the plan with local government being required to pay a levy of $2 a tonne on all waste disposed of, except clean fill waste, while the levy for industry is voluntary.

The funding arrangements and the dual responsibilities involved are unclear and the powers of the proposed authority are also unclear. Those concerns certainly need to be addressed before any legislation is introduced. Concern has also been expressed about the relative roles of Recycle 2000 and the proposed waste management council representing the four metropolitan areas.

ADJOURNMENT


I specifically ask the Minister for Education and Training to take up the matter with the Minister for Conservation and Environment so that the plan can be made more acceptable to local government and the community in general. It is a good plan, but the details are woolly and it needs to be tightened before local government can properly assess it.

Responses Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs) - Mr

Baxter asked me to direct to the attention of the Minister for Transport a request from the City of Essendon for a deputation to be received by the Minister. If that cannot be done, the city has requested that the matter be reviewed in a short time. I undertake to direct that matter to the Minister's attention.

Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - Mr Connard raised concerns about the implementation of the Recycle 2000 plan to facilitate the recycling of both industrial and municipal waste. The point he raised regarding the composition of the proposed authority and levy will be referred to the Minister for Conservation and Environment, with a request for a reply.

Hon. M. A. L YSTER (Minister for Health) - I thank Ms Kokocinski for pursuing with me, yesterday and tonight, the matter raised yesterday in this House by Mr Connard. I am pleased Mr Connard is here so he can receive a response to some of the matters raised.

Hon. G. P. Connard - I am always here to listen to you, Minister.

Hon. M. A. L YSTER - I regret Mr Connard did not advise me of this matter before his contribution to the debate on the motion yesterday. I could have reassured him on a number of matters. The matter raised is a Federal issue. Therefore, at the conclusion of the debate yesterday I made contact with the office of the Federal Minister for Community Services and Health, Mr Howe, and asked him to make a statement that I could use to inform Mr Connard and people such as Ms Kokocinski's constituents who perhaps may have read those statements in Hansard and who may be distressed.

I shall read the statement provided to me ~y the Federal Minister:

It is true that at the end of the financial year 1989-1990 the Hospital Benefits Association of Victoria had a substantial deficit as the result of some major write-offs. However, contributors to the health insurance fund now known as HBA should understand that their fund is a different legal entity whose financial stability is assured by Mutual Community Ltd and the National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd.

Late last year when it was evident that the non-health insurance activities of HBA had put it in a difficult financial position its then management sought with the assistance of the government to find a merger solution which protected contributors. A solution was found by way of a major capital injection from National Mutual and the winding up of HBA as a separate entity. 'These arrangements were carried through under the supervision of the Federal Court as required by the National Health Act.

The result today is that the health insurance fund in Victoria known as HBA is conducted by Mutual Community Ltd. The restructure to protect the contributors was done with no inconvenience to them and in accordance with the legislation that protects their rights. Equally,

ADJOURNMENT


should anyone wish to make similar mischief in respect of the Health Australia fund which was merged with Medibank Private, the same is true in that case.

As to the imaginative allegations that the restructuring of these health funds in Victoria is somehow the fault of Medicare it should be noted that what brought HBA into difficulties was venturing outside its traditional health insurance business and the write-oHs which resulted in its winding up were not related to its health insurance business.

I thank the Federal Minister for those words, as I am sure Mr Connard does, and as would Ms Kokocinski's constituents. I hope they take heart from that statement.

Hon. M. A. L YSTER - We thank Mr Smith for the entertainment but the matter he raised is serious. Mrs Hogg, the former Minister for Health, advises me it is not a new matter. I shall certainly investigate the report that has been given into my hand and make sure the department makes contact promptly - with good news, I hope.

Mr Craige raised a matter which he asked me to pass on to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services about the rationalisation of police services in the Shire of Yea. I shall do that.

Mr de Fegely raised the matter of the drink-driver campaign which he correctly says came into operation after the amendments to the Road Safety Act 1986. The new provisions were proclaimed on 1 October 1990. I have to correct one suggestion he made and that is that there were only two people administering the program. The department has accredited 38 agencies across the State to provide drink-driving programs in 91 locations. That is a bit better than the advice Mr de Fegely was given.

The programs provide education and assessment for drink-driving offenders referred by the courts and it is important to remember that we are talking about offenders in the matter of the questionnaire Mr de Fegely is referring to. These programs are compulsory for a large number of drink-driving offenders and the whole program is being monitored very carefully and will continue to be monitored by the department for a variety of reasons such as accessibility and availability of the programs to meet the demand which at the moment we have had difficulty in identifying.

I shall certainly ask that there be monitoring of the particular matter Mr de Fegely raised in respect of the possible ethical breaches in the questions that are being asked. I stress that we are talking about people who are offenders, and I am quite sure Mr de Fegely would recognise the importance of ensuring that these programs are successful.

I believe the department did undertake consultations with other agencies and departments in their development of the program but I shall certainly clarify what testing they did.

Hon. R. S. de Fegely - The questionnaire is the problem.

Hon. M. A. L YSTER - I thank Mr de Fegely for raising the matter and I shall certainly ensure that his concerns are brought to the attention of those people administering the program and I shall examine the questions myself.

Thursday, 30 May 1991

Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

COUNCIL

House adjourned 10.32 p.m. until Tuesday, 4 June.

2041

Tuesday, 28 May 1991

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

COUNCIL

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

RETIREMENT COUNSELLING SEMINARS

(Question No. 633)

2043

Hon. B. A. E. SKEGGS (Templestowe) asked the Minister for Education and Training, for the Minister for Conservation and Environment:

In regard to each department, agency and authority within the Minister's administration: (a) How many retirement counselling seminars have been government funded or sponsored

in 1989-90, indicating - (i) how many employees who have reached 50 years of age have attended; (ii) which person or organisation conducted the seminars, and what numbers could be accommodated at each seminar; and (ill) how many employees were eligible to apply to attend those seminars?

(b) What action is being taken to prOVide retirement counselling to employees within the Minister's administration?

Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - The answer supplied by the Minister for Conservation and Environment is:

Insofar as the question relates to the Department of Conservation and Environment, the answer is-(a) The Department of Conservation and Environment conducted three retirement

counselling seminars during 1989-90. 27 September 1989 Benalla 25 October 1989 Ballarat 1 March 1990 Melbourne (i) 82 employees attended, of whom 36 were over 50 years of age.

In addition employees have the opportunity on nearing retirement to meet with an officer from the relevant superannuation board for one-to-one counselling. Employees are given leave to attend such interviews.

(ii) The Early Planning for Retirement Association conducted the seminars. Each seminar could accommodate 40 employees.

(ill) All employees who estimate that they are within ten years of their retirement are eligible to attend when leave is requested to do so.

The Department of Conservation and Environment had approximately 1100 staff in this category in November 1990. Of those, 230 employees attended such a seminar prior to the programs noted above.

(b) Retirement planning seminars are conducted regularly throughout the State by the department. For example: 25 September 1990 Yarram

17 October 1990 Portland 8 November 1990 Melbourne

It is proposed that a further three seminars be conducted between January and June 1991.

2044

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

COUNCn. Tuesday, 28 May 1991

Staff can also obtain leave to attend courses/ interviews held by superannuation boards and unions. These courses/ interviews are not funded, nor sponsored, by the Department of Conservation and Environment.

Insofar as the question relates to the Rural Water Commission, the answer is-

(a) No retirement counselling seminars were conducted by, or for, the Rural Water Commission during 1989-90;

(b) Rural Water Commission officers approaching retirement are permitted to attend a pre-retirement financial planning seminar organised from time to time by the Victorian Public Service Association. Leave with pay is prOVided for such officers. Consideration is being given to engaging an accredited financial planning consultant to conduct one or more pre-retirement planning seminars in 1991-92.

Insofar as the question relates to the Board of Works, the answer is-

(a) The Board of Works conducted two retirement counselling seminars during 1989-90. (i) Seventy-four employees attended the seminars. (ii) The seminars were conducted by the Early Planning for Retirement Association;

200 people could be accommodated at each seminar. (ill) 1427 employees were aged between 50 and 65 and were eligible to attend these

seminars. (b) Each year, the Board of Works advises all employees of its intention to conduct retirement

seminars. Employees who have reached 50 years of age and wish to attend such seminars are invited to register their interest. When arrangements have been finalised, those employees who have registered their interest are invited to attend.

Insofar as the question relates to the Victorian Conservation Trust, the Office of the Commissioner for the Environment, the Victorian Institute of Marine Sciences, the Office of the Environment, and the Zoological Board of Victoria, the answer is -

(a) No retirement counselling seminars were conducted during 1989-90. (b) Officers may obtain leave to attend retirement counselling seminars conducted by the

Department of Conservation and Environment, superannuation boards or unions.

PARLIAMENTARY LIAISON OFFICER - DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING

(Question No. 754)

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) asked the Minister for Education and Training, for the Minister for Planning and Housing:

Which of the bodies within the Minister's responsibility have a Parliamentary liaison officer, indicating in each case the department, Ministry or agency concerned, the name of the officer, and that person's salary and previous occupation?

Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - The answer supplied by the Minister for Planning and Housing, for the formerly named Ministry of Housing and Construction is:

No officer in this Ministry is formally titled "Parliamentary liaison officer". This is an honorary title for an officer nominated by the Minister of that department as the contact person for all Parliamentary members. This duty is additional to that for which the officer is employed. The name of the officer is Henk van Leeuwen.

Tuesday, 28 May 1991

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

COUNCIL

DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENT EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNmES

(Question No. 875)

2045

Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia) asked the Minister for Education and Training, for the Minister for Conservation and Environment:

(a) What employment opportunities have been provided in the Minister's department for persons completing studies in each of the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 for - (i) school leavers; and (ii) tertiary graduates?

(b) What opportunities will be provided for - (i) schoolleavers; and (ii) tertiary graduates, seeking employment on completion of studies in 199O?


Each year approximately 800 positions in the Department of Conservation and Environment are advertised externally. It is not possible to predict in advance how many of these will be appropriate for schoolleavers or graduates.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING -CONSULTANTS

(Question No. 906)

Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia) asked the Minister for Education and Training:

In respect of each deparbnent, agency and authority within his administration: (a) How many people are employed on a contract basis in each of the Ministry departments or

agencies, and what is the nature and value of these contracts? (b) How many people were employed to undertake consulting work during 1989-90 and what

was the nature and cost of the consultancies? (c) What new or continuing consultancies now exist?

Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - The answer is:

The responses from all Ministry agencies are as follows:

Nature of Contract/Consultancy Contractors Consultants

omCE OF SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION

05A:Con~l~

(a) Contract Gardener - Vines Road, Barwon South Western Region

Contract Gardener -CeelonS School Support Centre

Contract Gardener - Wumambool School Support Centre

1

$

11 000.00

7736.00

600.00

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

2046 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991

Nature of Contract/Consultancy Contractors Consultants $

Contract Oeaner - Camperdown School Support Centre

Contract Oeaner - Hamilton School Support Centre

Contract Oeaner - Fitzroy Regional Office

Contract Oeaner - Moonee Ponds Regional Office

Contract Oeaner - Central Highlands-Wimmera Region

Contract Cleaner - Goulburn North-Eastern Region

Contract Oeaner - Wodonga School Support Centre

OSA: Consultancies 1989-90

(b) Review of Film and Video Collection

To provide consultancy support to the Ministry of Education and Training

during the campaign of award restructuring of the Government Teaching

Service and immediately subsequent to successful negotiations.

Consultancy concluded September 90.

Strategic review of personnel/ payroll systems within the Ministry of

Education and Training. Consultancy concluded June 1990.

Environmental Education - to continue to provide gardening pursuits

for Children

1

1

1

6

1

1

AGB Spectrum

Tumbull Fox Phillips

Principal Consultant:

Ms S. O'Sullivan.

PCEK Bevington

KHS Horticultural

Consultants

10052.00

7350.00

32139.00

12431.00

38 000.00

17000.00

7000.00

24150.00

120000.00

nooo.oo**

43 580.00

.. Note that the figure for the Office of Schools Administration consUltancy with PCEK Bevington mistakenly appears as snoo in the annual report

due to a typographkal error.

To develop and implement an advertising campaign which will form part of

a part of a public information campaign designed to raise people's awareness

and understanding of the VCE.

To conduct qualitative market research on what parents, employers and

students need to know about the new VCE.

To identify candidates for the CGM/OSA

Poverty and Schooling (SBE/OSA)

PIR Wang WP System

Supply System enhancements

Upgrade LINC software release used by 3 production systems

Attitude to education and transition work.

Modification of School buses systems to allow regionalisation of operations.

Review of Integration Procedures

Development of asset management systems to record land and buildings.

Consultancy concluded June 1990.

Public attitudes towards schooling in the public sector.

Evaluate the potential impact of disseminating curriculum materials by

electronic means. Consultancy concluded June 1990.

Enhancements to Edstaff Computer System

Electronic Funds Transfer for finance system

HDM Mattingly

N. Pascoe

TASA/ERC Pty Ltd

Bany Knights

Into. Technology Solution

International Contracting

Services

Advanced Business

Solutions

Quantum Market Research/ Education image.

964 951.00

45271.00

18500.00

35000.00

4500.00

9250.00 7342.00

25 850.00

17000.00

Aladdin Computer Services 36 000.00

Or Robin Mathews 3 000.00

University of Melboume

Department of Survey and

Land Information

Neil Pascoe &£ Assoc.

KPMG Peat Marwick

Management Consultants

Advanced Business

Solutions

Price Waterhouse Urwick

24750.00

51500.00

12900.00

16000.00

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL

System Review and documentation of computer systems running on

Prime Computer

To perform a review of EDP processing controls

2047

Computing Careers 26400.00

Nature of Contract/Consultancy Contractors Consultants s

OSA: New or continuing Consultancies 1990-91

(c) Environmental Education - to continue to provide gardening pursuits

for children.

Preparation of the Teacher Leave and PayroU Manual.

Investigate the distribution of curricula material via the use of CD ROM.

Review the current WorkCare claims management procedures and practices

withinOSA.

Provide tecluUcal assistance to OSA during 6 months' development period of

pilot decision support system for senior executives.

Develop a communication strategy to address issues related to district

provision of curriculum and school organisation.

Research attitudes of selected groups toward district provision ot curriculum

in Victorian government schools and related school organisations.

VICTORIAN CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT BOARD

VCAS: Contractors

<a) Employment of a contract programmer to assist in developing VCE

administrative system software C" ASS) for use by Schools and Colleges

in submitting enrolment and assessment data to VCAS. The total value

of the contract covering the period November 1989 to May 1991 is

$162 000. The work is within budget and the relatively high cost

has been necessitated by the esoteric nature of the developmental

programming required.

Employment of a contract programmer to assist in the maintenance

and development of application programs required to administer the

VCE Assessment Program. The total value of the contract for the

period May 1990 to November 1991 is approximately $59 815.

VCAB: Consultancies 1989-90

(b) The conduct of an independent evaluation of the proposed VCE Assessment

Policy and procedures. Consultancy concluded June 1990.

The development of customised software to allow VCE test calibration

using the RASCH one parameter partial credit model.

Consultancy concluded June 1990.

To assist in the development of the biology study design, assessment

procedures and associated course development support material.

Consultancy concluded February 1990.

(c) To perform a review of EDP processing controls and related procedures

used in the processing of the VCE examination results leading to the production

of the VCE certificates. Consultancy was in November 1990.

COUNCIL OF ADULT EDUCATION

CAE:Contractors

KHS Horticultural 43 500.00

Consultants plus CPI increase

Mr Kevin Heinz

Australian Business 10 000.00

Writing Pty Ltd.

Wo One International 35900.00

Anderson and Co. 58000.00

Synthesys Pty Ltd 65000.00

Tumbull Fox Phillips 48000.00

Neil Pascoe le Assoc. 22800.00

Dataflex Expertise 162300.00

Cobol Expertise 59815.00

Australian Council for 9950.00

Educational Research

OrC. N. Masters 1500.00

B. le. EVaN and 12030.00

Associates.

Coopers and Lybrand 23500.00

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(a) The Council of Adult Education employs no people on contract within the guidelines: tutors engaged on

a sessional basis are deemed to be outside the guidelines; administrative staff engaged under the PACer

award for fixed-term employment are deemed to be outside the guidelines.

Nature of Contract/Consultancy Contractors Consultants

CONSULTANCIES 1989-90

(b) Selection of a new Director.

Assistance in developing a business plan.

Assistance in resolving audit issues.

(c) The CAE does not have any current consultancies.

PORTFOUO COORDINA nON DIVISION

PCD: Contractors

Access and Equity (Family Violence Pro;ect 1989-90

(a) Proofreading and editing Family Violence ManUSCript from

Publisher, estimated completion date May 1991.

Employment of writers and editors on Family Violence

Manuscript 89-90.

In keeping with arrangements with Federation Press,

a contractor will be employed to undertake the specialist

work of indexing the manuscript. The work will take place

in the first week of May 1991.

PCD: Consultancies 1989-90 (b) To assist the Ministry in arranging an International Children's

Event developed to improve school communities in supporting

Melbourne's bid for the 1996 Olympic Games.

Job and Course Explorer OAq To provide consultant programming on Course Explorer module

oftheJAC.

1

13

1

To provide consultant programming (Subject Sea.rch/~s Services

Evaluation Screens, etc.)

To provide action on format for development of a JAC module

covering courses in the further education sector.

PCD: New or continuing consultancies 1990-91

(c) Job and Course Explorer

To conduct an evaluation of access to and patterns

of the JAC program.

To complete programming of the retrieval module for the subject

search and thesaurus facility on the JAC Course Explorer Module.

DIVISION OF FUR1liER EDUCA nON

Contractors 1989-90

Executive Search Public Service Board

Management Development

Unit

Public Service Board

Emst ok Young

Hayes &r Sjoquist

Logtronics

9000.00

Pty Ltd

Perry Hammlett

Melbourne University

Centre

Duesburys Services

Pty Ltd

(a) The Division of Further Education does not currently have any people employed on a contract basis.

"However, there is within the division casual teachers employed under the Teaching Service Agreement

and temporary public servants employed under the Public Service Act.

$

13192.34

29700.00

9950.00

2200.00

40 288.87

450.00

25000

2562.00

500.00

35000.00

4000.00

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL 2049

Consultancies 1989-90

(b) During 1989-90 the Division of Further Education did not employ anybody to undertake consulting work.

(c) No new or continuing consultancies exist within the Division of Further Education.

Nature of Contract/ Consultancy Contractors Consultants $

OFFICE OF THE STATE TRAINING BOARD

OST8: Contractors 1989-90

(a) N/A

OSTB: Consultancies 1989-90

(b) Installation of communications link and relocation of computing

facilities from 420 5t Kilda Road.

Executive search for Director - Wimmera College of T AFE

Executive search for Director - Melbourne College of Printing

and Graphic Arts

Develop Strategic Business Plan

Review existing accreditation arrangements and advise on transition

to new accreditation arrangements required under the Vocational

Education and Training Act 1990.

OSTB: Consultancies 1990-91 to date

(c) Review existing accreditation arrangements and advise on transition

to new accreditation arrangements required under the Vocational

Education and Training Act 1990.

Undertake research and developmental work to develop space guidelines.

Conduct Future Directions Conference for the Industrial Development

Development Training Program.

Conduct series of workshops to assist implementation phase of

report entitled "Commercial Business Strategy for Industry

Funded Training Services.·

To assist implementation of the Information Technology

Strategic Plan.

VICTORIAN POST -SECONDARY EDUCA nON COMMISSION

VPSEC: Contractors 1989-90

Ca) N/A.

VPSEC: Consultancies 1989-90

(b) To undertake a quantitative research study concerned with the

clinical education component of pre-registration of general

nursing courses conducted by higher education institutions.

Engagement of legal counsel to advise the commission on legal

matters pertaining to institutional amalgamations. Costs were

arranged through the Solicitor-General for the full year 1989-90.

(c) N/A.

Growth Computing

Cominer King &

Warburton

Brauer Galt & Co.

Pappas Carter Evans

&Koop

1. Baker & Associates

1. Baker & Associates

Architectural Practice

Group. Australian

Construction Services

12000.00

27500.00

29 200.00

300 000.00

8000.00

8000.00

205000.00

Richardson Associates 6 471.00

Pappas Carter Evans & 35 000.00

Koop

Various Computer 140000.00 Contractors

Quandrant Research

Services

33450.00

4362.50

2050

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991

CONSULTANTS - VICTORIAN TOURISM COMMISSION

(Question No. 911)

Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia) asked the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development, for the Minister for Tourism:

(a) How many people are employed on a contract basis in the Ministry, departments or agencies and what is the value of those contracts?

(b) How many people were employed to undertake consulting work during 1989-90 and what was the nature and cost of the consultancies?

(c) What new or continuing consultancies now exist?

Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - The answer supplied by the Minister for Tourism is:

With respect to the Victorian Tourism Commission: (a) Nil. (b) There were fifteen consultancies employed to undertake consulting work during 1989-90.

The nature of the consultancies varied from public relations and management type consultancies to specific marketing campaign and market research consultancies. The total cost of the consultancies was $4 798 998.

(c) (i) The new consultancies established since June 30 1990 are: Ogilvy &t Mather ''Melbourne Now" &t Grey Advertising campaign

(ii) The consultancies which have continued beyond the 30 June 1990 financial year are: Aviation &t Tourism Provide advice and Management Pty Ltd. strategies to increase

direct flights to Melbourne Airport.

With respect to the Alpine Resorts Commission: (a) One. The ARC has employed this person through Drake Personnel on a casual basis at $30

per hour for the specific task of debt recovery. (b) ConsuItandes W\dertaken by the ARC for fees exceeding $10 000 for the period 1989-90 are:

Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey - Mt Hotham sewerage works; cost $43 850 Kinhill/Sno-Engineering - Development strategy for Falls Creek and Mt Hotham resorts; coet$74 000 Pannell, Ken Forster - Summer Marketing strategy; cost $47 550 Deloitte HasIcins $ Sells - Project/ technical support for planning and implementation of information systems throughout the ARC; cost $100 000 Don Gibb at Assoc. - Non-winter High Country Marketing study; cost $24 ()()() Tract Consultants - Development of signage code for resorts; cost $30 ()()()

Ecosign Mountain Recreation Planners - Mt Haw Haw Development Plan; cost $42 825 Consultants appointed under $10 000 for period 1989-00 were:

EMA consulting - management training - $6800

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Peat Marwick Management Consultants - Training for service providers - $6500 Chipperfield Cocks & Assoc. - Falls Creek Roadworks - $9000 Phil Taylor & Partners - Mt Buller Summit Road - $2500 Mafscon Pty Ltd - Mt Hotham Gas works - $9070 Gutteridge, Haskins & Davey - Snowmaking Mt Buller - $2500

(c) Nil.

CONSUL T ANTS - OFFICE OF CORRECTIONS

(Question No. 923)

Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia) asked the Minister for Health, for the Minister for Corrections:

(a) How many people are employed on a contract basis in each of the Ministry, departments or agencies and what is the nature and value of the contracts?

(b) How many people were employed to undertake consulting work during 1989-90 and what was the nature and cost of the consultancies?

(c) What new or continuing consultancies now exist?

Hon. M. A. L YSTER (Minister for Health) - The answer supplied by the Minister for Corrections is:

(a) No persons are employed on a contract basis within the Office of Corrections. (b) One person was engaged to undertake consulting work for the Office of Corrections during

1989-90 as follows:

Name of Consultant 1. Professor R. W. Harding Purpose of Consultancy

1989-90 $13058

FEES PAID 1990-91 $8913

Total Fees $21971

To examine, comment and make recommendations on suicides and suicide attempts by prisoners in the custody of the Office of Corrections over the past decade. Working Plan The consultant was given a detailed, written brief on the conduct of the consultancy. There were reports to the department's project manager and briefings were given to the consultants. Duration of Consultancy Tl~e consultancy commenced on 15 October 1989 with the final report submitted by 31 May 1990.

(c) No new or continuing consultancies now exist within the Office of Corrections.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING - INACTIVE LIST

(Question No. 930)

Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia) asked the Minister for Education and Training:

For each department and agency, how many officers are on the "inactive list" indicating - (i) their names; (ii) the agency paying the salary /wagesi (ill) the date they were first placed on the

20S2

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 1991

list; (iv) the value of salaries paid to each officer; and (v) the value of other benefits paid or provided to each officer?

Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - The answer is:

The agencies of the Ministry of Education and Training - the Office of Schools Administration; the Division of Further Education; the Portfolio Coordination Division; the Victorian P08t-Secondary Education Commission; the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Board; the Office of the State Training Board; and the Council of Adult Education - do not have "inactive lists". However, the Office of Schools Administration maintains a redeployment register of redeployees from all agencies of the Ministry other than the Office of the State Training Board. The redeployment processes established by the Workforce Management Unit are in operation throughout all Ministry agencies. Officers declared surplus as a result of structural changes to administrative units are placed on the redeployment register. These officers are subject to an active redeployment process to place them in permanent positions when vacancies arise within the Ministry of Education and Training or within other agencies within the government sector. The process is as follows: when an officer is declared surplus to requirements, hel she is placed on a redeployment register and considered for redeployment in all administrative units within the Ministry of Education and Training. The officer is also registered for redeployment with the Workforce Management Unit in the Department of Labour. The unit matches a redeployee's skills and experience against current vacant positions, and, where a suitable position is identified, the officer is referred to the relevant department or agency for interview. While the redeployment process is under way, the surplus officer is given productive work to do and is continued to be paid by the agency. Career and personal counselling is provided for such officers. Surplus officers may also undertake special supervised projects which are designed to expand their existing skill base, while fulfilling an organisational need. In resPOI\Ie to part (v) of the question the Office of Schools Administration has only one officer on the redeployment register receiving an allowance. This is an expense of office allowance for an SES-1 officer. The amount paid is $3284.00.

PORT AUTHORITIES EMPLOYEES

(Question No. 956)

Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia) asked the Minister responsible for Ports:

How many staff were employed in each agency and department in each of the years from 1981-82 to 1988-89?

Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - In regard to port authorities the answer is:

Port of Melbourne Port of Geelong Port of Portland 30.6.82 1436 159 140 30.6.83 1469 168 86 3O.6.M 1470 168 91 30.6.85 1455 175 104 30.6.86 1382 185 115 30.6.87 1521 '237 105 30.6.88 1424 '232 102 30.6.89 1300 '232 89

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Tuesday, 28 May 1991 CO{JNCIL 2053

EDUCATION AND TRAINING - WODONGA PROPERTY

(Question No. 971)

Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) asked the Minister for Education and Training, for the Minister for Planning and Housing:

With regard to the dwelling at 68 Pearce Street, Wodonga, damaged by fire on 9 December 1989 - (i) when will it be demolished; and (ii) will a new dwelling for rental be constructed without delay?

Hon. B. T. PULlEN (Minister for Education and Training) - The answer supplied by the Minister for Planning and Housing is:

(i) The unit was demolished on 18 April 1991. (ii) A feasibility study was arranged for reconstruction on the site and it is proposed that two x

two-bedroom units will be constructed. A submission for a planning permit will be lodged with the local council by the end of May 1991. It is expected that construction will be finalised by the end of the calendar year.

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT FILMSjVIDEOS

(Question No. 975)

Hon. HADDON STOREY (East Yarra) asked the Minister for Education and Training, for the Minister for Planning and Housing:

(a) What films or videos were produced within the Ministry of Planning and Environment in the years - (i) 1987-88; (ii) 1988-89; and (ill) 1989-90?

(b) In respect of each such film and video - (i) what was the cost of production; (ii) was the production arranged or undertaken by Film Victoria; and (ill) was the production approved by Film Victoria?

Hon. B. T. PULlEN (Minister for Education and Training) - The answer supplied by the Minister for Planning and Housing is:

Financial Film/Video Cost of Production arranged Production year Production/ source or undertaken by approved by

Film Victoria Film Victoria

1987~ (i) Thinking of Buying a $1500-MPE No N.A. Bush Block

(ill) Green Engineering $15000-EPA Yes Yes 19~9 (i) Saving our Maritime $10000-VAS Yes Yes

Heritage $10000 - Film Vie $20000 - Total

(ii) Documentation of $9000-MPE No N.A. 'Southbank'development Project/Y a"a side

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Finan~ial

year

1989-90

Film/Video Cost of Production/ source

Shopping can be fun $3000 - MPE Melbourne - Nt'w Horizons Total Cost $84 000

MPE contribution $35000

Production arranged or undertaken by Film Victoria

No Joint production Film Victoria, MPEand OITR

TOURISM FILMS/VIDEOS

(Question No. 982)

Production approved by Film Victoria

N.A. Yes

Hon. HADDON STOREY (East Yarra) asked the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development, for the Minister for Tourism:

(a) What films were produced within the Ministry of Tourism in the years - (i) 1987-88; (ii) 1988-89; and (tii) 1989-90?

(b) In respect of each such film and video - (i) what was the cost of production; (ti) was the production arranged or undertaken by Film Victoria; and (ill) was the production approved by Film Victoria?

Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - The answer supplied by the Minister for Tourism is:

With respect to the Victorian Tourism Commission: (a) (i) 1987-88 Nil

(ii) 1988-89 Nil (ill) 1989-00

ID-minute video - Melbourne - Arts and Culture ID-minute video -Melbourne -Food and Wine

10-minute video - Melbourne -Style and Design. (b) (i) Total cost of $225000.

(ii) Yes: arranged by Film Victoria. (ill) Yes.

With respect to the Alpine Resorts Commission: The Alpine Resorts Commission has not produced any films or videos for the period 1987-88 and 1989-90. In 1988 Snake Valley Productions was contracted to provide library footage on 16-mm colour negative film to update existing films for the 1988 season. (i) The cost of the contract was $4770. (ii) No. (ill) No.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ACQUISITION OF RENTAL UNITS

(Question No. 1006)

Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern) asked the Minister for Education and Training, for the Minister for Planning and Housing:

How many public and community managed rental units have been acquired since January 1989, indicating where and at what cost in each zonal area?

Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - The answer supplied by the Minister for Planning and Housing is:

During the period from January 1989 to March 1991 the number of public and community rental units acquired by zone, with estimated total cost, was as follows:

Zone Number of units Estimated cost (Srn)

Urban West 1425 87.2 Urban North 1515 91.5 Urban East 1591 117.1 West 701 47.2 North 963 54.6 East 1719 101.3

Total 7914 498.9

Note: Includes units constructed and purchased by Housing and Construction Victoria, return of Defence Housing Authority units, units acquired through the Shared Home Ownership Scheme, units acquired by common equity rental co-ops and units acquired by local government through the Local Government and Community Housing Program.

"FAIRPLA Y" PUBLICATION

(Question No. 1012)

Hon. G. P. CONNARD (Higinbotham) asked the Minister for Consumer Affairs:

(a) How many copies of the publication Fairplay have been printed? . (b) To whom is this publication distributed? (c) What is the cost of design. distribution and printing of each issue? (d) What is the annual budget for production of this magazine?

Hon. B. W. MIER (Minister for Consumer Affairs) - The answer is:

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


I refer the honourable member to question on notice No. 894 and my reply tabled on 13 March 1991 in the Legislative Council. Since that response a further edition of Fairplay has been printed. The details are as follows: (a) 8000 - Fairplay is now produced in a magazine format and is circulated to a much wider

audience. (b) Ministry of Consumer Affairs head and regional offices and 33 consumer and 27 tenancy

support groups, industry bodies, government agencies, local government, libraries and schools.

(c) $6203.

(d) Estimated at $14000 - for the 1990-91 financial year from the Public Information Branch annual budget.

HOME RENOVATION ASSISTANCE

(Question No. 1014)


What is the total amount of money allocated since November 1988 to the Home Renovation Scheme and Housing Advisory Referral Project to assist older homeowners?


(1) Allocations are made at the beginning of each financial year. The total allocation for the three financial years, for both programs, since 1 July 1988 is $5 992 330. This comprises $5 345 330 for Home Renovation Service loans and $647 000 for the Home Renovation Advisory Program, formerly known as the Home Renovation AdViSOry and Referral Project.

(2) It should be noted that loans are provided through the Home Renovation Service for older homeowners, the disabled and others on low incomes, who meet the eligibility guidelines. The Home Renovation Advisory Program provides assistance for older homeowners and the disabled.

YOUTH INITIATIVES SCHEME

(Question No. 1016)


How much of the $5 million promised to the Youth Initiatives Scheme in September 1988 has been allocated to the scheme since November 1988?


The total amount of $5 million promised to the Youth Initiatives Scheme in September 1988 has been allocated to the scheme.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Tuesday, 28 May 1991 COUNCIL

The allocation combined with an earlier allocation of $5 million in 1985 made a total of $10 million available to the scheme. To date Youth Initiatives Scheme funds have been allocated as follows:

$6.6 million has been spent to purchase 114 predominantly single bedroom units. $300 000 has been spent to construct 5 single bedroom units. $700 000 has been allocated for the future construction of youth units.

20S7

The remaining $2.4 million allocated to the scheme will be spent in the 1991-92 financial year to purchase an estimated 35 single bedroom units for youth.

SPORT AND RECREATION FILMS/VIDEOS

(Question No. 1023)

Hon. HAD DON STOREY (East Yarra) asked the Minister for Consumer Affairs, for the Minister for Sport and Recreation:

(a) What films or videos were produced within the Department of Sport and Recreation in each of the years 1987 ~8, 1988~9 and 1989-90?

(b) In respect of each such film or video - (i) what was the cost of production; (ii) was the production arranged or undertaken by Film Victoria; and (ill) was the production approved by Film Victoria?

Hon. B. W. MIER (Minister for Consumer Affairs) - The answer supplied by the Minister for Sport and Recreation is:

There have been two videos produced that this department has had involvement with during the stated period. Details of that involvement are listed below: 1. Ski Legs - a cross country ski safety video produced in 1987-88 in conjunction with the Alpine

Resorts Commission and Film Victoria who arranged for and contributed towards production costs. The Department of Sport and Recreation's contribution for the production of the video was $12 000.

2. Well, VVhat Are You Doing Now? - a video produced in 1988~9 exploring the significance of recreation and leisure for older adults. This video was produced by Open Channel for the Early Planning for Retirement Association with funding being provided by the Australian Bicentennial Authority and the Senior Citizen's Week Committee (Depamnent of the Premier and Cabinet). The Department of Sport and Recreation prOVided both advice and $7600 towards the cost of production.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

20S8 COUNCIL Wednesday, 29 May 1991

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

PORTS DIVISION - FILM AND VIDEO PRODUCTION

(Question No. 979)

Hon. HADDON STOREY (East Yarra) asked the Minister responsible for Ports:

(a) What films or videos were produced within the Ports Division in the years -(i) 1987~; (ii) 1988-89; and (iii) 1989-90?

(b) In respect of each such film and video - (i) what was the cost of the production; (ii) was the production arranged or undertaken by Film Victoria; and (ill) was the production approved by Film Victoria?

Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - The answer is:

(a) (i) Nil; (ii) nil; (iii) nil.

(b) (i) Not applicable; (ii) not applicable; (iii) not applicable.

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS - FILM AND VIDEO PRODUCTION

(Question No. 1019)

Hon. HADOON STOREY (East Yarra) asked the Minister for Consumer Affairs:

(a) What films or videos were produced within the Ministry of Consumer Affairs in each of the years 1987~, 1988-89, and 1989-90?

(b) In respect of each film or video - (i) what was the cost of the production; (ii) was the production arranged or undertaken by Film Victoria; and (ill) was the production approved by Film Victoria?


No films or videos were produced within the Minlstry of Consumer Affairs in each of the years 1987-88,1988-89 and 1989-90.

DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENT -FILM AND VIDEO PRODUCTIONS

(Question No. 1024)

Hon. HADOON STOREY (East Yarra) asked the Minister for Education and Training, for the Minister for Conservation and Environment:

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(a) What films or videos were produced within the Department of Conservation and Environment in each of the years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90?

2059

(b) In respect of each such film or video - (i) what was the cost of the production; (ii) wa$ the production arranged or undertaken by Film Victoria; and (ill) was the production approved by Film Victoria?


(a) The films or videos produced within the Department of Conservation and Environment in the years 1987-88,1988-89,1989-90 are listed hereunder.

1987-88 Farm Trees - a planning challenge Salting Threatens Victoria State of the Rivers Enforcement 1 Prickle Chains Chaff Story Code of Forest Practices All at Sea

1988-89 The future looks rosy Evidence in Court Bio-control unit MOmington Peninsula East Gippsland - a Bright Future The Guides Anthem and The Rap Environmental weeds Blackberries Snobs Creek Hatchery Point Nepean National Park Victoria needs an Alpine National Park Neighbours downstream On the Right Track Rabbit Control Video Parts 1, 2 and 3

1989-90 Young Eucalypt program Treating Oiled Sea Birds Preserving Native Grasslands Threshold of Environmental Change - Hattah - Kullcyne NP Junior LandCare - a common focus

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

2060 COUNCn.. Wednesday, 29 May 1991

(b) In respect of each film and video, the following information is provided:

Title Financial Cost Product'n Product'n year $ produced approved

by Film by Film Victoria Victoria Yes/No Yes/No

Farm Trtts -A Pllmning Cludlenge 1987-$ 1200* No No Salting Thrtatens Victoria 1987-$ 600* No No SUlte of the Rivers 1987-$ 350* No No Code of FortSt Practices 1987-$ 2000* No No Enforcement 1 1987-$ 500* No No Prickle ChIlins 1987-$ 800* No No All at Sea (Earth Watch) 1987-a8 15000 No Yes

ABC/ CFL Co-production The Futurt Looks Rosy 1988-89 1300* No No Evidence in Court 1988-89 400* No No Bio Control Unit 1988-89 450* No No Momington Peninsula 1988-89 200* No No Eat Gippsland -A Brighter Future 1988-90 4000 No No The Guides Anthem and The Rap 1988-a9 200* No No Environmental Weeds 1988-89 450* No No Bldbtrrin 1988-89 550* No No Snobs Crttlc Hatchery 1988-a9 1400* No No Point NtpttUI National Paric 1988-89 1850* No No Victo"" Nee. 1111 Alpine National Paric 1988-89 2900 No No Neighbours Downstraam 1988-89 60500 Yes Yes On the Right T1'tIdc 1988-90 56000 Yes Yes Rabbit Control Vi., Parts 1, 2 and 3 1988-90 16000 No No Junior LtmdCllrt - A Common Focus 1989-90 950* No No Young £uadypt Prognun 1989-90 500* No No Trating Oiled StGbirds 1989-90 1100* No No Pramnng Nativt GruslImds 1989-90 1250* No No Thmholds of Environmental CluJnge 1989-90 1600* No No

*Intemally produced video - salaries and vehicle expenses not included.

OFFICE OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS FILMS

(Question No. 1025)

HoD. HADDON STOREY (East Yarra) asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:

(a) What films or videos were produced within the Office of Aboriginal Affairs in each of the years 1987~, 1988-89 and 1989-OO?

Thursday, 30 May 1991

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

COUNCIL

(b) In respect of each film or video - (i) what was the cost of the production; (ii) was the production arranged or undertaken by Film Victoria; and (ill) was the production approved by Film Victoria?

Hon. B. W. MIER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) - The answer is:

2061

No films or videos were produced within the OffiCe of Aboriginal Affairs in each of the years 1987~, 1988-89 and 1989-90.

CREDIT PROVIDERS LICENCES

(Question No. 1032)

Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia) asked the Minister for Consumer Affairs:

(a) How many applications for credit providers licences were made within three months of the commencement of the Credit (Administration) Act 1984?

(b) How many of these applications have been granted and how many have been rejected?

(c) How many credit providers are, by virtue of the provisions of section 37 (2) of the Credit (Administration) Act 1984, deemed to be licensed but still waiting for their applications to be processed?


(a) 348.

(b) Of these applications:

173 have subsequently had their licences granted.

164 have withdrawn their 'original applications.

2 were refused licences.

9 are deemed licensees in accordance with section 37 (3) of the Credit (Administration) Act 1984.

(c) 9.

(Question No. 1033)

Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia) asked the Minister for Consumer Affairs:

(a) How many providers of consumer credit in Victoria are not required to obtain credit providers licences and who are they?

(b) What is the value of licence fees forgone?


Section 38 of the Credit (Administration) Act 1984 exempts a range of organisations from the requirement to hold a credit providers licence.

The Ministry does not have information on the number of individuals exempted by this provision and it is not possible to estimate the fees that would be payable by those exempt organisations if they were licensed.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

2062 COUNCIL Wednesday, 29 May 1991

HEALTH DEPARTMENT VICTORIA OPINION POLLS

(Question No. 1038)

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) asked the Minister for Health:

Since 1 July 1990 has any department, Ministry or agency that reports to the Minister commissioned an opinion poll or public attitude survey; if so - (i) when; (ii) at what cost; (iii) who was the consultant; (iv) what were the topics concerned; and (v) when will the relevant report be made public?

Hon. M. A. L YSTER (Minister for Health) - The answer is:

The time and resources available to answer this question fully on behalf of agencies caIUlot be justified. Health Department Victoria, however, has not commissioned any opinion polls or public attitude surveys since 1 July 1990.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

SEC FIRE SPOTI1NG TOWERS

(Question No. 1030)

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) asked the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development:

What are the locations of each fire spotting tower in Victoria operated by, or on behalf of, the State Electricity Commissio~ indicating in each case - (i) the nearest major town or provincial centre; (il) the days on which the tower is currently manned; (ill) the days on which the tower was manned in 1980, 1981, 1985 and 1988; (iv) the number of staff who currently man the tower; and (v) the number of staff who manned the tower in 1980, 1981, 1985 and 1988?


(i) The SEC operates 4 fire spotting towers in the following locations: The Big Hill tower which is located 5 km south of Mount Beauty The Mount McKay tower which is located adjacent to Falls Cree~ approximately 16 km south of Mount Beauty A tower at Yallo~ north-east of Morwell A tower in the SEC works area at Morwell

(il) The Bill Hill tower was manned on 75 days during 1990-91. The Mount McKay tower was manned for 9 days during 1990-91 fire season. The SEC towers at Yalloum and Morwell were manned during the Country Fire Authority's declared fire danger period.

(ill) The Bill Hill tower was manned by Department of Conservation and Environment personnel between 1987 and 1989. However in 1990-91, they did not operate the tower, and the SEC decided to man it in order to provide increased fire protection for SEC assets. During the specified years, it was operated as follows: 1980 122 days 1981 SOdays 1985 86 days 1988 Department of Conservation and Environment responsibility. The Mount McKay tower during the specified years was operated as follows: 1980 43 days 1981 47 days 1985 18 days 1988 81 days. A log of the days on which the Yalloum tower was manned is not readily available. The tower in the Morwell works area was built in 1989.

2064

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

COUNCIL Thursday, 30 May 1991

(iv) The Mount McKay and Mount Beauty towers are manned by a roster system involving 6 trained towermen. The Latrobe Valley towers are manned by two people supplied from composite work tearns based at the Yallourn Production Centre.

(v) In 1980, 1981 and 1985, the roster for the Mount Beauty tower was shared between 5 trained towermen, and in 1988 by 4 trained towermen as the Department of Conservation and Environment had the responsibility for Big Hill in that year. The Yalloum tower was manned by two people supplied from composite work tearns based at the Yalloum Production Centre, this manning level has not changed since 1980.

ROYAL EXHIBITION BUILDING

(Question No. 1034)

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) asked the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development:

(a) Did the Royal Exhibition Building, as managed by the Exhibition Trustees, make a $405 000 loss in 1990; if so, why?

(b) Why was only $250 000 of the $765 000 expended in 1990 for the maintenance and preservation of the Great Hall recorded as an operating expense in the latest annual report of the trustees?

(c) What specific plans and provisions have been, or will be, made to repay the trustees $4 700 000 interest-only loan?


(a) The Royal Exhibition Building trustees have reported a net profit of $120 889 in their report for the six months ending 31 December 1990. This figure has been qualified by the Auditor-General based on the trustees accounting treatment in respect of the maintenance and depreciation of the Great Hall.

(b) In past years funds were set aside to pay for further restoration and renovation expenses and a provision account was set up to record these allocations. The restoration and renovation costs for 1990 were charged against this provision. The amount of $250 000 which is recorded as an operating expense is a transfer to the provision to pay for future renovation and restoration expenses.

(c) In 1990 the trustees adopted a six-year plan prepared by management which provides for sufficient surplus funds from earnings to ~ available for repayment of the $4 700 000 interest-only loan on or shortly after maturity.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Tuesday, 4 June 1991 COUNCIL 2065

Tuesday, 4 June 1991

The PRESIDENT (Hon. A. J. Hunt) took the chair at 3.2 p.m. and read the prayer.


HEAL TH DEPARTMENT VICTORIA Hon. M. T. TEHAN (Central Highlands) - 1 ask the Minister for Health how many

of the 10 000 positions announced by the Premier to be made redundant will be within the health sector?

Hon. M. A. L YSTER (Minister for Health) - The Premier had a great success indeed last Friday at the Premiers Conference where she was able to negotiate successfully on behalf of this State an agreement with the then Federal Treasurer that $300 million would be made available to Victoria by way of global borrowings to assist the State in achieving a significant measure of micro-economic reform throughout the public sector. The final decision on the allocation of the funding between different departments is still being negotiated with the Minister for Finance. However, it will be a most appropriate opportunity for the government to ensure that every part of the State sector operates efficiently.

MUNICIPAL ROAD FUNDING Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) - 1 refer the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and

Community Affairs to the matter 1 raised with her in this House on 14 May regarding Federal road funds for local roads and ask: is it not illegal for the State government to withhold passing on the funds to local government until the new financial year in order to prop up its own cash shortfall?

Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, MUnicipal and Community Affairs)-I certainly cannot comment as to the legality or illegality of that. 1 shall take the question on notice and get back to Mr Baxter forthwith.

GAMING INDUSTRY REGULATIONS Hon. B. E. DA VIDSON (Chelsea) - I ask the Minister for Gaming to advise the

House how the government intends enforcing penalties for breaches of the regulations in Victoria's new gaming industry?

Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Ganling) - The government is pleased that a Bill in respect of gaming will be introduced in another place and, when passed by both


2066 COUNCIL Tuesday, 4 June 1991

Houses, will provide the opportunity for gaming machines to be introduced into sporting venues and clubs throughout Victoria.

Hon. R. J. Long interjected.

Hon. D. R. WHITE - Clearly there is a community expectation that Victorians will have access to the machines but, in response to Mr Davidson's question, it is also clear that there is an expectation that the machines will be provided in an environment which has strict legislative and regulatory controls over the manner in which machines are provided.

The government is aware that in other States there is alleged widespread occurrence of under-the-counter payments. Pressure is brought to bear on individual clubs and venues in the purchasing of machines. This pressure has inflated costs to the venues and such costs must be met from revenue that would otherwise have gone back to punters.

The government is proposing the establishment of an Independent Gaming Commission which will have the responsibility of licensing two operators. The two operators will be Tattersalls and the Totalizator Agency Board. In turn, they will have to put to the commission proposals about where they intend to purchase their machines from. The commission will have the responsibility of checking the bona fides of manufacturers of the machines and the types of machines.

It is also clear that the machines will not be purchased by the venues. In a sense, a decision will be made that will have to be approved by the commission as to what types of machines are provided in each venue.

The Victoria Police will be represented on the Independent Gaming Commission and will be responsible for carrying out the checks. Revenue from the gaming machines will be used to pay for the administrative costs of both the commission and the police. There will be severe penalties for any party that breaks those conditions.

By now it should be common knowledge that the Arthur Andersen and Co. report to the government made it clear that significant technical standards should be adhered to in respect of the types of machines and games that are available. The report specifically said that every machine in the State will be required to be linked to a central computer and any attempt to tamper with the machine will be recorded instantaneously at the central location. At the central location there will be a record of events that occur within each machine, wherever it is located in the State.

In respect of recording if not every bet at least a sufficient series of bets, the central computer will be able to detect any malfunction or interference with the machine. The machines will be controlled locally and centrally and in that sense be secure. It will not be the venue operator who determines the number of machines. We have authority from Cabinet to issue up to 10000 machines in the next twelve to fifteen months. In New South Wales there are between 50 000 and 60 000 electronic gaming machines. We expect that Victoria could cope with somewhere in the order of 30 000 to 40 000 machines over the next five years and that that will be the capacity of the market.



I indicate that legislation will be introduced today which will clearly have widespread community support and in the not-too-distant future the support of the coalition and it will be passed - -

Hon. R. J. Long - You're presupposing it will be passed.

Hon. D. R. WHITE - There is no doubt there is widespread support, Mr Long, and when the legislation is passed there will be clear community expectations that the Independent Gaming Commission's activities will be supported by a significant set of regulations that, underlining the question asked by Mr Davidson, provides security to both the punter and the general community. The government looks forward to the machines becoming available on a pilot basis well before the end of this year.

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Hon. R. I. KNOWLES (Ballarat) - I direct a question without notice to the Minister for Consumer Affairs. In respect of his Ministry, how many positions can be made redundant as a contribution towards the Premier's target of 10 000 Public Service redundancies?

Hon. B. W. MIER (Minister for Consumer Affairs) - The formulation of the Budget is currently taking place, not only in the Ministry for Consumer Affairs but also in all the other Ministries. The process is currently under way to determine what or if any positions will become redundant. If positions do become redundant within the Ministry for Consumer Affairs, in due course Mr Knowles will be informed.

DEFERRED EXPENDITURE

Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western) - I direct a question without notice to the Leader of the House. During my contribution last Thursday to the debate on the Supply Bill, I sought further information on a number of specific issues and now I have several documents containing responses prepared by officers of Treasury and the Ministry of Finance.

I note particularly that, in respect of an amount of $90.7 million that has been included in the Supply Bill as financing charges due to the Commonwealth, the government has now conceded that this represents the deferral of contractual expenditure due for payment in this budgetary period, that is, prior to the end of this month. I presume that the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development has seen the documents.

Hon. D. R. White - No.

Hon. R. M. HALLAM - I think you should.

As Leader of the Government and Minister responsible for the debate on the Supply Bill, does the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development concede that the $90.7 million is an effective understatement of the 1990-91 budgetary deficit, and how does he explain this flagrant and deceptive breach of accounting and reporting standards?


2068 COUNCIL Tu~y,4June1991

Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development) - After Mr Hallam made his contribution during the course of the second-reading debate on the Supply Bill, he indicated - as he has on more than one occasion - that he had a number of questions he wished to pursue with Treasury. I indicated that I was willing to help him and asked that officers of Treasury prepare and provide him with responses prior to the resumption this week of the debate on the Supply Bill. I understand that the officers undertook to do that.

I have not had the benefit of discussing with those officers their responses because they were officers from another department. I understand that they would have cleared their responses with the Treasurer prior to providing the answers to Mr Hallam.

I shall take note of the responses. As Mr Hallam is aware, there is an opportunity to respond from the government's perspective during discussion on clause 2 in the Committee stage of the debate on the Supply Bill. Is Mr Hallam seeking a further response from the government to the questions he has raised prior to further debate on the Supply Bill, or is he happy to wait for a response during the discussion on clause 2? I am happy to give him a further response during the Committee stage if there is further advice that he seeks from Treasury.

Otherwise I am happy to take on notice the questions he has raised, consider the answers provided by Treasury, take account of them, and provide a response during the discussion on clause 2.

UNLICENSED MOTOR CAR TRADING

Hon. C. J. KENNEDY rt-Javerley) - Will the Minister for Consumer Affairs inform the House of action being taken by his Ministry to stamp out unlicensed motor car trading?

Hon. B. W. MIER (Minister for Consumer Affairs) - I thank Mr Kennedy for his question.

Hon. M. A. Birrell - Do they trade on Sundays?

Hon. B. W. MIER - No, they do not, actually. They are quite firm on this - they will not trade on Sundays. The Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce is very firm on that policy.

Hon. M. A. Birrell - We should shut milk bars on Sundays, too!

Hon. B. W. MIER - If you take some interest, you might learn something for a change. The Ministry has stepped up its efforts to protect consumers and licensed motor car dealers from unscrupulous people who just want to make a quick dollar.

A special task force is being established in the Industry Regulation Branch of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs to concentrate on investigating and recommending prosecutions where appropriate against unlicensed motor car traders.



Recently the Ministry successfully prosecuted a Mr Frank Bondy, who is described by the magistrate as "the worst kind of parasite, the type the legislators had in mind when they passed the Act".

As a result of his illegal activities Mr Bondy was fined a total of $13000. Another three alleged unlicensed traders are to appear in the Magistrates Court over the next two months and at anyone time the Ministry's officers are investigating up to twenty individual cases of illegal acts.

The Ministry is also liaising with the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, VIC ROADS, licensed vehicle testers and auction houses to gain their cooperation in bringing about a reduction in this practice.

We have asked auctioneers not to deal with people buying cars week in and week out, and to check whether they are actually licensed, and we have sent an open letter to licensed vehicle testers urging them not to supply roadworthy certificates to such people and warning them of penalties if they do, and the penalties are up to $10 000 for each car.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Hon. HADDON STOREY (East Yarra) - I refer to the Minister for Education and Training the $300 million that the Commonwealth has agreed to allow the State to borrow for redundancies, and I ask: what consultations took place with the Minister and his department in arriving at the figure of 10 ()()() redundancies for which the Premier has claimed the money is to be borrowed?

Hon. B. T. PULL EN (Minister for Education and Training) - Most people in Victoria realise that this will be quite a tough Budget, and that it is important for Victoria to reach a balanced position, as near as possible, in expenditure and revenue. All departments will be required to play their part in that.

The Ministry of Education and Training, which forms apprOXimately 28 per cent of the recurrent part of the Budget, clearly has a challenge in contributing to savings and a reduction of expenditure. Along with other departments I am currently engaged in negotiations with the Ministry of Finance on our action plan to achieve those targets.

Part of the plan will involve the use of redundancy packages to reduce the recurrent expenditure in education, and the exact numbers and contributions will be worked out during the budgetary process, as it was last year.

Hon. Haddon Storey - We want to know where the 10 000 comes from.

Hon. B. T. PULLEN - Despite the ignorance of the opposition on the budgetary process, as I have said on other occasions we are coming in on budget this year, and although it will be a difficult challenge I am confident we will remain on budget.


2070 COUNCIL TU~y,4Junel991

OVERSEAS STUDENTS Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) - Does the Minister for Education and Training accept

the findings of the independent auditor Ernst and Young that the full cost of educating overseas students in Victorian schools in 1991 is $9057 and does he concede that this year, by charging only $6000 for year 11 students and $6500 for year 12 students, Victorian taxpayers will have subsidised the education of 75 overseas students to the tune of $200 OOO?

Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - I have ensured that a full costing of the program will occur as part of the review that I have previously referred to. As the honourable member is aware, I enabled a briefing of the opposition to that effect to take place this morning, and I stand behind the figures that have been provided by that consultants report, which I believe has been prepared in a totally objective way.

INDUSTRY EDUCATION FORUM Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS Gika Jika) - Yesterday the Industry Education Forum,

which is made up of major Australian employer groups, released the Declaration of Goals for Australia's Schools. Will the Minister for Education and Training inform the House how those goals relate to existing policy in Victoria?

Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - Yes, a report has been released by the Industry Education Forum, which is made up of the Australian Bankers Association, the Australian Chamber of Commerce, the Australian Chamber of Manufactures, the Australian Information Industry Association, the Australian Institute of Petroleum and other bodies which form a quite representative group of business interests and industry. The forum has released an interesting report which shows its concerns and priorities for education in this country.

It is a national release, but a number of points are interesting from the State's point of view. Last week I also released a report that comprehensively covered issues and made statements about education in this State, and I note a happy coincidence of interest on a number of points. For instance, Victoria has been leading, through the Victorian certificate of education, in developing links between vocational experience and opportunities and T AFE and the VCE, and I note that the forum's report places emphasis on such vocational linkages.

Secondly, I note - and some members who have been critical of this might take note -that in the cun;iculum section the document calls for a developed Australian studies curriculum and the necessary inservice and preservice teacher education programs to support it. This group clearly recognises the importance of Australian studies as part of a comprehensive curriculum.

The document also links schools and industry, which is one of the links I referred to when I dealt with the roles to be played by industry and the VCE. Interestingly, in the section dealing with curriculum the document calls for national curriculum statements



and frameworks in core areas, and Victoria has been a pioneer in the development of such frameworks.

In section 5, standards of competency, the document calls for measures of accountability and performance, which is analogous with the position on greater accountability expressed in my report.

The thrust of the overall direction of the declaration is towards excellence, which is again a coincidence. I do not wonder about the nervousness of opposition members in this matter because they can see support from important industry groups for the direction and position this government has taken with education, and the opposition basically has nowhere to go. The most sensible thing the opposition could do would be to take a bipartisan approach to these issues and to release a policy that adds to the education debate, instead of continually trying to find negative positions that are not being supported by the community and definitely not being supported by major industry organisations, which have expressed basic principles that line up entirely with the position the government is taking on education and training.

HEALTH DEPARTMENT VICTORIA

Hon. R. S. de FEGEL Y (Ballarat) - In view of the 10 ()()() redundancies for which a loan has been sought from the Federal government, I ask the Minister for Health: when does she anticipate that Health Department Victoria will be formally consulted regarding the number of employees to be made redundant from that department?

Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Health) - I am not sure what the honourable member means by formally being consulted. In an earlier response I said that discussions are going on at the moment with the Ministry of Finance and, so far as I am concerned, that constitutes formal consultation.

Hon. M. T. Tehan - When are you going to get a result?

Hon. M. A. LYSTER -The determination of a final figure involves consultation, not just with the Minister for Finance but also very importantly with the Trades Hall Council and with the Victorian Hospitals Association Ltd.

HEALTH NEEDS OF HOMELESS YOUNG PEOPLE

Hon. JOAN COXSEDGE (Melbourne West) - I ask the Minister for Health to advise the House what steps are being taken to address the health needs of homeless young people, as revealed by Brian Burdekin in his report into youth homelessness, with particular concern to Melbourne's west, a major problem being the alienation of young people from any form of organisation.

Hon. M. A. L YSTER (Minister for Health) - I thank the honourable member for her question; she is well known to me and to others for her ongoing interest in the provision of accessible services to young people, not just in the residential parts of the metropolitan area but throughout the State.



We all shared major concerns when the reports of Commissioner Burdekin were brought out and a series of programs have been put in place mainly with emphasis on the prevention of the situation of homelessness to ensure that young people do not leave home in the first place. However, for those young people who have left home it has become clear that they do feel alienated from existing health services. Therefore, the direction that the Victorian government has taken with nearly $2 million, matched by the Commonwealth, is to put in place workers at fourteen community health centres who will be engaged largely in outreach work to make contact with our homeless young people and to act as brokers to ensure that they are able to make use of existing services - particularly psychiatric services and alcohol and drug services - and to ensure that those services in turn are responsive to the very special needs of the homeless people.

There will be 25 projects throughout the State and fourteen community health centres are part of this special project. There are also eleven special projects including one from the West Bellarine Community Health Centre; in Ballarat the Sebastopol Community Health Centre; Goulbum North-East at Shepparton through Vadcare. In the honourable member's own area the community health centres at Braybrook, Maidstone and St Albans are part of this project.

When we come to evaluate the work of the project officers over the next twelve months, I hope we will find that this particular and very special group of young people have been able to make better use of existing and new health services.

HEALTH DEPARTMENT VICTORIA Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) -Will the Minister for Health guarantee that any

Health Department Victoria employee who is retrenched as part of the government's retrenchment package announced by the Premier will not be re-employed in Health Department Victoria as a staff member or as a consultant?

Hon. T. C. Theophanous - And must be on your 3500 list!

Hon. M. A. L YSTER (Minister for Health) - The honourable member in his question particularly refers to members of staff of Health Department Victoria, so I assume he is excluding the hospitals from that and is just referring to members of the department. I was of the belief that some sort of agreement about non-employment within a sector within a certain period of time was common practice in the private sector and had been adopted in the public sector. Therefore, I would assume that that sort of guarantee could be given, yes.

SENIORS CARD Hon. G. A. SGRO (Melbourne North) - Will the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and

Community Affairs advise the House how many Seniors Cards have been issued since the card was launched in April this year?

Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Ethnic, MUnicipal and Community Affairs) - Last week I asked my Ministry for a report on how many Seniors Cards had been sought and issued, and the answer was 300 ()()() in less than three months. That indicates a higher

QUESTION ON NOTICE


take-up rate than in Western Australia and Queensland when those States launched similar schemes. The government anticipated that 250 000 of the potential 700 000 over 6O-year-olds who are not in full-time employment would take up the offer by the end of June, but in fact at the start of June 300 000 Seniors Cards had been issued.

In addition another 100 service providers have expressed interest in being part of the next directory. Some of them provide recreational services; some are associated with tourist attractions; and others involve retail outlets. So, indeed, the Seniors Card is a very popular scheme.

QUESTION ON NOTICE

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) - Yesterday I wrote to the Minister for Education and Training seeking an answer to question No. 1018 that was placed on the Notice Paper on 17 April 1991, the answer to which is now overdue. No answer has been provided today.

I would welcome the Minister's explanation as to why it has taken more than the set time limit to obtain an answer to the question.

Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Education and Training) - This question was addressed to me but the answer was to be supplied by the Minister for Conservation and Environment in another place. As has been indicated to the House on a number of occasions in relation to requests of other Ministers, I have exercised as much effort as I think is possible to seek their compliance with timing.

Recently I wrote to all the Ministers for whom I have responsibility in this Chamber pointing out to them those questions that I think need attention.

Hon. G. R. Craige - What date?

Hon. B. T. PULLEN - I can renew that request. As has been indicated, apart from pointing out decisions made by this House and making a request, I cannot provide the same guarantees as I can about questions that fall within my portfolio.

Hon. G. R. Craige - Will you show us a copy of the letters?

Hon. B. T. PULLEN - Don't you believe me?

PETITION

Radiotherapy seIVices in Ballarat Hon. R. I. KNOWLFS (Ballarat) presented a petition from certain citizens of Victoria

praying that the application by the St John of God Hospital to establish radiotherapy services in Ballarat be approved.

Laid on table.

REPORT OF BLF CUSTODIAN

2074 COUNCIL Tu~y,4Junel991

REPORT OF BLF CUSTODIAN

Hon. B. W. MIER (Minister for Consumer Affairs) presented report No. 15 dated 31 May 1991, given to Mr President pursuant to section 7 A of the BLF (De-recognition) Act 1985 by the Custodian appointed under section 7(1) of that Act.

Laid on table.

HEALTH SERVICES COMMISSIONER

Hon. M. A. L YSTER (Minister for Health) presented report of the Health Services Commissioner for year 1989-90 (incorporating report of Health Services Review Council for year 1989-90).

Laid on table.

PAPERS

Laid on table by Clerk:

Chiropodists Registration Board - Report and financial statement for the year 1990 (two papers). Medical Board of Victoria - Report for the year 1989-90 (incorporating the Report of the Hospitals Accreditation Committee for the year 1989-90).

Optometrists Registration Board - Report and financial statement for the year 1989-90. Physiotherapists Registration Board - Report and financial statement for the year 1990. Planning and Environment Act 1987 - Notices of Approval of the following amendments to planning schemes:

Bendigo Planning Scheme - Amendment L24.

Berwick Planning Scheme - Amendments L29 Part 1 B and L32. Bright Planning Scheme - Amendment L17.

Geelong Regional Planning Scheme - Amendment R63. Knox Planning Scheme - Amendment L26 Part 1. Kyabram Planning Scheme - Amendment LS.

Maryborough Planning Scheme - Amendment LlD Part 1. Metropolitan Region Planning Schemes - Amendment R1DS. Mildura (Shire) Planning Scheme -Amendment L17.

Moe Planning Scheme - Amendment L16.

Nunawading Planning Scheme - Amendment L13. Omeo Planning Scheme - Amendment L6.

Ripon Planning Scheme - Amendment L7.

Rosedale Planning Scheme - Amendment L28. Seymour Planning Scheme - Amendment L2S.

Shepparton (City) Planning Scheme - Amendment L3S. Violet Town Planning Scheme - Amendment L3.

CASINO CONTROL BILL

~y,4Junel991 COUNCIL

• • • • Proclamations of His Excellency the Governor in Council fixing operative dates in respect of the following Acts:

Evidence (Amendment) Act 1990 -Sections 1 to 7 -1 June 1991 (Gazette No. G20, 29 May 1991).

National Parks (Further Amendment) Act 1990 -Parts 2 and 4 -5 June 1991 (Gazette No. GlO, 29 May 1991).

Ordered that reports tabled by Clerk be considered next day on motion of Hon. HADDON STOREY (East Yarra)

CASINO CONTROL BILL

Second reading

2075



Melbourne is a city in which we can all take pride. It is a world-class city and the time has come when it should have 'a world-class casino. It is big enough and dynamic enough to also support an unobtrusive club casino.

This Bill will enable the establishment of the casinos and is the result of the recommendations of the Connor report. The government has worked closely with the New South Wales government which is also preparing casinos legislation based on the Connor report. This Bill closely mirrors the current New South Wales draft Bill and, indeed, the two Bills are almost identical in format and wording. This consistency of approach will be of benefit to prospective tenderers for casino licences and will offer to both States the same high level of stringent control and regulation of casino operations.

In order to exclude criminal activity and influence from the casinos, legislation designed to provide strict control over all aspects of the operation of casinos is required. The government believes this Bill will achieve that objective, based on the Connor report and the experience of interstate and overseas legislation.

OVERVIEW OF 11-IE BILL

The Bill separates the control and regulation of casinos between two different sets of people. An independent Victorian Casino Control Authority is to be established as the body overseeing the control function. It will be headed by a chairperson who has been a lawyer or magistrate for at least ten years, and four other members. The authority will have power to grant, suspend or cancel casino licences and to oversee the operation of casinos.

The regulatory function will be performed by an Office of Casino Surveillance under the Director of Casino Surveillance. This office will be, as Connor recommended, separate from the authority, but required to respond to and generally assist the authority. The'

CASINO CONTROL BILL


office is to be responsible for supervising directly the day-to-day operation of casinos and the conduct of gaming within them.

The Connor report states that 11 an honest and highly competent regulatory team is indispensable to the proper running of a casino". The office will therefore be staffed by persons skilled in casino regulation including administration, auditing and surveillance. A specially trained unit of the Victoria Police will be seconded to the office which will be created under the Public Service Act.

The Bill establishes a system for control of casinos and provides for regulation of administrative and accounting procedures, security and surveillance systems as well as the creation of various offences and strict licensing of key participants, including most casino staff.

MAJOR FEATURES OF THE BILL

It is intended that the government should be able to limit the number of casinos permitted, to identify acceptable locations and to indicate the type of development it considers appropriate. The Bill therefore provides for the Minister to give directions along these lines, setting a general policy framework within which the Casino Control Authority can consider applications for licences to operate casinos.

The authority is required to undertake a thorough investigation of an applicant for a casino licence and each associate of the applicant who could exercise significant influence in the operation of the casino business. Before granting a licence, the authority must take into account, among other things, whether:

the persons involved are of good repute; the applicant has obtained or can obtain adequate financial resources to ensure the casino's viability; and each director and officer associated with the ownership or administration or management of the business is a suitable person to act in that capacity.

In addition to the issue of a licence by the authority, the State will enter into a management agreement covering matters such as taxation arrangements, design of the development of the casino and infrastructure provision arrangements with the developer. It is intended that this agreement will be submitted to Parliament for ratification.

Once a casino licence is granted, the Casino Control Authority is required to investigate the casino at least once every three years. In its investigation the authority is to consider whether the casino operator is a suitable person to continue to hold the licence and whether it is in the public interest that the licence remains in force.

At other times the authority may initiate an investigation into any matter related to the casino. The Bill gives the authority extensive power to require information to be provided by the operator or any associate of the operator. The authority may also give a direction to the operator in relation to the conduct, supervision or control of casino operations.

CASINO CONTROL BILL


Provision is included in the Bill to require certain contracts entered into by the operator to be approved by the authority. This is intended to prevent criminal elements from obtaining a financial interest in the casino by the back door.

The authority will be quasi-judicial in character and will be able to take disciplinary action against casino operators and will have the power to suspend or cancel a licence. This power to cancel or suspend a licence is an extremely important and far-reaching power which could deprive an operator of many millions of dollars. If the operator also operates in other jurisdictions, it is almost certain that a cancellation or suspension would have repercussions in those jurisdictions. Consequently, this would remain as the ultimate sanction. In view of the severity of this sanction, the Connor report recommended, and this Bill includes, power for the authority to impose substantial fines.

In view of the sensitive nature of information obtained from local, interstate and overseas law enforcement agencies which may be put before the authority the Bill contains various provisions to ensure confidentiality. These include a prohibition on divulging information acquired in the course of performing duf.es under the Act and exemption from the Freedom of Information Act. The Bill, on the same basis, provides that decisions of the authority are not subject to appeal except on certain grounds such as breach of natural justice.

Certain casino employees, including those working in a managerial capacity or involved in the conduct of gaming, counting or movement of money or chips and repair of gaming equipment, will be required to be licensed. The Director of Casino Surveillance will investigate each applicant and if appropriate grant a licence for twelve months. Prior to renewal of a licence a further investigation will be undertaken. Disciplinary action may be taken against the licensee and will be determined by the authority. The licence may be varied, suspended or cancelled or the authority may issue a letter of censure.

In relation to gaming within the casino, the games and rules for games which can be played in casinos must be approved by the authority. The director will be responsible for approving the casino layout and investigating and approving gaming equipment for use in casinos, while hours of operation will be set by the authority.

Provision is included in the Bill for the appointment of a director of casino surveillance whose functions include supervising operations in casinos, iflvestigating complaints and assisting in the detection of offences. The director will have a group of inspectors, many of whom will be seconded from the police and who will be responsible to her or him for day-to-day surveillance within the casinos.

As is pointed out in the Connor report, there are two difficulties in dealing initially with taxation rates in the Bill. First, rates for taxes, fees and levies for each casino would need to be fixed now to include them in the legislation. This could result in the rates being fixed too high or too low. Second, it will deprive the government from negotiating rates - for example, in the Docklands project area a lower rate may be a desirable trade-off for an obligation by the licensee to contribute to the upgrading of the area.


2078 COUNCIL TU~y,4June1991

The report therefore recommends that the Queensland model be adopted to fix the rates by regulations. After the casinos have been operating for a year or two, the tax rates would be fixed annually by the Parliament. The Bill has followed this recommendation of Connor's and, in order to ensure legislation is brought before Parliament to set the rate of tax, the Bill limits the casino tax to the first three years after commencement. It is intended, however, that the rates will be included in the management agreement to be entered into before a licence is granted and that this agreement be submitted to Parliament for ratification.

Provision is also included for a community benefit levy whereby the licensee will contribute a portion of the casino's revenue to the Hospitals and Charities Fund. There are similar schemes in Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia.

The Bill further provides that a person not be appointed as a member of the authority or a director if the person has been employed by or significantly associated with a casino operator within the preceding four years. Any such person is also prohibited from being employed by a casino operator and, except with the approval of the authority, must not have a business or financial association with an operator. In addition, a person may not be appointed as an inspector if employed or significantly associated with an operator for the preceding four years unless the director otherwise approves.

These and other measures contained in the Bill are aimed at ensuring the highest standards are maintained in the operation of casinos in this State. In view of the potential for criminal involvement, strict vetting of applicants for licences and others associated with casino operations is necessary. Similarly, effective means of dealing with breaches of the Act or a licence are essential and the Bill is therefore aimed at providing the authority with sufficient powers to adequately deal with any breach.

The government believes this legislation recognises what people want - new entertainment opportunities which are tightly controlled and benefit the whole community.


Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J. V. C. GUEST (Monash).



(ANCILLARY PROVISIONS, 1991-92, No. 1) BILL Second reading

Debate resumed from 30 May; motions of Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development).

Hon. ROBERT LAWSON (Higinbotham) - I admit I have not been playing fair with the government because I have been keeping the Budget Papers ever since I came into



this place and I have a complete library of everything the government sends me regarding the Budget, as well as all of the Treasurer's speeches over the past eight years.

It is interesting, entertaining and sad to read those speeches when considering the high hopes the government had just a few years ago. I give an example from the former Treasurer Mr jolly's Budget speech of 19S7-88.1t states:

The number of fifteen to eighteen-year-old Victorians who are unemployed and not in educational institutions is now less than one in twenty compared with almost one in ten in 1983.

Victoria has made the greatest contribution to the increase in the nation's jobs over the past year of any State.

The number of jobs in Victoria increased by 67 000 during 1987-88, accounting for about half the national increase.

Private business investment has grown by some 28 per cent in real terms in Victoria in the four years to 1986-87. For the rest of Australia growth has been less than 1 per cent over the same period.

The Victorian government's economic policies are complementary·to those of the Federal government. .

That last statement would be repudiated by the Federal Treasurer, who would be horrified to think that Victorian government policies complement Federal government policies. This can only be a panglossian type of speech, when all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

I will quote other examples of the remarkably optimistic former Treasurer's speeches up to the point of his final fall. For the past eight years the opposition has been sounding warnings about the policy of the government. The former Treasurer, Mr Jolly, was telling us that everything was for the best, while the opposition pointed out the dangers inherent in his policies and that there would be a time of reckoning.

The time of reckoning has come and even in our most serious moments we did not imagine the full extent of the disaster to fall on the people of Victoria, and the future extent of that disaster is not yet known. It will not be known until a new government is in power and the auditors find out the real indebtedness of the State.

Victoria faces a very serious problem, and our children and grandchildren will have to pay the debts well into the future. The opposition no longer has to point out that this is the worst, most inept and stupidest government ever to disgrace the Treasury benches in Victoria, possibly the whole of Australia - perhaps the government of Western Australia came close, but that was mainly the work of the former Premier. The disaster confronting Victoria is the fault of a number of Ministers, but the opposition does not have to say that any more because the whole world knows that as well as losing State Bank Victoria and unknown millions of dollars, the government has also drawn us into a web of debts and obligations that will dog our children and grandchildren.

Unfortunately for Victoria it does not have the Third World option of repudiating its debts. Australia and Victoria do not welsh on obligations, treaties or debts, so the debts



incurred on our behalf will have to be paid eventually one way or another and it will not be this government that will pay it, but the next government and the one after that.

In the former Treasurer's 1988-89 Budget speech he said:

Education opportunities reach new heights.

There is a record boost in Community Services.

The active strength of the Police Force is increased to an all-time high.

I ask the House to compare those words with the present level of crime and lack of police to deal with the increase in crime. Honourable members are aware that the next proposed batch of trainees into the Police Force will either be greatly reduced or non-existent - all this at a time of record growth in crime! Yet the Treasurer said then:

The active strength of the Police Force is increased to an all-time high.

The Treasurer then stated:

Health agenCies provide more and better services than ever before.

The shadow Minister for Health, Mrs Tehan, has put that story to rest over the past few years, to the point that we can say it is virtually a lie.

There is a dramatic increase in resources to improve Victoria's environment.

That is something the government should go and tell the farmers who live on the borders of national parks and are troubled by the increase in vermin, foxes, cats and dogs that overrun their land. That statement has proved to be false and unjustified and, as I said, it is a tribute to the remarkable optimism of the former Treasurer.

The latest story being forced upon us is the current proposal to borrow $300 million to get rid of 10 000 public servants. Somehow or other the figure of 3500 public servants to be disposed of by the new coalition government is being passed around in this Chamber. No-one knows where the figure of 3500 came from. None of our shadow Ministers said anything to that effect. It has been said there would be a reduction in the Public Service when the coalition government comes to power and Jeffrey Kennett and other members of the shadow Cabinet have been abused on the subject of this 3500 reduction in the Public Service. For some extraordinary reason in this upSide-down world we live in the government says it will get rid of 10 000 public servants but is abusing Jeffrey Kennett for the conjectured figure of 3500.

The Premier has actually been to Canberra and obtained the authority to borrow $300 million. Only a few weeks ago we were asked to sell the State Insurance Office for $300 million in order to reduce debt. The government will now borrow $300 million. The whole exercise cancels out very neatly. If we had agreed to the sale of the State Insurance Office we would have reached a nil position. The $300 million reputedly obtained from the State Insurance Office would have cancelled out the $300 million debt.

The official figure is 10 000 public servants to be shed. That reduction mayor may not occur. Some years ago Mr Crabb tried to reduce the number of employees in the transport sector - I think it was in the railways. That exercise ended up with a nil



r~sult. There was no loss of numbers employed in transport; instead we had to pay $90 nillion because the people who had been discharged were found to be necessary and all l-ad to be replaced. The net result was no jobs lost at a $90 million cost.

I believe the same thing might happen here because if one divided the figure of 10 000 into $300 million, one would find that each public servant would be entitled to an average payout of $30 000, less than one year's wages. One does not really expect them to accept that. The whole exercise does not add up anyway. I am sure that if they had l:een in employment for a number of years they would be entitled to far more than $30 000 as their superannuation payment.

On the government's own record we must seriously question the reduction of 10 000 jobs in the Public Service, whether it can be done and, if so, whether it can be done for $300 million. I doubt that. The only people who could be paid out for $30 000 would be the people taken on in recent times. That is reasonable enough: last on, first off.

However, the government took on the 10 000 public servants during recent years and now it is making a great virtue of getting rid of them. It would have been cheaper for the people of Victoria and better for the public servants involved if they had not been taken on in the first place rather than having been taken on for a few years and then given the sack. On the other hand if they had been taken on in the past year or two, $30 000 would be nice to have in their hands, although for many of them that is less than a year's salary. I do not think we have heard the last of these 10 000 Public Service jobs.

Also mentioned in the Budget speech for 1989-90 was the statement that the Budget:

provides for the lowest levels of both public sector borrowing and debt as a share of non-farm GDP over the last three decades.

It was Mr Jolly's constant theme that the debt was much lower than in Henry Bolte's time if one took a comparison of the non-farm gross domestic product. Now we discover that the debt is overwhelming. What the Uberal and National parties were saying all the time was totally correct and even the government now acknowledges that the debt must be reduced. The only way the government has found to reduce the debt is to charge motorists an extra 3 cents for every litre of petrol they purchase.

The Treasurer went on to say that the Budget:

protects ordinary families from increased taxes.

increases services to those in greatest need.

preserves Victoria's position as the leading State in environmental protection.

And best of all -

sustains the State's superior economic performance.

As late as 1989-90 Mr Jolly, still in his optimistic mode, was saying that. That was shortly before his fall. After he fell even the government acknowledged the size of the deficit.



It is all very well for us to go on year after year criticising the government. As I said at the outset of my remarks, the whole world knows of the incompetence and wickedness of this government and the way it has treated the finances of Victoria.

We must say what we will do when we take the government's place. The agenda has been made out to a certain extent. We must cut government expenditure and services progressively and replace them with private provisions. State enterprise business activities that are not natural monopolies should be converted into private sector operations. The natural monopolies such as the State Electricity Commission of Victoria power grid, Met tramlines, and V jLine lines should be transferred into State-owned corporations operating under normal corporate laws. These should be subject to competitive franchise.

Major changes should be made in the role of borrowing for government expenditure, including constitutional constraints. Reductions and reforms should be made in State taxes. I do not know how many honourable members have read the recent study by the Industry Commission but it states among other things that if Australia's gas and electricity industries were restructured national output would be boosted by at least $2.5 billion and more than 9000 new jobs would be created. In addition households would pay less for electricity.

In its draft report on energy generation and distribution, the commission argued for a breakdown of monopolies and a substantial sale of public utilities. The report stated that poor investment decisions leading to excess capacity and gross overstaffing during the 1980s provide the most striking evidence that electricity and gas had not been supplied at the lowest cost.

We have a number of problems that must be addressed and we believe the way to go is to corporatise and then privatise in order to cut down the enormous cost on the taxpayers of Victoria.

The final Budget speech I have is for 1990-91. Mr Roper had taken charge by then and he said, among other things:

Budget sector debt will decrease in dollar terms by $139 million, a real reduction of 8 per cent.

Victoria will not take up its full share of global borrOWings allocated at the Loan Council.

New borrOWings will be constrained. Financial transactions in the Budget sector will fall by more than one-third.

The government will establish a Debt Retirement Fund.

What he has to say about not borrowing seems rather hollow. Last week the Premier had to go, figuratively speaking, cap in hand to Canberra and ask to borrow another $300 million. Obviously, even on the face of that evidence alone, one can see the government has reached its full capacity in spite of what Mr Roper said in his first Budget speech. I shall repeat what he said:

The government will establish a Debt Retirement Fund.

SUPPLY (1991-92, No. 1) BILL and WORKS AND SERVICFS

Tuesday, 4 June 1991 COUNCIL

He has done that. He has carried out that particular promise. But who carries the burden? The motorists.

2083

Honourable members will recall that recently Parliament passed legislation to help pay off the Pyramid debt. What we did was put a surcharge of 3 cents a litre on all petrol sold in Victoria. The legislation specified that that money was to be used to payoff the Pyramid debt and also for the retirement of State government debt. That is how we get our Debt Retirement Fund: the 3 cents a litre on petrol. And who are the mugs? The motorists of Victoria.

I note that even the teachers of Victoria are now complaining bitterly. There was a time a few years ago - which I remember well, as I am sure do all honourable members -when all the teachers supported the present government.

I have in my hand a publication produced by the Victorian Council of School Organisations, the Federated Teachers Union of Victoria, and the Victorian Federation of State School Parents Club, in which they rlutke a heartfelt plea for more funds from the State government. They state:

Unfortunately the proportion of the Victorian Budget allocated to education has declined over recent years. Each year the Ministry of Education and Training has suffered a so-called 1.5 per cent productivity saving. It has had to endure further cuts on top of that saving.

For the sake of Victoria's students, its economy, its community and its future, this decline must be stopped. The government must now begin to restore the education budget.

We could present the same sort of plea from so many different groups of people in Victoria. Everyone is feeling the effects of government Budget cuts. The library services, local government and so on all have a story to tell about how their allocations have been cut.

A reasonable government could have made some provision for these problems. The present government is unable to do so because it ~ lost so much money. On a conservative estimate it has lost approximately $1 million a day for the past eight years. Think about the huge loss on the State Bank.

Hon. R. A. Mackenzie - You should take some responsibility for that. You passed the Appropriation Bill.

Hon. ROBERT LAWSON - Think about the $108 million loss of the Victorian Economic Development Corporation (VEDC).

Hon. R. A. Mackenzie interjected.

Hon. ROBERT LAWSON - Mr Mackenzie is saying that we passed the Appropriation Bill. Yes, we did - under protest, of course - because if we had not done so we would have had a constitutional crisis on our hands, as Mr Mackenzie would know.



2084 COUNCIL TUesday, 4 June 1991

Hon. ROBERT LAWSON - Of course, Mr Mackenzie voted for all these Bills, too. He cannot point the finger at us. However, the worst of these disasters were concealed, as Mr Mackenzie would well know. Just prior to the 1988 election we knew about some of the scandals associated with the VEDC; we knew about Fantasy Farms and about the goldmines. We knew about the Malaysian princess who turned up and collected a cheque for $1 million and then went away again to parts unknown.

However, it was not until after the 1988 election that the full extent of the disasters was known to the Victorian people. It was not until after the 1988 election that the truth about the State Bank came out. When I mentioned that $1 million a day, that is true enough, but the full extent of the disaster was not revealed to us or to the people of Victoria until after the 1988 election.

We had known for years that things were seriously amiss, and we had said so over and again. One has only to examine the Hansard record to confirm that what I say is true. However, the worst disaster came to light after the 1988 election and now I fear it is almost too late for Victoria. But if the coalition government comes to power we can save it. Just think: if we had won the 1988 election we would not have lost the State Bank because there would have been an inquiry into the bank. Alan Stockdale would have been the Treasurer of Victoria and he could have put the auditors in to find out just what was going on in the State Bank and all the other instrumentalities I am speaking about.


Hon. ROBERT LA WSON - Mr Mackenzie is still heckling, saying it was our policy to sell the State Bank, and that we would have had this situation anyway. It is true that we had a policy to privatise and sell. The only difference between us and the present government is that we actually would have made a profit on the deal! What has happened now is that we have lost the State Bank and we have got nothing for it.

If we had sold the State Insurance Office we would have got nothing for it because, as honourable members will recall, the money was to go to retiring debt. Yet, in effect, the government has since borrowed another $300 million to get rid of 10 000 public servants, which means a debt higher than it was in the first place.

The whole thing does not add up. It is not good economics. It is not good politics, and it is simply not commonsense. That is what we have been fighting for the past eight years: a government short on commonsense. It has been remarkably optimistic all that time, as exemplified by Mr Jolly in the series of Budgets that he presented, but it has had no relationship to reality.

I have tried to outline in my remarks some of the worst excesses of this government. To do it properly would take many hours. I have tried to outline some of the things we intend to do as a government, and I look forward to the next Budget speech that will be produced and presented by a Treasurer from the coalition government.



Hon. R. A. BEST (North Western) - I congratulate Mr Lawson on his contribution to the debate. It gives me no pleasure to contribute to the Supply debate because the financial record of this government is disgraceful. After nine years of Victorian Laber governments, the State's economy is in a total mess. We are in real crisis.

The two major credit rating agencies have downgraded Victoria's credit rating primarily because of concern at the level of our State debt. It is indicative that, as unemployment numbers continue to rise and as the State fails to control its debt, we will again see Victoria's credit rating under the scrutiny of the credit rating agencies because the State government and the economy are in decline.

I do not think there is any doubt that at the earliest opportunity the people of Victoria will throw this Labor government out of office. The strategy under which we have tried to force the government to go to the people has been one of asking the Premier, Ms Kimer, to put Victoria first and power second. But still she fails to show any consideration for the welfare of the State and the people of Victoria.

The Victorian government has suffered many huge losses. We need only to consider the losses incurred by the VEDC, VIC and WorkCare and, of course, the demise of our State Bank, to see how the whiz-kids of modem money management have led Victoria into increasingly higher risk policies. They have only compounded the problems of earlier years.

We should scrutinise the financial record and financial mismanagement of this government. In the Supply Bill the government is really asking members of Parliament to trust it. The money it is asking for through the Supply Bill is to enable it to continue for the first four months of the 1991-92 financial year the programs that it has in place.

Not only do I question the government's ability to balance its books because of the appropriations for ongoing programs, but also I question the commitment of the government and its Ministers to pursuing initiatives to get Victoria back on track and to restoring it to its pre-eminent place among the States, given the government's philosophical direction and its ideological approach to the importance of debt reduction.

It has been suggested that this year's Budget deficit could be as high as $1.4 billion-a staggering and frightening amount - which again raises the question of whether we should trust the government. One of the most difficult decisions I have had to face in my time in this House has been whether to vote to pass the Supply Bills, not only because the Victorian economy is on the brink of depression but because by doing so members of the opposition would be seen as accepting the economic direction and programs of the government. The reason I have decided to vote for the passing of the Bills is that to disrupt the economy even more by not passing them would considerably damage an already fragile Victorian economy, with horrendous consequences, and all honourable members should be conscious of the very fragile state of our economy.

Members of the opposition have continually asked the government to put the interests of the Victorian people first and to resign. Instead-the·Premier is prepared to place the



interests of the people and the economy second by holding on to power and doing nothing to alter the disastrous direction of government policies.

I shall compare the performance of this Labor government with the performance of the previous Liberal government. In almost nine years of Labor Budgets since the Labor Party came to power in 1982 Budget expenditure has increased at an average rate of 2.1 per cent per annum in real terms. It is the same old story - spend now and pay later -because the Labor government has been prepared to leave the responsibility for paying the bills to somebody else.

In 1981-82 the last Budget of the Uberal government provided for expenditure of $5983 million; in 1990-91 the Labor government will spend $13 867 million, a staggering increase of 127.9 per cent, which highlights the fact that the Labor government has been prepared to spend without worrying about the consequences. Expenditure per capita has increased from $1508 in 1981-82 to $3097 in 1990-91. Certainly there can be no doubt about the government's ability to spend.

It is important to examine how that increased expenditure has affected the State deficit, which is the best measure of how well a State's finances have been handled. It is no surprise to discover that under the Cain and Kimer administrations the deficit has trebled since 1982. By way of comparison this year the Commonwealth government has budgeted for a surplus of $8107 million, yet the Victorian government is faced with a probable Budget deficit of $1400 million - and that figure depends upon the government achieving asset sales worth $3310 million.

It is right to ask where the money has gone and is going. The government's disastrous economic performance is a result of its pursuing three key policies. Firstly, there has been an explosive increase in State public sector employment, and approximately 65 per cent of State Budget outlays are labour or labour-related costs. Secondly, there has been a massive increase in the State debt, to which I have referred. Thirdly, the government's interventionist role in the economy resulted in the failures of the Victorian Economic Development Corporation and Tricontinental, initiatives supposedly designed to kick-start the Victorian economy - and we are all well aware of the consequences of the government's misplaced plans to create employment.

While capital expenditure has been rising so, too, have the costs involved in servicing the State debt. The government has pursued a deliberate policy of increasing State indebtedness to the extent that the debt has doubled in the past eight years. In 1981-82 the State debt was $3130 million, or $2818 per capita. By 1990-91 the debt had increased to $27188 million, which represented a debt per capita of $6173. The proportion of revenue required to meet the interest commitments has risen from 14.8 per cent under Labor's first Budget to 23.1 per cent in the 1990-91 Budget, despite a huge increase in the State's revenue base.

The level of State taxes has trebled in the almost nine years of Labor government. Victoria has the highest rates of pay-roll tax, land tax, stamp duty and financial



institutions duty, not to mention many other taxes, of any State - and State taxation is expected to increase by 16 per cent in the 1990-91 Budget.

All that might be acceptable if the economic problems facing Victoria were not as bad as they are. We live in a State that is on the brink of economic depression, and we are faced with the spectre of rising unemployment and an explosive increase in the numbers of hidden unemployed. In 1982 Victoria's unemployment rate was 6.1 per cent. By April of this year that figure had risen disastrously to 10.7 per cent. By way of comparison the April 1982 employment rate for Australia was 6.4 per cent, and the Australia-wide figure for April 1991 was 9.9 per cent.

Recently the closure of another textile factory in the Bendigo region was brought to my attention. I cannot completely blame the State government for the Federal Labor government's tariff reduction policy. However, it is imperative that representations be made to the Federal government to show it the disastrous effect the policy is having on Victoria's manufacturing sector. There is no doubt at all that Victoria's manufacturing base is being dramatically eroded. There is also no doubt that unemployment in regional Victoria will escalate. Not all unemployed people will register with the Commonwealth Employment Service because the majority of people joining unemployment queues will be housewives who provide the vital second incomes for their families.

Only last week my colleague Mr Hallam identified another funny-money financing scheme of the government. Once again the government has been caught out; it has been deferring payments until the coalition takes office. A Parliamentary committee found that the Treasurer acted illegally in his handling of $35 million in appropriations. Questions must be asked about what principles the government is prepared to live by in formulating Budgets and economic policies. Where is the honesty from government for which the people are so desperately looking?

The government has clearly demonstrated its inability to handle the Victorian economy. Investments in Victoria have dropped to unprecedented levels: the past three months show a decrease in investment levels of 22 per cent, and it is anticipated they will decrease by 25 per cent in the next three months. Not only do the people of Victoria lack confidence in the government but also those who have the capability of investing are not prepared to invest in the government's policies or programs.

It is a matter of concern that militant unions are continuing to hold back opportunities for the government to streamline public sector employment, and it is sickening to see the lengths to which militant unions will go to push their policies down the throat of the government.

I shall refer to an editorial that appeared in the Bendigo Advertiser of 2 March 1991 headed "Words only?", which states:

Labour Minister Neil Pope's recent criticism of unions has hit a raw nerve in State politics.



The criticism has been welcomed - as expected - by employer and industry organisations. According to Mr Pope some unions are bloody-minded and militant and scare industry away from Victoria.

Note that these comments - which is only stating the obvious - prompted a rebuke from the Premier Mrs Kirner.

But is Mr Pope speaking out of genuine concern or just indulging in a bit of clever politicking in case of an early election?

There may be reason to believe Mr Pope was expressing genuine frustration with the entrenched power of the union movement in both the Labor Party and the Kimer government. The rumblings on this issue at the Federal level tend to strengthen this view.

Mr Pope has been asked by Trades Hall Council secretary John Halfpenny to front the council's meeting next Thursday to explain himself. Mr Halfpenny accuses Mr Pope of trying to score political points by distancing himself from unions.

The cynic would tend to give some credence to that allegation. Mr Pope must know that there is a lot of public ill feeling against militant unions who disrupt the economy over trivial issues. The Heinz dispute is the latest example of this sort of thing.

The government has a philosophical and ideological direction it wants to pursue, but the union movement will not allow it to take the necessary steps to get the Victorian economy back on the rails.

In the Herald-Sun of 28 February an article headed "Labor turns on unions", written by Shane Burke, states:

Expect to hear a lot more union bashing from this State government.

It's the Kirner government's one hope of clawing back the support of Victorians disillusioned by its apparent subservience to the union movement.

For this reason, Mr Pope's latest attack should not be dismissed as an off-the-cuff observation. It is a part of a government strategy to heal old wounds and set a new public relations agenda in the lead-up to the State election.

Will Victorians be faced with a government that is willing to pursue the cuts to the Public Service the Premier espoused at the recent Premiers Conference or will militant unions step in and destabilise the government's attempts to get the economy back on track?

It is not difficult to point out what the Victorian economy needs. It is time for flexibility in wage agreements, enterprise bargaining, flexible hours and broader job classifications. New training programs are needed, as are better procedures for negotiated agreements. The coalition government will pursue those policy directions, which are all aimed at getting Victoria back on track. The government sees small business as an easy target, and one needs only to appreciate that to understand the disaster facing small business and the difficulties faced by the normal family man trying to balance his household budget.

It is with a deal of regret that the coalition will not block the passing of the Supply Bill. However, it is not because of a lack of serious consideration of the financial quagmire into which the government has led the State.



Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern) - Because of my desire that the government should be aware of the problems it has created for Victoria I direct your attention, Mr President, to the state of the House.

Quorum formed.

Hon. K. M. SMITH -It is pleasing to see so many members of the government in the Chamber. The Supply Bill will allow the government to continue creating havoc as it has done for the past eight years.

Uke my colleague, Mr Best, I thought the idea of blocking Supply was a good one because somewhere along the line this government has to be held to account for the problems it has created. It has to be held to account because of the huge losses and liabilities it has created for the next government, which will undoubtedly be a coalition government, and for the rorts it has allowed to continue within the government system. Rorts there are, and plenty of them.

I should like to highlight one rort in particular. The Minister responsible for this area is in the other House so I hope the Minister at the table takes note that when the government starts sacking the 10 000 people it wants to sack from the Public Service, it could start with the construction group in Housing and Construction Victoria. This group of 256 employees consists of tradesmen who work for the government, and they are rorting the system.

Hon. R. A. Mackenzie - Be careful what you say!

Hon. K. M. SMITH - They are being allowed by the government to rort the system.

Hon. R. A. Mackenzie - They cannot defend themselves!

Hon. K. M. SMITH - They can talk to me at any time. The government is very aware of the problems these people create and the losses which have been incurred by allowing them to sit on their behinds. I am talking about the stand-by labour cost that the taxpayers pay for. For the year 1990-91 the cost will be double what was allowed for the total cost of labour for the construction group. The cost of paying people to sit on their behinds and do nothing will be just in excess of $2.6 million this year, because the government cannot properly organise them to work.

Hon. R. A. Mackenzie - It's not their fault then, is it?

Hon. K. M. SMITH - Yes, it is. They create problems with their own restrictive work practices and one is that when it rains outside the people inside stop working. That may have been all right for you when you were a plumber but it ain't too good for me when I'm paying for it! I am not prepared to pay for it.

Hon. R. A. Mackenzie - You're a plumber, too!

Hon. K. M. SMITH - Yes, and I used to work. I was a successful plumber. If any of these people were thrown into the work force they would not survive for 5 minutes. They would not get a job.


2090 COUNCIL TUesday, 4 June 1991

Hon. R. A. Mackenzie - You're not the only one who was a successful plumber!

Hon. K. M. SMITH - We had a couple of union men and you. Maybe you were all right, Mr Mackenzie, but it is doubtful. Under the Freedom of Information Act I have obtained a list of the people in the construction group within Housing and Construction Victoria and their restrictive work practices and some of them are appalling. Not only are about ten or twelve work practices on this list wrong but the Auditor-General listed a number of the problems being created by this group of people. They create problems because they are not prepared to go out and do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. They want a lot of pay for as little work as possible.

There are probably some good people in this group, but they would be there for only a short time if they were not prepared to go along with some of the rorts that other members of the group have been perpetrating for years.

I spoke earlier about stand-by labour and its costs. It is defined by a Ministry source as being "those exempt employees who cannot be productively utilised on projects at the time due either to trade imbalances or to low project-generated resource needs". That means they have too many people and too little work.

In the private sector, in the big wide world, these people would not survive and that would not be a problem. They would leave one group of employers and go to another; they would move around to where the work was. The public sector had to pay $1 018 ()()() in stand-by labour from July 1990 to January 1991. As an old tradesman, Mr Mackenzie would --

Hon. R. A. Mackenzie - Not so old! Former tradesman!

Hon. K. M. SMITH - As an old former tradesman he would be aware - and we all tend to watch the weather and think about our former colleagues on the building sites - that the weather in the past seven months was not too bad. Yet over $1 million has been lost on stand-by labour. That is taxpayers' money for absolutely nothing.

The budget for the stand-by labour for the twelve-month period 1990-91 shows that the total cost of salaries, including overtime, was $1 004 000. The budget for labour for the twelve-month period has been overspent in the seven months from 1 July 1990 to 31 January 1991. It is ludicrous that the government has allowed these people to get away with it.

Let us put it in terms even Mr Mackenzie could understand.

Hon. G. R. Craige - You could never make it that easy!

Hon. K. M. SMITH - If he turns his hearing aid on he will hear it. For the full year there were 33 229 hours of stand-by time which totals up to 4158 days of people sitting on their behinds all day in side offices or in vehicles doing nothing because this government cannot get itself organised to get them on the job and working.

Sitting in a vehicle is right, because this is the mob that started the phantom vehicles. I am sure you, Mr President, studied the Auditor-General's report so you would know he


~y,41unel991 COUNCIL 2091

mentioned the phantom vehicles this government department had going. They are the vehicles the government is not supposed to have because it is not allowed to have them. They are Oayton's vehicles, I suppose, because in the period that was examined by the Auditor-General the government was supposed to have 655 vehicles. In fact, the government had 195 more vehicles than it had an approved limit for.

I ask: how can a government department find itself in the situation where it could have so many extra vehicles? The Department of Planning and Housing was supposed to get rid of the vehicles after they had travelled some 50 000 kilometres; most of the vehicles had 90 000 kilometres on the clock.

However, I am concerned about another matter that I should probably bring to the attention of the Auditor-General. I refer to the fact that, despite having all the extra vehicles to which I have referred, the construction group indicates in the documentation that it has paid $53 000 for vehicle hire. That is, in addition to the extra 195 vehicles, it paid for vehicle hire! I wonder just what the group has been on about! I acknowledge that people called specialists - stonelayers, plumbers, builders and bricklayers as well as others - will be engaged. However, the truth of the matter is that the government need not support such a group of people because out in the big wide world - that is, outside the world of the bureaucracy - building projects are undertaken all the time. People from the same trades work on those building projects. They come in, do a job and leave. They even arrive in their own vehicles! In those circumstances the government's phantom fleet need not be used.

The tradespeople include subcontractors - of course the government does not want to use subcontractors because subcontractors work hard and do not necessarily want to be members of unions; they work for a fixed rate and the government does not like them.

The construction group should be completely done away with and the government should consider the matter realistically. It should say, "We might start using members of the building industry outside this little bureaucratic nightmare called the construction group". Members of the government should think about doing that quickly because the current practice is costing you, Mr President, and me ~ and each member in this House - an awful lot of money.

Another area of grave concern to me is the activities of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal, as well as the Bayside Tenants Information Service, or the Bayside tenants union - whatever one may wish to call it.

During the year I had the opportunity of speaking to some people about someone who is not a constituent of mine but who came to see me. The gentleman to whom I spoke, Mr Frank Melrose, lives in Carrum. He had a problem with a tenant and subsequently he had a problem with the Bayside Tenants Information Service, one of the organisations that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs helps to set up by giving such organisations money.

Hon. B. W. Mier - We don't set them up.


2092 COUNCIL Tuesday,4 June 1991

Hon. K. M. SMITH - You support them financially. The Ministry helps to set them up so that they may offer advice to people. Offer advice they do. Somebody at the Bayside Tenants Information Service took it upon himself to set Mr Melrose's tenant at odds with him.

The person in the flat was a Mr John Sapranidis. I say that because I hope that at some stage people may see this man's name in Hansard and never let him rent a property from them because this man is the pits.

I spoke to Mr Melrose, who is a 75-year-old pensioner and a very nice gentleman. After his wife died, he decided to let out the small two-bedroom flat at the back of his house. The young chap across the road said, "I would like to rent out your flat". Mr Melrose agreed to that. No formalities were entered into; Mr Melrose did not bother taking a bond because the young man was from across the road; he had grown up in the same area; and the families were friends. I think Mr Melrose charged the young man $95 a week rent for the flat.

The young man from across the road got this John Sapranidis to come in and share the flat with him, that is, to share the costs, including the costs of the rent, -the telephone, the power, and so forth.

The problem was that Sapranidis in fact drove the other tenant out of the place. I remind honourable members that no formal papers had been drawn up. Sapranidis had agreed to pay half the rent and he had done that for some eight months; he had paid half the rent and half the power bills and so forth.

When the young man from across the road left, he did so virtually overnight and took with him his television set, his stereo, his bed and the little bit of furniture that he had in the flat.

When Sapranidis came home, he went nuts. He came in and smashed the door of Mr Melrose's house, abused Mr Melrose up and down the street, and said that he wanted him to supply everything. Sapranidis wanted another television set and another refrigerator - the other young chap had taken his own refrigerator.

At this stage Mr Melrose considered it was time he should do something about getting rid of Sapranidis because he was creating problems and the place was like a pigsty. Mr Melrose decided that he would sell his house. He could not stand all the hassles that were being created. There was a lot of drinking and carrying on by Sapranidis in this unit of his.

Mr Melrose lodged the necessary papers and then was taken to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. A Mary Slade, who was the person hearing the case, listened to what was going on and - when it was all laid out as to what was the problem and that the house was to be sold - made a decision.

Once the young man from across the road had left the flat, Sapranidis stopped paying his share of the rent. He did that on advice from the Bayside Tenants Information Service.



On the Friday night before the hearing on the Monday, Mr Melrose received notification to attend the hearing, from a big bureaucracy that is supposed to be well organised and give notice to people to attend a hearing! Mr Melrose attended the hearing with his daughter. I have the notification here if any honourable member would care to view it. It provided him with no information on what the hearing was about.

Mr Melrose attended the hearing before the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. The person conducting the hearing, Mary Slade, decided that Sapranidis was in the right and he did not have to pay anything towards his rent. She made that decision and then, without the consent of the owner, offered Sapranidis a month's free rent - that is, he did not have to pay any of the rent he had not paid over the previous months - and $200 if he would leave after a month. He said, "No". He was offered $300, $400, $500, $600, and then $700 - all without the consent of the owner. Here was Mary Slade, sitting up like God on one of the chairs, making decisions without talking to the owner about them. She offered a month's free rent and $700. Sapranidis said, "I feel as if 1 am being coerced into leaving this place and I really don't feel I want to leave".

I cannot believe that a member of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal can do such a thing. It is a disgrace that something like this is allowed to occur!

That is not the end of the story. He did not leave. In fact, it had reached the stage where they had placed restraining orders on one another. Fences were put up, there were orders such as, "You cannot go past this fence; you cannot have your rubbish on this side of the fence; you must enter through a separate entrance on this side of the house; you must not be seen on that side of the house", and all those things were set out by MarySlade.

One night Sapranidis was standing outside the front door, against the orders of Mr Melrosc, screaming foul language to the extent that Mr Melrose, who was in bed at the time, came out with a torch. He was not physically attacked by Sapranidis but he was absolutely abused by the man.

While Sapranidis was jumping around one of his mates drove a car in the front gate of the place and shone the lights on full beam, in at Mr Melrose. The 75-year-old pensioner was absolutely scared stiff. He did not know whether he was going to be beaten up, or what would happen. Eventually the police arrived and the situation was once again to be resolved by the tribunal at the Mordialloc court, which was better than coming to Melbourne.

The person who was hearing the case then said, "This seems to be a little bit complicated. I do not think I can hear it. We had better refer it to Mary Slade."

At this stage Mr Sapranidis was still living in the place and had not paid a cent. Another month went by and the matter was heard before Mary Slade, again in Melbourne. What occurred then was that the owner had applied for payment of the rent and also for Sapranidis to go. A fair amount of money was owing. Sapranidis put in the claim for $2300 on information given to him by the Bayside Tenants Information Service.



TIUs motley little crew at Frankston, which gives advice to tenants so that they can screw their landlords - and they do it - gave him advice, and I will tell you a little more about this government-funded lot in a minute.

Hon. R. A. Mackenzie - Is this an episode out of E Street?

Hon. K. M. SMITH -It sounds like it, I know. It is hard to believe that a person working for the Residential Tenancies Tribunal is prepared to make decisions like this.

They both appeared. Mr Melrose took along four witnesses to testify that the door was smashed and to testify to Mr Sapranidis's behaviour. His former co-tenant was prepared to go with Mr Melrose to the hearing to give evidence against Sapranidis. Mary Slade, in her wisdom, said, "Clear the room. I am not going to listen to any of those people give any sort of evidence." Sapranidis said, "I have made three payments to this man."

Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE (Geelong) - On a point of order, Mr President, I have some concern - and you may be able to guide me - that Mr Smith may be inadvertently reflecting on the decisions of the tribunal and I am concerned that this may be a breach of the forms of this House.

Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern) - On the point of order, Mr President, I am bringing to the attention of the House some of the problems people face when they go to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. I am trying to explain to the House the procedures that are carried out, and I have not reached the final decision in this case yet.

The PRESIDENT - Order! I have been having considerable difficulty myseH, and I understand the reason for the point of order. The Supply debate is traditionally a very wide one but it must relate to some aspect of government administration.

For the past 15 minutes we have been hearing a long, although interesting, story of the unfortunate experiences of one landlord with the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. The internal workings of the tribunal are not a matter of government administration. A tribunal is appointed specifically to take the matter out of the hands of government and it is given independent quasi-judicial status.

Furthermore it has been the practice of Westminster Parliaments generally not to reflect on the decisions of courts or quasi-judicial tribunals except by way of specific motion. When one does so one does it on information for one side only, and that is without knowing what the other evidence was; but in any event one does not reflect on the decisions of the tribunals except by way of substantive motion. It really has been outside the sphere of government administration.

I ask Mr Smith to wind up the remarks on this issue within the next 2 minutes because it is outside the extremely wide scope of the Supply debate.

Hon. K. M. SMITH - Thank you, Mr President, for your ruling. On adVice Mr Sapranidis had photocopied a receipt of a money order. In fact, he had fraudulently copied a receipt and presented it to the tribunal and said that he had paid that money. It was drawn to Ms Slade's attention, but she did nothing about it.



The PRESIDENT - Order! You will have to wind up rather than reflecting on the tribunal, Mr Smith.

Hon. K. M. SMITH - Mr President, I am only stating facts. The outcome was that the tribunal was not supportive of the landlord in this case, and I do not think this is a one-off case.

Sapranidis left and the house looked like a pigsty. Mr Melrose has reached the stage where he has had to sell because of ill health. The whole thing brought him to the brink of a nervous breakdown. The tribunal made a ruling and Mr Sapranidis, the tenant, was advised by the Bayside Tenants Information Service.

This is where I would like to go a little further, but I will not reflect on anything except the money that has been paid out by the government to that particular service, which is a disgrace. I have just read from information supplied under the Freedom of Information Act in the annual report of the service that during 1989 - and these are the latest figures I could obtain - this particular group of people received a total of 1176 telephone inquiries for the full year. That includes general inquiries about business and telephone calls about a number of different matters such as notice to vacate - owner selling; notice to vacate - rental arrears; referral to other services and other matters.

The service has visited 417 different sites to talk to people about their problems and it totalled 1593 inquiries for the year. This particular little mob of people are doing very nicely for themselves and they have applied this year for a grant of $297 656 to run the service and give advice such as they gave to Mr Sapranidis.

The Bayside Tenants Information Service also calls itself the "Home for the Aged".

Hon. M. A. Lyster - It is the housing action group for the aged.

Hon. K. M. SMITH - Thank you, Mrs Lyster, I am pleased you are aware of this group of people. They are a wonderful group of people!

I have already told you of the advice they gave to one customer who was so much in the wrong that it wasn't funny. They supported him all the way through, which was a disgrace.

The government has now been asked to payout approximately $300 000 as well as the other money the information service receives under the Housing Aged Action Group (HAAG) scheme - and HAAG is a good name for them!


Hon. K. M. SMITH - It is disgraceful, isn't it, Mr Mackenzie?

Hon. R. A. Mackenzie - It is a disgraceful thing to say; you are a coward.

Hon. K. M. SMITH - Yes, it is disgraceful that the government is paying out so much money.

Hon. R. A. Mackenzie - You should be ashamed of yourself!



Hon. K. M. SMITH - Ashamed of myself? Maybe we should be ashamed of the money this government is throwing around - the ratbags in this government - while doing nothing for people in Frankston and the surrounding areas. Government members are staying nicely in jobs and offering jobs to their mates.


Hon. K. M. SMITH - You can put it any way you like, Mr Mackenzie, but I am telling you what they are like. They are representative of the people this government has placed in jobs around Victoria; it teaches people their rights but does not mention a word about their responsibilities. The sooner we are able to take control of what happens to this government and people become responsible for their actions when they are trying to chase their rights, the sooner we will find that things will start to work better in Victoria.

I am talking about the wasted money. The annual report of the Department of Labour for 1989-90 listed hundreds of thousands of dollars, probably millions of dollars, that has been handed out to trade unions in the form of grants - money the government is throwing away. The following grants were made: the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union received $40 000; the Australian Nursing Federation (Victorian Branch), $40 000; the Australian Railways Union, $40000; the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia, $40 000; Community Services Victoria - which is quite odd - received approximately $500 000; the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association, $10 000; the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia, $40 000; the National Union of Workers, $40000; a funny thing called the Next Wave Festival, $100 000; and the Scripture Union received $10 000 - that is a funny union to give money to.

The then Ministry of Education received $680 000. The State Training Board received another $694 000. Streetwize Comics - this is a good one and I do not know how the Department of Labour became involved - received $23 603. The Push - one wonders what it is; apparently it is a rock music support service - received $345 844.42. I wonder whether that was the group that Pete Steedman was running, making the Australian people aware of rock and roll, and driving a beautiful Mercedes Benz, looking like a million dollars; I am sure that would not come from government funds, but maybe it will help to make a couple of payments on the car. Nevertheless, $345000 is a lot of money to receive from the Department of Labour. I find it a bit strange.

The Transport Workers Union received $40000. I am sure Mr Half-Premier would have been pleased with those amounts of money because Mr Half-Premier is the one who makes decisions on behalf of Ms Kirner. He says, "Okay, you can do that, Joan", or "You can't do that". The Trades Hall Council received about fifteen different grants - John Halfpenny and his motley crew at the Trades Hall Council received $988 152.23 -nearly $1 million.

Hon. R. A. Best - A bit like Tattslotto!



Hon. K. M. SMITH - Tattslotto comes to the Trades Hall Council every year from this government. It is looking after its mates, making sure the money is fed back into the system at the Trades Hall. It is an absolute disgrace. You and I, Mr President, and other members of this House, are paying out that money in taxes every week but that mob of people does not care. Some of that money flows back into the State of Victoria and other money is brought in through our State taxes. You bet your life they enjoy spending my money! I do not like them doing it; in fact, I am ashamed of what the government has done for Victoria.

All of the money thrown around has not helped Victoria. It has not helped us get out of the financial problems we have. On 19 April 1991 Victoria was in a position of having liabilities, debts and losses of $51 billion, which we will have to carry when we go into government. We will have to repay that money. Given the government's performance over the past few years, there is no way it would be able to make up the $51 billion in losses. And they are the liabilities that we know of. I hate to think what we will see after the next election! Yet, the opposition will approve the government's Supply Bill. We will approve it because people are concerned about the constitutional crisis that blocking Supply may create in Victoria.

I am sorry the government does not have the inner strength that would allow it to go to the Governor and resign. It would have the opportunity of doing so tomorrow night when about twenty Ministers will go to Government House for a reception. Probably a large number of backbenchers from the government side will also attend. It would be a wonderful celebration for Prince Michael of Kent if the government were to have a quiet word in the ear of the Governor and say, "Look, because Prince Michael of Kent is here, we will do the right thing for Victoria and we will resign". He could take the message back to the Queen to let her know that the government of Victoria has done the right thing and has resigned. I hope that happens tomorrow night. I should be happy for them to bring the cars back to Parliament House and leave them out the back.

I do not agree that we should pass the Supply Bill, but we will undoubtedly do so. I hope this is the last time that we as an opposition have to give any more time to this government or approve any more money to allow it to take Victoria further down the drain in the way it has done over the past eight years.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) - Like Mr Best and Mr Smith, I have considerable reluctance in endorsing the Supply Bill because there is no doubt that we have in the State of Victoria a most shameful and deceitful government, one that has now been found out on so many occasions that it is extraordinary that it believes it can have a claim to office in the way that it apparently does.

For example, we have seen many cases of deferral of expenditure, pushing it off into the next year so that the true state of accounts of the State of Victoria are not disclosed at the proper time. In particular, we have seen Mr Hallam draw attention to numerous cases of devious contrivances entered into by the Treasurer to defer or hide expenditure.



Last week in debate on the Supply Bill Mr Hallam disclosed that some $90 million due under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement is being pushed into the next financial year. Today the government conceded that that is the case, that it has been dishonest in its Budget. It set out to hide this; it knew it was going to defer it because it made provision for deferred interest. There is no explanation in the Supply Bill but the government was found out.

That was not an isolated incident. We have seen grants to libraries and schools pushed into next year. Today I intend to demonstrate to the House that the same thing is happening in the roads budget. First of all I will look at the debt problem of the State. Along with burgeoning unemployment it is the debt problem that most concerns the citizens of the State. The problem is that we do not know what the true debt is because the government, if it knows - and I doubt that it does - is not going to tell us. It is shifting the responsibility for debt. The government is endeavouring to pass it on to other instrumentalities in the State. An example of this is calling in the loans made to water boards and requiring them to substitute the loans by borrowing on the private market. Again, it is shifting responsibility for the debt.

The Premier hailed as a tremendous breakthrough the permission she was granted in Canberra at last Friday's Premiers Conference to borrow another $300 million for redundancy pay-outs. What will there be to show for it after the $300 million is expended? There will be nothing concrete whatsoever. All that will happen is that some of the people who were put on the payroll by this government in earlier times will be given golden handshakes to get them off the payroll.

The community can no longer afford to give golden handshakes to people who are deemed to be redundant. I am intrigued by the words "redundant" and "retrenched". So far as I am concerned, there is either a job to be done or there is not a job to be done. If the job is no longer there we do not need that person to be there. The person who is selling his or her labour has to go out and sell it to somebody else.

There are thousands of people in my electorate who do not have the luxury and benefit of receiving a redundancy payment when their businesses evaporate. Fanners and small business people are under extraordinary stress and shops are closing all over the place, and there is no golden handshake for them. In large measure their travail has been brought on by the actions - and in some cases the lack of action - of this government.

It is time that the matter of redundancy payments was closely examined. In this House I previously alluded to the gold-plated scheme which is in place for people working on the waterfront where some people, having worked a 27-hour week at a fairly high pay, are going to be in a position of walking away with more than $200 000, yet the exporters of the nation are on their knees and are expected to pay that sort of impost to finance that gold-plated scheme.

Last week there was the extraordinary policy announcement by the Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development - oddly enough, in answer to a question from Mr Smith - where the Minister hid this major policy announcement by saying



that it is the proposal of the government to sell off some of the assets of the Port of Melbourne Authority, use the funds thus generated for redundancy payments and then lease those assets back. What an extraordinary financial scheme!

The government is proposing to sell off assets that have been accumulated over generations. I am not saying that assets should never be disposed of when they become surplus, but that is not the argument in this case. The government is not selling them because they are surplus assets; it is selling them because it is short of cash. The government wants the cash to payout people it wants to get off the payroll.

It is going to lease those same assets back. We cannot stand by and see the assets built up over generations lost in a year and then have nothing to show for it at the end. If the Minister wants a few ideas on how to save money on the ports I will give them to him another time. I suggest to him that it might be appropriate to cancel the orders for the two Panamax cranes because the Port of Melbourne Authority should not be in the business of owning the cranes in the first place; they should be operated by commercial operators.

If the Minister wants to save money and reduce the debt he should cancel those two orders. On another occasion I will explain how he might generate funds on the wharf to reduce the work force.

Today my prime purpose is to demonstrate that the loss of confidence by people in the community in dealing with this government is becoming extremely costly. Earlier I alluded to the example of the water boards.

Water boards entered into what they thought were binding contracts with the government in relation to loans, only to find that those contracts have been abrogated overnight. I can cite another graphic example of the dishonouring of contracts concerning VIe ROADS and the purchase of property needed for road reservations.

On 9 January the property services department of VIC ROADS wrote to an owner of a house at 30 Dempster Street, Tottenham, because VIC ROADS required the property for the Western bypass. Among other things· the letter says:

The Roads Corporation offers you the sum of $87 000 ... This offer is made in full settlement and is subject to vacant possession being given ... Would you please advise your tenants to vacate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act... Settlement will be effected within 60 days from receipt of acceptance of the offer ... I would appreciate your early advice as to whether this offer is acceptable to you.

I should have thought that that was a firm offer; it talks about 60 days and vacant possession. The vendor answered almost immediately on 17 January accepting the offer in writing. One would have thought that would be the end of the matter, that the acquisition and negotiations would take the normal course. For a while it appeared that that was the case.

On 22 January the property services department of VIC ROADS issued instructions to the Manager, Legal Services, Roads Corporation to prepare the relevant documents and


2100 COUNCIL TU~y,4June1991

to effect settlement on 21 March 1991, which was the 6O-day expiry date. For his part the vendor did the right thing.

He asked his solicitors, Westgarth Middletons, one of the leading firms of solicitors in this city, to serve notice on his tenant that she was to vacate the premises by 21 March because the property had been sold. That letter was sent by registered mail on 14 February.

On 28 February in a handwritten file note I have acquired from the offices of VIe ROADS, it was advised to the property services department that no State funds were available. It says that it could not settle, even at a consideration of $1. It admitted that it did not even have $1 to pay this person on the due date, 21 March. There is a memo on the bottom of the file dated 7 March confirming that the property services department of the corporation sent a letter to the vendor advising that the matter could not be settled until after 30 June 1991. And that is what happened.

On 5 March 1991 the property services department wrote to the vendor and said:

Due to the need to control expenditure over the remainder of the financial year, it is now necessary for the corporation to extend the period of settlement until after 1 July 1991.

There is no explanation, no excuse, no apology. There is just a bald letter saying, "Despite the fact that we had a contract with you that says we will pay you 60 days after entering into the contract, it is all off. We are pulling out and we will not pay you until some time in July".

Naturally the vendor was alarmed about that and immediately went to his solicitors, Westgarth Middletons, who on 7 March wrote to VIe ROADS what I thought in the circumstances was a courteous letter:

We have been advised by VIe ROADS by letter dated 5 March 1991 that the corporation now does not have the settlement monies available and will not be in a position to settle this matter until July 1991. It had been agreed that settlement would be effected within 60 days from receipt of the offer, and as requested by you, our client gave notice to the tenants. Accordingly our client now finds himself in a situation of an empty property, a continuing mortgage obligation ...

My sympathies go out to the vendor. He complied with all requests made of him. He got rid of the tenant and had no income from the property. VIe ROADS backed away from what I should have thought was a legally binding contract. Naturally Westgarth Middletons threatened VIe ROADS with legal action if it did not perform. I presume VIe ROADS has not performed and that legal action has now ensued.

Hon. R. J. Long - They wouldn't even get interest on the money outstanding. That is a disgrace.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER - I do not doubt what you say, Mr Long. It is a disgrace. Here is an example of someone having confidence in the government and being undermined. It is an example of the poor administration of government and of the problems facing people who have put their faith in government.



It is ridiculous that this action should occur. Contracts have'been entered into. They should not be backed away from with so little excuse, with so little reason and with no apology whatsoever or any attempt to negotiate the issues through to a solution.

Hon. P. R. Hall - Absolute incompetence!

Hon. W. R. BAXTER - It is certainly incompetence. It is not as though a long period has elapsed from when the letters were written. The offer was accepted and within a fortnight it was determined there was no money to pay the people. That backs up your assertion, Mr Hall, that it is absolute incompetence. I should like to know how many more cases there are. How many payments are being rolled over to next year? How many other vendors are being let down like this one in Tottenham?

In similar vein I refer to reimbursements by VIC ROADS for funds from the Federal government for local roads and State government allocations to be paid to local government. I have already advised the House of this matter. On 5 July 1990, and again in October 1990, VIC ROADS advised municipalities of the method by which it would be reimbursing them during the year. That was perfectly acceptable to municipalities. But on 8 April VIC ROADS wrote to the Shire of Shepparton and said:

The nominated cash limit set for end of April has now been exceeded and it will not be possible to make the normal monthly payments in April.

That letter was written on 8 April, the fourth working day into April, and VIC ROADS advised that it had run out of money for that period. Again, as Mr Hall said, it is absolute incompetence.

The Shire of Shepparton was less than impressed with the advice from VIC ROADS and made quite a bit of noise about it. It pointed out that VIC ROADS had plenty of notice as to what would be due to the municipality and asked why at that late hour it was being advised that no money was available. Strangely enough, the shire was not alone.

On 14 May I provided to the House figures for the Shire of Rodney, which was similarly disadvantaged. There are many municipalities across the State in this position. One after another they contacted me. The Shire of Ararat, in a letter to me of 2 May, said:

... we were dismayed to learn at a recent meeting called by VIe ROADS for this regio~ that they only have funds available to be able to pay 71 per cent of approved allocations for 1990-91. That is, 23 per cent of funds are to be withheld and hopefully paid next year out of next year's allocations thus perpetuating the problem.

I ask how many more millions of dollars are being hidden away and are being pushed into next year. That is the information the House should have and that is the information that has not been given.

In response to my raising the matter in the House and as a result of municipalities causing some public furore about it, a circular of 15 May issued by VIC ROADS over the signature of the chief executive states:



There are currently no restrictions by VIe ROADS on payments to councils and all efforts are being made to ensure that reimbursements are paid within standard State government "Terms of Trade" i.e. within 30 days of the end of the month in which the claim was received.

That does not seem to match the facts as provided by municipalities. They are sending their accounts into VIC ROADS and, whether it be Benalla, Traralgon, Ballarat or Bendigo regional offices, are being told, "Sorry, we don't have the money, we can't do it. You will probably get it in July. We might be able to give you a bit next month but you are not going to get it all until July". I suggest the letter of 15 May is at best misleading and, at worst, it is - -

Hon. R. A. Best - Deceitful!

Hon. W. R. BAXTER - Yes, that is probably the term I was looking for. It is deceitful. I believe the letter was sent out at the c;iirection of the Minister and suspect the chief executive was probably considerably embarrassed at having to put his name to a letter that was less than helpful.

The Shire of Shepparton was not too impressed with it - as I understand not many other municipalities were impressed - and wrote immediately to the chief executive, saying, among other things:

It was evident to the council in line with Mr Cochrane's advice -

He is the regional manager for VIC ROADS -

that VIe ROADS simply do not have the money to pay council the normal monthly payment which was due in April, and I note as of today's date that the April payment still has not been received by the Shire of Shepparton, and this is dearly in contravention of your statement.

I telephoned the shire today to ascertain whether it received the cheque. It is now 4 June, and quite a bit of time has elapsed.

Hon. R. A. Best - Still in the mail?

Hon. W. R. BAXTER - Yes and no. The shire in fact received $66 ()()() on 29 May. That is well after the end of April, when it was promised, but it is still waiting for $41000. On inquiry to the Benalla regional office of VIe ROADS the shire was informed that it was likely to receive that amount in July. That is the proof of the pudding. The funds are not being paid this financial year. They are being deferred until the next financial year. I want to know how many millions of dollars it adds up to. It certainly changes the whole face of the Budget if we can find out how much is being duckshoved into next financial year.

The Shire of Grenville, which is not in my electorate - -

Hon. R. I. Knowles - No, it's in mine.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER - It is in the electorate of Mr Knowles.

Hon. R. I. Knowles - A good shire, too!



Hon. W. R. BAXTER - The shire has been in contact with me. I shall quote some paragraphs from what I thought was a good letter from the shire. This is a small rural municipality that does not want to believe any ill of anyone. It does not want to think about a dishonest government but wants to put the best light on it. The shire does not want to be put in the position of dealing with a dishonourable government. The letter from the Shire of Grenville states:

Last year for the first time we received our road funding final claim cheque in July rather than June and we took little notice of the few weeks it was late. We have been advised that this year VIe ROADS do not have the funds available to pay claims in this financial year and the 23 per cent of the total funds will be held over until July. In effect, what the government is doing is pushing that expenditure into next financial year. While it appears that 23 per cent or $1.489 million in the Central Highlands Region will be the amount taken into next year it is in fact worse than that.

The total allocation to municipalities ... through VIC ROADS in 1990-91 was $8.007 million. However, this includes $4.814 million of Federal local road funding ... The State cannot withhold any of the Federal local road funds as these must be passed on to local government. This leaves $3.19 million of the total allocation coming from State sources at best and of this $1.489 or 47 per cent will not be paid until July, that is, the 1991-92 financial year.

In other words, councils will have to carry 47 per cent of expenditure on roads for which the State is supposed to have total financial responsibility.

That is the proof of the pudding; that 47 per cent of the State component of road funding is being deferred into the next financial year. I ask the Minister for Ethnic, Municipal and Community Affairs to contest those figures if she can.

That goes to the matter I raised on 14 May, and again by my question today at question time: is it legal or illegal for the State not to pass on Federal road funds? The Shire of Grenville takes the view that it is illegal for the government to withhold funds; it believes the government would not consider doing that.

In fact, the evidence is that the government is refusing to pass on Federal road funds to the municipalities. The Commonwealth pays the Federal road funds to the State on a monthly basis. The State is virtually the post box because the funds are to be forwarded. Since April that has not been happening and the State is withholding those Federal funds to prop up its own cash shortfall. That is illegal.

Strangely enough, the Minister also says it is illegal. In evidence to the estimates subcommittee hearing on 2 May, attended by Mrs Varty, when asked by Mr Hallam about this aspect, the Minister indicated they did not withhold Federal road funding because the government was not entitled to do so. The evidence is otherwise and I look for a rebuttal.

Obviously some Federal members of Parliament believe that practice is illegal because on 28 May 1991 the Federal member for Wannon, Mr Hawker, placed a question on notice on the Federal House of Representatives Notice Paper directed to the Minister for Land Transport, drawing attention to the instruction by the Victorian government to VIC ROADS to withhold a portion of road funds for local government allocated in 1990-91 until July 1991. He asked the Minister:



... to say (a) what propOI:tion of the funds to be withheld is from the Australian Land Transport Program, and (b) for what purposes that proportion of the funds is being used.

I am sure Mr Hawker knows the answers, but he has invited the Minister to answer the questions. He further asked:

What action will the government take to ensure that any funds allocated from the ALTP for local government in 1990-91 is paid to local government in 199O-91?

I will be interested to see what action the Federal government takes to ensure that its allocated funds to local government are handed on to local government by the Victorian government, and not held back to prop up its cash deficit.

I briefly refer to the cost to councils because of this practice. The Shire of Ararat, in Mr Knowles's electorate, has today prepared an interesting table and forwarded it to me by facsimile. It indicates that the cumulative interest lost to the Shire of Ararat - that is, the direct cost to the shire because it has had to carry beyond normal trading terms what should have been reimbursed to it by VIC ROADS --has amounted to $17177.48 for the year to date. That is not an insignificant sum for a small rural shire. The Shire of Ararat was being very modest because it has calculated upon an interest rate of 10.7 per cent for May.

Hon. Rosemary Varty - They would be lucky to get loan money at 10.7 per cent.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER - They allowed 11.3 per cent for the previous month and 11.9 per cent for March. They have been extremely scrupulous and honest in assessing an interest rate. Had the money been available to it no doubt it could have been placed in a cash management trust, or a similar portfolio, and at least an equal return would have been obtained. The shire is not guilty of gilding the lily in any sense but has made clear what it has cost the shire. It is a disgrace! How much has been deferred? What is the total amount across the State?

I now move to another example of deferral. By letter dated 11 January 1991 VIC ROADS wrote to all its major contractors and said it intended to amend all the contracts notwithstanding that it may have signed and entered into legally binding contracts. The letter states:

Notwithstanding the provisions of clause 42.1 of the general conditions of contract - -

That clause of the standard contract goes to the issue of progress certificates and progress payments -

... total payments made to the contractor including any adjustments of the contract sum pursuant to section 951 may be limited prior to 30 June 1991 --

There is that magical date again! The letter further states:

... at the discretion of VIC ROADS to a maximum of $.5 million. Notwithstanding the possibility of any limitation on any payments the contractor shall continue to submit monthly statements and payment claimed by the contractor in accordance with 42.1 will be adjusted in accordance with section 951. Should VIe ROADS then defer a progress payment in whole or part interest will be paid in accordance with Clause S11 of the general conditions of contract.



That is another attempt, virtually without notice, to defer expenditure until the next financial year except in this case VIC ROADS was a little more generous than it had been to the municipalities. It agreed to pay interest; I understand that at the moment it is paying 16.1 per cent.

Many contractors will have borrowed to cover the period. Presumably they are paying higher interest rates because this expense will be above their normal overdraft accommodation arrangements, and will be a further cost to the contractors. How many millions of dollars have been deferred in this manner? I should like to have the answer to that question before this Bill finally passes.

Another matter I deal with goes to the payment of creditors. Over the year VIC ROADS has been very tardy in paying its contractors and suppliers. I was advised in March that some of the largest suppliers of petroleum-based products, such as bitumen, were told by VIC ROADS it was pointless for them to lodge their accounts before July because they would not be paid before July. I now discover that if someone is not paid within 60 days - bearing in mind the Premier has said on several occasions that she wants her government to adhere to normal trading terms, which would be a 30 day account - and then complains, his account is credited with the amount owing; then he is told he will receive that plus any interest in July. However, the device of crediting the account takes it off that list of creditors. It then appears to someone making a cursory examination that we do not have all those outstanding debts because people will be paid in July and will have interest added on for the time the debts have been outstanding.

Hon. R. A. Best - I wish some of my creditors would do that.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER - So do I. That is a device to shift entries out of the credit ledger. Clearly the money is still owed and it must appear somewhere else, but by this device the government is able to say, "No, there are very few people with whom we are not settling within 60 days. I again ask the question: how much has been deferred and put off until next financial year by means of these devices and where is the money going?

I refer again to the letter dated 15 May from the Chief Executive of VIe ROADS, which was sent to all councils. In the final paragraph the letter says:

As has been the case in the past few years all municipal claims submitted by councils to VIe ROADS prior to 30 June 1991 will be processed against the 1990-91 road allocations and therefore, unless expenditure claims exceed those funds prOVided in 1990-91, no expenditure claimed prior to 30 June 1991 will be charged against the 1991-92 road allocations.

If that were true it would mean that next year's allocation had not been cut into. If that is the case where has all the money gone this year? We had a VIe ROADS budget of $710 million. I want to know why, if all these amounts are going to be paid out of that $710 million - which is what this letter seems to suggest - they cannot be paid before the end of June. Hasn't VIe ROADS got a big enough army of people out at Denmark Street, Kew to do it?



There is a conflict between what is said in this letter and the real situation. If the money is there and the $710 million that has been allocated is all that is needed there is no reason why it cannot be paid by the end of June. It is very suspicious and I am of the view that the money is being siphoned off somewhere else and these amounts are being deferred into next year for reasons to which I have already referred.

We know that last year money was siphoned off to the Public Transport Corporation (PTC). In his report on Ministerial portfolios the Auditor-General identified $21.8 million and the Estimates Subcommittee of the Economic and Budget Review Committee identified $27 million as having gone to the PTC.

If honourable members examine the Supply Bill they will see in the section dealing with transport a budget of $710 million divided up into a number of categories including corporate services, road safety, road network access, road development, road system environment, customer service and various classifications of national highways, State arterial and local roads and so on. What is the point of Parliament passing a detailed Supply Bill and giving its imprimatur to that budget if it is then bypassed at will by the Minister or someone else simply deciding, "We are short of a few bob down at the Met; we will just transfer some of the VIC ROADS budget"? If that is happening it makes a mockery of what Parliament decides.

Hon. R. A. Mackenzie - It is in defiance of Parliament.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER -It is in defiance of Parliament. But apparently it is all right because if one looks at the evidence given before the Estimates subcommittee on 2 May one finds in the discussion about transfers to the PfC that in answer to questions asked by Mr Honeywood arid Mr Hallam an officer of the department said:

The total budget is $710 million, which is pretty big. Within a budget of that size you can take some money from a particular item to cover another.

He was talking about the VIC ROADS budget of $710 million. The evidence continues:

Within a budget of $700 million or so things are coming and going all the time. It is not a static snapshot situation.

Here we have evidence given before the Estimates subcommittee that what Parliament decides has nothing to do with the price of fish, that the Ministry of Transport decides what it wants to do with the money and says, "We have $700 million, we will whip a few bob off down to the PTC". That is not good enough. I agree with Mr Mackenzie that if that is happening it is in defiance of Parliament and a halt must be called to that practice.

I shall not refer to a number of matters I intended to mention because of the time constraints but I reiterate the importance of roads to Victoria if we are to turn the economy around. Together with its confreres in Canberra the government over the past five or six years has sliced back road funds very seriously in real as well as in money terms. We have seen the Federal government cut petrol excise from 80 per cent of



receipts down to 24 per cent of receipts and the government break promises left, right and centre.

Prior to the last election the former Minister for Transport, Mr Kennan, went down to Berwick and promised all sorts of things about the proposed Hallam-Narre Warren bypass and about ramps and so on, but not one of those promises has been fulfilled because no funds have been available.

A similar situation exists concerning promises about country roads such as the Calder Highway, with which Mr Best is familiar. Last Friday I was in Castlemaine and Bendigo and on several occasions people raised with me the issue of the importance of upgrading the Calder Highway. I have to agree with those people that it is a goat track in many sections, but the government has cut back funding. We need a sound road system if the economy is to be restored.

As an example of cutbacks in road works under the government I have a table that shows the number of tonnes of asphalt produced and used on roads in Victoria over the past few years. In 1978-79, when the former Liberal government was in office, 450 000 tonnes of asphalt were produced. Since then there has been a decline and in the past two years a most extraordinary decline. For the year 1990-91 to the end of June, the figure is projected to fall from the high of 450 000 tonnes to 100 ()()() tonnes of asphalt.

In this place, and rightly so, we usually talk in dollars but I thought I would introduce another pretty graphic statistic. Asphalt is the basic material we use for road construction and in Victoria its consumption has fallen in a bit over ten years from 450 ()()() tonnes under the former Liberal government to 100 000 tonnes under the present government. It is no wonder our roads are falling apart - the work is not being done.

Finally I wish to inform the House of some of the extraordinary measures to which the government goes to increase its revenue. I have a circular letter dated 30 April 1991 sent to a school bus proprietor in my electorate by the Public Transport Corporation. Among other things the letter says:

Because our joint ability to increase revenue collection in the short term will have a direct bearing on the level of funding available for the provision of transport services, I am writing to each private bus operator seeking assistance in maximising our efforts to meet this financial year's revenue target for the corporation ... I am sure you will be aware of actions which you and your staff can take to increase revenue. I do not intend to tell you how to do this: you know better than I what actions of yours would be most effective.

I find it strange that a school bus operator would be in any position to increase revenue: he does not charge his passengers so he cannot put the fare up - he does not carry anyone other than schoolchildren. I also find it strange that the PTC would think that any private operator would think it was in his or her interests to take action to increase government revenue. In other words, it is acting as a tax collector for the government. I should like to know how much it cost to send this missive out and what it is supposed to achieve other than a horse laugh that could be heard all around the country when it was received in Rutherglen. I could hear it in Wodonga.



The government is writing to people all around the State saying, "We are broke; go out and fleece your customers for a few more bucks so that we can keep going". It is an absurdity and it is an indication of how bankrupt the government is, not only of money but also of ideas. It is a deceitful and disgraceful government, and the sooner it goes the better!

Hon. B. A. E. SKEGGS (femplestowe) - The opposition will allow the passage of the Bill through the Legislative Council under the strongest protest on behalf of the people of Victoria, who are suffering grievously under the yoke of a government that is notorious for its economic mismanagement, fiscal policy failure and escalating costs and charges, which the people are finding unbearable.

The Supply (1991-92, No. 1) Bill and the Works and Services (Ancillary Provisions, 1991-92, No. 1) Bill will provide Supply for the first four months of the 1991-92 financial year. It is notable that the payments made for those first four months in many cases are disproportionate to the levels for the balance of the year.

This authorisation of funding from 1 July to 31 October, until Parliament considers the Budget, enables expenditure of almost $5 billion - that is a recurrent expenditure of $4093 million and a works and services expenditure of $654 million.

When one examines the alarming trends in the government's fiscal management one finds the financial institutions duty is increased by 41.6 per cent, pay-roll tax is up 11.1 per cent, petrol tax and royalties have increased by 391.1 per cent, and liquor taxes are up by 26.8 per cent.

Yet retail turnover haS declined by 6.8 per cent in real terms in Victoria compared with 1.6 per cent nationally. Private new capital expenditure has decreased by 10.9 per cent in Victoria compared with a national decline of 0.7 per cent. In May unemployment in Victoria had risen to 127300, an increase to 10.5 per cent - almost double that of twelve months ago; that is, an increase in unemployment of 94.3 per cent compared with the national increase of 40.3 per cent.

Debt charges have increased by 15.4 per cent over last year's level. The cost of sale and lease-back of rolling stock stands at more than $754 million. WorkCare has an accumulated deficit of $2493 million. All of this is the result of the tragic path taken by the Labor government in its ten-year economic plan, which saw the disasters of the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, the Victorian Investment Corporation and State Bank Victoria, which all have led to a downgrading of the Victorian government's credit rating. That places Victoria in a precarious position for the future.

There are a number of glaring fiscal deficiencies, not the least of which are those that affect local government. The Commonwealth Grants Commission allocation to local government is one of those. Early this year the commission released a report which discussed the possibility of changing the basis of grant allocations to local government by adopting fiscal equalisation as a basis for determining grants.


TU~y,4Junel991 COUNCIL 2109

If the commission's proposal were adopted, there would be a massive reduction paid in grants to municipalities in both Victoria and New South Wales. On a State basis, Victoria's share would have dropped from $182.4 million to $90.3 million, a cut of $92.1 million. The share of New South Wales would have decreased by $161.2 million, whereas Queensland's share would rise by $140 million, Western Australia's by $43.6 million, South Australia's by $26.7 million, Tasmania's by $18.4 million and the Northern Territory's by $24.6 million.

In the case of one of the local municipalities which I represent, the City of Heidelberg, if adopted the proposal for 1991-92 would see its grant reduced from $2.146 million to approximately $1.062 million.

Although we find the Federal Minister for local government has not indicated support for the commission's recommendation, no assurances have yet been given for the 1992-93 year and beyond. The commission's recommendations are still a potential threat to Victorian local government funding.

I turn to global borrowings for 1990-91. The State government Budget deferred funding for the pensioner rate rebates and public library grants to councils until the 1991-92 Budget. Eltham Shire Council strongly supported the need to defray the financing costs brought about by change in the payment time of grants. It has objected to the delayed payments, which will also affect global borrowing limits for municipalities. The payment of rebates and grants will not be made until the new financial year and the delayed payment time will affect the net charge on overdrafts to 30 June.

It is essential that changes to financial arrangements are the subject of appropriate and meaningful consultation, which will allow funding to be accommodated according to an overall plan rather than ad hoc decision making. The future of local government fiscal viability is dependent upon a total review of this process.

I turn to matters affecting education funding. I received a letter from the President of the Federation of Victorian Schools Administrators dated 8 May concerning its log of claims which has been before the Minister for Education and Training for more than twelve months without resolution, despite numerous undertakings given by the Minister and Ministry officers that the school principals would achieve salary justice and parity with their colleagues in other States.

School administrators of the federation have had their workload and conditions altered dramatically recently. These have been accepted by the principals because of the changes that have occurred in education, but the intransigence of the government has forced the federation to take action.

The Victorian Federation of State School Parents Clubs has expressed its dissatisfaction in a letter of 8 May citing grants to schools. It expressed concern about the 1990-91 Budget regarding such things as the deferral of the indexation of the education allowance; the indexation of the schools grant to a level less than inflation and of grants received by parents; and a deferral of payment of the education expense allowance. The



combined impact of these reductions has placed an intolerable burden on the finances of schools and on parents.

The Victorian goverrunent has not seen fit to honour its 1988 policy commitment of raising the level of the education allowance by 10 per cent in real terms over four years. An unfortunate outcome of the unavailability of adequate funding has been the tendency of schools to levy parents with increased fees and charges.

Access to knowledge and learning should never depend on a family's capacity to pay. All grants to schools should be automatically indexed to the current level of inflation and, in fairness, should be backdated to 1989.

Capital works and maintenance programs in Victorian schools have reached a critical level. The central program involves approval by Treasury for all projects costing more than $200 000, including site purchase, new schools, fire reinstatement and upgrading. The regional program for projects costing less than $200 000 involves major and minor maintenance, urgent works and upgradings. School buildings are facing continuing disrepair. Many minor works are now more expensive than the grants that the schools actually receive! The expectation that schools would be able to undertake maintenance for lower cost than the regional system provides is unlikely to be fulfilled as the work backlog increases continually throughout the State. Capital works and maintenance programs should be increased to ensure a harmonious learning place for all students.

Another program deserving of funding which currently does not receive any funding is life education. Life education centres work to reduce the incidence of drug misuse among young people by providing effective preventive drug education for children in their formative years from the ages of five to twelve years.

Under the life education program children learn the fascination of the delicate harmony and balance of the human body and to resist the pressure of others tempting them to experiment with drugs. The program encourages them to make informed decisions for themselves.

High technology mobile classrooms take the life education program into the schools. There has been a high degree of acceptance among parents, teachers and the children themselves wherever the program has been taken. It began in New South Wales in 1979 and was established in Victoria in 1985. By the end of this year the program should have reached 120 000 of Victoria's 400 000 primary school children.

In Victoria the goverrunent does not provide any financial assistance to the regional life education committees in the equipping of caravans, which cost up to $99 340 each. Where Ministry of Education teachers take leave without pay to assist the program, and many of them do, the Ministry charges an oncost of 24 per cent of salary. The New South Wales, South Australian, Northern Territory and Tasmanian governments contribute to life education funding. It is highly desirable that the Victorian government should follow suit and support this enlightened program.



I am concerned that funding levels under Community Services Victoria for adult training centres is inadequate. I am aware that the Ivanhoe-Diamond Valley Centre for Intellectually Disabled Adults administers two 24-hour care community residential units and that its request for funding needs urgent attention.

In a letter dated 24 April the administrator of the centre said, in part:

The reason for this letter is to state the committee's concern regarding portion of our funding which is provided by csv. Funding reductions absorbed for 1990-91 means that the centre is no longer able to consider any further reductions for 1991-92 financial year, and accept responsibility for training people moving out of institutions.

We are not asleep. During the last three years our instructor programs, administrative procedures and client instruction have been computerised by installing two computers financed by community groups. Philanthropic trusts have funded other equipment purchases, including a new motor vehicle for work experience and gardening groups.

The centre's bUilding and the two residences are well maintained.

Organisations like this centre should not be placed in a situation of need. They are doing their job; the community supports them in their work and so should the government.

The current economic climate is placing stress on many families. Often families with children with delayed development or a disability may experience considerable additional stress, particularly if they cannot avail themselves of services they require to assist their children.

The Specialised Teachers for Regional Intervention and Developmental Education (STRIDE) seeks to aid such families and it has petitioned Community Services Victoria for continued and additional funding of the preschool teacher subsidy, first granted in 1985. STRIDE provides a multifaceted early intervention service for children aged eighteen months to six years with a developmental delay or disability, and the program is worthy of support.

These are just a few examples of issues worthy of review by a government notorious for policy misdirection and misuse of grants. Indeed, it is notorious for economic mismanagement without parallel in the history of the nation.

The Supply Bill is being passed in the interests of maintaining basic services for the people of Victoria, but its overall direction deserves the strongest censure. The opposition, in allowing the Bill to pass in the Legislative Council, gives notice that this position cannot go on much longer. Action will have to be taken in the interests of the people to ensure that the government's term ends as speedily as possible.

Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE (Geelong) - The debate on the Supply Bill has attracted much publicity and considerable public interest about its outcome. I am pleased that the opposition has seen fit not to block the passage of the Bill because I feel strongly about the blocking of Supply and stopping an elected government from governing. I do not believe in that principle and I do not believe it is the role of this House - -

Hon. J. V. C. Guest - Why is it in the Constitution?



Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE -It may be in the Constitution, but that was written many years ago.

Hon. J. V. C. Guest -It was written in 1984!

Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE - I still do not believe, as you know, Mr Guest, that this House should have the ability to stop reformist governments from governing.

I congratulate the opposition on the wisdom of that decision because regardless of whether it is constitutional it would have caused a considerable amount of division within the community, considerable heartache in the business world as a lot of business people who would be relying on government contracts would have gone over the brink, and it would have caused even more widespread unemployment. I am pleased that commonsense has prevailed because in the current climate we cannot accept any more divisiveness in the community than we already have.

People are looking for stability and it is up to us as Parliamentarians to provide that stability. Regardless of whether we are members of the government, the opposition or are independent, we have an enormous responsibility in the current climate to provide stability and a sense of purpose.

I know I harp on the institution of Parliament. I feel a little like a latter day John the Baptist, a voice crying in the wilderness. However, a few seeds are falling on fertile ground and I congratulate you, Mr President, and the Speaker on the report you have commissioned and brought before Parliament for discussion. Following that action being taken we are in the process of setting up a Parliamentary committee of inquiry.

We must do better in Parliament than we are doing now and we should look at other countries to find out how they are coping in similar situations. The approach of many countries is far more professional than ours. We are still bound too much with the old traditions. Our party system is based on the Westminster tradition that is now outdated. Our selection of candidates and Ministers leaves a lot to be desired and too much emphasis is placed on giving the position of Ministers as a form of reward. That is not happening in all cases but it certainly happens in some.

Scandinavian countries actually appoint Ministers from outside the political system. If a person is a member of Parliament in Norway and has the fortune to be elected a Minister, he or she must resign from Parliament. That is totally alien to our way of thinking but it makes sense. In Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland people with expertise in running various portfolios such as health, transport, forestry and so on are appointed Ministers. They are not amateurs. No-one could be a more rank amateur than I was when I was in charge of a department, so I know what I am talking about.

The system in Scandinavian countries allows people with considerable expertise to run their departments. They are also a lot freer than our Ministers. They do not have to worry about pandering to party politics or getting the numbers in the caucus or party room. They can devote their whole attention to the running of their department. They must answer questions in Parliament in the same way that Ministers under the



Westminster system do. They also have to introduce Bills but they do not have any voting rights. That is another factor that is important especially in this day and age. If the government changes and the Minister is especially good and able he or she is not removed because it is not a political appointment. Thdt results in stability in departments and that is not being achieved here.

I appeal to the opposition to listen because, things being as they should be, the opposition is due to come into government. That is the way the Westminster system works and it is healthy for oppositions and governments to change over after a ten or fifteen-year span. I should like to know what the opposition intends to do when it becomes government and whether it is in a position to do anything about the reform of Parliament. Speakers on both sides of the House, especially in the opposition, have pointed out the failure of our system, the failure of us to act, the failure of Parliament to act, the abuse of Parliament by government and public officials and the ignoring of what Parliament does.

The opposition blames the government for the current crisis in Victoria. The government cannot be totally to blame; the opposition must accept some responsibility for the economic dilemma Victoria is in. The opposition has the numbers in this House and when a Supply or an Appropriation Bill comes into the House the opposition can move a reasoned amendment and refuse to pass the second reading until the government takes certain action or considers certain aspects.

In Scandinavia the Parliament actually alters the vote of Parliament when the Appropriation comes in. A Minister cannot be guaranteed the allocation he or she will receive. Parliament might decide otherwise. That is why Parliaments in those countries are held in such high regard.

I bring up this matter every time an Appropriation or Supply Bill is introduced. In Victoria with the Supply Bill the Parliament is allocated a departmental vote. That is an insult. Parliament is not a department of the government; the government is responsible to Parliament.

That is an example of the attitude we must overthrow. As Mr Baxter pointed out, both Houses of Parliament pass Appropriations and certain line numbers. In other words, the Parliament of the people is saying that this is how a Minister should spend the money allocated and the Minister puts to us how he or she wants to spend the money. The people are saying that they are approving the Minister spending the money in a certain way. Neither the Minister nor a public servant in his or her department has the authority to shuffle around the funds after they have been approved.

Recently the Auditor-General found out that $32 million had been allocated without Parliamentary approval. That is outrageous and is an example of one of the things that we must come to grips with because we are talking about huge sums of money. Everyone is in a state of shock. One speaker mentioned that if things continued there could be a Budget blow-out of $1.4 billion. I made a quick calculation before I came into the House. I imagined that I would make a money printing machine that would print


2114 COUNCIL TUf$day, 4 June 1991

$10 every second. I bring it into Parliament and I set it going and it prints $10 every second. It would take until October 1995 before that $1.4 billion is p.id out. That is the sort of amount we have to come to grips with. My example may not be too accurate because I had no calculator; I did it by logarithms. We talk about $1 million as though it is nothing. This government brought the previous government down over a scandal involving $4 million.

I know that I tend to harp on about this matter but I feel very strongly about it. We are not going to pass on much of a future for the next generation if we do not address some of these problems. I hope the Parliamentary committee continues its inquiry and talks very seriously about some of these reforms.

I know we do not like to buck the system. We are all involved in our parties and want to see the system continue to operate as it has done in the past. However, times change, and the time has come when we have to exercise control over government.

We have to talk more authoritatively about Budgets. In the time I have been in this place I have noted that there has been a lot more scrutiny of the figures provided by the government. Perhaps the Auditor-General's work has been of value in that process as well as the committees that have been established. We are now scrutinising government expenditure much more closely; still we bring these matters to the government's attention, but nothing is being done.

Therefore, I think the opposition has a tremendous responsibility because the next five years will be the most crucial in Victoria's history. I should like to think that we will hear from the opposition over the next twelve months about some serious policies and some indication to the people of Victoria of what it intends to do when it becomes the government. That is what the people out there want to know.

The opposition is an unknown quantity. A few of its members on the front bench are becoming known and respected, but it has a long way to go.

Mr President, I note the display of some body language down there, so, in keeping with the needs of the government to get its business through the House, I shall complete my remarks at this stage and raise further matters in Committee.

The PRESIDENT -Order! I shall deal firstly with the Supply (1991-92, No. 1) Bill. The question is:


Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Ordered to be committed later this day.

The PRESIDENT -Order! I shall now deal with the Works and Services (Ancillary Provisions, 1991-92, No. 1) Bill. The question is:

CONSTITUTION (JURISDICTiON OF SUPREME COURT) BILL

Tuesday, 4 June 1991


Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

COUNCIL

Ordered, by leave, to be read third time later this day.

Sitting suspended 6.34 p.nt. until 8.7 p.nt.

2115

CONSTITUTION OURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT) BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 19 March; motion of Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Manufacturing and Industry Development).

Hon. J. V. C. GUEST (Monash) - The opposition caused the adjournment of the debate on this Bill earlier this session for reasons cogently put by Mr Storey, who dealt with the problems of this latest attempt by the government to overcome a difficulty that arises ultimately from section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975, which confers unlimited jurisdiction on the Supreme Court, and other provisions which require that any Bill to derogate from the provisions of section 85 by repealing, altering or varying the section explicitly or implicitly requires to be passed by an absolute majority in both Houses, as do a number of other constitutional amendments.

The problem is far from a theoretical one, as has been pointed out. In 1989 the Validity of the Retail Tenancies Act 1986 and the Planning and Environment (Amendment) Act 1989 were challenged in the courts.

The implications for the future were clearly momentous because, with ingenious rather than better arguments, practitioners are bound to consider the opportunity of raising objection to the whole validity of the legislation under which their clients were charged - that was the nature of the legal proceeding - or under which somebody claimed a right contrary to that of their clients.

As the Constitution stands, the result of that would succeed in showing whether the Bill had been passed with the necessary absolute majority; and if it could not be shown that it had been so passed, the legislation failed.

The Constitution (Supreme Court) Bill, which was introduced in May 1989 when those cases were before the court, attempted to deal with the problem. It was an unsatisfactory piece of legislation: a small part of the Bill was passed, doing no more than settling problems that had already become apparent. It seemed the longer term problems would have to be dealt with in this House and in the other place by constitutional majorities being sought, unnecessarily in many cases, as a precaution. In many cases that could have required an opposition that did not actually support a Bill deciding not to oppose it to help make up the numbers in order to assist the government to pass its legislative program.

CONSTITUTION (JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COUR1) BaL

2116 COUNCIL Tu~y,4Junel991

The longer term problem was referred to the Legal and Constitutional Committee, which made a number of recommendations that are said to form the basis of the Bill. Nevertheless in many ways the Bill as it stands is unsatisfactory, like much of the legislation introduced by the Attorney-General, because in its original form it did not implement the recommendations of the committee.

As a result the coalition said it would support the Bill only if the recommendations were implemented. Today the coalition has been satisfied that the government proposes to introduce amendments that comply with the recommendations of the Legal and Constitutional Committee with one exception, which is that a scrutineer Bills committee be established to monitor legislation of this kind.

I, together with members of the coalition - and, I believe, many members of the government - support the establishment of a scrutineer Bills committee. The Senate scrutineer Bills committee performs an important function, prOVided the necessary time is spent and the professional effort made to ensure its success.

However, the establishment of the committee is not central to the recommendations of the Legal and Constitutional Committee concerning the matter of how one ensures that adequate notice is given to Parliament either when a Bill is introduced or an amendment to the Bill is proposed repealing, altering or varying provisions of the Constitution, namely section 85, which confers unlimited jurisdiction on the Supreme Court, by in some way limiting the jurisdiction or intruding on it.

In the circumstances I shall not go over the same ground that was covered very well by Mr Storey. I finish by saying that the opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western) - I shall comment briefly on the Bill, which has caused the government and the opposition considerable difficulty. In 1989, when problems concerning the operation of section 85 of the Constitution became apparent, many complex legal opinions were sought to find the best way of solving the problem.

I recall that Mrs Wade, the honourable member for Kew in the other place, and Mr Storey, together with government Ministers, had an extraordinarily difficult time satisfying themselves and legal counsel that the 1989 Bill would meet the objections that had arisen resulting from the challenge mounted at that time to the provisions.

Now we are debating a Bill that has benefited from work done by the Legal and Constitutional Committee which, as always, has produced a report that is practical and of assistance to the Parliament. As a consequence we should all be careful to do our best to implement the recommendations. When the Constitution Ourisdiction of Supreme Court) Bill was introduced the opposition believed the Bill would not allow the implementation of the valuable changes recommended by the committee. I hope that matter has been resolved.

The issue is technical. Lawyers love dealing with the problems that arise from it, especially when funded by the Legal Aid Commission, to meet challenges that are mounted based on obscure legal points. As I said, I hope that with the benefit of the

CONSTITUTION (JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT) BILL


work done by the Legal and Constitutional Committee the passage of the Bill will ensure that the problem is solved.

2117

The recommendations made by the committee are sensible and practical. The onus is on the proponent of the Bill to alert Parliament to the fact that constitutional provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court are likely to be affected by the particular legislation before Parliament, because section 18 of the principal Act makes it clear that if a wrong course is followed the legislation becomes void.

I hope the provisions in the Bill will enable Parliament to be alerted at the earliest possible time - that is, immediately following its introduction - to the fact that the legislation should be treated in a certain way. Because of the agreement reached on the amendments, I am happy to support the measure.

The PRESIDENT - Order! Before I put the motion, honourable members will appreciate that by its very nature the passing of the Bill necessarily requires an absolute majority. Therefore, to enable me to assure myself that such a majority exists, I direct that the bells be rung.

Bells rung.

Members having assembled in Chamber:

The PRESIDENT - Order! To enable me to ascertain that an absolute majority exists for the passage of the second reading of this Bill, I invite honourable members supporting the Bill to rise in their places.

Required number of members having risen:


Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2

Hon. M. A. L YSTER (Minister for Health) - I thank honourable members for their contributions during the second-reading debate. I shall take up the point raised by Mr Guest when he foreshadowed that I would move amendments. The amendments will address concerns of the opposition that the Bill, as drafted, does not fully implement the recommendations of the Legal and Constitutional Committee.

CONSTffUTION (JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT) BILL

2118 COUNCIL ~Yt4June 1991

The amendments will ensure that all except one of the recommendations requiring legislative action are implemented. The exception, as Mr Guest said, is the recommendation that the committee be given the function of scrutinising Bills affecting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The end product of the amendments will be legislation that addresses the concerns the House has sought to address in earlier times.

aause aped to; clause 3 agreed to.

aause4


1. Clause 4, lines 14 to 20, omit proposed paragraph (b) and insert -

"(b) the member of the Parliament who introduces the Bill for the Act or, if the provision is inserted in the Act by another Act, the Bill for that other Act, or a person acting on his or her behalf, makes a statement to the Council or the Assembly, as the case requires, of the reasons for repealing, altering or varying this section; and

(c) the statement is so made -

(1) during the member's second-reading speech; or

(il) after not less than 24 hours notice is given of the intention to make the statement but before the third reading of the Bill; or

(iii) with the leave of the Council or the Assembly, as the case requires, at any time before the third reading of the Bill."

Hon. D. M. EV ANS (North Eastern) - When the second-reading debate on this Bill took place some weeks ago the opposition was concerned that the full recommendations of the Legal and Constitutional Committee had not been put into effect. I was subsequently provided with copies of the amendments to be proposed by the government and, after discussion with the shadow Attomey.(;eneral, Mrs Wade, I provided copies of the amendments to Mr Greg Craven, who acted as a consultant to the Legal and Constitutional Committee and is an expert in constitutional law at the University of Melbourne, to determine whether in his view what was proposed was adequate and satisfactory. I have been assured by Mrs Wade that Mr Craven has indicated that to be the case.

It is important that the recommendations from the all-party Legal and Constitutional Committee be put into full effect. During the second-reading debate I indicated that the Committee had input from all sides of politics and all members of the committee made a genuine attempt to arrive at a sensible, reasonable and proper conclusion to address the concerns that led to the inquiry. It will be of comfort to honourable members to know that further checks have been made. As Mr Guest and others have pointed out, this is an extremely difficult and precise constitutional issue. To have had the additional comfort given that the amendments are adequate is 01 value at this stage.

Hon. J. V. C. GUEST (Monash) - I am reminded that I omitted to do what Mr Storey did, which was to pay tribute to the galaxy of talent made available to ensure that the report of the Legal and Constitutional Committee was worthy of being embodied in

CONSTITUTION (JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT) RILL


legislation and not merely being used, as the Attorney-General put it, as a basis for legislation.

2119

By virtue of amendment No. 1 the problem of amenc!ments being introduced which would have had the effect of limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court will no longer be a problem. The Bill was originally deficient in allowing the most enormous loophole because an amendment would have been able to do what a Bill could not. The matter is sufficiently dealt with by the amendment, which provides that the statement may be made either during a member's second-reading speech - that is hardly likely to apply to an amendment - after not less than 24 hours notice is given of the intention to make the statement but before the third reading of the Bill - that would apply to an amendment - or with the leave of the Council or the Assembly, as the case requires, at any time before the third reading of the Bill.

That brings me to one of the reasons I wanted to speak briefly on this clause. The Bill will require certain alertness by those who should be concerned about any derogation from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Someone will have to take note of whether a government tries to surreptitiously introduce legislation to derogate the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Those whose particular responsibility it is to consider the matter should be alerted if leave is sought or notice is given.

Amendment agreed to.


2. Clause 4, lines 21 to 24, omit proposed new sub-section (6).

3. Clause 4, line 25, omit "(7)" and insert 1/(6)".

4. Ciause 4, line 29, after "section" insert "and to be of no effect unless the requirements of sub-section (5) are satisfied".

5. Clause 4, line 30, omit "(8)" and insert 1/(7)".

6. Clause 4, after line 32, insert -

"(8) A provision of an Act that confers jurisdiction on a court, tribunal, body or person which would otherwise be exercisable by the Supreme Court, or which augments any such jurisdiction conferred on a court, tribunal, body or person, does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court except as provided in sub-section (5).".

Hon. D. M. EV ANS (North Eastern) - Amendment No. 6 is important because it picks up a recommendation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Committee to ensure that, unless Parliament expressly and concisely decides that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction, the Supreme Court will have that jurisdiction. There is no chance of any accidental removing of jurisdiction from the Supreme Court without Parliament making the decision.

The Supreme Court may decide that, as a matter of practice, it will not hear cases of a particular kind, and in that way the Supreme Court could make a decision which would then mean, as I understand it, that general usage cases of a particular nature would not be held to appeal before the Supreme Court.

CONSTITUTION (JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT) BILL


At all times it preserves the rights and the responsibilities of the Supreme Court in the circumstances unless, as I have indicated, the Parliament expressly decides otherwise.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6


7. Clause 6, line 12, omit "January" and insert "July".

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 7 agreed to.

New clause


8. Insert the following new clause to follow clause 6: Transitional

"AA. (1) This section applies where, before 1 May 1991, a party to a proceeding before a court or tribunal had sought, in the course of that proceeding, to call in question the enactment or validity of an Act enacted or purporting to have been enacted before that date but on or after 1 July 1989 on the ground referred to in section 4 of the Constitution (Supreme Court) Act 1989.

(2) A court or tribunal may decide a question referred to in sub-section (1) as if this Act had not been enacted but only in so far as affects the particular facts, matters or circumstances in issue in those proceedings.

(3) A decision of a court or tribunal under sub-section (2) is not binding on that or any other court or tribunal in relation to any other proceedings. It

Hon. D. M. EV ANS (North Eastern) - I think it is important that the Minister clearly indicate the reason for the transitional clause. As I understand it, the reason for that is in case the Parliament itself missed, during the passage of any legislation through Parliament, the responsibility to ensure that any legislation that may in any way impinge on the rights of the Supreme Court to hear any cases in this State is passed by an absolute majority; it picks them up by this particular amendment.

The House will recall some eighteen months or two years ago when validating legislation was passed to ensure that on any occasion when a Bill in any way reduced the rights of the Supreme Court that that validating legislation retrospectively ensured that it could not be held to account in a court. This transitional provision is intended to ensure again that there cannot be any challenge to any regulation or decision of a court or a tribunal in this State as a result of some omission within the Parliament itself to obtain an absolute majority on any decision. Of course, once the new legislation has been put in place and proclaimed, hopefully the problems will no longer occur.

Hon. M. A. L YSTER (Minister for Health) - I am happy to give that assurance. The substance of this amendment is to preserve the rights of parties, before 1 May 1991, to challenge legislation passed since 1 July on the grounds that the Act should have but did not receive an absolute majority because it varied the courts' jurisdictions.

R.€¦ · I am painfully aware that I do not have any ace up my sleeve. Having informed the House...

Documents

Transcript of R.€¦ · I am painfully aware that I do not have any ace up my sleeve. Having informed the House...