PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) · The Honourable ALEX CHERNOV, AC, QC. The Lieutenant-Governor The Honourable Justice MARILYN WARREN, AC . The ministry (from 22 April 2013) ... 7

PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

FIFTY-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

Thursday, 19 September 2013

(Extract from book 12)

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

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

The Governor The Honourable ALEX CHERNOV, AC, QC

The Lieutenant-Governor The Honourable Justice MARILYN WARREN, AC

The ministry (from 22 April 2013)

Premier, Minister for Regional Cities and Minister for Racing . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. D. V. Napthine, MP

Deputy Premier, Minister for State Development, and Minister for Regional and Rural Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. P. J. Ryan, MP

Treasurer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. M. A. O’Brien, MP

Minister for Innovation, Services and Small Business, Minister for Tourism and Major Events, and Minister for Employment and Trade . .

The Hon. Louise Asher, MP

Attorney-General, Minister for Finance and Minister for Industrial Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. R. W. Clark, MP

Minister for Health and Minister for Ageing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. D. M. Davis, MLC

Minister for Sport and Recreation, and Minister for Veterans’ Affairs . . . . The Hon. H. F. Delahunty, MP

Minister for Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. M. F. Dixon, MP

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

Minister for Higher Education and Skills, and Minister responsible for the Teaching Profession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. P. R. Hall, MLC

Minister for Ports, Minister for Major Projects and Minister for Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. D. J. Hodgett, MP

Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship, and Minister for Energy and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. N. Kotsiras, MP

Minister for Housing, and Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. W. A. Lovell, MLC

Minister for Public Transport and Minister for Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. T. W. Mulder, MP

Minister for Liquor and Gaming Regulation, Minister for Corrections and Minister for Crime Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. E. J. O’Donohue, MLC

Minister for Local Government and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs . . . . . . The Hon. E. J. Powell, MP

Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Technology and Minister responsible for the Aviation Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. G. K. Rich-Phillips, MLC

Minister for Environment and Climate Change, and Minister for Youth Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. R. Smith, MP

Minister for the Arts, Minister for Women’s Affairs and Minister for Consumer Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. H. Victoria, MP

Minister for Agriculture and Food Security, and Minister for Water . . . . . . The Hon. P. L. Walsh, MP

Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and Minister for Bushfire Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. K. A. Wells, MP

Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Community Services, and Minister for Disability Services and Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. M. L. N. Wooldridge, MP

Cabinet Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr N. Wakeling, MP

Legislative Assembly committees

Privileges Committee — Ms Barker, Mr Clark, Ms Green, Mr Hodgett, Mr Morris, Mr Nardella, Mr O’Brien, Mr Pandazopoulos and Mr Walsh.

Standing Orders Committee — The Speaker, Ms Allan, Ms Asher, Ms Barker, Mrs Fyffe, Mr Hodgett, Ms Kairouz and Mrs Powell.

Joint committees

Accountability and Oversight Committee — (Assembly): Ms Kanis, Mr McIntosh and Ms Neville. (Council): Mr O’Brien and Mr P. Davis.

Dispute Resolution Committee — (Assembly): Ms Allan, Ms Asher, Mr Clark, Ms Hennessy, Mr Merlino, Mr O’Brien and Mr Walsh. (Council): Mr D. Davis, Mr Hall, Mr Lenders, Ms Lovell and Ms Pennicuik.

Economic Development, Infrastructure and Outer Suburban/Interface Services Committee — (Assembly): Mr Burgess, Mrs Fyffe, Mr McGuire and Mr Shaw. (Council): Mrs Peulich.

Education and Training Committee — (Assembly): Mr Brooks and Mr Crisp. (Council): Mr Elasmar and Mrs Kronberg.

Electoral Matters Committee — (Assembly): Mr Northe. (Council): Mr Finn, Mrs Peulich, Mr Somyurek and Mr Tarlamis.

Environment and Natural Resources Committee — (Assembly): Mr Bull, Ms Duncan, Mr Pandazopoulos and Ms Wreford. (Council): Mr Koch.

Family and Community Development Committee — (Assembly): Ms Halfpenny, Mr McGuire and Mr Wakeling. (Council): Mrs Coote, Ms Crozier and Mr O’Brien.

House Committee — (Assembly): The Speaker (ex officio), Ms Beattie, Mr Burgess, Ms Campbell, Mrs Fyffe, Ms Thomson and Mr Weller. (Council): The President (ex officio), Mr Drum, Mr Eideh, Mr Finn, Ms Hartland, and Mr P. Davis.

Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Committee — (Assembly): Ms Hennessy, Mr McIntosh, Mr Newton-Brown and Mr Weller. (Council): Mr Viney.

Law Reform, Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee — (Assembly): Mr Carroll, Mr McCurdy and Mr Southwick. (Council): Mr Ramsay and Mr Scheffer.

Public Accounts and Estimates Committee — (Assembly): Mr Angus, Ms Hennessey, Mr Morris, Mr Pakula and Mr Scott. (Council): Mr O’Brien and Mr Ondarchie.

Road Safety Committee — (Assembly): Mr Languiller, Mr Perera, Mr Tilley and Mr Thompson. (Council): Mr Elsbury.

Rural and Regional Committee — (Assembly): Mr Howard, Mr Katos, Mr Trezise and Mr Weller. (Council): Mr Drum.

Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee — (Assembly): Ms Barker, Ms Campbell, Mr Gidley, Mr Nardella, Dr Sykes and Mr Watt. (Council): Mr Dalla-Riva.

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: Mr P. Lochert

MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

FIFTY-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT — FIRST SESSION Speaker: The Hon. K. M. SMITH

Deputy Speaker: Mrs C. A. FYFFE Acting Speakers: Mr Angus, Ms Beattie, Mr Blackwood, Mr Burgess, Ms Campbell, Mr Gidley, Mr Languiller, Mr McCurdy, Mr McIntosh,

Ms McLeish, Mr Morris, Mr Nardella, Mr Northe, Mr Pandazopoulos, Ms Ryall, Dr Sykes, Mr Thompson and Mr Weller. Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party and Premier:

The Hon. D. V. NAPTHINE (from 6 March 2013) The Hon. E. N. BAILLIEU (to 6 March 2013)

Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party: The Hon. LOUISE ASHER

Leader of The Nationals and Deputy Premier: The Hon. P. J. RYAN

Deputy Leader of The Nationals: The Hon. P. L. WALSH

Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party and Leader of the Opposition: The Hon. D. M. ANDREWS

Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party and Deputy Leader of the Opposition: The Hon. J. A. MERLINO

Member District Party Member District Party

Allan, Ms Jacinta Marie Bendigo East ALP Languiller, Mr Telmo Ramon Derrimut ALP Andrews, Mr Daniel Michael Mulgrave ALP Lim, Mr Muy Hong Clayton ALP Angus, Mr Neil Andrew Warwick Forest Hill LP McCurdy, Mr Timothy Logan Murray Valley Nats Asher, Ms Louise Brighton LP McGuire, Mr Frank 6 Broadmeadows ALP Baillieu, Mr Edward Norman Hawthorn LP McIntosh, Mr Andrew John Kew LP Barker, Ms Ann Patricia Oakleigh ALP McLeish, Ms Lucinda Gaye Seymour LP Battin, Mr Bradley William Gembrook LP Madden, Mr Justin Mark Essendon ALP Bauer, Mrs Donna Jane Carrum LP Merlino, Mr James Anthony Monbulk ALP Beattie, Ms Elizabeth Jean Yuroke ALP Miller, Ms Elizabeth Eileen Bentleigh LP Blackwood, Mr Gary John Narracan LP Morris, Mr David Charles Mornington LP Brooks, Mr Colin William Bundoora ALP Mulder, Mr Terence Wynn Polwarth LP Brumby, Mr John Mansfield 1 Broadmeadows ALP Napthine, Dr Denis Vincent South-West Coast LP Bull, Mr Timothy Owen Gippsland East Nats Nardella, Mr Donato Antonio Melton ALP Burgess, Mr Neale Ronald Hastings LP Neville, Ms Lisa Mary Bellarine ALP Campbell, Ms Christine Mary Pascoe Vale ALP Newton-Brown, Mr Clement Arundel Prahran LP Carbines, Mr Anthony Richard

Ivanhoe ALP Noonan, Mr Wade Mathew Williamstown ALP Carroll, Mr Benjamin Alan 2 Niddrie ALP Northe, Mr Russell John Morwell Nats Clark, Mr Robert William Box Hill LP O’Brien, Mr Michael Anthony Malvern LP Crisp, Mr Peter Laurence Mildura Nats Pakula, Mr Martin Philip 7 Lyndhurst ALP D’Ambrosio, Ms Liliana Mill Park ALP Pallas, Mr Timothy Hugh Tarneit ALP Delahunty, Mr Hugh Francis Lowan Nats Pandazopoulos, Mr John Dandenong ALP Dixon, Mr Martin Francis Nepean LP Perera, Mr Jude Cranbourne ALP Donnellan, Mr Luke Anthony Narre Warren North ALP Pike, Ms Bronwyn Jane 8 Melbourne ALP Duncan, Ms Joanne Therese Macedon ALP Powell, Mrs Elizabeth Jeanette Shepparton Nats Edwards, Ms Janice Maree Bendigo West ALP Richardson, Ms Fiona Catherine Alison Northcote ALP Eren, Mr John Hamdi Lara ALP Ryall, Ms Deanne Sharon Mitcham LP Foley, Mr Martin Peter Albert Park ALP Ryan, Mr Peter Julian Gippsland South Nats Fyffe, Mrs Christine Ann Evelyn LP Scott, Mr Robin David Preston ALP Garrett, Ms Jane Furneaux Brunswick ALP Shaw, Mr Geoffrey Page 9 Frankston Ind Gidley, Mr Michael Xavier Charles Mount Waverley LP Smith, Mr Kenneth Maurice Bass LP Graley, Ms Judith Ann Narre Warren South ALP Smith, Mr Ryan Warrandyte LP Green, Ms Danielle Louise Yan Yean ALP Southwick, Mr David James Caulfield LP Halfpenny, Ms Bronwyn Thomastown ALP Sykes, Dr William Everett Benalla Nats Helper, Mr Jochen Ripon ALP Thompson, Mr Murray Hamilton Ross Sandringham LP Hennessy, Ms Jill Altona ALP Thomson, Ms Marsha Rose Footscray ALP Herbert, Mr Steven Ralph Eltham ALP Tilley, Mr William John Benambra LP Hodgett, Mr David John Kilsyth LP Trezise, Mr Ian Douglas Geelong ALP Holding, Mr Timothy James 3 Lyndhurst ALP Victoria, Ms Heidi Bayswater LP Howard, Mr Geoffrey Kemp Ballarat East ALP Wakeling, Mr Nicholas Ferntree Gully LP Hulls, Mr Rob Justin 4 Niddrie ALP Walsh, Mr Peter Lindsay Swan Hill Nats Hutchins, Ms Natalie Maree Sykes Keilor ALP Watt, Mr Graham Travis Burwood LP Kairouz, Ms Marlene Kororoit ALP Weller, Mr Paul Rodney Nats Kanis, Ms Jennifer 5 Melbourne ALP Wells, Mr Kimberley Arthur Scoresby LP Katos, Mr Andrew South Barwon LP Wooldridge, Ms Mary Louise Newling Doncaster LP Knight, Ms Sharon Patricia Ballarat West ALP Wreford, Ms Lorraine Joan Mordialloc LP Kotsiras, Mr Nicholas Bulleen LP Wynne, Mr Richard William Richmond ALP 1 Resigned 21 December 2010

6 Elected 19 February 2011 2 Elected 24 March 2012 7 Elected 27 April 2013 3 Resigned 18 February 2013 8 Resigned 7 May 2012 4 Resigned 27 January 2012 9 LP until 6 March 2013 5 Elected 21 July 2012

CONTENTS

THURSDAY, 19 SEPTEMBER 2013

PARLIAMENTARY BUDGET OFFICER BILL 2013 Introduction................................................................. 3207

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Notices of motion ........................................................ 3207 Adjournment ............................................................... 3210

PETITIONS East–west link ............................................................. 3207 Goulburn Valley fruit industry ................................... 3207 Hallam railway station ............................................... 3208 Melbourne Metro rail tunnel ..................................... 3208

OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE Report 2012–13 .......................................................... 3208

VICTORIA LAW FOUNDATION Report 2012–13 .......................................................... 3208

CONSUMER UTILITIES ADVOCACY CENTRE Report 2012–13 .......................................................... 3208

RURAL CITY OF WANGARATTA Reports on operations and governance .................... 3208

DOCUMENTS .................................................................. 3208 MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Mitcham Football Club .............................................. 3210 Nunawading U3A quilt, art and craft exhibition3210, 3211 Mitcham electorate family violence forum ............... 3210 Essendon Rowing Club Saltwater Challenge ........... 3210 Keilor Bowls Club ...................................................... 3210 Parkmore Primary School ......................................... 3210 Evangelical Chinese Church Melbourne .................. 3211 Whitehorse Community Chest ................................... 3211 Federal government ................................................... 3211 Wandin Junior Football Club .................................... 3211 Montrose Football Club ............................................. 3211 Elmore Field Days...................................................... 3211 Colbinabbin Football Club ........................................ 3212 Colbinabbin Netball Club .......................................... 3212 Brian Edwards ............................................................ 3212 Queenscliff and Drysdale football clubs ................... 3212 Schools Tree Day ........................................................ 3212 Fairhills High School and Fairhills Primary

School trivia night .................................................. 3212 St Joseph’s College Ferntree Gully student

leadership ............................................................... 3212 Knox BMX Club .......................................................... 3213 Alan Tudge, Jason Wood and Laura Smyth ............. 3213 Julie Hoffman .............................................................. 3213 Moonee Valley Neighbourhood Watch ..................... 3213 Essendon District Football League ........................... 3213 Melbourne–Albury rail line ....................................... 3213 Supported accommodation fees ................................. 3213 Yarrawonga and Mulwala Table Tennis

Association.............................................................. 3214 Yarrunga Primary School parliamentary visit ......... 3214 Shire of Moira open day ............................................. 3214 Yarrawonga and Mulwala men’s shed ..................... 3214 Thomastown electorate constituent ........................... 3214 All Souls Opportunity Shop ........................................ 3215 Bayside Bay Trail ....................................................... 3215

Protective services officers .............................. 3215, 3217 Greenvale and Diggers Rest football clubs .............. 3215 Georgia Hoad ............................................................. 3215 Tamil School, Glen Waverley .................................... 3215 Neighbourhood Watch ............................................... 3215 Waverley Blues Football Club .................................. 3216 Glen Waverley railway station .................................. 3216 Donor conception information access ...................... 3216 Gippsland Business Awards ...................................... 3216 Support Small Business Day ...................................... 3216 Latrobe Relay for Life ................................................ 3216 Blue Ribbon Day ........................................................ 3217 1st McKinnon Scout Group cubs............................... 3217 Kids Time Early Learning Centre Moorabbin ......... 3217 All Shook Up ............................................................... 3217 Victoria Police awards............................................... 3217

WORKPLACE INJURY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION BILL 2013 Statement of compatibility ......................................... 3218 Second reading ........................................................... 3228

CORRECTIONS AMENDMENT (PAROLE REFORM) BILL 2013 Statement of compatibility ......................................... 3233 Second reading ........................................................... 3234

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RURAL CITY OF WANGARATTA) BILL 2013 Statement of compatibility ......................................... 3236 Second reading ........................................................... 3238 Third reading .............................................................. 3250

RADIATION AMENDMENT BILL 2013 Second reading ................................................. 3250, 3266 Third reading .............................................................. 3273

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Member for Frankston ................ 3257, 3258, 3259, 3261 Regional rail link ........................................................ 3257 Japan and Korea trade mission ................................ 3259 Energy consumer complaints .................................... 3260 Emergency response management ............................ 3262 Government performance .......................................... 3263 Regional employment ................................................. 3265

SUSPENSION OF MEMBERS Member for Clayton ................................................... 3261 Member for Mulgrave ................................................ 3264

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS ........................................... 3263 NAMING AND SUSPENSION OF MEMBER

Member for Mulgrave ................................................ 3265 SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT

BILL 2013 Second reading ........................................................... 3273 Third reading .............................................................. 3273

COURTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (JUDICIAL OFFICERS) BILL 2013 Second reading ........................................................... 3273 Third reading .............................................................. 3273

CONSUMER AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2013 Second reading ........................................................... 3274 Third reading .............................................................. 3274

CONTENTS

WYNDHAM PLANNING SCHEME ................................ 3274 ADJOURNMENT

Mitcham railway station ............................................. 3274 City of Hume Sunbury plebiscite ............................... 3275 Victoria’s Small Business Festival ............................ 3275 Fishermans Bend urban renewal project .................. 3276 Mallee Family Care .................................................... 3276 Victorian Collections staff funding ............................ 3277 Wodonga community facility site ............................... 3278 Summerhill Residential Park ..................................... 3278 Mornington electorate environmental care

groups ...................................................................... 3279 Fullarton Road, Airport West .................................... 3279 Responses .................................................................... 3280

PARLIAMENTARY BUDGET OFFICER BILL 2013

Thursday, 19 September 2013 ASSEMBLY 3207

Thursday, 19 September 2013

The SPEAKER (Hon. Ken Smith) took the chair at 9.34 a.m. and read the prayer.

PARLIAMENTARY BUDGET OFFICER BILL 2013

Introduction

Mr PALLAS (Tarneit) — I move:

That I have leave to bring in a bill for an act to establish the position of a parliamentary budget officer and for other purposes.

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 40 Allan, Ms Howard, Mr Andrews, Mr Hutchins, Ms Barker, Ms Kanis, Ms Beattie, Ms Knight, Ms Brooks, Mr Languiller, Mr Campbell, Ms Lim, Mr Carbines, Mr McGuire, Mr Carroll, Mr Madden, Mr D’Ambrosio, Ms Merlino, Mr Donnellan, Mr Nardella, Mr Duncan, Ms Neville, Ms Edwards, Ms Noonan, Mr Eren, Mr Pakula, Mr Foley, Mr Pallas, Mr Garrett, Ms Pandazopoulos, Mr Graley, Ms Perera, Mr Green, Ms Scott, Mr Halfpenny, Ms Thomson, Ms Helper, Mr Trezise, Mr Hennessy, Ms Wynne, Mr

Noes, 41 Angus, Mr Newton-Brown, Mr Asher, Ms Northe, Mr Baillieu, Mr O’Brien, Mr Battin, Mr Powell, Mrs Bauer, Mrs Ryall, Ms Burgess, Mr Ryan, Mr Clark, Mr Shaw, Mr Crisp, Mr Smith, Mr R. Delahunty, Mr Southwick, Mr Dixon, Mr Sykes, Dr Fyffe, Mrs Thompson, Mr Gidley, Mr Tilley, Mr Hodgett, Mr Victoria, Ms Kotsiras, Mr Wakeling, Mr McCurdy, Mr Walsh, Mr McIntosh, Mr Watt, Mr McLeish, Ms Weller, Mr Miller, Ms Wells, Mr Morris, Mr Wooldridge, Ms Mulder, Mr Wreford, Ms Napthine, Dr

Motion defeated.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Notices of motion

The SPEAKER — Order! Notices of motion 7 to 16 will be removed from the notice paper unless members wishing their motion to remain advise the Clerk in writing before 2.00 p.m. today.

PETITIONS

Following petitions presented to house:

East–west link

To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria:

The petition of certain citizens for the state of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Assembly recent news regarding the Napthine Liberal government’s intention to build an $8 billion tunnel. In particular we note that:

1. the Napthine Liberal government is trampling on the rights and homes of local residents;

2. the Premier has failed to present a business case for this tunnel which will do nothing to fix traffic congestion for most Victorian motorists; and

3. the $8 billion tunnel will mean there is no funding available for other desperately needed transport infrastructure.

Petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly calls on the Napthine Liberal government to seek a mandate from the people of Victoria before spending $8 billion of taxpayers money on this tunnel.

By Ms GARRETT (Brunswick) (180 signatures) and Mr WYNNE (Richmond) (324 signatures).

Goulburn Valley fruit industry


The petition of residents of Victoria draws the attention of the house to the fact that SPC Ardmona can no longer compete with the very low-cost imported fruits and tomatoes that are being imported into Australia. Consequently local growers are facing insolvency and thousands of jobs in the sector are being lost.

The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly of Victoria urgently approve of a substantial adjustment package that will support this manufacturing industry with the view to maintaining employment and restoring the viability of the grower and related sectors.

The petitioners also request that the house supports any federal government action which invokes appropriate and lawful WTO measures which will help to redress the lack of fair competition in the preserved fruit and tomato marketplace.

By Mr McCURDY (Murray Valley) (61 signatures).

OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE

3208 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 19 September 2013

Hallam railway station


The petition of certain citizens of the state of Victoria who use the Hallam railway station draws to the attention of the house the need for an upgrade of the station.

In particular we note:

1. the need for toilets to be installed;

2. safety with a manned station; and

3. parking needs to be increased.

The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly urges the state government to provide a funding commitment for the Hallam railway station upgrade.

By Ms GRALEY (Narre Warren South) (205 signatures).

Melbourne Metro rail tunnel


This petition of Victorian residents implores the Legislative Assembly of Victoria to:

1. immediately halt all work on the east–west toll road and tunnel on the grounds that:

a. no business case for the road and tunnel has been provided for public scrutiny;

b. no proper consultation with community or business has occurred; and

c. it is opposed by many local councils and resident groups.

2. commit to the Melbourne Metro rail project on the grounds that:

a. it has been identified in an independent assessment by Infrastructure Australia as a priority project for Melbourne that is ready for commencement;

b. it is a necessary first step for a number of other critical public transport projects including a rail link to Tullamarine airport; and

c. it has already been allocated significant funding by the federal Labor government.

By Mr WYNNE (Richmond) (198 signatures).

Tabled.

Ordered that petition presented by honourable member for Brunswick be considered next day on motion of Ms GARRETT (Brunswick).

Ordered that petitions presented by honourable member for Richmond be considered next day on motion of Mr WYNNE (Richmond).

Ordered that petition presented by honourable member for Narre Warren South be considered next day on motion of Ms GRALEY (Narre Warren South).

OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE

Report 2012–13

Mr CLARK (Attorney-General), by leave, presented report.

Tabled.

Ordered to be printed.

VICTORIA LAW FOUNDATION

Report 2012–13

Mr CLARK (Attorney-General), by leave, presented report.

Tabled.

CONSUMER UTILITIES ADVOCACY CENTRE

Report 2012–13

Ms VICTORIA (Minister for Consumer Affairs), by leave, presented report.

Tabled.

RURAL CITY OF WANGARATTA

Reports on operations and governance

Mrs POWELL (Minister for Local Government), by leave, presented reports of inspector of municipal administration and Mr Bill Scales, AO.

Tabled.

Ordered to be printed.

DOCUMENTS

Tabled by Clerk:

Accident Compensation Conciliation Service — Report 2012–13

DOCUMENTS


Commissioner for Law Enforcement and Data Security, Office of — Report 2012–13

Confiscation Act 1997 — Report 2012–13 under s 139A

Country Fire Authority — Report 2012–13

Docklands Studios Melbourne Pty Ltd — Report 2012–13

East Gippsland Catchment Management Authority — Report 2012–13

Emerald Tourist Railway Board — Report 2012–13

Environment and Primary Industries, Department of — Report 2012–13

Environment Protection Authority — Report 2012–13

Essential Services Commission — Report 2012–13

Fed Square Pty Ltd — Report 2012–13

Film Victoria — Report 2012–13

Financial Management Act 1994:

Reports from the Minister for Agriculture and Food Security that he had received the reports 2012–13 of:

Murray Valley Wine Grape Industry Development Committee

Northern Victorian Fresh Tomato Industry Development Committee

Phytogene Pty Ltd

Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria

Reports from the Minister for Environment and Climate Change that he had received the reports 2012–13 of:

Barwon Regional Waste Management Group

Central Murray Regional Waste Management Group

Desert Fringe Regional Waste Management Group

Gippsland Regional Waste Management Group

Grampians Regional Waste Management Group

Highlands Regional Waste Management Group

Mildura Regional Waste Management Group

North East Regional Waste Management Group

South West Regional Waste Management Group

Forensic Leave Panel — Report 2012

Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority — Report 2012–13

Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority — Report 2012–13

Growth Areas Authority — Report 2012–13

Mallee Catchment Management Authority — Report 2012–13

Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Trust — Report 2012–13

Melbourne and Olympic Parks Trust — Report 2012–13

Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board — Report 2012–13

Parks Victoria — Report 2012–13

Parliamentary Committees Act 2003:

Government response to the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee’s Report on the Inquiry into Strategies to Reduce Assaults in Public Places in Victoria

Government response to the Education and Training Committee’s Report on the Inquiry into Agricultural Education and Training

Government response to the Rural and Regional Committee’s Report on the Inquiry into the impact of food safety regulation on farms and other businesses

Police Appeals Board — Report 2012–13

Port of Hastings Development Authority — Report 2012–13

Port of Melbourne Corporation — Report 2012–13

Primary Industries, Department of — Report 2012–13

Public Transport Development Authority — Report 2012–13

State Electricity Commission of Victoria — Report 2012–13

State Services Authority — Report 2012–13

State Sport Centres Trust — Report 2012–13

Sustainability Victoria — Report 2012–13

Transport Ticketing Authority — Report 2012–13

Trust for Nature (Victoria) — Report 2012–13

Victoria Police — Report 2012–13

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal — Report 2012–13

Victorian Government Purchasing Board — Report 2012–13

Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health — Report 2012–13

Victorian Privacy Commissioner, Office of — Report 2012–13 — Ordered to be printed

Victorian Regional Channels Authority — Report 2012–13

Victorian WorkCover Authority — Report 2012–13

VITS LanguageLink — Report 2012–13.




Adjournment

Ms ASHER (Minister for Innovation, Services and Small Business) — I move:

That the house, at its rising, adjourns until Tuesday, 15 October 2013.

Motion agreed to.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Mitcham Football Club

Ms RYALL (Mitcham) — My congratulations go to the Mitcham Football Club. The seniors, reserves and under-19s all made it into the finals this year, with the reserves claiming a premiership in a stunning victory against Wantirna South. The last premiership win for the reserves was in 1981, so this was a sweet victory indeed. It is a fantastic result for a great club, top players and a team of committed volunteers who all helped to bring this premiership about. Well done, Mitcham Football Club.

Nunawading U3A quilt, art and craft exhibition

Ms RYALL — Congratulations to U3A Nunawading for its outstanding quilt, art and craft exhibition at Box Hill town hall. A display of stunning and intricate work was exhibited and enjoyed by so many. U3A provides fantastic opportunities for seniors in so many ways. Well done on the organisation of the exhibition and to the artists and patchwork group for their outstanding work.

Mitcham electorate family violence forum

Ms RYALL — My thanks and appreciation go to the Chief Commissioner of Police, Ken Lay; the Minister for Community Services; Dr Manjula O’Connor; Maryclare Machen; and Jim Allen for their contribution to the community leaders forum on family violence in the Mitcham electorate. Almost 200 community leaders packed the Mitcham Bowling Club rooms to hear strong messages on the current statistics and circumstances relating to violence against women and what they can do to help. It is vital that in order to protect women and children against family violence we address it at a grassroots level in our community. Culture change starts locally, and it was reassuring to see so many attend this forum so they could be equipped to lead the way in their own community groups, clubs and organisations in stamping out violence against women.

Essendon Rowing Club Saltwater Challenge

Mr CARROLL (Niddrie) — On Saturday, 14 September, as a guest of the Essendon Rowing Club I attended the 12th staging of the Saltwater Challenge regatta, a 4.5-kilometre time trial for quad sculls on the picturesque Maribyrnong River. The Essendon Rowing Club has a proud and long history, having been established in 1880. The first Saltwater Challenge was run in 2002 with some 21 entrants. Last weekend there were over 120 entries, testimony to the regatta’s growing success. The Saltwater Challenge was originally proposed and sponsored by Frank Camiller, a long-time member of the Essendon Rowing Club. Today its success can be attributed to Mark Dwyer, president of the Essendon Rowing Club and chairman of the Saltwater Challenge regatta, and his team of committee members and volunteers, in particular Erin Smart, David Whitcroft, Brett Nicholson, Steve Pennicott and Trudy Wapling. Congratulations to Essendon Rowing Club on the growing success of the annual Saltwater Challenge.

Keilor Bowls Club

Mr CARROLL — On Sunday, 15 September, along with the member for Keilor I attended the 50th anniversary celebration of the Keilor Bowls Club. The Keilor Bowls Club has a long and proud history. It is a strong club and a welcoming club. I take this opportunity to thank chairman Peter Livy and president Joe Watkins for their hospitality last Sunday. I also acknowledge the important speech Joe gave on the need for the club to grow, prosper and attract new members. I record my appreciation to Maureen Sutton, June McInerney and Keith Hinks, who contributed so much to last weekend’s celebration. Keith gave an insightful speech on the history of the club over its past 50 years. Special mention to Julie Watkins on the wonderful birthday cake she made for the afternoon celebrations. Congratulations to Keilor Bowls Cub on its golden anniversary, and best wishes and every success for the next 50 years.

Parkmore Primary School

Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) — Recently I was delighted to attend Parkmore Primary School in my electorate of Forest Hill as principal for a day. During the day I participated in a range of activities, including attending a school council finance committee meeting, visiting numerous classes, spending time with the school student leadership team and enjoying a lovely morning tea with the staff. It was a great day, and I thank the new school principal, Andrew Popov, and the school community for hosting me.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


Evangelical Chinese Church Melbourne

Mr ANGUS — Recently I had the great pleasure of attending the 35th anniversary of the Evangelical Chinese Church Melbourne, which is located in my electorate of Forest Hill. It was a wonderful night of celebration and fellowship. I congratulate the leadership of the church as well as all the church members for reaching this significant milestone and, most importantly, for all the outstanding work they have done in the community during the last 35 years. I wish the entire church community well for the future.

Nunawading U3A quilt, art and craft exhibition

Mr ANGUS — I recently had the pleasure of attending the Nunawading U3A biannual quilt, art and craft exhibition. It was a wonderful showcase of U3A members’ creative talents, covering quilts, art and various crafts. I congratulate the U3A members on their good work and particularly congratulate the committee for organising this great event.

Whitehorse Community Chest

Mr ANGUS — I recently had the pleasure of attending the Whitehorse Community Chest 50th year celebration dinner. It was a great occasion to celebrate the successful history of the chest. As a former member of the chest’s committee of management I was delighted to be there to see the presentation of certificates to many beneficiaries and to hear more about the history and activities of the chest. I congratulate and thank all those involved in organising this event and also all those involved in the ongoing operation of the chest.

Federal government

Mr ANGUS — What a relief it is for all Victorians to finally have a stable government in Canberra after six years of hopeless Labor-Greens governments. I congratulate the federal coalition on its recent electoral success and look forward to a restoration of responsible financial economic management in Canberra.

Wandin Junior Football Club

Mr MERLINO (Monbulk) — Well done to the members of the Wandin junior footy club under-14s on their premiership victory. Led by young stars Joel Garner, Corey Whitchell, Matthew Brierley, Jackson Byrne, Luke Smith and Tom Merlino — my nephew and best on ground — the club defeated a brave South Belgrave. This talented group of boys has now won four premierships in a row — an incredible achievement.

Montrose Football Club

Mr MERLINO — On 7 September Montrose Football Club, the Demons, achieved its long-held dream of victory in division 2 of the Eastern Football League (EFL) grand final. The victory secures the club its rightful place in the best metropolitan footy competition in Australia: division 1 EFL. This was the team’s third grand final appearance in a row. After two heartbreaking losses, the club was determined not to let this opportunity slip. Led by playing coach Brett Johnson, captain Dean Stephen, ruckman Andrew Haining and forward Billy Schilling, the mighty Demons jumped to a three-goal lead over rivals Mooroolbark in the first quarter and were never headed, running out 28-point victors. In a great season for the club, the reserves and under-13s also secured premierships, and the under-17s competed in the grand final.

It took the club and the community several years of blood, sweat and tears to achieve this wonderful outcome. Terrible facilities were demolished and replaced by the Ken Dowling Pavilion, which is the envy of the EFL, and the ground was resurfaced. The club grew stronger, attracting terrific players and coaching staff, but it never lost its strong connection to the local community. I have been proud to support Montrose over many years, and I cannot wait to see the club compete in division 1 next year. Congratulations to senior president Greg Gardoll, chairman Rob Ewart, junior president Gary Felstead, club legends Chris and Ken Dowling, and to so many others I cannot possibly list them here. Well done to them all. The heartbeat of the Montrose community is at the Montrose Recreation Reserve and in particular at the Montrose Football Club.

Elmore Field Days

Mr WELLER (Rodney) — I would like to congratulate the organisers of the Elmore Field Days on the 50th anniversary of the event — an incredible achievement for an event that has grown to be one of the country’s premier agricultural field day events. This year’s event, which will take place from 1 to 3 October, will attract visitors from far and wide. The experience for visitors will include an insight into farming history through a cavalcade of vintage tractors dating back to the 1960s, as well as an opportunity to see all the latest in farming technology and advancements. The anniversary celebrations will reflect on the foresight and hard work of the original organising committee and recognise the many individuals who have been involved in the success and longevity of the event.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


Members of The Nationals will be attending the field day, as they do every year, to talk to the many farmers and visitors from across the region who attend. The Elmore Field Days attracts 30 000 visitors over the three days, with more than 700 exhibitors displaying farm machinery, equipment, gardening products, homewares and arts and crafts. Of course there is also always the popular Ag Art fashion parade, which showcases wearable fashion items made from farm products. It is a great display.

Colbinabbin Football Club

Mr WELLER — I would like to acknowledge the victory of the Colbinabbin Football Club under-17s team in the Heathcote District Football League grand final last weekend. The Colbinabbin thirds made the grand final for the first time in 40 years. Whereas 40 years ago they lost, this year the Colbinabbin thirds were victorious. My congratulations to the under-17s from Colbinabbin and the whole community.

Colbinabbin Netball Club

Mr WELLER — I would like to congratulate the Colbinabbin Netball Club A-grade team, which took out this year’s premiership.

Brian Edwards

Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine) — I would like to acknowledge the enormous contribution of Brian Edwards, a longtime Lions Clubs International member, who has been a strong advocate for disadvantaged children in communities across Geelong and has also been involved in supporting infrastructure and commerce development in East Timor. As a local MP, I have been delighted to support his Geelong Corio Bay Lions Club Licola camp initiative for a number of years. This program has supported children from disadvantaged families to allow them to spend a week engaging in activities they might never otherwise have dreamed possible. With access to a basketball stadium, pool, high ropes course, camping, boating, trekking and football grounds, the children have an amazing experience over that week. This has been made possible through the support and efforts of Brian and the Lions club. I would like to record my thanks and congratulations to Brian Edwards for the extremely valuable contribution he has made to the lives of many children in our community and also to the communities of East Timor.

Queenscliff and Drysdale football clubs

Ms NEVILLE — I would like to congratulate both the Queenscliff Football Club, the Coutas, and the Drysdale Football Club, the Hawks, for making it to last weekend’s Bellarine Football League grand final. This year the Coutas continued their dominance by winning their third premiership in a row. As Matt Gibbs wrote in the Geelong Advertiser on 16 September:

Queenscliff’s first flag was the drought-breaker. The second was confirmation. The third a dynasty.

Both clubs are to be congratulated on the work they have put in throughout this year and also over a number of years, growing their sport from their junior squads through to the seniors. The work both clubs have done off the field has been instrumental in securing on-field success. Well done to both clubs on their efforts, and congratulations to this year’s premiers, the Coutas.

Schools Tree Day

Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) — I recently had the pleasure of celebrating Schools Tree Day in a number of primary schools in Ferntree Gully. I was pleased to join students from Kent Park Primary School, Wattleview Primary School and Ferntree Gully North Primary School to assist in the planting of a selection of indigenous shrubs within their schools. I congratulate each of the schools on the enthusiasm they have shown in encouraging students to grow indigenous plants.

Fairhills High School and Fairhills Primary School trivia night

Mr WAKELING — I was pleased to attend the annual chaplaincy trivia night for Fairhills High School and Fairhills Primary School. The funds raised will assist with the ongoing chaplaincy program offered at both schools. It was a great night and one of those very rare occasions that I was on the winning table.

St Joseph’s College Ferntree Gully student leadership

Mr WAKELING — I was honoured to host the year 11 student leadership of St Joseph’s College Ferntree Gully at Parliament House last Friday. The leaders were able to deliver their leadership speeches on the floor of the Legislative Assembly. As a consequence, the school’s 2014 leadership team was elected from among the student body.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


Knox BMX Club

Mr WAKELING — I was pleased to join Cr Karin Orpen, mayor of the City of Knox, to officially mark the installation of the new track lights at the Knox BMX track in Knoxfield. The lights were made possible with a $44 000 grant from the Victorian coalition government. Congratulations to Tony Richardson, committee and members for a great outcome for a great facility.

Alan Tudge, Jason Wood and Laura Smyth

Mr WAKELING — I wish to congratulate the Abbott government on its recent election, and I would like to place on record my congratulations to Alan Tudge on his recent emphatic re-election as the federal member for Aston plus his recent appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. I would also like to congratulate Jason Wood on his election as the member for La Trobe and to also place on record my thanks to Laura Smyth, the former member for La Trobe, for her service to the Knox community.

Julie Hoffman

Mr WAKELING — Congratulations to Julie Hoffman, who completed her second burpee challenge at the Ferntree Gully Hotel on election day. She not only managed to complete 7684 burpees in 24 hours; she raised $80 000.

Moonee Valley Neighbourhood Watch

Mr MADDEN (Essendon) — I would like to pay tribute to Ron Kennelly, a local representative and community member who has stepped down as the chairman of the Moonee Valley Neighbourhood Watch group, a role he has held for somewhere in the order of 20 years. He has been an outstanding contributor, and we recently sent him off to resettle, in a sense, in Port Melbourne, where he will be closer to his family. Ron has been a very heavily involved local community representative at many levels, not only in terms of Neighbourhood Watch but in terms of his general enthusiasm for the local community, particularly around community safety. Ron’s valuable contribution will be missed, but I know that his replacement, Trevor Sinclair, who will step into the chair, will also make sure that the role is filled admirably and will do an outstanding job.

Essendon District Football League

Mr MADDEN — I also pay tribute to the Essendon District Football League, whose season finished only recently. The Essendon District Football League

consists of 26 clubs. It has made an enormous contribution in the north-west of Melbourne and enjoys fantastic support from families, juniors, trainers and umpires and has a wonderful Auskick set up as well. It is the culmination of a great year by the Essendon District Football League. Congratulations to the CEO, Marc Turri, and the chairman, Brett Scott.

Melbourne–Albury rail line

Mr TILLEY (Benambra) — The swearing in of the Abbott coalition government offers locals along the Melbourne to Albury rail line hope that appropriate action will be taken and pressure put on the underperforming and incompetent Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) to ensure that passenger services promised over 5 years ago will be provided. Make no mistake: the Australian Rail Track Corporation has been the impediment to ensuring that promised passenger services get back on track. The bottom line is that it is either incapable or incompetent. It has shown contempt for locals, it has put them last and Wodonga residents have had an absolute gutful. Major changes must occur and occur at once.

I commend the Minister for Public Transport and his staff, who have been very active in assisting our local community to get a proper fully functioning passenger service between Melbourne and Wodonga back on track. They, like me, have had to battle with the recalcitrance of the Australian Rail Track Corporation. I also want to mention my colleagues the members for Murray Valley, Benalla and Seymour, who have been battling this issue side by side with me for far too long. The rail revitalisation project was so comprehensively mismanaged by both the former state and federal Labor governments. Major changes at the ARTC must take place, and this project must be put back on track by those in charge in Canberra. I call on the new federal Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development to intervene — —

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

Supported accommodation fees

Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) — On Friday, 13 September, which was unlucky for the uncaring Minister for Community Services, I had the pleasure of joining residents, parents, carers, advocates, the Victorian Advocacy League for Individuals with Disability (VALID) and Villamanta Disability Rights Legal Service in a victory party to celebrate their success in halting the Napthine government’s plan to crank up rents by over 50 per cent.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


In a true David versus Goliath battle, over 2000 residents — 80 per cent of all residents in Department of Human Services accommodation — took on the Napthine government and won. Despite the lecturing and hectoring from both the Premier and the minister, increasing rents for some of Victoria’s most vulnerable by over 50 per cent was neither fair nor equitable. It would only have led to hardship for many. The Napthine government should admit that it got it wrong. I congratulate all the residents, carers, parents, Kevin Stone from VALID, Viv Avery and Ben von Einem from Villamanta, and the Health and Community Services Union, who coordinated the campaign both in the community and in the courts.

I fear that the minister has not learnt from her mistakes and will try to force through these changes at a later date through legislation. The minister should stand warned — the ‘Fight the Fee Hike’ campaign will not go away, residents, parents, carers and advocates will not go away and the Labor opposition will not go away. The Leader of the Opposition and I will have great pleasure in meeting these advocates today when we welcome the Fight the Fee Hike campaigners to Parliament. It may be a time for celebration, but there still remain many issues. We stand behind Victorians with a disability. It is time members on the other side started to support them too.

Yarrawonga and Mulwala Table Tennis Association

Mr McCURDY (Murray Valley) — It was a pleasure to attend the 62nd anniversary and presentation night of the Yarrawonga and Mulwala Table Tennis Association recently. The club has enjoyed a successful year that included four teams attending Country Week. Two of their players who went to Country Week this year have been to that event 61 out of 62 years. They are Bruce Wright, 81, and Mick Saunders, who is 74 — absolutely amazing. Bruce was a member of the team that finished runner-up at Country Week, and he won the A-grade event on Monday night as well. He has been the club president for 53 years — absolutely outstanding.

Yarrunga Primary School parliamentary visit

Mr McCURDY — It was wonderful to host students from Yarrunga Primary School in Wangaratta here at Parliament House yesterday. The students seemed to thoroughly enjoy their visit and got a lot from learning about Parliament House and its operation.

Shire of Moira open day

Mr McCURDY — The Shire of Moira welcomed 16 families who came to visit the area as part of Rural Councils Victoria’s open day program recently. The families were given a tour of the shire’s schools, businesses and facilities. I attended on the day, and I hope that the program was able to show the potential new residents the many benefits Moira shire has to offer those who live there.

Yarrawonga and Mulwala men’s shed

Mr McCURDY — I was given the honour of turning the first sod at the Yarrawonga and Mulwala men’s shed earlier this month. The men’s shed redevelopment forms part of the $278 000 Yarrawonga Showgrounds community redevelopment. Along with the men’s shed, the project improves facilities for Yarrawonga and Mulwala. The Rotary Club of Yarrawonga has also been very supportive, along with the Yarrawonga Pony Club and the broader community. Those present for the turning of the first sod are now looking forward to the much-improved facilities becoming a reality.

Thomastown electorate constituent

Ms HALFPENNY (Thomastown) — I rise to speak of a very sad and real tragedy affecting a family in the electorate of Thomastown. It is a simple personal story that explains in a small way the ongoing injustice against a displaced people — the Palestinian people — many of whom have no right to return to their homeland and so live as displaced people, never to become citizens in any country and never having the right to vote or other rights of citizenship.

A distraught family in Thomastown recently came to see me. The mother of my constituent lives in Libya and has breast cancer. Her mother has undergone surgery and requires radiation. Without radiation treatment this constituent’s mother will die; however, there are no radiation facilities in Libya, and all sufferers must travel to Egypt — but Palestinians cannot enter Egypt by virtue of an agreement between Egypt and Israel. In desperation and with time running out, her daughter in Thomastown applied for an Australian medical visa. The mother meets all the criteria, but the Department of Immigration and Citizenship refused the visa, stating, ‘You declare yourself to be a Palestinian national and may use this fact to claim permanent stay in Australia’.

I was asked to assist this Thomastown resident to put together information to show that the ties to Libya were

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


strong and that therefore, the mother, would not attempt to stay permanently in Australia. I was shocked to find out about the terrible situation people such as her are in. She was asked if she owns her own house. The answer was yes and no — Palestinians in Libya cannot own land, but she paid for the house and has a common-law contract with the Libyan owner.

Why did she say she was a Palestinian national? Because she cannot obtain citizenship in any other country. She has a large extended family in Libya and lives with her two sons in Palestinian tradition. This was not enough to convince Australian authorities. Meanwhile her daughter is in Melbourne, shedding tears with worry and desperation.


All Souls Opportunity Shop

Mr THOMPSON (Sandringham) — I pay tribute to the great work of the volunteers at the All Souls Opportunity Shop in Sandringham. In 2012–13 the charities it donated to include the Royal District Nursing Service, the Hampton Life Saving Club, the Chelsea men’s shed, World Vision, the Fred Hollows Foundation, Able Australia Services, the Bone Marrow Donor Institute, the Microsurgery Foundation, the Ovarian Cancer Research Foundation, the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, the Royal Flying Doctor Service, the Sir Edward Dunlop Medical Research Foundation, beyondblue and Very Special Kids. Distributions this year totalled over $150 000.

Bayside Bay Trail

Mr THOMPSON — I wish to mark the opening of the Bayside Bay Trail, which was undertaken on 15 August at the Beaumaris Motor Yacht Squadron, where I had the opportunity to represent the Minister for Public Transport. The trail represents the completion of the bay trail within the city of Bayside. The final section cost some $750 000, jointly funded through VicRoads, Bayside City Council and the Victorian government. Bayside will now see cyclists, pedestrians and joggers enjoy the benefits of travelling along the entire length of Bayside’s foreshore, from the northern border at Head Street to the southern border at the junction of Mentone and Beaumaris.

Protective services officers

Mr THOMPSON — I wish to mark the induction of the protective services officers at Cheltenham and Mentone stations a couple of months ago. The

protective services officers will help protect commuters from crime, violence and antisocial behaviour. The Victorian government is delivering on its commitment to improve safety on our transport network.

Greenvale and Diggers Rest football clubs

Ms BEATTIE (Yuroke) — I rise to acknowledge the victory of two local football teams, which last weekend enjoyed the highs that are synonymous with the end-of-season football finals. My local team, the Greenvale Jets, delivered back-to-back premiership wins for its loyal supporters on Saturday when it beat Aberfeldie. This win raises the question of whether the Jets is the best sporting club in the Essendon district region. Congratulations to the coach, Anthony Rock, who in his three seasons in the role has done a tremendous job in turning the club around. Well done to Daniel Campisano, Adam McPhee, on-baller Samuel Zumbo and ruck-defender Simon Potter, who I am told were stand-outs.

I would also like to acknowledge the Diggers Rest Burras reserves team, which scored a win over Riddell. Coach David Tyquin has done a brilliant job in leading the young team all season. I would especially like to thank Daniel McCabe, who injured his ankle early in the game but fought on to be an inspiration.

Georgia Hoad

Ms BEATTIE — On another matter, I would like to acknowledge Georgia Hoad from the Concord School, and thank her for her interest in politics and this Parliament. With young people like Georgia we can only say that the future of parliamentary democracy and politics in this state is in good hands.

Tamil School, Glen Waverley

Mr GIDLEY (Mount Waverley) — On Sunday, 18 August, I had the pleasure of attending the annual prize-giving and concert of the Tamil School in Glen Waverley. During the concert I had the opportunity to see high-quality performances and learn more about the Tamil School heritage. I thank the school, committee and parents for the opportunity to attend.

Neighbourhood Watch

Mr GIDLEY — I recently met with MON 010, 032 and 049 Neighbourhood Watch groups to discuss public safety in the Waverley area. The evening provided a great opportunity to listen to the concerns of local residents while also providing information on the many programs which have been delivered by the coalition government to improve public safety. I thank

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


area manager Mr Joachim Raschke, the committee and members of Neighbourhood Watch for that opportunity.

Waverley Blues Football Club

Mr GIDLEY — It has been a pleasure to support the Waverley Blues Football Club throughout 2013. While on the field the year has produced mixed success, off the field the club continues to work tirelessly and effectively to build a stronger football club and provide opportunities in sport for young people. I thank president Mr Gavin Kaye, immediate past president Mr Peter Mahoney and other committee members and supporters for their involvement in 2013 and wish them all the best for the 2014 season.

Glen Waverley railway station

Mr GIDLEY — It was a pleasure to have the Minister for Public Transport recently visit Waverley to review the progress of the Victorian coalition government’s $1.8 million upgrade to Glen Waverley station. It was a valuable chance for the minister and me to see the associated works and plans for the improved station forecourt, access point and new entrance canopy. This is just another example of the Victorian coalition government providing a suite of transport options to improve transport facilities for Waverley families.

Donor conception information access

Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) — The Age editorial of 9 June states:

There comes a time when politicians need to look around at the society in which they live and the people they represent, and take note. Now is such a time. This week Labor will introduce a bill into state Parliament that will correct a longstanding legal position in relation to sperm donor anonymity. It proposes that the children of all donors be allowed access to their records. It is a worthwhile proposition.

It is disappointing to see that the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Amendment (Access by Donor-Conceived People to Information about Donors) Bill 2013, a private members bill, a bill put forward by the opposition, was defeated 20 to 18 votes yesterday in the Legislative Council. I place on the record my appreciation for the tenacity and determination of Labor members and other members of this place who supported that private members bill yesterday. We made it clear in the former cross-party Law Reform Committee, a committee that has been axed by the Napthine government, that we need to provide equality under the law for the donor-conceived community. The government put forward only one speaker yesterday

because it is embarrassed about how it is dealing with these matters. I now call on the government to bring forward its legislation in this Parliament so we can again challenge and resolve these matters for all Victorians.

Gippsland Business Awards

Mr NORTHE (Morwell) — I recently had the pleasure of attending the Gippsland Business Awards, which recognises the diverse and successful range of businesses operating throughout the Gippsland region. The Victorian coalition government was a proud sponsor of the manufacturing and fabrication category. Many businesses within the Morwell electorate were nominated for various awards, including Montfort Manor, Impact Recruitment Consulting, DFP Recruitment Services, Morwell Motel and Julie Ryan Dancers. Nerida Hamilton and Mick Nicola from Virtue Homes won the building services and construction category while David Gittins and his team from the Valley Motor Group took out the retail category. Congratulations to all winners and finalists and to the Gippsland Business Awards committee, Bendigo Bank and sponsors of the awards for their ongoing support of this prestigious event.

Support Small Business Day

Mr NORTHE — Speaking of small business, the coalition’s new Support Small Business Day initiative is to be held on Saturday, 19 October. The day, which is designed to increase the competitiveness of small businesses whilst recognizing their valuable contribution to our community, has been well received by the business sector, with many businesses and consumers already signing on.

Latrobe Relay for Life

Mr NORTHE — I am proud to accept the position of patron of this year’s Latrobe Relay for Life event, which is to be held on Saturday, 19 October, and Sunday, 20 October, at Gaskin Park in Churchill. Relay for Life offers a wonderful opportunity for the community to raise funds for the Cancer Council Victoria in the fight against cancer, whilst also demonstrating support for loved ones who have battled or are battling cancer. I extend thanks especially to Janine Hayes and Sue Van Heurck and their committee for their amazing work. I am sure this year’s Latrobe Relay for Life event will be an enormous success.


MEMBERS STATEMENTS


Blue Ribbon Day

Ms GARRETT (Brunswick) — I rise today to honour the great courage and ultimate sacrifice made by members of Victoria Police in protecting and serving our community. Since the inception of Victoria Police, 157 members of the force have laid down their lives in the line of duty, and of those, 30 were murdered. Sunday, 29 September, is Blue Ribbon Day, the day on which we commemorate the lives of those Victoria Police members who have been killed in the line of duty. It is a day for us to reflect on that sacrifice and to honour the ongoing commitment, bravery and courage of all our police officers.

The Victoria Police Blue Ribbon Foundation honours the memory of fallen officers through a range of projects that benefit the wider community, ensuring that their legacy lives on. The foundation promotes awareness and funds new and improved emergency facilities in public hospitals in the names of those fallen officers. I would like to pay tribute to the hardworking board of the Blue Ribbon Foundation: the chair, Bill Noonan; the deputy chair, David Mann; and the chief executive officer, Neil Soullier. These people have done an extraordinary job, taking the foundation from strength to strength. I was honoured to attend both the Blue Ribbon Breakfast and the Blue Ribbon Ball this year. At those functions I met some families of fallen officers, who draw great strength from and feel great hope and pride in the legacy of their loved ones living on in such an important manner in our community.

1st McKinnon Scout Group cubs

Ms MILLER (Bentleigh) — I was honoured to present the pinnacle of cub scout achievement, the Grey Wolf award, to three dedicated cub scouts at the 1st McKinnon scout hall on Thursday, 12 September. To achieve the Grey Wolf award in addition to the Gold Boomerang badge, each cub is required to plan and lead a bushwalk of at least 2 hours duration with a group of three cubs. They also need to complete four high level achievement badges in areas such as the arts and literature, nature, science and technology, sports and recreation, and our world. These young people had displayed a tremendous commitment to cub scouts, and I was proud to present them with the Grey Wolf award — an achievement well earnt. Congratulations to Conor Doherty, Samantha Toler and Thomas Alvares.

Kids Time Early Learning Centre Moorabbin

Ms MILLER — I represented the Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development on Tuesday, 10 September, to officially reopen Kids Time

Early Learning Centre in Moorabbin. The centre was recently in receipt of $300 000 thanks to the Victorian coalition government’s $40 million children capital grants program. The centre directors, Anna and Cochav Lahmy, put in $300 000 of their own money, and Holmesglen TAFE Moorabbin also contributed $58 000 to the renovations. Families in the Bentleigh electorate will now have access to state-of-the-art facilities, including two new rooms to accommodate 32 children.

All Shook Up

Ms MILLER — Last week I was pleased to attend the Bentleigh Secondary College annual production, entitled All Shook Up. Loosely based on Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, the production was set in 1950s America to music by Elvis. The students’ performance was fantastic, and I was personally impressed by the immense singing, dancing and acting talent displayed by all the students involved. It was interesting to note that the students developed the entire production themselves, in conjunction with their drama teacher, Jacinta Egan. The production had an important message of self-discovery and acceptance of who you are for our young students to hear. Congratulations to the cast and crew.

Protective services officers

Ms MILLER — On Saturday evening I had the pleasure of visiting the protective services officers — —


Victoria Police awards

Ms GRALEY (Narre Warren South) — It was my great pleasure recently to attend an awards ceremony for division 3 members of Victoria Police’s southern metropolitan region. The ceremony was a fantastic opportunity to recognise our local police for not only their years of service but also their continuing efforts to keep our community safe. I was particularly pleased to see a number of police officers from Narre Warren South recognised for their good work. Sergeant Kenneth Martin and Sergeant Kenneth Rich were awarded the National Police Service Medal. This medal is awarded in recognition of the ethical and diligent service of police officers. The Queensland Flood and Cyclone Citation was awarded to our very own Sergeant Nathan Prowd and Sergeant Phillip Atkins. These four men are fine examples of the

WORKPLACE INJURY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION BILL 2013


incredibly hardworking and committed team of division 3.

It should be noted that division 3 covers over 1000 square kilometres and has a population of around 500 000 people. These police officers have a big job. In the past year alone over 30 000 crimes — which, disturbingly, are on the increase — have been reported, and sadly this includes thousands of instances of family violence. It is a credit to the commitment and resilience of our local police officers that they are constantly willing and able to deal with these incredibly difficult situations. They should be applauded for not only the work they do every day to help victims of such crime but the work they do through the White Ribbon program to prevent it.

I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight the good work being done by the local police officers working with community members at Operation Newstart Casey. I commend James Seeary, Senior Constable Tracey Atkins, Courtney Weston, Matthew Murray and one of my favourite people, Ross Miller. Operation New Start Casey is a fantastic program. I say to those people, well done, and once again thank you for all that you do for the community.


Statement of compatibility

Mr O’BRIEN (Treasurer) tabled following statement in accordance with Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (charter act), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill 2013.

In my opinion, the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill 2013, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights protected by the charter act. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of bill

The Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill 2013 rewrites the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and the Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act 1993. Its purposes are to simplify the provisions applying to the rehabilitation of injured workers and compensation in relation to injuries or deaths arising out of accidents or diseases in the workplace on or after 1 July 2014. It also seeks to streamline the provisions of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and the Workers Compensation Act 1958, which continue to apply in respect of injuries or deaths arising out of accidents and diseases in the workplace before 1 July 2014. In addition, the bill provides a single gateway for claims for compensation

whether under the bill or the Accident Compensation Act 1985. The bill also provides for the registration of employers and the payment of WorkCover premiums and repeals the Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act 1991. Various consequential amendments to other acts are also included in the bill.

Human rights issues

Right to equality

Section 8(3) of the charter act provides that every person is equal before the law, is entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination, and has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination. ‘Discrimination’ for the purposes of the equality right means discrimination within the meaning of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, and can involve either direct or indirect discrimination.

Under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, ‘direct’ discrimination occurs where a person treats, or proposes to treat, a person with a relevant attribute unfavourably because of that attribute. There are therefore two elements to direct discrimination: a person must be treated unfavourably, and the unfavourable treatment must be because the person has a relevant attribute. The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 also prohibits ‘indirect’ discrimination, which occurs when a person unreasonably imposes a requirement, condition or practice that has the effect of disadvantaging a person with a relevant attribute. Relevant attributes include, for example, age, race, sexual orientation, religious belief, and disability.

Different treatment of persons based on disability

There are a range of clauses within the bill that are relevant to the right to protection from discrimination on the basis of disability. Disability is broadly defined under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to include, for example, the presence in the body of organisms that may cause disease; the total or partial loss of a part of the body; malfunction of a part of the body, including a mental or psychological disease or disorder; malformation or disfigurement of a part of the body; and behaviour that is a symptom or manifestation of a disability. Where the bill treats a person unfavourably because of any of these aspects of disability, this may amount to discrimination, and so may limit the right to equality.

Under clause 570, the approval of a person providing a professional service under the bill may be suspended or revoked on a range of grounds, including where the authority has found that the ability of the person to practise is affected because of the person’s physical or mental health or the person’s incapacity. These grounds also enable the authority to determine that the costs of any relevant services provided during the suspension are not payable by the authority or a self-insurer. This clause further allows the authority to refer the conduct of a person to a relevant regulatory body. Under clause 571, the authority can make determinations where a relevant body has found that a person’s ability to practise is affected because of physical or mental health or incapacity. These determinations relate to costs for services which would otherwise be payable by the authority or self-insurer.

These provisions may constitute unfavourable treatment on the basis of disability. A person may have their provider approval suspended or revoked on the basis that their mental or physical health (which may amount to a disability) prevents them from providing the relevant services, or



because of behaviour that is a symptom or manifestation of a disability and which affects the provision of the relevant services. However, if the clauses do involve unfavourable treatment on the basis of a disability, and therefore impose a limit on the right to equality, in my view, any limit is clearly justifiable for the reasons set out below.

Clauses 570 and 571 serve the important purpose of protecting injured workers from professionals who are unable to properly provide relevant services under the scheme. The clauses apply where the authority is concerned about the adequacy, appropriateness or frequency of a professional service being provided under the scheme, and the authority’s powers are intended to be exercised only in circumstances where a person’s ability to practise is genuinely adversely affected. The clauses are structured to enable flexibility in responding to particular circumstances, so that where the adverse effects of a person’s physical or mental health or incapacity are only short term in nature, the person’s provider approval may be suspended, rather than revoked. Further, the bill provides important protections to ensure that the authority’s powers under this division are properly exercised: clause 572 requires that a person be notified and given the opportunity to make submissions before any determination is made, while clause 574 enables a person to seek review of the authority’s decision at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. For these reasons, I consider that any limit on the right to equality that may be imposed by clauses 570 and 571 is reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in accordance with section 7(2) of the charter act.

Clause 39 provides that a worker is entitled to compensation under the bill for injuries that arise out of, or occur in the course of, employment. This clause differentiates between how persons are treated based on the type of injury that they suffer. Clause 40(1) provides that no entitlement is available if the injury is a mental injury caused wholly or predominantly by: management action (or a decision to take, or not to take, management action) that is taken on reasonable grounds; any expectation by the worker that any management action or decision would or would not be taken; or an application for a councillor conduct panel to make a finding of misconduct against a councillor under section 81B of the Local Government Act 1989. Additionally, subclauses 40(2) and (3) limit compensation for heart attack injuries, stroke injuries, diseases, or pre-existing injuries, unless the worker’s employment was a ‘significant contributing factor’.

The operation of clause 39 may involve a limit on the right to equality by treating people unfavourably on the basis that they have particular types of disability. The provision imposes both a higher threshold for compensation for certain injuries (in the case of heart attack injury, stroke injury, disease, or pre-existing injury) and a restriction on access to compensation in relation to particular injuries in specified circumstances (in the case of mental injury). However, for the reasons set out below, any limits on the right to equality that may be imposed by clause 39 are reasonable limits that are demonstrably justifiable in the context of the scheme.

With regard to subclause 40(1), which concerns mental injuries, the purposes of the limit are threefold: to protect the capacity of employers to regulate workplace productivity and performance; to ensure that employees comply with their contractual obligations; and to protect the financial viability of the scheme and its ability to provide compensation for genuine workplace injuries. The singling out of mental injuries in this context reflects the challenges that the

assessment process presents for determining psychiatric or mental illness that is alleged to arise from reasonable management action. The assessment of mental or psychiatric injuries is not assessed in the same manner as physical injuries; rather, the diagnosis of mental injuries relies on self-reporting and mental state or behavioural examination by clinicians. As a result, diagnosis turns on clinical judgement and consideration of the subjective viewpoint of claimants, and is more susceptible to abuse or fabrication by workers than physical injuries. There are also particular difficulties involved in establishing a causal link between a reasonable management action and a mental injury. Psychiatric injuries are frequently caused by multiple factors including a worker’s personal life, interpersonal relationships and personality factors. The specific exclusion of mental injuries caused by reasonable management actions and decisions is therefore considered necessary to discourage fraudulent claims in circumstances where the scheme is particularly vulnerable to abuse, and in circumstances where it is difficult to establish a causal connection between a person’s mental injury and events occurring in the workplace.

Additionally, subclause 40(1) does not limit the right to equality any more than is necessary. It does not involve a blanket exclusion of mental injury claims based on management action. Rather, it applies only to the specific circumstances where injuries are caused by a reasonable management action or decision, an expectation of the worker, or, in limited circumstances, where the conduct of a councillor is investigated. A worker who has been affected by unreasonable management actions or decisions is still entitled to make a claim.

With regard to subclauses 40(2) and (3), which concern heart attack injuries, stroke injuries, diseases and pre-existing injuries, the purpose of any limitation on the right to equality imposed by these provisions is to target compensation under the bill to circumstances where there is a genuine connection between a worker’s injury and their employment. The higher threshold for compensation for the specified types of injury reflects the fact that these injuries are less likely to have a direct causal link to the employment of the worker. In particular, individual susceptibilities and lifestyle factors commonly play a role in heart attack, stroke and disease. These injuries, as well as pre-existing injuries, are treated differently to other kinds of injury because it is considered that employers should not be liable for injuries that simply arise in the workplace, but are not sufficiently connected with the employment of the worker. Notably, workers who suffer these kinds of injuries are still able to access compensation; the subclauses merely require that the employment must have been a significant contributing factor. This achieves the purpose of the clause without going any further than is necessary, and for these reasons, I consider that any limits imposed on the right to equality by clause 40 are reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in accordance with section 7(2) of the charter act.

Similar considerations arise with regard to subclause 243(7), which limits the availability of early provisional payments to assist dependants of a deceased worker in cases where heart attack, stroke or disease was a material factor in the death. While this subclause may involve a limit on the right to equality, the limit is reasonable because the question of causation with regard to these types of injury is considerably more involved than is the case for other injuries that result in a worker’s death. It would be inappropriate to provide provisional payments to dependants in these instances, before



the claim has been accepted. I therefore consider that any limitation imposed on the right to equality by subclause 243(7) is reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in accordance with section 7(2) of the charter act.

The type of injury suffered by a worker also affects the availability of compensation for non-economic loss under clauses 211, 212, 213 and 214. In particular, compensation for non-economic loss is available for physical injuries involving an impairment of 10 per cent or more, whereas compensation for non-economic loss involving a psychiatric impairment is only available for impairments of 30 per cent or more. Clause 211 also differentiates between spinal impairment and other injuries, while clause 213 provides a specific regime for assessing non-economic loss compensation for industrial deafness injuries and clause 214 specifies the amount of non-economic loss compensation available for the loss of a foetus.

These clauses enable workers who are most in need of compensation due to a significant injury to access a lump sum payment without needing to pursue costly and lengthy common-law proceedings. Arguably, the imposition of a higher threshold for psychiatric injuries in determining access to compensation could be considered to be unfavourable treatment that is based on the nature of a person’s disability. To the extent, if any, that this clause imposes a limitation on the right to equality, I consider that the limit is reasonable and justifiable in accordance with section 7(2) of the charter act for the reasons set out below.

The limit serves the important purposes of protecting the financial viability of the compensation scheme and its role in compensating claims for genuine workplace injuries, and protecting the scheme from wrongful claims. As noted above, there are various difficulties associated with assessing the degree of psychiatric injury, particularly lower levels of psychiatric injury. Additionally, psychiatric injuries are rarely caused by a single event — they frequently involve additional causal factors of the kind discussed above. The challenges involved in accurately assessing the degree of psychiatric injury and determining the causal relationship between a psychiatric injury and a person’s employment mean that these types of claims are particularly vulnerable to abuse. Further, a lower threshold for psychiatric injury could involve the imposition of significant costs on the compensation scheme that would undermine its ongoing viability. The current provision does not absolutely limit compensation for psychiatric injury, and compensation remains available for those with moderate to severe psychiatric injuries. Taking these considerations into account, in my view it is reasonable to provide a higher threshold for providing compensation for non-economic loss for psychiatric injuries.

I have also considered the aspects of the bill that impose different assessment schemes for persons with spinal injuries, injuries causing industrial deafness, and injuries involving the loss of a foetus. In my view, the bill does not impose any unfavourable treatment on persons with these injuries. The specific clauses relating to these types of injury in the bill are more beneficial to potential claimants than would be the case if these injuries were assessed as ordinary physical injuries. The clauses reflect the view that the approach adopted in the medical guides that are ordinarily used to assess physical injuries under the bill is inadequate for the purposes of properly compensating people for these types of injuries. As such, these clauses do not limit the right to equality.

Under clauses 325 and 327, the test for bringing common-law claims for damages requires psychiatric injury to be ‘severe’, as compared to the lower threshold of ‘serious’ for physical injury. For the reasons set out above in relation to the different thresholds applying to compensation for non-economic loss, I consider that any limit on the right to equality imposed by these clauses is reasonable and demonstrably justifiable.

A final issue concerning differential treatment on the basis of the nature of a person’s disability arises under clauses 56 and 325. Clause 56 sets out that in assessing the degree of impairment under the bill, regard must not be had to secondary psychiatric or psychological injuries arising out of a physical injury. Clause 325 also requires that physical and psychiatric injuries be assessed separately in the determination of whether a person has a ‘serious injury’. These clauses may have unfavourable outcomes for persons who have related psychiatric and physical injuries, as they may not be able to access certain compensation or benefits because their secondary injuries may not be considered in the assessment of impairment, or because their injuries cannot be combined to allow them to meet the requisite thresholds for bringing common-law claims.

In my view, any limit on the right to equality that may be imposed by these clauses is reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in accordance with section 7(2) of the charter act. Physical and mental injuries are assessed separately because, for the reasons set out in the discussion above, they attract different threshold levels and benefits. Further, providing compensation for secondary injuries that emerge as a result of an initial workplace injury may dilute the focus of the scheme on workplace injuries and compromise its ongoing financial viability. The requirement to exclude secondary psychological injuries from the assessment of compensation for impairment is also appropriate because the benefit for physical injuries contains an element for pain and suffering; if secondary psychological injuries were not excluded, this could result in a worker being compensated twice in respect of the same injury. I also note that while secondary psychiatric injuries are excluded, it is still possible to receive compensation for both physical and psychological injury, provided that each injury is a direct result of a work-related incident.

For the reasons set out above, I consider that these clauses do not impose any unreasonable restrictions on the right to equality.

Different treatment of persons based on age

There are a number of clauses within the bill that differentiate between persons on the basis of age. These clauses are discussed below.

Subclause 203(4) provides that a determination of impairment resulting from an injury to a worker who is a minor cannot be made until the worker turns 18. This could arguably be considered unfavourable treatment on the basis of age, as it restricts young persons from making a claim for compensation (such claims cannot be made until the degree of impairment has been assessed). However, in my view, the treatment is not unfavourable. The full consequences of some injuries do not manifest until a person has reached adult age (at least 18 years) — for example, it is difficult to assess the full impact of an acquired brain injury until the person has reached an age at which full development of mental capacity



can be assessed and compared to an average adult. This clause ensures that the full extent of an injury can be included in the assessment of impairment so that appropriate compensation can be made.

Clause 241, which sets out the pensions available for dependants of a worker who dies as a result of a workplace accident, provides that children of deceased workers cease to be dependants at the age of 16, unless the child is studying full time or is a full-time apprentice, in which case he or she ceases to be a dependant at the age of 25. While this clause may be considered to treat persons over 16 or over 25 unfavourably on the basis of age by limiting their access to a benefit, in my view, any limit on the right to equality is reasonable and justifiable. The provision of pensions is intended to compensate persons who would otherwise be relying on the income of a deceased worker. The cut-off age of 16 (for non-students and non-apprentices) reflects the fact that such persons would be able to generate their own income through working. For students and apprentices, the cut-off age of 25 allows a sufficient period to complete an apprenticeship, tertiary or vocational training that would equip a person to enter the workforce. The clause is based on the assumption that most adults would have ceased training or study by the age of 25, and would not be dependent on their family member’s earnings. As such, I do not consider that this clause imposes an unreasonable limit on the right to equality.

Certain other clauses, including clauses 229(2) and 237, provide benefits to young persons or their families that are not available to persons over a certain age. In my view, these clauses reflect the different needs and situations of young persons as compared to independent adults, and do not treat any person unfavourably on the basis of age.

Various clauses within the bill also treat persons differently depending on whether they have reached (or are nearing) the retirement age of 65 years. Clauses 164 and 171 provide that a person is not eligible for certain payments under the bill if he or she has attained retirement age. This includes weekly payments under part 5 of the bill. In some circumstances, alternative payments are available for persons who have reached retirement age, such as payments under clauses 169 (injury after retirement) or 170 (incapacity after retirement). However, the overall effect of the provisions is that a person who has reached retirement age may not be able to access the same level of compensation as a person who has not reached that age. These provisions of the bill could therefore be considered to treat older persons unfavourably because of their age. However, to the extent that these provisions limit the right to equality, I consider that the limit is justifiable for the reasons set out below.

The retirement age set in the bill reflects the age that eligible workers are able to access other forms of income support, such as the commonwealth aged pension and superannuation. The financial viability of the scheme is dependent on loss of income compensation being paid to those who are injured and unable to work at an age where they would be expected to work. The bill goes no further than is necessary to protect the viability of the scheme — the clauses recognise that there is an age at which most people will cease working, but also ensures that compensation is payable to those who continue to work beyond the normal retiring age and are then injured. If a person continues to work beyond the age of 65 years, or is injured within 130 weeks before attaining that age, he or she would still be entitled to receive up to 130 weeks of weekly payments, which is consistent with the amount that most

other workers may receive under the bill. In this respect, the 130-week cap reflects the total of the first and second entitlement period which applies to other workers under part 5. Additionally, the prescribed retirement age of 65 only applies in respect to loss of income (weekly payments) compensation. The worker may still have an entitlement to medical and other services, non-pecuniary compensation for permanent impairment or access to common-law damages. As such, I consider that the limits imposed on certain forms of compensation for workers who have reached retirement age are reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in accordance with section 7(2) of the charter act.

Right to a fair hearing

Section 24(1) of the charter act provides that a person charged with a criminal offence or a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing.

Limitations on proceedings being brought

A range of clauses in the bill have the effect of limiting or prohibiting the bringing of proceedings in particular circumstances. The fair hearing right is relevant to these clauses, as the right has been held to encompass a right of access to the courts to have one’s civil claims submitted to a judge for determination. However, the right to access the courts is not absolute, and may legitimately be limited by the needs and resources of the community and individuals.

Clause 78 enables employers to request written reasons from the authority where it has decided to accept or to reject a claim for compensation relating to weekly payments or the death of a worker. Subclause 78(3) provides that no proceedings may be brought against the authority with regard to questions or matters arising under that provision. This clause may affect the fair hearing right of employers who have requested reasons under clause 78. In this regard, I note that while only persons have human rights under the charter act — corporations do not have human rights — the definition of employer under the bill includes a person. To the extent that individual persons are affected by subclause 78(3), I consider that the clause is unlikely to involve a limit on the right to a fair hearing, as there are other avenues for review of decisions of the authority to accept or reject claims. Employers are able to object to the substantive decision to accept the claim, and may request that the authority review its decision. Employers may also appeal such decisions to the Supreme Court.

Subclause 80(4) provides that no proceedings may be brought in relation to a refusal by the authority to grant an employer permission to lodge an out of time objection to a decision in respect of liability. In my view, this clause does not limit the right to a fair hearing of employers because the employer would already have had a 60-day opportunity to lodge an objection. If the employer falls outside that timeframe, this is a beneficial clause which allows the authority to grant an exemption from the rules. Taking the review and appeal processes as a whole, I consider that not being able to appeal a decision refusing to grant an exemption does not limit the right to a fair hearing.

Similar considerations apply in relation to subclause 264(3) and its effect on the fair hearing right of workers. That provision provides that proceedings must not be brought in



respect of decisions of the authority to consent to, or refuse to consent to, the bringing of proceedings where the worker is unable to commence proceedings due to the operation of clauses 335(2)(b) or 333, or in respect of a decision by the authority under section 134AB(20), 134AB(20A), 135A(6A) or 135A(6B) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (AC act). Subclause 264(3) applies where a person has not complied with the necessary timeframe for seeking the leave of the court to bring proceedings, or where a person is seeking to bring proceedings without first holding a conference, which is usually a mandatory step under the bill. The provision enabling the authority to allow a proceeding that a person could otherwise not bring is a discretionary, beneficial provision. In my view, restricting appeal or review of such decisions is an appropriate measure to limit the costs and administration of the scheme, and does not impose any unreasonable limit on the right of access to the courts.

Clause 208 provides that no appeal lies from a determination or opinion as to the degree of a permanent impairment of a worker or as to whether a worker has an injury which is a total loss. While this engages the right to a fair hearing of a worker, employer or self-insurer seeking to dispute such a finding, in my view it is reasonable to provide that no appeal lies from a determination of the kind referred to in this clause. The worker has already had the opportunity to dispute any initial determination of the authority or self-insurer regarding these matters by seeking to have the matter determined by the medical panel under clause 207. The medical panel is an expert panel which is best placed to determine such medical questions, and in accordance with subclause 313(4) of the bill, its opinion is final and conclusive on any court, body or person. Medical panel opinions may still be judicially reviewed by the Supreme Court on the basis that the panel committed a legal error, such as taking into account an irrelevant consideration, misconstruing the legislation under which the panel acts, or failing to observe the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness. I therefore consider that this clause does not limit the right to a fair hearing.

Subclause 243(10) provides that proceedings must not be brought in respect of any question or matter arising out of a decision of the authority or self-insurer under that section. The section enables the authority to make provisional payments to persons that appear to be entitled to compensation in respect of the death of a worker. The right to a fair hearing for potential claimants who may be eligible for a provisional payment is engaged by the clause, but in my view the right is not limited. The restriction on proceedings reflects the fact that the authority’s decision under this provision is a preliminary decision. If the authority determines not to make a provisional payment, the claimant may still claim his or her full rights to compensation under the bill. I consider that this provision is a reasonable restriction on the right of access to the courts. It would be unnecessarily cumbersome for these types of preliminary decisions to be the subject of review or appeal proceedings given that a person who is not granted provisional payments still retains their full rights to bring a claim for compensation under the bill.

Subclause 313(5) provides that proceedings must not be brought in respect of the adequacy of a statement of reasons given by the medical panel, other than proceedings seeking an order that further reasons be given or proceedings on the ground that the reasons contain an error of law. This amendment is designed to ensure that inadequate reasons alone do not provide a basis for legal challenge and therefore a basis for quashing an opinion. Rather, there is the ability to

seek further reasons and to establish if the reasons contain any error of law. This is the standard of review usually required for tribunals that are exercising an expert function rather than a judicial or adjudicative function and does not, in my view, limit the right to a fair hearing.

A number of clauses in the bill regulate the right of workers to bring common-law actions for workplace injuries. Firstly, common-law damages are restricted to workers with serious injuries. Subclause 335(2) provides that if an impairment is assessed as less than a 30 per cent impairment, a worker cannot bring proceedings for damages unless the authority or self-insurer is satisfied that the injury is a serious injury and issues the worker with a certificate, the worker makes an application under subclause 328(2) or a court other than the Magistrates Court gives leave to bring the proceedings on the basis that the court is satisfied that the injury is a serious injury. Clause 339 provides that if a worker has failed to satisfy a court that an injury is a serious injury, even if the worker then obtains a determination that the degree of impairment is 30 per cent or more, the worker is not entitled to recover damages for that injury. Second, workers seeking damages for economic loss must also demonstrate a permanent loss of earning capacity of 30 per cent or more to satisfy the test of serious injury under subclause 325(2). This is set out in subclause 325(2). Third, there are minimum thresholds for economic loss and pain and suffering that must be met before a court can award common-law damages. These are set out in clause 340. Fourth, there is an offer and counter offer process that must take place before a worker can bring a claim, which is set out in clause 333. Fifth, there are costs implications that flow from the offer and counter offer process set out in subclause 344(2) that may deter a worker from commencing proceedings.

To the extent that the clauses listed above may be considered to be procedural barriers to bringing a common-law claim for damages, the right in section 24 of the charter act of access to a court will be relevant. It is important to note that access to common-law damages sits alongside the statutory scheme of benefits to injured workers. In this sense the total package of compensation must be considered. The barriers to accessing common-law damages listed above are designed to encourage the settlement of claims and preserve the financial viability of the scheme. Accordingly, in my view, these clauses are compatible with the fair hearing right in section 24 of the charter act.

Immunities

A number of clauses in the bill grant legal immunities to particular persons or bodies when performing functions under the bill. Where an immunity clause creates a procedural bar to bringing a claim, the right to a fair hearing may be relevant.

Clause 541 provides that the convenor of the medical panel and a member of a medical panel have the same protection and immunity as a judge of the Supreme Court. This clause does not limit the medical panel’s obligation to act fairly and lawfully in carrying out its obligations under the bill; rather, it prevents the bringing of proceedings against members of the panel or the convenor of the panel. Additionally, subclause 537(8) provides that consultants engaged for the purpose of providing expert advice to a medical panel are not personally liable to any action, claim or demand in relation to functions performed or powers exercised, if the matter or thing was done or omitted in good faith. As liability is not transferred to any other body, this clause may restrict access



to the courts. The question is whether this is a reasonable and proportionate measure; if it is, then the fair hearing right will not be limited.

In my view, these measures are reasonable and proportionate. In particular, the degree of immunity provided to the panel convenor and its members is necessary to maintain their independence, so that they can, and can be seen to, fulfil their statutory function impartially and without fear or favour. The immunity serves to attract and retain quality practitioners to the panel. It also protects the finality of the decisions of the panel from collateral attack through personal suit against individual members. The immunity does not leave an aggrieved worker without any means of redress; as noted above, medical panel opinions may still be judicially reviewed by the Supreme Court on the basis of legal error, including failure to observe procedural fairness. More generally in relation to accountability, panel members are required to meet the legal and ethical standards that regulate health practitioners. I therefore consider that the right to a fair hearing is not limited by clauses 541 and 537(8).

Clause 570 provides that where the authority reviews the conduct of a professional service provider in certain circumstances under the bill, section 21A of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 applies as if the authority or a delegate of the authority were a commission appointed by the Governor in Council to conduct the review. This, in effect, confers on the authority the privileges and immunities in respect of any acts done in relation to the enquiry as if the act had been done in relation to an action in the Supreme Court. While this protects the authority from suit, in my view it does not limit the right to a fair hearing, because other avenues for appeal and review exist. In particular, a person whose rights have been affected by a determination of the authority may seek review of the decision at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Subclause 499(3) provides that employees of the authority are not liable for things done in good faith for the purposes of performing a duty or carrying out a power or function of the authority. This clause does not limit the right to a fair hearing because a person affected by actions of employees of the authority is still entitled to bring an action against the authority itself.

Right to test the evidence

The fair hearing right incorporates the principle of ‘equality of arms’, which requires that each party must have a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the court under conditions which do not place them at a substantial disadvantage when compared with the other party. Generally, parties should have the opportunity to test the evidence against them.

Subclause 489(2) is relevant to the right as it provides that a notice of the authority’s assessment of a premium or adjusted premium is ‘evidence’ that the assessment was made and is correct, except in review or appeal proceedings (in which it is proof in the absence of proof to the contrary). In my view, this clause does not limit the right to a fair hearing. The provision is primarily designed to prevent employers defending an action for the recovery of a premium on the basis that the premium was incorrectly calculated. There are already review and appeal processes in the bill to enable employers to challenge the assessment of premiums. The certificate will streamline the debt recovery process. In the context of review

and appeal proceedings, as indicated above, the certificate will be proof in the absence of proof to the contrary.

Clause 556 requires a court to provide the authority, on request, with a certificate with particulars of a relevant conviction or finding of guilt, and of the concentration of or presence of alcohol or a drug, in relation to a worker. Such a certificate is conclusive proof of the particulars set out in it.

This clause is relevant to the right to a fair hearing because a person whose entitlement to compensation is affected by the matters contained in the certificate is unable to challenge the contents of the certificate. However, the provision does not limit the right to a fair hearing, because the person would have already had a fair hearing regarding the matters contained in the relevant certificate when the person was originally convicted of the offence (and in any subsequent appeals). This clause simply prevents relitigation of matters which have already been decided by a court.

Freedom of expression

Section 15 of the charter act provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression. Section 15(3) makes the right subject to such lawful restrictions as are reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputation of others, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.

Prohibited conduct relating to touting for claims

Clause 560 provides that a range of activities constitute ‘prohibited conduct’ for the purposes of the bill. Some of the conduct may include expressive conduct to which the right to freedom of expression is relevant. For example, subclause 560(1)(a) provides that it is prohibited conduct for a person to knowingly make a false or misleading statement for the purpose of encouraging someone to make a protected claim and to use the services of the agent (or another person from whom the agent receives any payment in connection with the claim). Subclause 560(1)(e) prohibits making unsolicited contact by telephone, personal approach or other prescribed means with a person who is not a client, for the purpose of encouraging that person to make a protected claim and use the services of the agent (or the services of another person from whom the agent receives payment in connection with the claim).

In my view, clause 560 does not limit the right to freedom of expression either because the relevant conduct does not fall within the scope of the right to freedom of expression (on the basis that misleading and deceptive conduct is unlikely to be covered by right to freedom of expression), or because the restrictions on the conduct fall within the internal limitations on the right. Prohibiting conduct of the kind referred to in subclause 560(1) is reasonably necessary to respect the rights of others, and to protect public order; it discourages behaviour that could constitute harassment of persons who may be entitled to make claims, and further deters persons from encouraging others to make spurious or unwarranted claims.

The right of freedom of expression may also be relevant to clause 566 of the bill, which provides that the authority may make a direction prohibiting an agent from acting for any person in connection with any claims or in connection with specified types of claims. Such an order may be made where a person has persistently engaged in prohibited conduct.



These orders could potentially restrict an individual’s right to freedom of expression, to the extent that such interferences restricted an individual’s ability to communicate ideas and information. However, I consider that any restriction would fall within the internal limitations on the right, in that they are reasonably necessary to respect the rights of others, and to protect public health and public order.

Right not to be subjected to forced medical treatment

Section 10(c) of the charter act provides that a person has the right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation or treatment without his or her full, free and informed consent.

A number of clauses within the bill require that workers making claims for compensation under the bill must submit to medical examination or assessment. Clause 26 provides that the authority or self-insurer may require a worker who has made a claim for compensation to submit at reasonable intervals to a medical examination by an independent medical practitioner provided and paid for by the authority or self-insurer. Clause 203 requires a worker who has made a claim for compensation for non-economic loss to attend an independent examination at the request of the authority or self-insurer for the purpose of obtaining assessments as to the degree of permanent impairment resulting from any injury for which liability is accepted. Clause 113 provides that a worker who has an incapacity for work must (so far as is reasonable) participate and cooperate in any assessment for the purposes of capacity for work, rehabilitation progress, or future employment prospects. Clause 309 provides that a conciliation officer, the court, the authority or a self-insurer may, at any time, require a worker who claims compensation under the bill or the AC act to submit himself or herself for an examination by a medical panel on a date and at a place arranged by the convenor of medical panels. Under clause 308, the medical panel may also ask a worker to submit to a medical examination by the panel or a member of the medical panel.

Clause 112 provides that a worker who has an incapacity for work must (so far as is reasonable) use an occupational rehabilitation service provided in accordance with the bill or the AC act and cooperate with the provider of that service. I note that this differs from the other clauses discussed in that it requires a worker to participate in rehabilitation services, rather than simply requiring a worker to undergo an assessment or examination.

Workers who refuse to undergo assessments or examinations, or who refuse to participate in occupational rehabilitation services, may have their rights to compensation limited or suspended, and their claims may not be able to progress.

In my view, most of these requirements would not involve ‘medical treatment’ for the purposes of the charter act, as the nature of the assessment or examination is, in most cases, unlikely to involve any procedures which could constitute medical treatment. While ‘medical treatment’ is not defined in the charter act, it is defined in the Medical Treatment Act 1988 (Vic) as the carrying out of an operation, the administration of a drug or other like substance, or any other medical procedure. Although it is conceivable that an examination might require, for example, the taking of a blood sample, in most cases assessments under the act are carried out based on evidence (such as pathological tests) received

from the worker themselves. As such, it would be unusual for an examination to involve a medical procedure.

To the extent that an examination may involve a medical procedure of the kind that may amount to ‘medical treatment’, in my view any limitation on the right not to be subjected to medical treatment without consent is reasonable in all the circumstances. The medical examinations and assessments required under the bill are for the important purpose of determining a person’s eligibility for entitlements under the WorkCover scheme, and will only be required as reasonably necessary for this purpose. In my view, there is no other way of accurately assessing a person’s medical condition. The viability of the scheme relies on accurate assessments. Further, I note that a person may refuse to participate in any examination or assessment, although this may compromise their entitlements to payments under the bill. For these reasons, I consider that to the extent that the bill limits the right in section 10(c) of the charter act, any such limitation is reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in accordance with section 7(2) of the charter act.

Right to privacy

Section 13(a) of the charter act provides that all persons have the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. There are a considerable number of clauses within the bill that involve restrictions on people’s privacy in various circumstances. However, for the reasons outlined below, I consider that none of these restrictions on privacy are unlawful or arbitrary, and so they do not impose a limitation on the right to privacy.

Medical examinations and assessments

As discussed above, various clauses within the bill require workers to submit to medical examinations and assessments. While these clauses may require the sharing of very personal information, these examinations and assessments are clearly necessary in order to properly administer the scheme, and to prevent people from making fraudulent or inaccurate claims for compensation. Only those workers who decide to make a claim for compensation under the bill will be subject to requirements that they undergo such examinations and assessments. The circumstances in which these requirements can be made are clearly set out in the bill. Additionally, the bill protects personal information by providing at clause 588 that any information obtained under the bill, the AC act or the Workers Compensation Act 1958 (WC act) must not be used for any purpose except as authorised by or in respect of a matter or for a purpose arising under the bill. In my view, these clauses therefore fall within the internal limitations on the right to privacy, as they do not involve any arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy.

Information-gathering powers

The right to privacy is relevant to several clauses within the bill which provide powers of entry, inspection, search, and questioning, and the power to require that documents or information be provided in certain circumstances.

Clauses 130 to 135 provide such powers for return to work inspectors. Under clause 130, an inspector may enter any place that the inspector reasonably believes is a workplace at any time during the work hours of the workplace. Clauses 133 and 134 set out that the inspector’s powers upon



entry to a workplace include, inter alia, the power to: inspect and examine things and make enquiries at the workplace; bring any equipment or materials that may be required; seize anything that may afford evidence of an offence against the bill, the AC act or the WC act; take photographs or other measurements or recordings; and require persons to produce documents or answer questions put by the inspector. Under clause 142, a person must not, without reasonable excuse, refuse or fail to provide such assistance as an inspector may reasonably require for the performance of his or her functions under this division.

These inspections are likely to primarily involve inspection of business premises, and I note that the owners of such premises have a limited expectation of privacy. However, even if the exercise of the power to enter workplaces will interfere with a person’s privacy, home or correspondence, in my view such interference is lawful and is not arbitrary. The powers are necessary to monitor compliance with the regulatory scheme. The bill limits the exercise of the powers by requiring that inspections occur during work hours, and by providing that, except by consent, inspection powers are not exercisable in relation to a part of a place that is only used for residential purposes (see subclause 130(2)). Additionally, clause 131 requires inspectors to notify occupiers of their entry, and provide cards identifying themselves. The powers are necessary for the proper regulation of the scheme, and are in the interests of promoting public health and safety. I therefore consider that any interference with privacy that may occur in the exercise of these powers is neither arbitrary nor unlawful.

Division 3 of part 13 of the bill provides more general powers of questioning and inspection. Clause 552 deals with questioning powers, and provides the authority with power to require any person to furnish the authority with such information as the authority requires, or to attend and give evidence before the authority or before a person authorised by the authority. The authority may also require that a person produce books in his or her custody. These powers may only be exercised for limited purposes set out in the bill.

Clause 553 provides a general power of inspection for the purposes of determining whether the provisions of the bill, the AC act or the WC act are being or have been contravened or generally of enforcing the provisions of the bill or these acts. Under clause 553, a person authorised by the authority may: enter, inspect and examine any premises; require a person in those premises to give information and produce books; inspect, examine and make extracts from or copies of any books on those premises; and exercise such other powers as are necessary. Clause 554 provides that it is an offence to obstruct or hinder a person exercising powers under clauses 552 and 553 without reasonable excuse.

Stronger search powers may be authorised under clause 558, which provides that a magistrate may issue a search warrant to search premises, including by breaking open cupboards, drawers, and other containers. These powers may be exercised by a police officer, together with any other person named in the warrant. Items may be seized, but may only be retained for as long as is necessary to make copies, unless the magistrate authorises retention for a longer period. Persons who would be entitled to inspect a book if it weren’t taken pursuant to the search warrant must be able, at all reasonable times, to inspect that book. A magistrate may only issue a search warrant if the magistrate is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there are on any

particular premises books which are relevant to determining whether the provisions of the bill, the AC act or the WC act have been contravened or to assessing a premium under the bill.

These clauses may restrict privacy by requiring people to share information and respond to questions as required by the authority, and by enabling police officers and persons authorised by the authority to enter into private premises and inspect private documents, and, pursuant to a warrant, to search premises. In my view, however, these restrictions fall within the internal limitations on the right to privacy, as they are neither unlawful nor arbitrary. The powers are necessary to monitor compliance with the regulatory scheme, and may only be exercised for the purposes specified in the relevant clauses. Powers of inspection must only be exercised at reasonable times. Search warrants are subject to the oversight of the Magistrates Court, and, as outlined above, protections are in place to ensure that any items seized during a search are not held for longer than necessary. Further, any information obtained in the exercise of any of the relevant powers must only be used for the purposes of the bill, the AC act or the WC act (see clause 588). I therefore consider that these provisions are compatible with the right to privacy.

I note that to the extent that a person may be required to attend to give evidence before the authority at a particular place and time in accordance with clause 552, the bill may limit the right to freedom of movement in section 12 of the charter act. To the extent, if any, that this right is limited, I consider that the limit is minor in nature and clearly justifiable in accordance with section 7(2) of the charter act.

Information sharing

The bill also authorises the sharing of private information in a range of specified circumstances. For example, clause 555 provides that the Chief Commissioner of Police may give the authority any information in his or her possession or control that the authority requests for the purpose of assessing a person’s entitlement to compensation. The information must relate to the commission, or alleged commission, of certain offences under the Road Safety Act 1986 or the Crimes Act 1958 involving conduct to which the authority considers the injury may be attributable, or must be information that the authority considers may comprise serious and wilful misconduct to which the authority considers the injury may be attributable.

In my view, this clause does not involve an unlawful or arbitrary interference with privacy. The sharing of the relevant information is necessary for the authority to assess claims under the bill where a person’s involvement in an offence may affect their entitlement to compensation. The use of the information is subject to the authority complying with any agreement entered into between the authority and the Chief Commissioner of Police, and any relevant standards established by the Commissioner for Law Enforcement Data Security. I therefore consider that the clause is compatible with the right to privacy.

Overall, I consider that the clauses in the bill that enable or require the sharing of private information are appropriate measures that are necessary for the proper administration of the accident compensation scheme. Protections are in place to ensure that private information is not used for purposes other than purposes authorised or required in the bill, and the circumstances in which private information can or must be



shared are set out clearly and thoroughly. I therefore consider that these clauses do not involve any arbitrary or unlawful interference with the right to privacy in section 13(a) of the charter act.

Registers including private information

Clause 17 provides that employers must keep a register of injuries. The register is an open record and must be kept in a place readily accessible to workers employed in the workplace. The register discloses to all relevant employees personal information about injured colleagues. The register is likely to contain private information such as the name and job title of workers, and the details of injuries. In my view, however, the recording and viewing of this information does not impose any arbitrary or unlawful restrictions on the right to privacy. Information is recorded on the register following notification of an injury by an injured worker or at the request of an injured worker. In these circumstances, the injured worker volunteers personal information for the purposes of bringing his or her injury within the scope of the scheme. The register of injuries is an important mechanism for the efficient and effective reporting of injuries by workers and assists workers to meet the requirement that employers be notified of an injury within 30 days of the worker becoming aware of it. The register encourages workers to report injuries and encourages employers to maintain occupational health and safety standards by making the safety record of the workplace transparent to those with a direct interest, particularly workers. In these circumstances, my view is that clause 17 does not limit the privacy right of injured workers under section 13 of the charter act.

Division 2 of part 10 provides that the authority must maintain a register of employers that includes any employer who employs one or more workers and to whom no exemption applies. Clause 436 requires registered employers to notify the authority of certain changes in circumstances, including changes to the employer’s name, trading name, postal address, or workplace activities. I note that the WorkCover scheme continues to act as a safety net for all workers, regardless of whether or not their employer has registered with the authority and complied with their WorkCover obligations.

It is possible that some of the information included on the register of employers could be considered private information protected by section 13 of the charter act. However, any restriction on privacy involved in the recording and viewing of this information is unlikely to be arbitrary or unlawful. Keeping accurate records of this information is necessary for the authority to manage the workplace injury scheme. I therefore consider that clause 17 is compatible with section 13 of the charter act.

Prohibition on providing certain services or acting in relation to claims

The right to privacy in the charter act may, in some limited circumstances, protect against arbitrary or unlawful interferences in a person’s participation in employment. For example, the right to privacy might be limited by a very broad measure that banned public officials from gaining employment in the private sector.

This aspect of the privacy right is relevant to clause 566 of the bill, which I referred to above in relation to freedom of expression. This clause provides that the authority may make

a direction prohibiting an agent from acting for any person in connection with any claims or in connection with specified types of claims. The authority must first be satisfied that the agent has persistently engaged in conduct that the authority reasonably believes constitutes prohibited conduct and as a result is not a fit and proper person to act in connection with claims to which the direction relates. The authority must have given the agent a reasonable opportunity to make written submissions to the authority on the matter. An agent may seek review of the decision at VCAT.

As these measures are not broad restrictions on employment, and are limited to restricting a person’s ability to do a particular kind of work in relation to WorkCover claims, I consider that clause 566 does not interfere with the right to privacy in relation to a person’s professional life.

Right to reputation

Section 13(b) of the charter act provides that a person has the right not to have his or her reputation unlawfully attacked. An attack on reputation will not be unlawful if it is permitted by a law that is accessible and precise.

This right is relevant to clause 568 of the bill, which provides that, where the authority suspends the payment of costs to a person on the suspicion that he or she has committed a relevant offence, the authority must notify the relevant professional body and, where relevant, Medicare Australia. Clause 570 also enables the authority to refer conduct of a professional service provider to a relevant professional regulatory body for investigation.

These clauses ensure that professional bodies can conduct their own enquiries and take steps to adequately regulate the relevant profession, in circumstances where a question has been raised regarding the conduct of one of their members. As any harm to a person’s reputation will be permitted by the bill, in provisions which are clearly formulated and accessible to the public, I consider that these clauses do not enable any unlawful attacks on reputation.

Clause 605 provides that if a court convicts a person or finds a person guilty of an offence against the bill, the AC act, the WC act or regulations under the bill, the court may make an adverse publicity order that requires the offender to publicise the offence, its consequences, the penalty imposed and any related matter, or to notify a specified person or class of persons of these details. In my view, this is clearly not an unlawful attack on reputation. Such orders may only be made by a court, and will only be made in circumstances where a person has been convicted or found guilty of an offence.

Presumption of innocence

Section 25(1) of the charter act provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. This right is relevant to a number of provisions in the bill.

Reverse onus provisions

Clause 575 provides that it is an offence for an employer or prospective employer to engage in discriminatory conduct for a prohibited reason. This covers circumstances where the employer or prospective employer has, for example, refused or failed to offer employment to an applicant, and the dominant reason was because the applicant has given an employer notice of an injury, or has taken steps to pursue a



claim for compensation against an employer. If all the facts constituting the discriminatory conduct are proved, the employer (or prospective employer) bears the burden of adducing evidence that the reason alleged in the charge was not the dominant reason why the employer (or prospective employer) engaged in the conduct.

Clause 575 is relevant to the right to be presumed innocent because it involves a presumption that an employer or prospective employer’s reason for engaging in allegedly discriminatory conduct was a prohibited reason unless the employer adduces evidence to the contrary. However, pursuant to section 72 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, this onus is an evidential onus only. Once the employer, or prospective employer, has adduced some evidence that the alleged prohibited reason was not the dominant reason for the conduct, the burden of proof shifts back to the prosecution to prove the elements of the offence.

Courts in other jurisdictions have generally taken the approach that an evidential onus on an accused does not limit the presumption of innocence. Additionally, subclause 575(6) is based on matters within the knowledge of the relevant defendant — that is, the existence of another reason for engaging in the allegedly discriminatory conduct. Further, the penalty for the offence is a pecuniary fine and does not involve imprisonment, and the purpose of the shift in onus is to further the legislative scheme that promotes public health and safety. Consequently, even if the provision limited the right to be presumed innocent through imposing evidential onuses upon defendants, it would be reasonable and justifiable under section 7(2) of the charter act.

Shifting evidential burdens also arise in relation to clauses 134(2), 142, and 554(2), which are all offence provisions that prohibit persons from engaging in particular conduct ‘without reasonable excuse’. For example, subclause 134(2) provides that a person must not, without reasonable excuse, refuse or fail to comply with a requirement to produce a document in his or her possession or control, or to answer any questions put by an inspector.

I do not consider that section 25(1) of the charter act is limited by these clauses because there is only an evidential burden on the accused to show a defence (a reasonable excuse) and the prosecution still bears the onus of proving the essential elements of the offence. I consider this is appropriate in respect of each of these offences because the existence or otherwise of a reasonable excuse is a matter that will generally be in the peculiar knowledge of the defendant. Additionally, the offences involve pecuniary fines only, not terms of imprisonment, and are in the context of enforcing a regulatory scheme that promotes public health and safety. As such, I consider that these provisions are compatible with the right to be presumed innocent.

While the above provisions impose evidential burdens only, I note that one aspect of the bill does impose a legal burden on persons accused of a criminal offence. Subclause 575(7) provides that it is a defence to a proceeding for discriminatory conduct if the employer or prospective employer proves that the conduct was necessary to comply with the bill, the AC act, the WC act or the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (OHS act), that the worker or applicant was unable to perform the inherent requirements of the employment, or that the worker was engaged in fraud or dishonesty in relation to the giving of notice of the injury or the pursuit of the claim. This clause imposes a legal burden on the accused, by

requiring that they prove certain matters in order to defend themselves against an allegation of discriminatory conduct.

The right to presumption of innocence is therefore limited by subclause 575(7). Whether a statutory presumption imposing a legal burden of proof is an unreasonable limitation on the right to be presumed innocent will depend on all the circumstances of a particular provision. This includes the nature of the matters to be proved by the accused, the seriousness of the offence and the punishment that may flow from a conviction. While the bill limits the right to be presumed innocent, I consider that the limitation is reasonable and demonstrably justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the charter act for the following reasons.

First, I note that ensuring adequate enforcement of the prohibition on discriminatory conduct is an essential element of the accident compensation scheme, as it enables injured workers to make claims without fear of retribution.

Second, I consider that the risk that the provision may allow an innocent person to be convicted of the offence is negligible. The prosecution is required to prove that the accused engaged in discriminatory conduct. As indicated above, the defendant bears an evidential onus in respect of the reason for the conduct. If the defendant has raised evidence of another reason, the prosecution must prove that the discriminatory reason is the dominant reason for engaging in the prohibited conduct. Subclause 575(7) in effect acknowledges that there are some limited circumstances where even if the prosecution can prove these aspects of the offence, an employer may nonetheless have had a valid reason for engaging in the conduct constituting discrimination.

Imposing an evidential onus instead of a legal burden of proof in relation to these offences is not a reasonably available option. Where the employer relies on the conduct being necessary to comply with the bill, the AC act, the WC act or the OHS act, or relies on the fact that the worker was unable to perform the inherent requirements of the employment, these are matters that will generally be in the particular knowledge of the employer, and proving these aspects of the defence (if genuine) should not be a difficult task for an employer. Where the employer seeks to rely on a defence based on a claim that the worker has engaged in fraud or dishonesty in relation to the claim, it is reasonable to require that the employer prove these aspects of the defence. Alleging that another person has been fraudulent or dishonest is a serious accusation, and should not be made without proof. In these circumstances, I do not consider that the imposition of a legal burden goes beyond what is necessary and reasonable to achieve the purpose of the provision.

As such, I consider that the elements of the offence and defence achieve an appropriate balance between the rights of the accused and the need to protect people from discriminatory conduct. The provisions support the legitimate objective of protecting a worker from discrimination on the basis that he or she was exercising his or her rights to make a claim under the bill.

For the above reasons, I consider that the limit imposed on the right is a reasonable limitation that is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, in accordance with section 7(2) of the charter act.



Action taken on suspicion of offence

Clause 568 provides that if the authority reasonably suspects that a person providing a professional service has committed a relevant offence, the authority may determine that payment of costs for a professional service provided by that person be suspended. Unless a person is charged with an offence, the suspension expires after six months, or at the time that the authority determines that it will not bring proceedings.

In my view, suspension of payment while an offence is being investigated is a reasonable measure which does not limit the presumption of innocence. The clause does not impose any penal consequences on the accused; rather it simply prevents the authority from having to pay costs to a person while the possible offence is being investigated. This is appropriate, because if a person has actually committed an offence, the authority would not be liable to pay those costs. This clause saves the authority from having to seek to reclaim money wrongly paid to persons who have committed relevant offences. Further, it is not an indefinite suspension, and if the suspension is lifted or six months pass without the person being charged, then all moneys owing will become payable.

Right against self-incrimination

Section 25(2)(k) of the charter act provides that a person charged with a criminal offence is entitled not to be compelled to testify against himself or herself or to confess guilt. The Supreme Court has held that this right, as protected by the charter act, is at least as broad as the common-law privilege against self-incrimination. It applies to protect a charged person against the admission in subsequent criminal proceedings of incriminatory material obtained under compulsion, regardless of whether the information was obtained prior to or subsequent to the charge being laid.

This right is relevant to clause 597 of the bill, which provides that a person may refuse to give information or do any other thing that the person is required to do by or under the bill, the AC act or the WC act if to do so would tend to incriminate the person. However, this protection does not apply to the production of a document that the person is required by the bill, the AC act or the WC act to produce.

The privilege against self-incrimination generally covers the compulsion of documents which might incriminate a person. However, the protection accorded to the compelled production of pre-existing documents is considerably weaker than that accorded to oral testimony or to documents that are required to be brought into existence to comply with a request for information. I note that some jurisdictions have regarded an order to hand over existing documents as not constituting self-incrimination.

The primary purpose of the abrogation of the privilege in relation to documents is to assist the authority to enforce penalty provisions or to prosecute offences by employers and others who assist or facilitate the execution of responsibilities imposed on employers under the bill. Importantly, clause 597 provides a partial immunity, in that a document (or evidence obtained as a result of the production of that document) cannot be used in proceedings against the person other than criminal or civil proceedings under the bill, the AC act or the WC act, or in relation to proceedings for an offence against the Crimes Act 1958 which arises in connection with a claim for compensation under the AC act or the bill. Any limitation on the right against self-incrimination is therefore

appropriately tailored and minimal. For the above reasons, I consider that clause 597 imposes a reasonable limitation on the right against self-incrimination.

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, I consider that the bill is compatible with the human rights set out in the charter act.

Hon. Michael O’Brien, MP Treasurer

Second reading

Mr O’BRIEN (Treasurer) — I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill honours a government election commitment to recast the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and the Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act 1993 into a single act that is simpler and easier to use.

It also delivers on a government commitment to reduce regulatory burden associated with workers compensation legislation, by simplifying the legislation relating to rehabilitation and compensation for injured workers, and making it easier for employers and workers to read the legislation and understand their rights, obligations and responsibilities.

The bill is of the highest importance to Victorian workers and employers. Although Victorian workplaces have never been safer, many Victorians are still affected by workplace injury and death every year and the importance of the workers compensation legislation to the Victorian community cannot be overstated.

Scope of the bill

The bill recasts the Accident Compensation Act and the Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act into a single piece of legislation to govern workers compensation insurance, payment of premiums, rehabilitation for injured workers, and compensation in relation to workplace injuries and deaths.

The rewrite has restructured the legislation, removed or streamlined obsolete and redundant provisions, identified opportunities to streamline compliance requirements and improved readability. Importantly, the rewrite has been undertaken on a ‘no benefit change’ basis.

The bill includes drafting improvements that simplify the legislation and make it easier to understand and navigate. Some of the key improvements are:

a more logical structure and sequence;



the style and language of some outdated provisions in the legislation have been modernised, and various provisions have been restructured to make them easier to read and understand;

flow chart diagrams in the bill provide a visual snapshot to aid understanding of various processes that are described in the bill;

the removal of various redundant or superfluous provisions.

The bill includes a number of minor amendments aimed at removing ambiguities, clarifying the intention of various provisions, and correcting a number of drafting anomalies. The bill also includes a number of minor policy changes that improve administrative processes or reduce scheme costs and regulatory burden. Such provisions do not impact the entitlements of injured workers.

The wording of some of the more complex and heavily litigated provisions of the Accident Compensation Act have been reproduced in the bill.

Structure of the bill

As noted earlier, the bill has been structured to give it a more logical sequence, with the parts used most often at the beginning of the bill, and the parts for more specific audiences, such as self-insurers and non-WorkCover employers, placed later in the bill.

It represents a significant drafting improvement, particularly when compared with the way that provisions are ordered in the Accident Compensation Act.

Further benefit is also achieved by combining legislation related to compensation and legislation related to insurance into one piece of legislation. This means that employers will not need to look at multiple acts to understand their obligations and responsibilities.

Flow charts

New visual aids have been included in the bill, with flow chart diagrams to assist workers and employers understanding important processes and obligations.

The technical and procedural nature of insurance legislation means that it can be difficult to read and understand for people who are not lawyers. The new flow charts in the bill will assist workers and employers to understand important obligations and claims processes in the bill.

Application of the bill

This bill will replace the Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act, which will be repealed entirely. Relevant provisions from the Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act have been consolidated into the bill to create a more comprehensive and streamlined piece of legislation. This means that compulsory workers compensation insurance and payment of premium will now be determined according to the provisions of the bill.

The bill will apply to workplace injuries and deaths arising out of or in the course of employment on or after the commencement date. The existing benefits schemes in the Accident Compensation Act will be retained for workers with injuries arising before the commencement date.

In future all claims will be made under this bill whether for compensation under the bill or under the Accident Compensation Act. Entitlements for claims will then be determined according to the relevant benefits scheme in place at the date of injury. A small number of claims for injuries that arose before 12 November 1997 will continue to be lodged under the Accident Compensation Act.

The premium provisions under this bill set out the new premium legislative framework under which all employers are insured for WorkCover claims through the operation of the act rather than under a contract of insurance. The bill will apply to all employers who are required to pay premiums pursuant to the bill and the premiums order for the 2014–15 premium year, as well as employers who are exempt. The Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act will be repealed upon commencement of the bill but will continue to apply to employers who have an obligation to pay premiums before the commencement of the bill.

Various provisions setting out entitlements and obligations for certain older periods of time will be retained in the Accident Compensation Act. There are approximately 20 different benefit schemes that govern claims for compensation under the Accident Compensation Act. Various complex transitional rules applying to existing benefits schemes will also be retained in the Accident Compensation Act, such as the transitional rules relating to the calculation of pre-injury average weekly earnings and the calculation of weekly payments.

This approach has also been taken to ensure that the bill will provide a streamlined piece of legislation that will



be easier to apply for future workplace injuries and deaths.

While the Accident Compensation Act will be retained as a benefits scheme for injuries arising prior to the commencement of the bill, a large number of provisions in the Accident Compensation Act will be repealed where it is unnecessary to have two sets of provisions covering the same matters.

Administrative and minor policy changes

The bill includes a number of administrative and minor reforms to remove ambiguities and correct drafting anomalies, improve administrative efficiency and reduce regulatory burden for workers, employers and others.

For example, part 2 of the bill provides that in the rare circumstance where a worker does not supply a medical certificate when lodging their claim form, as required by the legislation, the worker will now be able to attend conciliation to resolve their claim instead of having to go directly to court to do so.

Three changes have been made to the return-to-work provisions in part 4 of the bill. The first change is to address a contradiction in how the employer’s obligation to return a worker to work after an injury is expressed in the legislation. This contradiction has been removed and the bill now makes clear that the one-year period in which an employer is required to return a worker to work includes any time during which a worker is not fully fit for work.

The second change addresses an anomaly arising from provisions that govern where an employer disputes a return to work improvement notice. Under the Accident Compensation Act, these provisions meant that where an employer disputes a return to work improvement notice, the one-year period in which an employer is required to return an injured worker to work would continue counting down. The bill addresses this anomaly and makes clear that the period in which a worker must be allowed to return to work does not include any period in which an improvement notice is disputed.

The third change in part 4 of the bill is to clarify that the return-to-work obligations of workers are only enforceable ‘to the extent reasonable’. This is consistent with how the return-to-work obligations of employers are expressed under the legislation.

There are a small number of minor changes to clarify benefit provisions and to address anomalies. These include a change to the pre-injury average weekly

earnings provisions to ensure that workers who take leave at less than their full rate of pay prior to being injured have their PIAWE calculated based on their normal rate of pay.

The bill makes clear that where a worker is engaged in employment, but does not have a current work capacity because their employment does not constitute ‘suitable employment’ within the meaning of the bill, their weekly payments must reflect the income they are earning from their employment.

The bill also ensures better decision making in relation to impairment benefit claims by making clear that these claims may be suspended where insufficient factual information has been provided to support such a claim.

The bill addresses an anomaly arising under the Accident Compensation Act whereby a partially dependant partner of a deceased worker is excluded from compensation. The bill makes clear that partially dependant partners are entitled to share in compensation whether the deceased worker has full dependants or no other dependants at all.

Minor changes have been made to medical panel procedures in order to improve the efficiency of medical panel referrals. The changes include amendments relating to time limits for the submission of material to a medical panel after a matter has been referred.

The bill clarifies that the requirement for a medical panel to give written reasons for its medical opinion means that the standard of those reasons should reflect a tribunal of medical experts. This will ensure that a medical panel’s reasons cannot be challenged on the basis that they are inadequate and allow panels to continue to operate efficiently and effectively.

All employers will be covered by WorkCover insurance under the bill and will be required to be registered with the authority.

The bill introduces a right for employers to seek review of their premium notices at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal if they are dissatisfied with the Authority’s review decision. This right complements the existing right employers have to seek review in the Supreme Court.

Part 14 of the bill sets out various amendments to the Accident Compensation Act. Some provisions remaining in the Accident Compensation Act have been amended for consistency with minor changes reflected in provisions in the bill such as I have outlined. This will ensure that anomalies in the legislation are



corrected for all workers and employers, and that certain amendments to decrease regulatory burden are also made to the Accident Compensation Act. A large number of provisions from the Accident Compensation Act have been repealed as they are no longer required.

Regulatory impact assessment

A regulatory impact assessment undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers has found that the bill is expected to reduce administrative costs by an average of $2.3 million per annum (over the first 10 years following implementation). This includes savings for WorkCover scheme-insured businesses and claims agents, who will spend less time referring to legislation in relation to claims, premiums and other obligations.

Section 85 Constitution Act 1975

I make the following statement under section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975 of the reasons why it is the intention of a number of clauses in the bill to alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975. These clauses are consistent with the corresponding provisions of the existing legislation.

Clauses 264, 265 and 266 set out the jurisdiction of the County Court and the Magistrates Court in respect of certain matters arising under the bill, the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Accident Compensation Act) and the Workers Compensation Act 1958.

The exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the courts by clauses 264(1), 266(1) and 266(3) is intended to prevent proceedings being brought directly in the Supreme Court in relation to a question or matter arising under the legislation (unless otherwise specified).

The limitation is intended to provide more efficient and accessible dispute resolution under the scheme and that disputes in connection with statutory benefits and the determination of serious injury are heard in the same forum. The limitation on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in clauses 264, 265 and 266 is necessary and proportionate.

Clause 264(3) prohibits proceedings being brought in relation to decisions of the authority regarding serious injury applications and the discretion of the authority to consent to common-law proceedings outside statutory time limits. The provisions do not relate to decisions about the merits of a claim. There are various other rights of review at different stages in the common-law process. For these reasons the limitation is a necessary and appropriate measure to ensure workers who comply with the serious injury determination process under the

legislation have access to an efficient common-law process.

Clause 6(2) of the bill provides that the authority may give guidance to a person whose claim is governed by the Workers Compensation Act 1958. Clause 6(3) provides that no action lies against the authority in the exercise of its discretion to provide such guidance. This is consistent with how claims under the Workers Compensation Act 1958 are dealt with in practice.

Clause 78(3) limits proceedings that may be brought against the authority in connection with written reasons that may be requested by an employer for a decision to accept or reject a claim for compensation. This limitation only applies to a request for reasons for a decision and not the decision itself. The limitation is therefore reasonable as an employer has a right of review in connection with a decision to accept or reject a claim on certain grounds.

That right of review is set out in clauses 79 to 90 of the bill. The process includes internal review by the authority followed by a right to appeal to the Supreme Court. This right is limited by clauses 80(4) and 83(8) where an employer makes an out-of-time application for review or is deemed to have withdrawn their application.

The limitations ensure the exercise of WorkCover’s discretion to allow an objection that is made out of time is not reviewable. The discretion is meant to allow the authority to consider the reasons for a failure to lodge an objection within the period specified in the legislation. These limitations are reasonable because they reduce disputation and provide a degree of finality and certainty for the parties impacted by the decision, in particular, the injured worker. An employer who objects within time still has access to the Supreme Court.

Clause 208 states that no appeal lies to any court or tribunal from a determination or opinion as to the degree of permanent impairment resulting from an injury, or as to whether a worker has an injury which is a total loss injury.

The limitation ensures that there is finality in the medical opinion of the panels. This recognises that medical experts are best equipped to ultimately determine medical questions and avoids unnecessary costs of disputes involving medical determinations.

Clause 227 limits proceedings against workers for recovery of any costs which the authority, self-insurer or employer is liable to pay in connection with medical and like services. The restriction on proceedings is



necessary to protect workers from actions or proceedings that should be initiated against the authority, employer or self-insurer, who is liable for the payments.

Clause 243 provides that no proceedings may be brought in respect of any decision relating to the discretion of the authority to make provisional payments of certain death benefits where it appears a person may be entitled to compensation as a result of the death of a worker.

The nature of a decision under those provisions is preliminary and it is not ultimately determinative of an entitlement. A person who is not entitled to a provisional payment may still claim the same compensation under the other death benefits provisions, and the person would have full rights of review under those provisions. Allowing review of a preliminary decision under clause 243 would be inefficient and result in unnecessary legal costs being incurred. The limitation is therefore a reasonable and necessary restriction.

Clause 313(4) sets out that a medical panel opinion is to be adopted and applied by any court and must be accepted as final and conclusive. The provision is intended to prevent any court reviewing the merits of a medical panel opinion, however does not limit the court’s ability to hear matters reviewing questions of law.

Clause 313(5) provides that no proceedings may be brought in relation to a medical panel opinion on the basis that the statement of reasons given by the medical panel is inadequate and therefore give rise to an error of law. The same limitation is included in clause 626(8) to amend section 68 of the Accident Compensation Act in the same terms.

Each of these limitations on the right to bring proceedings is reasonable because members of a medical panel are medical experts who are best equipped to determine medical issues but they are not legally trained. Permitting a right to bring proceedings in connection with the adequacy of written reasons of a panel would mean that the standard of reasons required of it would be equivalent to that of a court. It would undermine the efficiency and timeliness of the medical panel process and impede the efficient delivery of compensation and timely resolution of disputes under the WorkCover scheme.

However, it is not the intention of this provision to limit the power of the Supreme Court to hear applications for judicial review in relation to reasons that are so

inadequate as to amount to a jurisdictional error on their face.

Clauses 354, 355 and 356 provide that legal costs in certain common-law matters must only be recovered in accordance with the relevant legal costs order made under those provisions by the Governor in Council. This has the effect of limiting the courts’ usual jurisdiction with regard to costs.

The provisions provide for certainty in legal costs and help to maintain the overall costs of the common-law scheme at a sustainable level, for the benefit of workers, employers and the broader community. The relevant legal costs order sets out specific processes for recovery of legal costs in common-law matters and incentives to encourage parties to resolve disputes. These arrangements can only be effective if the usual jurisdiction of courts with regard to costs is limited.

Clause 369 states that the authority has discretion to issue proceedings to seek recovery of compensation costs against negligent third parties. The authority also has a discretion to disperse costs that are recovered including the excess that an employer must pay to a worker who makes a claim for compensation. Clause 369(8) provides that no proceedings may be brought to challenge the exercise of those discretions by the authority. This limitation is reasonable as the employer’s liability to pay an excess is limited to a worker’s income for 10 days and it would be counterproductive to allow for disputation for such a small sum of money.

Clause 426 states that no proceedings may be brought in respect of any assessment of tail claims liability relating to the non-WorkCover employer provisions.

The limitation is necessary to ensure that an incentive remains for employers who exit from Victorian insurance arrangements to effectively manage their tail liabilities incurred prior to their exit. If the employer could dispute the assessment of their liability incurred prior to exiting, then it may decrease the incentive to effectively manage these claims. Any assessments are unlikely to be significantly greater than those under the premium system, and the restriction applies equally to the employer and the authority, meaning that the authority is also bound by the actuarial assessment.

Clause 456 sets out a process under which employers may apply for a refund of part or all of their WorkCover premium. This is a mandatory process that must be completed before an employer can bring proceedings in court. The limitation on the right to bring proceedings is reasonable because an employer

CORRECTIONS AMENDMENT (PAROLE REFORM) BILL 2013


who is dissatisfied with the outcome of their application can then bring proceedings for a refund.

Clause 458 provides that the right of an employer to bring proceedings in connection with their WorkCover premium notice is governed exclusively by part 10 of the bill. Part 10 of the bill provides for an internal review process for employers who wish to dispute their premium notice. The limitation on the right to bring proceedings is reasonable because an employer who is dissatisfied with the outcome of their application for review, can bring proceedings in connection with that notice at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal or the Supreme Court. The provision of a mandatory internal review process allows for improved timeliness and efficiency in the resolution of disputes regarding premium notices.

Clause 463 confers discretion on the authority to allow an employer to make an application for review of the premium notice outside of the required 60-day period. No proceedings may be brought in connection with the exercise of this discretion by the authority. The limitation on the right to bring proceedings is reasonable because the discretion would operate to prevent an employer from being unfairly excluded from making an application for internal review because of circumstances beyond their control. However, for applications for review that are made out of time that do not invite the exercise of the authority’s discretion, the limitation is reasonable so as to allow certainty and finality in the resolution of disputes about premium.

Clauses 577 and 607 set out a specific process for a worker to request the authority to pursue a prosecution in relation to unlawful discriminatory conduct or a breach of return to work obligations under the bill. Clauses 577(7) and 607(7) limit the ability to challenge a decision by the authority to bring or not to bring such a prosecution.

The limitation on the right to bring proceedings is reasonable as the bill already provides an appropriate mechanism whereby the exercise of the authority’s discretion under this provision may be subject to scrutiny by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Clause 604 allows the authority to accept a written undertaking in connection with an alleged contravention of the bill as an alternative to criminal prosecution. Clause 604(4) provides that no proceedings may be brought against the exercise of the authority’s discretion to accept a written undertaking. This limitation on the right to bring proceedings is reasonable as the ability to challenge such a decision

would unfairly impinge on the authority’s prosecutorial discretion.

Conclusion

Victoria’s workplaces have never been safer in terms of injury rates. Victoria recorded a record low injury rate in 2011–12. In addition, the premium cut announced by this government for 2012–13 further enhances Victoria’s position as having the lowest average premium rate in the country, and the lowest average rate in Victoria’s history. We are proud of these achievements in maintaining safe workplaces and low premiums, while still providing quality benefit support for injured workers.

This bill will further strengthen the workers compensation scheme in Victoria by providing simplified legislation that will make it easier for employers and workers to understand their important rights, responsibilities and obligations.

The bill will also reduce administrative burden on employers and improve the efficient delivery of compensation to injured workers. This improved legislation will consolidate Victoria’s position as the leader in workers compensation in Australia.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr SCOTT (Preston).

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 17 October.



Mr WELLS (Minister for Police and Emergency Services) tabled following statement in accordance with Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (charter act), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Bill 2013 (the bill).

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

Overview of bill

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Corrections Act 1986 to provide that safety and protection of the community is paramount in parole decisions; to alter the constitution of the



adult parole board; and to provide for registered victims to be notified of a prisoner’s release on parole.

Human rights issues

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

Right to privacy — notice of release on parole to be provided to victims

Section 13(a) of the charter act provides that a person has the right not to have his or her privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with.

The right to privacy is relevant to clause 3 of the bill, which inserts a new s 30A(1A) and (1B) into the Corrections Act 1986 to provide that if the adult parole board determines to release a prisoner on parole, the secretary must give a person included on the victims register at least 14 days notice before the release of the prisoner, unless the secretary reasonably believes the notice might endanger the security of any prison; or the safe custody and welfare of the prisoner or any other prisoner; or the safety or welfare of the offender; or the safety or welfare of any other person; or the board determines that the notice period should be waived. In my view, clause 3 does not limit the right to privacy as it does not amount to an interference with privacy that is either unlawful or arbitrary.

The nature of the information to be released, and the audience to whom it will be provided, are clearly confined and serve the legitimate purpose of ensuring that victims of crime are informed about matters of direct relevance to them. Only the date of a relevant prisoner’s release on parole must be provided. Moreover, only persons on the victims register will be given notice of a relevant prisoner’s release on parole.

Inclusion on the victims register is by application only and is restricted to people falling within a defined category of victims.

‘Victim’ is defined in s 30A of the Corrections Act 1986 to mean a person who has had a criminal act of violence committed against them; a family member of a person who has died as a result of having a criminal act of violence committed against them; a family member of a minor or a person incapable of managing his or her affairs due to mental impairment, who has had a criminal act of violence committed against them; and a person who is or was the spouse of a prisoner or offender who is subject to particular orders or applications for particular orders (for example, an extended supervision order under the Serious Sex Offenders Monitoring Act 2005) and has a family violence intervention order in relation to that prisoner or offender.

‘Criminal act of violence’ is defined to mean a specified list of offences, including sexual offences, stalking, kidnapping and other serious offences.

Persons other than ‘victims’ may be included on the victims register only if the secretary is satisfied that there is a history of family violence committed by the prisoner against that person; or the person has a substantial connection to the offence for which the prisoner is detained or subject to a certain order.

It is appropriate that persons on the victims register be notified of a relevant prisoner’s release on parole. They may need to make personal arrangements to ensure that they feel

safe following the prisoner’s release on parole, or to avoid inadvertent contact with the prisoner.

Provision of information to this category of persons cannot be viewed as arbitrary.

Further, under s 30A(3) of the act, information must not be given in circumstances where the secretary reasonably believes that security or safety may be at risk, and new clause 12 provides that the board may determine that the notice period should be waived in the circumstances. Such circumstances may include that the prisoner is terminally ill, or about to enter witness protection.

Finally, s 30H of the act provides that persons to whom information is disclosed under s 30A must treat that information in an appropriate manner that respects the confidential nature of the information, and s 30I provides that it is an offence to publish, or cause to be published, or solicit or obtain for the purpose of publication, such information.

In my view, clause 3 is therefore appropriately confined and subject to adequate safeguards, and is compatible with the right to privacy as protected by s 13(a) of the charter act.

The Hon. Kim Wells, MP Minister for Police and Emergency Services

Second reading

Mr WELLS (Minister for Police and Emergency Services) — I move:


The bill will amend the Corrections Act 1986 to implement the first tranche of legislative reforms arising from the measures identified in the Review of the Parole System in Victoria, undertaken by former High Court Judge Ian Callinan, AC.

The review was released on 20 August 2013 and identified 23 measures for improvement to Victoria’s adult parole system, and the government committed to swiftly implement a number of administrative and legislative changes recommended in the report.

Mr Callinan undertook the most comprehensive review of Victoria’s parole system in the decades-long history of that system. Failures had occurred in the parole system leading to tragic consequences. The details of these cases are well known to members of this house. The coalition government, and the Victorian people, rightly believe these tragedies to be unacceptable.

Mr Callinan found that the system had become too far skewed in favour of the offender and away from victims, their families, and the broader community. The coalition government agrees, and a long-term process of reform in the parole system continues with this bill.

Other measures identified in the Callinan review will require further detailed consideration to ensure their



most effective implementation. This work is being undertaken and a cabinet task force led by the Premier has been established to consider the complex legal changes required.

In summary, the bill will implement the legislative reforms identified for swift action by amending the act so as to:

enshrine in the act that safety and protection of the community is the paramount consideration in considering whether parole should be granted, varied, revoked, cancelled, or cancellation of parole revoked;

allow for the appointment of a full-time chairperson of the adult parole board;

introduce time limits for appointment to the board of not more than nine years in total;

ensure registered victims are given at least 14 days notice of a prisoner’s release on parole;

require the board to include in its annual report the number of persons convicted, during the reporting period of a serious offence committed while on parole.

The bill also provides that retired superior court judges and retired intermediate court judges from any Australian jurisdiction are eligible to be appointed as members.

The Governor in Council may appoint as deputy chairperson a member of the board who is eligible to be appointed chairperson, to exercise the functions and powers of the chairperson when the chairperson is unable to perform the duties of chairperson or is absent or the office is vacant.

Turning to the bill in greater detail:

Paramount consideration in parole decisions

In accordance with measure 7 of the report, the bill will amend the act to enshrine that safety and protection of the community is the paramount consideration in considering whether parole should be granted, varied, revoked, cancelled, or cancellation of parole revoked.

Chairperson and membership of the board.

In accordance with measure 9 of the report, the bill will allow for the appointment of a full-time chairperson to the board.

As a consequence, the bill will also broaden the class of persons eligible to be appointed members of the board to include sitting and retired Victorian Supreme and County Court judges, as well as retired superior court judges and retired intermediate court judges from the other Australian jurisdictions. One of these members is to be appointed chairperson.

Retired superior court judges includes retired judges of the supreme courts of the other states and territories, as well as retired High Court, Federal Court and Family Court judges.

Retired intermediate court judges means retired judges of the district courts of the other Australian jurisdictions.

Term of office

In accordance with measure 10 of the report, the bill will amend the act so that no member of the board is able to serve for more than nine years in total.

In order to provide an appropriate level of flexibility, the exception to this new rule will be that a person who is eligible to be appointed chairperson, who has previously been appointed to the board in any capacity, is to be eligible to be appointed as chairperson for an additional term or terms not exceeding three years in total. This exception will only apply where the person has not been appointed to the board in any capacity within the previous 12 months.

The current appointments to the board are not disturbed by these amendments and will be left to run their course.

Registered victims to be given 14 days notice of the release of a prisoner on parole

In accordance with measure 12 of the report, the bill will amend the act to ensure that registered victims are given at least 14 days notice of a prisoner’s release on parole.

In order to make allowance for unusual circumstances, there will be an exception.

This exception will be:

where (as is currently provided for in section 30A(3) of the act) the secretary reasonably believes the notice might endanger the security of any prison or the safe custody and welfare of the prisoner or any other prisoner or the safety or welfare of the offender or the safety or welfare of any other person; or

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RURAL CITY OF WANGARATTA) BILL 2013


the adult parole board determines that the notice period should be waived.

The reasons for either the secretary or the board determining not to give 14 days notice to a victim could include situations such as the prisoner entering witness protection immediately upon release or the prisoner being critically or terminally ill.

Board to report on further offending during parole period

In accordance with measure 21C of the report, the bill amends section 72 of the act to require the board to include in its annual report the number of persons convicted, during the reporting period, of a serious offence committed while on parole.

For the purposes of this reporting, ‘serious offence’ is to be a serious violent offence or a sexual offence as defined in section 77(9), which relates to the recently enacted automatic cancellation of parole provisions contained in the Justice Legislation Amendment (Cancellation of Parole and Other Matters) Act 2013.

Appointment of deputy chairperson

Recent experience, coupled with further changes to processes recommended by Mr Callinan in the report, has demonstrated the need for additional flexibility in appointing a person to exercise the functions and powers of the chairperson when the chairperson is on leave, is absent or is unable for some other reason to perform the duties of chairperson.

The current provisions, set out in section 62 of the act, provide for an acting arrangement to be put in place but only on a case-by-case basis. This means an acting arrangement can be put in place for a member for a specific or identified period of leave (or other absence), but a general acting arrangement in the event that the chairperson takes leave, is ill, is absent, or even if the office is vacant, cannot be put in place.

The bill provides for the appointment of a deputy chairperson, who can act as chairperson if the office is vacant or if the chairperson is unable to perform the duties of chairperson, or is absent.

The person who can be appointed deputy chairperson is a member who is eligible to be appointed chairperson.

Since coming to office, the government has undertaken extensive legislative and administrative reform of the adult parole system to address systemic failures that had recently come to light, but had been occurring for many years. This includes new laws providing for automatic

cancellation of parole on conviction of further violent or sexual offences, and making breach of parole an offence, punishable by imprisonment to be served on top of the offender’s original sentence.

Former High Court Judge Mr Ian Callinan’s review of the Victorian adult parole system identified further areas for reform.

This bill builds on the government’s existing reforms, and implements a number of the measures recommended by Mr Callinan and identified by the government for swift implementation.

The task of reforming the adult parole system does not end here. The coalition government is committed to ongoing reform to ensure the Victorian parole system reflects the important principle that public safety is the paramount consideration in deciding what happens to offenders in this state.

This is what the people of Victoria expect and, under the coalition government, through this bill, it is what they are going to get.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr WYNNE (Richmond).

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 3 October.



Mrs POWELL (Minister for Local Government) tabled following statement in accordance with Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Right and Resposibilities Act 2006 (charter act), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Local Government (City of Wangaratta) Bill 2013.

In my opinion, the Local Government (Rural City of Wangaratta) Bill 2013, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights protected by the charter act. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of bill

The purpose of the Local Government (Rural City of Wangaratta) Bill 2013 (the bill) is to provide for the dismissal of all councillors of the Wangaratta Rural City Council, and their replacement with administrators, until the next scheduled general municipal election in 2016.



The proposed bill implements recommendations of the inspector of municipal administration, Mr Peter Stephenson, who was appointed to monitor governance and conduct matters at the council following persistent reports of serious dysfunction within the council.

In brief, after four months observing at the council, Mr Stephenson found clear evidence of serious misconduct and failures of governance, impacting adversely on both council’s decision-making capacity and its working relationship with the chief executive officer and senior executive staff, all of whom subsequently resigned from their positions. Mr Stephenson also noted a range of investigations and proceedings relating to alleged breaches of the Local Government Act 1989, and occupational health and safety legislation, as well as the escalating costs of defending these. He concluded that council had demonstrated an ongoing inability to provide good government, and should be removed.

Human rights issues

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

The proposed bill engages one of the human rights provided for in the charter act, as follows:

Section 18: taking part in public life

Section 18 establishes a right for an individual to, without discrimination, participate in the conduct of public affairs, to vote and be elected at state and municipal elections, and to have access to the Victorian public service and public office.

Clause 5 of the bill clearly engages and purports to restrict the right under section 18 of the charter. However, the limitation appears to be reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under section 7(2) of the charter act, which is discussed below:

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

(a) the nature of the right being limited

The right to participate in public affairs is a broad concept, which embraces the exercise of governmental power by all arms of government at all levels. The right to be elected ensures that eligible voters have a free choice of candidates in an election, and as with the right to vote, the right to occupy public office is not conferred on all Victorians; it is limited to eligible persons where the criteria and processes for appointment, promotion, suspension and dismissal are objective, reasonable and non-discriminatory.

(b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation

The purpose of the limitation is to enable the restoration of good government to the Rural City of Wangaratta. Despite the inspector providing intensive support and advice to the council over the past four months, he has reported a profound failure to acknowledge and seriously address entrenched dysfunctional conduct and governance practices.

The serious nature of Mr Stephenson’s findings and the loss of confidence in council by the local community as a result, clearly warrant removal of the council as soon as possible. This action ensures and recognises the right of electors to be represented with probity, integrity and accountability, and in

the interests of the community rather than competing sectional or personal interests.

Removal of an elected council is a last resort, and undertaken only in exceptional circumstances. It is regrettable that this is one of those very rare cases, but the government has a responsibility to protect communities from misgovernance by their local representatives.

(c) the nature and extent of the limitation

Clauses 5, 6 and 10 purport to limit section 18 of the charter act by dismissing the Wangaratta Rural City Council, and providing for the appointment of an administrator or panel of administrators to constitute the council for a period until the council’s next scheduled general election in October 2016.

(d) the relationship between the limitation and its purpose

There is a direct relationship between the limitation and the purpose of ensuring that elected councillors properly undertake the duties of their office.

(e) any less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve its purpose

The Local Government Act provides a less restrictive and more immediate measure, namely suspension pursuant to section 219(1) of the act.

However, section 219 is not appropriate in this case because it provides for suspension for a maximum period of 12 months, and for the appointment of only a single administrator, indicating the provision is intended for circumstances in which a short interruption to elected representation will be sufficient to overcome the failures identified; and in which a single person will be able to govern in the council’s stead for the limited period of the suspension.

However, as Mr Stephenson’s reports clearly demonstrate, the council is fundamentally dysfunctional, and characterised by the continuation of entrenched failures. It is considered that the serious deficiencies at Wangaratta will require a significantly longer period than 12 months so that good government can be restored, and the confidence of the local community can be rebuilt. Further, the appointment of a panel of administrators rather than one individual would provide a structure suited to undertake the extensive necessary reforms.

(f) any other relevant factors

There are no other relevant factors.

Conclusion

I consider that the bill is compatible with the charter act because, although it does limit one human right, the limitation is reasonable and proportionate. The limitation strikes the correct balance by providing persons the right to take part in public life and ensuring councillors perform to appropriate standards of probity, integrity and in the public interest.

Jeanette Powell, MP Minister for Local Government



Second reading

Mrs POWELL (Minister for Local Government) — I move:


This bill will dismiss the Wangaratta Rural City Council in response to the advice of Mr Bill Scales, AO, who has reviewed the recommendations made by the inspector of municipal administration, Mr Peter Stephenson, and other advice and information.

Following elections in 2012, there emerged multiple and persistent reports of serious problems at the council relating to both councillor conduct and governance. As a result, on 8 May 2013, I appointed Mr Stephenson to monitor the council in relation to these and related matters.

Mr Stephenson conducted extensive monitoring and examination over the following four months, reporting his findings periodically to me. He recommended in his August 2013 report that the government consider suspending and/or dismissing the councillors of the Rural City of Wangaratta and appointing an administrator or administrators until the next municipal general election scheduled for the fourth Saturday in October 2016.

In his report, Mr Stephenson expressed the strong view that there had been a profound breakdown of both governance and the relationship between councillors and the CEO and executive management. This was compounded by the inability of the majority of councillors to recognise and address the cause, which lay in individuals’ profoundly dysfunctional and damaging behaviours. Many of these behaviours have been described in detail in the determination of a councillor conduct panel, which made a finding of misconduct and noted a culture of persistently poor behaviour resulting in significant harms.

There is also concerning evidence of bloc voting by a group of councillors following caucusing prior to meetings, without reference to the requirement that all decisions are made impartially, without predetermination and in the best interests of the community.

The Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate has had cause to investigate multiple complaints relating to councillors, some of which are ongoing. It has referred a large number of breaches of the councillor code of conduct, which are themselves breaches of the Local Government Act 1989, back to the council to be dealt with. The inspectorate has

independently concluded that the governance and conduct problems within the current council are unable to be resolved.

Both the inspectorate and Mr Stephenson noted that these failures have imposed on Wangaratta high and escalating costs — not only financial, but also personal in terms of staff health and safety, and individuals’ capacity to function effectively in their professional roles. Furthermore, the damage has extended to the reputation of the council, and of local government more generally.

In addition to these reports and tribunal decisions, the government has sought independent advice from Mr Bill Scales, AO, who has longstanding and highly regarded experience in the local government sector. Mr Scales has examined the reports of Mr Stephenson, the advice received from the inspectorate and the councillor conduct panel decision, and has interviewed a number of people with firsthand experience of the issues raised. It is the opinion of Mr Scales that the dysfunction evident at Wangaratta requires the government to intervene to dismiss the council as soon as can practically be achieved.

The government has accepted this advice.

In summary, there has been a profound and systemic failure by the council to provide acceptable standards of government to the municipality of Wangaratta.

In order to restore good government, the bill will replace the council with an administrator or panel of administrators. It is hard to overstate the scale of the task, which will require reforming governance, financial management and occupational health and safety, rebuilding relationships with staff at all levels, and restoring community confidence.

Accordingly, the bill will dismiss the council and provide for its replacement with an administrator or panel of administrators to be appointed by the Governor in Council, to act as the council in every respect for the period until the next municipal elections, scheduled in October 2016. The costs of the administration will be met by the council.

The decision to propose this legislation has been a difficult one. The removal of an elected council is a last resort, exercised only in the most exceptional cases where no appropriate alternative will suffice. Wangaratta Rural City Council is such a case.

The removal of elected councillors is also a limitation of their right to participate in public life. This right is not absolute, and the government is confident that in the



present case the limitation on that right is reasonable. These matters are fully addressed in the statement of compatibility.

Finally, the behaviour of the Wangaratta Rural City Council is not regarded as representative of the local government sector in Victoria. The government is confident that most councils govern properly and effectively in the interests of their communities. Local government is the level of government closest to the people and the services they provide are essential to the lives of all Victorians. The community and the Parliament expect the highest standards of governance, probity and representation from their councillors and council staff. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr WYNNE (Richmond) — I rise to make a contribution on the Local Government (Rural City of Wangaratta) Bill 2013. I commence by indicating to the house that I asked the Minister for Local Government, both formally and informally, to bring this bill on for debate. I had some useful discussion with the Leader of the House as to the appetite of the government to bring this bill on, but I think it is clear that the government has decided, for a range of reasons, that once I have made my contribution today it will use its numbers to close down debate on this bill. That is a sad indictment of this government and of the minister at the table, the Minister for Local Government. I indicated to the minister in the spirit of goodwill that we were prepared to facilitate this bill and its passage through the Parliament — and the minister acknowledges that — because ultimately what this bill is about is that the minister has failed in her duty. She has failed in her duty as a minister — —

Dr Sykes — Brimbank!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The member for Richmond to continue.

Mr WYNNE — And she has failed the ratepayers of the Rural City of Wangaratta. I note that the member for Benalla says, by interjection, ‘Well, what about Brimbank?’. I will tell you a little bit about Brimbank. As the minister rightly said in her second-reading speech, you do not make the decision to sack a council easily, but the Brimbank City Council needed to be sacked and Wangaratta Rural City Council needs to be sacked. The former government brought in legislation in relation to Brimbank on 13 October 2009. We introduced and second read the bill on the same day and we debated it the next day. Why will the minister not debate this bill and get this sorry saga sorted out today? We should vote on this bill and draw a line in relation to Wangaratta Rural City Council, because all of the

material that is available to us suggests that what has occurred at Wangaratta is a very sorry tale. The Wangaratta Rural City Council has been in governance for less than 12 months, but the independent reports on the goings-on of this council, virtually since it was elected, make you wonder why the minister did not act earlier. But I will come back to that.

From virtually the first few weeks of the inauguration of this new council last year problems started to arise. The first of those was the decision — I think a reluctant one — by a very promising young woman councillor, Lisa McInerney, not to continue in that role for reasons of bullying and inappropriate behaviour by councillor colleagues. What sort of message does that send to local government across this state? It was incumbent upon the Parliament and indeed the minister of the day to act, even at that very early stage, in relation to a very promising young woman councillor. The minister knows and I know how difficult it is to attract women councillors to serve in local government, which is disproportionately balanced in favour of men. What sort of message did that send to the ratepayers of Wangaratta? More importantly, what message did it send to the local government sector generally about the view we take regarding the representation of women in local government? This young, promising councillor sought to put herself forward for public life and within a very few months she said, ‘I can’t deal with this bullying and inappropriate culture inherent in the Wangaratta Rural City Council and I have to resign’. What a failure, and what a message — —

Honourable members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ryall) — Order!

Mr WYNNE — Acting Speaker, I suggest that you counsel the member for Benalla over his completely inappropriate commentary and ask him to get a grip on himself. This is a serious matter. We are talking about a democratically elected council being dismissed by this government. I know this is not an easy decision to make. When I was the minister I had to make it, and this minister has had to make it. We ought to treat these sorts of decisions with the respect that they deserve. I ask the member for Benalla to desist from his ridiculous commentary.

There was continuing commentary over an extended period from the local media in Wangaratta and in representations made to the opposition on behaviour at the Wangaratta Rural City Council. The behaviour included bullying, intimidation, inappropriate behaviour and suggestions of inappropriate actions by senior council staff in relation to alleged involvement in



the procurement process relating to a major council project.

These are matters that have been canvassed in the report by Mr Peter Stephenson, the inspector of municipal administration, dated 20 August 2013. It is in that context that I note we have all been well aware of these issues. There have been serious concerns raised about the Rural City of Wangaratta and these have been covered in the local media. I give the minister credit for responding to that and taking an appropriate course of action that was available to her.

In the first instance, under the Local Government Act 1989 it is appropriate that the minister of the day put in place a monitoring regime to see if a council can right itself, get itself back on track, to ensure good governance of the municipality. I have no complaint about the action the minister took initially in putting in place structures to at least attempt to get the council back on track. However, that clearly failed and failed systemically over a period of time. I will come back to why I think the minister did not choose to act earlier in relation to this council.

I want now to go specifically to a number of issues that have been raised in this damning report of the inspector of municipal administration. Mr Stephenson is a highly regarded person across local government generally and has provided a very fair response to the circumstances at the Rural City of Wangaratta. I refer specifically to the report that was tabled today. I thank the minister for tabling the reports. It is important that we have a transparent process underpinning why these decisions are made.

In what is basically a summary of the situation by the municipal inspector, the report states:

In my view, the elected council has failed — and continues to fail — to provide good governance.

That is the fundamental test that underpins the Local Government Act and fundamentally underpins the responsibility that you have as minister to ensure good governance at the Rural City of Wangaratta and good governance more generally in local government. The report goes on:

This is primarily due to a serious breakdown in working relationships between councillors and between councillors and the administration; and an incapacity and unwillingness by councillors to accept that their collective behaviour needs to change. The conduct of a number of councillors is characterised by hostility and acrimonious behaviour; the denigration of staff and colleagues; and a lack of mutual respect and goodwill. The level of acrimony is such that the CEO and each member of the corporate management team … have been or are currently on leave for work-related

conditions; one councillor who is alleged to be the victim of bullying behaviour by another councillor and is the subject of an accepted WorkCover claim has resigned her position —

that is obviously former councillor Lisa McInerney —

and the executive assistant to the CEO has also resigned after several periods of leave due to an accepted WorkCover claim.

What have we got here? We have a young, promising female councillor who had had enough within three or four months and who has a WorkCover claim afoot against the council. At the time of the writing of this report we had the CEO and senior managers on sick leave. They are not on sick leave anymore; they are up and off — they have gone. I have been around local government for a while and I cannot think of another circumstance where I have seen not only councillors resign but the CEO and the full management team of a council leave the council. They have had enough; they have gone. We had the CEO on sick leave for weeks and weeks prior to his decision to leave the council, and all of his senior management team have gone. They have had enough of this. But Minister, despite all of that — and that happened some weeks ago, as you know — you sat there and you did not — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ryall) — Order! The member should direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr WYNNE — The minister sat there and did not act. Again, we will come back to that. We will come back to what motivated the minister in this circumstance not to act. A councillor resigns, there is bullying behaviour, the CEO resigns, all the senior management team members resign and the government and the minister of the day sit there and do nothing. The report goes on:

Legal advice provided to the council suggested they adopt a series of resolutions which were designed to improve workplace safety.

That is the most serious allegation — that workplace safety was affected. There had been allegations about bullying and workplace safety, two cases of which have been substantiated by WorkCover and are currently afoot. On the response from the council, Mr Stephenson reported:

To date, the council has refused to both accept and act on that advice.

For goodness sake! What more do you need to do? You have got WorkCover in there, you have got substantiated cases in there, but up to that date — 20 August — the council was refusing to act. What an



extraordinary situation! And on we go. Mr Stephenson wrote, basically in summary of his findings:

The council has been given ample advice, time and opportunity to rectify its deficiencies. A break in electoral representation will send a clear message that a continuing and serious failure to provide good governance is unacceptable. It should also initiate positive change towards restoring responsible elected representation to the city.

Accordingly, I recommend that you consider suspending and/or dismissing the councillors of the Rural City of Wangaratta Council and appointing an administrator or administrators until the next general election of councillors scheduled for the fourth Saturday in October 2016.

That report went to you, Minister, on 20 August, and there are so many aspects of this report which by any measure could only lead you to one conclusion — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ryall) — Order! Through the Chair!

Mr WYNNE — There is only one conclusion you could reach from this damning report: that the minister needed to act and needed to act decisively weeks ago to restore good governance, which is a fundamental underpinning of the Local Government Act, to the Rural City of Wangaratta and to send a message to local government more generally but particularly to the ratepayers of the rural city of Wangaratta. She failed to do so.

We go on to get a further review, which was undertaken by Mr Bill Scales, AO. As the minister indicated in her second-reading speech, Mr Scales is a person of substantial standing not only in public administration but also in the community more generally. I simply make no further comment on Mr Scales other than to say that he is a very wise choice of person to review the circumstances at the Rural City of Wangaratta. His report is dated 17 December. I would simply put to you, Minister, that I would have thought — —


Mr WYNNE — I would simply state that, given the overwhelming evidence that was given to the minister by Mr Stephenson, the report by Mr Scales was, in our view, unnecessary. Nonetheless, let us go to Mr Scales’s report. He indicates as follows:

Based on reviewing these reports —

that were undertaken into the Rural City of Wangaratta —

and interviewing their authors, I have come to the conclusion that there are compelling reasons why the government should dismiss the Wangaratta Rural City Council as soon as this can practically be achieved.

This is because the reports and the interviews, when taken as a whole make the compelling case that —

and I will summarise —

the WRCC is so dysfunctional as to make the efficient and effective operation and management of the Rural City of Wangaratta (RCoW) unachievable under the existing council;

while it can be reasonably argued that the RCoW requires some level of restructuring and reform, the current WRCC is not capable of being able to sensibly and constructively implement such a process;

the current council has been instrumental in the decisions by the senior management team of the council to resign.

I think the minister would agree with me that a CEO, by any measure, is a person of substantial standing in the local government sector. It is my view, and I think generally the view of people across the local government sector, that the former CEO — I choose not to name him; we all know who he is — is a quality person who, I submit, has essentially been hounded out of the place. He had been on sick leave for months, and his senior management team has gone with him, saying, ‘We’ve had enough of this. This toxic culture is too much. You have people on WorkCover claims, and this is just utterly unacceptable’. The report continues:

the past actions of the current council indicate that it is unlikely that it would be able and prepared to work with a management team other than one which was described by one interviewee as ‘compliant and obedient’.

Heavens above — compliant and obedient! In this report we really have a light shined forensically upon the culture of the elected representatives at that council — if you are not compliant and obedient, you are out. No wonder the CEO and the senior management team said, ‘We’ve had enough of this. This is just ridiculous’.

Frankly it is an extraordinary overreach and a complete misunderstanding by these elected representatives of what their role is as elected representatives in local government. Their role is not about, as alleged in this report, intervening in planning matters or procurement matters — and those matters will presumably be subject to further investigation, because I understand that a couple of those matters have been referred to the IBAC for further consideration, as the report indicates. These elected representatives have completely misunderstood their role. Their role was to shape broad policy and the direction of the council. What an extraordinary proposition to suggest that they were only interested in



a senior management team which was ‘compliant and obedient’. That just tells you everything; it speaks volumes about what has been going on at that council. The report goes on:

the current council does not understand — —


The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ryall) — Order! The member for Richmond has the call.

Mr WYNNE — Thank you, Acting Speaker. The report goes on:

the current council does not understand the financial and reputational damage it is imposing on the Wangaratta community by its dysfunctional behaviour. For example, the current cost of disputation within the council is conservatively estimated to be in excess of $1.6 million, with this estimate likely to increase. This has been estimated to be equivalent to around 4 per cent of the council’s rate revenue …

The report — from no more eminent person than Mr Scales himself — goes on:

councillors of the WRCC have by their behaviour adversely affected the health and safety of staff of the RCoW.

It is a shameful statement that we have a number of council employees already on WorkCover claims. The CEO and his senior management team said, ‘We’ve had enough of this. We’re out of here. No more — can’t cope with this anymore’. Prior to that the CEO was on extended leave. Prior to that a number of senior managers were on extended leave. Minister, you sat there — —


Mr WYNNE — Sorry, Acting Speaker. The minister sat there and let it go on. Mr Scales’s report goes on:

the councillors at the WRCC are placing the ongoing health and safety of an increasing number of staff of the RCoW at risk. For example, the acting CEO has felt compelled to maintain an existing ban on staff meeting with councillors —

an existing ban on staff meeting with councillors —

other than the acting senior management team, because of his concern about the health and safety of staff if they were required to do so.

Goodness gracious! What is going on at this council? The report goes on:

the WRCC has been given significant support, advice and resources to assist it to address its dysfunctional behaviour,

but none of the support or the advice provided has had any effect on its behaviour.

Minister, this is directly sheeted home to your interventions. I gave you credit earlier — —


Mr WYNNE — I gave the minister credit earlier that she sought to intervene earlier to try to sort this mess out, but it was very clear from early on that this council simply snubbed its nose at the minister and said, ‘We don’t care whatever you put in place. We’re just going to go merrily on’. Mr Scales’s report continues:

one councillor in particular — —

Ms Allan — Who is that?

Mr WYNNE — Not named, interestingly enough. It continues:

one councillor in particular has shown no ability or willingness to understand the level of dysfunction within the council — —

An honourable member — Sounds like the ALP.

Mr WYNNE — Government members think this is funny.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ryall) — Order! The member for Richmond will not respond to interjections. He has the call; he should continue.

Mr WYNNE — Perhaps you could control that side of the house, Acting Speaker. The report continues:

… within the council, its effect on the community, nor his central and ongoing role in creating this level of dysfunction within the council.

It goes on:

a majority of the council is either unwilling or unable to discipline this particular councillor so as to allow the council to operate effectively and efficiently.

By any measure this is a damning report from Mr Stephenson, further supported by a review of reports and documents by Mr Scales. Both of these documents have been tabled in the Parliament.

Ms Beattie — It’s a rotten borough.

Mr WYNNE — Indeed. My colleague says, ‘It’s a rotten borough’. You have to say by any measure this is a systemic failure of — —




The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ryall) — Order! There are interjections from both sides. I ask all members to desist.

Mr WYNNE — This is a systemic failure of governance by the Rural City of Wangaratta and a damning indictment of that council. I submit that it is an indictment of this minister that she failed to act earlier to rectify this situation. You have to ask one fundamental question. The minister, by her own admission, received a number of updated reports, as is appropriate, from her inspector from the time of his appointment until he delivered his final damning report on 20 August. I believe that to be an accurate statement. You received that report on 20 August.

Mrs Powell — Nearly a month ago.

Mr WYNNE — A month ago. You received that report a month ago.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ryall) — Order! The member should speak through the Chair.

Mr WYNNE — The minister received that report a month ago. The very simple question is this: Minister, why did you not — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ryall) — Order! The member for Richmond has been asked on numerous occasions to address his comments through the Chair. I ask him to continue.

Mr WYNNE — Why did the minister not act upon this damning report by Mr Stephenson a month ago? What would have been going on at that time that may have influenced the minister to sit on this report — —

Dr Sykes — On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I believe the member for Richmond has been misleading the house and has been conducting himself inappropriately.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ryall) — Order! That is not a point of order. The member for Richmond to continue.

Mr WYNNE — There was only one motivation for the minister for not releasing this report earlier and for not acting upon it, and that was the federal election and the shenanigans that have gone on in the federal seat of Indi. The Minister for local Government has failed in her duty as a minister.

Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — The contribution from the member for Richmond on this bill, and

particularly his last comments, has confirmed just how out of touch he is both with events in the rural city of Wangaratta and with appropriate practice as well. The fact is the member for Richmond has forgone the opportunity he had to have the bill adjourned for two weeks to get across the detail. That was his choice. If he wishes to debate the bill now, the government is very happy to debate it now. We would never seek to close down debate. We are very keen to have that debate. We are very happy to proceed, but if you review the member’s contribution, Acting Speaker, you will see that rather than really entering into debate, apart from slinging a little bit of mud, most of his contribution was in fact extensive quotes of the words of others. Perhaps he may have done better to seek an adjournment, get across the facts and make his usual considered contribution.

Mr Wynne — On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government needs to be accurate in his contribution. I have simply quoted from the minister’s own inspectorate report; this is not something I made up.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ryall) — Order! That is not a point of order. The member for Richmond will resume his seat.

Mr MORRIS — It has now been 24 hours since we had the first reading of the bill, and that has perhaps given the member the opportunity to acquaint himself with a little bit of what has been going on for some time. However, I was interested to read his media release from yesterday, 18 September. The very first line reads:

The failure … to act earlier on the issues at the Regional City of Wangaratta …

He could not even get the title right — that is how across the detail he is on this issue.

Two weeks ago the member for Richmond was interviewed on this matter on ABC radio. He made two suggestions. He said that the Minister for Local Government should either appoint a monitor or sack the council. The monitor was in fact appointed on 8 May, some three months before that comment was made, so the member for Richmond is right up to speed on that detail. It would appear that, despite previous events, the member was unaware that sacking the council is not a call the minister can make; it is a call the Parliament makes, and that is exactly what we are doing now.

Clearly the member is also suffering from amnesia. Anyone who was in the last Parliament, and most people who were outside well remember the events at



Brimbank City Council. That community endured years of problems, years of dysfunction, years of alleged corruption and years of failure to govern.

Mr Wynne — On a point of order, Acting Speaker, whilst this has been a fairly vigorous debate, I do suggest you bring the member back to the bill at hand, which in fact relates to the Rural City of Wangaratta and no other municipality — not to Brimbank or anywhere else, but to the Rural City of Wangaratta. I ask you to bring the member back to this bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ryall) — Order! I do not uphold the point of order because of the wide-ranging nature of the debate, as established in previous contributions, as the member mentioned.

Mr MORRIS — The former Minister for Local Government, the member for Richmond, was suggesting that action on the Rural City of Wangaratta could have been a little quicker. I remind the house that the former Minister for Local Government only acted on Brimbank following the receipt of an Ombudsman’s report — —

Ms Allan — On a point of order, Acting Speaker, it is very clear that this bill is quite narrowly confined to issues around the Rural City of Wangaratta. Whilst I agree that the debate has been vigorous — and I welcome vigorous debate, because this is a very important issue about good governance in the Rural City of Wangaratta and across local government — I think the majority of the member’s contribution to the debate so far has been on a completely different council. That is not at all relevant to the bill, and we ask you to do your duty and bring him back to debating the substance of the bill.

Mr MORRIS — On the point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Richmond made it very clear that he felt that in this case the government had not acted as expeditiously as possible. I think it is entirely legitimate to point to history and make it clear that this government has acted as quickly as possible.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ryall) — Order! I do not uphold the point of order. The reason is that a context was being given in relation to an issue that was raised in the member for Richmond’s contribution, and from that perspective the member for Mornington’s contribution is relevant.

Mr Wynne — On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I do not want to cut short the member’s time but, with respect, the matter I raised in relation to Brimbank was the capacity of the government at that time to bring on the debate in relation to Brimbank City Council — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ryall) — Order! What is your point of order?

Mr Wynne — I am responding to the point of order — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ryall) — Order! No, I ruled on that point of order. You raised a further point of order.

Mr Wynne — I will let it go.

Mr MORRIS — History tells us that that Ombudsman’s report was not requested by the then government; that Ombudsman’s report was requested by the now Minister for Local Government, and it was only on receipt of that report that the former minister acted. To come into this house and talk about a perceived lack of speed is absolute nonsense and fails to entirely recognise the record of the former government. In fact Mr Bill Scales was appointed as a probity auditor to the Rural City of Wangaratta in January 2013. That was within weeks of the first complaints emerging from Wangaratta Rural City Council. In March of this year the minister requested that the council review and adopt a councillor code of conduct hearing. A preliminary hearing was held that month.

Mr MORRIS — A workshop was held in April, again at the initiative of the government. In April a letter of advice was provided. Of the 23 allegations of bullying by staff, 21 were found to be proved, and at that point the minister — —

Mr Wynne — Why didn’t you act?

Mr MORRIS — In fact the minister did act, and that is the point the member for Richmond was not aware of, apparently, until yesterday. The minister then immediately appointed an inspector — not three months later, not at the suggestion of the member for Richmond, but at the time, immediately, as soon as those facts became known. A series of further events have occurred since, including the handing down of the findings of the councillor conduct panel. Coming to the point of the timing, the municipal inspector provided a report to the minister on 20 August, less than one month ago. The member for Richmond would perhaps suggest that the minister should react in a knee-jerk way and completely deny due process. That might be the way Labor Party works, but it is not the way this government works.

The fact is that Mr Scales, who is known to the member for Richmond as a result of his previous work, was asked to examine not only the report of the inspector



but also that of the inspectorate and the decision of the councillor conduct panel. He interviewed people and dealt with those facts, and he reported to the government on Tuesday. On Wednesday, the very next day, at the very next opportunity, a bill was read a first time in this place. The day after — today — we are here debating the bill. I do not believe any government has acted more expeditiously in these matters than this government. This is not a joyous occasion. No-one takes any pleasure in having to support a bill to sack a council. In this case it is very necessary, and the government has acted expeditiously.

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East) — We look forward to hearing the contributions of the members for Ivanhoe and Murray Valley. Can I say from the outset that the only reason Parliament is debating this bill right know is that the member for Richmond brought on the debate on this important matter immediately. The Napthine government was seeking to have this issue pushed off for another four weeks, but the member for Richmond took action to make sure that this matter would come before the Parliament immediately.

Why is this important? I know there has been a lot of brouhaha from the members of The Nationals, who represent this community, and I will come to that in a moment. The reason we are very deeply concerned about both the substance of this bill and the broader issues around the Rural City of Wangaratta is that they go to the issue of good governance in local government across the state and particularly in regional Victoria.

During my time as both Minister for Regional and Rural Development and a shadow minister, I have worked very closely with the council and the management of the Rural City of Wangaratta. The people I have worked with over that time have been good people. I would particularly like to recognise the work of Doug Sharp, the long-serving CEO. He led a good team. He led a good council. He had good projects on the go for Wangaratta.

Can I say that in the context of the 10 regional cities that sit across the state of Victoria, you could probably argue that Wangaratta was in there punching above its weight. It was one of the smaller councils in terms of its size and economic base, but it was up there in terms of pushing its case with government. It was getting projects through that were helping to progress the city, such as the Wangaratta Performing Arts Centre, the Wangaratta Showgrounds project and the Wangaratta Technical Education Centre. Part of the reason that these projects were getting up was not just the good advocacy of the former member for Murray Valley, Ken Jasper, who was a tireless and passionate advocate

for his community; it was also because the Rural City of Wangaratta was in there with its leadership team working with the local community. It was working in partnership in recognising that it needed to be presenting a responsible, strong leadership position in terms of what other levels of government needed to see and hear.

I have been disappointed for members of the Wangaratta community to see that over the past 12 months the work that had been built up for a decade or more by good men like Doug Sharp and by good people like some of the councillors who have been on that council over a period of time, such as Don Joyce, was being torn down by a corrosive, negative and partisan group of people who are out only to seek and destroy.

What is absolutely shameful is that this minister, this local member and this Premier did not step in and take action early enough. This issue has been brewing for months and months. The local newspapers have been pleading with the Napthine government to do something. The local community has been pleading with the Napthine government to do something about this. Councils around Victoria have raised this issue with me, as has the member for Richmond in his capacity as shadow Minister for Local Government, countless times.

Members of the regional cities group that I talk to regularly are deeply concerned not only about issues associated with the failure of governance at the Rural City of Wangaratta, but also more broadly about what it means for governance across regional and rural Victoria. For regional communities like Wangaratta to go ahead, we need everyone pulling together.

Mr Morris — On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this bill is clearly about the Rural City of Wangaratta. It is not about other regional cities; it is not about the rest of Victoria. I ask you to get the member to return to debating the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ryall) — Order! I do not uphold the point of order.

Ms ALLAN — I think it is important to make this point because although metropolitan members might not understand it, regional members certainly do. For regional centres to capture the intention of government, to capture the opportunities that might come their way, to make sure that they are creating jobs and building infrastructure, they need their local councils to be working in step with them and the government. They need their local councils to be good, strong, consistent



advocates. They need their local councils to be respected by governments and members of Parliament at all levels. Unfortunately over the last period of time we have seen the work that was built up for such a long period of time in the Rural City of Wangaratta being torn down. It has been very disappointing and difficult to watch that happen. We have all seen it coming. It has been the train wreck happening before our very eyes. It is disappointing that the Napthine government and the minister had not acted sooner because now we have a situation now where a monstrous payout has been made.

Mr Wynne — $1.6 million!

Ms ALLAN — Around $1.6 million has been paid out. It is not just the dollar value that is having an impact on the Rural City of Wangaratta. The corporate knowledge that has been built up by that group of people over a long period of time and the expertise and trust that they had with key partners at state and federal level have now been lost to the Rural City of Wangaratta. It will take the Rural City of Wangaratta a long time to recover from this financially and also to recover in terms of building up that expertise. You do not build good councils like this overnight. It takes hard work by a good group of people. That is what we have seen destroyed in the Rural City of Wangaratta, in part because of the actions of one councillor in particular, but also because the issues were not addressed early enough.

The issues should have been addressed so much earlier. As I said, people across regional Victoria, not just within the Rural City of Wangaratta, have been looking with grave concern at what has been happening in that community and have expressed concern about the failure of the Napthine Liberal-Nationals government to respond. This has happened in what should be the government’s backyard, the home turf if you like of the Liberal-Nationals parties — although this week we have seen that home turf invaded by an Independent who has won a federal seat, and good luck to her! It shows once again that when it comes to standing up for regional communities, The Nationals will put the interests of their Liberal mates first before they will stand up for their local communities, and that is what has happened in this instance.

The report by the inspector of municipal administration, Peter Stephenson, has been with the minister for just on a month. The bill was introduced this week, after the federal election, the day the result of Indi was declared, and even in that set of circumstances, in spite of all that, the minister did not want the debate this week. She was quite happy to have it pushed off for another three or

four weeks when the house will resume, which in turn means it will be delayed even further.

The Labor opposition has taken this action to bring the debate on now, to bring this stage of this very disappointing and sorry saga in Wangaratta to an end so that the community and the council can start the rebuilding process, so that they can move forward with some certainty and stability and so that they can work to restore the trust of the community and governments at all levels. That is why we have brought on this debate, make no bones about it, and that is why we are doing this today.

Mr McCURDY (Murray Valley) — I am delighted to rise to make a contribution to debate on the Local Government (Rural City of Wangaratta) Bill 2013, but can I say from the outset that the members for Richmond and Bendigo East have made absolutely disgraceful contributions. They had an understanding about one thing and one thing only, that it was a damning report, and there is no doubt about that. For the members to now try to take credit for pushing this bill through the house is an absolute disgrace. Clearly you are confused about the process that we have been going through — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ryall) — Order! The member will speak through the Chair.

Mr McCURDY — This government does not make policy on the run, which is what Labor has a history of doing. Labor has an attitude that you shoot first and ask questions later. It would have sacked councillors years ago, or whenever there was the first sign of things not going right. It does not understand that this is a democratically elected local government and that the introduction of this bill is a last resort. Had we done this two, three or four months ago, those members opposite would be carping and whining, and saying, ‘You did not give them a chance. You should have given them an opportunity to do it’.

I put some facts on the record. The final report from Bill Scales was delivered to the minister on 17 September — two days ago. Those on the other side are trying to say that we did not act soon enough, or that we were not quick enough with our actions. I have a list of the time lines in the process that we have gone through, and I will get to that a little later. We have certainly had enough of the member for Richmond. This is the second time in two sitting weeks that he has sat in his ivory tower in Richmond and pretended to know what is going on in regional Victoria, and in this case Wangaratta. Clearly the member does not know.



Labor is very good at making promises but delivering very little.

When we talk about Brimbank, the opposition members come out in a rash. When they were in government they did not have the guts to deal with the Brimbank issue. It took the then shadow Minister for Local Government to go to the Ombudsman to bring about the changes at Brimbank. From the silence on the other side I can only assume that the members of the previous government did not have the guts to do that.

What has been lost in this debate and in the drivel that has been coming from members on the other side is that the community of Wangaratta is an absolutely outstanding community. I have my office in Wangaratta, and I work among members of its community every day. They are part of that very proud and passionate community. That community certainly forms the heartland of the Murray Valley electorate. I know that is so because I am in Wangaratta all the time, I talk to the people and I understand what is going on.

Immediately following the council election in October 2012, one could see that there were changes coming. The community wanted a change, and its members certainly made that in a big way. They removed a lot of the sitting councillors and brought in some new ones. Hostilities arose from that situation. Just because people do not get along is not a reason to sack a council. Just because people cannot see eye to eye is not a reason to say, ‘Let’s change all this; let’s make some broadbrush changes’. We are talking about a democratically elected local government. Just because there are personality clashes is no reason to make sweeping changes. In January the government could see that there were some bullying issues, and the minister started to take some action because of those.

The three vital components of the community of the Rural City of Wangaratta are the councillors — those in question today — the staff and the community, which is what I need to focus on. Clearly members of the community did not get what they thought they were signing up for. They elected a new council because they wanted a change, but they did not know that it was going to be the dysfunctional council that it turned out to be. It has certainly changed things, and amazingly so. What the community got was bullying, infighting and a lack of governance. There is the key to it: when we get this lack of governance and the council is not functioning properly, it is time to start taking some further steps.

Way back in February, March and April I had people saying to me, ‘This council is not performing as it

should’. I said, ‘Look, I’ve been a councillor myself in Moira shire. I understand that not everybody on council gets along with everybody else’. When there are issues, we have to make sure that we deal with them and that we give the people involved the opportunity to do so. Obviously the infighting and bullying at Wangaratta went to another level and the minister started to take action.

An honourable member interjected.

Mr McCURDY — No, it is not too late. Had the government acted any sooner, due process would not have been followed. Members on the other side do not understand what due process is. They think they can change things overnight. They go off half-cocked; they shoot first and ask questions later and then they wait for someone else to clean up the mess. We have seen that happen in respect of so many of their projects. As I said, members are talking about a democratically elected local government. This is not about just a couple of people who are not getting along and the government deciding that it will throw them out.

The community, the staff and the councillors obviously needed some assistance, and that is what the minister has provided. That began in January with the appointment of Bill Scales as a probity auditor to oversee the investigation of Cr Fidge’s allegations on certain issues. Even prior to that, in December, issues were starting to brew. I have a time line that I would love to go through, but I am not sure that time will permit me to do so. In March the minister requested that the council review and adopt a new councillor code of conduct because clearly the councillors were not accepting the code of conduct that they had. She considered that if they took ownership of a new councillor code of conduct, they might actually get on.

At all times the minister has given this council ample opportunity to make sure that good governance could be seen to be being undertaken, but now we can see that it has not got to that stage, and that makes this a sad day. It is a sad day when a democratically elected council has to go; however, the community is screaming for that now, and I have no doubt about that. Yesterday I received a lot of emails, texts and phone calls because people are very pleased. They are not pleased that the council is being dismissed; they are pleased that some action is being taken, because members of the community understand that the problem could not be fixed.

I want to through just a couple of dot points in the report of Bill Scales so that we have them on the record. Referring to the Wangaratta Rural City Council, the



first two dot points under the heading ‘Conclusion’ state:

the WRCC is so dysfunctional as to make the efficient and effective operation and management of the Rural City of Wangaratta (RCoW) … unachievable under the existing council.

while it can be reasonably argued that the RCoW requires some level of restructuring and reform, the WRCC is not capable of being able to sensibly and constructively implement such a process.

This has come from the probity auditor, Bill Scales. A further dot point states:

the current council does not understand the financial and reputational damage it is imposing on the Wangaratta community by its dysfunctional behaviour.

Mr Wynne — What a scathing report!

Mr McCURDY — It is an absolutely scathing report. Finally, another dot point states:

the WRCC has been given significant support, advice and resources to assist it to address its dysfunctional behaviour, but none of the support or the advice provided has had any effect on its behaviour.

I say again that the action to be taken under this bill is a last resort. The minister has moved in a timely fashion to make sure that we get to the bottom of the problems and has taken the necessary action.

As members know, local government is at the community coalface and it is hands-on government. Every community needs its local government functioning properly. Clearly the council of the Rural City of Wangaratta has not been functioning properly. I understand that this action by the minister is the last resort. Throughout this whole process the mayor, Rozi Parisotto, has worked very diligently. As a councillor of more than 10 years standing and now the mayor, these have been very difficult times for Rozi Parisotto. Her integrity has never been questioned, and she has worked very hard to try to get the council on track. Clearly it was going down a one-way track, and it is not practical for it to go any further.

Not everyone will agree with the decision that has been taken. No doubt there will be some out there saying that the government should not sack the council. I do not know what members on the other side say, because they seem to change their minds every 5 minutes. If anyone starts to talk about Brimbank, they come out in a rash again. Today is a new day, and we can move forward. The community of Wangaratta is ready to move forward. This bill brings on the necessary changes that the Minister for Local Government has

made, which will help members of the Wangaratta community start holding hands and moving forward. The most critical thing that members of that community need to do now is get behind the administrators and work together, as they have done on floods, fires and on many other issues in our community. They will work together and they will see this through.

Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) — It is a pleasure to make a contribution to the debate on the Local Government (Rural City of Wangaratta) Bill 2013. It may well have been said in the past that Nero fiddled while Rome burnt, but I can tell members that while the Minister for Local Government has fiddled, the ratepayers of Wangaratta have been burnt. They have been burnt by this government’s inaction. Members have heard the member for Murray Valley talk about people holding hands. All we have seen from the Napthine government is handwringing. We have not seen any hand-holding, just handwringing — that is all we have seen from this government.

In his contribution to the debate on this bill, the member for Murray Valley made the point that we cannot go off half-cocked on these matters; that there need to be some sound reasons on the basis of which we deal with the Rural City of Wangaratta. Let us look at what some of those reasons might be on which the government could have acted. I would have thought that $1.6 million constitutes many reasons why the government should have acted on behalf of the people of Wangaratta. Let us look at the report of 17 September that Bill Scales released and examine some of the points that he made after being called in to investigate. He has provided advice that has been tabled in this Parliament, which states:

the current council does not understand the financial and reputational damage it is imposing on the Wangaratta community by its dysfunctional behaviour.

The report goes on to say:

For example, the current cost of disputation within the council is conservatively estimated to be in excess of $1.6 million, with this estimate likely to increase.

We have no bottom-line figure on this matter. Government members have sat by idly and the member for Murray Valley has been silent on these matters for week after week and month after month in this Parliament. They have not held the council to account because they have not raised these matters with the Minister for Local Government in this Parliament and called for action.

It has been the member for Richmond, the shadow Minister for Local Government, who has been raising



these matters, and time and again it has been up to the Labor Party to shame the government into taking action in relation to them. It is no small thing that the member for Richmond made the point yesterday in his media statement that the minister has a lot of explaining to do. He said the Minister for Local Government ‘was provided with a report’ a month ago ‘from the local government inspectorate’ — a report that was released only today. The minister had the report for a whole month, but she did not act on it in that period of time.

What happened in that month? I would like to know what was going on during that month. What might have led to the minister failing to act on that report in the 28 days — the four weeks — that she has had that report? I wonder, on behalf of the citizens of Wangaratta, what has been happening that we have not seen any action in relation to these matters. The only thing I can think of is that there was a federal election under way and a bit of pressure was being applied to ensure that these matters would not be resolved by the government and that the residents and ratepayers of Wangaratta would have to suffer for another four weeks until the government wanted to bring in a bill to dismiss the council.

We on this side of the house have been saying for months that action needed to be taken by the government. We have been raising these matters for months. Time and again there has been obfuscation by the government. There have been determinations to have workshops, and there have been determinations to have another look at things and put in monitors and other inspectors drawing things out — more handwringing, more excuses. Finally, as the reports piled up and the information and evidence became more and more available, sitting on the minister’s desk ready to be acted on, we have had to shame the government into acting on these matters. We have had to convince the government this morning in this house to bring this bill on for debate and to have a further discussion about getting on with the job of restoring some decency and integrity to public office in Wangaratta. We have also had to convince the government to make sure democracy is returned to Wangaratta as soon as possible so that the people of Wangaratta can rest assured that ratepayers funds are being spent wisely, that they are being taken seriously and that they are being advocated for in the community.

If the member for Murray Valley had perhaps spent more time on raising these matters in this Parliament instead of spending his time handing out material for the former federal member for Indi, Sophie Mirabella, and protecting her, he might have been able to deliver a better outcome for the people of Wangaratta in the time

that he has had to do so. We did not hear much in his contribution to the debate on this bill as to him advocating; where has he provided evidence that, over the months, he has been advocating for an outcome that the member for Richmond and the Labor Party, month after month, have been pursuing this government to deliver for the people of Wangaratta?

The people of Wangaratta have been let down and ignored by this government. They have seen action on these matters only because we have shamed the government into acting on them today. One report after another has been piling up on the minister’s desk, and she has refused to release them until today. Since 20 August, when the report was dropped at her door, the minister has refused to indicate publicly that these matters would need to be dealt with. When was it flagged publicly that we would need to do something? Certainly not before the federal election was run and done. There was every opportunity to allow for the people of Wangaratta to be better represented from day one. From 21 August we could have seen some action from the minister in relation to these matters, but all we have seen is obfuscation and delay. All we have heard from government members are excuses that have cost the people of Wangaratta millions of dollars. We have seen people being bullied, people being let down in that community and people walk out the door. The senior management team walked out the door. Ratepayers have been let down by this government.

We have not seen any evidence that this government has been determined to act on these matters. One would have thought some alarm bells might have started ringing when the senior management team decided to walk out the door because it was too hard to manage these councillors any longer. Time and again we have seen WorkCover claims as individual councillors were bullied and virtually run out of town and run out of their jobs, their opportunity to democratically represent their community blocked. What have we seen happen in all that time? There has been one disaster after another in Wangaratta. The member for Richmond has raised these matters time and again, but all we have heard is a deathly silence from the government.

We know very well this is not a government of builders. We know that government members are not about delivering for the local community; we know they are blockers. That is what they are — blocking the release of reports and blocking any action in relation to assisting and standing up for the people of Wangaratta, defending local democracy in Wangaratta, empowering that community and empowering the local council to get on with the job of representing the constituents and the ratepayers of Wangaratta.

RADIATION AMENDMENT BILL 2013


There is no doubt that the report is damning. We have seen that in a letter to the minister of 20 August that has been tabled. If you are a minister in the government and a letter is put on your desk from a person you have asked to do some work for you, in this case Peter Stephenson of the inspectorate, and the first letter you read from him, dated 20 August, says:

In my view, the elected council has failed — and continues to fail — to provide good governance. This is primarily due to the serious breakdown in working relationships between councillors and between councillors and the administration; and an incapacity and unwillingness by councillors to accept that their collective behaviour needs to change —

then I would have thought that would start to ring a few alarm bells. I would have thought, if I were the Minister for Local Government, that meant I needed to take some action.

What have we seen from the minister? We do not know. There has just been a black hole for a month. There has been no action, no words. We have seen nothing. It has only been as we continue to ask these questions that we have finally seen the government shamed into coming into this place, bringing with it legislation and slowly but surely taking some action in Wangaratta. It is a great shame that there has not been any explanation from government members as to why, in the month they have had this damning report, we have seen no action from them until today. It is not clear what has gone on there, and no explanation has been given to the ratepayers of Wangaratta. Why have they had to wait? Why have they had to rely on the Labor Party to continue to raise these matters in this house and raise these matters publicly to get the government to act?

We have seen millions of dollars of ratepayers funds wasted and the budget continue to blow out. We know there is no ceiling on the money that has been lost in Wangaratta because of the government’s inaction. This report may well condemn many of those who have served as councillors in Wangaratta, but it also stands as a report that condemns the government for its inaction.

What I ask of all the other local government authorities across Victoria is this: how can you rely on this government to defend your integrity and defend your capacity to represent the community and operate as democratically elected bodies when there is bullying, there are WorkCover issues, senior management is walking out the door and councillors are resigning? How can you possibly expect to be supported by this government? It stands condemned by its lack of action

on these matters, and we will continue to pursue them for the people of Wangaratta.

Motion agreed to.

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

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.


Second reading

Debate resumed from 21 August; motion of Ms WOOLDRIDGE (Minister for Mental Health).

Mr NOONAN (Williamstown) — I am quite delighted to lead the opposition’s contribution on this particular bill. It is a very important bill which places before the house a long process that will see the banning of the use of commercial tanning units from 1 January 2015. It is difficult not to start my contribution to this debate today without reflecting on the very brave life of Clare Oliver.

Clare was smart, educated, newly employed in a great job and looking forward to climbing the professional ladder and, as she said, joining the rat-race. Like so many young people, she worshipped the sun. She spent time at St Kilda Beach when she was growing up, and like so many of her friends, she wanted a tan. For Clare an offer to buy 10 sessions at a local solarium and get another 10 for free was too good to refuse. She was only 19 at the time. After the 10th session she stopped. She was burning and it hurt — in fact, in her own words, it hurt like hell. In Clare’s case that pain turned more sinister, and she was diagnosed with cancer at the tender age of 22. She fought and beat the first round of cancer, but it came back with a vengeance. In the end her body was riddled with cancer and her life was taken away from her at exactly the moment when she had everything to live for. She died in September 2007 at the age of 26.

Before Clare died she wrote about her experience in a very moving piece which was published in the Herald Sun of 13 September 2007. For the sake of history it is worth recording that very extensive contribution which she essentially made for others to reflect upon, particularly on the passing of her life. She wrote:

I am at peace. But if I could go back and talk to myself when I was 19, I would tell that girl not to use a solarium — that



melanoma is not a small cancer that you just have cut out and you will be fine.

I may pass in another week or it could be two. If I really fight it out, I may even have six weeks left.

It’s scary, because I feel myself getting more tired, and each time I feel sleepy it worries me that I might not wake up.

So far I have lived 25 years. If I am lucky I will reach 26 because my birthday is on Saturday.

It is a short life, but I have lived it.

Subconsciously I did know that cancer was involved with solariums because I was aware of UVA and UVB rays.

But when I was 19, I saw a cheap offer of ‘Buy 10 sessions and get 20’.

The girl working at the tanning salon told me the fastest way to get a tan was to come in every second day and use speed cream.

My mum told me it was abnormal to get in a box and fry myself, but I told her it was cool and everyone was doing it.

After the 10th session I was starting to burn and it hurt, so I stopped. But I guess I stopped too late.

It would be irresponsible of me to blame it just on solariums, because I grew up in St Kilda and went to the beach a lot.

But you can’t tell me the government doesn’t realise the dangers of solariums.

Young girls need to go out and educate themselves about solariums before they make any decisions.

Obviously my decision has been made, and I think they should be banned. But now that you know my story and the resulting risks involved, hopefully you will realise it is not worth having a golden tan.

I am angry at myself mostly, but I can’t believe how much the industry is booming.

A lot of friends tell me I still have a lot of life left in me, but I just live every day as though it is my last.

I was 22 when diagnosed. I had just finished a bachelor of media and communication and a master of cinema at the University of Melbourne and started work as a sports journalist at SBS.

I was on top of the world.

But I only got to work for three weeks and then I found out about my cancer.

I will never get to climb the so-called ladder, and even now I complain about not being able to run the rat-race with everyone else.

I know I would be good at it — I think I would be great at it.

I wanted to go to the top, but now feel I have so much potential that will be unused.

It was 2004 when they found a tumour under my left armpit, which they treated with immunotherapy.

In July 2005 it came back, and this time they treated me with radiotherapy.

I was cancer free for a year and seven months, and then in April I found a lump in my neck. I thought they could just cut it out, but it turns out there were seven tumours in my chest and one in my lung.

Now they have stopped counting how many there are.

I had all these ideas, and in the end I was ready to accept that two years would be more than enough time left.

But I have accepted it, especially now that I am nearing the end and I am at peace.

When you are someone like me you realise that life is everything and you grab it with both hands and embrace it.

If there is something that you feel needs to be done, go and do it, and do it wholeheartedly because life is short.

People ask me how I can still be so happy with all this on my plate. But I have lived my life as a spark. I don’t want to live a life where I am living until I am 100 and just flat boring.

I have always lived my life with compassion and passion. I have never been one to keep my silence about anything I have felt passionate about.

Melanoma is no joke. And I will keep championing this cause till the day I take my last breath.

That is Clare Oliver’s last letter.

Following Clare’s very sad passing the previous Minister for Health, the member for Mulgrave, introduced a range of new regulations for solariums, which included banning solarium use for people under the age of 18, banning solarium use for all people with skin type 1, imposing a skin type assessment for all clients, imposing consent forms on clients prior to using a solarium and ensuring that mandatory health warnings were displayed.

These new regulations came into effect in February 2008. It needs to be understood that these regulations were the first of their kind in Australia and made our state a leader in this area of health prevention and promotion. The regulations had a direct and immediate impact, which saw the number of tanning units plummet by one-third in just two years, but there were problems. In 2009 Cancer Council Victoria surveyed 30 premises and discovered much flouting of the regulations. In 2011 the council reported:

… 80 per cent of Melbourne solarium operators surveyed allowed access to teenagers who concealed their age or claimed to be 18, despite the ban on under-18s using solariums.



Other key findings show that almost half of the surveyed operators granted access to people with fair skin (skin type 1), who are also banned from solarium use under Victorian legislation. Shockingly just 10 per cent of operators surveyed were fully compliant with all conditions of the regulations assessed by the study.

Interestingly, when I had a look at a couple of operators in my electorate of Williamstown to assess whether these regulations were being included in the material solarium operators made available to people, I found that neither of those two businesses in my electorate referenced issues about skin type or gave any health warnings. Ironically, one of the businesses offered a 15-session special package and even threw in a bottle of lotion as a final inducement, which is remarkably similar to what we know about Clare Oliver’s experience.

The evidence against the use of solariums is compelling. A representative of Cancer Council Victoria has been quoted as saying:

The bottom line is there are no circumstances where using a solarium is safe. The levels of UV radiation emitted can be up to three times as strong as the midday sun. People who use a solarium before the age of 35 have a 75 per cent greater risk of melanoma than those who do not use solariums.

In response to the advocacy of Cancer Council Victoria and other bodies and these very tragic stories of loss of life, over a year after the council’s report on 13 December 2012 the then Victorian Premier announced that all commercial tanning units or solariums would be banned from the end of next year, with an effective date of 1 January 2015. That is essentially what this bill does.

It needs to be acknowledged that Australians still have the highest rates of skin cancer in the world. Every year more than 1850 Australians die from skin cancer, and the costs to the Australian health system associated with treating skin cancer are more than $500 million per year. Two in every three Victorians will be diagnosed with skin cancer by the age of 70, and sadly more than 300 Victorians die from skin cancer each year. Clearly many people are not heeding the SunSmart message.

However, I do not think you can in any way put that down to the work of the Cancer Council Victoria, because it has done an outstanding job of educating the community about the dangers of skin cancer. The council has been working on this for over 20 years, and its best work is done in targeting young children in primary schools. Primary schools now have a very well developed program. Something in the order of 90 per cent of Victorian primary schools participate in the SunSmart program. Any of us with young kids in primary school will have seen that during the summer

months there is plenty of sun protection in use, such as hats and long sleeves, and there is also plenty of shading around our schools. More recently sunglasses have become a feature of the message about protecting the skin of our youngest citizens. Interestingly, the SunSmart program has taken a new direction in recent years, which is to encourage children and staff to put away their sun protection from the months of May through to August when UV levels in Victoria are quite low. That is in order to encourage young people to get healthy doses of vitamin D.

I note that both sides of politics through successive governments have provided funding to support Cancer Council Victoria’s SunSmart campaign, which is a very good thing. I want to pay tribute to my good friend Craig Sinclair, who has been at the council for many years and has provided wonderful leadership in his role in the education unit. It needs to be understood that Australia and Victoria are world leaders in this field in terms of education and research, and Craig Sinclair has been at the forefront of that.

In terms of leadership, I also want to pay tribute to the former Minister for Health, the member for Mulgrave. Back in 2009, as health minister, he announced a major boost of $4.2 million to support new research and education campaigns to fight skin cancer. At the time of that announcement the health minister boldly said this four-year investment would transform advances in skin cancer research. A research grant of $3.2 million led to the creation of the Melbourne Melanoma Project. This project is unique in bringing together a multidisciplinary team of consultants, scientists, researchers, patients and carers from key Victorian hospitals. The focus of the project has been and continues to be improving the diagnosis and early detection of melanoma and offering focused treatments based on its research.

In four short years, under the leadership and direction of Associate Professor Grant McArthur, the project has enrolled hundreds of patients into the program, making it one of the largest clinical datasets on melanoma anywhere in the world. On 4 December last year the Herald Sun reported:

A record 1000 Victorians have donated tissue to help the state’s leading skin cancer researchers find better treatments for the killer disease.

The Melbourne Melanoma Project, which banks melanoma tissue samples for patients, is now one of the biggest of its kind in the world.



The article went on to say:

Information from donors reveals 8 per cent had used solariums, 52 per cent recalled being sunburnt, almost half had blue eyes and 55 per cent had red, blonde or light brown hair.

In a short period of time through that research collaboration the project has gained a much better dataset and a more advanced understanding of the causes of this significant health problem among Australians.

Funding for the continuation of that work remains uncertain. I contacted the team earlier in the week to find out where they are at, and I understand that they have funding through to February next year, beyond which their future is a little uncertain. The opposition will be keeping an eye on that situation. It would be disappointing if inroads that have been made were to come to a halt due to a lack of support from the government.

Whilst the centrepiece of this bill is the banning of tanning units, it also seeks to make further amendments to the Radiation Act 2005 to put in place a framework for the secure transportation and storage of radioactive sources. Specifically, the bill proposes to fully implement the national code of practice Security of Radioactive Sources, published by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency in 2007. In doing so the bill updates the current licensing regime to ensure that it covers all radiation facilities and that each radiation facility has proper security procedures for the transport of radioactive sources.

In closing I want to reiterate Labor’s support for this bill. There is no doubt that people’s attitudes towards skin cancer and overexposure to UV rays are changing. The days of baking in the sun are largely behind them for most in the community, but the challenge of educating the community about the dangers of skin cancer is ever present. Through this bill solariums will be a thing of the past, as they should be, based on the research, but the fight against skin cancer will go on. As I said at the outset, Clare Oliver is the face of this issue. She was a very brave Victorian. Her dying wish was to see solariums banned, and today we deliver on Clare’s wish. For that reason I commend the bill to the house.

Mrs BAUER (Carrum) — I rise with great pleasure to make a contribution on the Radiation Amendment Bill 2013. The bill amends the Radiation Act 2005. The main purpose of the bill is to protect the health of our community and of our environment from radiation and its proven dangers. It also outlines a framework for licensing to authorise conduct in radiation practices and

the use of radiation sources, including X-ray units, radioactive material and commercial tanning.

The harmful effects of radiation are proven, and this is certainly a cause for concern for the government and for communities, and I will touch on that in more detail later in my contribution. But radiation also has proven benefits for our community. In our daily lives, radiation is used in dental practices and veterinary medicine and assists in diagnosing diseases. Its uses are quite broad in industry, sterilisation, agriculture and medicine. This bill has two purposes: it will ban tanning units from the end of 2014, and it will amend the act to improve the physical security of high-consequence radioactive material to reduce the likelihood of unauthorised access, theft and subsequent misuse of material by terrorists.

The need to regulate solariums became apparent in February 2008. In 2012 the government recognised that more needed to be done. The changes that we are introducing through this bill have strong support. They have come about through strong community consultation, which occurred from July to September 2012, as a result of which the Skin Cancer Prevention Framework 2013–2017 was produced. A suite of health professionals gave support and input to this prevention framework. That support included 211 submissions, including submissions from the former Victorian Cooperative Oncology Group and the Cancer Council Victoria, in which 161 health professionals were represented. All the submissions were supportive of a ban on commercial units. As a result, we see this legislation before the house.

There is no doubt that ultraviolet (UV) rays damage skin, but they also cause damage to the eyes and increase the risk of cancer. If it will help to reduce the incidence of the deadly skin melanoma, then this is something that I am very proud to support as the member for Carrum. Australia has one of the highest levels of skin cancer and melanoma in the world. Melanoma is often referred to as Australia’s national cancer. Melanoma is the most serious form of skin cancer. It makes up only 2.3 per cent of skin cancers but is responsible for 75 per cent of skin cancer deaths. More than 1500 Australians die from melanoma every year. It is most common in young Australians from 15 to 39 years of age. When we look at the Carrum electorate, between 2007 and 2011 there was an average of 838 cases of malignant cancer diagnosed in Kingston each year, including 68 cases of melanoma. This accounted for 3.06 per cent of Victorian cases. In the same time frame there were 713 cases of malignant cancer diagnosed each year in the city of Frankston, with 60 cases of melanoma diagnosed.



The announcement of the government’s intent several years back has given solariums and tanning salons time to diversify tanning methods. They have had time to look into other ways and methods of tanning that do not involve using UV rays. Locally in the city of Frankston there are six tanning studios, one of which, Essential Beauty, I have personally visited and found to be a fantastic local business. At Essential Beauty, for example, staff use a spray tanning method with bronzes and tinted sunscreens. They use a mister to apply a fake tan solution to the body. There are certainly ways in which businesses have been inventive and have diversified to get similar outcomes.

As a child growing up in Melbourne I loved my time at the beach, but being blonde haired, blue eyed and fair skinned I burn very easily, and my parents would always tell me to take care in the sun. Now, as a mature-aged adult, I think my carefree time at the beach as a child is catching up with me. I make sure that every year I have a skin check. I think that is a very important part of living in Australia and enjoying the outdoors. It was only last year that a non-malignant spot was picked up which I had to have removed. In speaking on this bill I want to encourage people to look after their skin and have a yearly check.

Since the mid-1900s we have seen the media and fashion industries promoting the desirability of a tan, and this happens to have coincided with almost epidemic levels of skin cancer in our community. I hope that as we move forward as a society we can change perceptions. There has been a lot done at a government level and at a community level to change the perception that having a tan is more desirable than having pale skin, and we see younger children and teenagers now being much more aware of the dangers. Through SunSmart and the practices of getting children to cover up and to play in the shade in the playground at school and making the wearing of hats and sunscreen compulsory for them we are seeing some terrific results. Overall I think the message is: if you must tan, there are ways to do that which do not involve using UV rays, and our local businesses are diversifying and using different methods to achieve that effect.

Already in Victoria we have a range of approaches to minimising the impact of UV rays. As we have heard, it is illegal for solarium operators to advertise their services as safe. It is also against the law for people under the age of 18 and even for those who, like me, have fair skin that burns easily to use the facilities. I am pleased to see that the step of banning solariums by 2014 has the support of the Cancer Council of Australia and also the Australasian College of Dermatologists.

In closing, I would also like to touch on Clare Oliver’s story and acknowledge Clare’s very brave battle. It was nearly six years ago to the week that Clare, at the age of 26, lost her battle with melanoma. With her very public campaigning Clare certainly became an inspiration. She was a local champion of awareness of the risks of solariums. I want to again put on record Clare’s very courageous battle. I am sure she would be very happy to know that the Victorian coalition government has listened to the community on this issue. We are certainly concerned about radiation, we are sending a very clear message that it is dangerous and we are being proactive in limiting the exposure that people have through the use of tanning beds. I commend the Minister for Health for being proactive in this area, and I wish the bill a speedy passage.

Mr BROOKS (Bundoora) — It is a pleasure to be able to make a contribution on the Radiation Amendment Bill 2013. Essentially this bill does two things. Firstly, it provides for the introduction of security plans for the possession and transport of radioactive material. As previous speakers have mentioned, it also deals with the implementation of the commitment by the government to prohibit commercial tanning operations from 1 January 2015. Following the issuing of the Report on the Regulation and Control of Radioactive Material back in 2007 Australian state and federal governments decided to implement the recommendations of the report, and in particular in relation to this bill the code of practice entitled Security of Radioactive Sources, which was published by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, or ARPANSA as it is known.

I wanted to mention the work of ARPANSA, as the agency’s main Melbourne office — I think it may be the main national office — is located in my electorate in Yallambie. I would not think that many people in the local community would recognise and appreciate the important work that occurs in a fairly non-descript building just off Lower Plenty Road. I commend ARPANSA’s work. It is a federal agency which amongst other things advises government on providing information to the public in relation to radiation protection and nuclear safety. It undertakes research and development in radiation protection and nuclear safety and provides advice in a very transparent and open way to both members of the public and members of Parliament, and I want to thank ARPANSA for the provision of information and advice in relation to the provisions of this bill.

The code of practice Security of Radioactive Sources, which was published by ARPANSA, sets out the security requirements for people dealing with



radioactive sources. That is the main thrust of the first section of the bill. I do not intend to run through the different provisions of that code. I do not pretend to be an expert in the area of security around radioactive sources, but the high regard in which ARPANSA is held and the full agreement of the state, territory and national governments around the implementation of this code I think sends a very clear message that its implementation is a very high priority, and this side of the house certainly supports the implementation of that code.

The second main part of the bill deals with the prohibition of commercial tanning units as of 1 January 2015. I want to note the extensive contribution that was made by the member for Williamstown on the risks that are posed by cancer, particularly skin cancer, and the increased risk from the use of tanning units in relation to the incidence of cancer. He also spoke about the personal impact that skin cancer — melanoma — has on people’s lives, and he talked about the work that Clare Oliver did in raising the public’s awareness of that risk.

I do not think it is in any way stretching it to say that it was Clare’s very brave work in publicising this issue that has led to this legislation. After her untimely passing the previous government introduced regulation of the tanning industry in 2007, I think it was — I stand to be corrected — the first of any state jurisdiction to introduce regulation of that industry. In 2010 I understand that 306 Victorians died from melanoma. That works out to six people passing away each week and a further six being diagnosed with melanoma every day.

It is only relatively recently that most Australians and Victorians have started to heed the SunSmart message. I am sure that many members of this place who are of a similar age to myself would well remember growing up in an era where having a suntan and getting sunburnt was part of a summer ritual. I remember many school swimming carnivals. At the annual school swimming carnival it was almost a competition to see who would get the brightest red tan, and you look back at those times and worry about the impact that will have on the generation that soaked up that sun and exposed itself to significant danger. It is great that schools these days really make sure that students are aware of the danger of exposure to the sun and also ensure that children have a hat, apply sunscreen and are covered up with clothing.

At the time that Clare Oliver passed away I understand that research showed that the vast majority of people using a solarium were women aged between 18 and 35

and that in that age group of women the incidence of melanoma is second only to breast cancer in terms of its impact, so it is quite a significant problem.

I want to raise an issue, though, in relation to the way this measure is being implemented. There are currently 112 businesses that are licensed in Victoria to run tanning units. I understand that there are about 385 actual tanning units. I had representations from a constituent of mine who runs a small number of tanning solariums. I should place on the record that I know this man through local junior sport. He is a great supporter of the local community and is active in the local community. He had invested heavily as a small business owner in these machines and these businesses, and he is now quite distraught that his personal financial viability is threatened because of the abrupt ending of this sector.

Mr Delahunty — It is not abrupt. He was given a bit of warning.

Mr BROOKS — I do not for a second suggest that those on this side of the house and I do not support the bill’s intent, but there are a couple of issues the government should respond to. The first of those is that good, honest people who have invested hard-earnt money in these businesses should at least have the ear of government in transition. I do not think it is good enough for government just to say that they have had plenty of warning, as the minister at the table, the Minister for Sport and Recreation, interjected. For example, the Minister for Innovation, Services and Small Business should be directly engaging with these small business owners to see what can be done to assist them in the transition. That may already be happening — I am not sure; I am certainly not aware of it — but one thing the government could do would be to ask the Minister for Innovation, Services and Small Business to take an active interest in the small businesses transitioning out of this area.

Another issue that was raised in discussions with this gentleman was the sale of the tanning units to private citizens. We are prohibiting the regulated industry from using tanning units, if you like, but I am assuming that these tanning units will be sold to private individuals for use in an unregulated environment. This is an issue the government has turned a blind eye to and should address. My understanding is that people can purchase these machines privately from overseas. They can also now purchase many of these machines from businesses that will be put out of business, and the government should turn its mind to the regulation or otherwise of these units in people’s private homes and certainly



ensure that a black market in these tanning facilities does not evolve.

The key message here in relation to reducing the incidence of skin cancer is that this bill and this change are only one part of the broader solution. As mentioned before, community attitudes to tanning and to exposure to the sun have changed, but governments and all of us need to do more work to ensure that people heed that message and understand that exposure to ultraviolet rays increases people’s risk of skin cancer and understand the terrible price people pay when they are afflicted by that form of cancer. I commend this bill, and as I said earlier, I ask the government to consider some of the impacts on businesses as it implements this bill.

Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) — It gives me pleasure to rise to contribute to this very important debate on the Radiation Amendment Bill 2013. The bill will be seeking to make two fundamental changes to the Radiation Act 2005. The first obviously relates to the issue of management of radiation devices, and that clearly involves institutions, particularly health facilities, that utilise radiation material through the use of X-ray units and the like in providing a whole range of important services. With the issues surrounding security and possible security threats, it is imperative that we have the best regime in place to manage those important facilities. I am encouraged by the actions taken through this bill and the actions of the Minister for Health in terms of ensuring that we put the necessary policies in place to deal with this very important issue.

My colleagues in this house have also dealt with the banning of solariums. It is fair to say that community attitudes have changed significantly with regard to solariums and, more broadly, the issue of skin cancer. As the previous speaker mentioned, he and I grew up in an era when not only was a suntan considered benign but people were actually and actively encouraged to obtain a suntan. Certainly if you look at some of the prevalent habits in the 1980s in Victoria which had a high level of acceptance, you see one was obtaining a suntan and another was smoking. If you look at both of those issues and how they are now perceived in the Victorian community, you see that attitudes have significantly changed.

I make the point of saying that the lead-up to the introduction of this provision in the bill was about not only dealing with the issue of the harmful effects of solariums but also, and more importantly, responding to a change in community attitudes. There is a general

acceptance within the community now that commercial tanning beds are not of benefit to the people of Victoria.

This issue was clearly highlighted by the untimely death of Clare Oliver, and I pay tribute not only to her and her campaigners on this important issue but also to people such as Neil Mitchell and others within the media, who have made this a significant issue. We must pay due regard to the people who rightly pushed this important cause and pressed the government of the day to deal with these issues. These issues are always difficult because when you are dealing with curtailing the activities of commercial operations which are legal at that point in time it obviously going to have an impact. Governments of all persuasions have to weigh up the impact of issues affecting commercial businesses that have invested their hard-earnt money in setting up a business versus the broader good and broader health needs of the Victorian community.

A range of organisations in Victoria have formed the view that there was a need to ban these devices. The Cancer Council Victoria and other health organisations have made it clear that in their opinion action, and swift action, needs to take place.

In December last year the Victorian government launched Skin Cancer Prevention Framework 2013–2017. Not only did that seek to deal with the specific issue of sunbeds, or solariums, but more importantly it involved a more holistic approach to the issue of skin cancer prevention. As part of that launch, in December the government announced it would take action to ban solariums with an effective date of 31 December of next year. That will prevent Victorians from accessing solariums in a commercial operation but allow businesses that have those facilities in place within their organisation an appropriate lead time to transition away from the use of solariums.

This is a very important decision that has been taken. As was stated in the media release of the then Premier and the Minister for Health:

Research shows the risk of melanoma increases by 87 per cent when the use of tanning devices starts before the age of 35.

There is clear evidence that many people under the age of 35 have been heavy users of these facilities, and we know of the long-term effects of such treatments on skin. Skin cancer affects many people in our community and has touched people within our own families. Whether or not this has resulted in loss of life, we aim to ensure that it is at the forefront of our minds.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE


I know this issue has bipartisan support, and I hope these concerns are shared by all within this house. This is important legislation that needs to be supported. This action has not just been taken here in Victoria; work has also been undertaken in New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT to ban solariums by 31 December 2014. I am advised that Queensland has not announced a ban, but it is not going to issue any new licences for the operation of sunbeds from 1 January this year. Western Australia and the Northern Territory have made no comments on the banning of solariums.

This action will put Victoria in a very important place. This decision to ban solariums is an important one, small as it may seem. It is an opportunity for all Victorians to stand up and say, ‘This is inappropriate, and we want to ensure that we prevent skin cancer within this state’.

Sitting suspended 1.00 p.m. until 2.03 p.m.

Business interrupted under standing orders.


Member for Frankston

Mr ANDREWS (Leader of the Opposition) — My question is to the Premier. I refer to the Premier’s comments today that, ‘The chances of him’ — that is, the member for Frankston — ‘being endorsed for any seat are negligible, nil, low, zero’, and I ask: can the Premier detail for the house how he came to this conclusion?

Ms Asher — On a point of order, Speaker, this is not a matter of government business. I put it to you that the question should be ruled out of order. It is a matter of internal party business, not government business. I urge you to rule it out of order.

Mr Andrews — On the point of order, Speaker, the Premier is the leader of the government. He has made comments like this to the media today and yesterday. These are matters of public importance and public debate. The leader of the government’s commentary on the man who props up the government is most definitely a matter of government business. To not allow this question would fundamentally alter the definition of the business of government in this state.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the point of order, because I believe this is not a matter of government administration.

Mr Andrews interjected.

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

Mr Andrews — Well, Speaker, I do not know that you have. You said you do not uphold the point of order, but the point of order was raised by the Leader of the House. Do you or do you not uphold the point of order?

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to sit down. I made a mistake. I do uphold the point of order, and I rule the question out of order.

Ms Allan — On a point of order, Speaker, as has been previous practice in the house and as per page 155 of Rulings from the Chair, there is an opportunity for the Speaker to allow the Leader of the Opposition to reword his question. Perhaps you could afford him that opportunity, particularly given that he was directly referring to matters that the Premier has put on the public record, which is allowed for under standing order 53(1).

The SPEAKER — Order! I have ruled on the point of order, and I have ruled the question out of order.

Regional rail link

Ms McLEISH (Seymour) — My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier provide an update to the house on the progress of the regional rail link?

Dr NAPTHINE (Premier) — I thank the member for Seymour for her question and for her interest in regional rail projects. The coalition government has four game-changing major infrastructure projects: the east–west link, the port of Hastings development, the Melbourne Metro rail capacity project and the regional rail link. Today I can announce more good news with respect to the regional rail project. You will recall, Speaker, that this project was off the rails under the Labor government. It was over budget and had no funding for signals, no funding for the trains that will use it and no funding for level crossing grade separations.


The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Albert Park and the member for Ballarat East, enough! They will not be warned again, and neither will the Leader of the Opposition.

Dr NAPTHINE — This is a project that this government has got back on the rails and back into action. It is a $4.8 billion project, with 45 kilometres of new rail track as part of a 50-kilometre project, two



new stations in the growth areas of Melbourne’s west — Wyndham Vale and Tarneit — plus a major upgrade to a number of other stations in Melbourne’s west.

The project has two major objectives: firstly, to separate the regional rail lines from the metropolitan rail lines, which will provide direct access for V/Line trains from Bendigo, Ballarat, Geelong and Warrnambool to Southern Cross station, which will significantly improve punctuality and reliability and increase the capacity for additional services on those V/Line trains; secondly, and equally importantly, this project has a major benefit for the Melbourne Metro system because it will free up capacity on the Melbourne Metro lines in the west and the north-west, such as the Werribee, Williamstown, Sunbury and Craigieburn lines.

Indeed under this government there are 1078 extra train services each and every week on metropolitan lines, and this project will allow even greater growth in those train services. We will get improved services on those lines, we will get additional services on those lines and, by separating the V/Line services from the metropolitan services, we will improve the punctuality and reliability of both services.

Today I can advise the house that there are 3500 people working on the regional rail project and 6000 indirect jobs as a result of this great project. Indeed $25 million a week is being spent in Victoria because of this project, which is a real boost to the Victorian economy. I can advise the house that this project is on budget and ahead of schedule, which is a great credit to the Minister for Public Transport and the Regional Rail Link Authority. It is quite a contrast to the mismanagement of projects under Labor. It simply cannot manage money and cannot manage major projects. What we have got is a project that is being delivered on budget and ahead of schedule. Over the next few weeks — —

Mr Pallas — On a point of order, Speaker, on the issue of relevance, the question is: is the budget that the Premier is referring to the budget that the government refuses to release — —

The SPEAKER — Order! That is not a point of order.

Dr NAPTHINE — This is a significant project of $4.8 billion, and starting from 3 October there will be another school holiday blitz on this project, with more people on site working in safe and efficient working conditions so that we can further bring forward this project. This is a project that the coalition government

is delivering ahead of schedule and on budget for better services in Victoria.


Mr ANDREWS (Leader of the Opposition) — My question is to the Premier. I refer the Premier to media reports that senior government sources would prefer to see the member for Frankston ‘pack his bags and walk away’, and I ask very simply: is the Premier one of them?


The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Lyndhurst will not be warned again either.

Ms Asher — On a point of order, Speaker, on two grounds: first of all, this is not a matter of government business; and furthermore — —

Mr Andrews — They are government sources.

Ms Asher — Government sources are not a matter of government business. This is not a matter of government business, and further, the question wishes to elicit an opinion, and you, Speaker, are able to rule it out of order on those grounds as well.

Mr Andrews — On the point of order, Speaker, if it is your view that the Premier cannot be asked about what he says, if the Premier cannot be asked about things that are reported in the media under the banner of ‘government sources’ and if the Premier cannot be asked about the positions he has taken or might take, what is the point of any of us being here?

The SPEAKER — Order! I uphold the point of order. I do not believe it is a matter of government business.

Ms Allan — On a point of order, Speaker, to assist with the opposition’s framing of questions for question time, under standing order 53:

Questions may be asked of:

(1) Ministers —

or indeed in this case the Premier —

on matters relating to public affairs …

Given that we are clearly referring, in the previous question, to comments that the Premier has put on the public record and has made a matter of public affairs, and given that the matter relates to members employed by the government — or indeed may be sitting here in the chamber as members of the government — the two



previous questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition are entirely within the confines of the standing order, and we would appreciate your upholding of the standing orders to allow this important matter of government scrutiny to take place in this chamber. This is the chamber where the opposition’s job is to hold the government to account, not for it to be protected by the dodgy dealings that are going on in Frankston — —

The SPEAKER — Order! I have ruled on the point of order. I have ruled the question out of order.

Japan and Korea trade mission

Mr CRISP (Mildura) — My question is to the Minister for State Development. Can the minister advise the house on the strategic action the government is taking to forge stronger investment links with Japan and Korea?

Mr RYAN (Minister for State Development) — I thank the member for Mildura for his very important question. I announce to the house that at the end of this month I will be undertaking an official investment and trade visit to Japan and Korea. It is a visit that aims to strengthen the relationships between Victoria, Japan and Korea. We have already existing and very strong associations with those two countries, and very particularly with Japan. That is something that has been forged across the Parliament over a period of many decades from Victoria’s perspective.

As members would know, Japan is Victoria’s third-largest export market, its largest market for food exports and one of the state’s oldest trading partners, and Japan remains uppermost in importance to us in our future economic growth in Victoria. Japan is also the third-largest investor in our state. We have 140-plus companies of Japanese origin that are operating in Victoria. The program will include site visits and meetings with government, with industry associations and with Japanese and Victorian companies that are in the market in Japan. As I say, it will seek to build upon those existing relationships, as I think the Parliament at large recognises. So often it is not the words on the page that make a difference in terms of these associations; rather it is the fact of the individual associations which are able to be formed across our state and in these other countries.

Two of these companies are Kagome and the owner of Australian Paper, which is Nippon. Last year in May I had the pleasure of being in Japan. I was able to meet with the members of the board of Nippon. It was a time when the company was considering whether it would

invest in Maryvale in the Latrobe Valley. As members know, some 900 people work at Maryvale. Subsequently we were able to announce, in conjunction with the federal government, an investment of some $90 million in not only securing the future of those 900 people who work there but also adding to the workforce through the initiatives which have since been commenced and which are ongoing. I look forward to renewing that association with the members of the board of the company in the course of this upcoming visit.

Insofar as Kagome is concerned, as members would know, Kagome has recently acquired Cedenco, which is based in Echuca. Last Thursday I was at the premises of Kagome in Echuca. We have recently provided $200 000 to the company, and it is looking at diversifying its product. It is looking at growing its markets. It is looking at the refinement of product from the facility at Echuca to be taken back to Japan for the purpose of augmenting a lot of the product that it is producing there. It is important that we are able to visit the board members at home in Japan to talk with them on their turf, as it were, about the prospect of further growth. Some 45 people are employed at Kagome in Echuca and another 300 in the season, so any prospect of additional growth in the company, which is very much on the cards, is something we strongly support.

The Republic of Korea is another key export market for us. It ranks sixth in terms of commodity exports and in the top 10 in terms of exports of grain, meat and dairy. I had the great pleasure recently of addressing the Australia Korea Business Council conference, and this morning I had the additional pleasure of meeting with the Consul General of Korea, Mr Jung. I am looking forward to the visit to Korea, again to forge these all-important relationships. It is another aspect of what we as a government are doing to grow the economy of the state of Victoria very particularly through the great regions of our state.


Mr ANDREWS (Leader of the Opposition) — My question is again to the Premier. I refer the Premier to further media reports today, one of which contains the following quote:

In terms of where it is sitting now, there comes a point in time when I think you would just lose too much credibility with the electorate by saying we think this guy has done a sterling job.

That of course refers to the member for Frankston. I ask: can the Premier rule out any member of his private office staff providing that statement?



Dr NAPTHINE (Premier) — I am not aware of that

statement having been reported in the media. I am not aware of that statement in any context, therefore I am unable to make any comment on the statement.

Mr Andrews — On a point of order, Speaker, I seek leave to table the article from the Age website, which the Premier has not read. He has not read the Age!

The SPEAKER — Order!

Energy consumer complaints

Mr BURGESS (Hastings) — My question is to the Minister for Energy and Resources. Can the minister advise the house of initiatives the government has taken to give consumers greater choice and a greater voice in relation to their energy use?

Mr KOTSIRAS (Minister for Energy and Resources) — I thank the member for Hastings for his question and for his interest in the energy industry in Victoria. About six months ago, when I was appointed Minister for Energy and Resources, I requested that the department work closely with all the distribution companies and retailers to make sure that they fix their internal problems to ensure that they provide a service to their customers. There have been a large number of retailers and distribution companies that have done that, and I thank them for their cooperation and assistance in ensuring that the needs of their consumers are met. But there are still some that are unable to manage their own internal problems, and it is causing enormous problems, stress and anxiety.

The SPEAKER — Order! I suggest that members who have props up on the desk remove them. I ask the members to take them off their desks now before I send those members out of the chamber, and that includes the member for Geelong.

Mr KOTSIRAS — For example, in three months this year there were over 14 000 complaints made in relation to electricity supply and nearly 4000 in relation to gas. That is simply not good enough. I have put those businesses on notice that they need to get their internal issues together and ensure that the problems are fixed. If that does not happen, I will assist them in fixing their problems.

Last Friday I launched a new feature on the government website Switch On Victoria called Energy Concerns, and Victorians are able to send their problems directly to me. I have requested that after three months the department review the emails, and if the retailers or the distribution companies have not fixed their problems, then I can make sure that they are fixed. For example,

currently retailers can demand a maximum payment of nine months if they have got a problem with their billing system. Perhaps we should be looking at reducing that to six months or three months. There needs to be an incentive for retailers to fix their problems.

One of the biggest issues I have to address on a daily basis is the compulsory rollout of smart meters. We know who was to blame for the compulsory rollout of smart meters: it was the previous government. It was unable to manage a simple project. It is typical that a Labor government cannot manage projects, and we have to fix their mess. We have introduced a number of features that will benefit Victorians as a result of the installation of smart meters.

On Monday I launched flexible pricing options for all Victorians, so that Victorians can now save hundreds of dollars should they desire to move their usage of appliances to different times of the day. It is about choice; it is about consumers taking control of their electricity bills. That is something that the Labor government refused to do. It compulsorily rolled out an appliance, and it told Victorians, ‘You have to have it’. On top of that, they were told they had to pay for the smart meters, without being told the benefits that come with them. We are doing it differently. The industry supports us and the community supports us. It is a shame that the Labor government failed.

Ms Allan — On a point of order, Speaker, before we go on to the next question, you just directed one of the attendants in this place to remove a piece of paper that was the property — —

The SPEAKER — Order! A prop.

Ms Allan — Speaker, you may have the view that it was a prop, but it was a piece of paper that is part of the property of the Leader of the Opposition, and we would like to know if this is now going to be standard practice that you can direct material to be removed without question from members of the opposition. That is not appropriate. We should be able to feel confident that the material we have before us on our desks is our personal property, not property to be confiscated at your whim.

Mr Clark — On the point of order, Speaker, you as Speaker have general control of good order and the conduct of this house. The opposition has been acting in flagrant disregard of your rulings in seeking to maintain order in this house, and I submit that, as part of your general duties and responsibilities as Speaker — —




Questions interrupted.

SUSPENSION OF MEMBER

Member for Clayton

The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Clayton can leave the chamber for an hour and a half. I will not have him screaming out like that.

Honourable member for Clayton withdrew from chamber.


Questions resumed.

Mr Clark — Speaker, you have the general authority as Speaker to maintain order in this house. If honourable members opposite disagree with your conduct, they are entitled to take action by way of substantive motion. Indeed I would submit that the course of action that you followed in these circumstances was one of the most accommodating that you could have taken. You could well have taken action against honourable members for acting in complete defiance and contempt of your rulings, and that remains of course and is open to you.

Mr Merlino — On the point of order, Speaker, I have two points to raise. Perhaps in your ruling you can explain what you or indeed any other member of this government find offensive about photos of the member for Frankston — —


The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the member for Monbulk to resume his seat. That is not a point of order.


Mr Andrews — Either further to the point of order, Speaker, or on a new point of order — I am not sure what you have ruled on or not.

The SPEAKER — I have not ruled at this stage.

Mr Andrews — The Attorney-General indicated to you that it was within your powers to take action against me.

The SPEAKER — No, not against the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Andrews — That is what the Attorney-General said. Can I put it to you, Speaker, that it would be far

preferable to me and indeed every member on this side of the house if you did in fact take action, rather than directing an attendant to come and take notes from my space in this chamber. That would be a far better way to go, I would think, Speaker — lest you be thought to be unbalanced.

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat. I suggested earlier that members remove the props from the top of their benches and their desks — the props being the photographs and the pictures that the members had that they were trying to get onto the television coverage. Then the member for Tarneit came up and moved the piece of paper between the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and put it in a position where it could be picked up by the cameras. I asked that it be removed. I do not uphold the point of order.


Mr ANDREWS (Leader of the Opposition) — My question is to the Premier. Given the media reports that members of the government are now leaking against the man who effectively runs the government, I ask: can the Premier confirm to the house and to the people of Victoria that he enjoys the support, the full support, of the member for Frankston?

Dr NAPTHINE (Premier) — I was elected as leader of the Liberal Party on 6 March this year and sworn in as Premier of the state. My job as Premier of the state is to provide good governance to the people of Victoria. I am getting on with the job of providing good governance to the people of Victoria. I am acting in the best interests of the people of Victoria and my government is working hard on behalf of the people of Victoria.

Mr Andrews — On a point of order, Speaker, the Premier may choose to read from his prepared answer. The question was: does the Premier have the confidence of the member for Frankston? Yes or no. That is the question, and it ought be easy to answer.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the point of order. I believe the answer is relevant to the question that was asked.

Dr NAPTHINE — As I said, we are getting on with the job. We are delivering sound economic management to the people of Victoria. We are delivering a budget surplus and forecast surpluses throughout the forward estimates; we are the only state or territory in Australia that is delivering it. We have a



stable AAA credit rating; we are the only state or territory in Australia that has that. We are delivering $6.1 billion, a record level, of infrastructure spend. We are delivering $14.3 billion for health expenditure, a record level of funding for health, and $2 billion more than under the Labor government, under the previous Minister for Health.

Mr Andrews — On a point of order, Speaker, the question very simply related to whether the Premier has the confidence of the member for Frankston. I cannot understand why the Premier will not answer that question. It is simple, and the opposition and all Victorians are entitled to know.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the point of order.

Dr NAPTHINE — We are delivering 1700 additional police. We are delivering protective services officers at our railway stations.


The SPEAKER — Order! If the Leader of the Opposition keeps that up, he will be out.

Dr NAPTHINE — We are delivering on the four key projects that are major infrastructure projects for the state: the regional rail project that I spoke about previously, the east–west link, the Melbourne Metro rail capacity project and the port of Hastings. We are delivering a $1.6 billion redevelopment of the port of Melbourne, which is creating jobs and economic opportunity in the state of Victoria. We are spending $400 million removing level crossings which is life-saving infrastructure and congestion-busting infrastructure.

Mr Andrews — On a point of order, Speaker, again, the question related to whether the Premier enjoys the confidence of the member for Frankston. Why he is embarrassed and will not answer it is beyond me. Does or does he not have the confidence of the member for Frankston? That is the question, and it ought be answered.

Ms Asher — On the point of order, Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has now on three occasions sought to use a point of order to restate the question. That is not the purpose of a point of order. He has asked his question, and I ask you to rule his point of order out of order.

Mr Merlino — On the point of order, Speaker, this was a very clear question relating to whether or not the

Premier continues to have the support of the member for Frankston.

The SPEAKER — Order!

Mr Merlino — Speaker, I have not finished my point of order.

The SPEAKER — Order! I am saying to the member for Monbulk that a point of order is not an opportunity for him to restate the question. What is the member’s point of order?

Mr Merlino — The point of order is that the Premier is clearly not being relevant to the question. The community is sick of the secrecy, sick — —

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the member for Monbulk to resume his seat. I do not uphold the point of order.

Dr NAPTHINE — We on this side of the house are getting on with providing good governance for the people of Victoria. We are getting on with a record level of funding for infrastructure, key projects in infrastructure, a record level of infrastructure spend on health services — —

Mr Andrews — On a point of order, Speaker, how can the Premier bragging for 4 minutes be relevant to the question that was asked? Does he or does he not have the support of the member for Frankston? We do not need 4 minutes — —

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat. It is not an opportunity for him to restate the question. I do not uphold the point of order.

Dr NAPTHINE — We are getting on with the job of delivering good governance to the people of Victoria, key projects for the people of Victoria and improved services for the people of Victoria. That is what we are doing for the people of Victoria: providing good leadership and good governance.

Emergency response management

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) — My question is to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Can the minister update the house on the progress of the government’s emergency service reforms?

Mr WELLS (Minister for Police and Emergency Services) — I thank the member for Caulfield for his interest in this area and for his hard work in assisting with the development of Emergency Management Victoria. The coalition government is undertaking the



largest reform and overhaul of the emergency management system for 27 years.

Last year the Deputy Premier released the white paper outlining Emergency Management Victoria, the new umbrella body that will oversee all of the emergency management sector and maximise the resources and capability of the emergency management services, which will mean sharing resources, working together and planning together. The white paper reforms will change the way that we prepare for, respond to and recover from emergencies. When emergencies hit our state, whether it be fire, flood or wind, we expect our emergency services to work as a united group.

Today it is with great pride that I announce that it is proposed that the fire services commissioner, Craig Lapsley, will take over the overarching responsibility for emergencies in Victoria and become the first emergency management commissioner designate. This is a great appointment. The role of the emergency management commissioner is a key part of the government’s reform of emergency management in Victoria. Mr Lapsley has served as Victoria’s fire services commissioner since 2010 and will be responsible for improving the way we manage emergencies moving forward. During major emergencies it is proposed that he will take on the overarching management role to ensure a systematic and coordinated response. He will have to ensure that there are no duplications and no overlapping of any of the services, because all that does is waste resources and cause confusion.

The reason we are making the announcement today of Mr Lapsley’s new role is that it was important to make sure that his role as emergency management commissioner designate was in place before the fire season. The necessary legislative changes will be put through Parliament and go through the usual checks and balances and the usual scrutiny.

Craig Lapsley has a long history in emergency management. He served as a volunteer firefighter before taking leadership roles within the Country Fire Authority, the New South Wales fire brigades and the Victoria State Emergency Service, where he moved it from being a government department to a statutory authority. In 2007 Mr Lapsley took responsibility for emergency response in the Victorian health sector as director of emergency management, health and human services. Mr Lapsley’s proposed appointment as commissioner designate is the beginning of a broader suite of reforms that the Victorian government will introduce to emergency management in this state.

There is no doubt that Victoria is a great place to live, but along with being a great place to live we have to deal with emergencies, whether it be fire, flood or wind. With that, we have to ensure that the emergency services are well resourced and have the strong backing of the Victorian government, which they do. Also, the heart and soul of the emergency services are the volunteers. They receive strong support from all Victorians, especially this state government.


DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The SPEAKER — Order! Before calling the next question, I would like to acknowledge Roger Hallam, a minister in the Kennett government, who is in the gallery today. I welcome Roger to the house.


Questions resumed.

Government performance

Mr ANDREWS (Leader of the Opposition) — My question is to the Premier. I refer the Premier to the fact that since 2010 Victorians have seen from this government a Premier sacked, a police minister sacked, a parliamentary secretary for police sacked, a Premier’s chief of staff referred to IBAC and now the member for Frankston facing 24 serious criminal charges, and I ask: is it not a fact that this Premier leads a dysfunctional circus, not the government Victorians voted for three years ago?

Dr NAPTHINE (Premier) — In 2010 the Victorian people voted for change because after 11 years of incompetence and mismanagement under Labor governments they wanted a government that would deliver better services, better infrastructure and better economic management, and that is what this government is doing. They did not want a government that built a desalination plant costing $1.8 million a day for Melbourne and Geelong water users. They did not want a government that promised never to take water from the north to the south but then built a $1 billion white elephant pipeline. They did not want a government that lost $3 billion in selling electronic gaming machines. They did not want a government — —

Mr Andrews — On a point of order, Speaker, the question clearly related to Premiers who have been sacked and police ministers who have been sacked under this government’s administration — this circus



led by someone no-one voted for — and that is what — —

The SPEAKER — Order! What is the point of order?

Mr Andrews — My point of order, Speaker, firstly, is relevance. While I am on my feet and have not been dumped by your button, I make the point that I would appreciate the opportunity to finish the point of order before the hand of censorship comes down — under the desk; it is not even done in the open. How does that serve the traditions of this house, Speaker? The point of order is most definitely on relevance. This answer is not relevant to the question, and I ask you to rule accordingly.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the point of order. Part of the member’s question related to incompetence, and the Premier was in fact answering the question.

Dr NAPTHINE — Thank you, Speaker.


Mr Andrews — On a point of order, Speaker, is it seriously your contention that that comment is in the spirit of impartiality, balance and fairness in the office of Speaker? Is it seriously your contention that your last comment, most definitely an editorial rather than a ruling, serves the office you hold well? Is that seriously your submission to this house? I put it to you that was an appalling comment that shows nothing but bias and an appalling comment that does the office you serve discredit.

Ms Asher — On the point of order, Speaker, I remind the house that you circulated on 29 May this year a reminder to members relating to points of order, and I refer to this. A range of rights that members have in asking questions was outlined, and the concluding point was that members should be careful not to abuse the right to ask questions. You said at that point:

Where I am aware that the rules outlined above are being disregarded by a member when raising a point of order, I will have no hesitation in immediately muting that member’s microphone and, in the case of persistent abuse, suspending the member from the chamber under standing order 124.

I put it to you, Speaker, that you have not exercised your right to suspend the member from the chamber and have in fact taken the softer option —


The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of the Opposition!

Ms Asher — of using the mute button after the Leader of the Opposition has raised, on four occasions, points of order —


The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of the Opposition, enough!

Ms Asher — where he has simply just restated the question — —



SUSPENSION OF MEMBER

Member for Mulgrave

The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of the Opposition can leave the chamber for an hour and a half. I am not going to put up with this.

Mr Andrews — On a point of order, Speaker — —

The SPEAKER — Order! I have asked the Leader of the Opposition to leave the chamber. There is no point of order.


The SPEAKER — There is no point of order. I am asking you to leave the chamber.


The SPEAKER — I am asking you to leave the chamber.



The SPEAKER — Order! I am asking you to leave the chamber.


Honourable member having remained in chamber:

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the Leader of the Opposition.




The SPEAKER — Order! I have asked the Leader

of the Opposition to leave.


The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove him.


The SPEAKER — Order! I intend to suspend the sitting of the house until I get some order.

Sitting suspended 2.45 p.m. until 3.03 p.m.

NAMING AND SUSPENSION OF MEMBER

Member for Mulgrave

The SPEAKER — Order! Before I suspended the sitting of the house I asked the Leader of the Opposition to leave the chamber for an hour and a half. He refused to do so. I suspended the sitting of the house, and I asked the Serjeant-at-Arms to again ask the Leader of the Opposition to reconsider his position and to leave. The Leader of the Opposition refused. He refused when I originally asked him to leave; he then accused the Speaker of bias and indicated that I was not being independent in my rulings. I have no other course of action than to name the Leader of the Opposition.

Ms ASHER (Minister for Innovation, Services and Small Business) — I move:

That the member for Mulgrave be suspended from the service of the house for three days.


Ayes, 40 Angus, Mr Napthine, Dr Asher, Ms Newton-Brown, Mr Baillieu, Mr Northe, Mr Battin, Mr O’Brien, Mr Bauer, Mrs Powell, Mrs Burgess, Mr Ryall, Ms Clark, Mr Ryan, Mr Crisp, Mr Smith, Mr R. Delahunty, Mr Southwick, Mr Dixon, Mr Sykes, Dr Fyffe, Mrs Thompson, Mr Gidley, Mr Tilley, Mr Hodgett, Mr Victoria, Ms Kotsiras, Mr Wakeling, Mr McCurdy, Mr Walsh, Mr McIntosh, Mr Watt, Mr McLeish, Ms Weller, Mr Miller, Ms Wells, Mr Morris, Mr Wooldridge, Ms Mulder, Mr Wreford, Ms

Noes, 40 Allan, Ms Howard, Mr Andrews, Mr Hutchins, Ms Barker, Ms Kanis, Ms Beattie, Ms Knight, Ms Brooks, Mr Languiller, Mr Campbell, Ms Lim, Mr Carbines, Mr McGuire, Mr Carroll, Mr Madden, Mr D’Ambrosio, Ms Merlino, Mr Donnellan, Mr Nardella, Mr Duncan, Ms Neville, Ms Edwards, Ms Noonan, Mr Eren, Mr Pakula, Mr Foley, Mr Pallas, Mr Garrett, Ms Pandazopoulos, Mr Graley, Ms Perera, Mr Green, Ms Scott, Mr Halfpenny, Ms Thomson, Ms Helper, Mr Trezise, Mr Hennessy, Ms Wynne, Mr

The SPEAKER — Order! The result of the division is ayes, 40, and noes, 40. As the motion reinforces the Speaker’s rights under standing orders to maintain order in the house, I cast my vote with the ayes.

Motion agreed to.

Honourable member for Mulgrave withdrew from chamber.


Questions resumed.

Regional employment

Mr TILLEY (Benambra) — My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer provide an update to the house about jobs in regional Victoria and the policies required to continue to grow jobs?

Mr O’BRIEN (Treasurer) — I am delighted to receive this question from the member for Benambra, which is actually a serious question about a serious issue that we know this side of the house is actually concerned about. Today the Australian Bureau of Statistics released the latest round of regional employment data. These figures show that in the three months to August this year employment in regional Victoria increased by 9600 jobs. Victoria was the only state in the country to record an increase in regional jobs in that three-month period. These 9600 new jobs in regional Victoria are there because the Victorian coalition government is about growing this economy, growing employment opportunities, managing the state’s finances well and providing record infrastructure investment.



Regional Victoria’s unemployment rate of 5.4 per cent over the three months to August this year is the lowest of any state in the country. It compares with a national average of 6 per cent and certainly compares well with the rate of 6.3 per cent when Labor left office in November 2010. In fact there are 38 000 more people employed in regional Victoria today than when Labor left office. We are all about growing jobs right throughout the state — not just in metropolitan Melbourne but right throughout rural and regional Victoria. You can see that by looking at projects like the $630 million Bendigo Hospital, which will create 770 jobs; the Premier’s efforts to secure the new national disability insurance scheme headquarters in Geelong, creating 450 new jobs down in Geelong; and the new Ravenhall prison, which is not only making our community safer but also creating jobs in its construction phase and ongoing operation.

I was asked about policies to grow jobs, and I note that this is the last question time before the AFL Grand Final. I wish the remaining teams well, particularly the Victorian teams, because the grand final is a great driver of economic activity for this state. I am sure the Premier in particular would be very keen to see the Cats do well on Friday night. The day before the grand final will be another busy productive day for the Victorian economy. On that day Victorians will go to work in their factories and make things, they will go to work on construction sites and build things, they will open their shops and sell things and they will work on their farms and grow things. The Victorian economy will buzz with the sounds of industry, productivity and economic growth.

But not everybody shares this economic vision. Some people would prefer on the Friday before the grand final to see our factories close down. They would rather see our shops shut, our building sites silent and our offices empty. Imagine a whole state of people just sitting at home watching Dr Phil on television. That is what Victoria would be like on the day before the grand final if we had that day as another public holiday — Daniel Andrews Day, as I am sure it would become known in time. The Victorian economy cannot afford a Daniel Andrews Day and the Victorian people certainly cannot afford a Daniel Andrews government.

The absolute failure of this opposition to come into this house and debate issues that matter — issues like regional jobs growth, issues like the management of the economy and issues like the provision of infrastructure and services — shows that there is only one side of this house and only one group of people in this state who are serious about governing this state responsibly and well, and that is the coalition government.


Second reading

Debate resumed.

Mr CRISP (Mildura) — I rise to make a contribution to debate on the Radiation Amendment Bill 2013 and to support the bill. The purpose of the bill is:

(a) to provide for security plans for the possession and transportation of high consequence sealed sources and high consequence groups of sealed sources; and

(b) to prohibit the commercial operation of tanning units; and

(c) to empower the Secretary to issue improvement notices or prohibition notices for contraventions, or likely contraventions, of the Act or regulations under the Act; and

(d) to make other minor and consequential amendments to the Act.

The bill will amend the Radiation Act 2005. The purpose of that act is to protect the health and safety of persons from the harmful effects of radiation in the environment. It is essentially a licensing framework to properly authorise the conduct of radiation practices and the use of radiation sources, which include X-rays, radioactive material and commercial tanning units.

It is probably useful to understand a little more about radiation. We know what ionising radiation does; I would like to talk about what it is and how it works. That will help us understand what we need to do to manage these sources of radiation. There are a number of benefits of ionising radiation: diagnosis of disease, which we know; therapy, such as cancer; and industry, where radiation or ionising radiation is used particularly around sterilisation. I will talk a little bit more about cobalt-60 later. There are harmful effects, and thus we need regulation to make sure that we get the benefits from radiation and not the harmful effects.

Ionising radiation comes in a variety of types and sources. We have natural sources — radiation is not the sole occupation of man. There are normal occurrences, such as cosmic radiation, terrestrial radiation and other natural sources which exist. Some of these are enhanced through mining and smelting, the phosphate industry, coalmining and power production from coal, oil and gas drilling and the rare earth and titanium dioxide industries. In my electorate we have titanium as a mineral sand, and it is a valuable resource to Australia. Similarly, in the ceramic industries there are applications of both radium and thorium. There are also



other situations. Of course we have man-made sources. There are peaceful uses, such as nuclear power production. There are also issues around transportation of radiological material. Then there are the military purposes, which we all know a great deal about because they are an uncontrolled use of radiation.

Ionising radiation is composed of particles that individually carry enough energy to liberate an electron from the atom or molecule, ionising it. All of you who do not want a physics lesson should turn off for the next 5 minutes. Ionising radiation is generated through nuclear reactions, either artificial and natural; by very high temperatures, such as plasma discharge or the corona of the sun; or via production of high-energy particles in particle accelerators — and we have one of those in Victoria as well — by using electromagnetic fields to accelerate particles. Some of it is even produced in electromagnetic fields from natural processes, like lightning or supernova explosions. So it is out there. The radiation is emitted and absorbed by an atom. It liberates an atomic particle, being electrons, neutrons and protons or the entire nucleus. This is where the medical applications come in with using ionising radiation — it magnifies the chemical and biological damage that can occur by breaking up the atomic structure of the molecule. That is how we use it in cancer treatment.

You have these particular styles and various sorts of radiation. There are the particles, which are neutrons, protons and electrons, and there is gamma radiation as well. One of the more common experiences you have as a reaction to this is that optical materials darken under ionising radiation. Think about glasses — that is a positive benefit from that understanding of radiation. Also, ionising materials temporarily increases their conductivity, and therefore you can have hazards within semiconductors and microelectronics. The most common thing we know about this is the disturbance to satellites when we have solar flares, so devices that are intended for high-radiation areas need to be shielded. Shielding is not a particularly difficult exercise. If you have alpha radiation, which is a fast-moving helium nucleus, it can be absorbed by a sheet of paper. If you have beta radiation, which is electrons, it can be halted by an aluminium plate. Gamma radiation, which consists of energetic protons, is eventually absorbed as it penetrates dense material. Neutron radiation can be blocked by light elements like hydrogen.

With this understanding of what we know about the materials that are involved in ionising, we need to contain them as we use them for purposes to benefit our society. Containment is a combination of shielding and distance. Radioactive materials are confined in the

smallest possible space and kept out of the environment, and radioactive isotopes for medical use, for example, are disposed of in enclosed handling facilities. You just simply have to shield these materials. That is what this bill is about — how we transport and manage these scientific and medical materials. We have learnt a lot about this over time. There have been some incidents, and that is why this bill is so important as we move forward — to make it safe in how we move this material around, how we handle it and how we account for it.

I would like to now talk about an industrial use of radiation. Steritech is a company out at Dandenong. It has been operating for more than 30 years, sterilising materials through the use of cobalt-60. Those who have been to the Steritech plant, as I have, know that cobalt-60 is the most beautiful, deep blue-purple material. You can stand over the top of it, protected by water, but then it is removed from the containment in the water, and the materials are subject to the radiation. It is used for sterilisation; aseptic packaging for food is sterilised in this way. One of the more common things done at Steritech that surprised me was that bird seed was sterilised, particularly when it is moved between Western Australia and the eastern states, because that can then prevent us having an environmental issue with seeds and weeds being spread. Across Australia you need to have this if you are going to move products like that. Art, craft and archaeological materials that have been brought in from overseas can also be sterilised using radiation, along with medical and other instruments, if you choose to do that.

There are over 100 different products that are treated here in Australia in that way. What you can and cannot do is controlled quite strongly. It shows that a vital part of our modern society is to have these materials in our society. We must manage them in a way that is effective, and that is very much what this particular legislation is about. It builds on the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s recommendations of the report on the regulation and control of radiological material, which goes back to December 2002, when the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to a national review on the regulation, recording and security of storage, sale and handling of hazardous materials. The review was conducted in four parts, covering ammonium nitrate, a very common fertiliser, particularly in the citrus industry; radiological materials; biological materials; and chemical materials. Of course this bill is about radiological materials. In April 2007 COAG agreed to the recommendations from the report, and these include secure storage and transport of radiological materials to



minimise their risk and also to protect us if someone should want to use the materials for acts of terrorism.

There have been a number of recommendations that were put forward from that committee. This legislation is following through on those recommendations. This is a bill dealing with something that many people will feel emotional about. When you understand it, you understand the risk and understand the need for the legislation. This legislation covers off on those risks. I am pleased to support it and wish it a speedy passage.

Ms McLEISH (Seymour) — I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Radiation Amendment Bill 2013 this afternoon. The purpose of this bill in a nutshell is really about the protection of the health and safety of people and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation. This legislation provides us with the licensing framework to look at authorising the conduct of radiation practices and authorising the use of radiation sources, which include X-ray units, radioactive material and commercial tanning units. That is quite a diverse range when you think about radiation sources.

The dual purposes of this bill are, first of all, to look at banning tanning units from the end of 2014 — so, effective from 1 January 2015 — and also to improve the physical security of high-consequence radioactive materials, and the words ‘high consequence’ are particularly important. As with any element of our society, radiation has pros and cons. One of the best known functions of radiation is its use in diagnosing diseases. I am sure everybody in the chamber has had X-rays or scans during which they have been subject to radioactive waves. Others may have had cancer treatments or other procedures, which could include something as simple as going to the dentist and having their teeth X-rayed. X-rays are used prolifically in medical and dental science.

Those who have had X-rays will know of the extreme precautions that are taken by workers conducting them, both for themselves and for their patients. A big lead apron is used as a method of protection. Typically the person taking the film will stand in a secured corner of the room because the harmful effects of radiation are known. Radiation is a terrific element that can do so much to help us with diseases, in medical and dental sciences and in veterinary practices, but we are equally and acutely aware of its harmful effects. That is why the protections that I have talked about are required. Not only are there physical protections for workers and patients, there are also many regulations for radiation use in Victoria, Australia and internationally.

I want to go back to the turn of the 19th century when radiation and its effects were first explored. The wonderful female scientist Marie Curie was at the forefront of world science at the time. She was a Polish-French physicist and chemist who performed pioneering research on radioactivity. She was the first woman to win a Nobel prize, the only woman to win the award in two fields and the only person to win in multiple sciences. She was also the first professor appointed to the University of Paris at the Sorbonne. Tragically she died as a consequence of long-term exposure to radiation in the course of her research. Marie Curie and her husband, Pierre, opened the eyes of the world to the use of radiation as an important treatment tool. She was heavily involved with X-raying during the First World War. I have a science background, so Marie Curie is somebody I have always held in high esteem as a remarkable woman. This is particularly so when considering the turn of the previous century, which was when she was thriving.

I want to concentrate for a moment on the banning of solariums. In 2008 work was done by the government of the time on the usage of solariums. However, it is clear now that that work needs to be extended. We are moving to ban the commercial use of solariums. There are two sides to this. Solariums are small businesses; however, the weight has clearly been on the medical evidence supporting the need to ban solariums. There was a long consultation period from July to September last year on the government’s Skin Cancer Prevention Framework 2013–2017, and some 211 submissions were received during that period.

There have also been a number of prominent deaths as a result of melanoma caused by solariums. This issue has been dealt with by both sides of the house. The case of young Clare Oliver has been very well documented. Clare started tanning in solariums using free vouchers. She discontinued the treatment, but the development of melanoma was quick and her life was lost at a very young age. Many people in this house have been touched by cancer. My brother-in-law passed away as a result of a melanoma. He was not undertaking solarium treatment, but I am acutely aware of the consequences of melanomas and the steps that are being taken to prevent them. I understand there are already provisions in New South Wales and South Australia similar to those in this bill.

The second purpose of the bill, that of improving physical security for high-consequence radioactive material, is about reducing the likelihood of unauthorised access. It is about reducing the likelihood of theft and subsequent misuse. That misuse has come to the fore over the last 20 years as terrorism has



become more sophisticated. Most recently in Syria the use of chemical warfare has been of grave concern. I was in New York on 11 September and remember the horrors associated with that terrorist attack. If radioactive material falls into the wrong hands, it can have dire consequences. There have been examples of that already. In Thailand some old medical equipment was not labelled correctly and it had to be dismantled. The people who did the dismantling of that equipment lost their lives as a result. Radioactive materials are very dangerous, so it is extremely important that they are handled with the utmost care and that we have the appropriate legislative backing and frameworks around that.

I am aware that the idea of developing a security code was discussed at the Council of Australian Governments a number of years ago. A code of practice was also discussed — that is, the process of setting out requirements and a verification process for people who have access to radioactive materials. There are development and implementation strategies, or security plans, to prevent radiation escaping and to protect those who work with it and the environment. We know that if people come into contact with radioactivity, it can cause death. If it is ingested, inhaled or even embedded within the person, it can also produce a range of harmful effects. As children we learnt about the seriousness of gamma rays because we were aware of the Incredible Hulk from the comic strip and TV show. He was a doctor who had received a huge dose of gamma rays and as a result could turn into the Incredible Hulk. That set the framework for us as children.

Among the commonly occurring radioactive elements we have uranium. It is a useful product, but it is also dangerous, as has been well documented. We also have radium and curium — and curium is named after Marie Curie. We have plutonium and some cool ones, like einsteinium, and iridium as well. These different products and the technologies involved in their use have codes ranging from extremely dangerous down to less dangerous. These elements are used in a variety of ways. I have mentioned a lot of their medical uses, but they also have uses in cosmetics and the sterilisation of products in our food. We can use radiation in measuring the depth of different elements and papers and things like that, and this material can be quite easily accessible.

I understand that the number of organisations in Victoria that have access to high-consequence material is quite low, being less than 1 per cent of those who deal in this field. It is important nevertheless that access to and security around this radioactive material is

treated with the utmost care. This is an extremely important bill in two areas — that is, with regard to both the banning of solariums from 1 January next year and also the improvement of security for high-consequence radioactive material. This is an important piece of legislation, and I commend the bill to the house.

Mr THOMPSON (Sandringham) — I am pleased to speak on the Radiation Amendment Bill 2013. The purpose of the bill, as set out in clause 1, is to amend the Radiation Act 2005:

(a) to provide for the security plans for the possession and transportation of high consequence sealed sources and high consequence groups of sealed sources; and

(b) to prohibit the commercial operation of tanning units; and

(c) to empower the Secretary to issue improvement notices or prohibition notices for contraventions, or likely contraventions, of the Act or regulations under the Act; and

(d) to make other minor and consequential amendments to the Act.

I am pleased to follow the contributions of those with keen scientific backgrounds, the members for Seymour and Mildura, who have given good insights into the development of radiation, its uses in medical treatment and the pioneering efforts in terms of the great adventures of the 20th century. The ability to better diagnose medical conditions through the use of radiation has been a great reform that has contributed to the saving of lives, the saving of medical costs and the more efficient treatment of patients. I also note that the greatest discovery of the 20th century in terms of saving lives was penicillin, which has saved more lives around the world than any other individual factor. The work of Australian research scientists in its discovery needs to be noted and commended in terms of its prevention of the loss of life.

In terms of the literary understanding of the role of radiation and its correlation with cancer, there is the great work of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who wrote the novel Cancer Ward. He explored a number of themes, describing the immediate impact of cancer on the lives of radiographers who were treating patients but also providing a certain metaphor or allegory for the communist state. Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Prize in Literature and was one of the great Russian writers in a long tradition of portraying life at a number of different levels. He entitled his Nobel Prize speech ‘One word of truth’. That phrase came from a Russian proverb ‘One word of truth shall outweigh the whole world’.



Moving across to another realm in relation to that Russian proverb, we have the poignant words uttered by Clare Oliver in her dying days at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre. Clare was a young Melburnian who used a tanning salon and was later diagnosed with melanoma. Her oncologist was of the view that the cause was likely her use of the tanning salon. One aspect of the bill deals with that as an issue to preclude the harm and suffering of other people. Clause 1(b), which I referred to earlier, notes that one of the objects of the bill before the house is ‘to prohibit the commercial operation of tanning units’. Concerns have been raised in this area, and in terms of the saving of human lives this has to be a matter of paramount concern. In terms of self-regulation amongst younger members of the community, it is my understanding that there is not always high compliance. Some salons do not have the optimal or desirable level of supervision.

Australia has one of the highest levels of melanoma in the world, and it is important that the insights and perspectives of oncologists and cancer experts are taken on board to minimise the level of suffering in the community. In my role as chair of the Victorian parliamentary Road Safety Committee, I have regard for the great bipartisan work of the Victorian state legislature to reduce the number of deaths on the road. As of yesterday the road toll stood at 162 deaths compared with 193 at the same time the previous year. Given the epidemiology, or the study of diseases and patterns of disease, in Victoria, I am sure that the regulatory reforms provided through this bill will assist in minimising the impact of melanoma and cancer in Victoria.

In relation to the book I alluded to earlier, Cancer Ward by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, there is an article by Patricia Blake entitled ‘A diseased body politic’, which is a review of Cancer Ward. The account by Blake opens as follows:

The union of a great artist and a great theme constitutes, as Kierkegaard observed, ‘the fortunate in the historical process, the divine conjunction of its forces, the high tide of historic time.’

The article goes on:

Thus the union of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and the theme of the concentration camp has produced one of the masterworks of 20th century fiction, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. One Day, and The First Circle as well, achieve what Camus deemed impossible: they compel the human imagination to participate in the agony and murder of millions that have been the distinguishing feature of our age. Such a task could only have been accomplished by literature, performing here what may be, after the historical cataclysm of Stalinism and Nazism, its highest cathartic function.

The article goes on to note that the novel Cancer Ward:

engages another theme which, like prison, the author has witnessed and endured. Once again he guides us into the enclosed world of the condemned and, at his relentless touch, forces us into an awareness of man in extremis. But there is a difference between the theme of the concentration camp and the theme of the cancer ward which makes the first cry out for a Solzhenitsyn, and the second pass him by. It is obvious enough: the camp is man-made, gratuitous and absolutely modern …

And the article goes on with further commentary.

In my observations of the work of scientists, it is important that the effects of cancer be minimised. The bill before the house goes some way towards minimising the impact of commercial tanning salons by banning them.

The bill also deals with the transportation of high-consequence sealed sources and high-consequence groups of sealed sources of radiation. I might note that the Sandringham Hospital has a radiology section where a group of radiographers have worked wisely and well in the diagnosis of patient conditions. It took 20 years to establish the hospital, which has a very important role in not only the Sandringham area but the wider bayside district. It has a number of important features, and the accident and emergency department is currently undergoing a $5 million renovation which will enable it to better serve the needs of the wider community. The multi-serving mayor of the former City of Moorabbin and the City of Kingston, Ron Brownlees, was a highly respected radiographer at the Sandringham Hospital over many years. He lived not far away and was accessible at any time of the day or night to perform an important function.

The bill touches upon the work of hospitals such as the Bayside hospital, the Alfred, the Sandringham Hospital and the Monash Medical Centre. We also have the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre not far from the parliamentary precinct still serving in that area of treatment.

I would also like to pay tribute to great oncologists, including Grant McArthur, who has played a pivotal role. In more recent days he was calling for certain cancer treatments to be more readily available under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. I know he had done an outstanding job in his medical treatment of Luke Bailey, a young boy who suffered from cancer. Luke was a resident of the Carnegie district, and the Caulfield Bears Junior Football Club rallied around Luke’s journey. Luke had treatment under an outstanding oncologist. I pay tribute to Mr McArthur and the other



workers at the Peter MacCallum centre who do an outstanding job in the treatment of cancer.

As people are living longer the rate of death from heart disease is going down through the intervention treatments that are available, but the incidence of death from cancer is rising. I know that even 20 years ago the Sandringham electorate had one of the highest cancer clusters in Victoria. Initially I wondered whether that was due to the fumes travelling across the bay from the Altona refinery, but it was more a product of the demographic of the Sandringham electorate — that is, the age grouping that existed there. Whether it be Sandringham or any one of the other 87 electorates in Victoria, it is important that the health and welfare of the community be protected, and this bill will advance that cause.

Mr WELLER (Rodney) — It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to rise to speak on the Radiation Amendment Bill 2013. The bill amends the Radiation Act 2005. Its purpose is to protect the health and safety of persons and protect the environment from the harmful effects of radiation. It is essentially a licensing framework to authorise the conduct of radiation practices and use of radiation sources, which include X-ray units, radioactive material and commercial tanning units. On tanning, may I say that growing up on a farm I was out there during summer regularly getting a good tan because that was the thing to do back then. I have had checks and some spots were found on me. Fortunately they were of the benign type — the good ones that do not harm you. The bill is a wake-up call to everyone that we have to be very careful. This government has been very proactive in making Victoria a better, safer and healthier place to live, and indeed this bill continues that.

The bill amends the principal act to give effect to the government’s decision to ban commercial tanning units from the end of 2014. I note with sadness that it is almost exactly six years since Clare Oliver lost her battle with melanoma after bringing the risks associated with the use of solariums to the attention of many Australians. Solariums use concentrated radiation to help people to tan. There are better and safer ways of doing that these days.

Victoria commenced the regulation of solariums in February 2008, but four years later it was recognised that more needed to be done by government. Indeed that is what we are doing here today. The government’s announcement to ban commercial tanning units was preceded by a long consultation process on the draft skin cancer prevention framework 2012–17 that was undertaken from July to September 2012. During that

time 211 submissions were received. I note that the submissions included one from the Victorian Cooperative Oncology Group, a membership body of health professionals supported by Cancer Council Victoria, which was co-signed by 161 health professionals calling for a ban on commercial tanning units. Indeed the medical profession is supporting this bill. We are addressing a problem here in Victoria so that people can live and enjoy a good quality life here for longer.

The government noted that skin cancer represents one of the most significant cost burdens on our health system and has serious impacts on the health of Victorians. By making these changes we are making our health system available to people with real need. It is a little bit like illnesses related to tobacco smoking, which is self-inflicted. Here we are trying to eliminate another self-inflicted illness so that people with genuine and real illnesses that are not self-inflicted can be looked after in hospitals.

I turn now to the second part of the bill, which amends the principal act to improve physical security for high-consequence radioactive material to reduce the likelihood of unauthorised access, theft and subsequent misuse of the material by terrorists. I refer to an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which states:

To date, attempts or threats to use radioactive materials as weapons have surfaced only a few times … However, it’s common for radioactive materials to go missing: the International Atomic Energy Agency’s incident trafficking database receives a new report of radioactive material that is out of regulatory control about every other day.

It is getting too frequent. It continues:

Many experts believe it’s only a matter of time before a dirty bomb or another type of radioactive dispersal device is used, with some expressing surprise that it hasn’t happened already.

Another part of the article goes on:

If the Boston marathon had been attacked with dirty bombs, hospitals would have received contaminated victims and patients with radioactive material embedded in them. Protocols for dealing with these problems could have led to delays and further loss of life.

Even if no victims were killed by radiation, there would be long-term medical repercussions. Public health officials would have to determine the radiation doses both to the people who were contaminated and to those who were merely exposed. The history of the few large-scale radiation exposure accidents, such as the 1987 incident involving a medical radiation source in … Brazil …

We need to protect against this material falling into the wrong hands, and we should do everything we can to make sure of that. This bill is about making sure that



this material does not fall into the wrong hands. The bill increases the number of penalty units in some instances tenfold. The structures that surround these materials and the security in relation to them have been beefed up. Not only are these precautions being taken by us but the Council of Australian Governments in 2007 also agreed to a practice for the security of radioactive sources. That is what we are doing with this bill. It has been well planned, and we are implementing it for the safety of all in Victoria.

In conclusion, there are two parts to this bill. It will increase the health and longevity of people in Victoria by protecting them against solariums, so that young people especially do not expose themselves to radiation. That will increase the life expectancy of some of the young people who may otherwise have been exposed in that way. The bill also provides for the protection of society against the possibility of radioactive material falling into the wrong hands. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms MILLER (Bentleigh) — I rise to speak on the Radiation Amendment Bill 2013. There are a few things I want to cover in relation to this bill, and I will outline them shortly. The purpose of the bill as described in clause 1 is to amend the Radiation Act 2005 to provide for the introduction of security plans for the possession and transportation of high-consequence sealed sources and groups of high-consequence sealed sources of radiation; to prohibit the commercial operation of tanning units; to empower the Secretary of the Department of Health to issue improvement and prohibition notices in the case of a contravention or likely contravention of the act or regulations under the act; and to make other minor and consequential amendments to the act.

Although it is not stated in the bill, the parts of the bill related to the security of certain types of radioactive material will enable Victoria to fully give effect to a 2007 Council of Australian Governments agreement to implement security obligations for companies or organisations which possess or transport high-consequence radioactive material within Victoria. These changes will better protect the health and safety of people and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation through improved physical security for high-consequence radioactive material to reduce the likelihood of theft and subsequent misuse of the material by terrorists. Parts of the bill are related to commercial tanning units to give effect to the government’s announcement on 13 December 2012 that it would ban commercial tanning units. The parts of the bill related to the issue of improvement notices and prohibition notices for contraventions or likely

contraventions of the act or regulations will provide an important additional enforcement tool for the Department of Health.

There was a widely publicised story about a lady called Clare Oliver. This bill is reflective of her story, but sadly she is not with us today to tell that story. Tanning units can create severe complications for one’s health. I have a health-care background, and in my electorate of Bentleigh there is the campus of Monash Health, Moorabbin Hospital. It includes an oncology unit with a highly technical diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy unit. I congratulate all the staff who work at Moorabbin Hospital as part of Monash Health, and in particular Sharon Wood, a director of nursing, and others who work in that unit. The Moorabbin Hospital treats oncology patients, and as a hospital it is active six days a week; it is a very busy centre. It is convenient for people who need to be treated for melanoma and other forms of cancer as opposed to going into the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in East Melbourne — and what a wonderful hospital that is. I started my nursing career at Monash Health, Clayton, and ironically I was in the gynaecological oncology unit, so I have had quite a lot of experience in oncology, not only for women’s health but also other forms of cancer.

When we look at radiation and other things that can impact on our health, such as simple things like X-rays, diagnostic imaging or some other form of scanning, we see that some have high-energy radio frequencies and some have lower frequencies, which are safer. In terms of handling and using this sort of equipment when we are doing imaging, there are occupational health and safety policies and practices that have to be adhered to. Part of those are related to handling radioactive materials. When people have some form of treatment, obviously their body fluids become affected and they have to be disposed of safely and appropriately.

When we look at the scientific components there is ionising radiation versus non-ionising radiation. The ionising radiation uses energy to change the chemical bonds within the body. That can also be impacted by shortwave ultraviolet radiation. It also has high energy levels which strip the electrons from and break up the nucleus of the atom. That sort of chemical change — for example, in the form of a tanning unit — can then have detrimental impacts on the cellular composition of the tissue and therefore have serious health impacts over a period of time. In my view, that is unfortunately what happened to Clare Oliver. On the other side of that are the non-ionising radiation units, which can be things like microwaves, infrared waves, ultraviolet lights and gamma rays. The difference is that the level of energy is at a lower frequency. There are also things in the

SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2013


environment such as electricity towers, mobile phone towers and things like that. They do not have a direct impact on our health, but they are worth noting.

In the state of Victoria this is a new piece of legislation that is being introduced to look at the health of all Victorian families and the future health prospects of people, from the very young to those who are older. Over time there has been a lot of commercialisation of beautification, striving to look healthy and being competitive. We all know that when we go on holiday and we have spent a bit of time in the sun we get a bit of a tan and look healthy, and if we look good, we feel good. Certainly in the colder winter months people want that feeling of wellbeing. People therefore feel the need to look good all the time. That is not necessarily a positive thing. It is a known fact that we need a lot of vitamin D, but artificially producing a healthy look is detrimental to our health. I understand that other states around the country have introduced similar legislation.

I know that in the Bentleigh electorate there were some four or five businesses in the tanning industry. As I understand it, in recent times those businesses have diversified, restructured and moved into other areas of business. It is a good thing that those businesses have refocused and gone into another area. At the same time, that change will potentially save the lives of Victorians, which is really important.

On Thursday, 13 December 2012, the government put out a media release headed ‘Coalition to ban commercial sunbeds in Victoria’. That gave all those in the industry significant notice that their businesses will no longer be legal as of 31 December 2014. The government has been very realistic in terms of managing expectations. It has been open and transparent and it has communicated its intention to those running businesses in the industry. It is responsible of the government to look after the physical and mental health of each Victorian where possible, and this legislation is a step towards achieving that. We should all be comfortable with who we are, where we come from and what we look like. We should not feel compelled to use tanning units to get a skin colour that is not real or necessarily healthy. I am happy to commend the bill to the house.

The SPEAKER — Order! The time set down for consideration of items on the government business program has expired, and I am required to interrupt business.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2013

Second reading

Debate resumed from 21 August; motion of Mr O’BRIEN (Treasurer).

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

COURTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (JUDICIAL OFFICERS) BILL 2013

Second reading

Debate resumed from 18 September; motion of Mr CLARK (Attorney-General).

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

The SPEAKER — Order! I advise the house that I am of the opinion that the third reading of this bill must be passed by an absolute majority. As there is not an absolute majority of members present in the house, I ask the Clerk to ring the bells.

Bells rung.

Members having assembled in chamber:

The SPEAKER — Order! The question is:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to without absolute majority.

Read third time.

The SPEAKER — Order! As less than an absolute majority of the whole number of the members of the Legislative Assembly have supported the motion, I

CONSUMER AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2013


advise that in accordance with section 18(5) of the Constitution Act 1975 the bill is void.

Mr Clark — On a point of order, Speaker, clearly the bill has not obtained an absolute majority and has therefore not been passed in a form suitable for transmission to the other place. I submit that in that context it remain in abeyance at this stage and therefore remain a bill with this house, albeit it has not at this stage obtained an absolute majority.

The SPEAKER — Order! I uphold the point of order. The bill has not received an absolute majority, so it can come back again for a vote at another stage.

CONSUMER AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2013

Second reading

Debate resumed from 17 September; motion of Ms VICTORIA (Minister for Consumer Affairs).

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

WYNDHAM PLANNING SCHEME

Debate resumed from 18 September; motion of Mr CLARK (Attorney-General):

That under section 46AH of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 Wyndham planning scheme amendment C156 be ratified.


Ayes, 40 Angus, Mr Napthine, Dr Asher, Ms Newton-Brown, Mr Baillieu, Mr Northe, Mr Battin, Mr O’Brien, Mr Bauer, Mrs Powell, Mrs Burgess, Mr Ryall, Ms Clark, Mr Ryan, Mr Crisp, Mr Smith, Mr R. Delahunty, Mr Southwick, Mr Dixon, Mr Sykes, Dr Fyffe, Mrs Thompson, Mr Gidley, Mr Tilley, Mr Hodgett, Mr Victoria, Ms Kotsiras, Mr Wakeling, Mr McCurdy, Mr Walsh, Mr McIntosh, Mr Watt, Mr

McLeish, Ms Weller, Mr Miller, Ms Wells, Mr Morris, Mr Wooldridge, Ms Mulder, Mr Wreford, Ms

Noes, 39 Allan, Ms Hutchins, Ms Barker, Ms Kanis, Ms Beattie, Ms Knight, Ms Brooks, Mr Languiller, Mr Campbell, Ms Lim, Mr Carbines, Mr McGuire, Mr Carroll, Mr Madden, Mr D’Ambrosio, Ms Merlino, Mr Donnellan, Mr Nardella, Mr Duncan, Ms Neville, Ms Edwards, Ms Noonan, Mr Eren, Mr Pakula, Mr Foley, Mr Pallas, Mr Garrett, Ms Pandazopoulos, Mr Graley, Ms Perera, Mr Green, Ms Scott, Mr Halfpenny, Ms Thomson, Ms Helper, Mr Trezise, Mr Hennessy, Ms Wynne, Mr Howard, Mr

Motion agreed to.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.

ADJOURNMENT

The SPEAKER — Order! The question is:

That the house now adjourns.

Mitcham railway station

Ms RYALL (Mitcham) — I raise a matter for the Minister for Public Transport. The action I seek is for the minister to come out to the site of the Mitcham grade separation project to inspect the works and discuss the possibility of a lift being installed at the new premium railway station. I congratulate the minister on the action being taken to remove the Mitcham and Rooks roads level crossings and on providing the new premium station at Mitcham. The station will ensure that commuters have comfort and an excellent station. Indeed it is now staffed with protective services officers.

Many residents and the Mitcham Residents Association have approached me to talk about the issue of a lift. The station design has ramps and stairs. It is disability compliant, but there have been some concerns expressed that people who perhaps cannot walk for any significant distance, be it due to their age or a disability or for health reasons, therefore cannot navigate the ramps in the way they would prefer to do. In this instance they are seeking discussions in relation to a lift being installed.

ADJOURNMENT


Unfortunately Labor’s history in providing new railway stations is that they have only lifts or stairs. At times this has resulted in people not being able to use the station when the lift has either been vandalised or is out of order. People have been either unable to get to a platform or stranded on a platform because they have not been able to exit the station. The installation of a lift would mean that both options would be available to the people at Mitcham station.

The removal of the level crossings at Mitcham and Rooks roads is going gang busters. Only today I received an email from a constituent who commented on the fabulous progress being made. I look forward to the minister’s response on whether he can visit the site of the Mitcham level crossing project with me in due course.

City of Hume Sunbury plebiscite

Ms DUNCAN (Macedon) — The matter I wish to raise is for the attention of the Minister for Local Government. In keeping with its election promise, the Liberal government is conducting a plebiscite across the city of Hume to give Sunbury residents the opportunity to vote to separate from Hume. KPMG prepared two reports to help inform the community, and the action I am seeking from the minister is that she ensure that those reports are widely circulated and all relevant information is provided to the residents of Sunbury to enable them to make an informed decision.

I am also concerned that there have been a number of meetings by invitation only, where the form of the question to be put to residents was discussed. That is not an open and transparent process. I ask the minister to ensure that this poll is conducted in a way that gives every Sunbury resident the opportunity to be properly informed.

This issue has a long history. Basically since the Kennett government, with the vote of Bernie Finn, now a member for Western Metropolitan Region in the Council, put Sunbury into the city of Hume, the Sunbury Residents Association (SRA) has been lobbying to have Sunbury taken out. Last night SRA held a public meeting with about 300 people in attendance. While SRA promoted this meeting as ‘finding out the real facts’, the only speakers presented were those speaking in support of separation.

In preparation for this vote, the minister commissioned KPMG to do a report in two parts. The first was to determine the level of services provided to Sunbury by the City of Hume, and the second was to determine the financial implications. It found that Sunbury receives

the same level of service or in some instances a greater level of service than the rest of the city of Hume. It also found that Sunbury rates would increase by a total of 14.2 per cent over four years if Sunbury were to separate. This report is consistent with a previous report by the Labor government that also found that rates would rise. SRA dismisses all these reports as flawed. Instead it asks the people of Sunbury to rely on the opinion of a former Shire of Bulla engineer, who has not worked in local government for 30 years and has no financial or economic training, and also on the views of an ex-Hume City Council employee, who prepared a paper while at university and at last night’s meeting claimed that revenue from a privately run and owned tip could be used as a future revenue source for a separated Sunbury shire. We also know that Sunbury residents will be asked to vote before they know what the actual boundaries will be.

I have no ideological objection to Sunbury separating from the city Hume. My overwhelming consideration is that Sunbury residents should understand the current situation and fully understand all the implications of separation in the short, medium and long term, because there will be no going back. I ask the minister to ensure that this vote is an informed one. Most residents associations lobby for lower rates. SRA is the only residents association I know of that is advocating for a course of action that will increase rates — to pay more for less or, at best, more for the same — so it can take Sunbury back to the good old days when the good old boys ran the show.

Victoria’s Small Business Festival

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) — I raise a matter for the Minister for Innovation, Services and Small Business. The matter I wish to raise concerns Victoria’s Small Business Festival, which ran throughout the month of August. The action I seek from the minister is that she provide an update on the results of this year’s festival, including information on the success of the festival and some of the events that took place. Small businesses in Victoria account for 96 per cent of all businesses in the state and almost half the private sector employment. Around 1.2 million jobs are created, which accounts for some 30 per cent of our productivity. Many of these are microbusinesses, some of which are limited in their resources and in desperate need of assistance and advice.

The annual festival supports the Victorian government’s commitment to assist small businesses to improve and upskill their practices. The festival is in its eighth year and holds events across the state, including for some time now events in regional Victoria. This

ADJOURNMENT


year, for the first time I believe, the small business festival included a festival hub located at Federation Square. I am very interested to hear from the minister about the success of the Federation Square hub, particularly as it was the first time it had occurred. I had the opportunity to visit the hub during August, where I represented the minister at an event on measuring the success of websites. The event was about helping small businesses gain an understanding of how to utilise their web presence to grow their business. There was an information session for small businesses, with experts on hand to provide advice. These sorts of events are valuable for small businesses and vital for the many that do not have resources to get some know-how.

The number of events held by the festival has grown from year to year, and I am very keen to hear from the minister about the success of the hub and how many events were held. The festival certainly had a significant presence, particularly at Federation Square, with its highly visible hub. While I was there it seemed to me that many businesses were taking up the opportunity of attending the various sessions. In this day and age it is vital for businesses to have dynamic representation, access to all of the services they need and strong government support. I am sure members are interested to learn what can be done to provide extended services and support for small businesses, which are the backbone of our community. We need to ensure that we do whatever we can to grow those businesses that grow jobs, and I ask the minister to update the house on the success of the festival.

Fishermans Bend urban renewal project

Mr FOLEY (Albert Park) — The matter I wish to raise is for the attention of the Minister for Planning. The action I seek is that the minister confirm that he will not as the nominated planning authority approve any current or future application for development in the capital city zone he declared in 2012, the Fishermans Bend urban renewal area, until such time as the new permanent planning controls foreshadowed in the government’s draft 50-year vision for the Fishermans Bend urban renewal area released this week are in place.

To be clear, page 9 of the minister’s grand vision for Fishermans Bend sets out where we are in 2013 and where the government will be in 2014. It highlights two documents released on Monday. The first is the draft vision, a grand document that delivers not one dollar to metropolitan railway stations, tram routes, open spaces, schools and other infrastructure and materials that will be needed over the next 50 years as a town the size of Bendigo is inserted into South Melbourne and Port

Melbourne. This ‘Look at me’ document was accompanied by an interim design guideline document which provides urban design principles and building controls for the new development. The timetable for the minister’s grand vision then says that the government will variously finalise a strategic framework plan, final design guidelines and new planning controls.

The government released an unfunded document, and the credibility of its ever being implemented has been the subject of various media and industry commentary, including, ‘You might as well put in a teleporter’, which was said on ABC radio, and ‘You might as well say they will put a space station there’, which appeared in the Australian Financial Review. The question that begs to be answered is: why has the government issued the interim guidelines now only to spend the next year consulting on the final design guidelines? The question needs to be answered because the Minister for Planning in response to a question from a journalist on Monday tweeted:

This is why a structure plan is being done. Not sure how many times I have to say nothing will be approved until it’s complete.

It is interesting to note that within an hour of that being tweeted the minister deleted the tweet from his account. It is interesting to note that the minister has subsequently declined to comment, and that is because the minister in his role as the planning authority has before him now some 17 planning permit applications for towers of up to 53 storeys, which are about to be let loose on the inner south and destroy the community’s amenity — —

The SPEAKER — Time!

Mallee Family Care

Mr CRISP (Mildura) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Deputy Premier and Minister for Regional and Rural Development. The action I seek is that the minister provide funds to improve the accessibility of Mallee Family Care’s Eighth Street disability premises. Mallee Family Care was established in August 1979 in response to community needs in the north-west of Victoria and the south-west of New South Wales. Commencing as part of the Melbourne Family Care organisation, it was separated and incorporated in 1984. Today it is a locally accountable provider of health, welfare and family services. Mallee Family Care’s primary objective is to create a stronger and more caring community. It seeks to achieve this through the provision of assistance to families and others in the community by guiding and

ADJOURNMENT


supporting them into more fulfilling and meaningful lives, which in turn benefits the community as a whole.

Mallee Family Care’s priorities are guided by the hopes and aspirations of the community it serves, and it provides a range of programs and activities reflecting the current needs of the community in Mildura and the northern Victoria region. Mallee Family Care provides an extensive suite of services. Its family, youth and children department offers family support, foster care, early childhood intervention programs, an unaccompanied minors program, a kindergarten inclusion and support service, the Creating Connections youth program, various youth services, Indigenous community links, a preschool field officer and a parenting support and play group. It houses the Mildura Family Relationship Centre. It offers family and relationship services, a regional family dispute resolution service, a child contact service, a post-separation cooperative parenting program and a safe Aboriginal youth program. In the disability area it offers respite support, disability respite, an independent living program and outreach and support programs. It offers mental health services plus housing and settlement services. It has legal and financial services and learning and education services.

The early intervention service is currently located at Lemon Avenue in Mildura. Mallee Family Care would like to bring all of its services onto one site as it has outgrown its existing site. The premises in Eighth Street, which is close to the existing services, handles All-Star Access, one of the leading disability service and employment providers in the Mildura region. This is a chance for all these services to end up under one roof, and I think that is very important.

As we move forward with this matter we should bear in mind that Mallee Family Care is a large not-for-profit organisation that provides welfare services to the community. This funding would provide for the installation of a lift to access the second storey of the organisation’s building, and improving access in this way would allow the early childhood intervention centre to be co-located with all the other disability services in Eighth Street. This would assure good service provision. Equal access is important. Securing the funding needed for the redevelopment would be a marvellous achievement that would benefit Mallee Family Care and the disabled in the Mildura area.

Victorian Collections staff funding

Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine) — The matter I raise is for the Minister for the Arts. The action I seek is that the minister guarantee ongoing funding for Victorian

Collections to continue to employ two part-time staff members who provide invaluable training to workers who are mainly volunteers. Victorian Collections is a partnership project of Museums Australia and Museum Victoria. It provides a free, easy-to-use online cataloguing system especially focused on small collecting organisations throughout Victoria. This service was established back in 2010, and it is being used by hundreds of small museums and heritage collections to catalogue items and upload them to the Victorian Collections website, where the public has free access.

In Geelong, for example, this service is widely used by organisations like the Queenscliffe Maritime Museum, the Geelong RSL and the Geelong Naval and Maritime Museum. It is also used by the Surf World Museum in Torquay. In addition, through the Dutch Australian Heritage Centre, which is particularly concerned about this defunding, Geelong residents of Dutch origin have been adding significant items to the website in relation to the history of Dutch migration to Victoria. Right across Victoria and in Geelong small museums, historical societies and local communities derive great benefit from this service.

As part of the work of Victorian Collections, low-cost training is provided to workers, who are mainly volunteers, in how to catalogue collections. The training makes it possible for volunteers, workers and organisations to make the most of Victorian Collections and ensures that our history is catalogued. Funding was provided for two part-time staff members to undertake the training, but unfortunately this funding expires at the end of this year. This will put in jeopardy the great work of Victorian Collections and the ability of small heritage and historical organisations to properly record their collections. It should be noted that being able to catalogue important historical information is very important to many ethnic communities across our community.

The minister will be aware that I wrote to her last month about this matter. Unfortunately the minister responded that Victorian Collections will have to find alternative funding support. The local groups that raised with me the loss of the funding were very disappointed by this response. As the minister would be aware, it is very difficult to source funding for training positions of this kind. It is a very small amount of funding overall — for two part-time staff — but it goes a long way and supports many communities and organisations. It is critical that this funding decision be reconsidered. I again ask that the minister guarantee ongoing funding for these two part-time training positions.

ADJOURNMENT


Wodonga community facility site

Mr TILLEY (Benambra) — I wish to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. The action I seek is that the minister once again visit the Benambra electorate and meet with representatives of the Wodonga Brass Band, the Albury Wodonga Theatre Company and Wodonga men’s shed to identify suitable sites for possible development by these groups of a new joint facility.

Wodonga Brass Band in association with the Albury Wodonga Theatre Company and the men’s shed have put together a proposal that would provide an important not-for-profit community arts hub or incubator entertainment facility comprising a small auditorium, brass band and theatre company rehearsal rooms, a men’s shed that will also provide theatre props, a low-cost periodic rehearsal space for other bands, a low-cost community meeting space and associated amenities. Initial discussions about realising the potential of the facility have taken place, and there is a real possibility of a retail tenant to create a regular revenue stream to assist with the running costs of such a facility. This business currently provides music lessons to over 180 students and has a strong identity in the region.

The current location of the band room of the Wodonga Brass Band is no longer available due to rezoning of the land on which it stands to road zone category 2; the land will ultimately be required for future road or related purposes as part of the revitalisation of Wodonga’s central business area. The band moved to its current site in June 1967; the building was relocated from the band’s previous location. In the 1980s a public appeal called for materials, labour and finance for the addition of a rehearsal room. Community pride in the band was evident when the room was opened in October 1982, with a majority of the labour hours having been provided voluntarily. The band has a long and proud history in the Wodonga community and performs at many events. Currently the band has 48 members, ranging in age from 15 to 84 years.

The Albury Wodonga Theatre Company has been around for over 40 years. It is our local community-based performing arts organisation. The theatre company strives to produce high-quality theatre and musical productions while at the same time providing local performers and crew with the chance to get involved and develop their skills. I was thrilled to recently attend a production of Broadway Unplugged and wish the theatre company all the best for its upcoming production of Mother and Son. The Albury Wodonga Theatre Company is a not-for-profit group

run 100 per cent by local volunteers. Its current site is also insecure.

The Wodonga men’s shed has around 60 members. It plays an important role in stage prop production as well as other types of community involvement, and its current site is also insecure. At this stage $200 000 of philanthropic funding is available for a combined facility if a site can be secured.

Summerhill Residential Park

Mr SCOTT (Preston) — The matter I raise today is for the attention of the Minister for Consumer Affairs. The action I seek is that an investigation be conducted by Consumer Affairs Victoria into the Summerhill Residential Park, in particular in relation to breaches of the consumer rights of the tenants. A meeting was held this week of 120 concerned residents of Summerhill. My understanding is that this is the largest meeting they have ever had. A high level of anxiety and concern was expressed by residents about documents being circulated by management requiring people to reapply for their tenancies despite the fact that they have a current contract, in some cases with a year or more to run. The residents are all elderly and seem concerned — and in some cases bewildered — by these changes.

The letter from the manager, Mr Wellard, who has come to the attention of this house on many previous occasions, requested residents to come in for a meeting. When residents sought to have a witness at the meeting, Mr Wellard refused to proceed, claiming it had to be a one-on-one meeting. The residents are concerned about whether they are obliged to sign a tenancy document. Some felt they had no choice but to sign and are now worried. They were told that rents would rise to take into account forthcoming pension and CPI increases. People are very worried that they will be evicted if they do not sign the new document. The general mood is one of very great concern amongst residents.

Unfortunately this is fairly typical behaviour by Mr Wellard, a person who has been referred to in this house on numerous occasions and whose actions through legal representatives have established new precedents of privilege due to threats that were made to individuals seeking to raise matters in this house and passing information to MPs. Mr Wellard has been referred to as a rogue and a scoundrel, and I think he has done little to persuade the community that he is unworthy of those terms. I am yet to receive paperwork, but there is verbal evidence that Mr Wellard told residents that he would be passing on the fire levy.

ADJOURNMENT


Typical of the environment at Summerhill are attempts to intimidate members of the community, including June Walkeden. Ms Walkeden, who stood up for her rights and the rights of other residents in the Summerhill Residential Park, has been subject to coercion attempts. A number of staff have turned up and banged persistently on her door and demanded her presence, leading to her becoming frightened. She is an elderly lady. Staff have spoken angrily to her and she feels that she has been bullied. Sadly, this is just one example of many where Mr Wellard has sought to use authority in order to coerce elderly residents, who in many cases are simply seeking to assert their rights under the laws that exist in Victoria. As I said before, Mr Wellard has the odious distinction of having established a precedent of privilege relating to threats to members of the community who seek to have matters raised in this Parliament.

Mornington electorate environmental care groups

Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — The Mornington Peninsula, and more particularly the Mornington electorate, is very lucky to have many committed local groups that work to protect our environment. The matter I raise this afternoon is for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. The action I seek is that the minister use his best endeavours to support community groups in the great work they do to protect our environment, coastal areas and waterways.

I should make the declaration that I am a member of the Balcombe Estuary Rehabilitation Group, the Sunshine Reserve Conservation and Fireguard Group and the Mount Eliza Association for Environmental Care. Those memberships are of course more symbolic than practical. I do on occasion engage in the odd weed-pull and have done more than a bit of tree planting in my time, but I cannot claim to be an active member of any of those associations. However, I am certainly happy to pay my membership fees.

In the last few years those groups and many others have engaged in a terrific range of activities, particularly in terms of work with waterways, many of which were degraded in the 1960s and 1970s. A terrific amount of work has been done in the waterways and along our coastal areas too. To give the house the flavour of the sort of work that has been done in the last couple of years, the Balcombe Estuary Rehabilitation Group has worked with the Mount Martha foreshore on the biolink project. Before that, over a period of a decade or more it did a terrific job in restoring what was the Mount Martha caravan park. It was quite degraded in parts and is now a terrific natural reserve. The Sunshine Reserve

Conservation and Fireguard Group similarly took over a much-degraded waterway more than a decade ago and has done tremendous work there.

The Friends of Williams Road Beach does not have quite the longevity of the other groups, but in recent years it has done a terrific amount of work in a sensitive coastal environment. Of course the Mount Eliza Association for Environmental Care, which has been around in my neck of the woods for considerably longer than I have, has made a terrific contribution over the journey. It continues to make a terrific contribution. The work it has done in the last 12 months on various areas of foreshore and throughout the woodlands in Mount Eliza is very impressive. I seek the support of the minister for the terrific work and value-adding that these groups do for our community.

Fullarton Road, Airport West

Mr CARROLL (Niddrie) — The matter I raise is for the attention of the Minister for Roads. I call on the minister to fix once and for all the serious safety issues in Fullarton Road, Airport West. There are two specific actions I seek from the minister: the installation of a guardrail on the residents’ side of Fullarton Road between McNamara Avenue and Grange Road, Airport West, and the relocation of the westbound Fullarton Road bus stop.

Fullarton Road, Airport West, is a secondary state arterial road under the responsibility of VicRoads. There are two major safety concerns with this stretch of road. First and foremost, drivers repeatedly lose control on Fullarton Road after exiting the Calder Freeway. Second, the westbound Fullarton Road bus stop is not connected to a footpath. Local students from Niddrie Primary School and Essendon Keilor College are advised not to use it, because it is an accident waiting to happen.

Shortly after I was elected as the member for Niddrie I was contacted by residents living in Coniston Avenue, Airport West, who are the locals most affected by this dangerous stretch of road. On 6 July 2012, I subsequently met with the residents, heard their concerns and inspected the site, and I have since taken up their cause. However, more than 12 months later, despite my best efforts, there has been no resolution to this serious safety issue on Fullarton Road. Sadly there have been more accidents.

On 24 July 2012, I wrote the minister an evidence-based and detailed letter requesting the installation of guardrails and the relocation of the westbound bus stop on Fullarton Road. On 22 August

ADJOURNMENT


the minister responded, advising me that VicRoads did not support the installation of a guardrail and, further, that VicRoads would arrange a meeting with Moonee Valley City Council and Public Transport Victoria to review the bus stop. There has been a meeting and there have been lots of emails back and forth, but there has been no resolution on the safety issues at Fullarton Road.

In June this year a driver in a Porsche Cayenne struck the light pole at the corner of Fullarton Road and Coniston Avenue. Both an ambulance and a fire truck were called out to the scene. Just last Monday night, 16 September, another vehicle lost control and went into a house at the corner of Coniston Avenue and Fullarton Road. According to VicRoads, there were four recorded casualty crashes over the five-year period to 30 June 2011. Local Airport West resident Ed Castenmiller says his ‘biggest concern is one day some car will be out of control again and collect a few kids’.

On behalf of residents of Coniston Avenue and school students attending the nearby Essendon Keilor College and Niddrie Primary School, I ask the minister to request that VicRoads and Public Transport Victoria work with Moonee Valley City Council to again consider the installation of a guardrail on Fullarton Road and the relocation of the westbound bus stop. A lot of work has gone into finding a sensible and suitable resolution to these safety issues in Fullarton Road, particularly by the Bus Association Victoria, and I am sure that with some goodwill a resolution can be reached.

Responses

Mr RYAN (Minister for Regional and Rural Development) — I wish to respond to a matter raised with me by the member for Mildura. It relates to Mallee Family Care, which as all members will know, does fabulous work on behalf of the people of Mildura, particularly those who have challenging issues to accommodate in the areas of welfare and family. One of the important roles of the organisation is to operate an early intervention centre. This facility supports families with children experiencing disability or development delays. Mallee Family Care also coordinates All Star Access, which is a service providing employment and training services to people with a disability. These disability services are located on the ground floor of a building on Eighth Street in Mildura, and what Mallee Family Care wants to do is bring its early intervention program to the same site, allowing for more integrated community services.

This is going to require changes to both layout and accessibility. Given that many of the clients experience difficulty in negotiating stairs, it will mean a lift will need to be installed to the second floor of the building. Apart from anything else, this is an issue of equity. These people are entitled to the capacity to gain access to appropriate forms of service. This is a $120 000 project. The member raised with me the prospect of the government assisting in circumstances where $20 000 towards the project has been provided by a variety of local businesses and another $20 000 is being provided in voluntary labour and in-kind support. I am pleased to be able to tell the member and the house, the people of Mildura and particularly the clients of Mallee Family Care, that through Regional Development Victoria the government will contribute the balance of $80 000 to what I regard as being an extremely laudable project. Indeed, if I may be so bold, I suspect that sentiment would be shared by the whole of the Parliament.

Mr R. SMITH (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — The member for Mornington raised issues with me regarding some conservation groups in his area, specifically conservation groups that work on the beach areas of his electorate. I can say that this government has committed in excess of $18 million to beach renourishment programs and beach infrastructure programs, and indeed funds are available to many volunteer groups that we have in this great state. There are 9000 volunteers who work on our coasts for our communities, and they should certainly be commended.

It is great to hear that the member for Mornington is a member of three of those community groups. I think that is probably a great indication of how much the member involves himself in his community and how aware he is of the goings-on there. It is also a credit to his community more broadly that there are a number of these conservation groups in it, not just the three that the member for Mornington mentioned, but also the Friends of Williams Road Beach and the Friends of the Hooded Plover. There may be more groups than that. As I said, it is a real credit to him that the member has involved himself so fully in the community in his electorate.

Of the $18 million this government has dedicated to coastal issues, $9.1 million was committed in the last budget to support regional coastal plans and repair and maintain coastal infrastructure. Some of the money has also been allocated for competitive grants for conservation groups doing coastal work, coast care groups and others. The member referred to an application process that is now in train, and while it is a competitive grants process and as such will be judged

ADJOURNMENT


on certain criteria, I think it is very valid that he has raised it here and has highlighted the work that has been done. I wish the groups he has mentioned well, as I do any other groups that he has not mentioned that may have made applications.

The member for Benambra raised a matter concerning his electorate and also showed a high level of knowledge of his community. He knows exactly what the men’s shed, the brass band and the theatre group in his area are doing. He is very well aware that those groups have a proposal regarding finding some Crown land for their use. It is those sorts of groups that bring the community together, and I think it is great that he is aware of the proposal, is aware of their needs and is able to bring those forward. I would be very happy to take up his invitation to go up to Benambra again. I have on a number of very enjoyable occasions visited Benambra and met with members of the community. I must say I have very much enjoyed interacting with those people as well as with the member for Benambra, so I look forward to going up there again, meeting with these groups, looking at the issues and assisting in any way I can.

Mrs POWELL (Minister for Local Government) — The member for Macedon raised a matter with me about the forthcoming poll of Hume City Council residents and ratepayers on the question of whether a separate Sunbury shire should be established. As the member rightly said, it was a 2010 election commitment of the government to give the community a say on whether Sunbury should remain within the city of Hume. The member wanted to make sure that residents had enough information in their hands when they voted. I can tell the member that we also want to make sure that the people in Hume have enough information. I know the member for Macedon was at one of the public meetings where I launched one of those documents along with a former member for Northern Victoria Region, Donna Petrovich, who also did a lot of work on this issue.

One of the things we did to ensure that the community makes an informed decision was to release the independent, stage I report entitled Hume City Council’s Service Provision in Sunbury 2012, which was conducted by KPMG. The member for Macedon raised that report and talked about it. That report was followed by a second study, which looked at the impact and the costs of establishing a separate Sunbury shire. As part of this second stage, KPMG and the then Department of Planning and Community Development undertook a consultation meeting on 6 June to allow interested community members to ask questions and to feed any views into the second stage of the report.

On 4 July I issued a media release encouraging community members to comment on the three potential ballot papers to ensure that they fully understood the question when it was asked of them in the October poll. In addition to this, Local Government Victoria representatives met with a number of local residents groups — the member mentioned a number of those groups — as well as business operators to examine the three potential questions. The wider community also had an opportunity to provide feedback on the ballot question. On 31 July I released the second KPMG report, entitled Impact of Potential Secession of Sunbury from Hume. This report detailed the potential financial implications of separating Sunbury from Hume, and the member mentioned a number of those impacts in her presentation.

Following extensive community consultation I announced that on 28 August there would be a simple and direct question put to the people of Hume. This question is, ‘To establish a new shire of Sunbury: are you in favour of the proposal — yes or no?’. If you are in favour, you say yes, and if you are not in favour, you say no. It will also be done by postcodes, as the community asked me to make sure that it was by postcodes rather than the ward system.

The vote will be by postal vote. It needs to be in by Friday, 25 October. It will be run by the Victorian Electoral Commission. If people want to have a new shire of Sunbury established, they should vote yes. There will be some information about where they can get enough information to allow them to have an informed vote. We did not want to put too much information into the package because it would be confusing and might look as though the government were trying to direct voters, so we have simply directed them to where they can find that information.

Mr MULDER (Minister for Public Transport) — The member for Niddrie has raised an issue with me in relation to Fullarton Road. His request on behalf of residents, in particular of Coniston Avenue in Airport West, was for the installation of a guardrail along that area of road. He has also provided me with some photographs of the actual area concerned along Fullarton Road, the location of the bus stop and how close it is to the edge of the road. There is also a retaining fence sitting just behind it. I understand that there have been meetings conducted with the council. VicRoads has had discussions, but the member is concerned that there has not been any progress since those meetings occurred. What I will do for the member for Niddrie is raise this issue with VicRoads to see whether I can get an understanding from it as to what the hold-up is, at least in getting a comprehensive

ADJOURNMENT


response, and also to find out whether there is anything we can do at that particular location to improve safety.

The member for Mitcham has raised an issue with me in relation to the Mitcham and Rooks roads grade separation project, which of course the member for Mitcham is a very strong advocate for in her community. The member for Mitcham has done a lot of work in relation to this project. I know there was a lot of discussion and concern in relation to the location of the cycling track, and the member for Mitcham worked tirelessly with the cycling fraternity throughout her community to come up with a resolution. That demonstrates just how hard she works in her electorate. Having sorted out that issue with me and my office, the member for Mitcham has now turned her attention to the station project in its own right.

Mr Weller — She is a tireless worker.

Mr MULDER — She is a tireless worker. There are 22 000 vehicles and more than 200 trains passing through that level crossing each day, including up to 40 trains each morning, half of them peak services. It is a very busy crossing, and of course the station has a very strong level of patronage in its own right. The concern the member for Mitcham has in relation to it is that in the past we have had in place a station user panel that provided advice to Public Transport Victoria in terms of how to design and construct stations and how to get the best outcome, particularly for elderly people and people with disabilities. We ensure that the stations we build now have either ramps or lifts to complement stairs so that people get good and easy access through the station. I know that elderly people within the member for Mitcham’s community and some people in the local aged-care facilities have raised concerns with her in relation to the fact that this particular project has provision for lifts but they were not included in the original announcement.

I assure the member for Mitcham that because of her representation and her hard work in this particular area we are taking this matter up with Public Transport Victoria on her behalf to ensure that we get the best possible outcome for the people of Mitcham who want to access this brand-new beautiful railway station that the member for Mitcham has worked so hard to achieve for them.

Ms ASHER (Minister for Innovation, Services and Small Business) — The member for Caulfield raised a matter for me regarding Victoria’s Small Business Festival held in August. He is a very strong supporter of small business, and Victorian governments of many political complexions have supported a Victorian small

business festival, which we did again during August. As a government we have tried to introduce new key performance indicators to make sure that the festival provides absolutely everything small business is looking for. We put on more events with established industry associations and peak bodies. We held more events outside of business hours and outside of the Melbourne CBD, closer to where small businesses are based and operate, and a greater proportion of events were held in regional Victoria. The proportion for this year’s festival was around 50 per cent of events being held in regional Victoria, where small business is such an important part of the economy. We had complementary mini festivals in regional Victoria and a whole range of other regional events, as I have indicated.

The hub at Federation Square was a great success. The events themselves were reported to us as being great successes. We will receive a more formal report in due course, and I will be happy to provide information on that to the member for Caulfield. Again, the festival highlights many of our existing services, such as the small business mentoring program, small business workshops, the seminar program and the mobile business centres. I thank the member for Caulfield for raising that particular matter, which is reflective of his interest in small business. As he indicated in his presentation, he is my representative at many official events, and I am very grateful for his assistance and for the fact that he has asked for further information about a festival that we get good feedback about from the small business sector.

I will handle a number of other matters that were raised for other ministers. The member for Albert Park raised a matter for the Minister for Planning regarding planning approvals in the Fishermans Bend renewal area. I will pass that matter on to the Minister for Planning.

The member for Bellarine raised a matter with the Minister for the Arts regarding funding for collections, and I will pass that matter on to her.

The member for Preston raised a matter which, if I am correct, has been raised on multiple occasions in this house.

Mr Scott — It is not exactly the same.

Ms ASHER — No, I am not suggesting for a minute that it is the same subject matter. It is about Summerhill Residential Park, which has been raised on multiple occasions. The member called for an investigation, and I will pass that matter on to the

ADJOURNMENT


Minister for Consumer Affairs, as requested by the member for Preston.

The SPEAKER — Order! I now declare the house adjourned.

House adjourned 4.55 p.m. until Tuesday, 15 October.

3284 ASSEMBLY

Documents

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) · The Honourable ALEX CHERNOV, AC, QC. The Lieutenant-Governor The Honourable Justice MARILYN WARREN, AC . The ministry (from 22 April 2013) ... 7