PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)...The Hon. B. J. Pike, MP Minister for Gaming, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister ... Huppert, Ms Jennifer Sue 1 Southern Metropolitan ALP Tee,

EXTRACT FROM BOOK

PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-SIXTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

Thursday, 30 July 2009

(Extract from book 10)

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

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

The Governor

Professor DAVID de KRETSER, AC

The Lieutenant-Governor

The Honourable Justice MARILYN WARREN, AC

The ministry

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

The Hon. J. M. Brumby, MP

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

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

The Hon. J. Lenders, MLC

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

The Hon. J. M. Allan, MP

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

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

The Hon. P. Batchelor, MP

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

The Hon. R. G. Cameron, MP

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

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

The Hon. T. J. Holding, MP

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

The Hon. G. W. Jennings, MLC

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

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

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

The Hon. J. A. Merlino, MP

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

The Hon. M. V. Morand, MP

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

The Hon. L. M. Neville, MP

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

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

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

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

The Hon. A. G. Robinson, MP

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

The Hon. R. W. Wynne, MP

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

Legislative Council committees

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

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

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

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

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

Joint committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heads of parliamentary departments

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

Parliamentary Services — Secretary: Dr S. O’Kane

MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-SIXTH PARLIAMENT — FIRST SESSION

President: The Hon. R. F. SMITH

Deputy President: Mr BRUCE ATKINSON

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

Leader of the Government: Mr JOHN LENDERS

Deputy Leader of the Government: Mr GAVIN JENNINGS

Leader of the Opposition: Mr DAVID DAVIS

Deputy Leader of the Opposition: Ms WENDY LOVELL

Leader of The Nationals: Mr PETER HALL

Deputy Leader of The Nationals: Mr DAMIAN DRUM

Member Region Party Member Region Party

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

CONTENTS

THURSDAY, 30 JULY 2009

RULINGS BY THE CHAIR Production of documents ..........................................3669

PETITIONS Students: youth allowance ........................................3669 Planning: growth areas infrastructure

contribution ...........................................................3669 ELECTORAL MATTERS COMMITTEE

Voter participation and informal voting...................3670 PAPER............................................................................3674

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Adjournment ..............................................................3674

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE Reporting date ...........................................................3675

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Schools: Spirit of Anzac tour ....................................3675 City of Monash: destruction of documents ...............3675 2Day FM: media standards ......................................3675 Liberal Party: document ...........................................3676 Schools: retention rates.............................................3676 Austin Hospital: government funding.......................3676 City of Darebin: greenhouse gas emissions .............3676 Racing: jumps events.................................................3676 Frankston: mental health facility..............................3677 Walk for Harmony.....................................................3677 National Homeless Persons Week ............................3677 Hazel Glen Drive, Laurimar: extension ...................3677 Plenty Road, South Morang: duplication.................3677 Buses: northern suburbs ...........................................3678 Schools: Bentleigh.....................................................3678 Charlton: harness racing ..........................................3678 Manangatang: streetscape development ..................3678 State Trustees: relocation .........................................3678

STATEMENTS ON REPORTS AND PAPERS Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee:

strategies to prevent high-volume offending and recidivism by young people .................3679, 3681

Victorian Multicultural Commission: Victorian government achievements in multicultural affairs 2007–08 .................................3680, 3687, 3688

Victorian Child Death Review Committee: report 2009............................................................3681

Education and Training Committee: geographical differences in the rate in which Victorian students participate in higher education .....................................................3682, 3684

Gardiner Foundation: annual review 2008 .............3683 Victorian Electoral Commission: annual report

2007–08.................................................................3685 Ombudsman: An Investigation into the

Transport Accident Commission’s and the Victorian WorkCover Authority’s administrative processes for medical practitioner billing ......................................3685, 3687

CROWN LAND ACTS AMENDMENT (LEASE AND LICENCE TERMS) BILL Second reading ...............................................3689, 3701 Committee ................................................................. 3704 Third reading ............................................................ 3711

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Transport Accident Commission and Victorian

WorkCover Authority: medical practitioner billing ................................................3693, 3694, 3695

Film industry: government initiatives ...................... 3693 Design sector: government initiatives...................... 3696 Water: desalination plant ...........3696, 3697, 3698, 3699 L’Oreal Melbourne Fashion Festival ...................... 3698 Ringwood: central activities district......................... 3699 Bushfires: Leadbeater’s possum .............................. 3700 Brunswick: central activities district........................ 3701

LEGISLATION REFORM (REPEALS No. 4) BILL Second reading ......................................................... 3711 Third reading ............................................................ 3716

TOBACCO AMENDMENT (PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) BILL Introduction and first reading .................................. 3716 Statement of compatibility ........................................ 3716 Second reading ......................................................... 3718

NATIONAL PARKS AMENDMENT (POINT NEPEAN) BILL Second reading ......................................................... 3721

COURTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SUNSET PROVISIONS) BILL Introduction and first reading .................................. 3724 Statement of compatibility ........................................ 3724 Second reading ......................................................... 3725

HUMAN TISSUE AMENDMENT BILL Introduction and first reading .................................. 3726 Statement of compatibility ........................................ 3726 Second reading ......................................................... 3727

CHILDREN LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Introduction and first reading .................................. 3728 Statement of compatibility ........................................ 3728 Second reading ......................................................... 3729

ADJOURNMENT Police: Shepparton ................................................... 3731 Ambulance services: enterprise bargaining

agreement ............................................................. 3731 Clearways: Stonnington ........................................... 3732 Housing: rental accommodation.............................. 3732 Bushfires: fuel reduction........................................... 3733 Parks Victoria: bushfire recovery funding............... 3733 Drought: counselling services .................................. 3734 Public safety: emergency assembly areas................ 3734 Schools: pupil-free days............................................ 3734 City of Brimbank: Ombudsman’s report.................. 3735 Victorian government business offices: review........ 3735 Housing: Ringwood development............................. 3736 Responses .................................................................. 3736

RULINGS BY THE CHAIR

Thursday, 30 July 2009 COUNCIL 3669

Thursday, 30 July 2009

The PRESIDENT (Hon. R. F. Smith) took the chair at 9.33 a.m. and read the prayer.

RULINGS BY THE CHAIR

Production of documents

The PRESIDENT — Order! On Tuesday, 28 July 2009, the Clerk tabled a letter from the Attorney-General in response to the Council’s resolution of 24 June 2009 seeking the production of documents relating to the extension of licence for the number of gaming tables at Crown Casino.

In his letter the Attorney-General advised that key documents regarding the agreement between the government and Crown had been publicly released on 23 July 2009, and that, as a courtesy to the Council, these documents can be accessed via the Department of Justice website. The released documents include the heads of agreement between the government and Crown and relevant correspondence. Finally, the Attorney-General advised that the government was still in the process of assessing the balance of the documents relevant to the Council’s resolution and would shortly provide a response.

The Leader of the Opposition then raised a point of order pointing out that the reference to documents on a website was divergent from the usual practice and may not be fully consistent with the sessional order. Mr Davis sought clarification from the Chair as to, firstly, whether the new practice of referring to a website rather than actually presenting the documents to the chamber was being adopted, and secondly, whether the other documents to be assessed will be presented in a schedule in the normal manner.

The Acting President, in responding to the point of order, advised the house of the relevant provision of sessional order 21 and indicated that the President would look into the matter and report back to the house.

In ruling on this matter, I reiterate the relevant provisions of sessional order 21:

(3) When returned, the documents will be laid on the table by the Clerk.

(4) A return under this order is to include an indexed list of all documents tabled, showing the date of creation of the document, a description of the document and the author of the document.

No documents or any indexed list of documents were attached to the Attorney-General’s letter. Therefore, in reference to the first matter upon which Mr Davis seeks clarification, if the reference to documents on the Department of Justice website is meant to be in substitution for the tabling of documents themselves, there is no doubt that this is not in accordance with the requirements of the sessional order. I am unable to rule in relation to the second matter raised by Mr Davis as to whether the other documents will be presented in the normal manner, because that is a matter for the government.

Any further action in relation to the production of the documents sought and not presented to the Council is a matter for the Council to determine.

PETITIONS

Following petitions presented to house:

Students: youth allowance

To the Legislative Council of Victoria:

This petition of residents of Victoria draws to the attention of the house the proposal to change the independence test for youth allowance by the federal government.

The petitioners register their opposition to the changes on the basis that the youth allowance changes proposed in the federal budget place another barrier to university participation for students in regional areas; unfairly discriminate against students currently undertaking a ‘gap’ year; and contradict other efforts to increase university participation by students from rural and regional Australia.

The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council of Victoria reject the proposal and call on the state government to vigorously lobby the federal government to ensure that a tertiary education is accessible to regional students.

By Mr DRUM (Northern Victoria) (1307 signatures).

Laid on table.

Planning: growth areas infrastructure contribution

To the Legislative Council of Victoria:

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

ELECTORAL MATTERS COMMITTEE

3670 COUNCIL Thursday, 30 July 2009

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

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

By Mrs PETROVICH (Northern Victoria) (1862 signatures).

Laid on table.


Voter participation and informal voting

Mr SOMYUREK (South Eastern Metropolitan) presented report, including appendices, extracts of proceedings and minority report, together with transcripts of evidence.

Laid on table.

Ordered that report be printed.

Mr SOMYUREK (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I move:

That the Council take note of the report.

The Electoral Matters Committee is pleased to present to the Parliament of Victoria this report on its inquiry into voter participation and informal voting. Encouraging voter participation is currently a major concern worldwide. Research shows a trend towards declining voter participation in many countries with established democracies, including Canada, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, which are all our comparator countries.

While those countries do not have a compulsory voting system like that of Australia, election results from those countries help put the issue of declining voter participation in context. For instance, in 2008 turnout at the 40th Canadian general election was 59.4 per cent and this, I am informed, was the lowest rate ever recorded for a Canadian general election. In the United Kingdom the voter turnout was the third lowest rate since the turn of the 20th century and the third lowest since 1847. In the United States, while voter turnout rates have improved in recent years, during this inquiry the committee learnt that there are still major impediments to full participation in the electoral process, based on ethnicity, educational attainment and voter registration practices.

Australia has a long history of free and fair elections. Voter turnout rates for Australian federal elections are amongst the highest in the world. In Victoria the average voter turnout rate for Victorian state elections since 1976 is 93.38 per cent. At this level Victoria also has one of the highest voter turnout rates for periodic general elections worldwide. Victoria’s enrolment rate has consistently been above the national average, ranking third or fourth among the states and territories.

However, while all Australians and Victorians should be proud of their democratic heritage, during this inquiry the committee learnt that Victoria cannot afford to rest on its laurels. As is the case worldwide, Victoria is facing a number of major challenges to ensure that all eligible Victorians participate in the electoral process. Statistics from recent Victorian state elections suggest there are a number of undesirable trends in relation to Victoria’s democratic performance that need to be addressed, and this has been the committee’s focus during this inquiry process.

The first of these trends relates to electoral enrolments. While it is true that Victoria has one of the highest rates of electoral enrolment in Australia, during this inquiry the committee learnt that approximately 250 000 — a large number — eligible Victorians are not on the electoral roll and are not participating in the electoral process. At the 2006 Victorian state election as many as 66 000 eligible Victorians attempted to vote but had their ballots rejected because they were not on the electoral roll. In addition to this there are a significant number of Victorians who are enrolled but do not participate in elections. At the 2006 Victorian state election the Victorian Electoral Commission issued 146 474 ‘Apparent Failure to Vote’ notices to eligible Victorian electors.

The committee considered a range of strategies to increase electoral enrolment in Victoria. The Victorian Electoral Commission informed the committee that traditional enrolment enumeration processes are no longer as effective as they once were. Many people, particularly those groups most likely not to enrol to vote, such as young people aged 18 to 25, are simply not returning enrolment forms or responding to mail-outs.

Of all the strategies the committee considered, something called ‘automatic enrolment’ clearly has the most potential to increase the number of people on the electoral roll in Victoria, and although a little more than half the committee thought this was the case, the other half of the committee did not agree, and I suspect you will hear more about that later on today.



Voter turnout was another major concern during this inquiry. As noted earlier, voter turnout rates have declined or are declining in many Western democracies, particularly in our comparator nations. To some extent Australia and Victoria are immune from reaching the low levels of turnout such as those in the US and the UK, due to Australia’s compulsory voting system. Nevertheless, this sort of systematic protection should not be a cause for complacency. During this inquiry the committee considered a range of initiatives to encourage voter turnout in Victoria, and recommended changes to the three-month rule for voting and strategies to encourage community groups with low levels of electoral participation to vote at election time.

Of all the trends addressed by the committee the most concerning relates to informal voting. At the 2006 Victorian state election the informal voting rate for the Legislative Assembly was 4.56 per cent, having increased from 2002 when the informal rate was 3.42 per cent. That is the highest rate of informal voting for the Legislative Assembly ever recorded for a Victorian state election. It is also concerning that a large number of Victorians who voted and expressed a clear preference for a candidate did not register a formal ballot because the ballot paper was not correctly filled out according to legislation. Results from a Victorian Electoral Commission survey of a sample of informal ballot papers at the 2006 state election found that approximately 40 per cent of informal district ballots indicated a clear preference by the voter, either as a ‘1’, a tick or a cross. Practices in other Australian jurisdictions such as South Australia, which has ticket voting and savings provisions in its electoral legislation, appear to offer a way to permit these types of votes to be included in the election count and thus increase the rate of formal voting at Victorian state elections. I must state again that not all committee members agreed with this view of the committee’s recommendations to investigate changes to the formality interpretation, and I am sure more will be said on that issue by following speakers.

Evidence suggests that there is a strong correlation between informal voting and voters from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Building on the committee’s work during the inquiry into the conduct of the 2006 Victorian state election and matters related thereto the committee made a number of recommendations in its report to improve electoral participation by Victorians who have difficulty accessing the electoral process. While there are a number of community groups in Victoria with low levels of electoral participation, evidence received by the committee clearly shows that throughout Australia

young people aged between 18 and 25 years need to be encouraged to enrol to vote. This is particularly the case for those aged 18 and 19 years. While the average electoral enrolment rate for Australians aged 20 to 25 years was 86.35 per cent, that rate fell by about 20 per cent to 66.35 per cent for those aged between 18 and 19 years.

Teaching young people about the value and importance of their vote at a young age through school-based civics and citizenship education programs clearly seems to be the most appropriate strategy to encourage youth electoral enrolment. Young people who learn about democracy and voting at school are more likely to participate in civic activities as they grow older. All of these initiatives are designed to strengthen Victoria’s democracy and encourage electoral participation by all members of the Victorian community.

In closing I would like to point out that this inquiry has taken place at a time of great interest in electoral reform around Australia. Like the committee’s previous inquiry into political donations and disclosure, this inquiry has been informed by the commonwealth government’s electoral reform process and the Australian government’s stated commitment to harmonise aspects of Australia’s electoral laws. While the committee is committed to the harmonisation of electoral laws, during this inquiry the Victorian electoral commissioner suggested that there was plenty of scope for Victoria to make significant improvements to its electoral laws independent of the commonwealth.

On behalf of the committee I thank those who provided submissions and appeared before the committee to give evidence both in Victoria and internationally. Given that participation was a central theme in this inquiry, the committee was pleased to receive evidence from a diverse range of inquiry participants, including academics, electoral administrators, interest groups, other stakeholders and members of the public.

I thank committee members for their contributions to this inquiry and past inquiries. The committee’s investigation was enhanced by the members’ bipartisan approach. I am pleased to say that any disagreements about particular approaches and recommendations did not detract from the quality of the final report.

Finally I thank the committee secretariat for its work on this inquiry, in particular Mr Mark Roberts, the committee’s chief executive officer, who provided valuable leadership throughout the inquiry. I would also like to thank the committee’s research staff, including the principal researcher for this particular inquiry,



Mr Nathaniel Reader, and Dr Natalie Wray for their significant contributions to this report.

Mr P. DAVIS (Eastern Victoria) — In making some brief remarks about the report of the Electoral Matters Committee entitled Inquiry into Voter Participation and Informal Voting, which has just been presented to the house, I want to initially acknowledge the contribution made by a number of people, including all members of the committee and submitters to the inquiry, particularly those who were invited by the committee to provide evidence and background, including those engaged in the committee’s investigatory trip overseas last year.

I particularly want to mention the staff of the committee before I talk about matters the committee did not agree on. The staff of the committee provided an important role in ensuring a comprehensive report was prepared and that it synthesised the evidence provided. Mark Roberts, the committee’s executive officer, Nathaniel Reader, the principal researcher, and Natalie Wray all made a significant contribution to the report, as was the consensual and compromising approach of all members of the committee so far as that was possible. But inevitably there are some matters upon which consensus and compromise are not possible.

I do not intend to speak on those matters where there was agreement by the committee. I particularly want to refer to a couple of issues where there was disagreement. I urge members to read the report and take note generally of the recommendations, but also particularly refer to the minority report, which is an appendix on page 214 of the report, for those who are looking to reference it as members speak today.

It is important to note the minority report from the point of view of two matters of principle which I will go to. The minority report refers to coalition committee members not supporting recommendations proposed and supported by Labor members — that is, recommendations 3.1 and 5.3.

Recommendation 3.1 deals with maximising electoral enrolment and referring the matter to the Victorian government to examine legislative reform in respect of smart enrolment, automatic enrolment, election day registration and a dormant roll. Further, recommendation 5.3 refers to the formality and interpretation provisions of the Electoral Act in relation to examining the South Australian ticket voting model as a possible change.

The issue substantially is this: in terms of the opposition of coalition members to these two recommendations, it

is important for the house to note that the committee itself provided the reference — in other words, the committee self-referenced this inquiry into voter participation and informal voting in Victoria. The committee conducted the inquiry over many months and included collecting evidence from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Then it recommended that the government inquire into essentially the same matter, which seems totally inconsistent with the responsibilities of the committee.

Coalition members essentially believe the committee has an obligation to reach a conclusion on the proposals referred to it in the contested recommendations rather than handballing them to the government for further inquiry. It seems an abrogation of the responsibility of the committee members themselves, having provided themselves with a reference and conducted an exhaustive inquiry, to come to no conclusion other than to recommend that the government conduct a further inquiry.

It is evident that in all the work and recommendations of the committee to date, including within this report, we have highlighted the need for the emphasis to be on the importance of harmonisation of state and federal electoral laws. Coalition members argue strongly in support of streamlining the enrolment process, subject to maintaining consistency with federal electoral law and the primary obligation to preserve the integrity of the electoral roll. As a matter of principle, members support measures to enhance harmonisation of electoral laws and make the process of enrolment easier for citizens. Therefore, such measures as, for example, ‘smart enrolment’ — where the electoral commissioner uses information already held about citizens to effectively abbreviate the enrolment process for new enrolees — hold significant benefit. It is also important to note that measures proposed by Labor members for further consideration, such as direct or automatic enrolment, fundamentally change the civic balance between the citizen and government and the responsibility of citizens in our democracy.

It is useful to note that the Victorian Electoral Commission, in its evidence in the report at paragraph 3.106, explains that:

Such a system would reverse the responsibility for registration from the individual to the government.

This measure would turn upside down 150 years of democratic practice in Victoria. It is evident that for government to assert the right to enrol citizens, even without their knowledge, is fundamentally undemocratic and an abrogation of the longstanding



civic rights and responsibilities of individuals in our society.

Enrolling to vote has always been a right and a responsibility of individual citizens, and that right and responsibility should not be taken away and, in effect, usurped by government. This is therefore a recommendation which coalition members cannot support. Similarly, the recommendation proposed by Labor members of the committee that the government examine so-called ticket voting is not one which coalition members can support.

Coalition members do not believe the government of the day or the Parliament should have the role of deeming what a particular voter may intend by a clearly marked ballot paper. Coalition members believe that a voter’s clearly marked ballot paper should be taken as it is found. Any other action imports to the voter an intention that may not be held, and therefore interferes with that voter’s exercise of his or her democratic rights.

It is clear that there are a couple of issues in the recommendations of the report which were adopted by a simple majority of the committee on the basis that the committee — as reflected in most of the committees of the Parliament — is dominated by the government. Therefore these recommendations cannot be a true reflection of the general independent and objective view of the members of the Parliament as a whole. On these matters it is clear that there is an in-principle or philosophical view held by the government which is not shared by other members of this Parliament.

My opinion is that this report is a useful contribution to the discussion about what I would describe as participation in our democratic process by electors. But on the whole the recommendations are generally supported by all members of the committee because, as I said at the outset, it is a matter of consensus and compromise. But those two fundamental points are totally inconsistent with the general view of members — certainly on this side of the house — about the role, rights, responsibilities and obligations of citizens in our civic society to participate and make an informed choice. It would seem to coalition members that members of the government party are more interested in aggregating numbers, irrespective of the choices made by individuals.

Ms BROAD (Northern Victoria) — I also rise to make some remarks on the report of the Electoral Matters Committee’s inquiry into voter participation and informal voting. At the outset I also wish to add my acknowledgement and thanks to all members of the

committee, particularly the chair, Mr Somyurek; the staff of the committee; and the many individuals and organisations who went to the trouble to make submissions both written and in person in Victoria and overseas. In some cases they were followed up with further information in response to much questioning by members of the committee. In particular I will single out the Victorian Electoral Commission and the Victorian electoral commissioner for the very generous advice they provided to the committee over an extended period.

I wish to focus my remarks this morning on recommendation 3.1 contained in the committee’s report. That recommendation, which has also been addressed by the two previous speakers is that:

… the Victorian government examine legislative reform to achieve the following goals:

maximising the electoral enrolment of eligible Victorians, including enforcement of the compulsory enrolment provisions of the Electoral Act 2002 (Vic); and

ensuring the accuracy of the electoral roll and prevention of fraudulent enrolment.

The majority of the committee, the Labor members, put forward four specific options which they believe warrant government examination and consideration. They are:

smart enrolment;

automatic enrolment;

election day registration (EDR); and

a dormant roll.

Inherent in that recommendation is an acknowledgement that legislative reform is required to act on those options. That of course means a government process, and it also means a parliamentary process in the event that the Victorian government considers these options and determines that they warrant it putting forward legislation for the Parliament.

I certainly recognise the limitations of parliamentary committees, and doing all of that and putting before the Parliament proposed legislation is certainly beyond the capacity of the committee. But if members of the house turn to chapter 3 of the report, they will immediately understand that the committee has given these matters a pretty comprehensive workout in considering their merit and putting forward evidence in support of the recommendations and the reasons that the majority of the committee members believe it is time action is

PAPER


taken in support of improvements to electoral enrolment.

I am going to briefly refer to some of the evidence, which I would urge members of this house to consider in coming to a view about these matters. Chapter 3 of the report, which focuses on electoral enrolment in Victoria, reports on the basis of evidence submitted to the committee by the Victorian Electoral Commission that at the 2006 Victorian state election 243 673 eligible electors did not vote. In addition, 66 807 of the 74 403 declaration votes cast were rejected. I might add, as is noted in chapter 3 of the report, that those electors whose declaration votes were rejected believed they were on the roll. They took the trouble to attempt to cast a vote; they wanted to participate in the process, but they were unable to do so. If you take those numbers together, you will appreciate that we are now talking about more than 300 000 Victorians who are eligible to be on the electoral roll, who are eligible to cast a vote but were unable to do so.

If you take into account that at the time of the 2006 election 408 000 electors were enrolled for Northern Victoria Region, which I represent, you realise that we are talking about a number of Victorians that is equivalent to three-quarters of the region I represent in this Parliament who were unable to cast votes. A substantial number of Victorians are not participating in the electoral process.

Members might think that in a democracy which is often singled out and commented upon, not just here but also internationally, because of some very distinguishing attributes — compulsory enrolment and compulsory voting — it is somewhat peculiar that the committee might have focused particularly on voter participation and on this matter of electoral enrolment. But when you start to move beyond talking about percentages and talk about the number of Victorians who are eligible to vote but are not participating, you very quickly appreciate that those Victorians certainly have the capacity to change the result of an election. Then any reasonable person would start to appreciate that this is having a profound effect on confidence in the representative nature of our electoral processes and democracy.

In addition to the numbers to which I have already referred, an organisation called the Democratic Audit of Australia went to some trouble in its submission to try to ascertain the total number of citizens who did not participate in the 2006 election due to a combination of factors: they were not on the roll, they were on the roll but did not turn out to vote, or they attempted to vote but spoilt their ballot paper.

This is not an easy number to calculate; I acknowledge that and commend the Democratic Audit of Australia for its efforts to place a realistic estimate on the number of citizens who did not participate. It came up with the number of citizens who did not participate in the election in Victoria in 2006 as 620 000, which is equivalent to 1.5 regions of the Legislative Council; we are talking about a great number of citizens who are not participating in our electoral system and whom all members of the house should be concerned about.

I will refer briefly to some of the concerns that have been raised and on which the committee has taken evidence in relation to fraudulent enrolment, which could possibly follow implementation of the recommendations contained in the committee’s report. The committee has taken extensive evidence on this point. I seek to summarise it with one very brief quote contained in the report, and that is evidence which comes from Wyoming’s former Republican attorney-general and secretary of state, Joseph B. Meyer, who is quoted in the report as saying that there have been very few cases, if any, of voter fraud, and that in his 35 years of governmental experience in the United States there has not been much evidence of it in his state.

I refer to that as an example of the very detailed evidence which is presented in the report in support of that particular recommendation from the majority of the committee — the Labor members of the committee — and I urge members of the house to take some time to consider the report and come to their own view on it.

Motion agreed to.

PAPER

Laid on table by Clerk:

Office of Police Integrity — Report on Review of the Use of Force by and against Victorian Police, July 2009.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Adjournment

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I move:

That the Council, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 11 August 2009.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE


STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Reporting date

Mr VINEY (Eastern Victoria) — By leave, I move:

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

In moving this motion I make the comment that the committee is continuing its work on that inquiry and has made good progress. However, an extension of the reporting date to 30 September 2009 would allow the committee to more thoroughly complete its work on that inquiry.

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — The opposition supports this extension. The committee is working steadily towards its goal of presenting this report. We look forward to working cooperatively on a number of these matters.

Motion agreed to.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Schools: Spirit of Anzac tour

Mr P. DAVIS (Eastern Victoria) — I make some remarks in relation to some correspondence I received from the Premier concerning the Premier’s Spirit of Anzac prize 2009 schools competition.

Mr D. Davis — You’re lucky he writes to you.

Mr P. DAVIS — Indeed, the Premier does write to me — I am so lucky. In relation to the schools competition, 10 students representing each of the education regions of Victoria will have the opportunity to participate in a two-week study tour to sites of enduring military and historical significance, centred on France, Belgium and Thailand. I note that this is a very worthwhile project, and I encourage all schools to participate and inform their students about this award.

I think it is invaluable to raise awareness of matters of important historical fact and the contribution of our forebears to civic society in Australia. But I note there seems to be no awareness under this program of the Second World War closer to home in the south-west Pacific. In having a look at the website earlier today I noted that there is virtually no reference at all to the battles in which Australians participated in the Coral

Sea and at Midway, Milne Bay, Buna, Gona, Shaggy Ridge and Lae. And there is no reference whatsoever to the importance of Kokoda to Australia’s military history. I would like to see the Premier extend and expand the information provided to students on this matter.

City of Monash: destruction of documents

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) — Recently I took the opportunity to raise certain matters in relation to concerns that have been raised with me with regard to the role of the ruling faction of ALP councillors in the City of Monash. Since then I have become aware that certain documents which could have proven or disproven allegations of fraud concerning nomination forms of a council candidate have been illegally shredded.

I took the opportunity to write to the Public Records Office to find out what the procedure would be to access those documents. I was informed by the director and keeper of public records, Justine Heazlewood, that the records should have been kept safely and secretly for four years under the relevant regulations referred to in section 114 of the Local Government (Electoral) Regulations 2005.

These records have been destroyed under a different piece of legislation — public record office legislation — which requires records to be kept for only three years. This is a breach of the law. There have been a number of failings cutting across a number of agencies. Notwithstanding the initiatives of certain agencies to instigate internal reviews of matters I have raised, which have been neither comprehensive nor complete, I would like to restate my call for the Premier to instigate an immediate investigation into all matters concerning the issues I have raised in this chamber about the City of Monash.

2Day FM: media standards

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria) — I was very disturbed to see media reports last night and this morning about the fracas over a slightly depraved segment on Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O’s program on 2Day FM, where a parent and her child were discussing on live radio really personal matters affecting the child. I believe that the programmers do not use a 7-second delay, and Mr Sandilands has now said he would not have dumped the segment even if he could have done so. While these shock jock radio tactics perhaps have a place, in the circumstances — having a 14-year-old child disclosing an incident of rape on live radio — this certainly is not a place for

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


children. I urge all Victorian parents to foster a positive, open relationship with their children where they can talk to them in places other than on live radio.

Liberal Party: document

Ms PULFORD — On another matter, I recently received in my letterbox some taxpayer-funded propaganda from one of the Liberal upper house members for Western Victoria Region. I note with dismay that the publication of Something is Wrong in Victoria fails to mention the bushfires, the global financial crisis and climate change, among other things. But I was pleased to see page 23 has been left blank, in case there is ever a policy idea.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The member’s time has expired.

Schools: retention rates

Mr DRUM (Northern Victoria) — My issue this morning concerns year 12 completion rates. Over the past five years there has been a slight fall across all Victorian schools in student retention rates between years 7 to 12 and years 10 to 12. The decline has been most marked in government schools, particularly in government schools in the country. In 2002 all schools had a year 12 retention rate of 85.3 per cent; that has now fallen to 84.2 per cent. If you remove private schools from consideration, all government schools had a retention rate of 80.7 per cent in 2002; that rate is currently 78.2 per cent. Government schools in the country had a rate of 72 per cent in 2002, which is down to 67 per cent currently.

Members of the government have made a great play of claiming that they have increased retention rates through additional funding. In 2005 the then Premier said in Parliament:

We have lifted retention rates. More young people are staying longer at school than they have stayed in Victoria’s history …

That is quite simply a lie. He went on to say:

We are well on target to achieve our ambition in 2010 to have 90 per cent of all young people stay on for year 12 education.

That is simply not going to happen. Whether you look at the Australian Bureau of Statistics data or the Victorian schools data, in effect the government is not achieving its target rates for year 12 retention.

Austin Hospital: government funding

Mr ELASMAR (Northern Metropolitan) — On Wednesday, 15 July, I attended a presentation by the

Minister for Health, Daniel Andrews, of a $4 million cheque to the Austin Hospital. It will go towards the purchase of a cyclotron. The Austin Hospital is known for its state-of-the-art medical technology. The cyclotron will enable diagnostic assessments of the effectiveness of cancer treatments. Yet again the Labor government is putting real cash resources into the health system.

City of Darebin: greenhouse gas emissions

Mr ELASMAR — At a July briefing by Darebin councillors I was informed that ‘plan B’, an agenda for immediate climate action, has been supported. This follows a report to the council from a coalition of environment groups calling for immediate action to achieve genuine reductions in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. This plan has been developed by no less than 12 Australian environment groups, including Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Environment Victoria. The council will lobby the federal government to promote measures to reduce energy use, grow the jobs economy, support sustainable farming and move Australia towards becoming a renewable energy economy. I fully support this action, and I will be lending my voice to this most worthy endeavour.

Racing: jumps events

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — Last Saturday I joined protesters outside Moonee Valley Racecourse to protest against the two jumps racing events scheduled for that day. One horse fell in the first race but appeared to have recovered. However, to the dismay of all present, another horse, Geeorb, fell in the last race and was destroyed on the track. The Minister for Racing has stated publicly, and in answer to a question from me, that ‘The industry has been put on notice that the events of the 2008 jumps racing season cannot be repeated’.

The statistics for the 2008 jumps racing season in Victoria have now been exceeded, with 44 falls in 32 races; 9 deaths from 56 races; and 2 deaths in trials, including 1 yesterday. The death rate for horses in jumps racing is now 1 in 65 starters, and the fall rate for horses in jumps races is now 1 for every 14 horses that start a race. These are the worst figures on record in Victoria, and they have exceeded the 2008 figures. It is time for the minister to be true to his own commitment to the people of Victoria — that the statistics of 2008 cannot be repeated — and I ask that he ban jumps racing in Victoria now and for ever.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


Frankston: mental health facility

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I draw the house’s attention to a petition entitled ‘Petition against the construction and commission of a PARC unit at 55–57 Screen Street in Frankston, Victoria’. It is addressed to ‘the minister for mental health, community services and senior Victorians in the Parliament of Victoria’ and reads:

The petition of the citizens of Victoria draws attention to the fear and anguish caused to local residents in the neighbourhood vicinity of 55–57 Screen Street in Frankston by the proposed building and commissioning of a prevention and recovery care (PARC) unit at that address by the Department of Human Services — mental health and drugs division, in partnership with the Mental Illness Fellowship of Victoria and Peninsula Health. The unit and its patients are considered inappropriate for this residential area and pose a threat to the comfort and quiet enjoyment of the neighbourhood by its residents.

The petitioners therefore call upon you to immediately instruct the Department of Human Services — mental health and drugs division to abandon or relocate this project and sell the current proposed site of 55–57 Screen Street in Frankston, Victoria, to a non-government-funded buyer.

The petition contains 234 signatures.

Walk for Harmony

Mr EIDEH (Western Metropolitan) — Recently many members of this house joined the Premier in his vision of a Walk for Harmony to confirm Victoria as a culturally diverse and harmonious state. The walk was about strengthening the diverse multicultural community that makes Victoria the richest state in the nation. It was an acknowledgement that if we work together, we can bridge any divide, cross any barrier and build a better path for the future road which we must all travel.

The sight of people from all walks of life and from more ethnic groups than you would normally see in one place coming together to promote our commitment to peace and harmony made me very proud to be a Victorian. As a former Harmony Day ambassador, I was impressed. I walked alongside children and older Victorians, alongside people in colourful clothing representing their home countries with goodwill in their hearts. One police member with whom I spoke estimated that approximately 10 000 people were there for this special walk. I commend the Premier for his leadership, and I also commend each and every member from both houses and all political parties who attended on that day.

National Homeless Persons Week

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) — Next week, from 2 August to 8 August, is National Homeless Persons Week. It provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the 20 511 Victorians who have been identified as homeless and the further 2788 Victorians who are marginal residents of caravan parks.

Homelessness can be caused by poverty, unemployment and a critical shortage of affordable housing, but it is important to note that domestic violence is the single largest cause of homelessness in Australia. Homelessness results in social, economic and health costs to individuals, families, communities and the state. It makes it difficult to maintain school attendance for children and leaves people vulnerable to long-term unemployment and chronic ill health.

It is important for every member of Parliament to have a better understanding of homeless persons and the causes of homelessness in order for us to develop more effective programs to address this serious issue. I encourage all members to take the opportunity during National Homeless Persons Week to learn more about this important issue.

Hazel Glen Drive, Laurimar: extension

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — On 17 July I had the pleasure of officially opening the Delfin Lend Lease Hazel Glen Drive and Plenty Road connection to Laurimar and Doreen. The $45 million project has seen the construction of a new 60-metre bridge over Plenty River and a new asphalted road from Hazel Glen Drive to Plenty Road. With this new road link, residents at Laurimar now have greater access to Melbourne’s growing northern suburbs communities and a safe and efficient way to travel to the central business district. Surrounding communities are also set to benefit, with easy access to Laurimar’s town centre and its schooling, retail and business amenities. Melbourne is a growing city, and successful urban developments such as Laurimar showcase how, by working together, we can deliver vibrant and livable communities.

Plenty Road, South Morang: duplication

Ms MIKAKOS — On another matter, I congratulate the Minister for Roads and Ports, Tim Pallas, on last week announcing $17 million to extend the Plenty Road duplication a further 1.7 kilometres south of Gordons Road to Hawkstowe Parade, including on-road bicycle lanes in both directions. Plenty Road is a vital north–south link from inner

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


Melbourne to the northern suburbs, and this latest stage of the duplication will generate up to 100 new jobs and assist people living in the northern suburbs to commute more easily on a daily basis.

Buses: northern suburbs

Ms MIKAKOS — I also congratulate the Minister for Public Transport, Lynne Kosky, on improvements to bus routes 572 and 520, which will benefit the residents of some of Melbourne’s growing northern communities in South Morang, Mernda, Doreen, University Hill, Greensborough, Plenty and Yarrambat.

Schools: Bentleigh

Ms HUPPERT (Southern Metropolitan) — On 20 July I was delighted to have the opportunity to accompany the Premier, the Minister for Education and the member for Bentleigh in the other place to the opening of two multimillion-dollar school building projects at Bentleigh West Primary School and Bentleigh Secondary College.

The $6.1 million redevelopment at Bentleigh West Primary School has transformed the school, with three new dedicated learning centres and two new hard court areas for students to enjoy sport and play. Bentleigh West Primary School is also the winner of a 2009 Premier’s sustainability award, which recognised the emphasis placed on the environment in both the school’s curriculum and its buildings and grounds. The school has a full-time environmental science coordinator and provides education opportunities to other schools and community groups. I was very impressed with the school’s in-house journalists, who recorded and filmed the visit for the school’s TV station and accompanied the professional journalists on their rounds of the school.

I also attended the opening of a $5.5 million stage 2 redevelopment of Bentleigh Secondary College. The Victorian government provided $3 million towards the project, with the commonwealth government contributing $2.5 million. This funding has resulted in a high-tech learning centre, a library, four science labs and open-plan classrooms, providing 21st-century facilities for a 21st-century education. Bentleigh Secondary College also has a strong environmental focus, with a wetlands area that will filter and recycle stormwater for reuse. It was wonderful to see the new buildings, which have been submitted by the architect for the 2009 school design awards, being used and enjoyed by so many students.

Charlton: harness racing

Ms DARVENIZA (Northern Victoria) — On 1 July I was pleased to visit Charlton and announce a $160 000 government grant for a project to entice harness racing trainers to base themselves in Charlton. Stage 1 of the Charlton racing project involves the Charlton Harness Racing Club developing a purpose-built training complex to attract new and existing trainers. The project involves the establishment of lots, each with sheds comprising stalls, a water tank and a room for equine equipment. Each lot, which will be available for long-term lease, will have nine separate horse yards. This project is expected to attract between 5 and 10 harness racing trainers and their families to relocate to Charlton and develop at least five small businesses. I congratulate all those who are involved in this exciting new project.

Manangatang: streetscape development

Ms DARVENIZA — On another matter, on 8 July I was pleased to visit Manangatang to announce a government grant of more than $50 500 for the Manangatang streetscape development. This terrific project will develop Wattle Street, Manangatang. It involves creating a shaded rotunda next to an amenities block to encourage travellers to stop and rest; establishing a community drought garden to demonstrate innovative landscape and water-saving design principles; providing pram and gofer kerb crossings on Wattle Street; and constructing a shade sail over the picnic area.

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

State Trustees: relocation

Mr SOMYUREK (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I rise to congratulate Treasurer John Lenders and the Brumby government on the initiative to deliver jobs now and support local families in Dandenong with the relocation of the State Trustees to its southern service centre in Dandenong. This will take place within 12 months as part of a strategic move for the State Trustees to be closer to its customers, and it will bring up to 100 jobs to the area. Last month I was fortunate to join Mr Lenders along with the State Trustees managing director, Tony Fitzgerald, and the chairperson, Julie Elliott, on the site for the announcement of the first office in the State Trustees staged decentralisation program.

A large number of State Trustees clients live in and around Dandenong, and the new office will make it

STATEMENTS ON REPORTS AND PAPERS


easier for the local community to access its range of financial and legal services. Dandenong was selected for the service centre because of the volume of clients and staff who are located in surrounding areas and the site’s close proximity to Dandenong’s transit hub, with access to bus and train services. The new State Trustees office will be located at 157 Lonsdale Street, Dandenong, and is expected to open by the middle of next year.


Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee: strategies to prevent high-volume offending and

recidivism by young people

Mrs COOTE (Southern Metropolitan) — I wish to speak today on the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee’s report entitled Inquiry into Strategies to Prevent High Volume Offending and Recidivism by Young People. This excellent report was presented to both houses of Parliament this week, and I encourage people to look at it in detail. As I said when the report was tabled in this chamber, frequently we read about young people in our community who are perpetrating all sorts of violent crime and are involved in a whole range of other incidents. Judging by the media’s negative approach, we would be led to believe that most young people in our community are troublemakers and that they cause major problems. This is not actually the case, and it was pleasing for committee members to see and recognise that.

However, a number of vulnerable young people in our community are perpetrating crimes, and the recidivism rate is increasing. There are some major problems in determining the underlying strategies for how we should deal with this issue in the future. I have said that one of the reasons we cannot yet be making proper policy is that we do not have the empirical data to base those strategies on. This is a key recommendation of the report and something I would like to see happen as a matter of urgency. The government should implement a longitudinal study into the crimes that are committed by people in various age groups so that it can watch and monitor what is happening.

Some excellent work was done on behalf of the committee by the Australian Institute of Criminology. There are two interesting but quite concerning statistics that came out of that work. One was on how many violent crimes are being committed by younger boys — quite young boys, in some instances. That is an unacceptable increase and something we should be addressing. The other statistic relates to the increase in

crimes being perpetrated by young women; these are increasing in both number and the ways in which the crimes are being perpetrated, and that is a major concern.

One of the very pleasing things that came out of the inquiry was the focus on some of the diversionary programs. An excellent program called Ropes, operated by the police, is targeted at people experiencing their first interaction with the criminal justice system. It should be given additional funding and expanded right across the state.

I shall read from the report a description of exactly what is involved, because I believe it is something that should be instigated. What actually happens in the Ropes program is mentioned at page 204 of the report; in part it says:

The offence must be within the courts summary jurisdiction.

The young person must be aged between 12 and 18 years of age, admit the offence, be appearing before the court for the first time and must not previously have participated in a Ropes program …

The informant must recommend the young person for the program.

The young person and parent/guardian must consent to participation.

The presiding judicial officer must authorise participation in the program.

This is an excellent program. The committee went out to Altona to have a look at it being conducted. The day started with a group of young people who had been apprehended by the police officers who were present at Altona on that day. They were working together on climbing very steep rock faces.

The feeling between the young people and the police at the beginning of the day was total antagonism, because these were the officers who had actually picked them up. During the lunchtime break, in which we were involved, it was interesting that the police officer in charge asked the group, ‘What would you like to do in your life? What sort of areas would you like to be involved in?’. These young people were male and female 14 to 16-year-olds. Some in the group said they wanted to be real estate agents, others said they wanted to work in child care, aged care or retail, some wanted to travel, and one wanted to be a tattooist.

The interesting part was when the police officer pointed out that they would not be able to travel into countries such as the United Kingdom or America if they had a conviction — that they would not be able to do that sort of travel. Those children had no idea that that would be



the ramification of a conviction. They were told they would not be able to work in real estate because they would not be able to go through people’s houses if they had a conviction. They would not be able to work with children, young people or with the elderly if they had a conviction, which came as an enormous surprise to them.

Part of this program involves the parents, who were horrified that their children had been apprehended in the first place, and who were working very closely with the program to make certain that their children were kept out of the juvenile justice system and set on a road to recovery, so to speak.

By the end of the day the relationship between the young people and the police officers who had apprehended them, who all had to trust one another while learning to climb the rock faces, was quite interesting. There had been a lot of discussion and a lot of rapport and understanding was developed; it all helped to break down the barriers of what had started out at the beginning of the day as quite an antagonistic relationship.

This type of program shows what work is needed in the community to try to get young people who are going down the path of offending pointed in the right direction — for example, cooperation between the police and the offender, cooperation between the juvenile justice system and the offender and the offender’s parents, with a diversionary program to try to get the young person involved to understand the ramifications of their actions so that into the future they could be diverted from a downhill spiral which could lead into a whole range of really bad experiences, most probably ending up in the juvenile justice system with a bad prognosis into the future.

I recommend this diversionary program and the report.

Victorian Multicultural Commission: Victorian government achievements in multicultural

affairs 2007–08

Mr ELASMAR (Northern Metropolitan) — I rise to speak on the Victorian Multicultural Commission’s report to the Parliament, entitled Victorian Government Achievements in Multicultural Affairs 2007–08.

I read this report with great pleasure and interest. I was pleased to see the Victorian government initiatives have been implemented to further strengthen the role and functions of the Victorian Multicultural Commission. I recall speaking to the last multicultural affairs report in

this house in 2008. It gave me pleasure to speak then, and I am delighted to do so again.

The commission provided many noteworthy programs in 2008. In fact so many enhanced programs are being run for our newly arrived migrants that I congratulate the commission on its passionate commitment to improving and enriching the lives of migrants.

In Victoria we are proud to be known as a truly multicultural state. It still amazes me that Victoria has 200 different nationalities and over 200 languages, with more than 120 faiths. Those statistics are staggering, and the diversity of cultures and religions is surely a positive magnet for all nations to seek a permanent home in such a tolerant and grateful society.

I say ‘grateful’ because we are all grateful for our choice of restaurants, delicatessens and cafes, and we enjoy unreservedly the diverse arts and entertainment provided by our brothers and sisters from across the world. We marvel at our many splendid churches and mosques. Yes, we are a nation of immigrants — and it shows! It shows in our commitment to fund and provide substantial practical assistance to our international newcomers. It is evident in the generous funding allocation by the Brumby Labor government, and that is as it should be. Nice words about multiculturalism without money are cheap; substantial funding is required, and that is what is being provided.

Recently the Brumby government finalised its commissioner appointments. Looking at the background of the appointees, I was very impressed with the fact that the majority of those appointees come from all walks of life and from other nations. The diversity of faiths and expertise in these appointees shows that the commissioners have been well chosen, but it also demonstrates their personal commitment and gratitude in giving back to multicultural Victoria the benefit of their experience and skills.

We as a state will continue to welcome refugees and skilled migrants with open arms. Our willingness to accept and adopt other races into our communities demonstrates to the world that we are indeed a multicultural society. We are still mindful of the importance of maintaining a cultural link with the countries of our birth while at the same time ensuring that our new Australians respect our system of government, our freedoms of expression and association and, importantly, our freedoms of religion. We will continue to provide training and housing assistance and an environment which is safe and, most importantly, a place to call home. I encourage our new arrivals to avail themselves of the opportunities



presented to them, for this will empower them and their children for many generations to come. I commend the report to the house.

Victorian Child Death Review Committee: report 2009

Mrs KRONBERG (Eastern Metropolitan) — I rise to provide insight into the annual report of inquiries into the deaths of children known to child protection services. This is the 14th annual report of the Victorian Child Death Review Committee, which provides a multidisciplinary external review of the deaths of children under child protection. The committee identifies common themes and emerging trends which result from the aggregation of an examination of each tragedy on a case-by-case basis. The committee examines each case regardless of the cause of death of the child.

Of the 16 child deaths reported to the child safety commissioner in the period, 5 were attributed to congenital or acquired illness, 4 to suicide, 2 to SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) and 1 to substance abuse. Four have yet to have a cause of death determined and coronial inquiries are pending. It is important to note that of the group of 16 children who died whilst under child protection 25 per cent were Aboriginal. Aboriginal children are consistently overrepresented. Statistics reveal that between the years 2000 and 2008, of 158 children who died, 23 — or 15 per cent — were Aboriginal.

The committee also examined elements such as the living arrangements of each child, including whether or not they were in foster care, extended care, residential care and so forth. The most prevalent risk factor for some was parental substance abuse, and 86 per cent of child deaths have been attributed to that. The next factor is family violence at 79 per cent, and then it is parental mental illness at 57 per cent. Significant concerns of the committee centre on the coexistence of and interaction with multiple risk factors. Ten out of 14 of the cases reviewed presented with more than two parental risk factors, including homelessness and transience. As a result of the 14 child deaths, cases were reviewed and themes have been developed as a way of responding to, say, vulnerable infants, children with complex medical needs, and deaths from unexpected natural causes. It is interesting to note that while two children have been reported as dying from SIDS, one has been reported as dying from — and I am not quite sure what it means — co-sleeping, which is the term that is used. Another undetermined death resulted from what is described as being ‘associated with sleeping arrangements’. I can only think that parents with

multiple problems collapsed on their children and smothered them or something.

The review found that the child protection assessment of all four cases was episodic and lacked assertiveness — this is important — and decisiveness on the part of child protection despite issues of chronic risk and cumulative harm. The committee also stresses the importance of intervening early. Despite multiple child protection notifications in Victoria and in other states children are still very much at risk in this state because of severe and chronic issues that are already known.

The report highlights that there was a systemic failure ‘to respond earlier to the chronic abuse and neglect’ in the lives of two young women whose deaths were also examined. Those two young women were said to have committed suicide. The report stresses the need to provide a ‘therapeutic response’ for young people who are hard to help. It states that all practitioners involved should use ‘a trauma-informed case work perspective when interpreting the meaning of information related to the developmental histories and risk-taking behaviours’ of such young people. There needs to be a partnership between services to establish a care team across a range of involved services. Of course, there needs to be an agreement about both the assessment and the direction of any collaborative intervention.

Further, the report stresses that there was:

a plethora of information gathered but insufficient analysis of this information associated with a deficit in recognising patterns.

Furthermore, the report highlights instances — —

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

Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee: strategies to prevent high-volume offending and

recidivism by young people

Mr SCHEFFER (Eastern Victoria) — Chapter 2 of the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee’s final report on its Inquiry into Strategies to Prevent High Volume Offending and Recidivism by Young People sets out what is known statistically about high-volume and repeat youth crime in Victoria. While it is difficult to draw a simple summary from the figures shown, the chapter identifies a number of key findings that throw light on the nature of youth crime in Victoria. These include the fact that around one-fifth of offenders apprehended by police are under the age of 18, and 40 per cent of those are first-time offenders, which



obviously means that 60 per cent have already been caught on at least one previous occasion. One in three is apprehended for theft and one in five for a violent offence.

The report states that youths are disproportionately overrepresented in property offending and underrepresented in violence, drug and other offending. More specifically, 16 per cent were apprehended for property damage, 15 per cent for shop stealing, 14 per cent for assault, and 11 per cent for burglary. Drug offences ranked at 2 per cent.

The chapter presents a number of very useful figures that disaggregate the cohorts of offenders by gender and by age, for example. That makes it easier to understand the respective proportions of offenders of different types and also to see the types of offences and the outcomes of their first being apprehended.

The data used derives from 1984. The report indicates this is useful because it can contextualise the size and nature of youth crime in a single year, but it has the disadvantage of being incapable of showing how criminal behaviour changes over time. The committee commissioned research to show the developmental pathways of offenders. The data forms a fairly complex picture that is not easy to absorb without some study.

The report draws the data together and states that the first important conclusion is that it is crucial that youth crime is tackled early in the life of a young offender. It is also important that a balance is struck that does not, on the one hand, romanticise, or, on the other, humiliate offenders. Inappropriate responses to young people who offend may push them into a pattern of further offending. The report says we need to find ways to nip the behaviour in the bud and avoid progressively miring a young person in the justice system as we try to separate them from it.

The report also says we need to be able to distinguish between young people at the beginning of what may be a life of offending and those who are passing through a fairly normal, juvenile rebellious phase of adolescence. In the first instance the behaviour may be related to a range of familial and social dysfunctions and needs speedy and effective intervention. But in the second instance the individual involved may just need to be cautioned or taken in hand. This is a big report that covers a lot of ground.

Besides the valuable data presented in chapter 2 that looks at the extent of this type of offending, the report examines the factors that may cause young people to offend and the issues concerning career pathways into

crime. The second part of the report examines strategies to reduce offending. The committee should be congratulated for supporting a rights-based approach and stepping away from the more traditional, punitive approaches.

The committee firmly places the issue in the realm of children’s rights, and states we should not lose sight of the fact that the young people who are subject of the inquiry are children in the eyes of both the international and national legal systems. However, the committee balances the rights of child offenders and our responsibility as adults to ensure their wellbeing with the rights of the community that should not be offended against. The fact that the offenders are children does not minimise the harm they can inflict against other citizens. Children also have responsibilities commensurate with their age and understanding.

The report examines the issues involved in coordinating the complex variety of youth needs and emphasises that the many responsible agencies must find ways of working together. The report examines issues relating to child development, parenting, welfare, education, training, employment, community capacity building, diversionary approaches, the role of the police and the justice system and targeting strategies to the needs of particular cohorts such as indigenous youth, young women, homeless young people, those from culturally and linguistically diverse groups and those who have disabilities, mental health needs or who confront substance abuse issues.

I commend the committee members and the research team for the production of this wide-ranging and thoroughly researched report on an important issue.

Education and Training Committee: geographical differences in the rate in which

Victorian students participate in higher education

Mr DRUM (Northern Victoria) — My statement is on the Inquiry into Geographical Differences in the Rate in which Victorian Students Participate in Higher Education. On page 29 of the report there is a graph that lays out the number of school leavers who are the recipients of offers and their rates of enrolment in, deferral and rejection of university places in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. It shows that the deferral rate for metropolitan students sits at around 10.5 per cent of all students who are offered a place. Three years ago that rate was 7.9 per cent, so there has been a slight increase of 2.6 per cent. Three years ago that rate in terms of regional students was 24.4 per cent; it now sits at 33 per cent. There are now three times the



number of regional and rural students deferring compared to their city counterparts. That is something which we need to be very conscious of. The report goes on to highlight this in greater detail — that is, there is a disproportionately higher deferment rate among non-metropolitan school leavers. This is a recurring theme throughout the inquiry and was of great concern to the committee.

The report refers to access to the youth allowance, which enables people to access higher education. The committee heard evidence that the youth allowance eligibility criteria are inequitable for farmers and business owners because their assets, including land, provide an income and cannot be liquidated. That is a part of the eligibility criteria.

The report says in relation to the youth allowance:

The committee also notes that the removal of the main workforce participation route to independence will have a detrimental impact on many students who deferred their studies during 2009 in order to work and earn sufficient money to be eligible for youth allowance.

…

The committee believes that the inequities are greatest between metropolitan and non-metropolitan young people, with rural students who move away from home —

and that is the big emphasis of the report. It is not so much about whether your parents earn a certain amount. If you have to move away from home — it does not matter whether you are in a regional centre or in a city — the committee is very adamant you should be able to access youth allowance. The report says:

The committee therefore recommends that the Victorian government advocate to the Australian government that all young people who are required to relocate for their studies be eligible to receive youth allowance.

That is something we need to be mindful of.

The conclusion on page 200 states:

While the committee’s investigations found that the range of factors discussed throughout this report explain geographical differences in the rate in which Victorian students participate in higher education, it is clear that the costs of study are an important contributor.

…

It is also the committee’s view that all students who are required to relocate to undertake tertiary studies should be eligible to receive youth allowance. The committee believes that the Victorian government should advocate … for these changes.

The recommendations state:

7.1 That the Victorian government advocate to the Australian government for an increase to student income support payments, taking into account costs of living.

7.2 That the Victorian government advocate to the Australian government that young people who are required to relocate to undertake tertiary studies be eligible to receive youth allowance.

7.3 That the Victorian government, in collaboration with universities, pilot an early intervention scholarship program for students from underrepresented groups and areas.

The committee is effectively calling on the Victorian government to get involved in helping out with some of these financial costs. It is certainly a stark reminder to us all that so many families out there will be affected by the recent changes. The inquiry uses language along the lines of it having a disastrous impact on rural and regional families. It will further exacerbate the difference in the take-up of university places that is caused by geographical differences.

Gardiner Foundation: annual review 2008

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria) — I wish to make some comments about the Gardiner Foundation annual review 2008. In doing so I draw the attention of the house to the comprehensive work the foundation undertakes throughout Victoria. For those who might not be all that familiar with the foundation and by way of background, the foundation was established in 2001. Its brief was to bring about progress in the dairy industry, not just in research and innovation but also in support for dairy communities, as well as strategies for engaging younger people in the industry to stay in the industry and be equal partners.

The foundation is named after Geoffrey Gardiner, who was a Victorian dairy farmer and a very prominent dairy farmer leader. He passed away in 1999. It was seen as fitting that the foundation adopt his name as he was heavily involved in a whole range of dairy industry organisations. The primary premise of the foundation is essentially to encourage and inspire dairy families to engage in and be advocates of the dairy industry and to develop strategies to have a future within the industry.

As we know, most of our primary producers have been doing it tough, not just over the last couple of years but beyond that. In the last few years we have seen the impact of climate change, the global financial crisis and increased competition and how that is affecting our primary industries. We have also seen the devastating impact on our dairy industry of a decrease in milk prices.



The particular features of the foundation are in the area of innovation and research. It also has a funding program to assist local communities in their specific needs. It has programs that knit together dairy families who are stressed so they can seek assistance, and it has programs to assist with the next generation.

In terms of the innovation program, in this reporting period it had an enormous number of projects. I will not go into all of them, but there were four projects it entered into with the Department of Primary Industries. They ranged from developing management tools to improve feed conversion to the development of industry guidelines on dairy cattle feed pads and free-stall barns. In terms of community development, as part of the Gateways 4 Sustainable Communities program there was a partnership with a number of councils to address the needs of young people for training and skills development while maintaining health and wellbeing. The foundation also sponsored involvement in the Australian Rural Leadership Foundation, and five young people were successful in gaining Gardiner Dairy Scholarships in 2008.

The program that assists young people in the dairy industry, the Young Dairy Development Program, is now under the stewardship of a number of dairy industry programs, not just the Gardiner Foundation. It strikes me more and more that it is incredibly important for people to be very aware and to hone their skills and networks towards that next generation.

In the time I have left, can I encourage people, particularly those in the agricultural sector, to look at the work this foundation does. I draw people’s attention to the fact that the next funding round for the Gardiner Foundation opens in February 2010 and closes in March 2010. It offers an enormous amount to our dairy industry for the future.

Education and Training Committee: geographical differences in the rate in which

Victorian students participate in higher education

Mr P. DAVIS (Eastern Victoria) — Reflecting on the previous member’s contribution, yes, Geoff Gardiner was a fine advocate for the dairy industry; he had the outstanding characteristics of being a great advocate for his industry and for rural communities. In that context I would like to make some comments about rural communities, particularly in relation to the report on the inquiry into geographical differences in the rate in which Victorian students participate in higher education conducted by the parliamentary Education and Training Committee. The report comments on a

number of matters but gives emphasis to the important disadvantage suffered by rural communities and rural tertiary students in particular.

I make the point that this report, as comprehensive as it is in dealing with a range of issues, is timely because of the federal government’s recent announcement concerning a change in policy on the provision of support for tertiary students and the consequent effect on students from country Victoria.

Country Victorians have been stunned. I suggest that on a national basis — I presume that is the case, but I cannot speak for other states — and I know particularly in Gippsland and country Victoria at large, parents and rural communities have been stunned by the callous disregard for the inequity of this change in federal government policy on the provision of support for students from all sectors and what it will mean to the acceptance rate or application rate by country students.

A lot of rural students find it challenging enough to have to leave their homes, their families and the towns in which they have been educated and have grown up and to move to the city for tertiary education. But let the report speak for itself. In chapter 7, on page 169, the report states:

The committee also found evidence of significant geographical differences in the impact of costs on participation in higher education. First, people in disadvantaged socioeconomic circumstances are less likely to be able to meet these costs, and participation may therefore be affected in geographic areas with high levels of socioeconomic disadvantage. In addition, travel and relocation impose additional costs on students who live away from home to study. The committee heard that this is a particular concern for people in rural and regional Victoria. There is a widespread view that reducing the financial barriers would therefore be a significant step towards addressing geographical differences in the rate in which Victorian students participate in higher education.

The fact the committee highlighted the importance of this matter is significant in the sense that we know there have been differences in participation rates for students in the country compared to those in urban areas. To highlight a comparator, during 2007–08 it was found that 89.8 per cent of students applied for university courses in one metropolitan area, compared to 68.9 per cent in one regional area.

Of course these are the extremes, but they do highlight the case. More interesting were the deferment rates, with students from metropolitan areas deferring at an average rate of 10 per cent compared to 33 per cent of students from non-metropolitan areas in the same year. That is because of the difficulty of financing a tertiary education.



I want to make the point that of the issues constituents have highlighted to me over the last year, probably this one has caused the greatest level of personal anguish to families of perspective tertiary students. It is an enormous concern that students from country areas will be put in the invidious position of simply not having the choice to participate in tertiary education in the future. As it is, the major cause for deferment by students from non-metropolitan areas was to qualify for youth allowance. They deferred to meet the criteria which the federal government had previously imposed. Now that those criteria have been changed, and in an arbitrary way made more difficult, that deferment will convert into a cancellation of any aspirations for tertiary education.

Victorian Electoral Commission: annual report 2007–08

Ms BROAD (Northern Victoria) — I wish to make some remarks today on the Victorian Electoral Commission annual report for 2007–08. At the outset I acknowledge the electoral commissioner for Victoria, Mr Steve Tully, and the staff of the VEC for their efforts to help ensure fair representation for all Victorian voters. As a member of the Electoral Matters Committee, I appreciate the welcome the commissioner has expressed in this report regarding the establishment of the EMC in the interests of providing an open and transparent forum for consideration of electoral matters, and for the commissioner’s advice and submissions to the EMC, also referred to in the annual report.

The 2007–08 annual report includes information about the VEC’s community engagement and education work and its focus on groups that have been identified by the VEC as less likely to participate in the electoral process. They include young people aged 18 to 25 years, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, people with disabilities, indigenous Victorians and people experiencing homelessness.

The annual report notes that the rate of enrolment for 18 to 25-year-olds increased slightly from 82 per cent to 82.68 per cent in 2007–08. According to the report this means that at any point in time nearly 1 in 5 eligible young Victorians is not enrolled to vote. The report notes that the rate of enrolment for all eligible Victorians decreased slightly from 93.8 per cent to 93 per cent in 2007–08. This is in spite of extensive efforts by the VEC to maintain an accurate enrolment register, considered to be a cornerstone of every healthy democracy, and considered by the VEC to be the most important resource in its care.

The VEC’s strategic programs to help maintain an accurate enrolment register outlined in the report include extensive data matching with the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority, the Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre and VicRoads. Following data matching with data supplied in accordance with confidentiality agreements, some 132 889 enrolment forms were sent to eligible Victorians. In response the VEC received just 22 437 completed enrolment forms.

The consequences of not having an accurate enrolment register go beyond reducing participation in the electoral process and undermining fair representation for Victorians. As the report explains, enrolment information is made available not only to registered political parties, MPs and election candidates but also in the public interest, following consultation with the Victorian privacy commissioner, to a range of organisations including Victoria Police, the Department of Human Services, the State Revenue Office and the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

I have referred to extensive efforts by the VEC to maintain an accurate enrolment register, and I want to acknowledge the VEC’s education program to demonstrate the importance of democratic participation. This is also outlined in the annual report. However, it is my view that further action is required to ensure the health of our democracy. Victorians are well aware that voting is compulsory by law, and that penalties are payable for not voting. The VEC carries out enforcement of compulsory voting in relation to Victorians registered on the electoral roll.

Victorians are not so aware that although electoral enrolment is also compulsory by law there is no enforcement of these provisions. The EMC has recommended that it is time that compulsory electoral enrolment be enforced by law in the same way that compulsory voting is enforced by law, and I support that recommendation. In my view most Victorians faced with the prospect of paying a penalty or completing an enrolment form will submit the form. However, as the VEC has pointed out, enforcement is a resource-intensive and costly process. For this reason I believe that it is also time to consider automatic or direct enrolment of eligible Victorians, particularly young Victorians whose details are already available to the VEC from the Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre and the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority.

Ombudsman: [i]An Investigation into the Transport Accident Commission’s and the

Victorian WorkCover Authority’s



administrative processes for medical practitioner billing[/i]

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I am pleased to make a statement on the Ombudsman’s report headed An Investigation into the Transport Accident Commission’s and the Victorian WorkCover Authority’s Administrative Processes for Medical Practitioner Billing. This report arises from the Ombudsman’s report last year into similar matters at Bayside Health in relation to the billing practices of the Professor Thomas Kossmann at the Alfred hospital, which in turn was aligned with a line of inquiry into Professor Kossman’s clinical practices.

The report has highlighted the value of the Transport Accident Commission and WorkCover putting in place systems to ensure the integrity of bills from medical practitioners who render services to the TAC and WorkCover. Two particular areas have been highlighted by the Ombudsman. One is the failure of the agencies to have in place systems to identify outlier claims. These are claims that do not accord with the normal pattern of claims by medical practitioners. You may have an orthopaedic surgeon who typically bills $300 000 to the Transport Accident Commission or WorkCover and then you may have an orthopaedic surgeon who is billing $1 million to the TAC or WorkCover. Ordinarily that $1 million should be scrutinised for being outside the normal pattern of fees charged by orthopaedic surgeons. The Ombudsman found that there are no processes in place to ensure that that scrutiny occurs.

Scrutiny is very common in other areas. The Australian Taxation Office certainly has software in place to scrutinise outlier claims in tax returns and so forth. It beggars belief that in 2009 the TAC and WorkCover do not have the software in place that would allow them to identify billing claims by medical practitioners that are so far skewed from the norm.

One of the other areas the Ombudsman highlighted is the claiming of mutually exclusive medical benefits schedule (MBS) items by medical practitioners. Under the model in place when practitioners bill the TAC and WorkCover, they are required to use the medical benefits schedule of items laid down by the commonwealth. A lot of those items can only be claimed exclusively. If a practitioner claims for performing knee surgery, for example, they cannot then claim the individual components that make up that surgery. That appears to have been occurring without checks by the two agencies, which with appropriate software would have easily been identified. The Ombudsman has noted in his report that in the two

years during which he investigated the two agencies, more than $9.5 million worth of mutually exclusive MBS items were incorrectly claimed by surgeons.

In my experience as shadow minister for WorkCover and the Transport Accident Commission I meet with and hear from a lot of TAC and WorkCover clients. I find that WorkCover employers have very different experiences with these two agencies. When claiming after-accident care they are under constant scrutiny from WorkCover as to the amount of their claims, whether they are entitled to make claims or whether they should receive the reimbursements they are claiming. The approach taken for medical practitioners seems to be entirely inconsistent as the bills appear to have been paid on presentation without any scrutiny at all.

At the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee earlier this year the chief executive of the TAC, Janet Dore, said that since the Bayside Health-Alfred hospital case last year, finally the TAC had started to scrutinise the accounts it receives from medical practitioners. In fact it queried or questioned 29 per cent of the accounts it received in the last 12 months and had rejected 10 per cent of those. That demonstrates a substantial problem has been ongoing there for a long time.

Yesterday the Treasurer indicated that the government was not afraid of recommendations from the Ombudsman and that the government would willingly and rapidly implement courses of action recommended in relation to this matter. It is therefore concerning than in his report, the Ombudsman saw fit to note that both agencies were sceptical and reluctant to accept the Ombudsman’s need to investigate this matter, indicating they did not think there was a problem. This report has now demonstrated there is a serious and ongoing problem.

The Ombudsman has also noted a failure of the agencies, in particular the TAC, to recover moneys where it has identified inappropriate billings. Of a sample of 13 cases, only 2 resulted in moneys being recovered; the TAC failed to take further action on the other 11. It is now incumbent on the government to explain to the people of Victoria how much money has been paid out following fraudulent claims and what action the government intends to take to recover those funds.




affairs 2007–08

Mr EIDEH (Western Metropolitan) — I wish to speak on the Victorian Multicultural Commission’s report Victorian Government Achievements in Multicultural Affairs 2007–08. In a society of some 5 million people, where the population can claim roots in over 200 countries, it is an honour to be part of a government that is absolutely committed to recognising and respecting this great cultural diversity and to promoting peace and harmony with events such as the recent Harmony Walk led by the Premier, who is also the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, and the Minister Assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs, James Merlino. I was impressed when I opened this report.

The first two lines of the foreword state:

Multiculturalism is one of Victoria’s greatest strengths and derives from our experience of more than 150 years of migration.

That is something we can all boast about. Victoria has benefited over the years from a very rich diversity of cultures from over 200 countries and more than 100 different faiths. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Victoria’s population is growing at the fastest rate in the nation, something that we on this side humbly acknowledge as being due to the great leadership of the Brumby Labor government.

That leadership presents itself with a strong range of diverse services and support structures for the multicultural population of Victoria. In the period of this report alone, that includes considerable sums for community-based language education programs, targeted workforce programs for persons from non-English-speaking backgrounds, additional English language classes for new arrivals, and greater support for programs that encourage and promote community involvement and engagement.

Also the government has strengthened the Equal Opportunity Act yet again, as we regard that as a living document and one which must grow with the times to which it relates, to paraphrase the late United States Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo; also, establishing the multifaith advisory group to ensure a strong and ongoing dialogue between our state’s faith leaders and the Victorian government. This in itself grew as a by-product of the Premier’s Multifaith Leaders Forum; and there are many more examples of the Brumby Labor government’ s ongoing and firm commitment.

Members of this house are aware of the legislative changes that we made to the Multicultural Victoria Act in 2008. These changes placed greater demands on all government departments to create and report on their initiatives and their progress towards providing better services to our considerable multicultural communities. I also acknowledge that the report highlights some 1500 community groups that received grants to develop leadership programs and other skills to support their volunteers, strengthen their harmonious relations with other groups and strengthen multifaith communications. Communities know only too well that the Brumby Labor government treasures their commitment to our state.

I note the government’s strong support of Refugee Week and Cultural Diversity Week, amongst a great many other such events — to list them all would take up more of the house’s time, so I respectfully refer to the report and strongly recommend it to all members.

One initiative that grabbed my attention was a short introductory course for Victoria Police on the Arabic language. Twenty-two members of Victoria Police committed themselves to bettering relations with the Arabic-speaking communities, and I wish to acknowledge those fine members and their sincere contribution to improving their service to this community.

I say to members of the house that long gone are the days when migrants came to these shores and were expected to forget their heritage, change their names and learn English within the blink of an eye. Today we all value the cultural richness that ethnic communities have brought to our state and indeed, to this house.

Ombudsman: An Investigation into the Transport Accident Commission’s and the

Victorian WorkCover Authority’s administrative processes for medical practitioner billing

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I wish to also make a few remarks on the investigation tabled yesterday into the Transport Accident Commission and the Victorian WorkCover Authority’s administrative processes for medical practitioner billing by the Ombudsman of Victoria as a result of an investigation on his motion under the provisions of section 14 of the Ombudsman Act 1973. He did so by having a close look at the operations of the Transport Accident Commission and the Victorian WorkCover Authority, known as WorkSafe.

This investigation was inspired by the Bayside Health report which had been undertaken by the Ombudsman.



It revealed that the failure of the TAC to monitor and audit surgeons’ bills had resulted in significant financial incentives for what in his opinion were inappropriate billing practices. So he decided to look more closely at these very important organisations.

They are large public organisations with considerable resources at their disposal. As at 30 June 2008, WorkSafe had 1066 employees and the TAC had 794 employees. The chief executive officers of the TAC and WorkSafe, in conjunction with their respective boards, are responsible for overseeing significant assets and liabilities amounting to millions of dollars. As of June 2008, WorkSafe’s total assets were $10.3 billion and the TAC’s were $7.5 billion. They have considerable sources of income, given that both organisations derive their funds, as we well know, from compulsory contributions from members of the public through transport accident charges for motor vehicles, railways and tramways and through an insurance premium paid by Victorian employers for cover under the workplace injury insurance scheme.

There is a considerable amount of money at risk, and I believe considerable money has been lost through inappropriate billing and inappropriate scrutiny of medical procedures. Mr Rich-Phillips alluded to some of these in his contribution. Others include fraudulent billing for procedures that were never undertaken and inappropriate billing under Medicare. The latter is a scheme which has been designed at the federal level but has not been properly scrutinised, and billings have been processed on face value. I believe considerable funds have been lost.

The Ombudsman has made a number of recommendations that I believe were initially reluctantly received. However, both organisations will be working with the Ombudsman through to 2010 to make sure that systems are put in place to capture any attempts to defraud the public through these inappropriate billings, including, for example, procedures that have not been performed, surgeries that have not been performed, utilising multiple item numbers that are mutually exclusive, utilising item numbers not in the spirit of the funding agreement and performing unnecessary surgery. These are all very serious matters that the public would expect the Parliament and publicly funded organisations to address and to have systems in place to capture any attempts to defraud or extract money for services that have not been provided.

There are two challenges for these organisations and their boards: first and foremost of these is to change their systems and to monitor the integrity of future

payments. Clearly neither the TAC nor WorkSafe has been effective in doing this. But there is also a very important role for the Victorian Auditor-General in investigating how much money has been lost through the inappropriate and fraudulent billing practices of both of these organisations. The Ombudsman goes into quite some detail in outlining some of these practices. However, one thing he identified was that training for staff was inadequate and may have been a contributing factor. Responsibility may well fall upon the organisations, which may thwart attempts to recover fraudulent billings from specific medical practitioners.

Those organisations need to have a hard look at themselves. They need to lift their game, and they need to make sure the system is one of integrity and that efforts are made to recoup any lost money. Most importantly, the Auditor-General should investigate what this maladministration and this sort of administrative sloppiness has cost the Victorian public.


affairs 2007–08

Ms DARVENIZA (Northern Victoria) — I am pleased to rise and make some comments on the Victorian Multicultural Commission’s report entitled Victorian Government Achievements in Multicultural Affairs 2007–08. It is clear that the Brumby Labor government recognises the value that diversity brings to our state; that is why we have so many initiatives for our diverse communities. This report is but one of those which aims to ensure that the government’s policies and programs take into account the needs of our culturally, religiously and linguistically diverse (CALD) community.

The Premier, John Brumby, who is also the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, and James Merlino, the member for Monbulk in the Assembly, who is the Minister Assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs, have been responsible for a range of initiatives that have been important in not only making our CALD community aware of the various government programs that are available to it but also ensuring that both the CALD community and the broader community recognise the value we place on the CALD community in recognition of the significant cultural, social and economic contributions it has made to our society in Victoria.

This report, as I said, is very much about government policies and programs, the extent to which government departments are meeting the needs of the CALD community and the achievements that have been made.

CROWN LAND ACTS AMENDMENT (LEASE AND LICENCE TERMS) BILL


We have a population of more than 5 million people in Victoria, and we know many of those have come from other countries. They have decided to settle in Australia, either through choice or because of the often horrendous circumstances in their country of origin. The CALD community comprises people who have come from 200 countries, speak over 200 languages and practise more than 120 religions.

The government is required to report on the key activities and achievements of its departments and agencies in multicultural affairs under the Multicultural Victoria Act 2004. This whole-of-government report sets out the government’s key achievements in: the use of language services, which is very important to those people who have English as a second language; communications in languages other than English, which is about ensuring that information is provided in languages other than English so that people are aware of the services that are available to them and how they can best access them; major improvements and initiatives; and representation of CALD people on various boards and committees, given that members of the CALD community form such a significant proportion of our society in Victoria — whether they be infants, school-aged children, secondary and university students, young people in the workforce, middle-aged people or seniors. The report also highlights the range of work being undertaken across the Victorian government in multicultural affairs and shows that steady progress was made in 2007–08.

I congratulate the Victorian Multicultural Commission, particularly Mr George Lekakis and Mr Hakan Akyol but also the other VMC commissioners, for the excellent work the commission does not only with the CALD community but also in working closely with government departments. The VMC undertakes a range of statewide consultations in which it gathers a lot of information from our CALD community and makes sure it is reported back to the government and its departments.

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


Second reading

Debate resumed from 24 June; motion of Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change).

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — I am pleased to rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Crown Land Acts Amendment (Lease and Licence Terms) Bill 2009. In doing so, I indicate that the opposition will not oppose this bill. This bill touches on a number of pieces of legislation, amending the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, the Forests Act 1958, the Land Act 1958, the National Parks Act 1975 and the Wildlife Act 1975.

It provides a licensing scheme for tourist operators and activity providers on public land. It amends the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 and the Forests Act 1958 to increase the maximum lease term from 21 years to 65 years. It amends the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 to increase the maximum licence term from 3 years to 10 years, and the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 and the Land Act 1958 to provide licence terms greater than 10 years in circumstances where the licensee holds a lease over adjacent land. It also amends the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, the Forests Act 1958, the Land Act 1958, the Coastal Management Act 1995, the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987, the Land (Revocations and Other Matters) Act 1991 and the Fraser National Park Act 1957 to enhance, it is claimed, the operation of those acts generally.

The opposition has no quibble with the desire to give predictability and certainty to tourism operators, to those who are using public land in a framework that is in the public interest and where investment is occurring. I know the desire of the tourism industry in particular and other industries as well to ensure there is sufficient opportunity and access for investment to provide world-class tourism infrastructure in Victoria. We have grand and fantastic national assets in our national parks and forests. They should, within the bounds of protecting the environment and those environmental values that are so important, be available for sensible access by the community. In this case, access should be available via licences or leases to those who have invested and who seek to provide access to that land.

I want to put on record in the first instance general support for the principle of the use of public land in a sensible mode where sufficient protections are in place. At the same time I want to sound a helpful note of caution and to state that there are occasions when the public interest is not always served. I can point to some examples of that. This chamber’s recent Select Committee on Public Land Development looked long and hard at the use of public land and was very concerned about the alienation of certain public land parcels and the rapacious way in which this government has gone about that activity.



The Kew Cottages site will become 27 hectares of prime residential land, but it is also of prime environmental and heritage significance and of significance to the long-term occupants of the site. What we saw with that land was a disgrace. The evidence that was led to the committee and the evidence that the committee was able to ferret out concerned the involvement of Labor mates in what were essentially, in my view, corrupt arrangements at Kew Cottages. I have to say I am very pleased that the Ombudsman is investigating that process. The committee was concerned and made specific recommendations, and this chamber made a specific referral to the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act about the misuse of public land in the case of Kew Cottages and the misuse of public land at the St Kilda triangle site. We await the Ombudsman’s report. I have no doubt he will encounter many of the same difficulties that the Select Committee on Public Land Development encountered with the government’s refusal to cooperate and work constructively to bring to the light of day many of the grubby and tawdry dealings that have occurred, such as the involvement of former Labor senator Graham Richardson in cracking a deal at Kew Cottages and ensuring that his mates were rewarded. He ensured that Labor mates were able to garner a contract in a way that, frankly, in my view, does not stand proper examination.

There are concerns about the way public land has been administered under this government. There are legitimate issues about how public land can be alienated. There are legitimate issues about leases, and in particular long-term leases, on government land. This bill will provide for very long term leases. I understand the importance for the tourist industry and others of having the security and predictability of a long-term lease if they are making major investments. We support that.

Mr Leane — Good!

Mr D. DAVIS — Absolutely. It was in fact our policy.

Mr LEANE — You can’t accuse us of stealing that one.

Mr D. DAVIS — Oh, yes we can, absolutely. It was our policy.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mrs Peulich) — Order! The member is out of his seat.

Mr D. DAVIS — He is out of his seat, but he is also fairly misinformed on these matters. He probably does

not have the long-term memory of some of us on these activities.

My point here is about transparency and accountability in the handling and the handing over of these long-term leases. We saw the example of the O’Shannassy Lodge with secret arrangements with Narconon. The government has been resistant to releasing the full details of the lease arrangements with Narconon and the long-term removal of that prize asset from the ability of the community to access it.

There has to be a balance here. There have to be suitable protections of public land. That means that tourism operators need to adhere to strict controls and schedules. There need to be arrangements in place that ensure that prize assets are not damaged or compromised in any way. We hold these assets in custodianship for future generations. In that sense we all have a responsibility to ensure that many of Victoria’s parks and other assets are protected in a long-term way.

I also note the need for a strengthening of the provisions that surround the letting of these leases for government land. There needs to be a serious investigation into these processes to ensure that these leases cannot be let in a way that enables corruption or other matters to come into play. With these long-term leases there is a need for an independent commission against corruption. We know that there are such bodies in every major eastern seaboard state other than Victoria. We know that Tasmania has recently said it will establish an independent anticorruption commission, so Victoria and South Australia will be the only states without such a body.

The evidence seen by members of the Council’s Select Committee on Public Land Development left them with no doubt that there is a need for such a body in Victoria. I think it would be a critical check, a critical balance and a critical way of ensuring that the corrupt sale and corrupt leasing of public land cannot occur.

Mr Leane — Where is the corruption?

Mr D. DAVIS — The Kew Cottages site is a perfect example. It has been admitted on public transcript that a former Labor senator cracked through leasing deal arrangements at a certain point in a secret deal with Labor ministers. If I were Mr Leane, I would not talk about this any more. I do not think it does his side any good to talk about the alienation of 27 hectares of prime land near the city, which is of environmental and historical significance and of significance to the



disabled people who have lived on that site for a long time.

This government did not transparently disclose or report the details of that alienation or the involvement of former Labor Senator Graham Richardson. I should add that the select committee invited him to appear before it, but he declined to do so. Two requests were sent to him by certified mail, but he refused to attend. I think that speaks significant volumes about his integrity.

Hon. M. P. Pakula — He is not a Victorian!

Mr D. DAVIS — That is exactly right, he is not a Victorian, but he was down here doing secret deals with Mr Pakula’s Labor mates. In fact the individual who used to sit in the very seat in this chamber that Mr Pakula now sits in was involved in those discussions with Mr Richardson. I think, and the community understands, that this was a grubby deal, and I certainly hope the Ombudsman is able to shed further light on the steps that were involved in making those grubby deals.

I also note that the issue of certainty regarding public land and the leasing of and access to public land has been thrown into significant relief by the issues that have developed at Box Hill Hospital under Eastern Health. We know that a medical imaging group — —

Ms Huppert interjected.

Mr D. DAVIS — I know Ms Huppert is going to take a lead on this, but she might want to understand the bill before she speaks.

Hon. M. P. Pakula — You have not spoken about the bill yet!

Mr D. DAVIS — I have indeed. I have gone through every segment of it.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mrs Peulich) — Order! Members are reminded to speak through the Chair.

Mr D. DAVIS — I have gone through every section of it. I went very carefully down the structured arrangements of the bill, including exactly which acts it amends and which part does what.

Ms Huppert might like to provide assurances to the chamber on behalf of the government about the situation at Eastern Health. I, for one, have some concerns about the government’s behaviour, and I have read much of the Victorian Civil and Administrative

Tribunal (VCAT) case on this. Ms Huppert will be aware, I have no doubt, that a medical imaging group struck a contractual lease with Eastern Health to provide medical imaging services. The contract had a review period and an extension period.

When the group tried to extend that lease, the government sought to squeeze it out. The community understands that if the government signs a lease in good faith, it needs to honour its contract in both the letter and the spirit of that contract. I have to say that does not appear to have been the case with Eastern Health.

The court judgement certainly did not appear to suggest that the government had acted as it should have in its dealings with Eastern Health. I would like to put on record that in this case the court found that there was a contract in operation which gave that medical imaging group rights to an extension. In my view the government ought to honour the contract and it ought to honour the comments and the spirit of the ruling by VCAT.

I think Mr Barber will seek to take this bill into the committee stage. I put on record that during that committee process I will seek from the minister some assurances about the tenure arrangements at Eastern Health for medical imaging providers. That is one of the issues in this bill, and for that reason I indicate that the opposition will seek certain clarifications during the committee process.

As I have said, we do not oppose this bill. We support many of the principles in it. There need to be transparent arrangements when public land is sold or leased for long periods, and such arrangements should enable community consultation and community involvement where that is appropriate, as it often is.

Ms HUPPERT (Southern Metropolitan) — I am pleased to rise to make a contribution in support of the Crown Land Acts Amendment (Lease and Licence) Bill 2009. I am also pleased to hear that the opposition will not oppose the bill, although I did not hear very much about the specifics of the bill in Mr David Davis’s contribution.

The major objectives of the bill are to facilitate and encourage the proper use and development of Crown land for commercial and tourism purposes and to streamline processes for more effective management and protection. The amendments made by the bill are in line with Victoria’s nature-based tourism strategy 2008–12 and the policy underlying the 2008 licensing system for tour operators and activity providers on public land in Victoria.



As members of the house know, public land is utilised for many different purposes, including the provision of sporting, recreational and cultural activities, the operation of major commercial and tourism developments, agriculture and mining, as well as the provision of public infrastructure in areas such as health and education. The private use of public land is of significant social and economic value to the Victorian community. Under the current scheme, the term of a lease granted under the Crown Lands (Reserves) Act 1978 and the Forests Act 1958 is limited to 21 years. That creates a significant barrier to private investment on Crown land, as 21 years is often not sufficient time to allow a tenant to recover significant capital investment on public land.

This is an issue for the development of tourism and other commercial activities in regional areas, but it also creates a barrier to development in my electorate of Southern Metropolitan Region, which has some beautiful coastline. The extension of lease terms will allow operators to invest in facilities such as cafes and restaurants, which will enhance the use of the adjoining foreshore areas by residents and visitors.

The bill extends the possible term of a lease to 65 years. That will assist not only in attracting commercial development on Crown land but also in attracting the construction of public infrastructure on land reserved for purposes such as health services — for example, the co-location of research facilities next to major teaching hospitals, as is happening at the Austin Hospital with the construction of a facility for the Florey Neuroscience Institutes.

Only major projects which can demonstrate benefits to the Victorian community and have an economic justification will receive a longer term lease. The decision-making process will be supported by a commercial leasing policy to clarify the circumstances in which those longer term leases will be granted. That will apply only to land currently subject to the Crown Lands (Reserves) Act and the Forests Act. It will not apply to land in national parks or alpine resorts. Safeguards are put in place by the bill. The new provision for 65-year lease terms does not apply to land of particular ecological or conservation significance, such as nature conservation reserves. Further, if the land which is subject to an application for a lease of up to 65 years is reserved for the protection of a coastline or is a park, garden or ornamental plantation, it will require parliamentary scrutiny and the house will be able to disallow the lease.

The removal of a provision which currently specifies that buildings and structures on Crown land are the

property of the committee of management, or the Crown, will encourage investment on Crown land. That brings the Crown Lands (Reserves) Act into line with the provisions of the Land Act and the Forests Act. It allows a committee of management or other land manager to negotiate with a tenant at the end of a lease term for the removal of improvements on that land, so saving land managers the expense of removing those improvements themselves. It also further encourages investment as it means that the tenant will be able to claim ownership of those improvements and gain some economic or tax advantages from doing so.

Another improvement made by the bill is the introduction of the ability of a committee of management or other land manager under the Crown Lands (Reserves) Act to enter into agreements to lease with commercial tenants. As many members will know, an agreement to lease is a common tool in commercial lease negotiations, allowing a landlord and tenant to enter into a binding agreement to lease which comes into effect when certain conditions precedent have been met. They can be conditions such as the obtaining of finance or a planning permit. In one circumstance I am aware of they included obtaining a government grant to assist in allowing the development to go ahead. Those conditions have not been permitted under the Crown Lands (Reserves) Act but the bill allows for them and therefore expands the options and commercial certainty available to both the land manager and the prospective tenant.

The bill also increases the maximum term of a lease from 3 years to 10 years or, where the licence is granted in conjunction with a lease, to a term equivalent to the term of the lease. Currently a tenant who is operating a restaurant might have a lease for 21 years but may have a licence for the adjoining seating area for only three years, which does not give the tenant much opportunity to plan investment. Under the bill the tenant will be able to enter into a 21-year lease for the restaurant and a licence for the associated seating areas for the same period. In general, increasing the term of a licence from 3 years to 10 years will give greater certainty to people who are operating activities on Crown land subject to the Crown Lands (Reserves) Act.

Another change made by the bill relates to land reserved for health services. Currently the minister administering the Crown Lands (Reserves) Act makes decisions approving leases on that land. The bill provides for the Governor in Council, on the joint recommendation of the minister responsible for the Crown Lands (Reserves) Act and the minister responsible for administering the Health Services Act, to confer certain leasing and licensing powers on the

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE


minister responsible for administering the Health Act. That will ensure that investment opportunities adjacent to hospitals will have the approval of the minister responsible for that area.

The second major change made by the bill is the revision of the regime for operators of tours on Crown land. As I mentioned before, these amendments are in line with reforms proposed in Victoria’s nature-based tourism strategy and the licensing system for tour operators and activity providers on public land. Tourism is a major contributor to Victoria’s economy, and nature-based tourism is a growing sector within that industry. In the year ended June 2007, 30 per cent of domestic overnight visitors and 77 per cent of international overnight visitors undertook at least one nature-based tourism activity during their stay. Nature-based tourism activities, including coach tours, bushwalking, horseriding, rockclimbing and cross-country skiing, are growing in popularity. Many of us have taken part in those activities on an independent basis in Victoria’s wonderful national and state parks.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.


Transport Accident Commission and Victorian WorkCover Authority: medical practitioner

billing

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Treasurer representing the Minister for Finance, WorkCover and the Transport Accident Commission. I again refer to the Ombudsman’s report into TAC and Victorian WorkCover Authority administrative practices for medical practitioner billing. The report found that in 12 months more than $9.5 million was fraudulently billed by doubling up on what should have been mutually exclusive procedures. This is only one element of the billing fraud which has been identified. Will the government now require both agencies to instigate action to recover all the funds which have been fraudulently claimed?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I thank Mr Rich-Phillips for his further question on the Ombudsman’s report into the Transport Accident Commission and WorkCover authority and fraudulent billing. What I say to Mr Rich-Phillips is that both authorities, the Transport Accident Commission and the Victorian WorkCover Authority, have welcomed the Ombudsman’s report and both authorities have plans of

action to deal with the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s report, so the issues are being addressed. The CEO (chief executive officer) of one and the deputy CEO of the other are on the public record as saying that they will implement the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s report, so that is quite clear.

Mr Rich-Phillips has asked me about a further procedural issue in relation to what those authorities are doing, but I think those authorities speak through the words of their own executives. I am happy to take on notice the formal part of Mr Rich-Phillips’s question for the Minister for Finance, WorkCover and the Transport Accident Commission to obtain a formal response to his question, but I think it is quite clear from the statements made by the Premier in the Legislative Assembly yesterday and the CEOs of both organisations in the media today that the government will carry out the recommendations of the Ombudsman as they stand, and welcome them.

Supplementary question

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I thank the Treasurer for his response and indication that the agencies will implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations. With respect to the recoveries, I ask: why did the TAC, in 11 of the 13 cases examined by the Ombudsman, fail to pursue recovery action when the initial letter of demand was simply ignored by the practitioners?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I have answered Mr Rich-Phillips’s supplementary question in my substantive answer.

Film industry: government initiatives

Ms BROAD (Northern Victoria) — My question is to the Minister for Innovation, Gavin Jennings. Can the minister inform the house how the Brumby Labor government is taking action to consolidate Victoria’s place as the nation’s film capital, further developing its innovative and diverse screen industry to ensure it continues to inject millions of dollars into our economy and provide thousands of jobs for Victorians?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Innovation) — I thank Ms Broad for her question and the opportunity to talk about the Victorian film industry, of which this community should be very proud in terms of not only the great stories that our filmmakers are telling and sharing with national audiences but also finding international markets and doing so at an ever-increasing rate.



I take the opportunity during the course of Melbourne International Film Festival week to talk about that. The film festival opened last Friday with a Victorian-made film made by Robert Connolly, Balibo, which not only received the rapturous applause and support of the audience but has also received very favourable critical appraisal in the media since that time. It will obviously find an audience here in Australia and internationally as a very important story to be told. At the opening of the film festival President José Ramos-Horta from East Timor was in the audience and drew great international prominence to this film.

It will not be the only Victorian-made film that is given prominence during the course of the festival. Ana Kokkinos’s new film, Blessed, was screened on Saturday night, and Bran Nue Dae is another Victorian film which has received support from the Melbourne International Film Festival premiere fund — an important part of funding to start the process of production and not only provide seed funding for the production but guarantee the screening at the Melbourne International Film Festival, again augmented by Film Victoria.

Mrs Coote — Margaret Pomeranz and Gavin Jennings, what a group!

The PRESIDENT — Order! Mrs Coote!

Mr JENNINGS — I thank Mrs Coote, President, for referring to me as Margaret Pomeranz: maybe she wants to cast herself in that role. Obviously, like David Stratton, there is a certain ageing profile that I bring to bear, and probably I share their enthusiasm for film reviewing, but I want to stay in this profession a little longer rather than looking for a film criticism opportunity — in later life, perhaps.

The important productions that have been supported through the Melbourne International Film Festival premiere fund, the role that Film Victoria plays in supporting the film industry in Victoria, augmented by investments and the reform of Screen Australia have seen great production levels occur in Victoria in the last year. More than $160 million worth of film production has taken place in Victoria. We believe this associates with something of the order of 4800 full-time jobs that have been involved with these productions in the last year. We have seen 62 production companies operating in film, and many of these film productions have occurred in regional Victoria, so there has been general economic activity that has been driven right across the state.

We also saw very high levels of TV production in Victoria in the last year, and 11 major feature films were released last year and received significant audiences here in Australia. We want to make sure they provide for international market opportunities by supporting the marketplace known as the 37°South Market, which brings international distributors and production houses to Australia to provide support to local filmmakers.

The extraordinary coincidence of that program, the Melbourne International Film Festival and the great work that Film Victoria does means that our film industry is growing. We have great stories to tell, and they are increasingly being appreciated by Australian and international audiences, which is something the Brumby government is very keen to support and will continue to support as a viable film industry in Victoria.

Transport Accident Commission and Victorian WorkCover Authority: medical practitioner

billing

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — My question is for the Treasurer in his capacity as representative of the minister for finance, and I refer to the fiasco with the illegal billing to the Transport Accident Commission and WorkSafe, which was reported on again yesterday by the Ombudsman. Given that these practices have been occurring since at least 2001, what actions did the previous minister for finance take to stem this haemorrhage of taxpayers funds due to illegal billing? If measures were taken, what were they? If measures were not taken, why not?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I have a couple of observations. Clearly, to be Leader of the Liberal Party you need to describe it as a finance portfolio, so I suggest to Mr Rich-Phillips and Mr Guy that they start using the word ‘finance’ when they have their leadership bids going on. It did not do Mr Philip Davis good for long.

On the second and substantive issue that Mr David Davis raised, I could, in the tradition of the opposition when it was in government, be evasive because the previous minister for finance did not have responsibility for the WorkCover authority — that was the minister for WorkCover — but in the spirit of answering the question I will respond to Mr David Davis. I suggest to him that he read the administrative arrangements from time to time and work out some of these things.

Mr D. Davis — I do. You were also the minister for WorkCover, as you know.



Mr LENDERS — If he did, he might have some more insightful questions. But the point I make, as the minister representing the Premier, is that every minister in this government responsible for the portfolios of WorkCover and the Transport Accident Commission or finance has adhered to a number of principles.

The first is, from the point of view of those two organisations, to make them focused on delivering services to injured Victorians. Unlike the government that we inherited office from, which did not particularly care about those issues and took away common-law rights, which slashed the organisations and did not pay much attention to them, this Labor government has, day after day and year after year, worked through on delivering services to injured Victorians, whether they be injured on the roads or in workplaces. Let us get that in place first.

The second principle this government has followed from day one is to make these organisations efficient and accountable. It is interesting to recall that when this government inherited the Victorian WorkCover Authority from the Kennett Liberal-National government the authority was drowning in a sea of red ink, strangled in a bundle of red tape and not well run.

This government put in place a series of reforms that made these authorities more accountable to the government, to the Parliament, to the people and to their clients. A series of measures were taken in those reforms, whether that be the publishing of key performance indicators, whether it be the ministers answering questions about the portfolio at Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings or whether it be the twice-yearly reports from the Victorian WorkCover Authority to the community. This government invested in compliance and contestability, and it did not hide for 1 nanosecond from accountability.

Mr Davis asked what a previous finance minister did on this. I could go through the directions of the finance minister to all 600 bodies out there for more reporting and for more reporting to the Parliament. I could go through any recommendation from the Auditor-General where this government, as a first, reports to Parliament on the outcomes at the end of a financial year on accountability.

What I say to Mr Davis is that this government has acted daily, weekly and monthly to make government more accountable. In the 1179 long days since Ted Baillieu was elected as Leader of the Opposition in the other place, we have not had a single policy on WorkCover or the Transport Accident Commission

suggested to this Parliament. This government is delivering services. It has empowered an Ombudsman and an Auditor-General, and without hesitation it responds to improving the system, unlike its predecessor, which closed down the Parliament, gutted the independent umpires and acted arrogantly.

The PRESIDENT — Order! Before Mr Davis asks his supplementary question, I had a sense of deja vu about the last question although I let it be asked. To assist him in formulating his supplementary question I will read my ruling relating to questions to a minister and his portfolios. It states:

A question without notice must relate to a minister’s current responsibilities, not to a former portfolio.

The member’s question was to the minister representing the Minister for Finance, WorkCover and the Transport Accident Commission, but it was more about what the minister did previously, and therefore it did not comply with my ruling. The member might be cognisant of that in structuring his supplementary question in a way that helps me to help him.


Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — President, on your ruling and prior to my asking a supplementary question, in seeking your assistance, I believe I am in order in asking a question — —

Honourable members interjecting.

Mr D. DAVIS — My question is again to the minister representing the Minister for Finance, WorkCover and the Transport Accident Commission. Given that the Auditor-General stated in the 2006 WorkCover annual report that board members were responsible for ‘the maintenance of … internal controls that are designed to … prevent and detect fraud and errors’ I ask: what internal controls did WorkSafe and the Transport Accident Commission maintain for the prevention and detection of fraud and errors during the period from February 2002 to December 2006 and beyond?

The PRESIDENT — Order! I believe the supplementary question is in order insofar as the minister could respond to it on the basis that he will seek advice from the current Minister for Finance, WorkCover and the Transport Accident Commission.

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — Thank you, President. Certainly, I will take on notice for the Minister for Finance, WorkCover and the Transport



Accident Commission the specific nature of Mr Davis’s question.

What I will say in general terms is that there is a series of internal checks on the payment of invoices across government. There are standard, best practice procedures across the board in government which deal with the payment of invoices. They are routine in any organisation and particularly in government. Periodically they are subject to review, and I am absolutely confident that with both organisations subject to the Ombudsman’s report saying they welcome his report, both organisations will further review the checks and balances which are in place. I have absolute confidence that there are checks and balances across government and absolute confidence that the best way to keep these areas under review is to give fearless and unfettered powers to the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman and others that keep governments accountable.

I suggest these independent officers of the Parliament, who were empowered by this Labor government and who were made independent officers of the Parliament by this Labor government — unlike the government that Mr Davis was a member of, which voted to neuter them — will be far more effective in monitoring the government than anything that has happened in the 1179 long days of inactivity since the current Leader of the Opposition assumed that position.

Design sector: government initiatives

Ms DARVENIZA (Northern Victoria) — My question is to the Minister for Innovation, Gavin Jennings. I ask the minister to update the house on how the Brumby Labor government is taking action to promote Victoria’s vibrant and creative design sector, particularly during this difficult global economic time, and reinforce Victoria as a world centre for design excellence.

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Innovation) — I thank Ms Darveniza for her question and the opportunity to talk about the fantastic capability we have in Victoria in terms of the design sector, which the Victorian government is happy to supply a degree of support to through a $15 million strategy. The design sector in Victoria permeates many disciplines and many industry sectors.

We see great capability in architecture, industrial applications, graphic design, furniture and a variety of different industries across Victoria. We estimate that something of the order of 76 000 Victorians are engaged full time in design activities. The economic

benefit to Victoria is of the order of $7 billion annually. That is significant, and it reflects the sector’s engagement and capability across the Victorian economy and the Victorian community. We celebrate that in July through the State of Design festival, which has had many events across Melbourne and Victoria in the last two weeks — indeed there have been more than 120 public events. Most of them have been free and most of them have been strongly supported by our community, international guests and experts in the field of design, both from the academic perspective and in terms of the industrial and commercial applications of design.

We have seen many visitors of international renown in the design field come to Victoria and join our great home-grown capability. International speakers have come to Victoria through the Alfred Deakin eco-innovation lecture series, which has been very popular in terms of members of our community coming and listening to international experts in the field of sustainability and good design and being involved in the reduction and use of resource intensity across industry and the better design of sustainable products and services that are actually part of the green economy. That was the centrepiece of the contribution the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, made at the commencement of the ALP national conference in Sydney today.

The Prime Minister sees the value of green jobs being part of the development of our economy. He is embarking on a program to have 50 000 new jobs created in the green economy in the future. That was the centrepiece of his commitment to the Australian people today. I am pleased to say that that augments our efforts in Victoria to support a design-led and high value-adding approach to the Victorian and Australian economies.

Design will play an essential part of that journey. Whether our citizens, and hopefully citizens around the world, are exposed to our design capability through the broad range of capabilities — graphic arts, high art, architecture or industrial design — or through goods and services, we see design as an essential and growing part of the intellectual, artistic, cultural and increasingly commercial aspects of our community. We are pleased as a government to support those activities. The design festival was certainly a showcase of our great capability in Victoria.

Water: desalination plant

Mr DALLA-RIVA (Eastern Metropolitan) — My question without notice is to the Treasurer. Given the



announcement by the Premier this hour of a contract won by AquaSure for the desalination plant at Wonthaggi-Kilcunda, will the Treasurer provide an assurance to this house that the public sector comparator will be released in full to the Victorian community, and will he advise on what date will that occur?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I thank Mr Dalla-Riva for his question. When I came into the house I was not aware that the Premier had made such an announcement, so I will speak in general terms in response to Mr Dalla-Riva’s question. I was not born yesterday. If opposition members are suggesting actions that happened do not give me confidence, they may. They get it wrong sometimes. The government is clearly committed — —

Mr Jennings — Yes, he has not been on his BlackBerry like you have.

Mr LENDERS — I have not been on my BlackBerry since question time commenced at noon. I can assure the house there was no government announcement on this matter on my BlackBerry at noon. However, when the government makes announcements on public-private partnerships, it follows the guidelines it has quite clearly set, which are quite specific. There is an announcement of the preferred tenderer, then there is financial close, contractual close and a range of other issues. There is a clear set of procedures when documentation goes onto the web. We will follow that to the letter. If we on this side of the house ever err in government, it is that we come in earlier than the time lines we set.

Unlike a previous government, which kept these things totally secret, kept the public in the dark and treated the public like mushrooms, this government actually puts contracts on the web. This government is quite happy to go out there and openly disclose these issues.

Mr Dalla-Riva knows that when any PPP (public-private partnership) project is announced the information will be out there in the correct sequence according to Partnership Victoria policies and processes, and that applies to any Partnership Victoria project of this Labor government.


Mr DALLA-RIVA (Eastern Metropolitan) — I appreciate the fact that the minister is talking about mushrooms and being kept in the dark about the announcement; it is an interesting point that he raised. I understand he has indicated that there is a process for public sector comparators. Did the public sector

comparator unequivocally show that the PPP process was more cost effective to the Victorian taxpayer, and if so, what was the differential?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — That was either a very good try on Mr Dalla-Riva’s part or extraordinary ignorance of how commercial relations work — one or the other. The government of Victoria, in its public-private partnerships under the Partnership Victoria policy, has a clear set of protocols that Mr Dalla-Riva, if he bothers, can see by going to www.dtf.vic.gov.au. Under the heading ‘Partnership Victoria’ it quite clearly outlines, step by step, what happens in general terms with Partnership Victoria projects. He will see it quite clearly. I am quite happy, with the President’s leave, to go to the computer and do that during question time. I am sure the Herald Sun will not mind, because it is part of the parliamentary process to get some electronic assistance. It can even be done on Mr Dalla-Riva’s BlackBerry. I am quite happy to take him through Partnership Victoria policy on these matters. But I am not about to — —


Mr LENDERS — By gosh, the Greens members are getting excited by this! They have clearly embraced the Liberal Party’s joint question time strategy with enthusiasm and wish to discuss Partnership Victoria policy.

Again, I am not going to speculate on a statement from Richard Dalla-Riva on whether a government policy announcement has been made or not made, but what I will — —

Mr Guy — It’s Dalla-Riva, isn’t it? Shouldn’t you learn how to pronounce Dalla-Riva?

Mr LENDERS — Mr Guy says, ‘Mr Dalla-Riva’; perhaps I did slip, but perhaps it is because this government has a policy on water and the Liberal Party does not that I started thinking, ‘What do they know about rivers?’. In the 1179 days since Mr Baillieu became Leader of the Liberal Party, they have not had a single new policy. They do not like desalination plants where we suggested, and they do not like pipes, which we suggested. They do not like any plan that comes forward. They have an opinion on everything, but they have a policy on absolutely nothing — except they have an obsession with rivers that they wish to dam. The Liberals wish to dam some rivers and The Nationals do not wish to dam those rivers. They constantly have this extraordinary debate on these issues.



In response to Mr Dalla-Riva’s supplementary question, I invite him to go to the Partnership Victoria website. He will see the policies we have on disclosure. If he wishes to go further, he can go to the Department of Sustainability and Environment website and see our policies on water, which are comprehensive and which deal with the short, medium and long term. Unlike the opposition in the 1179 days of vacuum since Mr Doyle departed its leadership, we actually have policies to deal with the short, medium and long term for this state, which is what this state needs and is what assists in making it a better place to live, work and raise a family.

L’Oreal Melbourne Fashion Festival

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria) — My question is to the Minister for Industry and Trade, Martin Pakula. Can the minister update the house on how the Brumby Labor government is taking action to support the Australian fashion industry and how this is boosting jobs and the Victorian economy?

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade) — I thank Ms Tierney for her question and her interest in the fashion industry. I am aware that she is attending the Sheepvention fashion parade in Hamilton pretty soon, and I am aware of how critical the wool industry is in supporting the fashion industry. I am pleased to — —

Hon. J. M. Madden interjected.

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — You should ask Ms Tierney. I am pleased to inform the house that the recent 2009 L’Oreal Melbourne Fashion Festival has once again reaffirmed its position as not only an exceptional major event for the city of Melbourne but one of the great fashion festivals of the nation and indeed the globe. Yesterday the organisers of the fashion festival announced that in the face of the worst global recession in 80 years the 2009 event is estimated to have contributed $69.9 million to the local economy. Once you incorporate flow-ons, the impact of expenditures is estimated at over $88 million for the local economy.

The results of the 2009 fashion festival, which were released yesterday, were once again absolutely outstanding. Over 371 000 people attended the events and activities around the fashion festival. To put that into context, people talk about the New York festival and the Milan festival, but they are fundamentally industry events or events for the sector. There is no event in the world that engages local community attendance to a degree that even approaches that of the L’Oreal Melbourne Fashion Festival. Over 300 fashion

brands and designers participated in the festival, and key retailer shows and productions were put on throughout the week. There were over 118 officially sanctioned events as part of the program, and 74 corporate, industry and government sector sponsor partnerships were employed. Almost 1600 Victorians were directly employed on the various events surrounding this year’s L’Oreal Melbourne Fashion Festival.

The 2010 preparations are already well under way. We have already announced the dates for next year, which are 14 to 22 March 2010. I hope to see a number of members of this chamber, from both sides of the house, turn up and support the event. I have already noted that there are a number of members opposite who I think would not be out of place amongst the sartorially splendid attendees of the conference.


Mr Jennings — Mr O’Brien would be interested in commenting on it!

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — I do not reckon Mr Guy would be out of place, for one. I hope to see members from both sides of the house there next year supporting this absolutely fantastic event — not just the best fashion festival — —

Mr D. Davis interjected.

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — Mr Davis, I do all my own work in that regard.

Mr D. Davis — Somebody had to give one back, as you know.

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — Mr Davis, as someone who would make Al Grassby look like Hugo Boss, I would not be interjecting!

We are proud to be a great supporter of this event. We hope we will have bipartisan support, in terms of both the running of and attendance at the event next year. This is not just one of the great fashion festivals of this country; it is one of the very best on the planet.

Water: desalination plant

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — My question is for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. Will greenhouse gas emissions in Victoria increase or decrease as a result of the desalination plant the government has contracted for at Kilcunda?




Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I heard an interjection — it might have come from close to the Chair — that there may be government ministers who are reluctant to answer in great detail today’s questions about certain elements of the desalination tender process that apparently has been announced during the course of question time, according to questions that have come from the other side of the chamber.

It may well be that government ministers may be aware of what is involved in the tender. They may be aware of certain decision making that may be occurring that supports that process. We may subsequently be able to confirm or deny many elements in terms of the public disclosure of those matters. But in this chamber we are not the ministers who are responsible for the public announcement of that, and for a variety of reasons we are reluctant to give too many specific details before the proper disclosures by the relevant ministers.

Having said that, the tender has been designed to provide for the appropriate delivery of renewable energy sources to support the development of the desalination plant. From the very beginning of the tender process the government has committed to ensuring that renewable sources are provided to support the development of the desalination plant. Certainly that has been an important consideration both in terms of the undertaking the government has given and in terms of the nature of the tender arrangements. That element will be dealt with as part of the public announcement of the decision when it is made by the government.


Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — I hope the minister will do better on the supplementary question, now that he has got the press release. But I take it that that means that greenhouse gas emissions will increase, since — —

Mr Jennings — You weren’t listening.

Mr D. DAVIS — I was listening very closely. Therefore, given the minister’s response, will he release a full analysis of the greenhouse gas implications of the desalination plant including all such analyses that formed part of the formal bid process and including any departmental assessments of those bids?


The PRESIDENT — Order! The level of interjection is too high. I was unable to hear the supplementary question.

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — You are quite right, President; you did not hear the supplementary question. I did not hear the last bit of the supplementary question, but I did hear its beginning, and I know that it was not cognisant of my substantive answer because it started off with a premise that is not consistent with my answer. My substantive answer indicated that the intention of the government through the public policy framing of our commitment to the desalination plant was for it to be supported by renewable energy sources.

In fact the tender was designed to provide for renewable energy sources being used to support the construction and operation of the desalination plant, so the premise in the question is wrong.

In relation to any substantive information that the member or any member of the community may be seeking in future, the Minister for Water is the appropriate minister in relation to the disclosure obligations for material dealing with the justification of these matters.

Mr D. Davis — You played no role in the department’s environmental assessment?

Mr JENNINGS — Clearly the member is not interested in the answer; he is interested in taking a few shots. The answer has been given. I cannot see many BlackBerrys across the chamber, but I can certainly hear a lot of twittering going on. There is no doubt about that. Some people are turning that into an art form, and it may be their only contribution to public policy — maybe because it is kept to 140 characters. Beyond that 140 characters they may be stretching their abilities in constructing public policy. I wish them well.

Ringwood: central activities district

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Planning, Justin Madden. Can the minister update the house on how the vision for the Ringwood central activities district is becoming a reality, delivering on Melbourne @ 5 Million and Melbourne 2030 strategies to achieve the Brumby Labor government’s commitment to manage our city’s growth and change?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — I welcome Mr Leane’s interest in this matter, and I also congratulate Mr Leane on his active involvement in and around the Ringwood central activities district and on the work he has done with the community groups and the council. One thing I can guarantee to the house is that Mr Leane is a tremendous advocate for the centre



and for the Ringwood community. If there is a chance for him to put to me the needs of that community, he is always there, behind me, letting me know that more resources can always be applied to those areas. I would like to congratulate Mr Leane on his involvement, first of all, and his interest, which is evident in this question.

On the basis of that, I was recently with Mr Leane to announce an additional $720 000 to deliver the lake-to-creek project in the Ringwood area. This is a project that is basically to improve the amenity along Larissa Avenue and create an attractive and safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists in and around the area. It will deliver connections between Mullum Mullum Creek, Ringwood Lake and the VicRoads EastLink pedestrian and cycle path.

The project extends along Larissa Avenue to include, according to my list: major streetscape works, underground power, road and traffic works to slow the traffic along the avenue and increase pedestrian safety, water-sensitive urban design features, lighting for safety and decoration, public artwork — and I know Mr Lenders is always interested in public artwork — and an open community space at the corner of Larissa Avenue and Khassa Parade.

Not only will that improve the local amenity and provide access to the series of bike paths, it will also complement the investment the government is making in and around the station and the public square opposite the station, and in and around the highway. That is important in that it allows people to use different forms of commuting to the station. They may want to walk or want to ride there if they are commuting or using the station to get to Melbourne or to any other location. It helps reduce the commuting time and congestion, and it makes the surrounding area a better place to live and work.

As well as that, the emphasis on getting more jobs into that centre will also improve the ability of people to spend more time with their families and less time commuting. It is part of the central activities district program that we have with these types of centres. It is about creating jobs, improving amenity and investing in the infrastructure, and it complements Melbourne @ 5 Million and Melbourne 2030.

I would like to commend the Maroondah City Council for its longstanding commitment to the Ringwood centre. I would like to again compliment Mr Leane, and I also want to compliment the community groups that have given their time to assist in helping drive and influence the priorities for these centres.

This is all part of a $600 million program that has been allocated over a long time for these transit-type cities and central activities district centres. I congratulate all those involved in getting behind it. It is all about reducing commuting times, improving local amenity and improving transport connections, but most importantly it is about continuing to make Victoria the best place to live, work and raise a family.

Bushfires: Leadbeater’s possum

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — My question is for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Mr Jennings. Has the minister conducted any assessment of the impact of the February fires on zoned habitat for the Leadbeater’s possum?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I can say that I personally have not. Some people may have on my behalf, and I may need to do some reconnaissance to provide the member with a greater degree of confidence. The one thing I can assure him is that I personally have not done it. I will have to take some advice about whether any of the people who work for me and who are very concerned about the wellbeing of the Leadbeater’s possum have done so.

They do a lot of work in terms of habitat protection and a variety of other measures to try to provide for the wellbeing of the species. Some great programs have been designed, such as a captive breeding program to make sure the species is supported. A lot of effort has been gone to at various places such as the Mount Baw Baw area, as the member knows, in terms of some management techniques that have been applied to protect the habitat of the Leadbeater’s possum. That is not right; I apologise for that. It was the mountain pygmy possum I was talking about there. I was mixing up my species, which Mr Barber would have had a go at me about. I will clarify the record in relation to that: I was talking about Mount Baw Baw and pygmy possums. I am sorry about that.

The Leadbeater’s possum is very important, and we will continue to monitor its wellbeing. However, I would have to take advice on the specific answer to Mr Barber’s question.


Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — That was a rather longwinded way of saying dunno. Does the minister’s department have any plan to conduct an assessment of all the environmental values that come together to form the Central Highlands forest



management plan and the Central Highlands regional forest agreement? Will there be an assessment of how those may have been altered by the February wildfires?

The PRESIDENT — Order! I am not sure that is a supplementary — —

Mr D. Davis — It relates to the same region.

The PRESIDENT — Order! If I ask for Mr Davis’s assistance, I am sure he will give it to me. I say again that I am not convinced that that is directly related to the answer given. The minister may answer it, if he so chooses.

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — The reason I will answer is that I think it is a better question than the substantive one. There should be some work undertaken on that by the people in my department who are responsible for these matters. Whether the research will be undertaken to the level of detail or with the specific skewing Mr Barber wants, I am not sure, but the general answer is yes, because it is a worthy thing to do.

Brunswick: central activities district

Mr ELASMAR (Northern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Planning, Justin Madden. Activity centres are vibrant hubs that foster more livable and sustainable communities and are a central part of Melbourne 2030 and Melbourne @ 5 Million. Can the minister advise the house how the Brumby Labor government is working in partnership with local government to deliver projects that make a difference in key activity centres such as Sydney Road, Brunswick?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — I thank Mr Elasmar for his question and his interest in this matter. He is also a great advocate for his local community, particularly around investment in activity centres.

Anybody who has been along Sydney Road recently would understand what a great centre of cultural activity it is, and they might have noticed the investment we have made recently. I was there only a few weeks ago to announce, with the council, streetscape improvements that we have funded with assistance from the Moreland City Council. It is a $240 000 project. That includes $220 000 from the Brumby Labor government, with the Moreland council contributing $20 000 to the project. It is great to see firsthand how this implementation will assist in providing a greater dynamic to what is already a fantastic centre for the local community.

I want to compliment the Moreland council on the speed at which it has delivered the project and moved to implement this on the ground. We have seen damaged bench seating being replaced with a total of 100 new seats along Sydney Road, as well as 200 stainless steel bike hoops, all of which will be manufactured in Victoria.

What we know about the community in Brunswick is that a lot of the people in Brunswick are very keen to cycle around the community. It has public transport in abundance, but this work encourages people to use different forms of commuting.

Mr Drum interjected.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — A stainless steel bike hoop is very useful. I would encourage Mr Drum to try to use one — to lean his bike against a hoop and chain it to it. I suppose if Mr Drum has a bike, it has been chained to its post for a very long time.

This project builds on our commitment to support local communities and create jobs in Victoria. This is a great encouragement for the cultural mix in Sydney Road. Quite a few elderly people use Sydney Road for their shopping during the day, and the seats will provide a bit of respite for people looking for a moment’s rest amid the hectic activity that takes place along Sydney Road.

This also complements the co-funding for strategic projects such as the finalisation of the Brunswick structure plan. That has been funded through our expert assistance program and the Creating Better Places program. We are investing in public places. Where we have designated activity centres, in whatever shape or form, we are keen to make those investments in partnership with local government to complement the activities and urban amenity improvements in local communities. Whether in the outer suburbs, the inner suburbs, regional centres or inner Melbourne, we want to invest in partnership with local government so Victoria can continue to be the best place to live, work and raise a family.

Sitting suspended 12.50 p.m. until 2.03 p.m.


Second reading

Debate resumed.

Ms HUPPERT (Southern Metropolitan) — As I mentioned some time ago, more and more people are



looking for guided experiences in the area of nature tourism, and to enable the Victorian industry to compete with the activities offered in places such as Tasmania’s Cradle Mountain and the south island of New Zealand, the scheme proposed by this bill will offer certainty to operators on public land such as tour operators and activity providers.

I experienced some of the benefits of tour operators on public land during our break when I had the opportunity to do a little bit of cross-country skiing in the Alpine National Park at Mount Stirling. I availed myself of the services of a licensed tour operator for the purposes of lessons and ski hire, and I have to say it was a very rewarding experience. This part of our growing nature-based tourism industry is to be encouraged.

The bill provides for a uniform regime across public land, amending the Crown Land (Reserves) Act, the Forests Act, the Land Act, the National Parks Act and the Wildlife Act. As a result of consultation with the tourism industry, it will increase the maximum licence term available to tour operators to 10 years, set out a scheme for enforcement of licence conditions, and make it an offence to operate an activity on public land without a licence.

The bill also introduces a number of other amendments to improve the management of public land. It amends the definition of ‘building’ in the Land Act to clarify that it includes all structures and improvements. This will clarify the situation regarding marinas, a growing number of which are being constructed along our coastal area. It also affects provisions in the Land Act relating to unused road licences. There is a wide network of unused road licences around Victoria, mainly in rural areas, and they are of great benefit to the agricultural industry. Currently these licences may only be cancelled. The bill introduces flexibility into the system for unused road licences, allowing them to be varied.

The bill also introduces a number of other miscellaneous amendments which will streamline the management of public land. In conclusion, the bill will deliver a range of benefits including encouraging investment in the nature-based tourism industry, supporting economic growth, encouraging the provision of significant public infrastructure, improving stewardship of public land, and streamlining processes for the leasing and licensing of public land.

I will refer briefly to a decision that was referred to by Mr David Davis in his contribution, which is really an example of the benefits of this bill. If an agreement to lease which is subject to the approval of the minister

had been introduced, the situation that arose in the case he referred to regarding Eastern Health would not have arisen.

Having regard to all of this, I commend the bill to the house.

Mr VOGELS (Western Victoria) — I take this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Crown Land Acts Amendment (Lease and Licence Terms) Bill. I welcome it, and I am pleased to say that the opposition fully supports it. The main purpose of the bill is to amend the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, the Forests Act 1958, the Land Act 1958, the National Parks Act 1975 and the Wildlife Act 1975 to provide a licensing scheme for tour operators and activity providers on public land.

The bill also amends the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 and the Forests Act 1958 to increase the maximum lease term from 21 years to 65 years, the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 to increase the maximum licence term from 3 years to 10 years, and the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 and the Land Act 1958 to provide for licence terms greater than 10 years in circumstances where the licensee holds a lease over adjacent land.

The Rural and Regional Committee of this Parliament, of which I am a member, tabled a report in July 2008 on its inquiry into rural and regional tourism. As we travelled around the state we continually heard about the frustrations of developers, local councils, tourist operators and a multitude of other people about what is holding back growth in country Victoria. In its report the committee outlined the impediments to private investment on Crown land on page 108, where it says:

For developments on Crown land, a number of issues arose. First were concerns about the general philosophy, decision-making and planning processes adopted by public land managers in Victoria, particularly those departments and authorities responsible for the management of state and national parks. Concerns were also expressed about the short length of operator licences and Crown land leases, both of which were seen as impediments to investment.

You do not have to be Einstein to work out that if you want to invest in infrastructure on Crown land or public land, you need certainty and length of tenure. The operators of the Otway Fly have often mentioned that, and what a wonderful facility it is. But it was not built on Crown land because when the operators wanted to go into the Otways, they basically could get nowhere in their negotiations with the Department of Sustainability and Environment, Parks Victoria or anybody else. So eventually they acquired some private land and put the Otway Fly on private land. It has been a wonderful



tourist facility down there for a long time, and it brings a lot of wealth into that area. It is one of the attractions; people go down the Great Ocean Road, see the Twelve Apostles, Loch Ard Gorge et cetera, and they usually try to fit in the Otway Fly as well because it is a fantastic facility.

In addition, on page 114 of the report the committee made the following recommendation:

That the government in producing a Nature-Based Tourist Strategy Final Plan 2007–2011, for implementation, and in light of practice in other jurisdictions, consider increasing the duration of leases on Crown land in Victoria.

This valuable strategy should be finalised and implemented as a matter of urgency.

As I said before, I am pleased to see this bill before the house, because if we want people to invest their hard-earnt dollars, it is important that they have some security of tenure. Leases of 21 years were not good enough, so I think 65-year leases are probably somewhere in the middle. In a lot of other states it is more than that, but 65 years is better than what we had.

I hope this leads to some real action, that these are not just words. Joe Austin runs a fantastic operation at Cape Bridgewater, called Seals by Sea Tours, where he takes tourists in a very safe environment to watch a colony of seals in their natural habitat. It is very popular, and he does it very well. Mr Austin has been trying for quite a while now to start up a project where the London Bridge rock formation used to be. Obviously London Bridge has fallen down, but it is where it used to be located.

In that area fairy penguins come in every night. Joe would like to take tours down there; if he does, Parks Victoria and others should be 100 per cent involved so that the area is not over-exploited. If he were allowed to take, say, 20 visitors a night to have a look at the penguin colony coming ashore, which happens at dusk, obviously visitors to the area would increase their length of stay. Usually once the penguins have come ashore to their burrows, people stay in the area, so locals and their businesses get more yield out of those tourists than they do from those who drive down there for the day, then head home again.

I raised this issue before with the environment minister, Gavin Jennings. He responded that Parks Victoria would have a good look at that and that if there was a reasonable chance of that happening, he would ensure that positive action could be taken. That happened probably 12 months ago. I have not since heard what action has been taken, so I am interested to find out how Mr Austin has got on.

Basically I think this is good legislation. It will be very much appreciated by the people in the industry. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — The Greens have no particular objections to the general principles in this bill, but we do have a number of questions about how its provisions may actually operate. Therefore we would like to ask a few questions of the minister in the committee stage.

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I wish to make a very brief contribution on the Crown Land Acts Amendment (Lease and Licence Terms) Bill 2009. Ms Huppert and Mr David Davis gave a good outline of the main provisions of the bill, but the provisions that I am mostly interested in are those matters that have been raised with me by the Churchill Park Golf Club in Narre Warren North. I am aware that Parks Victoria has been renegotiating a range of leases. Some of them have been peppercorn leases in the past, but I believe Parks Victoria has been overzealous in the increases it has imposed on many voluntary clubs.

Churchill Park Golf Club is an example of a club that has been run very well. The course’s proceeds have been used to improve and build the infrastructure at the golf club. That was taken into consideration in the calculations of a new lease, which was going to cost something like $69 000 a year, which would basically render the club financially unviable.

I have tabled in the house a petition of close to 500 signatures of concerned club members. I am certainly aware of some efforts being made by Parks Victoria to negotiate more acceptable terms, including the phasing in of the increases, which would then be subject to a review following the next election. My concern is that the discounts which were offered in order to settle this matter are not protected following the review and therefore may again place such a facility under threat in the future.

I am very pleased, therefore, to see provisions in this bill which give management of these structures to incorporated committees of management. I presume the value of those assets would not be reflected in the new tenancy agreements and therefore would be further discounted, taking that into consideration.

That is the only matter I wish to raise, although I am aware of other golf clubs and other similar activities being seen as a ready source of income generation. I am aware that Parks Victoria had a deficit of some $7 million or $8 million in last year’s budget and is looking to balance its books, but it cannot do it at the



expense of these very important facilities which are crucial to keeping people active and involved, irrespective of age. It keeps them out of our hospitals, it keeps people fit. It only functions or operates as a result of a lot of hard work done by numerous club members and committees over many years.

Churchill Park Golf Club is one such example. I am aware that negotiations may have advanced, but I hope that the passage of this legislation will be reflected in a new agreement which will be able to deliver a discounted rate to clubs such as Churchill Park Golf Club. I am sure John Miller, the finance director of the club, will be very relieved. With those few words, I commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! I understand there are no amendments proposed by members. Can I have an indication from members of the clauses they are interested in?

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I have some slightly specific questions, but I think we should be able to handle them all under clause 1.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! That is fine. If members do not require consideration of any other clauses, we will deal with the matters under clause 1, as Mr Barber has suggested.

Clause 1

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — The bill proposes to extend lease terms from 21 years to 65 years. Ms Huppert basically gave the game away and said that extension is necessary to allow for capital intensive developments — for cafes along the foreshore, she was suggesting, but in reality, for buildings. Can the minister confirm whether that is the core rationale for extending the lease terms, or are there other types of activities that may be restricted if the leases are not extended?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I will respond to the notion that the state’s interest in this regard is to provide for the appropriate scale of development in accordance with the public land values and the environmental values of the Crown land estate. As Mr Barber would be

aware — I assume he is aware — there are various categories of reservation of the Crown’s estate, including those whose primary objective is the preservation of biodiversity and environmental values, such as national parks. Here we see very limited development opportunities. There are other similar categories of land tenure across Victoria. State forests are forms of reserved and unreserved Crown land where a variety of public values need to be protected, but where some opportunities should be available to develop amenities and assets for the enjoyment of citizens and tourists who come to these areas to interpret, to understand and to have some form of accommodation within the landscape.

That is the theoretical construct underpinning the thinking behind this bill. In accordance with that — without indicating in any shape or form that this is limited to coffee shops along the foreshore — there are a range of assets that may be appropriate for development. Some of those would be developed entirely by the state; others might be done in some form of collaborative arrangement between the state and private operators. They might be developed by committees of management. In many instances, committees of management want to be the developers of the appropriate level of assets to support their interactions. Those committees of management might be responsible for caravan parks, jetties or a variety of other activities that require some development or maintenance to deal with their depreciation. They might require significant investment to support greater access and to enable them to equip the assets for which they are responsible.

There are a variety of assets that may be totally appropriate for development within the Crown land estate. There are many instances where committees of management or the operators who receive a licensing arrangement within those categories of land need longer periods to repay the capital that was required to generate that asset. In that context, there have been any number of examples where the limitations on various categories of Crown land can be restrictive in terms of the type of outcome you want. In that regard, we see value in increasing the term of the licence or lease that is available to citizens, in whatever their capacity may be — as part of a committee of management or one of those private arrangements that may be entered into on Crown land.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — My reading of section 4(5) of the principal act is that a Crown land reserve can be established without stating what purpose it was reserved for. There are instances, as the minister said, where it is reserved for a golf



course or for a recreation reserve. Am I correct in saying it is possible to reserve Crown land? Are many reserves without a purpose also being gazetted by the minister, and if so, is this widespread?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — The reason I gave a lengthy answer — and Hansard does not actually note that Mr Barber was trying to wind me up in my first answer — to complete my answer — —

Mr Barber interjected.

Mr JENNINGS — It was a wind-up. I was trying to convey the foundation and give an appreciation of these issues, because quite often you can deal with a whole litany of individual specific questions by getting your framework right in the first instance. That is what I was doing.

In this regard, Mr Barber is quite right to indicate that in some cases it is very specific, because, for instance, when we establish a national park there is a whole range of reasons for the classification of the land, including the environmental values it may contain. Those reasons are described at length in the second-reading speech, which is very specific about what the environmental values are, the process by which the land tenure was designed and the community engagement that led to it. The embedded restrictions on access and opportunities within that land form are then articulated clearly and at great length.

Mr Barber is also quite right to say that in theory for some forms of land tenure, particularly those that fall into the category of unreserved Crown land, those purposes may not be articulated at great length. They may appear in a schedule or be attached to the Land Act, or they may not. The document outlining the relationship between the state and the committee of management might provide the opportunity for articulating the purposes for which a reserve may be used and how the committee of management will be required to acquit its responsibilities in managing the public land values.

In virtually all cases there will be some form of recognition of the purpose of the reservation. Guidance will be given to the land manager on the way in which those public values should be protected, and that would include a description in some shape or form of what those land values may be. They may not all appear in legislation specific to the parcel of land, but at some point in some part of the administrative arrangement there will be a recognition of those values and the

obligations of the land manager to acquit its responsibilities for the public benefit that exists.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — In those instances there would be no legislative requirement for a lease to comply with a public purpose. If the land is not reserved for a purpose, is it broadly correct to say that there is no restriction on the sort of activity you can then undertake on that land parcel?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — Even if my answers are long, by the sound of things they are not going to help Mr Barber. I have just sat down after explaining to him that it may not be described specifically in legislation in relation to each parcel of land in the way that it is, for instance, for a national park.

In terms of area of the state that is involved, the biggest land agencies work for me: the Department of Sustainability and Environment and Parks Victoria. In those cases, their obligations are very clear in the relevant acts, both in terms of the descriptions of the land tenure and in terms of the public values that those agencies have responsibility for on behalf of the people of Victoria. They are set out in statute and in the purposes of the department, and they are consistently reported on to the Parliament. In terms of area, that covers the vast majority of the circumstances we are talking about.

Beyond that, in relation to smaller parcels of land which may be subject to other forms of land management and which most often have a committee of management, the public values attached to those parcels of land would most often be described in the instrument that appoints the committee of management. I think Mr Barber is ultimately interested in whether this implies an open slather on public land values on these parcels of land that are meant to be protected and whether they are prescribed in some shape or form. My answer to Mr Barber is that they are.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I find what is said about clause 14 in the explanatory memorandum a bit misleading. It says that the bill inserts a new section:

… to provide for a lease to require a lessee to restore a site after the expiry of a lease.

The actual clause provides that:

A lease under this Act may provide that the lessor may require the lessee to undertake the removal of any building or structure on the land and the restoration of the site …



It is for the lessor to decide whether they want that provision in the lease. I presume that if it is inserted into the lease, it then becomes their option at the end of the lease to require the occupier to either restore the site or hand over the buildings. Can the minister tell me if it is now standard practice to have a clause like that in leases that are signed off and ultimately overseen by his department?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! We are on clause 1. It was agreed that the principal issues might be explored in discussion of that. If the minister is prepared to answer in that regard, I will entertain that at the moment, but I really do not want us to go all over the bill.

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I thank the Chair for the support provided to me in relation to not trying to cover the entrails of two specific elements. I will try to give a general response to the member, who might be concerned about the questions of to whom the asset belongs ultimately and who is responsible for its maintenance, who might be responsible for disposal and whether under normal circumstances the default position is that that will be the Crown.

As a general rule, certainly until this time under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act, it has been mandatory that the asset must be a state-owned asset. In the sequence of what I have just given in my answers to the questions that have already been asked, there is a variety of instances where the assets created on Crown land may not necessarily derive directly from the state — that is, they may not be assets that the state particularly wants to own. There is a number of examples of that. For instance, while communications towers serve a public benefit, they may be most appropriately constructed, maintained and ultimately owned by a communications entity which then, when that asset is redundant, should assume responsibility for its removal from public land.

That type of arrangement and facility is now provided for by the amendment that the bill makes to the act. The bill creates an opportunity within the act for appropriate consideration in establishing the lease conditions, in terms of its length, the return to the state and what public interest may be required to be included. We will have the flexibility of either asserting in the terms of a lease that the asset stays within the ownership of the Crown or effecting the circumstance whereby the state may determine that the asset is most appropriately left in the hands of the owner of that asset for its life under the terms of the lease. The bill provides flexibility that we do not have currently under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I understand that it says ‘may’. To be clear, what I am asking is: as the minister’s department is responsible for thousands and thousands of these things, will it be standard from now on for a lease to require at our option, being the public, the restoration of the site at the end of a lease? Will that be a standard provision across the thousands of leases that the minister’s department has to deal with?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — There will be an expectation that the asset will either have a public benefit beyond the term of the lease and that asset may be appropriately returned to the state, or alternatively, if it has a limited life within the term of the lease, my expectation is the lease will account for the removal of the asset or the winding up of that asset and the appropriate transfer to an ongoing party, which may be the state or a future operator.

I am particularly mindful of a particular asset that is currently on public land in the state of Victoria and which has been subject to some contested views about who is responsible for its removal where the lease has been terminated, and that ambiguity is something I hope not to have continue within the statute. Certainly that is the expectation of the government in allowing this provision. Will it become a standard template, a one size fits all? The answer is, no, but where there is consistency in relation to the longevity of an asset beyond the length of a lease, you would expect that asset to return to the state, otherwise its disposal should be considered within the terms of the lease being negotiated.

Mr VOGELS (Western Victoria) — I seek some clarification. I heard Ms Huppert say that a lot of farmers around country Victoria lease unmade roads, river frontage and creek frontage et cetera off the government, which is true. In the mid-1990s the Kennett government brought in regulation or legislation, whatever it was, whereby farmers could sign 99-year leases on their unmade roads, and I think it was 10 years for rivers and creeks. It might be more but I think it was something like that. Does this change these rules at all?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I am reluctant to go into the nature of leases along river frontages because I might spend the next half of this year dealing with those matters — it is a very complicated field of endeavour.

Let us, for simplicity in this instance, say that there is no change in relation to those licensing arrangements



envisaged through this bill. Those licensing arrangements in their various forms — there are many permutations of licensing and leasing arrangements around river frontages — have to be dealt with later this year in terms of the renewal of those licences and administratively we are going to be spending a bit of time dealing with those activities within the scope of the existing legislative framework.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — The minister can be sure the Greens verified that ourselves before we came to vote on this bill. This bill also extends the possible term for a licence from 3 years to 10 years. Licences do not need to match the reservation status of the land the way the leases do. It is possible to build a building or some other structure under a licence that would be there for 10 years. Is this a backdoor way of getting around the requirements that would normally apply to leases and allowing licensing of activities that, if they were written up as a lease, would not be permitted under the reservation of that particular piece of Crown land?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I have never been advised that that is the purpose of the bill. That has never been conscious in terms of my organising principles for what this bill should be doing. Whilst it might be technically possible that that may be the case in practice, it is my view that it would not be the case. As the minister responsible for administering the act, I would not want that to be an outcome and I would be pretty determined to ensure that that was not an outcome.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — Would the piece of land between the Wonthaggi desalination plant and the ocean be a Crown land reserve? If so, is a lease going to be required in order to stick those tunnels — those pipelines — under that particular piece of Crown land reserve, whatever its status is?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I would assume that in relation to the beach in question, certainly beyond the coastal management approvals that are required, it would be wise for there to be a leasing arrangement that is attached to the parcel of land in question, because that would then provide the circumstances by which the operator of the desalination plant would be held to account for the construction and maintenance of the asset that is going to be built under that parcel of land.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — This is my last set of questions, and I thank you, Deputy President, for your help. In developing this bill, did the minister consult with Native Title Services Victoria or

the body that is responsible for representing native title claimants in Victoria?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I did not personally negotiate or consult native title services in relation to this piece of legislation, but I should not presume Mr Barber’s knowledge. Totally in parallel with the preparation of this piece of legislation have been protracted negotiations between the state of Victoria and the Land Justice Group of Aboriginal communities in Victoria, and, as part of the Land Justice Group, native title services was a proponent in the negotiations that took place, representing the interests of Aboriginal people with my department — the Department of Justice being the agency that is responsible for native title — and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

Those negotiations, which have concluded, led to a framework that deals with the way in which Victoria will deal with the land justice aspirations of Aboriginal people, which includes but goes beyond native title in terms of the way in which the state will try to mediate land justice agreements with traditional owners across all parcels of the public land estate in Victoria, and try to support land and economic development opportunities for Aboriginal people.

Within that protracted negotiation leading to the framework which was agreed to between the parties earlier this year, this bill has been prepared to have no regrets in relation to the aspirations of Aboriginal people. While Mr Barber may home in on whether there was a specific conversation with native title services in relation to this specific bill, from my vantage point the answer is probably not. However, within the much broader and much more inclusive land justice framework, the department prepared the legislation in a way that will not jeopardise the land justice outcomes that could be achieved through that framework.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — This is the last question. In terms of there being no regrets, I presume the minister is confirming that the non-extinguishment principle within the federal native title legislation will apply to all leasing and licensing activities done under this bill from now on, at least so long as he is the responsible minister? In fact, that is encouraged by core principle no. 24 in the Dodson report.

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — In relation to future acts, there is nothing in this legislation which precludes the interests of Aboriginal people from being asserted. As



Mr Barber said about the Dodson report, which was concluded by agreement between the state of Victoria and the Victorian Traditional Owner Land Justice Group, matters of future acts and various other elements of the aspirations and claims of Aboriginal people will be dealt with in consideration of each individual agreement that is entered into in the first instance, and then ultimately may or may not be included in either specific or overarching legislation subsequently brought before the Parliament.

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — Is the minister able to tell me whether the land under the water in Port Phillip Bay that is affected by the bill is Crown land?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I believe it is, but I will seek confirmation.

The Deputy President is keen to jump in and help me with my answer. Quite correctly he says, and as the member knows, part of Port Phillip Bay is designated marine national park. But the general category of land below the high-water mark in Port Phillip Bay, with the exception of those additional reservations in relation to the marine national park, is unreserved Crown land.

Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) — I am interested in the process by which leases are determined by the department. I wonder if there is a process in place whereby the department gives consideration to security of tenure for any of the tenants — the people who hold leases — at the time those leases expire, or indeed in some cases are converted to licences? Is there a process that takes into account security of tenure?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — Mr Atkinson enters into a line of inquiry from perhaps the opposite end to the line of inquiry that I have been answering up until now. One of the things we try to grapple with in trying to update the conditions of the leasing arrangements here is being mindful of the security of tenure which is required to enable the proponent of the development — the asset — to be able to secure funding and a revenue stream that actually accounts for the establishment and maintenance of that asset over its life.

That is really why we are trying to get the balance, and we have tried to change the circumstances by addressing the issue of time, which is one element of this matter in terms of certainty. Clearly that is the reason that the length of leasing and licensing arrangements has been increased in this bill. The other issue is our interest in the capability of land

management and the appreciation of this. The government wants to be mature land managers of the state of Victoria through our various agencies by trying to make sure we can account for these issues in terms of the marrying up of public benefit, environmental sustainability and the commercial viability of an asset and of an operator. That is the mix we are trying to bring.

We tried to create a framework by which any other land manager, such as a small committee of management, may be able to develop that expertise and the understanding that that is the way in which they have to account for the assets they want to generate and create by entering into an agreement with a lessee or licensee that they are responsible for. Security of tenure, and using that as an organising principle of how you do that work, will account for the appropriate marrying up of public benefit and the ability to generate and operate an asset.

Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) — That is a very good answer. I appreciate the balancing act that applies.

I am interested in a trend of late in discussing — and this is in retail lease law — franchising in this country; about retailers and franchisees having security of tenure being able to simply roll over their agreements despite the fact they are limited term agreements. It is an interesting argument and a direction that is being pushed.

I understand the variables that the minister has spoken about here. The genesis of my question and the reason I am concerned about this issue concerns a man who came to me some years ago; in fact I am to meet him at 3 o’clock. It is an interesting juxtaposition of that appointment and this debate. This gentleman, a man called Peter Gantidis, runs Melbourne River Cruises. Before the minister’s term in office, Peter Gantidis was subject to a process whereby there was a tender for berths on the river for the operation of various river cruises.

This man has been in business for about 40 years, has built up a lot of goodwill and has been recognised by tourism operators for the quality of his service. In terms of the tourist offerings of this city he has played an important role. He clearly has a significant investment and goodwill. He has demonstrated the capability that the minister spoke of in his answer. But I also appreciate, and I think he appreciated at the time, that there was a move towards a tender to ensure that Victorians taxpayers were getting the best deal for what was a lease arrangement that carried some exclusivity.



Therefore the tender process was obviously an appropriate one.

The problem is that, having allocated a lot of those leases, most of them were speculative in terms of the people who took them up that time — this was under former Minister Thwaites. There is not the same number of cruise operators now. The notional number of cruise operators on the river is 32, but there are really only 2 or 3 that are actually providing that sort of tourism experience and utilising the facilities there.

In terms of security of tenure my concern is that that business was a successful business. It is a business that, it would be true to say, has suffered very badly and is in need of consideration because of the global financial crisis and the reduced tourist numbers. There are also the imposts to it because of the government’s policy and its failure to recognise, to the extent I might have hoped, the capability of the operator in terms of that mix of elements of which the minister spoke.

That is the reason I raise this issue of the security of tenure. In the case of an operator like Mr Peter Gantidis, who has been there for 40 years, you could take the view that he has had a good run. You could also take the view that he has had an exceptional investment in that business and has delivered a service and offered a tourism experience to Melbourne, and his contribution might well have been recognised more favourably, or perhaps with greater consideration, in terms of the process of that time.

Moving on, I am focused on how that mix works. I guess I was satisfied with the minister’s original answer, but I thought I ought to explain the context in which I raise the question. I do not know if the minister has any other comments, but I do not intend to proceed further.

Mr Gantidis may well be known to the minister, and he may have made representations to the minister. I would be keen, if he makes representations at any time, for the minister to see Mr Gantidis and to support that business to the extent that it can be. I am not suggesting any government grants or overt favours for the business, but I simply want to say that there ought to be a recognition of the contribution Mr Gantidis has made over an extended period. I hope the minister would recognise that; I have some confidence he would.

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I thank Mr Atkinson for outlining the circumstances of Mr Gantidis and putting the situation in the context of public policy considerations, which are ultimately what my responsibility has to be.

Without necessarily making any judgements about the administrative decisions that may have been made along the way in terms of these licensing arrangements, from the description Mr Atkinson has provided to the committee it seems that perhaps there was an imbalance, as it turned out in practice, between the number of licences that were commercially viable and the market that develops a supply and demand question in terms of the tourism trade that underpins that sector of the industry.

As a public policy overlay of what we are doing, I think it is important that we do not overpopulate the field — this is a general principle rather than a comment on the specific — in anticipation of proven or anticipated market demand within realistic constraints. Then we do not lead to overdevelopment or the overissuing of licences, but we are very mindful of the business viability of the entity that may enter into a lease or a licensing arrangement.

Even though the driver of Mr Atkinson’s concern might be slightly different from the original line of inquiry, in particular that of the Greens, which implied a concern about overdevelopment on the public land estate, the appropriate balance lies somewhere in terms of trying to acquit these things. We do not want to see overdevelopment; we want to see sensitive development that not only acquits environmental obligations and public land values but also provides for asset creation on a scale that is sensitive to those values and furthermore can commercially account for itself.

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — Minister, I apologise for having to take you back to a previous subject. In respect of your previous answer regarding the seabed of Port Phillip Bay after the high watermark being unreserved Crown land, if there was a hypothetical proposal to reclaim some of that seabed and turn it into land, to become an additional part of the land mass, would there be a process required to be entered into to do that?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I can assure the committee that no such proposal has been put to me. But if there had been at some point in time, I am certain we would be required to make a consideration of the appropriateness of that. It would require a range of approvals — a coastal arrangement approval would be a very important one.

Beyond that, in terms of the appropriateness of the use of Crown land or a change to its land tenure, I would envisage that my department would be obliged to undertake a very extensive consideration of that. I



imagine there would be a lot of public commentary about such a matter, so there would be some degree of community engagement on it and I would subsequently receive advice about it.

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — Apart from those processes, would that hypothetical land still be unreserved Crown land until it was deemed otherwise by that process? Would it still be geographically, let us say, unreserved Crown land?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — There are a couple of things. We are talking about the land — whether in fact it is a piece of forest, whether it is wetlands, whether it is under the sea or whether it is Crown land.

Ms Pennicuik — It used to be the seabed but it is now — —

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Ms Pennicuik will let the minister complete his answer first. We are in the committee stage, not having a conversation.

Mr JENNINGS — In the first instance the concept should be that the land is not moving, so the land stays in its terrestrial location on the planet and within the state of Victoria. On that basis the land actually does not change; it is designated, in a sense, how it appears on the map. That is a starting point. Beyond that, in relation to its use, the purpose it is put to and ultimately what the appropriate classification is for it, that would be subject to some form of administrative decision. Some of these things can be done through regulation, some of these things require the Parliament to consider them, and a change of land tenure most often requires the approval of the Parliament.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Does Ms Pennicuik need to clarify that further?

Ms Pennicuik — No.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8

Mrs KRONBERG (Eastern Metropolitan) — My query concerns new section 17AB that is inserted, in particular that the Governor in Council may by order confer certain leasing and licensing powers to the health minister. My area of concern centres around the fact that Eastern Health has a contract with an imaging group at the Box Hill Hospital in Eastern Metropolitan Region. There was a dispute between the imaging group and Eastern Health, which went to court. Eastern

Health lost the case and the judgement was awarded in favour of the lessee — that is, the imaging group.

I am seeking a guarantee that the provisions of clause 8, which give new powers to the Minister for Health, will not alter the balance and specifically will not unsettle the lessee of this imaging group in a contract relationship with Box Hill Hospital.

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I thank Mrs Kronberg for her question and the opportunity to hopefully allay her concerns. I have been advised that in relation to her example of the quality of the leasing arrangement entered into between Eastern Health and the company in question, MIA Victoria, the Supreme Court made a determination in relation to the terms of that agreement.

The provision in the bill provides a bit of a belts-and-braces approach in the instance that Mrs Kronberg is concerned about. In terms of the standing of the lease that is entered into, it is confirmed through the process by which ministerial scrutiny is either directly applied to a lease or there is a very clear delegation by me to the Minister for Health, to the body entering into the lease. So the lines of delegation are clear rather than being assumed.

They are very specific because of this provision; in this case I delegate responsibility for entering into leases to the Minister for Health. That is not to say that other public land values do not have to be complied with — in fact, they are — but in terms of the leasing arrangements, the Minister for Health has a delegated responsibility. In the case of a health body, the Minister for Health would delegate to that health body on the basis of each and every lease being either scrutinised by that minister or directly available for that entity, by a pre-approved process of them entering into the lease. That would mean the lease that is ultimately arrived at, such as in relation to Eastern Health and the party in question, would have greater clarity than it would in the current situation. Whilst the member may be concerned that this is clouding the issue, in fact it provides a direct and clearer pathway in terms of the resolution of leases that might be in dispute.

Mrs KRONBERG (Eastern Metropolitan) — The minister used the term ‘belt-and-braces approach’. That causes me concern. I would like the minister to expand on what he means by ‘belt and braces’. I am seeking a yes or no answer as to whether we can have a guarantee of the surety of that lease in that instance.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! The minister may wish to respond, but in terms of seeking a

LEGISLATION REFORM (REPEALS No. 4) BILL


guarantee on that specific lease when it has already been before the courts, I do not think the minister is in a position to adopt a different position now, in a guarantee sense, to what the courts have already determined.

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I confirm that, and I am sorry to have used a phrase I thought was a colloquial phrase that would give comfort rather than cause confusion. I apologise for that. ‘Belt and braces’ is a phrase that I use in the context of adding to certainty, perhaps by adding two layers of certainty rather than one layer of uncertainty.

My answer is that the delineation of delegated responsibility — from my authority to the Minister for Health, to the agencies that work for the Minister for Health — is clearer than it has been before. On that basis any lease that is entered into by the entity would be clearer before the law rather than ambiguous, as may have been alleged in the case that the member has cited.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Just to clarify for the minister, I think Mrs Kronberg is after an assurance that this legislation has no implication for that lease because that has been determined by the courts, so there is no retrospective element to this particular provision.

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — In fact none of the provisions of this bill are to apply retrospectively.

Mrs KRONBERG (Eastern Metropolitan) — Thank you for your contribution to that point.

Clause agreed to; clauses 9 to 56 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third reading

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

That the bill be now read a third time.

I thank members for their contributions, including to the committee stage of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.


Second reading


Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) — I am pleased to rise to contribute to the debate on the Legislation Reform (Repeals No. 4) Bill 2009. I state at the outset that the coalition will not be opposing this bill. The coalition supports the general thrust of this and the preceding three reform bills that have been passed during the term of this Parliament, because having a lean and efficient statute book is an important element in helping business and the community to have a clear understanding of legislation and having as little legislative interference in people’s day-to-day lives as possible.

The bill before us proposes to repeal 45 principal acts and 5 amending pieces of legislation. This bill, unlike the first repeal bill, was referred to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee for its review, and the committee found no problems with the proposed legislation.

The government has announced that by the end of this term in office it aims to have reduced the number of principal acts in operation by 20 per cent compared with the number in operation in 1999. In January 2000 there were 544 principal acts in operation. With the passage of this legislation that will be reduced to 451, leaving the government needing to repeal an additional 16 bills to achieve its target.

The repeal of legislation where appropriate is only one aspect of regulatory reform and the reduction of the regulatory burden on individuals, community and business. Other important aspects are the creation of regulations, the total number of pages on the statute book and other ways that government can regulate or seek to regulate people’s behaviour or actions. I note that, notwithstanding the reduction in the number of acts on the statute book, the actual number of pages of legislation enacted by this government increased by 5900 pages between January 2000 and December 2008. As I said, this is only one part of the equation, and for other parts of the equation perhaps there is more work to be done.

I note that the subcommittee of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee charged with redundant legislation has looked at potentially redundant



corporations laws that exist in Victoria. As members of the house would be well aware, the regulation of corporations is now done at a federal level. With a view to further reducing the statute book with subsequent repeal legislation, there are a number of acts which the committee identified as being potentially redundant. One must be very clear as to whether parts of an act are needed to be preserved for future certainty. That is something which the government in its response to that report has undertaken to examine in more detail. As a member of that committee I look forward to a response by the government which is more substantive than the one it tabled previously. There are other acts on the statute book which may well be redundant, so I look forward to that work continuing. It is indeed a continuing process.

The bill is very straightforward. Clause 1 sets out the purpose of the bill: to repeal spent or redundant acts relating to land; clause 2 provides for the commencement of the bill; clause 3 provides for the acts listed in the schedule to be repealed; and clause 4 provides for the automatic repeal of the act on the first anniversary of the day on which it receives royal assent. That is an important part in reducing the number of redundant acts in the future. It has become a feature of new bills — automatic repeal reduces the number of bills on the statute book, which is a worthy innovation and one which is universally endorsed.

The schedule identifies those acts which will be made redundant. As Mr Hall said in a contribution on a previous repeal bill, an analysis of the bills being repealed is in effect a window into history. Some of the acts being repealed date back to many decades ago, such as the South and East Melbourne Lands Act 1906. As was indicated previously, most of the acts relate to land, and I note that a number of the acts relate to land in the Eastern Victoria Region — the Bittern Land Act 1974 and the French Island (Land Exchange) Act 1981 are amongst those that are applicable to my electorate in particular.

The Land (Miscellaneous Matters) Act 1984 deals with issues associated with the Melbourne General Market Lands Act 1917. The other observation one can make about these repeal bills is that while many issues come and go, many other issues stay the same. The issue of the Melbourne Markets is currently one for the government to resolve and deal with after a significant passage of time. The Frankston Lands Act 1989 could also be perceived to be relevant to today with the claims made in the weekend papers about homelessness in the city of Frankston, the use of some public lands by homeless people for temporary accommodation and the like. As I said, many of these acts have some relevance

to conditions today, notwithstanding that the specific provisions of those acts are now redundant. The Sunshine Land Act 1992 is another one I could cite.

In summary, this is a straightforward bill. It represents a further reduction in the number of statutes, and that is to be supported and endorsed. With those words, I thank the house.

Mr SCHEFFER (Eastern Victoria) — I will make a very brief contribution to the debate on the Legislation Reform (Repeals No. 4) Bill. The purpose of the amendments contained in this bill is to repeal redundant or spent legislation. The acts that are to be repealed under this bill fall into two categories: 45 principal acts that relate to land and a further 5 spent amending acts that the bill states contain transitional or substantive provisions.

The bill itself contains only a few lines, with the acts listed in a more extensive attached schedule. The details of each act and the reasons for its status are set out in the explanatory memorandum. Members will know that the government is committed to improving government efficiency and that the regular review of legislation is part of this commitment. The government aims to reduce the total number of acts by 20 per cent of what was on the books in 1999. To achieve this the chief parliamentary counsel has instituted a legislative reform program and, in conjunction with relevant departments, has been progressively reviewing the legislation and has nominated the acts listed in this bill for repeal.

This is the fourth bill that has presented a range of acts for repeal, and those that are listed in the schedule attached to the present bill are concerned with parcels of land the status of which has been changed from time to time to facilitate government objectives that have now been completed or dealt with. The bill has been considered by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, which recommended that it is appropriate that all the acts listed in the schedule be repealed because they are spent or redundant. The committee also agreed to write to the relevant minister seeking advice on why the Footscray Land (Amendment) Act 1990 was never proclaimed.

This bill is a further instalment on the government’s 2006 election commitment contained in our efficient government policy statement. We committed to complete the process of modernising all of Victoria’s legislation by 2010, to repeal all old and redundant legislation, and to ensure that all laws are written in clear English and are easy to understand. I commend this bill to the house.



Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — The Legislation Reform (Repeals No. 4) Bill repeals 45 principal acts and 5 amending acts as part of the government’s program of repealing redundant acts of Parliament, so reducing the volume of statute law. The acts deal mainly with parcels of Crown land right across Victoria, which makes it difficult for a single MP or a minor party to get on top of the volume.

The Premier stated in his second-reading speech that the acts which this bill repeal have been identified as suitable for repeal following a review of the legislation by the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel and the Department of Sustainability and Environment. Those acts revoke permanent reservations over and grants of Crown land to promote changes in land status to support government projects or projects supported by government.

The bill is only two pages long, but the schedule lists 50 acts dating from 1906 to 2006 — a span of 100 years. Due to the range and scope of the bills to be repealed, to a certain extent the house has to take it on faith that this repeals bill leaves no gaps and does no harm. I trust that it does neither, so the Greens will support the bill.

Ms DARVENIZA (Northern Victoria) — It is always pleasing to speak on a bill on which we are all in furious agreement. It does not often happen but we have one today: the Legislation Reform (Repeals No. 4) Bill. All of us are in furious agreement that there are pieces of legislation that are now surplus to requirements and need to be repealed. That is the main purpose of this bill: to repeal those pieces of legislation that are spent and redundant, and the acts relating to land listed in the schedule of the bill.

This has very much been part of our government’s agenda. In fact, at the last state election in November 2006 the government made a very clear policy commitment to improving the efficiency of government. One of the ways we identified that we could do this was by undertaking a thorough review of all the Victorian statutes and repealing spent and redundant legislation. The government aims to reduce the total number of acts by 20 per cent.

Significant progress has already been made in simplifying the statute book by repealing legislation that is deemed to no longer be required through a series of legislation reform acts. This bill brings the total number of spent and redundant acts repealed through this process to approximately 200. The acts identified for repeal largely relate to legislation that revoked permanent reservation over and grants of Crown land

and deemed that land to be unalienated Crown land. The acts being repealed also provided for the reserving or vesting of certain land, the surrendering of land to the Crown, sales or leases of land, the discharge of mortgages and easements, and the revocation or appointment of trustees. One provision of the bill is that no compensation is payable arising from matters under these acts.

As is the case with all legislation that comes before this Parliament, a consultation process occurred prior to the introduction of this bill. The acts to be repealed have been identified as suitable for repeal following an extensive review of Victorian legislation by the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel and the Department of Sustainability and Environment. It is a good bill and it deserves the support of all members. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr VOGELS (Western Victoria) — I rise to make a few comments on the Legislation Reform (Repeals No. 4) Bill 2009. As we have heard from previous speakers, the main purpose of this bill is to repeal 45 principal acts and 5 amending acts with either transitional or substantive provisions. These acts are listed in the schedule to the bill.

As I looked through the list of acts and saw the land in country Victoria that is affected by this bill, I saw that much of it would be land on which there was once a hall used by a local community or a recreation reserve where people used to play football or cricket. Over the years, with a diminishing population across country Victoria, many of these structures and reserves have fallen into disuse, there are no longer committees of management and the land is sitting idle. I understand that is not a good situation and that things need to change. But it is very difficult for small communities when they lose a parcel of land which was once a community hub.

When I was on the Corangamite Shire Council we as a council decided to see if we could close some of the halls in Terang. Terang is a small community with a population of about 2500 people and it had 11 halls. We held some meetings at Terang and we tried to persuade the community to accept, say, two or three halls which the council would help fund and maintain rather than 11. Seven or eight of the halls were being used once a year. But it started a huge fight; everybody wanted to maintain that link to the past even though they may have only used the hall once every two years or so. We closed none of the halls because we were not game to; it would have caused such a barney. At the end of the day, we kept them all going. This was 10 years ago and I am not sure whether they are all still in use.



Much of this land, particularly in country Victoria, was originally donated by a generous benefactor — a farmer or someone like that — as a site for a recreation reserve or in some cases a hospital. The land was donated to the government so a health service or other structure could be built on it, or for a recreation reserve, and now some 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 or 80 years later the land will go back to the Crown. Often the land is on a corner of a property belonging to the benefactor or their family, and sometimes it is in the best part of their property. They once gave the land for community use but they would love to be able to say, ‘I would not mind having that bit of reserve back as part of my block of land’. However, that does not happen; it goes back to the state. I think that is sad. A lot of that land should go back to the original families who donated it.

I was interested to hear the Minister for Environment and Climate Change fire a warning shot across the bow during the debate on the Crown Land Acts Amendment (Lease and Licence Terms) Bill. We were discussing tenure on Crown land and I asked a question about unmade road reserves, river frontage and creek frontage land. At that time the minister just happened to say that that will be coming up shortly in the spring session. I have a feeling that there will be a lot of heartache and a lot of anger once again in country Victoria when the state takes back river and creek frontages that form part of farmers’ properties.

The rivers and creeks wind all over the place like snakes. It is nearly impossible to fence them off. If they are fenced off and there is a flood, trees come floating down the river and knock down the fences every time. I am sure there will no compensation, as I foresee there will be no funding. I have no problem with this bill and I commend it to the house.

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria) — I am pleased this afternoon to add my support to the enthusiastic contributions of previous speakers in the debate on the Legislation Reform (Repeals No. 4) Bill. It seems that Mr Drum does not think this is important, but it is really important work because the government is very committed to reducing red tape. Part of that is reducing the requirement for organisations to be aware of legislation.

This bill proposes to repeal 45 principal acts and 5 amending acts. The three previous acts in this series repealed over 150 acts, so this legislation will take the total number to over 200. There has been a lot of work going on behind the scenes. A reasonable proportion of members in the chamber at the moment are members of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee: the Acting President, my colleague Mr Eideh and

Mr O’Donohue, who does the very important work of chairing the subcommittee of SARC which considers in detail the matter of repealing spent legislation.

Members might well wonder what Mandurang South and Kew have in common — that is the sort of thing one could ponder for a great amount of time. Both those areas were subject to the same piece of legislation in 1981. However, like all other pieces of legislation in this process — over 200 now, and I am told more to come in what will be further repeal legislation — the legislation they were part of was important in its time, but those days have come and gone.

As previous members have said, these acts predominantly relate to land matters. Mr Vogels had a couple of things to say about original owners of land, but I think it is important on this occasion to also recognise the traditional owners, the traditional peoples, of all the lands that these acts have impacted over many years of Victoria’s history. Some of these acts are pretty old. The Ballaarat Land Acts 1939 has the original spelling of that city’s name. You do not see too many words with ‘aa’; I always keep an eye out for those.

The Bendigo (Rosalind Park) Lands Act is also being repealed. Rosalind Park always brings back fond memories for me, because I attended the high school that is adjacent to that particular patch of land. I have not been there for a little while now, but I am sure Mr Drum could confirm for me my theory that at lunchtimes the park is still filled with year 11 and year 12 students as they spill out of their classrooms into the lovely space that is adjacent to the school site.

The legislation being repealed includes the act that closed part of Moorabool Street in Geelong; legislation reserving land in Warrnambool, a particularly beautiful part of my electorate; and arrangements relating to the Queen Victoria Hospital land as well.

Mr Barber — Can we nominate laws we would like to have repealed? Could that be in the next edition?

Ms PULFORD — Mr Barber, the good people of Northern Metropolitan Region have elected you as one of their representatives in this place. If you have legislation you wish to nominate for repeal — and you can Twitter away to your heart’s desire — it will have to run through the robust process that Mr O’Donohue’s subcommittee runs legislation through with the assistance of chief parliamentary counsel. It would then face further scrutiny by the full membership of SARC. There is a thorough process that is gone through. Ms Pennicuik said in her remarks that she took it as a bit of an article of faith that all those t’s had been



crossed and those i’s had been dotted and that the legislation being repealed was truly past its use-by date and no longer effective. The work the committee does certainly ensures that this is the case.

Mr Barber interjected.

Ms PULFORD — Mr O’Donohue is perhaps more familiar with this than I am, but I believe that the laws are determined through a departmental audit process by people who deal with the various types of legislation. A process is gone through where legislation that no longer serves any purpose is identified. I am happy to be of assistance there; I hope that was useful.

This legislation repeals the Land Revocations (And Other Matters) Act 1995, which dealt with land arrangements around Sovereign Hill, a very important tourist attraction and a highlight for people visiting western Victoria. The five amending acts to be repealed include legislation that existed for arrangements around the tennis centre and the Crown’s right to not pay compensation to a person or an organisation in respect of matters arising under that legislation.

With those few words on some of the specific pieces of legislation — a small sample, because there are 50 acts being repealed by this legislation — I commend the bill. The government is very pleased to have the support of the house in this process of removing spent acts from the statute book to enable our laws to be more accessible and, wherever possible, to reduce the regulatory burden on all Victorians.

Mr KOCH (Western Victoria) — I will only be making a brief contribution in relation to the Legislation Reform (Repeals No. 4) Bill. Obviously the main provisions of the bill are to repeal 45 principal acts and 5 amending pieces of legislation with either transitional or substantive provisions. There is nothing controversial about the bill. It seeks to repeal a number of acts relating to changes in the status of land that had supported government projects.

This bill is part of the Brumby government’s program to reduce the number of principal acts operating in 1999 by 20 per cent. In January 2000 there were 544 principal acts on the statute books. By 1 January 2007 this figure had increased to 579 acts. By 1 January 2008 the figure had reduced to 527. Numbers 1 and 2 and now no. 3 repeal bills reduced the number of principal acts to 496. Importantly, the no. 4 repeal bill will reduce this figure to 451, requiring the removal of 16 additional principal acts for the government to achieve its target. Whilst the government is seeking to reduce the number of acts on the statute books, the

number of new pages of legislation it has enacted has increased by more than 5900 pages between January 2000 and December 2008. In saying that I point out that there were 12 000 new pages enacted and only 6100 repealed.

Furthermore it should be highlighted that, unlike what occurred with the no. 1 repeal bill, the government has learnt from its previous mistakes to refer the bill to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee before proceeding to the second-reading debate. The schedule includes the repealing of many acts from between 1906 and 1995 — a period of 89 years. Importantly from my point of view, as a representative of constituents in Western Victoria Region, four of the acts to be repealed are the Ballaarat Lands Act 1939, the Ballaarat Court House Land Act 1902 and the Ballaarat Free Library (Borrowing) Act 1938. Other acts to be repealed include the Geelong Lands Act 1981, the Warrnambool Land Act 1989 and the Portarlington Land Act 1991.

A couple of very valid points were made in the short contributions of other people here today. As suggested earlier, much of this repeal process has come about when previous land uses are no longer required. In many cases committees of management are no longer in place and their operations have ceased to support their local communities, be they recreation reserves, public halls, school sites or even proposed cemetery sites that were never utilised. Mr Vogels, one of my colleagues from Western Victoria, made what I believe to be an extremely important point concerning what becomes of these small amounts of land when their use is no longer required. Historically we have seen the generosity of farming families and of many townspeople in small rural centres who have made lands available as a gift to the government, or a gift to the Crown, to assist in offering greater opportunities for their own communities. Regrettably, when these acts are repealed the government has occasionally seen fit to just put the land back on the market, in most cases releasing it to the highest bidder.

I remember clearly when I was on council — prior to the local government restructuring — in the Shire of Wannon, based in Coleraine. The year I was president the old school site at Nareen, where my father went to school, was donated to the government by the Neeson family, one of the original families in the Nareen district. When the property was no longer required and the school had been removed, the government saw fit to auction that land. The family was not notified of what the government proposed to do. Instead family members found an ad in the paper for these 3 acres of land in the corner of their property which had been held for generations. They were extremely concerned that

TOBACCO AMENDMENT (PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) BILL


they had not been given an opportunity to repurchase that land for their own needs. Like all people on the land, they lived in fear of someone coming into the area with little or no knowledge of how land activities take place and what harm could be done to adjoining landowners, be it through pest plants, animals, stock diseases or what have you.

The Neeson family members were notified that the government had a schedule for auction on a certain day and that they, like everyone else, were allowed to compete to buy the block. The locals appreciated what had taken place in this situation, as in many situations, and they were reluctant starters. They were keen to see the Neeson family put the land back onto their block and get on with their lives after that marvellous gesture some 80 years prior to offer the government of the day the opportunity to use that state school. To their dismay they found that the education department had employed people to come from Melbourne, from the metropolitan area, to participate in the auction process to try to arrive at an amount far higher than what was likely for this isolated piece of dirt some 70 kilometres west of Hamilton. The whole thing was set up. It was a sham. The local family, who had been generous enough generations earlier to make this land available, had to compete with people who had never even wanted the land. They were sent as puppets by the government, and this local family had to outbid them to secure what was rightfully its again, after a period of 80 years.

This situation is not picked up in any of the repealing legislation. Governments of all persuasions should be giving consideration to it. The history of most of the land is well known. Many people, be they in small towns, on the land or even in bigger communities, know who the original owners were, and even if some of the descendants of the original families are not there, the archives of municipalities will lead the government back to the original owners.

In saying that, I congratulate the government on repealing the legislation relating to the pieces of land covered by this bill. I hope some of the land finds its way back to the original generous donors of the land to the Crown and that penalties are not served on those people and their families for their generosity at an earlier stage. A couple of areas have given opposition members a bit of concern, but despite that I look forward to this bill having a speedy passage through the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time; by leave, proceeded to third reading.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.


Introduction and first reading

Received from Assembly.

Read first time for Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) on motion of Mr Lenders.

Statement of compatibility

For Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change), Mr Lenders tabled following statement in accordance with Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Tobacco Amendment (Protection of Children) Bill 2009.

In my opinion, the Tobacco Amendment (Protection of Children) Bill 2009, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with the human rights protected by the charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of bill

The purpose of the bill is to implement the commitments in the Victorian Tobacco Control Strategy 2008–2013 (‘the strategy’) by amending the Tobacco Act 1987 (‘the act’) in relation to:

(a) a new offence prohibiting the display of tobacco advertising, including tobacco product display, in retail outlets, with an exemption for ‘specialist tobacconists’ and on-airport duty-free shops;

(b) a new offence where a person smokes in a motor vehicle where another person under the age of 18 years is present;

(c) a new offence prohibiting the sale of tobacco from temporary outlets;

(d) a new power for the Minister for Health to ban the sale, in certain circumstances, of tobacco products and packaging that appeal to young people, non-tobacco products that resemble tobacco products, and any other product, the nature or advertising of which might encourage young people to smoke; and

(e) amendments implementing a review of penalties and enforcement provisions including new body corporate provisions and extended provisions for



the power of the secretary to require disclosures by tobacco companies and wholesalers of information relating to tobacco retailing businesses.

The bill is structured in three parts. Part 1 includes introductory provisions and does not limit any rights in the charter. Part 2 provides for the new tobacco advertising restrictions, which engage the right to freedom of expression but do not limit the right. Part 3 provides for the remaining amendments. Part 3 includes the smoking in cars offence which may engage the right to privacy but does not limit it. Part 4 provides for the repeal of the amending act and does not limit any rights in the charter.

The amendments continue the series of legislative reforms made since the act was introduced. The act’s preamble recognises that tobacco use is so injurious to the health of both smokers and non-smokers as to warrant restrictive legislation. The act particularly seeks to limit the exposure of young people to smoking and the persuasion to smoke. Smoking remains the leading avoidable cause of many cancers, respiratory, cardiovascular and other diseases. In Victoria, smoking costs approximately 4000 lives and $5 billion every year. Smoking rates remain disproportionately high in many of our communities, causing avoidable hardship and ill health among many of the people who can least afford it.

Tobacco control legislation positively engages the right of everyone to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health which is recognised by international human rights law, including article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which has been ratified by Australia. Article 12 requires parties to the ICESCR to take steps to achieve the full realisation of this right, including measures necessary for the prevention, treatment and control of epidemic diseases, and the healthy development of children. Health is a fundamental human right that is essential for the enjoyment of many of the individual rights protected by the charter, and in particular the right to life which is protected in section 9 of the charter. Tobacco control legislation also supports the objectives of the World Health Organisation in response to what the organisation describes as a global tobacco epidemic requiring steps to be taken in the affirmation of the international right to the highest standards of health.

International human rights law also recognises that a state may have to limit certain rights of individuals in order to address serious threats to the health of the population or individual members of the population. Such measures must be specifically aimed at preventing disease or injury and must not be arbitrary or unreasonable.

Human rights issues

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

The bill engages several rights which are specifically protected and promoted by the charter. This statement provides an overview of the nature of each of these rights and the aspects of the bill that engage the rights.

Section 13: privacy and reputation

Section 13(a) of the charter recognises a person’s right not to have his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence

unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. The requirement that any interference with a person’s privacy must not be ‘unlawful’ imports a requirement that the scope of any legislative provision that allows an interference with privacy must specify the precise circumstances in which an interference may be permitted. The requirement that an interference with privacy must not be arbitrary requires that any limitation on a person’s privacy must be reasonable in the circumstances and should be in accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the charter.

Clause 18 of the bill will insert new division 1A into part 2 of the act, containing provisions in relation to the new offence of smoking in a motor vehicle in which a child is present. This offence might be perceived as an interference with the offender’s privacy. Even if it were the case that laws regulating conduct in motor vehicles constituted an interference with privacy, this offence does not create an unlawful or arbitrary interference with privacy. The provisions clearly specify the circumstances in which the interference is lawful, and appropriately restrict enforcement of the offence to members of the police force. The provisions are reasonable, as there is no risk-free level of second-hand smoke in confined areas such as cars and even brief periods of exposure to second-hand smoke can be harmful to children because they are especially vulnerable to its effects. Clause 18 therefore does not limit the right in section 13 of the charter.

Section 15: freedom of expression

Section 15 of the charter recognises a qualified right to freedom of expression. The right protects an individual’s right to express information and ideas, as well as the right of the community as a whole to receive all types of information and opinions. Section 15(3) of the charter provides that the right may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputation of other persons; or for the protection of national security, public health or public morality.

The new provisions in relation to tobacco advertising restrictions in part 2 of the bill engage the right to freedom of expression. Part 2 of the bill creates a new offence prohibiting the display of tobacco advertising, including tobacco product display, in retail outlets that are not ‘specialist tobacconists’ or on-airport duty-free shops. Part 2 includes amendments to provide for limited exemptions from the offence so that the retail outlets affected may display prescribed signage. As is currently the case, the regulations will allow such outlets to display a price board of tobacco products for sale. The regulations will also provide for a sign to be prescribed for display, to the effect that tobacco products are available for sale at the outlet. The effect of part 2 is to remove the act’s other exemptions for tobacco advertising in the affected retail outlets, so that tobacco advertisements including tobacco product display will no longer be permitted.

The current partial restrictions on tobacco advertising have not altered the fact that tobacco products remain more visible and more widely available than any other consumer product in Australia, including milk and bread. The display of tobacco products in particular raises the profile of tobacco and creates the impression that cigarettes and smoking are more of a social norm than is actually the case. This increases the likelihood that young people will start smoking, encourages smokers to buy more tobacco products and makes it harder for quitters to succeed. The restrictions in part 2 are lawful restrictions reasonably necessary for the protection of public



health, and therefore do not limit the right in section 15 of the charter.

Section 17: protection of families and children

Section 17(1) of the charter provides that families are entitled to be protected by society and the state and that every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as is in his or her best interests and is needed by him or her by reason of being a child.

The bill positively engages with the right of the child to protection, by limiting the exposure of children to tobacco smoking, tobacco advertising, tobacco sales, and providing the minister with a power to ban the sale of tobacco products and related products (for example, tobacco products that may appeal to children).

Section 25: rights in criminal proceedings

Section 25 of the charter protects a number of rights that apply to a person who has been charged with a criminal offence. Section 25(1) protects the right of a person charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. It requires the prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. Provisions that merely place an evidential burden on the defendant (that is, the burden of showing that there is sufficient evidence to raise an issue) do not limit the right in section 25(1) of the charter because the prosecution still bears the legal burden of proving a contested matter beyond reasonable doubt.

Clause 18 of the bill includes an evidential burden on the defendant in proceedings for the offence of smoking in a car where there is prosecution evidence that a person in the car appeared to be under 18. As noted above, this does not limit the right in section 25(1).

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

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

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, I consider that the bill is compatible with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

Gavin Jennings, MLC Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Innovation

Second reading

Ordered that second-reading speech be incorporated on motion of Mr LENDERS (Treasurer).

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Incorporated speech as follows:

This bill represents the latest step in our government’s tobacco reform agenda which has included an extensive range of legislative reforms over the last 10 years.

For over 20 years Victoria has been a world leader in tackling the avoidable illness and death which result from tobacco smoke. Since its introduction, the Victorian Tobacco Act 1987 has set the pace for international efforts to control the epidemic of tobacco use.

Throughout this period, various initiatives and legislative reforms have resulted in fewer Victorians taking up smoking, greater numbers quitting and more Victorians than ever before protected from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. Since 1987 adult smoking prevalence in Victoria has reduced from 34 per cent to 16.5 per cent in 2008.

Though much progress has been made, smoking remains the leading avoidable cause of many cancers, respiratory, cardiovascular and other diseases. In Victoria, smoking costs approximately 4000 lives and $5 billion each and every year. Smoking rates remain disproportionately high in many of our communities, causing avoidable hardship and ill-health among many of the people who can least afford it.

In December last year the Victorian government launched the Victorian Tobacco Control Strategy 2008–2013. The strategy is a major new initiative that provides a framework and sets targets to reduce tobacco consumption and uptake to make important advances in the fight against cancer and the epidemic of preventable chronic disease.

Since coming to power in 1999 our government has enacted a series of legislative reforms to better regulate tobacco use and protect public health, including:

reforms targeting youth smoking, such as increasing the penalties for selling cigarettes to minors in November 2000;

smoke-free dining and shopping centre laws and further restrictions on tobacco advertising and retail display in 2001;

further smoking restrictions in licensed premises, gaming and bingo venues and the casino in 2002;

smoking bans in enclosed workplaces, at under-age music and dance events and in covered areas of train station platforms, tram and bus shelters in March 2006;

these smoking bans were accompanied by bans on ‘buzz marketing’ and non-branded tobacco advertising and strengthening the ban on cigarette sales to minors;

and finally, smoking bans in enclosed licensed premises in July 2007.

While these reforms have contributed to record low levels of smoking there is still more to do.

That is why we have set ambitious targets for reducing smoking rates in Victoria. As part of the development of the Victorian tobacco control strategy we announced that by 2013 we aim to:

reduce smoking among adults by 20 per cent;

reduce smoking among pregnant women by 50 per cent;

reduce smoking among Aboriginal and other high-prevalence groups by at least 20 per cent.



In August 2008, the government undertook a public consultation on the Victorian tobacco control strategy to listen to the views of the community on the next steps for tobacco control in Victoria. The thousands of submissions we received are evidence that there is widespread support for further legislative reforms.

The package of reforms in this bill has been developed with consideration of this public feedback with the aim of further pushing down Victorian smoking rates. These amendments will help prevent young people from taking up smoking, protect children from exposure to second-hand smoke and support adults to quit and stay quit.

In summary the key tobacco reforms contained in the bill include:

banning the display of tobacco products in retail outlets (other than specialist tobacconists and on-airport duty-free shops);

banning smoking in cars carrying a person under 18 years of age;

banning the sale of cigarettes from temporary outlets;

providing the minister with the power to ban youth-orientated tobacco products and related products;

amendments to penalties and enforcement provisions; and

consequential and housekeeping amendments.

Other than the point-of-sale tobacco display ban, which will be introduced on 1 January 2011, the remaining reforms will commence on 1 January 2010. The greater lead time for the introduction of point-of-sale bans reflects the government’s recognition of the time required by industry to adopt the ban on product displays.

Point-of-sale display bans

Despite bans on tobacco advertising, cigarettes remain more visible and more widely available than any other consumer product in Australia, including milk and bread.

Point-of-sale displays raise the profile of tobacco and create the impression that cigarettes are far more popular than is actually the case. This increases the likelihood that young people will start smoking, encourages smokers to buy more tobacco products and makes it harder for quitters to stay quit.

The bill provides for a ban on tobacco advertising, including point-of-sale displays, in retail outlets with exemption for specialist tobacconists and the continuation of an exemption for on-airport duty-free shops. Specialist tobacconists and on-airport duty-free shops will remain subject to existing advertising restrictions and prescribed product display areas.

In recognition of the fact that a small number of retail businesses derive their income solely or significantly from tobacco products an exemption from the point-of-sale display ban will be provided for specialist tobacconists which derive 80 per cent or more of their gross turnover from the sale of tobacco products.

Cost to business will be minimised by not specifying the manner in which tobacco products must be concealed. For

example, retailers may cover their existing displays with an opaque material or move cigarettes to an area out of view, such as under the counter.

Businesses will be able to advise customers of the availability of tobacco products through the use of prescribed price boards and signage such as a ‘Cigarettes sold here’ sign. The existing prohibition on public tobacco advertising will continue to be enforced by council inspectors, to prevent advertising signs in shop windows promoting cigarettes and other tobacco products.

This ban will remove the visual cues to smokers at points-of-sale and thereby reduce the initiation of smoking and facilitate smoking reduction and cessation. It will also continue to denormalise smoking by reducing the visual presence of tobacco products. This could not be achieved through a partial ban.

The maximum penalty for an individual breaching this ban will be 60 penalty units, with an infringement penalty of 3 penalty units. The maximum penalty for a body corporate breaching this ban will be 300 penalty units, with an infringement penalty of 30 penalty units.

Smoking in cars carrying children

Banning smoking in cars carrying children under the age of 18 years will reduce children’s exposure to second-hand smoke, encourage people not to smoke around children and further denormalise smoking for young people.

There is no risk-free level of second-hand smoke in confined areas such as cars. Research shows that air quality in a car while a person smokes with a window partially or wholly down, is similar to that found in a smoky pub. As children are especially vulnerable to the effects of second-hand smoke, even brief periods of exposure can be harmful.

There is no reliable data to say exactly how many people smoke in cars when children are present. However, at least 20 per cent of Victorian parents who regularly smoke say that they do not change their smoking behaviour in the presence of children. This implies that a significant number of Victorian children are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke in cars.

This new offence will be enforced by police members, who are given appropriate powers in the bill to direct motorists to stop and to issue infringement notices.

The maximum penalty for breaching this ban will be 5 penalty units, with an infringement penalty of 2 penalty units.

Public consultation has shown overwhelming support for a ban on smoking in cars carrying children, with a survey conducted by the Cancer Council Victoria suggesting that up to 90 per cent of Victorians support the ban.

Ministerial power to make ban orders

With 80 per cent of smokers becoming addicted to nicotine as teenagers, it is important that the government do all that it can to prevent young people from smoking at a time when they are most vulnerable.

With research showing that up to 20 per cent of 17-year-olds are current smokers, a rate higher than adult smoking



prevalence, there is clearly a need for new interventions to prevent children from taking up the habit.

In recent years there have been a number of examples of tobacco products and packaging being used to recruit young people to take up smoking. These include fruit and confectionery-flavoured cigarettes, split-packet cigarettes and glow-in-the-dark packs.

Giving the Minister for Health the ability to ban products that appeal to young people will allow current products to be quickly removed from the market and enable the government to respond rapidly if products emerge in the future.

The introduction of a power to ban fruit-flavoured cigarettes is part of a commitment the Victorian government made at the Australian Health Ministers Conference in April 2008.

This power is being introduced for the specific purpose of banning the sale of products which are designed to appeal to children and young people such as fruit and confectionery-flavoured cigarettes. The government does not intend to use this provision to ban the sale of other fruit-flavoured tobacco products such as fruit-flavoured cigars and shisha-hookah tobacco which are commonly used by the adult population.

In the preamble to the Tobacco Act 1987 Parliament recognised the need for strong action and restrictive legislation to reduce the injury which tobacco use causes to smokers and non-smokers. With the objective to actively discourage smoking and limit the exposure of young people to inducements to smoke, the act includes the prohibition of certain sales or promotions. Consistent with these objectives, the ban orders allow an effective response to the introduction of products which expose young people to these inducements.

Public consultation found a high level of support for a ministerial power to ban youth-orientated tobacco products and packages.

This reform will enable the secretary to recommend to the Minister for Health to ban the retail and wholesale sale of products which meet the following criteria:

tobacco products, or the smoke of such products, possessing a distinctive fruity, sweet or confectionery-like character; or

tobacco products that have packaging that appeals to young people; or

non-tobacco products that resemble tobacco products; or

any other product, the nature or advertising of which might encourage young people to smoke; and

with regard to the objectives of the act, the supply of those products should be prohibited.

The overriding condition for a ban order recommendation from the secretary is that, with regard to the objectives of the act, the supply of those products should be prohibited. The minister may take immediate action without a recommendation if the product or class of products has been prohibited or restricted under a prescribed corresponding law. For example, the South Australian tobacco legislation will be prescribed so the products that are prohibited under that

legislation’s corresponding provisions may quickly be banned from sale in Victoria.

Under the first three criteria, the minister may ban such products as fruit-flavoured cigarettes, tobacco products with packaging that appeals to young people such as attractive metal tins, and non-tobacco products that resemble tobacco products such as toys and confectionery. The fourth criterion will enable the minister to respond quickly to new products on the market that may not meet the first three criteria, but should be prohibited with regard to the objectives of the act.

The maximum penalty for an individual breaching a ban order will be 120 penalty units, with an infringement penalty of 4 penalty units. The maximum penalty for a body corporate breaching a ban order will be 600 penalty units, with an infringement penalty of 60 penalty units.

Temporary sales

In addition to designing products and packaging to appeal to young people tobacco companies use other opportunities to market their products to young people. This includes using temporary stands offering tobacco products for sale at major events such as the Big Day Out, and setting up temporary retail shops at street festivals and fashion events.

The bill provides for the prohibition of sales of tobacco products from ‘temporary outlets’, being temporary in terms of:

structure: being sold from a temporary display stand, booth, tent or temporary or mobile structure; or temporary in terms of

time: being sold from a retail outlet that is established in an area or premises for the duration of a specific sports, music or arts-related function or event in that area or premises.

These criteria are designed to prevent the sale of tobacco from temporary structures (such as cardboard sale stands of tobacco products erected at the Big Day Out), or from retail outlets that are established in a premises or area for the duration of a specific sports, music or arts-related event in that premises or area (such as a retail outlet established in a street for the purpose of selling tobacco products for the duration of a street festival).

The maximum penalty for an individual breaching this ban will be 60 penalty units, with an infringement penalty of 3 penalty units. The maximum penalty for a body corporate breaching this ban will be 300 penalty units, with an infringement penalty of 30 penalty units. The maximum penalty for a tobacco company breaching this ban will be 5000 penalty units.

This ban is a logical next step from current legislation, which prevents the sale of tobacco at underage music/dance events to events and functions attended by all age groups regardless of whether smoking is legally allowed.

Review of penalties

Controlling the supply and use of tobacco are key tools for reducing tobacco-related harm. To do this the Victorian government must ensure that those who sell and distribute tobacco products do so responsibly.

NATIONAL PARKS AMENDMENT (POINT NEPEAN) BILL


The government recently undertook a review of tobacco penalties and enforcement; this review identified three major issues which prevent enforcement being undertaken and limit the effectiveness of current provisions of the act.

These are:

insufficient penalties, particularly for body corporates across a range of offences;

a lack of clarity around the enforcement against ‘occupiers’ who are liable for offences under the act; and

an inability to obtain useful information from tobacco wholesalers regarding the location of tobacco retailing outlets in Victoria.

The bill includes a number of amendments to address these issues which will:

ensure that both maximum and infringement penalties are at an appropriate level;

ensure that penalties are consistent with other legislation in Victoria and other jurisdictions;

provide for increased body corporate penalties;

enable appropriate enforcement action to be taken against occupiers who contravene workplace offences; and

provide the secretary with a more reliable and usable source of information about the number and locations of tobacco retailers in Victoria.

Penalties for not complying with legislation should be commensurate with the harm that unrestricted tobacco use is known to cause and need to be severe enough to deter people from breaking the law.

For example, this bill will increase the existing maximum fine for supplying a tobacco product to a person aged under 18 from 50 penalty units to 120 penalty units for an individual. It will introduce a separate body corporate penalty of 600 penalty units. Penalties for occupiers of enclosed workplaces found liable for a person smoking in the workplace will increase from 5 penalty units to 10 penalty units for individuals — the bill will also introduce a 50 units penalty for a body corporate.

In particular, the bill provides for clarity by amending the definition of ‘occupier’ in the act, such as occupiers of enclosed workplaces who are responsible for preventing smoking in the enclosed workplace. The definition is amended to include occupiers who appear to be in control of the area even if not physically present, and body corporate occupiers. For example, the owner or manager of a workplace will no longer be able to escape liability for allowing smoking to take place simply by absenting themselves from the premises.

This amendment will assist in the enforcement of workplace smoking bans when the off-site employer does nothing to ensure that smoking does not occur in a workplace.

To enable the government to identify tobacco retailers in Victoria and ensure they are compliant with the act, the bill amends section 42A of the act to improve the secretary’s

current power to request information from tobacco wholesalers about tobacco retailing businesses and outlets. This amendment includes a requirement for the information to be provided to the secretary in the form approved by the secretary, including electronic form.

In addition to these legislative amendments, the strategy outlines a range of non-legislative initiatives such as providing targeted cessation programs and support for pregnant women, disadvantaged and Aboriginal Victorians, as well as the continuation of Quit social marketing. This package of initiatives will be implemented over the next five years to further drive down smoking rates which will enable us to meet the ambitious targets set out in the strategy.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned for Mrs PETROVICH (Northern Victoria) on motion of Mr Koch.

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 6 August.


Second reading


Mrs COOTE (Southern Metropolitan) — I have great pleasure in speaking on the National Parks Amendment (Point Nepean) Bill 2009. At the outset of my contribution I indicate that Liberal Party members support this bill.

Every so often, people in this state get it right. The interest, concern and power of the people bring an issue to the forefront of the minds of politicians for us as legislators to look at something and make legislation that reflects the will of the community. This is one of those bills. This has been a very long time in gestation. Many people have been involved with its planning, the background agitation and the highlighting of the issues. Federal and state politicians, members of the local community and Heritage Victoria, architects, residents and other people with all sorts of concerns have been involved.

The debate has been played out in the media. Many of the points of the debate have been contentious. But at the end of the day the people made us get it right. I must put on the record my particular praise for the dedication and longevity of the involvement of my friend Kate Baillieu. I must say what an excellent job she did all the way through the debate in alerting the public to the problems associated with this precious piece of Victoria.



An important aspect of this bill is that it once again puts all the parts of Point Nepean back together. It puts Point Nepean under the national parks umbrella so that it is all administered by one body and all parts of what is a very special place in the hearts of Victorians are recognised. It is not only me who recognises that so many people have been involved in the decision that is reflected in the bill that members are dealing with today. In the second-reading speech, the minister said:

Many individuals and organisations have long campaigned for the protection of the quarantine station’s heritage values, as well as public access to the site. These have included: members of the local community and local associations such as the Nepean Historical Society and the Nepean Conservation Group; the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council; and peak bodies such as the Victorian National Parks Association and the National Trust.

And so it has come to pass that we are debating this bill today.

Many members will not have been to the area. I encourage them to go there, because there is something there for everyone. It is not about just the quarantine station buildings, gracious and historical as they may be, and it is not just about the cemeteries on the site, one of which was started as early as the 1850s. It is not just about the fact that there is Shepherd’s Hut, which was built from local sandstone as far back as 1845. People who go there will see that people from shipwrecks, from the quarantine station and from the plague ship that was anchored there in 1852 were buried in the cemetery.

The vast area, including the bay and the back beach on our wonderful coastline, is one of natural beauty. There are also areas that were of political and military importance. The gun emplacement sites have been the subject of a major part of the whole discussion because of the military ordnances that had been left behind over many years and had not been properly dealt with.

As many members of the chamber know, I was an inaugural member of the Parks Victoria board. Although I have had my differences with Parks Victoria people in recent times, particularly regarding their attitude to back-burning in national parks, I suggest that in this instance they are the best operators for this particular facility in this particular part of Victoria. They will operate it in the best way possible. Why do I say that? Because they have a track record. For members who have forgotten or do not know, Parks Victoria staff administer and look after places such as Werribee Park. They have had to get the balance right between the management of a historic building and its outhouses, the expense of running them and other aspects of the use of the site. In the management of

such sites they have been very good managers. I expect that they are going to be very good managers of this particular site as well.

There are other areas where Parks Victoria has done very well, and Wilsons Promontory is one of those. Once again, it has historic buildings and it has a whole range of appeal for people who want a different type of experience. Campers want to go to Wilsons Promontory and people want to go to the lighthouse or walk in natural environments, whether it is for a day trip or a longer experience.

What we have at Point Nepean is an opportunity for people to get into the area and enjoy it. They will be able to walk on the pristine beaches, look at the historic buildings and understand the heritage of the site. People will at long last have access to one of the most important parts of this state. This would not have happened if people had not been agitating for this for some considerable time.

I return to the reason we have national parks in this state at all, and that goes back to the very first minister active for the environment and conservation, none other than a Liberal member of Parliament, the late Honourable Dick Hamer. Dick was an advocate for Point Nepean being opened to the public for a significant period of time, and right up until his death he was a great proponent of this area being opened to the people, for the people.

In fact the proposal has had bipartisan support. We know there was support from members of the Labor Party; Joan Kirner has also been supportive of this park. Local members like the member for Nepean in the other place, Martin Dixon, have been particularly supportive, as has the federal member for Flinders, Greg Hunt.

It is instructive to understand the longevity of the proposal, as I have said before, and the fact that many people have been involved with this issue and so have subsequent parliaments and members of Parliament. Subsequent political parties have also been involved. There was a joint media release on 16 June 2006 by Peter Costello, then federal Treasurer, and the federal member for Flinders, who was also then Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment and Heritage, Greg Hunt. In that joint statement they announced that the commonwealth was bringing its commitment up to $48 million. They said:

Point Nepean, situated at the tip of the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria, is one of Australia’s most spectacular tourist destinations and is renowned for its historic military base,



outstanding coastal scenery and panoramic views of Bass Strait, the Rip and Port Phillip Bay.

They went on to say:

The funding will enable the trust to adapt the existing quarantine and … barracks … to establish a National Centre for Marine and Coastal Conservation. The buildings will also be used by heritage and community groups and for respite care for children with terminal conditions or other disadvantage.

In the conclusion to the second-reading speech the minister said:

With the goal … of protecting Point Nepean’s outstanding heritage for this and future generations of Victorians, Australians and our international visitors, I commend the bill to the house.

This is a gift within our hands. As I have said before, people in this place forget at their peril that this job is about people. We are here representing the people, we are here making rules and regulations for the betterment of people’s lives in perpetuity. This bill is a very good example of this principle. I commend the people who have been involved with this cause for getting it to this stage.

Mr Vogels interjected.

Mrs COOTE — I say to Mr Vogels that I believe Parks Victoria will be able to administer this well into the future.

I will talk about what the bill itself is intended to do. The purpose of the bill is to amend the National Parks Act 1975 to extend the Point Nepean National Park by adding land at the quarantine station and to make provision for the granting of leases and licences for parts of that park.

The main provision in amending the National Parks Act relates to extending the Point Nepean National Park to include land at the quarantine station, a total area of approximately 105 hectares. The amendments recognise that once land at the quarantine station is transferred to the state, the commonwealth will no longer own land at the Point Nepean National Park. The bill removes the requirement to consult with the commonwealth minister. It inserts provisions allowing the minister, after consultation with the National Parks Advisory Council, to lease areas of land at the quarantine station to any person for not more than 21 years or not more than 50 years if the minister is satisfied that the plans justify a longer term lease.

The act is further amended by inserting a clause with the standard statement that amendments made by the National Parks Act 1975 are not intended to affect

native title rights and interests. The bill provides that the National Parks Amendment (Point Nepean) Act 2009 is repealed on 30 June 2011 and that the repeal of this act does not affect the continuing operation of the amendments made by it.

There is one aspect of this that I pick up on, and that is the issue of the lease times of 21 years and not more than 50 years. If we are going to work with any organisation that will be operating a business or a service in heritage buildings, or indeed on any heritage site, it is very important that the organisations have a commercial understanding that their leases are going to be upheld by subsequent governments throughout the duration of the leases to give them certainty so that they can do the very best job they possibly can. This is a very important aspect of this bill because it provides certainty and continuity, which means that the people who are charged with running the quarantine station into the future are going to be able to do that with certainty.

My colleague Edward O’Donohue, a member for Eastern Victoria Region, has been passionate about this bill, and he wishes to have some say in this debate. I put on record again my commendation of everybody involved with Point Nepean. A good outcome really has come to fruition today as an amalgamation of effort from a whole range of people. At the end of the day it gives something to the people of Victoria that they can be proud of, that we can all be proud of, and ensures that our children and our children’s children will be able to understand a lot about our heritage. There will be something special for everyone. I commend the bill.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I do not want to try to add anything to the comments of Mrs Coote except to endorse them, nor will I add to the list of superlatives except to say that the values of this park, both cultural and natural, are superlative.

This bill is the result of an extremely long campaign. If we can say anything about that campaign, it is simply that the passion that fired it was from a great number of different people who love this area so much that they all wanted to fight very hard to see it made a permanent feature of our national parks system. I am very pleased and proud to be here, voting in favour of the bill to do exactly that.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr SCHEFFER (Eastern Victoria).

Debate adjourned until next day.

COURTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SUNSET PROVISIONS) BILL





Read first time for Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) on motion of Hon. M. P. Pakula.


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

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Courts Legislation Amendment (Sunset Provisions) Bill 2009.

In my opinion, the Courts Legislation Amendment (Sunset Provisions) Bill 2009, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with the human rights protected by the charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of bill

The bill repeals the sunset provisions in the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 to make the Family Violence Court intervention project (FVCIP) ongoing. The FVCIP permits the Magistrates Court to order a defendant to attend counselling designed to change violent behaviour.

The bill extends the sunset provisions in the Courts Legislation (Neighbourhood Justice Centre) Act 2006 to allow the Neighbourhood Justice Centre (NJC) to continue operations for a further four years.

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

Section 8: recognition and equality before the law

Section 8(3) of the charter provides that every person is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination.

In accordance with section 4N of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989, the NJC operates in a specific location being the city of Yarra. Section 4O of the Magistrates’ Court Act also requires that a party to a civil or criminal proceeding must reside in the city of Yarra.

This requirement means that residents outside of the city of Yarra do not have access to the NJC. However, differential treatment on the basis of residence does not constitute discrimination within the meaning of the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 and therefore it does not engage section 8 of the charter.

Furthermore, the NJC does not limit the access of persons living outside of the city of Yarra to the Magistrates Court

sitting at another venue, thereby maintaining equal protection of the law.

Section 10(c): protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment

The amendments to the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 require male offenders to attend compulsory counselling which may engage section 10(c) of the Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Section 10(c) provides that a person must not be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation or treatment without his or her full, free and informed consent. Section 10(c) of the charter protects a person’s right not to be subjected to medical treatment unless they have given their full and free informed consent. In this context ‘medical treatment’ encompasses all forms of medical treatment and medical intervention, including compulsory counselling, examinations and testing.

The amendment to repeal the sunset clause and make the compulsory counselling ongoing engages, and limits, section 10(c) of the charter. It requires, on the order of a court, that a person attend counselling (which constitutes a form of medical treatment).

The importance of the purpose of the limitation

The limitation is important as it operates to ensure that a respondent receives treatment that is intended to address their violent behaviour. In this sense, it works to change a respondent’s violent behaviour in respect of which a family violence intervention order has been made. Thus, the limitation also operates indirectly to promote the right to life (pursuant to section 9 of the charter) and the right of families and children to protection (under section 17 of the charter).

Nature and extent of the limitation

The limitation is restricted to requiring a respondent to attend at a particular location for counselling treatment for a fixed period of time. If the respondent fails to attend the counselling the respondent is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.

Relationship between the limitation and its purpose

Given the importance of the limitation to change a person’s violent behaviour and to protect families and children, the limitation is both rational and proportionate to its purpose.

Any less restrictive means reasonably available

There are no less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the aim. On balance, the limitation is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Section 13: privacy and reputation

Section 13 confers a number of rights regarding privacy. Specifically, a person has a right not to have their privacy, family or home unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with or their reputation unlawfully attacked.

The right to privacy is engaged with the confidentiality of personal information disclosed in the process of determining whether counselling orders are appropriate and any subsequent counselling sessions. The provisions engage the right to privacy because they provide for disclosure of personal information in certain limited circumstances.



However, the right to privacy is not limited as interference is lawful and not arbitrary. The interference is not arbitrary because it is in accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the charter, particularly section 17, which provides for the protection of families and children. It is reasonable in the circumstances where the legislative intent is to take measures to protect a person from further violence.

Conclusion

I consider that the bill is compatible with the charter because the bill does not limit any human right protected by the charter.

Justin Madden, MLC Minister for Planning

Second reading

Ordered that second-reading speech be incorporated on motion of Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade).

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade) — I move:



Background

The key purposes of the bill are to repeal part 15 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 to make the Family Violence Court intervention project ongoing and to extend sunset provisions in the Courts Legislation (Neighbourhood Justice Centre) Act 2006 to allow the Neighbourhood Justice Centre to continue operations for a further four years.

Family Violence Court intervention project

The Family Violence Court intervention project was established as a pilot project at the Heidelberg and Ballarat Family Violence Court division. It enables magistrates to direct men, against whom an intervention order has been made, to attend an eligibility assessment interview and, if assessed as eligible, to attend specialist group behaviour change counselling programs. The Family Violence Court intervention project forms an integral component of the government’s integrated courts response to family violence in Victoria.

Preliminary results of the evaluation that is in progress indicate that the Family Violence Court intervention project unequivocally promotes defendant accountability and increases the safety of women and children who have been affected by family violence.

Repeal of the sunset provisions will enable the Family Violence Court intervention project to continue and allow defendants to be directed to undertake group behaviour change in order to promote defendant accountability and increase the safety of women and children who have been affected by family violence. Repeal of the sunset provisions will enhance the success of the family violence courts and the benefits of the statewide service system response to family violence.

Neighbourhood Justice Centre

The Neighbourhood Justice Centre divisions of the Magistrates Court and the Children’s Court were established under the Courts Legislation (Neighbourhood Justice Centre) Act 2006. Part 6 of that act repeals the provisions establishing the Neighbourhood Justice Centre and comes into operation on 31 December 2009 unless amended.

The Neighbourhood Justice Centre commenced operations in February 2007. It is the first community justice centre in Australia. In keeping with the original vision for it, the Neighbourhood Justice Centre addresses the underlying causes of offending behaviour, utilises restorative justice and therapeutic jurisprudence principles and employs collaborative, multidisciplinary case-management framework with a principal magistrate dealing with all matters before its court.

The Neighbourhood Justice Centre houses a multi-jurisdictional court and provides access to services, including drug and alcohol counselling, mental health and financial counselling support, housing and employment advice, victims’ support and compensation advice, general legal information and alternative dispute resolution including mediation.

An evaluation of the Neighbourhood Justice Centre will be completed in late 2009 and there are clear emerging trends which indicate its benefits to the justice system. These trends indicate that breach rates for family violence intervention orders appear to be lower at the Neighbourhood Justice Centre than the statewide average; the rate of successful completions for community corrections orders appears to be higher at the Neighbourhood Justice Centre than the statewide average; and the proportion of guilty pleas at first hearing appears to be higher at the Neighbourhood Justice Centre than the statewide average, thereby leading to greater court efficiencies.

The Neighbourhood Justice Centre has modernised the courts and improved the administration for participants, with the court delivering justice more compassionately and fairly to people with complex needs. The Neighbourhood Justice Centre is seen as better informed, less intimidating, safer, more accessible and part of the local community, creating a model of integrated, multidisciplinary service delivery, which results in earlier intervention and exposes people to a range of treatment and other options.

In addition to court services the Neighbourhood Justice Centre is also an asset for the city of Yarra, bringing additional services and facilities to the community, facilitating community engagement and providing a space for problem solving with the community.

The Neighbourhood Justice Centre has promoted cultural change by acting as a coordination point for responding to crime and safety issues and also by improving the way government works with other state government agencies, local government and local services.


Debate adjourned for Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) on motion of Ms Lovell.


HUMAN TISSUE AMENDMENT BILL





Read first time for Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) on motion of Hon. M. P. Pakula.


For Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change), Hon. M. P. Pakula tabled following statement in accordance with Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Human Tissue Amendment Bill 2009.

In my opinion, the Human Tissue Amendment Bill 2009, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with the human rights protected by the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of bill

The bill amends the Human Tissue Act 1982 to enable mature minors, aged 16 years and over, to consent to the donation of their blood.

Human rights issues

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

The bill engages two human rights protected by the charter:

privacy: section 13 of the charter provides that ‘a person has the right not to have his or her privacy … unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with’;

protection of children: section 17(2) of the charter protects the right of every child, without discrimination, to such protection as is in his or her best interests and is needed by him or her by reason of being a child.

Clause 3: amendment to the definition of ‘child’ for the purposes of blood donation

Clause 3 of the bill amends the definition of ‘child’ from someone under 18 years of age to a person under 16 years of age for the purpose of those sections of the Human Tissue Act 1982 dealing with consent to the removal of blood from adults and children for the purposes of transfusion or for other therapeutic medical or scientific purposes. In practice, such removals most generally take the form of donations of blood to the Australian Red Cross Blood Service (ARCBS) for the homologous supply.

Section 13: privacy

The taking of blood from young people engages the right to privacy under section 13 of the charter. Privacy rights under the charter include protection from unlawful and arbitrary interference with a person’s bodily privacy, which includes

the protection of our physical selves against invasive procedures.

Any such interference with the bodily privacy of a young person would be neither unlawful nor arbitrary. It would not be unlawful because the matter will be prescribed by law in the Human Tissue Act 1982 and that act will make clear that the provisions relate only to the particular circumstance of voluntary donation of blood, and not to the donation of tissue or organs, which have much more serious implications for one’s bodily privacy. Each mature minor would also be dealt with as an individual by the ARCBS and their health and capacity and willingness to consent will be considered according to current national policies and guidelines.

It would not be arbitrary because only those young people who have given their informed consent, and been judged by those with relevant expertise to be capable of forming such consent, would be permitted to donate blood. The process to be put in place by the ARCBS in Victoria to support the changes which would result from the bill, and which will reflect present practice in other jurisdictions which allow mature minor donations, will ensure that blood will only be taken where an informed and expert assessment has been made that the minor is competent to, and does in fact, consent to the removal of their blood and understands all relevant implications of their decision. Should the expert assessor at the ARCBS determine that a young person is not capable of fully understanding what they are proposing to do, and so is not yet able to form the necessary consent, or if they determine that the young person does not really want to give blood but feels subject to peer pressure to do so (which may happen if a group from school attends a donation centre) then their donation would be deferred. This is done to protect the young person and to protect the blood supply.

The clause is reasonable in the circumstances, given the need to recruit young donors to the blood supply and the controls put in place to ensure their full informed consent is obtained and their health protected. The clause will also enable competent mature minors to exercise increased control over their bodies, which is in accordance with the charter’s protection against uncontrolled interference with their bodily privacy.

It is therefore considered that clause 3 does not limit section 13 of the charter.

Section 17(2): protection of the rights of children

The lowering of the age at which young people can independently consent to donating blood engages section 17(2) of the charter. Section 17(2) protects the right of every child, without discrimination, to such protection as is in his or her best interests and is needed by him or her by reason of being a child. Children who are termed ‘mature minors’ should be able to understand their own actions and consent effectively and freely to the removal of their blood.

It is considered that clause 3 does not compromise the rights of any child nor their health. It enables these ‘mature minors’ to donate blood without their parents’ consent. Where such a practice has been initiated in other jurisdictions, it has been determined that there are no health risks to the young person. Such donation does not take place in a vacuum. Eligibility to donate blood is ascertained in a confidential setting by an ARCBS trained nurse and includes an assessment as to whether the mature minor is in good health, is of adequate



weight, and meets other suitability criteria based on a health questionnaire and medical assessment, in order to ensure that no harm will come to the minor. In educating young people about donating blood, the ARCBS encourages them to discuss their proposed donation with their families and obtain any necessary medical advice regarding their eligibility.

Importantly, assessment by trained staff is also made of the minor’s capacity to consent to the taking of their blood, and of the voluntary nature of their consent to ensure the protection of their best interests. As noted earlier, should the assessor determine that a young person is not capable of fully understanding what they are proposing to do, and so is not yet able to form the necessary consent, or if they determine that the young person does not really want to give blood but feels subject to peer pressure to do so then their donation would be deferred.

It should be noted also that this amendment brings blood donation into line with the current law on the ability of a mature minor to consent to medical treatment.

It is therefore considered that clause 3 does not limit section 17(2) of the charter.

Conclusion

I consider that the bill is compatible with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities because these provisions do not limit human rights.


Second reading

Ordered that second-reading speech be incorporated on motion of Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade).




This bill seeks to make amendments to the Human Tissue Act 1982.

This bill ensures that the regulatory framework for blood donations continues to meet the expectations and needs of the Victorian community in the 21st century.

This bill proposes a minor amendment to the Human Tissue Act 1982 to permit young persons who have attained the age of 16 years to donate blood without parental consent being required.

President, 2009 has been designated as the Year of the Blood Donor, and for a very good reason. Our health services rely on voluntary blood donors. Every blood donation is essential in providing life-saving blood for the community, with the greatest need typically coming from cancer patients, as well as burns, and other trauma cases. Recruiting new blood donors is absolutely vital to ensure enough blood is collected to supply our hospitals.

This amendment to the Human Tissue Act 1982 empowers mature minors to make their own decision regarding donation of blood to the Australian Red Cross Blood Service. This change will give mature minors the maximum opportunity to donate blood, and enable the Australian Red Cross Blood Service, which is a national organisation, to adopt a nationally consistent approach to its procedures for promoting the donation of blood, for use in transfusions for hospital patients.

The 2006 Review of Australia’s Plasma Fractionation Arrangements recommended that ‘uniform provisions concerning the age at which a person is eligible to donate blood should be introduced by all state and territory governments’. This change will enable Victoria to implement its commitment to make Victorian donation provisions consistent with current practice in other jurisdictions.

In South Australia, New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory, Northern Territory and Tasmania, mature minors of 16 years or older can donate blood if they are capable of making this decision. In such cases, parental consent is not required. The Australian Red Cross Blood Service youth donor programs in those jurisdictions operate successfully. Currently in Victoria, like Queensland and West Australia, a 16 and 17-year-old may donate blood but there must be parental consent for each donation.

This proposed change will bring regulation for blood donations in line with the existing mature minor consent for medical treatment. There are many logistical difficulties associated with obtaining agreement of both a parent and donor in relation to each act of donation, and this may be reducing the number of occasions when mature minors donate blood. One way to maximise the number of donations from mature minors is to make the process as straightforward as possible. This will increase the pool of blood donors and increase the availability of blood for medical needs.

The proposed amendment will affect the provision in the Human Tissue Act relating to blood donation only. It will not apply to other aspects of the act including organ and tissue donation. The proposed amendment will change the definition of a child for the blood donation provisions of the act only.

President, the Australian Red Cross Blood Service undertakes a range of measures designed to ensure that the consent of all donors, regardless of age, is given freely. The Australian Red Cross Blood Service is confident that young people who donate blood are very well informed and know their rights and entitlements.

Possible coercion or peer group pressure is a recognised risk in all group donor activity including clubs, church groups and the like. The Australian Red Cross Blood Service specifically trains qualified nurses to interview and thoroughly screen each potential donor. That training ensures that these nurses are able to recognise and deal with individuals who may be coerced into donating blood or may be subjected to some degree of peer group pressure.

The requirements for the screening of potential blood donors are imposed through a combination of the Victorian Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations 2001, the commonwealth’s Therapeutic Goods Administration’s Australian code of good manufacturing practice for human blood and tissue and the Australian Red Cross Blood Service’s donors and recipients safety policy. These standards are applied to all individuals seeking to donate blood regardless of age, and ensure that all

CHILDREN LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL


potential donors are properly informed and understand the nature of the procedure and the risks and benefits of donating blood.

All donors are assessed to ensure that they are medically fit to donate blood, that they have the capacity to make the decision to donate blood, to answer the questionnaire truthfully, and to give informed consent to the procedure.

The point that I must emphasise here is that the donation process is no more or less rigorous for adults or mature minors. It is a serious and thorough process with legal ramifications highlighted for everyone. The Australian Red Cross Blood Service nurses are thoroughly trained in the application of the questionnaire and in the exploration of answers to varied and quite personal questions contained in the questionnaire and they are highly skilled in devising strategies for assisting donors who may need to explain to others — such as their peers — why they were unable to donate blood on a particular day. This advice is given in such a way as to preserve the donor’s dignity.

The Australian Red Cross Blood Service takes an educational approach in marketing its blood donor program to students in the 16-years-and-older age group. That approach educates students about the donation process and its benefits. The program also advises students to talk about giving blood with their families prior to donation. Mature minors will still be encouraged to obtain medical advice about any underlying medical conditions or other issues that may render them ineligible to donate blood.

This bill will assist in increasing blood donations from young persons and contribute to sustaining this valuable service into the future. This bill will empower mature minors to make an altruistic decision to donate blood for the benefit of the community.

I commend this bill to the house.

Debate adjourned for Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) on motion of Ms Lovell.





Read first time for Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) on motion of Hon. M. P. Pakula.


For Mr LENDERS (Treasurer), Hon. M. P. Pakula tabled following statement in accordance with Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, I make this statement of compatibility

with respect to the Children Legislation Amendment Bill 2009.

In my opinion, the Children Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, as introduced in the Legislative Council, is compatible with the human rights protected by the charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of bill

The bill makes a number of amendments to the Children Youth and Families Act 2005 (‘CYF act’) and Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005 (‘CWS act’). The amendments to the CYF act seek either to address omissions in that act or to improve the functionality of that act. The amendments to the CWS act allow the child safety commissioner to conduct a broader range of inquiries.

Human rights issues

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

Section 13 — Privacy and reputation

(a) The right to privacy of persons whose personal information is collected in accordance with the CYF act may be interfered with by clause 3. Clause 3 inserts a new section 20A into the act and provides that despite anything to the contrary in that act, a person who discloses information obtained in connection with the administration or execution of that act is not guilty of an offence if the disclosure is made in connection with the administration or execution of that act or the regulations or under a court order.

The interference may arise as clause 3 potentially expands the number of people who may receive and disclose personal information. However, the right is not limited as the interference is neither unlawful nor arbitrary. The potential expansion of the number of people who may collect, use and disclose personal and health information is not arbitrary because it is in accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the charter, particularly section 17, which provides for the protection of children and families. It is not unlawful as only persons who are required or permitted by law to have access to the information can have such access. The CYF act still limits the number of people who can receive and disclose the information. Given the sheer volume of administrative tasks associated with the execution of the CYF act there is no less restrictive means to achieve the CYF act’s primary purpose of ensuring the protection of children.

It is noted that:

the expansion of the range of potential recipients of personal information is only permissible in the course of administering or executing the CYF act or regulation or under a court order;

the existing provisions in the CYF act that make it an offence to disclose certain information (for example the identity of persons making a report to child protection services) remain in place and will be applicable where disclosed outside of the scope of the new section 20A.



(b) The right to privacy of those persons who may be the subject of, or be involved in, the additional inquiries that the child safety commissioner has power to inquire into pursuant to the CWS act may be interfered with by clauses 10, 11, 12 and 13. These clauses extend the definition of a child protection client that may be the subject of a review, and provide for the minister to require the child safety commissioner to conduct a review of any child protection case.

However, the right is not limited as the interference is neither unlawful nor arbitrary. The provisions are not arbitrary because they are in accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the charter, particularly section 17, which provides for the protection of children and families. Further, the child safety commissioner is able to request personal and/or health information about the child in question, and in some instances in relation to other persons (where such information relates to the services provided or omitted to be provided to the child) in order to perform its function of promoting continuous improvement and innovation in policies and practices relating to child protection and safety.

It is noted that:

the disclosure of personal and/or health information to the child safety commissioner must occur in circumstances relating to at least one of the defined functions of the child safety commissioner;

there are existing offence provisions that prohibit further disclosure of information obtained in the course of inquiries outside of the purposes provided by the CYF act

Conclusion

The bill does not limit any human rights protected by the charter.


Second reading

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade) — I advise the house that there was an amendment to this bill in the Legislative Assembly. The amendment was in relation to the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005 and seeks to change the time line for child death inquiries by the child safety commissioner. The current time line for child death inquires is three months. The amendment proposes to change this to 12 months, thereby enabling the child safety commissioner to review the deaths of children who were child protection clients at the time, or within 12 months of their death. The amendment will increase the level of transparency and accountability surrounding child protection practice. This transparency and accountability will promote a culture of continuous improvement for child protection. The second-reading speech has been amended to reflect this. I move:

That, pursuant to standing order 14.07, the second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Motion agreed to.




Since being elected, this government has committed itself to providing the most vulnerable children and young people in Victoria with the best possible start in life. This is clearly demonstrated by our significant reforms undertaken in recent years to children, youth and family services in Victoria. Central to this commitment is our belief that every child has the right to live a full and productive life in an environment that builds confidence, friendship, stability, security and happiness, irrespective of their family circumstances and background.

This has involved working in close partnership with community service organisations, to deliver an integrated child protection and family services system that promotes early intervention and prevention, and more sustained and effective responses to children and young people in need of protection.

These reforms are underpinned by a commitment to best practice, and informed by a strong evidence base. The Children Legislation Amendment Bill, which I am introducing today, seeks to further strengthen that commitment.

The bill proposes to amend two pieces of legislation, the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 and the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005. These two pieces of legislation were instrumental in reforming child protection and child safety in Victoria. Since their commencement in 2007 it has become apparent that some amendment is necessary in relation to some issues.

The Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005 — the role of the child safety commissioner

This government created the position of the child safety commissioner to provide a strong and independent voice for children, to promote their safety and wellbeing, and to provide advice to the government. A core function of the child safety commissioner is to conduct an inquiry into the death of a child who was a client of the Department of Human Services’ child protection service at the time of their death or within three months of their death. The reports of these inquiries are forwarded to the Victorian Child Death Review Committee for consideration. The committee considers the findings of the inquiry and, where appropriate, makes recommendations to myself, in regard to matters of a thematic policy and practice nature. The Victorian Child Death Review Committee tables an annual report in Parliament as part of the transparent and accountable approach to the deaths of children known to child protection in Victoria.

The bill I am introducing today extends the range of cases reviewable by the child safety commissioner and the Victorian Child Death Review Committee. This will promote



greater transparency and accountability of the child protection program.

The bill proposes three amendments to the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005.

Inquiries into child deaths by the child safety commissioner — extending types of cases and the timeline for cases

The proposed amendments expand the criteria for the type of case that will be subject to child death inquiries by the child safety commissioner. The proposed amendments will enable the child safety commissioner to conduct child death inquiries into the deaths of all children who were the subject of a report to the Secretary to the Department of Human Services within twelve months of their deaths. In relation to the types of cases, the current legislative scheme provides for inquiries only into the death of a child who was the subject of a report to child protection that was subsequently deemed by child protection to be a ‘protective intervention report’. This serves to exclude all those reports to child protection that do not go on to be deemed as ‘protective intervention’ reports. The first proposed amendment seeks to redress this exclusion. The expanded scope will capture all children who were the subject of a report to child protection, irrespective of child protection’s determination of that report.

The second proposed amendment extends the timeline for child death inquires. The Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005 currently limits the scope of reviews to children who were child protection clients at the time, or within three months, of their death. The amendment will substitute three months with twelve months, thereby enabling the child safety commissioner to review the deaths of children who were child protection clients at the time, or within twelve months, of their death. Child death inquiries play a critical role in examining the decision making and quality of service provided to children in the child protection program. Importantly they aim to identify key learnings that can be used to inform and improve future child protection practice.

This proposed amendment will serve to increase the level of transparency in child protection practice, and acknowledges community expectations that the death of a child known to authorities requires a genuine, significant and independent inquiry.

Review of child protection cases by the child safety commissioner as referred by the minister

The third proposed amendment to the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005 goes even further by creating a new category of cases potentially subject to review by the child safety commissioner. The proposed amendment will enable the child safety commissioner to examine individual cases involving child protection upon a request by the Minister for Community Services. The review will constitute an inquiry into the services provided or not provided to the child for the purpose of improving existing practices and procedures in relation to child safety issues. The only criterion is that the child has been known to child protection at some stage in their life. It may be the case that the child is no longer a client of child protection and may not have been a client for a very long time. As long as the child has been known to child protection, the case may be subject to review. This proposed amendment provides a means to seek an independent investigation of specific child protection cases. This enhances

the level of accountability surrounding child protection practice. In turn, accountability and transparency will promote a culture of continuous improvement for child protection.

The Children, Youth and Families Act 2005

The proposed amendments to the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 are technical in nature and aim to improve the effectiveness of that legislation.

Appointment of administrator over part only of community service organisation

This bill rectifies an inadvertent inflexibility of the current provisions that enable the minister to appoint an administrator over an entire community service organisation — not just those parts of the organisation delivering child and family services funded by the Department of Human Services under the Children, Youth and Families Act. The appointment of an administrator is a power of last resort for the government, to be utilised only where the minister is satisfied that the community service is inefficiently or incompetently managed. Where the community service organisation has multiple divisions, it is unnecessary, and undesirable, to appoint an administrator over all of those divisions. The proposed amendment allows the appointment of an administrator just to that part of the community service that is providing child and family services.

Administrative staff access to client information

The bill proposes an amendment to enable administrative staff in the child protection program to have access to a client’s child protection file, for the purposes of undertaking administrative tasks. The child protection workforce is structured in such a way that significant file preparation, administrative support and placements for children are provided by administrative staff. These functions are substantial and entirely necessary for the ongoing operation of the child protection program. All these functions require access to information that is only accessible to a ‘protective intervener’ under the current legislation. It was never the intention to exclude these important staff members from having access to client information for the purpose of carrying out their significant duties. The absence of a legislative scheme to enable such access is an oversight which requires rectification. The bill therefore seeks to clarify this situation by making permissible the disclosure of information to or by administrative staff in the administration or execution of the Children Youth and Families Act or pursuant to a court order. It is understood that child protection information is highly sensitive. The legislation currently contains several specific confidentiality offence provisions which are not excluded by the proposed amendment. Rather, the proposed amendment is intended to operate as a defence provision to those specific disclosure offences. Thus if a disclosure is made outside the circumstances of the defence provision, then that disclosure will be in breach of the confidentiality offence provisions, to which penalties apply. Further, all administrative staff are bound to respect the confidentiality of client information by virtue of the Victorian Public Sector Code of Conduct.

Suitability panel membership

The bill seeks to address a practical difficulty in the current legislation by enabling the expansion of the number of members of the suitability panel. The suitability panel was established by the Children, Youth and Families Act to allow

ADJOURNMENT


for disqualification of carers who pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children. The suitability panel consists of a chairperson who must be a legal practitioner, and five other members with qualifications and experience in various disciplines that are relevant to the matters that will be brought before the panel for hearing. The chairperson and members are appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the minister. The quorum for a panel hearing currently consists of the chairperson and two other panellists selected by the chairperson. The suitability panel has commenced hearings, and has matters presently subject to investigation that may proceed to the panel. It is now considered that the fixed number of appointed members, five, constrains the flexibility of the panel. The bill proposes that more than five members may be appointed. This will ensure that there are sufficient numbers for a quorum but allow additional members to be appointed as necessary.

Conclusion

Here in Victoria we have built an integrated child protection and family services system. Our reforms are underpinned by a strong evidence base and a commitment to delivering best practice, and have been implemented in close collaboration with the community sector.

We have a flexible system that can respond to the complex challenges facing the state’s most vulnerable children. These amendments continue this tradition, streamlining child protection practice and enhancing the accountability of the child protection system.


Debate adjourned on motion of Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria).


ADJOURNMENT


That the house do now adjourn.

Police: Shepparton

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) — The matter I wish to raise tonight is for the attention of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and it is in relation to police resources in Shepparton. My request is for the minister to work with the Chief Commissioner of Police to ensure that police resources in Shepparton are increased to improve community safety and the safety of our hardworking police men and women.

Police underresourcing is a long-running issue in the Goulburn Valley. However, an upgrade of facilities in 2001 put additional pressure on the region’s already stretched police resources. In 2001, Shepparton’s cells were upgraded to A category, meaning they can hold

up to 9 prisoners at a time, although on one occasion they held as many as 14 prisoners. Since the upgrade the Shepparton station has not been allocated appropriate resources to cope with the additional workload and responsibility. It is not uncommon for there to be just one sergeant and two police members per shift, and they are required to look after the counter, the phones and the prisoners.

Although regulations stipulate that police are not to go near cells unless they have sufficient numbers, it is not always the case in Shepparton where resources are so often stretched. The lack of police resources to handle prisoners in cells poses a risk to prisoners and to police on duty. There is also a chance that phone calls are being missed at the station so that members of the public are not getting the assistance they require. The lack of resources is so bad that Shepparton station has been forced to call in van crews and crews from surrounding stations to give them a hand when issues arise in their cells.

Local police believe Shepparton may be the only A category cell station in Victoria with just 9 sergeants. Shepparton has applied for additional resources but the requests have been refused. According to Sergeant Wagstaff of Shepparton police, the Shepparton station has been allocated just 1 additional sergeant, but it needs at least 3 more and a minimum of 10 other rank officers. Unfortunately Shepparton has been told that its vacancies will not even be advertised until all the metropolitan police stations have had their vacancies filled.

Shepparton has not only become a dumping ground for prisoners but it has also become a second-tier priority under Melbourne when it comes to filling vacancies. This is not an operational matter. The state Labor government made upgrades to the Shepparton station, but it failed to back that up with additional resources to enable the station to operate effectively. The Brumby government’s refusal to acknowledge and address police underresourcing in Shepparton is putting lives at risk and can no longer be ignored.

My request of the minister is for him to work with the commissioner of police to ensure that police resources in Shepparton are increased and to improve community safety and that of our hardworking police men and women.

Ambulance services: enterprise bargaining agreement

Ms HARTLAND (Western Metropolitan) — Tonight my adjournment matter is for the Minister for

ADJOURNMENT


Health. I do not understand why the state government is continuing to waste money on legal representation that is basically an attempt to terminate the bargaining period related to the ambulance employees union dispute, and why over the past week it has sought orders against paramedics instead of dealing with the dispute.

I understand from the union that the government has employed a senior counsel, one senior barrister, two junior lawyers and five managers to run this case. Part of the dispute is the obvious need for a 10-hour break for paramedics between the time they finish their shift and the time they have to return.

It is clear when you look at the work done by the Australian Council of Trade Unions on this issue that fatigue in the workplace is a major problem. I have some ACTU fact sheets for the minister, if he would like to read them.

The action I seek from the minister is to come to the negotiating table and talk with the union to resolve this dispute that is putting the health and safety of paramedics and the community at risk.

Clearways: Stonnington

Mrs COOTE (Southern Metropolitan) — This evening my issue is for the Minister for Roads and Ports. It will not come as any surprise that this issue is about clearways, particularly clearways in Stonnington.

I am known in this chamber to have spoken about clearways before. I remind the chamber that I have delivered a petition of 30 000 signatures to this place about the implementation of clearways in and around metropolitan Melbourne, specifically in Boroondara and Stonnington. I have been working closely with community members, who are outraged that, without any consultation, they are going to have these odious clearways imposed upon them. Not only will that have an impact on residents but also the impact on traders will be huge.

In this time of economic financial crisis it is imperative that we look after small businesses, but in this instance small businesses are being dealt a hard hand. This issue is going to make many of them lose even more business.

The most important thing is that the member for Prahran in the other place has not done anything about this issue. He has not been out there advocating for his community; he has not been out there discussing or talking with various community groups. I was leading a demonstration outside his office recently. I was on the

megaphone and was talking about how difficult this issue was. He did not even bother to come outside. He did not address the people who were there to protest about the clearways, to talk to them about their concerns or to listen to the issues. He is not interested; he does not want to know. The 2010 election is rapidly approaching, and he is ignoring people at his peril.

However, I have written, as members can well imagine, to the Minister for Roads and Ports on many occasions. I have asked him through questions on notice on many occasions about certain issues, but I specifically asked him about clearways. I received an answer from him. The letter is stamped 13 November 2008, but I received it only recently. He says in this letter:

Surveys of parking availability during the extended clearway times were undertaken for eight strip shopping centres in the Malvern and Prahran areas to determine any shortfalls in available parking.

…

These results indicate that alternative parking is generally available on the other side of the road to the peak direction clearway, or in side streets or nearby car parks.

This evening the action I am asking of the minister is that he show us in an open and transparent way all the results from all the surveys he has supposedly conducted and that he shares this information with the people, the residents, the shop traders, the City of Stonnington and the City of Boroondara as a matter of urgency.

Housing: rental accommodation

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — Tonight my adjournment matter is for the Minister for Housing. As the minister would be aware, I introduced a bill into this place to set minimum standards for rental housing. However, I have also become aware that the minister has now created a task force, to be led by Mr Foley, the member for Albert Park in the Assembly, to look at this issue.

That task force, I have been told, involves all the relevant stakeholders and will report within short time lines. Therefore I would like my bill to be given something of a hiatus, with the cooperation of all parties in this chamber if possible. But firstly, I would like a briefing from the minister or Mr Foley to officially get information about how the task force is to operate and what it is to consider. I would appreciate it if that briefing could be organised by the Minister for Housing. I could then consider what I have included in my private members bill after the task force has reported.

ADJOURNMENT


Bushfires: fuel reduction

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) — The matter I raise for the attention of the Premier flows from comments he is reported to have made about fuel reduction in preparation for the upcoming fire season, which this week has been a significant issue of attention although it is something local government, the Country Fire Authority and others have been acutely aware of for many weeks, indeed for months. Whilst the community at large is awaiting the interim findings and later the final findings of the bushfires royal commission, the issue of fuel reduction for the upcoming summer, which is now only a matter of a few short months away, is one of serious concern.

I noted with interest the comments of the Premier. The issue that has been left unexplained is how his comments about getting out there and reducing fuel loads, undergrowth and fuel for fire are to be matched with much of the regulation that is in place and that has been put onto local government but which prohibits that very thing from occurring.

I have been contacted by a number of councillors in various parts of Eastern Victoria Region. They are concerned that their hands are, in effect, tied behind their backs as a result of regulation and environmental legislation. Councils do not have the capacity to reduce fuel in parts of their land-holdings as a result of state government regulation. Other councils, by their own volition, have also at times added additional restrictions on the ability of landowners to clear land.

But that is not necessarily the adjournment issue I wish the Premier to address. I ask him to explain how he matches his comments with the burdens and restrictions that his government has imposed on local government to reduce fuel loads and therefore fire risk. I ask him to address this issue as a matter of urgency so that as much fuel as is needed can be removed or reduced before the upcoming fire season.

Parks Victoria: bushfire recovery funding

Mr P. DAVIS (Eastern Victoria) — I refer my matter to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. I refer to representations made by the Balook and District Residents Association in respect of bushfire recovery.

On 10 July a meeting was facilitated by Destination Gippsland and the Wellington Shire Council and attended by Parks Victoria. The meeting was intended to inform about, and seek community input on, the use of bushfire recovery funding of some $600 000 for

tourism promotion around unspoiled natural attractions, being national parks, on the edge of fire-impacted areas.

The focus was on the Tarra-Bulga National Park. It was proposed that money not be spent on general maintenance work in the park and that its primary purpose was to bring more tourists into the area and boost visitor spending to aid bushfire recovery. However, as the meeting progressed it became apparent that Parks Victoria intended to spend the money entirely in the Tarra-Bulga National Park on a poorly defined list of projects that included upgrading existing tracks; replacing or providing additional interpretive signs; replacing an old toilet block in the park; and up to $200 000 on upgrading the existing visitors centre, which is a modern building and simply needs some updated display materials. A further component was the installation of a new track to the park boundary to potentially connect to the Cores and Links reserve, which is Victorian Plantation Corporation licence land that is being purchased back by the state government.

The proposal failed to recognise that the handing back of this land to the government is a 20-year process; the management of this reserve is undecided — the originally nominated party was Trust for Nature, and there is no certainty that Parks Victoria will be the manager; part of the hand-back process involves closing off and rehabilitating tracks into forestry areas, as the reserve is fundamentally to protect biodiversity; and there are no communities or tourist facilities along or at the opposite end of the reserve to benefit from the infrastructure.

The Balook community and other stakeholders present at the meeting claimed these works would do nothing to increase tourist visitation. There is an alternative proposal — for a 60-kilometre walking track through a network in the region, which would connect with existing tourism infrastructure.

It is pretty clear that Parks Victoria has not cooperated with the local community in trying to develop a management plan for these insightful proposals to enhance tourism development in the Tarra-Bulga region. Unfortunately it seems that Parks Victoria simply wants to use these funds to do maintenance.

I ask that the minister ensure that the money is being properly directed via the purpose of the fund and is not being used to in effect provide maintenance for existing Parks Victoria facilities.

ADJOURNMENT


Drought: counselling services

Mr KOCH (Western Victoria) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Premier relating to the government’s repeated failure to provide assistance to rural Victorians under the prolonged stress of drought.

Families in rural Victoria have endured years of hardship in the face of the worst drought in living memory. Over the past 12 months this stress has been further intensified by the global economic crisis.

While community groups and volunteer organisations have continued to support rural families in municipalities like Horsham rural city and Hindmarsh and West Wimmera shires, the Brumby government has again demonstrated its lack of compassion for country Victorians. On 30 June the government withdrew funding for drought counselling services throughout western Victoria, which is another illogical political decision made without consultation and little understanding of the social ramifications likely to follow.

Counselling services strengthen rural communities by allowing families to function more effectively, by dealing with the prolonged effects of stress. In the absence of government funding, community groups such as Wimmera Uniting Care are being forced to reassess the services they provide. Community counsellors, who see these west Victorian families on a range of issues, including depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts, are in no doubt that drought aid continues to be required. Unfortunately Wimmera Uniting Care has been forced to integrate drought relief counselling with its regular services. This organisation has also been required to use its own funds to maintain these services. In an already harsh economic climate, this has resulted in the loss of one counselling position.

Community groups in the region inform me it is a continual struggle to convince this arrogant government that drought relief aid is still very much needed. These organisations also tell me they will continue to place pressure on the Labor government to do the right thing by those trying to cope with the stress of prolonged drought.

The city-centric Brumby government, although it might try, has no comprehension of the pressures facing rural Victorians. Farmers are walking off the land, and depression is claiming far too many. Drought-ravaged communities across Victoria desperately need support to help them cope with worsening economic and environmental conditions. Instead of providing what is needed, this government continues to spend on the

metropolitan area while at the same time walking away from regional Victorians at every opportunity.

My request of the Premier is that he ensure his government provide adequate resources in the rural west of the state, especially the Wimmera, to ensure that the health and emotional wellbeing of those working these lands is not compromised.

Public safety: emergency assembly areas

Mr VOGELS (Western Victoria) — I raise an issue for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. It concerns access to emergency assembly areas which have been decommissioned over the past few years.

It is vital that when an emergency occurs in a community — whether it be bushfires approaching, a gas leak or even an overturned petrol tanker in the middle of a town — the local community knows where its safe refuge is. Once upon a time we had emergency assembly areas in just about every town right across Victoria. In my home town it was at the local school, and in other towns it could have been the recreation reserve, sometimes the golf club and so on. The important point to be made is that everybody in those communities knew where to go when there was an emergency. In an emergency people tend to panic; they need a clear understanding, to know ‘That’s where I go; that’s where I’m safe in this town’.

It appears the places for public safety have disappeared because no organisation wants to accept responsibility for public liability. Protection of human life should be the key factor here, and the action I seek from the minister is that he work closely with local government to ensure that all communities once again have safe havens to retreat to in the case of an emergency situation. About 100 per cent of these emergency assembly areas are on Crown land — that is, recreation reserves, public space or education premises such as local schools — so clearly the state government needs to accept that on this issue, public safety, the state is the lead agency.

Schools: pupil-free days

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I wish to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Education. It is in relation to another reform that the government has implemented — that is, the specification of pupil-free days not only in terms of numbers but also in terms of when they are conducted. For example, in 2009 the pupil-free days for government schools were scheduled as the first three days of term 1, with students beginning school on the

ADJOURNMENT


fourth day of term 1, and the remaining pupil-free day was the third-last Friday of term 2 and was for student assessment and reporting purposes.

Unfortunately this does not really make a lot of sense, first and foremost because it is an inflexible system that does not allow schools to use those pupil-free days in ways and at times that suit them. I am aware of a number of schools using them to supplement and strengthen student reporting practices and engage with the parent community. Parents work extended hours, so you can no longer conduct parent-teacher interviews just after school, for example, because there are parents who work the evening or afternoon shift and who can come only during the day. The general practice has been to extend those interviews over a longer period.

This reform limits, and I think diminishes, the capacity of schools to conduct very vigorous programs. In particular this issue has been brought to my attention by parents at Kambrya College in Berwick, most notably the parent representatives: David Denny, Sue Campbell, Wendy Kerr, David Wilson and Tracy Buckingham. They would like this to be reviewed. But in addition it does not make sense from the point of view that if you specify the dates across the state, the demand for speakers and resources happens over a very narrow period. Basically it limits the ability of schools to get the sort of speakers or specialists who are required to implement new government reforms, new concepts or initiatives in curriculum and education.

From either perspective it makes no sense, and I ask the minister to review this matter and engage school communities in a review of the scheduling of pupil-free days and also the number of days, because the latest research shows that professional development is a crucial ingredient for maintaining staff, developing staff and developing teachers. I think this is an area that needs ongoing review involving all stakeholders, not just the teaching staff and those who run schools, such as principals, but also parent bodies and school councils. I look forward to having this matter attended to, because it really is introducing a lack of flexibility that I think diminishes the system.

City of Brimbank: Ombudsman’s report

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) — I wish to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Local Government. It concerns the veil of silence which has recently descended over the Brimbank City Council scandal. As I am sure the Deputy President would be aware, this has been quite a big issue in my electorate. For the benefit of Minister Pakula, Brimbank is in the western suburbs.

I have spoken on this subject to a number of residents, and that includes journalists who have tried, unsuccessfully at this time, to get answers out of the minister’s office as to where we go from here. There is very deep concern among many people in Brimbank that the government wants this Ombudsman’s report to just go away and that it will then forget this ever happened and move on to whatever it is talking about next. But given the great suffering that locals have had inflicted on them over many years under the Brimbank City Council, I can understand the fear and, I suppose, loathing that many people in the Brimbank area feel about potentially being brushed out of the way. I have committed myself to ensuring that this issue will not be buried by this government.

On this day, when the main culprit in the Brimbank scandal is enjoying the company of Labor luminaries from around Australia at the ALP national conference in Sydney’s Darling Harbour, I ask the minister to ensure that the people of Brimbank receive the justice they are due. In particular I ask the minister to provide in writing information surrounding the role of Bill Scales as monitor of the council and his progress reports on Brimbank council to this point.

I further ask the minister to provide in writing information surrounding the processes involving the inspector of municipal administration and his investigation of possible breaches of the Local Government Act at Brimbank City Council. That would include time frames on the investigation, who is being investigated and for what possible offences they are being investigated at this point.

This matter is most important. There are tens of thousands of people, if not more, in the Brimbank area who regard this as a vital matter and one that the government must pay adequate attention to. I ask the minister to provide in writing the information that I have requested, and I assure him that despite the best efforts of him, his colleagues in the cabinet and the government generally, this issue will not die.

Victorian government business offices: review

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — My adjournment matter tonight is for the attention of the Minister for Industry and Trade. It concerns the performance of Victoria’s overseas business offices. These trade and investment offices perform a very important function. It is threefold, in a sense: firstly, assisting Victorian exporters and exports to successfully compete in the world; secondly, attracting investment into Victoria; and thirdly, encouraging tourism by acting as facilitators for our message on tourism. But

ADJOURNMENT


they also need to be scrutinised closely to make sure they are delivering value for money and are firmly focused on getting the best outcomes for Victorians.

I have made 10 FOI requests to the Department of Industry, Innovation and Regional Development (DIIRD) since 10 July 2007. We are now more than two years into the cycle at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. There was once an opposition member of the government, who is now in a senior position, who said, ‘If you have nothing to hide, you should have nothing to fear’. He was making the point that secrecy is not a good approach.

What I am asking here is that the minister look closely at why DIIRD is covering up these matters and not providing assistance by releasing information under those freedom of information requests. Under the Freedom of Information Act there is a requirement to assist applicants in framing their requests in a way that can be satisfied. I make the point in this case that the agent-general, one of those overseas officers, did provide this FOI information of exactly the type we have requested from the other business offices. So there is no reason in principle why this could not have been done, and in terms of scheduling, this could have been successfully achieved. Whilst FOI is meant to occur at arm’s length from the minister, he is in a position to request explanations as to why delays might be occurring and if there is some blockage in the process.

In the terms of the functioning of these overseas offices, another investigation is going on at the moment. The government indicated to the Sunday Herald Sun that an investigation would be undertaken into an invoice for a trip to Hooters. I ask the minister, when he is looking at these offices, to release that report into the Hooters invoice.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! I am trying to decide whether that is a separate matter. I will let it pass.

Housing: Ringwood development

Mrs KRONBERG (Eastern Metropolitan) — My adjournment matter is directed to the Minister for Planning. It centres on the nine-storey, two-bedroom, 96-unit social housing development at 4–10 Larissa Avenue, Ringwood.

Unfortunately for the residents of Larissa Avenue and environs, the people of Ringwood and the Maroondah City Council, the applicant, in going directly to the minister for approval have bypassed the council’s planning process, as the project’s funding originates

from the federal government stimulus package for social housing.

This development project has far-reaching consequences for the Ringwood central activities district. The council supports the principle of integrating social housing into residential areas, but it cannot support the proposed large-scale and highly intrusive development in Larissa Avenue.

The nine-storey building would overly impact on the streetscape and access to and egress from the area. It is of a design that contravenes the Maroondah planning scheme-Ringwood activity centre policy. It lacks the high standard of visual appearance and resident amenity required and represents a severe overconcentration of social housing in a single development. The council would prefer that social housing be dispersed across residential areas.

The building is devoid of important architectural features, such as recessing the building and stepping it back from the street. This negates any possibility of providing a human residential scale to the entrance. In a bizarre twist the vehicle entrance actually conflicts with the redevelopment of Larissa Avenue as part of the Lake to Creek Link project, to which the minister has recently pledged $720 000. The link project changes the two-way function of the street so as to slow traffic, thus increasing pedestrian safety.

Furthermore the council has entered into contracts for the construction of a bio-filtration basin and bridging. This will make access to the site by trucks very difficult, thereby putting the efficient collection of future household waste at risk. The number of visitor car parking spaces has been reduced form 15 to 4. For a building of this scale, this is another contravention. This building would be the first that exceeds four storeys in height and would be likely to set the future urban design standards.

My request of the minister is for him to refuse any application for approval until the redesign fully complies with the council’s planning scheme, which, after all, seeks to encourage architectural excellence.

Responses

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade) — There were a number of matters raised tonight. Ms Lovell raised a matter for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services regarding police resources in Shepparton, and I will refer that matter to the minister.

ADJOURNMENT


Ms Hartland raised a matter for the Minister for Health with regard to the ambulance employees enterprise bargaining agreement, seeking the minister come to the negotiating table. I will refer that to the Minister for Health, but I indicate to Ms Hartland, who is not here at the moment, that there have been negotiations in an ongoing sense, and the matter has been referred by Fair Work Australia for conciliation for a period of days. But I will refer the matter to the Minister for Health for a more copious response.

Mrs Coote raised a matter for the Minister for Roads and Ports regarding the sharing of survey results in regard to clearways in the city of Stonnington.

Mr Barber raised a matter for the Minister for Housing in regard to a briefing that he is seeking from either the minister or the member for Albert Park in regard to the housing task force.

Mr O’Donohue raised a matter for the Premier in regard to fuel reduction for the upcoming fire season, seeking an explanation of how the Premier’s public comments on fuel load interplay with existing regulations. I am not certain that is a matter for the Premier, but I will refer it to him for a response.

Mr Philip Davis raised a matter for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, seeking that he ensure that money from the recovery funding be appropriately directed by Parks Victoria, particularly in regard to the Tarra-Bulga National Park.

Mr Koch raised a matter for the Premier in regard to drought stress, particularly in Mr Koch’s electorate of Western Victoria, and wanted to ensure that adequate resources were provided in the western part of the state, particularly for counselling services and other matters. I will refer that matter to the Premier.

Mr Vogels raised a matter for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, seeking that he work with local government to ensure that there are adequate emergency assembly areas provided for use by local communities during periods of emergency. I will pass that matter on.

Mrs Peulich raised a matter for the Minister for Education regarding the schedule of pupil-free days, and I will refer that matter to the minister.

Mr Finn — surprise, surprise! — raised a matter for the Minister for Local Government in regard to Brimbank council. He is seeking that the minister provide information about the role that Bill Scales is playing as the local government monitor in that area and other things, and I will refer that matter to the minister.

Mrs Kronberg raised a matter for the Minister for Planning in regard to the social housing development in Ringwood, seeking that the minister refuse an application for planning approval until certain preconditions are met, and I will pass that matter on to the Minister for Planning.

Mr David Davis raised a matter for me in my capacity as Minister for Industry and Trade in regard to the performance of VGBOs (Victorian government business offices). I will provide Mr Davis with an appropriate written response. In regard to those matters that I can deal with today: he raised a number of points. In regard to their role in attracting tourism, he is correct in part, although some overseas offices interact with Tourism Victoria offices; it is not strictly the role of the VGBOs.

In regard to the role of VGBOs more generally, those offices provide a fantastic return on investment for this state. To use last year’s figures alone — approximately $9 million of budget money was spent on all of our VGBOs, and they were integral in returning direct foreign investment of well over $1 billion to the state of Victoria. But Mr Davis raised a point about freedom of information requests. As he would be aware, the articles that appeared in the Herald Sun over a period of weeks were the result, as I understand it, of reams of paper which had been released, I believe, to him, as a consequence of an FOI request.

Mr D. Davis — There are 10 that are outstanding.

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — Mr Davis makes the point that there are a number which are outstanding. I also make the point that Mr Davis is an inveterate lodger of FOI requests. I would have to look into the actual circumstances of this request; it was one that was made before my time as a minister. It may be that they are copious, onerous or whatever. But Mr Davis also makes the point correctly that it is not the minister’s role to decide what is and what is not released. There is an FOI process and those documents will be dealt with in accordance with that FOI process.

Mr D. Davis — Two years.

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — As I say, I will seek to provide the information that Mr Davis requests. The Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development has a reputation of being a department that gives very good assistance to FOI applicants.

Mr D. Davis — Two years.

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — We will look into the circumstances of that. It may be that the sheer volume

ADJOURNMENT


of FOI requests that Mr Davis has participated in making is part of the cause of the delay. But I will seek that information for him.

In regard to the other matter that Mr Davis raised about the taxi ride that occurred a couple of years ago in Las Vegas, as has been indicated I have sought that the commissioner for the Americas, Mr Perton, provide an explanation about that.

It is fair to say that I have also asked the international coordination office to notify all the overseas offices that, as the minister, I expect anyone representing the state of Victoria to conduct themselves in a manner that is commensurate with their role. I do not have in the chamber today the complete explanation of the circumstances of the taxi ride, but I will provide that information to Mr Davis in accordance with his request.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! I understand the minister also has some written responses to adjournment matters.

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — Indeed I do, Deputy President. I have written responses to adjournment debate matters raised by Mr Rich-Phillips on both 24 June and 25 June 2009.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! The house now stands adjourned.

House adjourned 4.52 p.m. until Tuesday, 11 August.

Documents

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)...The Hon. B. J. Pike, MP Minister for Gaming, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister ... Huppert, Ms Jennifer Sue 1 Southern Metropolitan ALP Tee,