parliamentary debates (hansard) - parliament of victoria 20… · ‘fast-tracked’ social...

EXTRACT FROM BOOK

PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-SIXTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

Wednesday, 11 November 2009

(Extract from book 15)

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

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

The Governor

Professor DAVID de KRETSER, AC

The Lieutenant-Governor

The Honourable Justice MARILYN WARREN, AC

The ministry

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

The Hon. J. M. Brumby, MP

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

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

The Hon. J. Lenders, MLC

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

The Hon. J. M. Allan, MP

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

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

The Hon. P. Batchelor, MP

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

The Hon. R. G. Cameron, MP

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

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

The Hon. T. J. Holding, MP

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

The Hon. G. W. Jennings, MLC

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

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

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

The Hon. J. A. Merlino, MP

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

The Hon. M. V. Morand, MP

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

The Hon. L. M. Neville, MP

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

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

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

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

The Hon. A. G. Robinson, MP

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

The Hon. R. W. Wynne, MP

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

Legislative Council committees

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

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

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

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

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

Joint committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heads of parliamentary departments

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

Parliamentary Services — Secretary: Dr S. O’Kane

MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-SIXTH PARLIAMENT — FIRST SESSION

President: The Hon. R. F. SMITH

Deputy President: Mr BRUCE ATKINSON

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

Leader of the Government: Mr JOHN LENDERS

Deputy Leader of the Government: Mr GAVIN JENNINGS

Leader of the Opposition: Mr DAVID DAVIS

Deputy Leader of the Opposition: Ms WENDY LOVELL

Leader of The Nationals: Mr PETER HALL

Deputy Leader of The Nationals: Mr DAMIAN DRUM

Member Region Party Member Region Party

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

CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 2009

PETITIONS Buffalo Stadium, Woodend: facilities .......................5281 Housing: Moorabbin.................................................5281 Equal opportunity: legislation ..................................5281 Planning: processes ..................................................5281 Box Hill Hospital: funding........................................5282

PARTNERSHIPS VICTORIA Biosciences Research Centre....................................5282

PAPERS..........................................................................5282

NOTICES OF MOTION...................................................5282

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Member for Forest Hill: conduct..............................5283 Remembrance Day ..........................................5283, 5285 Aboriginals: war service...........................................5283 Planning: mentoring event........................................5284 Geelong: Red Bull air race .......................................5284 Tertiary education and training: Industry

Experts as Teachers program...............................5284 Gateway community health centre: award...............5284 Bushfires: preparedness............................................5284 Ballarat Basketball Association: centenary .............5285 Gaffneys Creek: community centre...........................5285 Youth: Bendigo mobile canteen ................................5286 Roberts McCubbin Primary School: facilities .........5286 Ruyton Girls School: car-pooling program .............5286 Regional and rural Victoria: road sealing ...............5286

COAL EXPORTS: PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.....5287

PLANNING INSTRUMENT OF DELEGATION: PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS..............................5292

CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME: PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS..........5293, 5311, 5338

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Hospitals: accounting standards ....................5301, 5302 Fire services: funding ...............................................5303 Electricity: smart meters ...........................................5304 Regional and rural Victoria: first home owner

grants.....................................................................5305 Planning: growth areas infrastructure

contribution ...........................................................5306 Planning: Mornington activity centre ......................5306 Australian Synchrotron: director..............................5307 Innovation: government initiatives ...........................5308 Corio Bay: pollution .................................................5309 Country Fire Authority: volunteers ..........................5309

SUSPENSION OF MEMBERS Hon. T. C. Theophanous ...........................................5303

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Answers .....................................................................5311

VICTORIAN FUNDS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION: GOVERNANCE .............................5311

BROOKLAND GREENS ESTATE, CRANBOURNE: OMBUDSMAN’S REPORT ........................................5325

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT (CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE) BILL Statement of compatibility.........................................5339

Second reading ......................................................... 5339 VICTORIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY AMENDMENT

BILL Second reading ......................................................... 5340 Third reading ............................................................ 5341

EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFORM AMENDMENT (SCHOOL AGE) BILL Second reading ......................................................... 5342 Third reading ............................................................ 5357

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (BRIMBANK CITY COUNCIL) BILL Second reading ......................................................... 5358

JUSTICE LEGISLATION MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS BILL Introduction and first reading .................................. 5366

ADJOURNMENT Schools: Shepparton ................................................. 5366 Housing: Northern Victoria Region......................... 5367 Glenelg Highway: maintenance ............................... 5368 Smoking: minimum age ............................................ 5368 Planning: Port Phillip Woollen Mills site................ 5369 Bushfires: Apollo Bay Airport .................................. 5369 Schools: student punishment reporting .................... 5370 Member for Gembrook: conduct .............................. 5370 Health: Wallan super-clinic ..................................... 5371 Bushfires: East Gippsland ........................................ 5371 Gould League: centenary ......................................... 5372 Responses .................................................................. 5372

PETITIONS

Wednesday, 11 November 2009 COUNCIL 5281

Wednesday, 11 November 2009

The PRESIDENT (Hon. R. F. Smith) took the chair at 9.35 a.m. and read the prayer.

PETITIONS

Following petitions presented to house:

Buffalo Stadium, Woodend: facilities

To the Legislative Council of Victoria:

The petition of certain citizens of the state of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the support for the expansion of the Buffalo Stadium from Woodend residents and neighbouring communities.

Such expansion will allow the Buffalo Stadium to provide:

(i) vastly improved sporting and recreational facilities

(ii) a much-needed community refuge and relocation centre for disaster management.

Your petitioners therefore request that the state government provide support and funding for the development of the Buffalo Stadium.

By Mrs PETROVICH (Northern Victoria) (639 signatures).

Laid on table.

Housing: Moorabbin

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

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

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

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

The petitioners call on Premier John Brumby and the state and federal governments to immediately suspend this project

to identify a more suitable site and to prevent an act of planning vandalism.

By Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (119 signatures).

Laid on table.

Equal opportunity: legislation

To the members of the Legislative Council:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) (426 signatures).

Laid on table.

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

Planning: processes

The petition of certain citizens of the state of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council that:

(1) the planning minister, Justin Madden, and the Brumby Labor government have removed the democratic rights of Victorians to protection against bad planning and inappropriate public housing developments which will be fast-tracked and funded by the federal government under its economic stimulus funding;

(2) the state government has announced the removal of residents’ rights to be informed about developments

PARTNERSHIPS VICTORIA

5282 COUNCIL Wednesday, 11 November 2009

which may impact on them and removal of the right to object or exercise third-party appeal rights to VCAT.

(3) Mr Madden said that he will not knock back bad projects (the Age, 21 May 2009). The Municipal Association of Victoria has said that ‘Corners will be cut and good planning outcomes compromised … to meet unrealistic commonwealth time lines.’; and

(4) decisions will be made behind closed doors because Mr Brumby and Mr Rudd are using the economic downturn to mask the racket of stacking voters sympathetic to the Labor Party into marginal electorates to prop up local Labor MPs — at the community’s expense.

The petitioners call on Premier John Brumby and the Labor government to immediately restore the integrity of the planning system to protect our community, to protect the three tiers of government from the corrosive effects of decision making behind closed doors and to reinstate due process and democratic rights to Victorians immediately.

By Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) (54 signatures).

Laid on table.

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

Box Hill Hospital: funding

To the Legislative Council of Victoria:

The petition of certain citizens of the state of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the urgent need for the commencement of planning and a commitment to funding the full redevelopment of the Box Hill Hospital.

Despite the best efforts, dedication and high professional standards of the management and staff of the Box Hill Hospital, waiting lists and other key performance measures are falling well below the state average performance because of the inadequate and ageing building and facilities.

The Box Hill Hospital is the major public hospital servicing the eastern suburbs of Melbourne and is under pressure as a result of the government’s decision to abandon the previous government’s plan to build a new public hospital at Wantirna and constraints on the expansion of the Maroondah and William Angliss hospitals.

The Box Hill Hospital is unable to meet the increasing demand for public hospital services with extended waiting lists leading to inconvenience, pain, suffering, increased personal costs associated with managing medical conditions and, potentially, adverse treatment outcomes.

Your petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the state government to immediately commence detailed planning for the redevelopment of the Box Hill Hospital and to commit to a funding timetable in line with promises and assurances provided to the community since 2003.

By Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) (1842 signatures).

Laid on table.

PARTNERSHIPS VICTORIA

Biosciences Research Centre

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade), by leave, presented project summary report.

Laid on table.

PAPERS

Laid on table by Clerk:

Auditor-General —

Report on Local Government: Results of the 2008–09 Audits, November 2009.

Report on Management of the Community Support Fund, November 2009.

Report on Public Hospitals: Results of the 2008–09 Audits, November 2009.

Report on Responding to Mental Health Crises in the Community, November 2009.

Report on Towards a ‘smart grid’ — the rollout of Advanced Metering Infrastructure, November 2009.

Budget Sector — Quarterly Financial Report No. 1 for the period ended 30 September 2009.

Major Sporting Events Act 2009 — Major sporting event order of 10 November 2009 in relation to the 2009 Australian Masters Golf Tournament.

National Parks Act 1975 —

Advice of National Parks Advisory Council to Minister on proposed excisions from Lerderderg State Park, pursuant to section 11(3) of the Act.

Report in relation to the Cobboboonee National Park pursuant to section 17(2A) of the Act, together with an independent assessment of the report (two papers).

Planning and Environment Act 1987 — Amendment VC55 to the Victoria Planning Provisions.

NOTICES OF MOTION

Notices of motion given.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN having given notice of motion:

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — By leave, I seek to give a brief explanation. The amendment tabled before the house is the culmination

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


of delivering Melbourne’s newest sustainable communities. It brings together 12 months of work by the planning department with the Department of Transport, the Department of Sustainability and Environment, VicRoads and the Growth Areas Authority and delivers on the commitments in Melbourne @ 5 Million and the Victorian transport plan. It has involved significant community consultation that has included extensive notification resulting in approximately 2000 submissions, all of which have been considered in my approval of the amendment.

It is one of the most significant city-shaping initiatives for Melbourne in a generation. It builds on the government’s commitments and long-term planning considerations in the Victorian transport plan and ensures that Melbourne’s competitive advantage of affordable housing is maintained. It includes a revised urban growth boundary which will ensure the community has choices as it grows to 5 million people. It puts in place the reservations for the regional rail link and major public transport commitments, the outer metropolitan ring E6 transport corridor, which will provide transport choices for the future, and a 15 000-hectare grassland reserve, a major environmental investment by the government in Melbourne’s green wedges.

Further notices of motion given.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Member for Forest Hill: conduct

Mr DALLA-RIVA (Eastern Metropolitan) — Here we go again: the member for Forest Hill is claiming credit for something that was already in existence. There was a report in the Whitehorse Leader entitled ‘Tram stance victory’ with a picture of the member standing in front of a tram and claiming that she had gained more tram services after she had raised the issue 20 days previously in state Parliament. It is staggering to think that this member could create a whole rescheduling of the timetable for a tram system 20 days after raising it in Parliament!

This is the same member who criticised the inadequate bus service in Forest Hill — and what has happened since? Nothing. She has supported the closure of Springvale Road without public consultation. What has happened there? Nothing. There has been no extension of the tram to Knox City shopping centre that she promised in 1999 and 2002. What has occurred since then? Nothing.

This is a member who is supposed to represent the people of Forest Hill, but she represents nobody. She hardly goes into the electorate. She has no understanding about the transport system and the problems people have in that area. In fact the new tram services down there do not even have the low-floor trams. What has happened there? Nothing. So a whole raft of transport issues referred to by this member have been let go. What we have is a spin story in the local paper as usual.

Remembrance Day

Ms HARTLAND (Western Metropolitan) — On 8 November I attended the annual state RSL remembrance service at the Springvale War Cemetery. I found it a moving and special service. Remembrance Day is an important time to remember the end of the immeasurable bloodshed of the First World War, and it is unfortunate Parliament is sitting today, as I, along with other members, will not be able to attend local services on the actual date.

Aboriginals: war service

Ms HARTLAND — Today is also the 140th anniversary of the Victorian Aboriginal Protection Act. This act allowed government to remove Aboriginal people to reserves, to negotiate contracts on behalf of Aboriginal people and to requisition wages earnt by indigenous individuals and groups. Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR) is asking Victorians from all walks of life to remember 11 November 1869 and to mark the 140th anniversary of the signing of the Victorian Aboriginal Protection Act, the first piece of stolen generation legislation in Australia.

ANTaR Victoria asks us to pay particular tribute to the services of indigenous soldiers in times of war, acknowledging that under the act, some indigenous soldiers were never paid their wages and many were paid at much lower rates than their non-indigenous comrades, nor did they receive recognition or war service medals

Remembrance Day

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — Today being Remembrance Day, I pay tribute to our Australian Defence Force: our veterans who have served overseas and those who are currently serving in Afghanistan. At the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918, the armistice which signalled the end of hostilities on the Western Front was signed. We remember those who fought and died for our country in

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


war, and I thank and salute our fallen heroes. Lest we forget.

Planning: mentoring event

Ms MIKAKOS — On another matter, on 10 September I was pleased to attend the RMIT planning speed mentoring evening organised by the Victorian Young Planners, in conjunction with the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Planning Institute of Australia. This unique event was directed at showcasing the diverse range of opportunities available to those who choose to follow a career path in planning. Each attendee was given the opportunity to spend a few minutes with a panel of planners specialising in different areas of planning such as transport, environment, social, urban and regional, urban design and planning law.

I congratulate the organisers of this event for what I hope will be a regular fixture on the planning calendar. I hope it will inspire many young people to consider a career in planning, thereby making a contribution to shaping our state’s future.

Geelong: Red Bull air race

Mr KOCH (Western Victoria) — I, along with Geelong community leaders, enthusiastically endorse Liberal Party leader Ted Baillieu’s announcement that a coalition government will bid for the Australian leg of the Red Bull air race for Geelong from 2013. This world-famous event would be a boost for Geelong’s reputation as a centre of aviation, creating hundreds of jobs.

The presence of the Red Bull air race in Geelong would draw thousands of Victorian, interstate and overseas spectators to the region and would provide a $20 million windfall to the region, a five to one return on the investment. If held in Geelong, this coveted event would provide an opportunity for economic and tourism development and further expand this region’s reputation as a spectacular holiday destination.

The south-west corner of Corio Bay, with the city of Geelong as a backdrop, would provide a spectacular location for the showcase event. Key vantage points around Geelong would stretch from the Esplanade at Drumcondra south and east along the shoreline to Limeburners Point.

Securing the air race for Geelong is part of a package of aviation initiatives that the coalition is proposing for the region, including the expansion of Avalon Airport to become the state’s second international airport. While the Brumby government refuses to acknowledge the

importance of regions outside Melbourne to the state of Victoria, the Baillieu-led Liberal-Nationals coalition works hard to promote all regions of the state.

Tertiary education and training: Industry Experts as Teachers program

Ms DARVENIZA (Northern Victoria) — I was delighted to visit Wodonga TAFE on Wednesday, 21 October, to present and congratulate the participants in the training and assessment certificates with their certificates. The Industry Experts as Teachers program is supporting TAFE institutes to attract, develop and retain suitably experienced and qualified teaching staff with current industry experience. Industry experts participating in the program undertake a certificate IV in training and assessment at a host TAFE institute, which then employs them as teachers on a part-time basis while they also continue to work in the industry. The program provides an excellent example of industry and TAFE working together to develop the overall skills of the Victorian workforce, drive economic growth and create jobs.

Gateway community health centre: award

Ms DARVENIZA — On another matter, I was very pleased to visit the Gateway community health centre recently to present the staff with an award that pays tribute to its service in providing outstanding care during the February bushfires. The health service was nominated for working above and beyond the call of duty in response to the bushfires. The Gateway community health centre staff and volunteers provided much-needed counselling services, case management and support to many families affected by the Murrindindi-Mitchell and Beechworth-Myrtleford bushfires. The award is special recognition from the government on behalf of the local community, the Department of Health and all Victorians for those life-saving efforts which Gateway community health centre provided.

Bushfires: preparedness

Mrs PETROVICH (Northern Victoria) — I recently conducted a postcard survey in the Seymour and Macedon electorates asking households to identify any fire hazards in their region. Despite what some people opposite may think, the responses I have received prove beyond doubt that it was a most worthwhile communications exercise. They also show that the Brumby government is totally out of touch with what is happening in country Victoria and has vastly underestimated the volume of fuel and the planning required to make communities safe for this fire season.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


People are sick of receiving government propaganda rather than action, and they want to know that their elected representatives are listening to their concerns; more than that, they want to know that fire plans are in place for this coming fire season.

The information I have received from the hundreds of postcards that have been returned is invaluable, and I have already begun the process of talking to relevant organisations such as local councils about the individual hazards that have been identified

What is blatantly clear is that country Victoria is, once again, ill-prepared for this fire season. By far the largest single issue is roadside clearing. As members know, I have been vocal about this danger for some time, but this government has still failed to properly address the situation. The recent rains have dramatically increased the fuel load along our country roads. Now is the time to fix this problem, and it must be a priority for all levels of government. I remind members of the government that there has been no additional funding provided to local government for roadside clearing, provision of fire refuges, additional staff and increased workloads. Currently not one additional dollar has been provided by state and federal Labor governments to assist councils with this work.

Ballarat Basketball Association: centenary

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria) — It was my pleasure to attend the Ballarat Basketball Association’s 100-year reunion dinner on Saturday, October 17. The dinner celebrated 100 years since the game was first played in Ballarat on 7 May 1909, and many hundreds of members of the basketball-playing community and basketball enthusiasts were in attendance.

Over the hundred years since 1909 the Ballarat Basketball Association has grown to be one of Australia’s largest and most successful basketball associations, producing some of our nation’s finest sporting talents.

The evening also celebrated 60 years of continuous basketball association presence in Ballarat. A great night was had by all who attended, and I pay tribute to the 100-year reunion steering committee and everyone involved.

The highlight of the evening was the hall of fame presentations. These awards reflect outstanding and exemplary contributions to the development and status of the sport of basketball in Ballarat. I was told that there were many nominees for the awards, and three very worthy recipients were celebrated on the night.

It was wonderful to see Ray Borner, OAM, and Ron Holmes accept entry into the hall of fame and also to see Pat Punshon and her son Alistair accept the award on behalf of the late Don Punshon. I would like to extend my congratulations to all three on their fabulous contribution to the sport in our region.

Remembrance Day

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) — It is something of a truism to say that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Today we remember those who paid a much higher price for our freedom than that vigilance. We remember those who gave their all so that we can live in freedom. We give thanks for the sacrifice that they made to allow us to live in freedom — the freedom to say what we want to say, to believe what we want to believe, to think what we want to think and indeed to sit in this very Parliament.

Australia has a proud history of defending freedom. On every occasion Australians have been called to arms it has been in defence of freedom. Every Australian should be proud that we have fought fascism, that we have fought communism and that we are currently fighting extreme Islam; totalitarianism of every kind has been our enemy. Throughout our 108-year history we have defended freedom. We have joined other freedom-loving nations to support and defend freedom throughout the world. As the house sits on this Remembrance Day 2009, Australian troops are continuing the Aussie legacy in Afghanistan. May God bless those troops and keep them safe, and may we always be grateful for and never forget those who have gone before them.

Gaffneys Creek: community centre

Ms BROAD (Northern Victoria) — I recently visited Gaffneys Creek to officially open the new community centre, which is actually a very impressive big shed, on behalf of the Minister for Regional and Rural Development, Jacinta Allan. The new community centre to which the Brumby Labor government contributed $85 000 through the Small Towns Development Fund will provide essential community facilities for Gaffneys Creek and make it an even better and safer place to live.

As we all work together to prepare for the bushfire season and unprecedented resources are deployed by the Brumby government for fire-fighting efforts, it is instructive to remember that the 2006–07 bushfires in the Mansfield area saw Gaffneys Creek threatened by fire on a number of occasions. The old and very primitive community facility was extensively used at

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


that time for community information sessions and gatherings and as a hub of activity for local firefighters. Those bushfires highlighted the importance of local halls as meeting places, refuges, emergency operations centres, catering facilities and the social heart of isolated rural communities.

The new centre will provide a venue for local community organisations and create a safe and accessible venue for various emergency management functions. I wish to acknowledge the contributions to the new centre from Mansfield Shire Council and the Gaffneys Creek Progress Association, as well as all the hard work by many community members who were present for the opening celebration. This project typifies initiatives supported by the Brumby government which are making a big difference to small towns in rural Victoria by creating jobs and improving community infrastructure.

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

Youth: Bendigo mobile canteen

Mr DRUM (Northern Victoria) — Horizon House is a project run by the St John of God Foundation which builds houses around Australia for homeless youth. The latest project in the Bendigo region is a mobile canteen designed to provide homeless youth in the Bendigo region with two nutritious and generous meals each and every week. The mobile canteen operates on Tuesday and Thursday evenings.

About $150 000 was raised from local philanthropists and businesses to support the project. Businesses in the Bendigo region involved in the project were Loddon Mallee Housing Services, Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm, Westpac, Bendigo Bank, Travelcentre Bendigo and Qantas, and a broad range of community groups and schools were also involved. Unfortunately the federal and state governments are missing from this group. They refuse to get behind the project and help provide meals for homeless youth in Bendigo. It was a significant point made on the day when Joel Selwood, the Geelong Football Club champ, came up to open the canteen. The chairman of Horizon House in Bendigo, Robert Cook, has done a great job bringing together his committee to make sure that Bendigo youth receive nutritious and generous meals twice a week. We are hoping that everyone else in Bendigo can get behind this mobile canteen, even if the state government will not.

Roberts McCubbin Primary School: facilities

Ms HUPPERT (Southern Metropolitan) — One of the great pleasures of representing the people of Southern Metropolitan Region is visiting its many schools and meeting students and their dedicated staff. On 29 October 2009, together with the Minister for Education and the member for Burwood in the other house, I attended the opening of new facilities at Roberts McCubbin Primary School in Box Hill. The $6.4 million investment made by the Brumby government has resulted in 12 new classrooms, an open-plan learning space, a new library resource centre and administrative facilities. It has an innovative design with many sustainable features incorporated, making use of natural light, ventilation and recycled materials.

Ruyton Girls School: car-pooling program

Ms HUPPERT — On 21 October 2009 I had the pleasure of visiting the primary school assembly at Ruyton Girls School in Kew to launch a pilot for the TravelSmart school car-pooling program. Utilising a web-based software system, the school will provide a means of linking up families living in the same region so they can coordinate their travel to and from school, reducing travel congestion and noise around the school. I was particularly impressed by the marketing team, comprising a group of girls from grade 6 who put on a presentation outlining the benefits of car-pooling and also produced material for families to enable them to become aware of the program and link up with each other.

Regional and rural Victoria: road sealing

Mr HALL (Eastern Victoria) — As governments are in the process of framing their 2010–11 budgets today I am calling upon the government to consider the establishment of a dedicated fund to seal some of the main arterial roads in rural areas of Victoria. I give examples of some roads which I reckon would be a good start — roads like the Omeo Highway, the Benambra-Corryong Road, the Dargo High Plains Road, the Gelantipy Road and McKillops Road. Some of those roads are main arterial roads linking East Gippsland with the north-east of the state, and sections of them remain unsealed.

One of the impediments posed by these roads being unsealed is many hire car companies do not permit those who hire vehicles to travel on unsealed roads, hence some of those very scenic areas are simply out of bounds for tourists who might hire vehicles. It would also be a significant economic boost to those regions if those roads were sealed. Unfortunately under the

COAL EXPORTS: PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS


current structure funding for the sealing of those roads is competing with other major road-sealing projects in the state; therefore they frequently do not get a guernsey. The only way in which those roads are going to be sealed is if the government creates a dedicated fund for the purpose of doing so. In the interests of all Victorians — if this government is going to govern for all Victorians — I call upon the government to consider the establishment of such a fund so some of these very important arterial roads in remote Victoria can be sealed.


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

That, in accordance with sessional order 21, there be tabled in the Council by 12 noon on 8 December 2009 a copy of all documents concerning government consideration of proposals, including, but not limited to, heads of agreement, to pipe and export overseas brown coal from the Latrobe Valley and including details and records of meetings with proponents undertaken by the Premier and Victorian government ministers.

I note a modification here: this motion is different from the one I gave notice of yesterday in that it now ends with ‘undertaken by the Premier and Victorian government ministers’.

This is an important motion. It seeks to obtain through the sessional order 21 process a set of documents around the consideration of this proposal.

Victorians will have seen the series of articles in the Age, and they will have seen the series of leaks and information that has come to public consideration through that process. I pay tribute to the journalists and those who have been courageous enough to put this information into the public domain. The debate as to whether you would want to export brown coal or not is separate from the issue I am seeking to discuss here today. It is a legitimate debate, and the documents I am seeking will in part inform that debate. Obviously the government has undertaken considerable analysis of that set of proposals, and those documents, given the significance of a decision to export brown coal in large volumes — the greenhouse gas implications and other significant implications — are matters about which public debate will ensue. That should be informed public debate, and the documents that are sought by this motion will inform that debate considerably and should be in the public domain.

Equally the motion seeks a series of details and records of meetings between proponents and Victorian government ministers. One debate is about whether brown coal should be exported, under what circumstances and the impact of that process. The other debate is a very significant public debate about the process by which this government is going about awarding that set of contracts. It appears that great secrecy is part of this, and it appears that there is a mates process operating here.

It is very clear that a number of the proponents have been very closely linked with the ALP’s Progressive Business fundraising arm and have bought tables and seats at key fundraisers. Indeed it appears that at least one of the proponents of a scheme that is under consideration has sat with the Premier at the time when these proposals are under consideration by cabinet or cabinet subcommittees.

I have to say that this is the way to corruption. Whilst what is in the public domain is not sufficient in and of itself to make that accusation, it does give rise to very serious concerns about the probity of this process, the involvement of the ALP’s Progressive Business arm and the Premier’s wisdom in seeking to sit with somebody who is paying money to the ALP at a time when that person’s particular schemes and plans are under active consideration by government.

There is a question of probity here. That is one of the key reasons I am seeking these documents. The Victorian community needs to understand the time lines and needs to understand when Mr Brumby met with these proponents, the circumstances of those meetings, the briefings he received before he went to those meetings and the arrangements that are in place for the consideration of these proposals to export coal and to seek coal concessions in the Latrobe Valley.

I do not want to say a lot more. I just want to say that this is a very important motion because it goes to not only those questions about whether brown coal should or should not be exported but also to the question of process and probity and clean government.

I will quote from an Age editorial of 3 November, which states:

An Age editorial on 7 August rejected Mr Brumby’s claim that ‘there is no payment for access’ as untrue. He also said at the time that such meetings were ‘invariably … about the broad policy directions for the state’. Dr Hamilton now says specifics of the project were discussed. A government source has since told the Age Exergen —

one of the companies in question —



will be subject to the tender process. That does not absolve the government of culpability for selling access, a practice recently banned in Queensland because it led to corruption.

I notice there was an announcement by the Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, today around these matters. The Age editorial continues:

At the very least, the Brumby government’s private chats with business donors are improper.

That is what the Age said. It also said:

As for August 7, a government spokeswoman said: ‘The government was not then and is not now considering an application for coal by Exergen’.

The information suggests that the government spokespeople may have been playing semantics. A proposal, whether it was a formal proposal or not, was very much under active consideration, and the proponent of the proposal has said so. That is not second-hand information, it is firsthand information. The proponent has actually said his proposal was under consideration, so we have a serious question about the honesty of the government in this matter. That is why I have brought this motion before the house. I am seeking these documents. I believe they are very firmly in the public interest.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I cannot but agree with 95 per cent of what Mr Davis has just said. This project would have significant environmental impacts and impacts on the greenhouse emissions of Australia domestically if it were to go ahead. If the government is even contemplating such a project, there needs to be a concurrent public debate on the implications of it before the government gets too far down the track of wooing or engaging with potential proponents, because too often we have seen energy-hungry and polluting projects dropped on the table and approved almost before there can be a debate.

Far from moving to a zero emissions economy, it seems that over the last few years the Brumby government has moved to get as many polluting projects as it can under the wire and up and operating before the inevitable lid starts to come down. This is but another of those, on top of HRL, the expansion of natural gas releases, pulp mills and freeways, not to mention the infamous extension of the operation of the Hazelwood power plant.

If the government is trying to pull another one of these on us there should be a very early, almost threshold debate as to whether this is the way we as a state want to go.

Inevitably, with all these projects I have just mentioned there is a necessity for state government intervention and permission, but more than that, for access to resources and in many cases a complete package of infrastructure to support the project. These are not projects driven by the free market; these are projects that require the complete commitment of government to enable them to get up. Therefore the further issues Mr Davis raised of probity and influence and who got access to whom at the beginning are pretty important. We should have those documents in front of us: there should be a complete release of all of the government’s working documents on this most important matter. Too often with environmental approvals we have seen the government move through those in reverse order: commit to the project politically, sign up potential partners, get contracts and other infrastructure in place and then at the last second go through a truncated environmental process, sign it off and get federal approval, where needed, as the bulldozers are standing there with their engines running.

What we need here is the complete opposite of that process. We need a full disclosure on the implications up-front before the government moves any further. For that reason I support the motion, and I also hope the government is going to be more than willing to comply and open up the books on what paper trail has already been generated within government.

Mr SCHEFFER (Eastern Victoria) — Mr Davis again requests documents concerning certain government considerations. This time they are related to a proposal from Exergen to export Latrobe Valley coal.

This is not the first time that this side of the house has been called upon to repeat that we accept the sessional orders, but we place on the record that the government stands by the established practice and convention of cabinet confidentiality and that breaches of this convention undermine collective ministerial responsibility. It is a well-established principle that material informing cabinet decisions is regarded as cabinet in confidence and that ministers or the government as a whole cannot be expected to breach this principle.

The other point that needs to be repeated each time the opposition calls for documents is that the Brumby government is second to none in making information widely available to MPs and members of the community and that the community is well able to develop, prepare and deliver critiques on government policies and actions.



I have made the point before, and I make it again, that the time when a matter under cabinet consideration is most important is exactly the time when the public interest is best protected by upholding the cabinet-in-confidence principle. Cabinet confidentiality is most important when the issues are important and critical to the public interest because that is exactly the time when cabinet members need the space to assess complex and difficult policies thoroughly and confidentially. Every time the opposition makes requests through sessional order 21 we will accept the legitimacy of the sessional order but point out that it is impossible for a minister to comply with the sessional order and also uphold the oath they have sworn not to breach the confidentiality of cabinet.

I also wish to make some remarks on the matters that the motion raises: reports concerning a proposal for Exergen to export Latrobe Valley brown coal. Last month Mr Barber asked the Minister for the Environment and Climate Change, Gavin Jennings, who is in the chamber today, about this matter. Mr Barber had read newspaper stories that purported to publish cabinet documents regarding a proposal for coal exports to India and he wanted the minister to detail what the government had done to facilitate the idea. Mr Jennings explained to the house that the newspaper reports, when you looked at them, contained very little information other than that a proponent had approached the government with a proposal to burn brown coal more efficiently so that less CO2 would be released into the atmosphere and that this product might be exported to India. That was basically it.

The minister went on to assure the house and the community that whenever a proponent approaches the government with a proposal the government, of course, subjects that proposal to a detailed analysis. Mr Jennings went on further to say that the government looks at the implication of the proposal on jobs, export potential, infrastructure needs, market opportunities, the effectiveness of the technology, the quality of the research upon which the proposal is based and the impact the proposal will have on the environment.

Interestingly, in his response Mr Barber thanked the minister for a very satisfactory assurance. At no stage has the opposition itself raised this matter in this house or in the other house.

Mr D. Davis — I have, in public.

Mr SCHEFFER — Not through this parliamentary process.

Mr D. Davis — The Parliament was not sitting.

Mr SCHEFFER — When you look at the mid-October newspapers that Mr Davis briefly alluded to, it is pretty clear that what the minister said in the house is completely true.

Mr D. Davis — I referred to November newspapers.

Mr SCHEFFER — The news reports provided some information and a good deal of commentary on the range of issues confronting the Victorian community and the government on how we might use the phenomenal quantity of brown coal this state possesses. Most of the newspapers carried stories on the Exergen proposal as well as on some of the options for the development of Victoria’s coal resources, such as converting coal into diesel fuel, drying or gasification technologies or as fertiliser. The reports indicated that the Exergen coal-drying technology proposal may in fact lower global emissions. The Premier was reported as backing Victoria’s use of brown coal, provided it is used in the context of a clean technology future, and there is nothing new in that.

Mr Davis bases his call for documents on this farrago of news stories that are part of a wider media debate on the carbon pollution reduction scheme legislation. The clear implication in Mr Davis’s call for documents is always that there is something suspicious or untoward in the matter at hand. In my contribution to Mr Davis’s last call for documents I talked about my analysis of the committees of inquiry that the opposition had established and how little had been produced by all these committees and inquiries. The call for documents is not about finding out about anything; it is about creating an impression that the government is not acting with integrity.

The purpose of calling for documents is to make a speech about calling for documents, because by implication calling for documents is only necessary if there is something untoward going on. The implication in today’s call for documents is that the government wants to allocate a tender outside the proper process. The fact is that the Brumby government has no plans to allocate coal outside of a competitive tender process. There are no immediate plans for a coal allocation. The fact is that Victoria possesses one of the world’s largest deposits of brown coal, and with the growing global energy demand there is enormous interest in this resource. Victoria is an obvious place for people in this industry to invest. It has a stable political, social, scientific and economic environment with a reliable and mature legal system and a very forward-looking policy orientation.



Investors are looking at a very wide range of uses for Victoria’s brown coal such as for fertiliser, synthetic gas and liquid fuel — opportunities that will bring economic as well as environmental benefits to Victoria. The government may allocate coal where this is aligned with the state’s interests, and that means reducing emissions, creating jobs through investment in new technology and ensuring energy security. Finding ways to use brown coal that will not harm the environment is an immense challenge, and projects such as those reportedly proposed by Exergen have at least the potential to transform the coal industry in the Latrobe Valley and generate significant growth and jobs. The government will continue to work with companies like Exergen that are looking at ways to develop the coal resource in a sustainable way.

Going back some time to the beginning of this term when the opposition, the Greens party and the Democratic Labor Party introduced sessional order 21, I believe it was genuinely done ostensibly on the basis that it would add to the armoury of the Parliament to hold the executive to account in a further way. But increasingly the opposition uses this sessional order as a device, as a platform, to make a point on the basis of flimsy, underdone assertions and grabs that bring Mr Davis and the opposition absolutely no credit. This motion should be seen for what it is and should be rejected by the house.

Mr VINEY (Eastern Victoria) — As I regularly do on documents debates, I join this debate to advise the house — —

Mrs Peulich — To kick a few heads.

Mr VINEY — I am not sure what Mrs Peulich’s interjection was, but I will say this: the time spent in this house on documents debates and the time required for departmental staff to dig through thousands of pages of documents on trawling and fishing expeditions on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition in this house is getting a bit beyond the pale, because rarely have these calls for documents revealed anything of any concern to the government. We have been able to release thousands of pages of documents in accordance with the requirements of the house, but as I have said on many occasions, we will not release documents that are not appropriate to be released — that is, those that relate to executive privilege, commercial in confidence or legal professional privilege. I have gone through this many times, and I do not need to do it again in the house.

I will say more broadly on the issue of coal that what is happening is interesting. The opposition has started to

be very opportunistic in its criticism of coal, and the people of the Latrobe Valley will remember that. Ironically, coal can present a new opportunity for the reduction of global greenhouse emissions. The reason I say that is that the world needs to transform itself from a dependency on oil to a dependency on electricity, and coal generation of electricity remains one of the most significant methods of delivering baseload power. Victoria’s brown coal resources are among the biggest in the world, and more generally coal remains one of the major mechanisms of delivering electricity for consumption by industries and consumers. The issue is really going to be about the way we can generate coal with low to zero emissions, and it is believed that can be achieved. Storage of carbon under the ground is certainly technically possible and safely so, but the difficulty at the moment is the capture of carbon emissions from coal-fired power stations. But there is a lot of hope that that technology will be able to be established.

In relation specifically to this matter, the drying of brown coal provides a further opportunity for a reduction in global emissions, because dried brown coal will be a significantly more efficient mechanism of generating electricity than the current systems. This should not be seen as a debate about adding to greenhouse gas emissions but as an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as the world moves from oil to electricity. Tied with that reduction of emissions from the coal-fired power stations and through such technologies as the drying of brown coal and geosequestration we can achieve what we all desire. At least all on this side desire it for sure, but that does not necessarily apply to those on the other side of politics. There are a lot of sceptics still on the other side despite all the science about climate change, but it is possible to start to reduce emissions and to maintain our economic infrastructure in this state.

I want to spend a minute or two almost in imitation of Mr David Davis, because time and again Mr Davis comes into this chamber and raises conspiratorial questions with very little substance or basis of fact. He shakes his head in concern about the questions before the chamber. He says, ‘We need to know what went on’, and he started that again today, referring to an Age editorial and saying, ‘We need to know what took place at this meeting’. I make the same statement about what is in today’s Age and yesterday’s Age: we need to know what went on at the fundraiser attended by Mr Baillieu which is reported on in today’s Age. The article says:

Mr Baillieu’s office has also confirmed he was at a June 2006 Liberal Party fundraiser attended by supporters and relatives



of the man at the centre of the cash-for-visa affair, alleged Italian crime figure Francesco Madafferi.

Using Mr Davis’s scenarios and the way he comes into this chamber, we say, ‘We need to know. It is time for him to reveal. It is time for him to come clean’. These are all of the expressions that Mr Davis uses in his contributions. The Age, which Mr Davis was pleased to quote in today’s debate, stated yesterday under the heading ‘Vanstone quizzed in “Mafia” case’ that:

Former immigration minister Amanda Vanstone has been asked by the Australian Federal Police to explain why she granted a visa to an alleged Italian crime figure.

Mr D. Davis — On a point of order, Acting President, this is not a wide-ranging debate. This is a debate about an order for documents under sessional order 21 and very specifically about a coal export firm and proposals and meetings by Victorian government ministers. I put it to you that it is way beyond the scope of the debate to be talking about federal ministers and issues surrounded by federal ministers or not, as the case may be. I think it is very distant.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Leane) — Order! Mr Viney is drawing an analogy, but he seems to be straying a bit.

Mr VINEY — I will just say that this was an example. What I was doing was giving an example of the tactic that Mr David Davis uses in these debates every single Wednesday. He takes one small piece of information and draws long bows, just as I did. We need to know; he needs to come clean. We need to understand what took place at a particular party fundraiser, and that is what I am asking.

Mrs Peulich interjected.

Mr VINEY — We need to know what took place at a particular party fundraiser, because what is good for the goose, Mrs Peulich, is good for the gander, as they say — and it is a very tall gander, too, by the sound of it. So what I say to the opposition is if it wants to tie up these debates by coming in every Wednesday and raising questions of propriety and probity and questions about political fundraisers, it might cop a bit back; and if it wants to come in and quote editorials from the Age, we would be happy to use news stories. I refer members to page 1 of yesterday’s Age and page 9 of today’s Age. These are the things we can do if we want the debate of a Wednesday in this chamber to degenerate to those matters. But that is what Mr Davis does every week with his conspiracy theories, his unfounded allegations, his drawing of long bows and his innuendoes. He has done so again today — and, I might say, on substantially less facts than we have

before us in yesterday’s and today’s Age in relation to Mr Baillieu and Liberal Party fundraisers that are alleged to have taken place with alleged members of the Italian Mafia, in particular a fundraiser attended by someone associated with visas who is now charged with drugs and conspiracy-to-murder offences.

Mr D. Davis — Further to the same point of order, Acting President, clearly Mr Viney is flouting your ruling. The debate is a very narrow debate on sessional order 21 and a specific class of documents; it is not a general debate. He may be entitled to draw the odd analogy, but he has gone far, far beyond that.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Leane) — Order! I ask Mr Viney to come back to the motion.

Mr VINEY — Thank you very much, Acting President.

Mr Jennings — We would not want to waste time on a Wednesday!

Mr VINEY — No, we would not want to waste time; you would not want to stray from the substance of a motion on a Wednesday, would you? Also, you would not want a political debate; you would not want to have an open and honest debate and, if you are going to throw mud, be prepared to cop a bit as well. No. Apparently they want to throw the mud, but they do not like it when it starts coming back.

In my view in politics there are people who debate things and there are the spear throwers, and I am happy to confess that occasionally I am a spear thrower, but the thing about being a spear thrower is sometimes they come back the other way. Mr Davis needs to understand that if he wants to get into the bearpit and start throwing spears around and start being a spear thrower in these debates, there might be one or two that come back. If I have any ability at all in this place, I am going to try to make sure that when I throw it, it lands; and I say to Mr Davis that when it lands, it might hurt.

So let us just understand this: if they want to go into that debate, we will take them on. But in this debate in relation to the release of documents, if it is appropriate for these documents to be released, as we have consistently done, they will be released. But Mr Davis wants to use every Wednesday to tie up the house with debate after debate on the release of documents which produce absolutely nothing. Not a single media story has come out of any of the documents that Mr Davis has sought. Nothing has come out of it — absolutely zilch. And it is members on his side who are starting to complain about the waste of time that they have given themselves on Wednesdays.

PLANNING INSTRUMENT OF DELEGATION: PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS


We are happy to have these debates, but what an incredible waste of time. Instead of debating the big policy issues they want to tie this place up with these debates and tie up thousands and thousands of dollars worth of public servants’ time trawling through thousands and thousands of pages of documents — hundreds of thousands of words. Every document has to be assessed as to whether or not it complies with the requirements of the Attorney-General under advice. Every document has to be assessed on those terms. Every document has to be assessed on whether or not it is appropriate. Every word of every document has to be read to determine whether or not those specific matters can be released publicly.

I can say to the house that this is costing possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of staff time. One request for documents, I am advised, involved the assessment of 17 000 documents. One motion involved the assessment of 17 000 documents by the public service to determine whether or not they could be released. That is what these motions are dragging us into. The Leader of the Opposition in his waste watch capacity is the big waster of taxpayers funds. His waste watch is wasteful. That is what he is responsible for.

These documents will be assessed in accordance with the requirements, and if it is appropriate for them to be released, they will be. But I am not going to come in here and allow Mr Davis to use this house to trawl through his allegations and his conspiracy theories without some response. That is the way that these matters will be dealt with. We think Mr Davis misuses the opportunity in this house to request documents: he misuses it in terms of the voluminous number of documents he is requesting, he misuses it in terms of the amount of time being used in this chamber for these debates and he misuses it in terms of using it as an opportunity to raise his conspiracy theories about the operation of government.

Motion agreed to.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Leane) — Order! We will now suspend the sitting for members to have the opportunity to attend a Remembrance Day service. We will reconvene at the ringing of the bells in half an hour.

Sitting suspended 10.46 a.m. until 11:18 a.m.

PLANNING INSTRUMENT OF DELEGATION: PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I move:

That in accordance with sessional order 21, there be tabled in the Council by 12 noon on 8 December 2009 a copy of the instrument of delegation between the Minister for Planning and departmental staff within the Department of Planning and Community Development responsible for the issue of planning permits under the instrument of delegation, including a copy of any associated explanatory documents.

This has become a matter of interest to the Parliament for two reasons. The first reason relates to a recent newspaper article which covered the approval of a large and possibly controversial development; the article has the Minister for Planning stating that he had no knowledge of the development because he had allowed his department to tick off on the planning permit under delegation. The second reason that the Parliament would be particularly interested in this item and that it becomes necessary for our work to be done is that in many recent instances we have seen the Minister for Planning taking from councils and from other processes further powers to himself to make decisions on a range of matters under the Planning and Environment Act. However, it would appear that having pulled that power to himself he then, under delegation, will allow more junior officers of his department to make the final decision on matters relating to planning. That to me sounds quite contrary.

As for the instrument itself, it should not be a matter of controversy that this document be supplied. It is in fact a statutory function under the Planning and Environment Act; division 4, section 186 of the act allows the minister to delegate his powers to his employees. So we are simply asking for a document that describes the administrative arrangements under a statutory power. With a review of the Planning and Environment Act soon to come to this Parliament this is something about which the Parliament needs to be informed.

As to the nature of the rest of my motion, it is not meant to be an incredibly wide-reaching motion looking for many documents. It simply asks for a copy of the instrument of delegation and any associated documents created specifically for the purpose of explaining how that instrument itself might work, such as a manual or guide. I am not intending that this be a wide-ranging inquiry into aspects of how in the past the minister may have delegated his powers to his employees; simply the formal document and any associated explanatory material would be sufficient.

CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME: PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS


Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — The opposition will support this motion. We think it is a sensible motion. In my view this delegation that Minister Madden has put in place should be in the public domain in some form. I think Mr Barber is quite right to bring forward this motion.

I make the point very clearly that Minister Madden appears to have lost control of his department in some way here. He has taken these powers to himself and delegated authority to departmental officers and then appears to be quite unaware of having done so. This came up with the Docklands incident.

He toured the site — he was shown all corners of the site — but just a short while later when questioned about this and it was pointed out that a permit had been given for a large beer barn, he employed his version of the Sergeant Schulz defence of ‘I know nothing’. The point is that he is the responsible minister. He has got to face up to his responsibilities, and that means being on top of the detail. The documents Mr Barber seeks should be provided.

Mr VINEY (Eastern Victoria) — As we say consistently in these debates, if it is appropriate to release a document, it will be released. In relation to these instruments of delegation — and I apologise for not hearing all of the debate; I did hear some of the opening remarks — I went to try to get some information about it, and what I can say is my understanding of the process here is that, just as Mr Barber would well know from his time as a local government councillor, it is not always necessary for the elected body to consider every detailed matter. Just as Mr Barber would have seen as mayor of the City of Yarra, there would be instruments of delegation to council officers in relation to those procedures. You would not expect a council to debate minor planning applications in all cases for a garage or an ordinary carport on a house. I am sure these things are often done by delegation. The same applies in this case in relation to many other planning matters where things are delegated under policy criteria to officers within the department.

Once the house passes this resolution — we will not oppose it; as we have said, we do not oppose these initial requests for documents — appropriate consideration will be given in accordance with the guidelines set out by the Attorney-General on advice from the solicitor-general as to whether or not it is appropriate for this particular document to be released and in what form. We will not be opposing the motion.

Motion agreed to.


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

That this house —

(1) notes the refusal of the government to comply fully with the resolution of the Council of 1 April 2009 and the resolution of the Council of 6 May 2009 to table documents relating to the carbon pollution reduction scheme on the grounds of executive privilege;

(2) is of the firm opinion that the Council is fully entitled to scrutinise the activities of the executive and demands accountability for all aspects of executive behaviour;

(3) rejects the government’s claim that the release of documents listed in the schedule attached to correspondence to the Clerk of the Legislative Council from the Attorney-General, received on 4 June 2009, and numbered 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 60, 65, 73, 75, 76, 80, 82 and 86 would ‘reveal high-level confidential deliberative processes of the executive government, or otherwise genuinely jeopardise the necessary relationship of confidentiality between a minister and a government officer’, and that document numbered 24 would ‘reveal high-level confidential deliberative processes of the executive government’, and that documents numbered 26, 46, 47, 63 and 67 would ‘prejudice intergovernmental relations and reveal high-level deliberative processes of government or otherwise genuinely jeopardise the necessary relationship of confidentiality between a minister and a government officer’, and that documents numbered 32, 68, 69, 71 and 74 would ‘reveal deliberations of cabinet’, and that document numbered 40 would ‘reveal high-level deliberative processes of government or otherwise genuinely jeopardise the necessary relationship of confidentiality between a minister and a government officer; and reveal deliberations of cabinet’, and that document numbered 54 would ‘reveal high-level deliberative processes of government or otherwise genuinely jeopardise the necessary relationship of confidentiality between a minister and a government officer and reveal confidential legal advice’, and that documents numbered 58 and 85 would ‘reveal high-level deliberative processes of government’, and that documents numbered 61, 66, 77, 78, 81, 83, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111 and 112 would ‘prejudice intergovernmental relations’, and that document numbered 79 would ‘reveal legal advice provided to the executive government’;

(4) rejects the government’s claim that the release of documents listed in the schedule attached to correspondence to the Clerk of the Legislative Council from the Attorney-General, received on 24 June 2009, and numbered 1, 8, 10, 11, 13, 25 and 30 would ‘reveal deliberations of cabinet’ and that the release of documents numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 14, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 would ‘reveal high-level confidential deliberative processes of the executive government’ and that release of documents numbered 16 and 17 ‘would reveal



high-level confidential deliberative processes of the executive government, and prejudice intergovernmental relations’ and that release of document numbered 19 would ‘prejudice intergovernmental relations’;

(5) accordingly, censures the Leader of the Government as the representative of the government in the Council for the government’s failure to fully comply with the Council’s resolutions of 1 April 2009 and 6 May 2009;

(6) demands that the Leader of the Government comply fully with the resolution of the Council of 1 April 2009 and lodge the following documents as detailed on the schedule attached to the Attorney-General’s letter with the Clerk by 12 noon on Tuesday, 24 November 2009:

document listed as number 1, ‘Brief to Minister for Energy and Resources (21 January 2009)’;

document listed as number 9, ‘Brief to Minister for Energy and Resources (March 2009)’;

document listed as number 10, ‘Brief to Minister for Energy and Resources (March 2009)’;

document listed as number 11, ‘Briefing note (19 March 2009)’,

document listed as number 12, ‘Brief to Minister for Energy and Resources (6 March 2009)’;

document listed as number 13, ‘Brief to Minister for Energy and Resources (27 February 2009)’;

document listed as number 14, ‘Brief to Minister for Energy and Resources (27 February 2009)’;

document listed as number 15, ‘Brief for Minister for Energy and Resources (9 February 2009)’;

document listed as number 16, ‘Brief to Minister for Energy and Resources (15 January 2009)’;

document listed as number 17, ‘Brief to Minister for Energy and Resources (November 2008)’;

document listed as number 18, ‘Brief to Minister for Energy and Resources (25 November 2008)’;



document listed as number 21, ‘Brief to Minister for Energy and Resources (21 October 2008)’;

document listed as number 22, ‘Brief to Minister for Agriculture (11 September 2008)’;

document listed as number 23, ‘Report by KPMG (August 2008)’;

document listed as number 24, ‘Brief to Secretary, Department of Primary Industries (DPI) (13 February 2009)’;

document listed as number 25, ‘Brief to Minister for Energy and Resources (29 September 2008)’;

document listed as number 26, ‘Brief to Minister for Environment and Climate Change (17 July 2008)’;

document listed as number 27, ‘Brief to Minister for Environment and Climate Change (25 July 2008)’;

document listed as number 28, ‘Brief to Minister for Environment and Climate Change (4 August 2008)’;



document listed as number 32, ‘DSE discussion paper’;

document listed as number 33, ‘Brief to Minister for Environment and Climate Change (4 September 2008)’;


document listed as number 36, ‘Brief to Minister for Environment and Climate Change (14 October 2008)’;

document listed as number 37, ‘Brief to Secretary, Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) (24 October 2008)’;

document listed as number 39, ‘Brief to Minister for Environment and Climate Change (31 October 2008)’;

document listed as number 40, ‘DSE and DPI comments on draft climate change green paper’;

document listed as number 41, ‘Brief to Minister for Environment and Climate Change (25 November 2008)’;

document listed as number 42, ‘Brief to Minister for Environment and Climate Change (10 December 2008)’;

document listed as number 43, ‘Paper on CPRS white paper (19 January 2009)’;

document listed as number 44, ‘Brief to Secretary, DSE (22 January 2009)’;


document listed as number 47, ‘Brief to Minister for Environment and Climate Change (11 March 2009)’;





document listed as number 52, ‘Internal DSE briefing (25 March 2009)’;




document listed as number 54, ‘Internal DSE briefing (26 March 2009)’;

document listed as number 56, ‘Internal DSE brief (21 August 2008)’;

document listed as number 57, ‘Briefing on natural resource management (December 2008)’;

document listed as number 58, ‘Report by George Wilkenfeld and Associates (March 2009);

document listed as number 59, ‘Internal DSE evaluation (13 February 2009)’;

document listed as number 60, ‘Report by Deloitte (March 2009)’;

document listed as number 61, ‘Brief to Premier (19 August 2008)’;



document listed as number 66, ‘Brief to Secretary, Department of Premier and Cabinet (25 August 2008)’;


document listed as number 68, ‘Brief to Premier (9 September 2008)’;


document listed as number 71, ‘Brief to Premier (13 October 2008)’;

document listed as number 73, ‘Brief to Premier (2 January 2009)’;

document listed as number 74, ‘Brief to Premier (12 December 2008)’;




document listed as number 78, ‘Brief to Premier (30 March 2009)’;

document listed as number 79, ‘Brief to Premier (29 October 2008)’;



document listed as number 82, ‘Brief to Minister for Environment and Climate Change (undated)’;

document listed as number 83, ‘CPRS paper (September 2008)’;

document listed as number 85, ‘Report by Victoria University of Technology (February 2009)’;

document listed as number 86, ‘Brief to Premier (3 March 2009)’;

document listed as number 103, ‘Council for the Australian Federation (CAF) senior officials meeting speaking points (8 April 2009)’;

document listed as number 104, ‘CAF senior officials meeting speaking points (8 April 2009)’;

document listed as number 105, ‘Council of Australian Governments (COAG) senior officials meeting speaking points (19 March 2009)’;

document listed as number 106, ‘CPRS paper (August 2008)’;

document listed as number 107, ‘CAF paper (28 August 2008)’;

document listed as number 108, ‘CAF speaking points (11 September 2008)’;

document listed as number 109, ‘CAF meeting speaking points (3 September 2008)’;

document listed as number 110, ‘CAF meeting speaking points (9 September 2008)’;

document listed as number 111, ‘CAF senior officials meeting speaking points (8 September 2008)’; and

document listed as number 112, ‘COAG senior officials meeting speaking points (12 November 2008); and

(7) demands that the Leader of the Government comply fully with the resolution of the Council of 6 May 2009 and lodge the following documents as detailed on the schedule attached to the Attorney-General’s letter with the Clerk by 12 noon on Tuesday, 24 November 2009:

document listed as number 1, ‘Brief to the Treasurer (15 August 2008)’;

document listed as number 2, ‘Brief to the Treasurer (3 September 2008)’;

document listed as number 3, ‘Brief to the Treasurer (21 November 2008)’;

document listed as number 4, ‘Brief to the Treasurer (11 December 2008)’;

document listed as number 5, ‘Brief to the Treasurer (16 January 2009)’;

document listed as number 6, ‘Brief to the Treasurer (5 April 2009)’;




document listed as number 8, ‘Brief to the Treasurer (13 February 2009)’;


document listed as number 10, ‘DTF presentation (10 December 2008)’;

document listed as number 11, ‘Briefing to the Treasurer (undated)’;

document listed as number 13, ‘Briefing to the Treasurer on a cabinet submission’;


document listed as number 16, ‘Paper for Heads of Treasury intergovernmental meeting (undated)’;

document listed as number 17, ‘Paper for Heads of Treasury intergovernmental meeting (undated)’;


document listed as number 19, ‘Brief to the Treasurer (1 October 2008)’;

document listed as number 20, ‘Brief to the Treasurer (5 September 2008)’;



document listed as number 23, ‘Brief to the Treasurer (2 October 2008)’;

document listed as number 24, ‘Briefing by DTF (undated)’;


document listed as number 26, ‘Brief to the Treasurer (16 July 2008)’;




document listed as number 31, ‘Brief to the Treasurer (undated)’;

document listed as number 32, ‘Report commissioned by the Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development (March 2009)’;

document listed as number 33, ‘Brief to the Treasurer (undated)’;

document listed as number 34, ‘Brief to the Treasurer (10 February 2009)’; and

document listed as number 35, ‘Brief to the Treasurer (13 February 2009)’.

The motion notes the refusal of the government to comply with resolutions of the Council on 1 April and 6 May on the carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS). It notes that the Council is of the firm opinion that it is entitled to scrutinise the activities of the executive and demands accountability for all aspects of executive behaviour. In essence it rejects the government’s claim to executive privilege in relation to a whole range of these documents.

I indicate to the house that the opposition has been very reasonable in its process of examining these. Frankly, this relates to two motions which have been worked through with this chamber and supported, and the government came back, as it does, denying access to certain documents. We have no difficulty with the government denying access to genuine cabinet documents — genuine documents that have been used by cabinet, seen by cabinet and employed by cabinet — but we do have objections to the government claiming executive privilege where a number of documents should be in the public domain, including reports, briefings to secretaries, briefings to departments and other similar types of documents.

I invite members to look in detail at the long motion, which runs to just over five pages on the notice paper. The opposition has with some care gone to some effort to fairly and reasonably assess these documents. I have been down the list and looked at every document that has been provided. It has been a significant source of information on this important issue around the CPRS, but there are 111 documents that ought be in the public domain, and I seek the support of the house to put those in the public domain. The minister should provide these documents, and in my view the house has to state very clearly that these documents should be in the public domain. The 111 documents — secret documents — that the Premier and the government refuse to release through the offices of the Treasurer, Mr Lenders, are documents that are important analyses of the impact of the federal government’s CPRS on Victoria, on the Victorian economy and on the Victorian environment.

A large number of the documents are documents the Premier has seen — 17 of the documents relate to briefings and information provided to Mr Brumby — and in my view those documents ought be in the public domain. We have a Premier who has not fought hard



enough for Victoria with respect to the CPRS, and whether you agree or disagree with an ETS (emission trading scheme) — and we could have a long discussion about that, as many have in the recent period — we should put that to one side. There is the question of the impact on Victoria, and there is the question of compensation. Even if you firmly believe in some form of ETS as proposed by the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, nationally there is the question of what adjustments and assistance are required to Victorian industries and communities to make the required adjustments economically and socially. It is those analyses that should very much be in the public domain.

I believe it is outrageous that at this critical time the Premier is withholding these documents. I think Mr Lenders, who is the agent of the government in this respect in this chamber, ought to step forward and release those documents. I note that many of the documents are ones that were provided to him as briefings to the Treasurer, Department of Treasury and Finance presentations and papers for various other similar matters. I believe those reports should be in the public domain. I also note that many of the briefings and information from government sources are for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, who is in the chamber at the moment, including internal Department of Sustainability and Environment briefings, briefings to the minister, briefings on natural resource management, the report of George Wilkenfeld and Associates, internal DSE evaluations, a report by Deloittes and briefs to the Premier. All of these documents ought properly be in the public domain for an informed debate about the carbon pollution reduction scheme — —

Mr Barber — A brief.

Mr D. DAVIS — That is right, it is a brief.

Mr Barber — A cabinet document.

Mr D. DAVIS — It is not a cabinet document. Some of the internal DSE evaluations are not cabinet documents, and for that reason they ought be in the public domain.

We have been very reasonable about this. We have sought to make the point fairly that we accept the government’s claim of executive privilege on many of the documents, and this motion does not seek those documents. We have stepped forward and said we think it is a bit rich but frankly the Treasurer, who is the government’s agent in this house on these matters,

needs to provide those documents, and for that reason this motion censures him and says, ‘Provide them’.

Mr VINEY (Eastern Victoria) — The government will oppose the motion. As I understand it, the government has provided a significant number of documents in relation to this. There has been a considerable effort in good faith by the government to deliver the documents it can deliver. I listened to some of the across-the-chamber banter, for want of another word, because nothing else quite springs to mind. It included expressions of surprise by Mr Barber to Mr Davis in the middle of his speech about particular documents that are titled ‘Briefs to the Treasurer’ not being released.

The house will note, because I have described it before, that any document — and I do not know what is in these documents, and nor should I if they are subject to executive privilege — that briefs a minister in relation to a matter that is before cabinet to assist the minister to determine a position for a cabinet deliberation —

Mr D. Davis — Is not necessarily a cabinet document.

Mr VINEY — is a privileged matter. Mr Davis might like to question this, and this is where we may well disagree. However, advice to a minister to inform the minister and to help that minister to determine their position at a cabinet meeting is a privileged matter, in some if perhaps not all circumstances. My understanding is that where a document advises a minister in terms of a cabinet consideration it is a privileged matter.

The documents that have been asked for in the relevant motion relate to the government’s release of the existence of documents that have been determined, through the careful consideration of those documents, to be a matter of executive privilege. The letter — just handed to me by the Clerk — that was received by the Clerk from the Attorney-General in relation to this matter clearly sets out that some 31 documents have been provided, and it lists all of those documents. I might say that the original motion did not specify particular documents but was another example of the attempt to capture a copy of all documents, studies and briefing papers, et cetera. There is a list of some 112 documents that have been identified by an exhaustive and yet more time-consuming trawling exercise by the staff of the departments to identify which documents were relevant to this catch-all motion. The Attorney-General has attached advice in a schedule concerning all of those 112 documents that cannot be



released which provides in each case the grounds for executive privilege.

If you go through them — and I have only had this information for a fairly short period of time, in fact while I have been on my feet — you will see that in almost all cases the documents have not been released because they reveal either deliberations of the cabinet or high-level confidential deliberative processes of the executive government or otherwise jeopardise the relationship of confidentiality between a minister and a government officer.

I remind members that for our system to work advice to a minister needs to be frank and fearless advice — we need to have that — and the public release of advice such as that would diminish the capacity of the public service to provide frank and fearless advice. Mr Barber is shaking his head, but I am sure that in his preferred profession of local government councillor — —

Mr Lenders — Mayor of Castlemaine!

Mr VINEY — Mayor of Castlemaine, yeah — his desire to be Mayor of Castlemaine! I am sure he would have had many instances in his local government life where he was given advice that in and of itself — —

Mr Barber — Very few.

Mr VINEY — Correction: maybe very few. In and of themselves those discussions may not have been particularly concerning in terms of becoming public, but if Mr Barber likes to think about it, he will realise that those discussions with officers would be much more limited if the officers thought that every time they gave advice to someone in a public office, that advice and that discussion would become public. That would necessarily compromise all discussions that take place.

I well remember learning this lesson many years ago when I asked a question of a public servant at a public meeting about advice they had given their minister, and the public servant looked at me and said, ‘My answer to that question is that I always give my ministers frank and fearless advice, and in order to do so that frank and fearless advice remains between them and me’. I was a young man at that time and I was involved in a public issue, and I think I learnt a good lesson from that exercise. It is proper that advice to ministers be given in a way that can maintain the confidence of the public service that its officers can give advice without feeling that in some way that advice will be compromised in public debate.

Numerous documents have been not provided in order not to reveal the deliberative processes of government;

some documents have not been released because of the deliberative processes of cabinet; and some documents have not been released because doing so would prejudice intergovernmental relations. In all cases good reasons are given for failing to release these documents and for maintaining the confidentiality and good governance provisions we have outlined in these debates on many occasions.

I conclude by indicating that the government will strongly oppose this motion because again paragraph 5 of the motion proposes to censure the Leader of the Government as a representative of the government in the Council. I take issue with the house for all too frequently and flippantly exercising a vote of censure on the Leader of the Government when it is clear that there is no agreement between the non-government members and the government in relation to these matters of important principle. The government has taken its position based on advice from the Attorney-General and, through him, from the solicitor-general, as I understand it. It is not at the discretion of the Leader of the Government to individually take it upon himself to take a different view. The Leader of the Government, as the motion recognises, is a representative of the government, and the government has taken a position. The Leader of the Government in this place must necessarily represent that position. It is flippant, to say the least, for this house to exercise a censure motion, which is a serious matter, when Mr Lenders is simply exercising his responsibilities as the Leader of the Government in this place.

The government is not in a position to allow this to pass or to oppose it on the voices. The government will strongly oppose this motion. The government will divide on this matter. I point out to Mr Davis that the house will need to defer the final vote until after lunch, based on a previous agreement that the house would not have a division before question time. As I have said, the government will strongly oppose this matter because just as the opposition and the Greens seem to think it is a matter of principle that they can demand any document they like, we think it is a matter of principle that the Leader of the Government should be able to comply with his obligations as a member of the government and as a representative of the government in this place without censure.

The Leader of the Government is performing his functions and carrying out his activities as a member of the executive in accordance with his oath of office. As the Leader of the Government in this place he has been at the forefront of opening up this house and the government to proper scrutiny. The Leader of the



Government has been one of the fearless fighters for ensuring that ministers attend the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee and one of the fiercest fighters for ensuring that the Auditor-General has appropriate autonomy and appropriate resources to carry out his tasks. He has been a fighter for ensuring that the Ombudsman has the necessary support in this Parliament and that the Ombudsman became an officer of the Parliament. He has been a fearless fighter for the reform of this chamber to ensure that the chamber is democratically elected and representative of the views of the Victorian people.

I take issue with the fact that this house would take such a flippant approach to the censuring of the Leader of the Government — a person who has been a fighter for all the reforms I have detailed and who has been responsible for all of this accountability that has come before the Parliament since 1999. Mr Lenders has done all of that, yet the opposition and the Greens would censure him for carrying out his tasks as the Leader of the Government where the government has taken a position based on its advice that to the best of its ability it is unable to release particular documents because of the principles of executive privilege and that they apply here. The government will not compromise on those principles — and nor should it and nor can it. If it were to do so, it would undermine the quality of government in the state.

The Leader of the Government has stood firm in relation to the accountability of the executive to this Parliament in all its forms, yet this house again proposes to censure him in a flippant way on the basis that not all the documents detailed in that letter — none of which Mr Davis even knew about until they were detailed in the Attorney-General’s letter; that is the degree of openness involved — are not being released. There has been no lack of openness, because knowledge of the existence of the documents has been provided and the reason they are not being made available has been provided.

All of those reasons comply with the advice given to the Attorney-General and given by the Attorney-General to this chamber. All of those reasons have been detailed, and all of those documents comply with those reasons.

I take very strong issue with the fact that this house intends to again flippantly censure the Leader of the Government — a man who has stood firm and strong for the accountability of the executive to this Parliament and who has ensured that he and all ministers attend the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, unlike what happened under the Kennett government. As the

secretary of the Labor Party he stood firm on issues relating to the Auditor-General. At the time he campaigned on those issues as the secretary of the Labor Party and as the candidate for the then Legislative Assembly seat of Dandenong North.

As a minister and as the Leader of the Government he has stood firm for the Auditor-General, for the Ombudsman and for making sure that the Parliament has accountability at question time. Under the Kennett government question time was basically closed down. The Leader of the Government has made sure that the house has adequate sitting days to consider — —

Mrs Peulich interjected.

Mr VINEY — Mrs Peulich is shaking her head. My memory of it was that she was part of the government that reduced question time to two or three questions — two or three questions from the opposition is all that happened in the lower house when Mr Kennett was Premier.

Let me just say the Leader of the Government, Mr Lenders, is a man who has stood for accountability, for openness and for ensuring the reform of this house to make it democratically representative of the people of Victoria. It is a disgrace for this house to so flippantly exercise the censure. It is a disgrace for this house to so flippantly do it time and again on a number of documents that members of the opposition did not know existed before the Attorney-General advised of their existence and said they could not be released.

Every document that can be released has been released. The government is spending countless hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars complying with the requests of this chamber, the requests of Mr Davis. We are spending hours and hours and hours of parliamentary time debating these nonsense motions from Mr Davis, these attempts at trawling government in the hope he might find something that can lend some credibility to the stupid conspiracy theories he runs in this house all the time.

It is absolutely abhorrent for this house to be censuring the Leader of the Government, a man who has stood so firm on the issue of accountability. This house should absolutely reject this motion to censure the Leader of the Government. We will oppose the motion, and we will divide on the motion.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — Mr Viney takes on more and more the persona of minister for information for some sort of tin-pot dictatorship, and the more he does it, the more he makes our case and the clearer it becomes. I can see he



is quite chuffed by the comparison actually — he is almost proud of it!

The comparison he made was with local government. Let me explain the regime as it exists in local government. First of all, there is no distinction between a Parliament and an executive. All members of a local council, no matter what their role, are equal deliberators and equal executors of decisions, and therefore they all have equal access to information and also serve the role of representing the public, querying decisions and leading a public debate.

Secondly, the information that those councillors are both required to and are able to keep confidential is delineated in legislation. If only that was the situation in relation to state government, if the state government had the opportunity not to make its own claim but to comply with legislation.

Thirdly, I am not at all convinced by the argument that a local councillor or a minister is going to make better decisions or serve their community better by keeping secret from that community the information on which they base their decisions. They should be proud to explain the way they balanced up the competing matters and the information they based it on and to go forward with the information.

In my time of using the Freedom of Information Act, obtaining information that was used to brief ministers was commonplace. It is only recently that the government has sought to use the grey area of cabinet in confidence to keep all background material secret. In a recent instance I requested under the FOI act some market research that had been commissioned by a department that somewhere down the line was going to advise on some decisions about government policy. The trail on that particular document went cold when a memo was sent to a junior staffer saying, ‘This information is now cabinet in confidence. Please put it in your appropriate folder’.

Mrs Peulich — Retrospectively.

Mr BARBER — Proactively I think is the better word, Mrs Peulich. They declared that this thing was now the Manhattan Project. Without it ever going near a minister or without even being able to predict whether it would go before cabinet, they decided up-front that that was where it was headed and therefore it was secret. That is a totally unacceptable situation, and it is also a completely unacceptable reading of the Freedom of Information Act, which Mr Viney was drawing an analogous comparison with.

In my view, on my reading of the FOI act, the only thing that should be secret is a document that contains legal advice, matters of commercial in confidence if they are absolutely in confidence and would put at commercial risk a particular transaction, and matters that would expose the deliberations of cabinet — that is, which minister argued what, how, who got rolled, who won the day and so forth. It is totally unacceptable for documents that were part of vast planning exercises or studies, whether they be public opinion, feasibility studies or environmental impacts, to be piled up on a trolley, wheeled through a cabinet meeting and then be said to be part of a cabinet decision. It is clear from looking at this list of documents, and it is even clearer after hearing Mr Viney’s argument, that that is the approach the government is taking.

The final point is that Mr Viney tried to imply that because one legal interpretation says that the documents do not have to be released somehow the government is legally prevented from releasing them. It is not of course. It could very well on a particular matter win the day and say, ‘We do not have to release this document’, but that is not to say that it cannot if it wants to. Pretty clearly individual ministers have their own methods of getting information out into the public domain when they need to tip the balance and they feel they need more public support, but when we ask for something ministers apparently close ranks and we are told we are not getting anything.

There was then that latter issue — Mr Viney seemed to confirm that the Leader of the Government is a representative of the government and is therefore implementing its decisions, but somehow he was tempted to say that therefore he should not be held to account on behalf of the government. I am not sure I really understood the point of that particular argument at all. If the Leader of Government cannot be held accountable for what Mr Viney confirms is a whole-of-government decision, then who can we hold to account in this place?

I am not sure what his great accolade to the Leader of the Government for his apparent commitment to transparency was aimed at, but the issues he referred to were more or less issues that the government dealt with back in 1999. He did not refer to any matters that the government has implemented lately in order to increase transparency. The world has moved on in 10 years, and simply referring to things you might have done 10 years ago to enhance transparency does not really cut it these days.

Things have moved on, particularly in the style of this government, which has introduced more and more

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE


public-private partnerships, become more aggressive in opposing freedom of information applications and pulled in more and more powers to itself, not the least of which was what happened last night with respect to the development assessment committees, whereby government-appointed people will now be making what used to be publicly accountable decisions. Across a vast scheme of government activities we are seeing the government giving itself the ability and clearly expressing a willingness to make more and more decisions in private, and yet all we are told is that 10 years ago it made a commitment that its ministers would turn up to Public Accounts and Estimates Committee meetings. In any case, that is a committee that it controls, and I have never found it to be a particularly successful mechanism.

For that reason the Greens are not the least bit bowed in supporting this motion. There could be absolutely nothing about it that is flippant; in fact it goes to the very heart of the most important function that we have here, which is to hold the government to account, obtain information and use that information to do our jobs as legislators. The matters contained in this motion are absolutely crucial to live debates that we are having here in the Parliament right now.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I rise to make a few comments on Mr Davis’s motion on carbon pollution reduction scheme documents that is before the house this morning. This is an issue the house has considered in various iterations over a three-year period. Since the introduction of the sessional order that provided a mechanism for the house to seek the presentation of certain documents we have had a constant debate with the government about whether it should present documents in accordance with the sessional order and what types of documents would be presented in accordance with that sessional order.

The essential character of the government’s argument has consistently been that this house, and by extension the Victorian public, should trust the government with its determination of what documents should properly be presented to this house; rely on the government’s determination of what is a cabinet document or a document subject to commercial-in-confidence requirements, which I might add has never been a historic basis for the withholding of documents; and determine what documents are subject to other claims of executive privilege.

Recently the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal made a decision that cast doubt on the government’s judgement of these matters. A matter was

brought by Louise Asher, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the other place, with respect to a freedom of information application to obtain access to documents in relation to briefings provided for ministers with respect to their appearance before the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC). As members of this house who have served on that committee well know, whenever a minister appears before that committee they come armed with a 2 or 3-inch thick briefing folder covering issues that may or may not be raised in the course of that hearing. Ms Asher initiated a freedom of information claim in respect of a briefing document provided to a minister in the area where she is the shadow minister. The government, the responsible FOI officer, rejected that claim for access to the PAEC briefing document on the basis that — —

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.


Hospitals: accounting standards

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Treasurer, and I refer to the Auditor-General’s report Public Hospitals — Results of the 2008–09 Financial Audits. What steps has the Treasurer taken to ensure that 31 of our public hospitals that did not technically comply with the going-concern test in the Australian accounting standards, including 11 of the 21 major metropolitan and regional hospitals that account for 67 per cent of the total turnover of all Victorian public hospitals, do comply in full with the standards?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I thank Mr David Davis for his question, and there is a sense of deja vu. When I was the Minister for Finance in this house in the last Parliament I recall exactly the same questions from David Davis asking what I was doing as finance minister around those same things. I find it interesting that, as the new shadow Minister for Health, Mr Davis has not even bothered to acquaint himself with the sessional orders that he voted for in this house just last year, sessional orders which the non-government majority has put in place and which make a minister answerable for a department. My colleague Mr Jennings answers for the Minister for Health in this place. Mr Davis resorts to his old practices when shadow Minister for Health by asking a minister how they are going to deal with a particular question that is outside their portfolio responsibility area. I would have hoped that Mr Davis, who has been in this place since 1996, three years before I was elected, would have at



least read the sessional orders in those long 13 years, rather than resorting to his old lazy tactics of throwing a question at a minister along with a sense of moral outrage.

On this matter I will answer on behalf of the Minister for Finance, WorkCover and the Transport Accident Commission, who has responsibility for the Financial Management Act, but I suggest that if Mr Davis has the guts to ask the appropriate minister, Mr Jennings — who he is probably too afraid to ask the question of — perhaps he should do it. I advise Mr Davis that under the Financial Management Act the minister for finance gives financial directions to the 600-odd government authorities on reporting procedures.

Those procedures are more thorough than anything this government inherited from the Kennett-McNamara government of which Mr Davis was a member. He would know that we look first to the Auditor-General’s reports — and I find it interesting that he is referring to an Auditor-General report today. Firstly, the minister for finance once a year gives a report to the Parliament on recommendations from Auditor-General’s reports — —

Mr D. Davis — Do you think we can wait until the end of the year for you to take action on this?

Mr LENDERS — Mr Davis perhaps ought to go back to his bathroom, look in his mirror and answer his own question if he is not going to let me answer it. This is question time. He has asked a question and I am giving a detailed response.

The minister for finance tables a report once a year in both houses of Parliament outlining every single Auditor-General’s report and giving a government response to it if it has not already been responded to by a minister.

Mr Davis is well aware of the answer to his question, which I gave to him on about 15 occasions during the last Parliament, but clearly he has not listened. If he is talking to the Auditor-General’s report, I could — but I will not because I am sure Mr Davis has heard this — retell the tale of how the Kennett-McNamara government, of which he was a member, voted to gut the powers of the Auditor-General. He voted in this house to gut the powers of the Auditor-General. It was so outrageous that Roger Pescott, the then member for Mitcham in the Assembly, resigned from the Liberal Party and Parliament in protest over the butchering of the powers of the Auditor-General. At least Mr Pescott had the intestinal fortitude to say, ‘Enough is enough’. He did not meekly follow Mr Kennett’s desire and vote for the gutting of the Auditor-General’s powers.

But the Auditor-General, who Mr David Davis does not think that much about when he is in government but who he thinks a lot about when he is in opposition, has actually said in his report — and I welcome the Auditor-General’s acknowledgement:

… there has been significant improvement in the overall quality of financial reporting in 2009 …

It is interesting. The Auditor-General says there has been an improvement in reporting in 2009, but you would not think he had done so from listening to Mr David Davis.

I will wait for Mr Davis’s supplementary question. I know under our rules he cannot ask the appropriate minister, Mr Jennings, but I will also say to Mr David Davis — and he does not mention this, either — the Auditor-General also notes that the hospital system is in the black. In the black! If there is a measure of financial performance that I would hope Mr David Davis would pay some heed to, it would be that, but of course he is not going to mention that. He is more interested in trashing the system.

Supplementary question

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — We have listened to the little rant there. In response to the Treasurer’s extraordinary contribution, I ask a very simple question: is it a fact that dozens of these hospitals were asked to provide letters of comfort before their accounts were signed off?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I would suggest Mr David Davis read the full Auditor-General’s report before coming into this place. I respectfully suggest he spend more time reading this report than the 9 hours he spent on developing Liberal Party policy in the lead-up to the 2006 election, which his president, Mr Hannan, and his then leader in the Assembly, Mr Doyle, reflected on.

I welcome a dialogue at any time. At any time I look forward to a dialogue about the health system with Mr David Davis. The government he was a part of slashed the system. This government has now increased by between 40 and 50 per cent the throughput in the hospital system. We have put in more doctors and nurses. We have a system that is now in the black, and we have received an Auditor-General’s report — —

Honourable members interjecting.

Mr LENDERS — If Mr David Davis has the time between counting numbers in preselections and his new



shadow portfolio and taking over Ms Lovell’s housing portfolio, which he did yesterday — —


Mr LENDERS — If he has time between his preselection phone calls, taking other people’s portfolios and the other things he does with his time, he might also note that, despite Victorian public hospitals experiencing record demand, there have been improvements. He might note that the system is in the black, and he might actually listen to the Minister for Health, who says we have done a record amount in these areas.

We are steering it to service delivery areas, but there is more to be done. I welcome the Auditor-General’s report, and I am confident that the Minister for Health and the minister representing the Minister for Health in this house will thoroughly report on any other matters that Mr David Davis takes issue with.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I remind members of the house of standards of dress in this chamber. The fact is we are able on occasion to relax the standards and allow people to remove their jackets when the conditions — —

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — What about ties?

The PRESIDENT — Order! It is totally inappropriate for Mr Theophanous to interject when I am on my feet. He knows that. He is deliberately provoking me — I understand that — but, as I say, the fact is that the rolling up of sleeves or whatever is a bridge too far for me. I have previously drawn members’ attention to this privately and quietly, but Mr Theophanous seems to want to defy that and make a statement of some sort. Mr Theophanous has already indicated to me this morning that he wants me to throw him out.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — No, I didn’t.

The PRESIDENT — Mr Theophanous did. I think it is rather pathetic. Considering the length of time he has been in this chamber, it says a lot about the member right now. I ask Mr Theophanous — —

Hon. T. C. Theophanous interjected.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I ask Mr Theophanous to roll his sleeves down now, and I ask him to comply with the standards that I would want in the chamber.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — If you asked me nicely, I might do it, even though I do not agree. Don’t be so petty.

Questions interrupted.

SUSPENSION OF MEMBER

Hon. T. C. Theophanous

The PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Theophanous gives me no option but to remove him from the chamber for 30 minutes.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous withdrew from chamber.


Questions resumed.

Fire services: funding

Ms DARVENIZA (Northern Victoria) — My question is for the Treasurer. Could the Treasurer update the house on what the Brumby Labor government is doing regarding the funding of Victoria’s fire services following Black Saturday?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I thank Ms Darveniza for her interest in this matter, particularly as a person representing the northern part of the state of Victoria, which has a great reliance on fire services and protection, and for her interest in what the government is doing in that particular area.

Fire suppression and fire prevention are at the forefront of the mind of every Victorian as we enter this bushfire season and as we have seen record hot days for November throughout the length and breadth of the state. These are issues that are in the minds of communities everywhere. What this government has done through the budget last year and ongoing is provide a record amount of support for fire suppression and prevention. We have considerable legitimate debate in the community as to what is the appropriate way of funding these services and what is the appropriate level of service. We are at one of those junctures, as we were in 1939 and in 1983 after Ash Wednesday and as we have been after numerous occasions when the state has faced a catastrophe, and we are focused on these matters more than a community normally would.

Now is a time when the state is absolutely focused on these matters. There will be debate as to what is an appropriate strategy and what is not. I listened with



interest to a federal MP on the radio this morning having a go at the Department of Sustainability and Environment’s back-burning operations on the Mornington Peninsula in an unbelievable, and I might say sanctimonious, response: ‘We are determined to hold the government accountable one way or the other, whether it is suppression, or if there is insufficient suppression, overreacting’. It is an amazing response to be in cowards castle making a commentary on this, but from our perspective we will not do a Greg Hunt. We will focus on the need to put a level of resources in there. We need to have community debate about what are appropriate levels of support. We also need — —


Mr LENDERS — A number of members are interjecting on this. I will say this to those opposite: you can have the approach of what is an appropriate level of dealing with fire suppression and fire prevention. You can have a mature community debate about that. Every one of us will admit more needs to be done, but if that is the approach, then in a mature debate we will reflect on the level of service and the appropriate spread of the responsibility, whether it be in fighting the fires or the funding of the fighting of the fires, and become part of a collective response as a community to do it.

I think Ms Darveniza and her constituents would acknowledge that the public expects more from us and expects us to find solutions to go forward rather than to sit and snipe. It is fine for a federal member of Parliament to have a view on fire suppression; it is not fine for a federal member of Parliament to not wish to engage the operational officers who deal with it but say it is a political issue without having a solution.

Similarly, when we talk about the funding of fire suppression and prevention we need to go a step beyond cheap, populist shots about inequitable systems of funding to what are solutions. I think it is worth putting on the record that, in response to the government’s green paper, the Insurance Council of Australia — hardly a friend of Labor — while having strong views on the fire services levy, has welcomed the release of the Victorian government’s green paper ‘as a timely consideration of the key issues surrounding fire services funding’.

The National Insurance Brokers Association, probably the most vehement opponent of the fire services levy, supports the concept of the review put forward in the green paper. It has stated:

It is appropriate that Victoria undertake a pilot study of non-insurance and underinsurance …

Both these bodies are opponents of the fire services levy, but both of them acknowledge that you need a measured, deliberate response and you need facts and data before you act.

What I would say to the house is that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to have a measured community debate about a way forward — not a blame game, but a debate about a way forward for the long term. I thank Ms Darveniza for her question and would call on The Nationals and the Liberal Party in particular to say, ‘Let’s come forward with solutions’, and not just sit down and criticise the system without having a solution of their own. The ball is in the court of the opposition parties: do they want to be part of a solution with the insurance industry, the government and the fire services, or do they want to be politicians?

Electricity: smart meters

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — My question is for the Treasurer. The Auditor-General today released a damning report on the advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) project in which he made the strong recommendation that the government immediately commission a program review by the gateway unit of the Department of Treasury and Finance on governance and implementation of the AMI project to date. Considering the very serious flaws found by the Auditor-General in the whole AMI process, why has the Treasurer expressly ruled out doing what the Auditor-General has strongly recommended: finding out what has gone wrong with this project?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I thank Mr David Davis for his question. I will take it on notice, because I cannot recall in this place categorically ruling out what he says I have categorically ruled out. Undoubtedly he has taken a comment from me or some other government person totally out of context, as he is wont to do, so I will take the question on notice.


Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — I thank the Treasurer for taking the question on notice. The Auditor-General has found, among several damning findings, that the cost-benefit study behind the AMI decision made by this government was flawed and failed to offer a comprehensive view of the economic case for the project, and that it is unclear how consumers will benefit from the AMI and who will bear the costs. Given the Treasurer’s earlier statements, I ask: why is he not prepared to reconsider?



The PRESIDENT — Order! I am trying to work out how you can ask a supplementary question when the original question was not answered.

Mr D. DAVIS — He is taking it on notice, so he can take the further matters into account.

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I will respond to the extent of saying that I have taken on notice Mr David Davis’s question and that I find it interesting that a supplementary question was clearly written before the answer was given, which therefore defeats the whole purpose of asking a supplementary question. I have taken the substantive question on notice, and I would ask Mr David Davis to show sufficient respect for the house by actually asking a supplementary question and not just reading one that he planned this morning.

Regional and rural Victoria: first home owner grants

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria) — My question is to the Treasurer, John Lenders. Can the Treasurer update the house on how the first home owners grant is providing assistance to people in regional Victoria who are purchasing their first homes?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I thank Ms Pulford for her question, her commitment to regional Victoria and her enthusiasm for young Victorian families settling in regional cities and the extraordinary boost that gives to those families and to their cities. As members will be aware, the commonwealth government, as part of its first home owners boost, which was in addition to the state government system, had part of the assistance eased off for contracts signed after 30 September.

What we have seen is the most extraordinary growth in first home grant approvals during the month of September, which is reported in September-October, simply as a result of those federal government and state government stimulus programs. They stimulated growth in regional Victoria, where we saw the highest ever number of newly constructed homes in the month of October. Many of these were obviously people who responded to the 30 September deadline. There were 1996 newly constructed homes, of which 580 were in regional Victoria.

If we look at the pattern of the demographics of regional Victoria for much of the last 100 years, we see there has been a declining population in many of our regional centres. Over the last few years we have seen that decline stemmed in most areas other than the Wimmera and Mallee. But we still have a situation

where small communities welcome population growth, and in particular welcome first home buyers, because these are young people, as a rule, who are settling into regional communities.

This particular policy has made an extraordinary difference. It has led to the highest figure ever for newly constructed homes for first home buyers in regional Victoria. Five hundred and eighty might not sound like a lot at a macro level, but Ms Pulford will be fascinated by the numbers for the postcode 3350, her home area of Ballarat, where there were 82 newly constructed homes in the last three months. Expectations that this growth only occurs in large regional cities are not borne out by the figures. We have seen 67 newly constructed houses for first home buyers in Wodonga, which is hardly part of Greater Melbourne. We have seen in Mildura, as far away as you can get from Greater Melbourne, 65 newly constructed homes for first-time home buyers. We have seen in Bairnsdale, which again is hardly part of Greater Melbourne, 32 newly constructed homes in that postcode. We have also seen 36 in Warrnambool. I can go on.

The significance of these figures, though, is that in all of these communities we are seeing young people stay and young people building homes. That is good for the young people who have a home aspiration in that area and it is great for renters in those towns because there is more housing stock available — it takes the pressure off the cost. It is also fantastic for the building industry in those country towns because, as a direct result of state and federal stimulus policy, jobs are being created.

Some of these figures appear low, but 30 or 40 homes in a country community is phenomenal for growth. I remember being in Warracknabeal not so long ago and being told that 20 per cent of the houses were empty. From that environment of some years ago we are now at the point where people are building homes in regional Victoria.

I thank Ms Pulford for her question. What we are seeing here is a direct result of the state and federal governments using policy levers to stimulate construction jobs, provide opportunities for people to buy their own homes, taking the pressure off rental for those who are renting and, most importantly from Ms Pulford’s perspective, boosting the population of our towns in regional Victoria by getting young people coming back and settling there for good. That is good for young people, it is good for the towns, it is good for the Country Fire Authority, it is good for the netball clubs, it is good for the football clubs and it is good for



the local businesses. It is the sort of thing that makes Victoria a better place to live, work and raise a family.

Planning: growth areas infrastructure contribution

Mr GUY (Northern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Planning. Given that consultation on the government’s new growth areas infrastructure contribution (GAIC) closed just one week ago, with the government now producing a bill based on the proposal, I ask: can the minister provide the house with three examples of material from that consultation phase which was factored into the government’s latest GAIC proposal, or was this consultation phase a farce and a waste of time for those who made submissions to a predetermined outcome?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — I welcome Mr Guy’s interest in this matter, and I will also be interested in the position he takes when the legislation comes into this place. We have been very conscious of many of the issues that have been of interest to the community in relation to this bill, and we have set in place a process to either make adjustments to the mechanisms that have been announced and requalify those or make adjustments along the way, so I look forward to the bill being presented in this Parliament and those adjustments being considered by the opposition. I am also eager to hear from members of the opposition as to whether they believe there should be any more adjustments to that legislation.

We have been committed to enhancing the affordability and livability of Melbourne to make sure that we build communities and neighbourhoods, not just new suburbs. This legislation is a key part of that. We have gone out and consulted with the community. We were conscious of many of the issues prior to that consultation, and we have made adjustments accordingly. No doubt we will not make everybody happy — I am very conscious of that — and we may not make the opposition happy, but I look forward to the opposition having not just an opinion but a view it wants to put to this Parliament when the legislation is presented here. I look forward to the opposition’s input on this bill when it comes into the chamber, and I look forward to hearing what its policy position is on all of these matters when the bill comes before the chamber.


Mr GUY (Northern Metropolitan) — I thank the minister for his answer. With a number of submissions to the minister requesting that the government examine logical inclusions to the urban growth boundary which,

due to existing infrastructure, would not require GAIC funding, I ask: is the minister going to put in place a process for logical inclusions to the urban growth boundary which would optimise infrastructure and require no GAIC — and they were recommended in a number of submissions — or is this another element of those submissions that was dismissed without even being read?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — I again welcome Mr Guy’s interest in these matters, and I look forward to his positive contribution when the bill comes before the chamber.

We are very conscious that there are a range of views in relation to the urban growth boundary. We are also very conscious of what some people would describe as anomalies within the existing growth areas. We look forward to continued consultation on these matters. We also look forward to input in this Parliament on broader policy issues and on what might be described as anomalies, and we look forward to coming to a position in relation to these matters in the not-too-distant future.

Planning: Mornington activity centre

Mr SCHEFFER (Eastern Victoria) — My question is also to the Minister for Planning. Can the minister outline for the house how the Brumby Labor government is supporting the creation of a more vibrant and sustainable activity centre in the town of Mornington?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — I welcome Mr Scheffer’s interest in the Mornington activity centre and particularly the Mornington community, because I know he has been active in trying to bring together many of the stakeholders who have an interest in what the Mornington activity centre should look like, what it will look like and what it can look like going into the future. As part of that proposal I had the opportunity and great privilege to be in Mornington to launch the Mornington activity centre structure plan for this growing area.

What was also of great interest to me on the day was the presentation provided to me by Michael Kennedy, the chief executive officer of the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, at the time of the announcement. Mornington has for many years following its settlement had to deal with many issues over and above the issues faced by most other communities across Victoria. There are not only the coastal issues it has always had to deal with and the issues related to the local amenities which have been a great attraction to people in the community but also the issues related to different types of



agriculture in the area as well as the industries in the area. Many of those issues remain sensitive matters for discussion and debate in the Mornington area today.

One of the issues which has been prominent in the community’s thinking and sensitive in the community’s mind has been the structure plan — the feel or the look of what will take place in the main street of Mornington. The sensitivities have very much been around not losing the coastal village feel. One of the great celebratory components of this announcement has been that the new precinct structure plan launched in conjunction with the council will reflect and we hope enhance the much-loved character of the coastal village that Mornington has come to be and is appreciated for by visitors and residents alike

The new plan will continue to guide sustainable development in Mornington for the next 20 to 30 years. It has been done in partnership and with broad consultation between the state government, local government, local businesses and the local community. We have supported that with $150 000 towards the development of this structure plan as part of the Creating Better Places funding initiative. This is complementary to Melbourne @ 5 Million and the announcements we have made around that. It is also about creating activity centres which reflect not only state policy but the needs and desires of the local community. It is about creating more vibrant, attractive, sustainable and safe activity centres and also protecting those heritage assets which no doubt locals and visitors alike want to retain and certainly appreciate.

I congratulate the council and the community on the great amount of work that has been done to secure this. It will certainly complement what is a great place to live and one of the great assets that Victoria offers to visitors. I also thank the broader Mornington Peninsula community for its invaluable contribution to this project.

A number of community members have been significantly committed and active in bringing together other members of the community to see this resolved. This is another great example of planning for the future in conjunction with local communities to make sure that we enhance local areas right across Victoria as well as Victoria’s reputation in terms of livability and confirm that Victoria is the best place to live, work and raise a family.

Australian Synchrotron: director

Mrs KRONBERG (Eastern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Innovation. Can the

minister advise the house when he or his office first found out about Professor Robert Lamb’s sacking as facility director of the synchrotron and the reasons for Professor Lamb’s sacking?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Innovation) — I thank Mrs Kronberg for her question. This is not the first time she has asked me a question about the synchrotron, so obviously she has a watching brief on this important facility that is providing great opportunities for research capability not only in Australia but around the Asia-Pacific region. In fact scientists have come to use this facility from around the world. More than 1000 scientists have come through this fantastic facility during the course of this year.

Mrs Kronberg referred to this situation as it has been colloquially described in the media, but the actual circumstances are that the director of the synchrotron has returned to his full-time position at the University of Melbourne after his secondment to the board of the Australian Synchrotron concluded. That is the way in which we should understand the important contribution that Professor Lamb has made to the way in which the synchrotron has been established as a world-class facility.

It has been and continues to be well used by the scientific community, and the terms of the professor’s engagement are a matter between him and the board of the synchrotron. The Victorian government and the Australian government have confidence in the board determining the direction of the synchrotron now and into the future. We are confident that the book in terms of the scientific program going through the synchrotron will be maintained. We have confidence in the management regime that will be put in place by the board, and we thank Robert Lamb for his contribution to establishing a world-class facility.


Mrs KRONBERG (Eastern Metropolitan) — I thank the minister for his response. When a former Minister for Innovation, Mr John Brumby, announced Professor Lamb’s appointment he said that Professor Lamb had significant experience in commercialising scientific research and technology services, holding 31 patents and combining a drive for scientific excellence with an entrepreneurial understanding of the needs of industry. I ask the minister: what went wrong?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Innovation) — Obviously Mrs Kronberg is well read in terms of aspects of the announcement and the enthusiasm with



which the Victorian government has been a proponent of the synchrotron. We continue to keep a close eye on the ongoing management and wellbeing of the synchrotron. Many of the elements that Mrs Kronberg has referred to in the original description of the attributes of Professor Lamb are demonstrably true.

In relation to the ongoing wellbeing of the synchrotron it is important to know that there are a number of challenges that the synchrotron confronts in trying to keep pace with the demand the scientific community is generating for the growth of the beamlines, about which she has asked me previously. The original intention was to have nine beamlines. In the last little while the new X-ray imaging beamline has been establishing a momentum for the number of beamlines to grow. That creates a challenge in the level of investment that is going to be required to enable that number to grow in accordance with the demand and the diversification of the scientific endeavour at the synchrotron. These are matters that the board and management of the synchrotron have been dealing with and trying to work progressively through within the business case and the business model to enable that to occur.

The implied allegations of failure at the synchrotron do not sit well with the evidence I have been provided with in terms of the scientific achievements of the synchrotron. I put to the chamber that we as a government have great confidence in the ongoing management of the synchrotron by the board and the ongoing stability of the scientific program that will be going through the synchrotron. We look forward to working with the Australian government to ensure that there are ongoing investment opportunities at the synchrotron into the future.

Innovation: government initiatives

Mr VINEY (Eastern Victoria) — My question is also for Mr Jennings in his capacity as Minister for Innovation. Can the minister inform the house how the Brumby Labor government’s commitment to and investment in science, technology and innovation is delivering jobs and economic returns to Victoria?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Innovation) — I thank Mr Viney for the opportunity to talk about the latest iteration of the Victorian science agenda, which we released recently to support a number of health-related projects in Victoria, building on the fantastic momentum we have established in the state through our science agenda and through working with medical research institutions, universities and increasingly with industry to develop better responses to many of the health conditions that bedevil members

of our community and communities around Australia and around the world. We are trying to rise up with new forms of science, research capabilities and clinical applications of the results of that research to improve the quality of life for our citizens.

The latest round that we have announced as part of the $41 million Victorian science agenda allocation this year includes a number of projects that I will briefly run through. One example is the Australian Tissue Engineering Centre, which will be establishing an alternative to silicone breast implants to assist women in our community who have undergone mastectomies. We are very optimistic about the calibre of that research and the potential for better alternatives to be created to assist in breast reconstruction.

We have also taken the opportunity to establish the Australian collaborative care cluster. We are seeing ongoing research in oncology diagnostics and therapy treatments in Victoria. We will be establishing a program to deal with telemedicine applications to support stroke victims across the state in a program that will be applied particularly in regional and rural Victoria. We will be supporting the development of nanosecond laser treatment technologies to apply to patients who have had to deal with age-related macular degeneration and have incurred vision loss.

This is a sample of some of the projects we have supported through the science agenda this year and is consistent with the great science capability we have in Victoria — something of which our community should be rightly proud. In fact I took the opportunity at one of the public events at the recent Ausbiotech conference, which saw 1500 delegates from 32 countries around the world coming together at the conference centre in October, to release a report prepared by Deloittes on the effectiveness of the science, technology and innovation agenda the Brumby government, and previously the Bracks government, has undertaken for the best part of a decade.

We have allocated more than $620 million to that program during its life, and it has led to a number of extraordinary results, both in terms of the science and of the capability that is embedded within that research and development, but if you have a look at economic activity, you find that that $620 million program generated $1.7 billion worth of economic activity, adding to gross state product.

We have seen somewhere in the order of 7600 new jobs being generated in the life sciences industry. About one-third of total life sciences employment within the state has been generated through that one program



alone. We have seen 2400 international collaborations, and quite extraordinarily we have seen 1750 export contracts entered into by Victorian life sciences biotechnology companies. That is quite an extraordinary achievement.

We have seen a significant increase in gross state product through the application of this program. We as a government are very proud of our support for the science agenda and for innovation generally. Most importantly, going back to the way I started my answer to this question, we see the application of better quality care, better therapeutic responses and better diagnostic capability to support members of our community to deal with their health conditions. That is one aspect of the science agenda that this community should be rightly proud of and why the Brumby government continues to support the innovation agenda through the Victorian science agenda.

Corio Bay: pollution

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) — My question is for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Gavin Jennings, and relates to pollution and contamination in and around Corio Bay. A Geelong resident, Mr Stan Taylor, has been concerned for a long time about apparent contamination in and around Corio Bay. With few resources, he has been collecting samples of sludge and having them analysed at his own expense. As I speak he is displaying some of those samples on the steps of this building. The initial scientific analysis suggests rates of contamination, including lead and mercury, that are very many times higher than recommended limits. I ask the minister: what does the most recent data available to the government show about the levels of contamination in and around Corio Bay?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I thank Mr Kavanagh for the question and the opportunity to talk about the program that is coordinated through the Environment Protection Authority in Victoria to monitor water quality right around Port Phillip Bay, and in this context that includes Corio Bay. This program has been intensified in the last two years due to the increased monitoring associated with the channel deepening program to provide confidence to the Victorian community about the condition of these important parts of the marine environment in Victoria.

I have not been privy to the private research that Mr Kavanagh refers to from Mr Taylor, but I would be very happy to receive any advice and evidence he can bring to bear for us to take account of and compare with

the knowledge that has been compiled through the EPA’s programs.

I am advised that none of the heavy metals Mr Kavanagh has referred to in his question are evident in quantities that would trigger any environmental alarm or concern within the community. However, I am very happy to have a look at the material Mr Taylor has provided. Heavy metal analysis is part of the program the EPA undertakes on behalf of the Victorian community, and I have received some advice recently about recent monitoring in which the heavy metals Mr Kavanagh refers to have not been evident. Indeed the only elevated feature of analysis that I have been referred to relates to oxidised nitrogen. This information is something that has probably been available in the public domain through the public release of the EPA’s material, but whilst there is a heightened level of this element within the monitoring regime it is not at a level that would warrant further examination. However, it is certainly something that warrants our taking note of to be sure that we are mindful of these levels into the future.

I am told that this does not necessarily relate to the channel deepening program because heightened levels of oxidised nitrogen were discovered back in 2002 and they subsequently subsided, so I am happy to share across the chamber with Mr Kavanagh publicly, but also privately, what information we may have available to both of us.


Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) — I thank the minister for his answer. He referred to the program being undertaken by the EPA and to the study of water quality. What about the foreshore and areas near the foreshore of the bay, not just the water itself?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — In terms of the absolute technique and the method and whether it relates to foreshore sludge, as Mr Kavanagh has described it, that may be evident along the foreshore, I am happy to take advice on the technique and the method, and perhaps we can compare notes about the best way we can compile evidence to provide some degree of confidence into the future.

Country Fire Authority: volunteers

Ms BROAD (Northern Victoria) — My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations, Martin Pakula. Can the minister advise the house on how the Brumby Labor government has recognised employers who



support their workers’ firefighting and bushfire recovery efforts?

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industrial Relations) — I thank Ms Broad for her question because it gives me an opportunity to state yet again how grateful the Brumby Labor government — and all Victorians, frankly — remains for the invaluable contribution made by the CFA (Country Fire Authority) and the CFA’s volunteers, but importantly also by the many employers whose employees fought the fires on Black Saturday and assisted in the recovery efforts. At our recent community cabinet in Monbulk and Gembrook, the Premier, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and I — —

Mrs Coote — What about that Tammy Lobato? She’s no good.

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — What an extraordinary outburst, Mrs Coote! Anyone would think I had been talking about the Cerberus.

The Premier, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and I hosted a thankyou event — an afternoon tea — for a number of the local employers and their employees, but it was particularly focused on thanking the employers who supported their workers who had been fighting the Black Saturday bushfires and assisting with the recovery efforts.

It was a thankyou event that followed on from our Fair and Flexible Employer Recognition Awards service in June, which followed on from the fair and flexible employment round tables that are being conducted in Victoria as we speak and are part of a program of events that seeks to demonstrate that fair and flexible employment practices benefit business and, benefit employees but importantly benefit the community more generally. This particular event was a fantastic opportunity to thank those employers whose workplace policies enabled their staff to volunteer their time, their resources, their energy and their expertise in fighting the fires knowing that their jobs were safe.

It was an afternoon tea that brought together a whole range of people such as the owners of Belgrave South Timber and Hardware, Grant and Lynne Willard. Grant Willard is a CFA volunteer at the Belgrave Heights and South brigade, so he knows absolutely what it is like fighting fires on the front line. Mr and Mrs Willard gave their staff members John Tomada, who is a CFA volunteer at Sassafras, and Marty Kirby, who is a member at Belgrave, paid leave to fight the fires. Mr Kirby was there, and it was obvious to me how grateful he was to his employers for that time off.

I also spoke with Brad Ford, who is the manager of the Cardinia Club, and his colleague Jarrod Gardner, who is a CFA volunteer at Pakenham. The committee that runs the Cardinia Club agreed to give Jarrod two weeks of paid leave while he was fighting fires in the Bunyip State Forest in January and February. It is now the policy of that club to pay CFA volunteers for the time they spend away from work defending their communities. That is a fantastic decision and one that should be commended and hopefully replicated as the current fire season unfolds.

They are just two examples of employers and employees working together during a time of enormous hardship and tragedy to ensure that the CFA and its volunteers are ready and resourced to fight fires with the active support of their employers — not just with grudging support, but with the active and committed support of their employers — so that those employees can go off and do their duty to their community in the knowledge that their jobs are safe.

Those businesses and many more throughout Victoria are working collaboratively with their staff to ensure that our communities are as well prepared and as well resourced as they can possibly be. In preventing or fighting any emergency that poses a risk to life or to property over the next fire season, it is important for all of us to note that employers and workers are banding together. They are developing fair and equitable solutions that are based on mutual support and respect for each other, but importantly they are doing so in the knowledge of how important the community is to those businesses, those employers and those employees.

We, as a government, applaud all of those employers and business owners who are working hard, sometimes in very difficult circumstances, sometimes at their own cost and to their own detriment, to find solutions so that their employees can do their duty to their community, protect their community and ensure that Victoria comes through the next fire season in the best shape possible.

Mr Lenders — On a point of order, President, earlier in question time a question was asked of me by Mr David Davis regarding a report of the Auditor-General where he asserted that I had rejected a recommendation of the Auditor-General. I agreed to take the question on notice, and I will do so, President, but I guess what would assist me, through a point of order, is that I seek — given the report was tabled this morning, and I can categorically assure Mr Davis I have not ruled anything out since the report was tabled this morning — from Mr Davis, rather than putting words into my mouth, verification of how I have categorically ruled out a recommendation of the

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Auditor-General in a report that was received this morning. It will assist me, President, in dealing with the question I have taken on notice, because I have not categorically ruled out anything from a report of the Auditor-General tabled this morning.

Mr D. Davis — I am very happy to provide that reference for the Treasurer.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Answers

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I have answers to the following questions on notice: 1024, 1025, 1358, 1614, 3049, 3334, 9192.

Sitting suspended 12.54 p.m. until 2.02 p.m.


Debate resumed.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — Just to conclude the comments I was making before the lunch break, on these motions the government comes into the chamber and asks the house to accept its judgement on what documents should be subject to cabinet in confidence, what documents should be subject to commercial in confidence and what documents should be subject to claims of executive privilege. It asks the house and the people of Victoria to accept those decisions.

Before lunch I referred to a recent decision by the deputy president of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Mr Michael Macnamara, on a case brought by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the other place, Louise Asher. She sought access to documents in relation to briefings given to the Minister for Tourism and Major Events with respect to his appearance before the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. In responding to that freedom of information claim the government rejected the application for access to those documents on the basis that they were deemed cabinet in confidence. In his decision at VCAT on 2 November Mr Macnamara determined that:

It is impossible to see that the exemption claimed in the schedule has been made out.

He completely rejected the government’s claim that the briefing documents for an appearance at PAEC were

cabinet-in-confidence documents. He went on to say that:

… the nature of this document shows that it was prepared to enable the minister to deal with issues raised in the public accounts and expenditure committee, not before cabinet in a committee or subcommittee of cabinet.

Mr Macnamara has made it very clear that the basis on which this government claims cabinet-in-confidence protection for documents is not legitimate. The case that went before VCAT with respect to the Minister for Tourism and Major Events was rejected by VCAT, and it raises a question about the great sheaf of documents on which the government seeks to claim cabinet in confidence that we are dealing with today, and why this house should accept that claim when VCAT has clearly shown that the previous claim was made falsely.

I urge members of the house to take the VCAT decision into consideration and to support Mr Davis’s motion that these documents be made available to the house.

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 21 Atkinson, Mr Kavanagh, Mr Barber, Mr Koch, Mr Coote, Mrs Kronberg, Mrs Dalla-Riva, Mr Lovell, Ms Davis, Mr D. O’Donohue, Mr Davis, Mr P. Pennicuik, Ms Drum, Mr (Teller) Petrovich, Mrs Finn, Mr (Teller) Peulich, Mrs Guy, Mr Rich-Phillips, Mr Hall, Mr Vogels, Mr Hartland, Ms

Noes, 19 Broad, Ms Pakula, Mr Darveniza, Ms Pulford, Ms Eideh, Mr Scheffer, Mr Elasmar, Mr Smith, Mr Huppert, Ms Somyurek, Mr (Teller) Jennings, Mr Tee, Mr Leane, Mr Theophanous, Mr Lenders, Mr Tierney, Ms (Teller) Madden, Mr Viney, Mr Mikakos, Ms Motion agreed to.

VICTORIAN FUNDS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION: GOVERNANCE

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I move:

That this house expresses its concern at the performance of the Victorian Funds Management Corporation and the oversight failures by the government, in particular noting —



(1) the failure to achieve benchmark investment performance over a five-year period, exacerbating the multibillion-dollar loss of funds under management;

(2) the payment of substantial executive performance bonuses in spite of the investment losses and sustained underperformance;

(3) the failure to ensure adequate corporate governance by allowing the acting chief executive officer and chief investment officer roles to be occupied by the same person; and

(4) the failure to publicly disclose VFMC proxy voting records, particularly those involving conflicts of interest.

The Victorian Funds Management Corporation is one of the most significant and important corporate bodies in the state of Victoria. It is charged with investing and keeping safe more than $30 billion of taxpayers funds, including are held on behalf of public servant superannuants; funds held on behalf of road and workplace accident victims; and funds held on behalf of universities and a range of other state government entities. It is important that this role entrusted to the VFMC is conducted with probity and good governance, and transparently.

The VFMC was set up, as the Treasurer tells us, in 1994 by the former Liberal-Nationals government. It was set up after a period when the state had endured, during the Cain and Kirner governments, money being hidden in figurative hollow logs and mismanaged by a range of agencies. Following recommendations from the Auditor-General that the funds management model taken up at that time by the Transport Accident Commission be used by all government agencies investing funds, the Victorian Funds Management Corporation was set up in 1994 by Alan Stockdale with a brief to invest funds on behalf of the major state corporations.

We have heard in the course of debate in this place over the last couple of months many references to the fact that the VFMC was set up by Alan Stockdale. The Treasurer has been at pains to point out that this vehicle was created by the previous government. That represents a change of position by the government in a couple of years. If you go back to 2006–07, you see that the government was not talking about the VFMC as a creation of Alan Stockdale; it was claiming credit for the VFMC itself. In 2005–06 the government undertook a major review of the VFMC. Access Economics was commissioned to produce a report — of a review of the Victorian Funds Management Corporation — that looked at ways in which the operations of the corporation could be changed. As a consequence in mid-2006 we had a major restructure of the way in which the VFMC operates and the way it

invests funds on behalf of the various state authorities for which it is responsible.

The second element of that review report was that it declared the VFMC should act as a centre for investment excellence. The VFMC was given an additional role apart from the original purpose of investing funds on behalf of state bodies: it was to create a centre of investment excellence. Thus the VFMC we talk about today is not the same body that was the creation of the previous government and Alan Stockdale. It is in fact a vehicle that was created by John Brumby as Treasurer and continued by John Lenders as incumbent treasurer. While the current Treasurer likes to hark back to this as a Stockdale creation, it is now a different vehicle and has been so for three years. What we are looking at today is the performance of that vehicle, that reconstituted VFMC, from 2006.

That brings me to the elements of the motion that we are considering in the house this afternoon. The first proposed element comments on the performance of the VFMC. The fundamental role of this corporation is to produce investment returns for the bodies for which it holds funds. By way of example, the emergency services and state superannuation fund has $14 billion invested with the VFMC. The Victorian WorkCover Authority has $8 billion invested with the VFMC. The Transport Accident Commission has $5.8 billion invested and Melbourne University more than $1 billion. We are talking about very significant sums of money, many of which, in the case of the insurers, are invested to offset existing superannuation liabilities accruing to accident victims et cetera. It is important that this body meet its performance targets and deliver the returns these agencies need to ensure they can discharge their responsibilities to superannuants, accident victims and other Victorian taxpayers.

It is worth reflecting on where we are with the VFMC’s performance as at 2009, three years after the body was reconstituted by this government. I note in that three-year period we have seen a shift in funds under management to $31.1 billion, being the most recent figure recorded in the annual report released three weeks ago. This is a decline in the last 12 months of around $6 billion. The Treasurer has come into this place and said, ‘The reason the funds under management have declined is that markets have declined’, and of course we accept that is true. The last three years, the last two in particular, have been a very volatile period in financial markets, and it stands to reason that a body like the VFMC would see a similar shift in the funds it has invested on behalf of its clients.



What that does not address is the fact that this agency has consistently underperformed the benchmarks that are set for it in investment returns. I refer to the most recent performance report published by the VFMC for the September quarter 2009. This report covers the vast majority of funds invested on behalf of the VFMC, in the order of 95 per cent, which are the Department of Treasury and Finance portfolios, primarily the insurance and superannuation portfolios. This latest performance report shows that for the five years — and I emphasise the five years — to the September 2009 quarter the VFMC, across all its asset classes, obtained an annual investment return of 5.6 per cent against a benchmark of 6.8 per cent. On its face this does not sound significant — 122 basis points between what the VFMC achieved in its investment returns and the benchmark rate that was set for it. However, when an agency is investing $26 billion 122 basis points is significant.

If we go back five years to 2003–04 when the VFMC had $26.4 billion under investment, the difference of 122 basis points on average over the last five years, which is the amount by which the VFMC has underperformed its benchmark, adds up to $1.7 billion in missed investment returns. If the corporation had achieved its benchmark, the agencies which have funds invested with the VFMC would be better off to the tune of $1.7 billion. This average underperformance in the last five years is significant in terms of the VFMC’s performance and the consequences for the client agencies that invest with it. It is worth placing on the record that this difference is significant. It sounds like a small percentage difference, but in terms of the overall performance of the portfolio it is a significant underperformance.

It is also worth placing on record in that context the way in which VFMC operates. The VFMC, like many private sector fund managers, charges a management fee calculated as a proportion of the assets it has under management on behalf of its clients. It has certainly been the case in recent years, as funds under management with private sector fund managers have declined, that there has been a public outcry about the level of fees charged by fund managers to their clients. There has been a public outcry about the levels of performance bonuses and executive bonuses that have been paid despite the decline in funds under management by private sector fund managers. It is worth reflecting on the performance of the VFMC in this regard.

It is instrumental to look at the annual report for 2005–06, being the year prior to the newly restructured VFMC being put in place, and the latest annual report,

for 2008–09, which reflects the most up-to-date performance. Back in 2005–06 when the VFMC had $36.8 billion under management it charged its clients $90.9 million in management fees — roughly a quarter of 1 per cent of total funds under management were paid by the clients to the VFMC as management fees.

Jump forward three years after the restructure that was brought in by this government that was supposed to deliver cheaper funds management as well as a centre for investment excellence and although funds under management have fallen by 15 per cent to $31 billion, fees charged to those clients have increased by 10 per cent to more than $100 million. We have had a substantial decline in funds under management while management fees paid to the corporation by those clients have increased. In fact fees charged back to those clients now reach almost a third of 1 per cent of the total funds under management. That is a 30 per cent increase in the fees charged to clients by the VFMC despite the substantial decline in funds under management since the restructure of the VFMC in 2006.

That brings me to the next element of the motion. We have seen that the VFMC has failed to meet its benchmark performance measures, that there has been a substantial decline in funds under management, and performance by asset class is also less than benchmark. It is worth noting that in the latest performance report the VFMC records eight separate asset classes on which it reports performance, and with the exception of cash in every other asset class the VFMC underperformed its own benchmark, whether it was Australian equities, international equities, private equities, which were significantly underperforming, infrastructure property, inflation-linked bonds, diversified fixed interest or absolute return funds. All of those asset classes performed lower than the benchmark that was set for the corporation, and it was only in the area of cash investments where the benchmark was slightly exceeded.

We have seen major, sustained underperformance over five years on average in investments held. We have seen a substantial decline in funds under management. The opposition accepts some of that is a consequence of the global economic situation, but what the opposition does not accept is the underperformance against the benchmark.

I also pick up the fact that in previous debates on the subject the Treasurer and others have sought to draw parallels between the decline in funds under management by the VFMC and funds in the share portfolios of individual members of Parliament. We had



the extraordinary spectre last year of the Treasurer seeking to highlight, I think, the individual share portfolios of the Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly, the shadow Treasurer, the member for Scoresby in the Assembly, and me and trying to draw some parallel between alleged declines in those share portfolios and declines in funds invested with the VFMC. The Treasurer again alluded to that in his comments yesterday.

All I would say to the house on that matter is that the Treasurer got it absolutely 100 per cent wrong with the list of shares that he read out and alleged I held at the time he was making those comments. I place on record that not only did I not own those shares at the time that the Treasurer suggested I did but I have in fact never owned shares in any of the companies the Treasurer named. He then went on to give an assessment of that share portfolio. The fact is the Treasurer was 100 per cent wrong.

More importantly, the Treasurer misses the point. What individual members of Parliament do in investing their funds is in no way related to what a corporate vehicle established to invest funds on behalf of the taxpayers of Victoria should be doing with funds that are entrusted to it on behalf of taxpayers. I do not care whether members of Parliament invest their funds with the roulette table down at Crown; it is irrelevant to the debate about whether the funds held by the Victorian Funds Management Corporation are invested prudently on behalf of its client bodies and in turn the taxpayers of Victoria.

That leads to the next element of the motion, which relates to performance bonuses. This is an issue which we have seen raised across the world in the last 18 months by governments in particular, but certainly shareholders have also raised concerns where private companies have paid large bonuses to their executives while profits and share values have been falling. We have seen governments — the Obama US administration and the Rudd federal government — talk extensively about how it is unreasonable for executives and directors to be receiving bonuses at a time when profits and share prices are falling. In that context it is worth reflecting on what has been happening in our own VFMC.

Referring to the VFMC in 2006 before its restructure, back when the corporation had a little under $37 billion in funds under management, it had four executives who merited the reporting of their remuneration. Those four executives attracted $760 000. On average, each of those executives was paid a base salary of $190 000. In turn, and on top of that, they also received bonus

payments which lifted the remuneration of those four executives to an average of $237 000; they had a base payment of $190 000 and a further top-up of $47 000 by way of bonuses. That was in a year when funds under management were just shy of $37 billion. Funds under management had increased in that 12 months by 23 per cent. This was at a time when the government said, ‘We are going to restructure the VFMC. We are going to make it cheaper to invest funds. We are going to make it a centre for investment excellence’.

We jump forward to the current year, where funds under management have declined by 15 per cent since 2006 to $31 billion and where funds under management in the financial year under consideration have declined by 16 per cent. We now see that executive remuneration has increased: there are now five executives who are reportable under the annual report, and their base remuneration is now $1.5 million, with an average of $317 000 in base remuneration. Over that three-year period, when funds under management have declined by 16 per cent, there has been an increase in base remuneration of 67 per cent on average.

On top of that, six executives have received bonus payments: they have received a boost in their remuneration of an average of $467 000. In a year when funds under management have declined by 16 per cent, we have a small number of executives at the VFMC receiving remuneration averaging $467 000, including $150 000 bonuses. The message that is being sent to the Victorian community is that if you have a $6 billion to $7 billion decline in the funds you look after, you get a 218 per cent increase in the bonus you receive. Your bonus goes from $47 000 to $150 000 a year at the same time as you have lost 15 per cent of the money you are responsible for investing.

It is no wonder that this issue has been of concern to the Victorian community. Governments around the world — the Obama administration and Kevin Rudd here in Australia — are rallying against executive pay, yet in our own Victorian Funds Management Corporation we see bonuses going through the roof at the same time as funds under management are declining.

When this issue was revealed the Treasurer declared that he would have an inquiry. He would have Dr Mike Vertigan, who is a former secretary of the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF), undertake an inquiry under the auspices of the State Services Authority to determine whether payment of these bonuses was consistent with government policy.



As members may be aware, the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, of which I am the chair, had a hearing with the VFMC earlier this year. We have an inquiry running whereby we look at departmental performance and operations on a routine basis, and one of the agencies we spoke to this year was the Victorian Funds Management Corporation. During the course of the hearing we received evidence from Mr Alan Hawkes, who is a longstanding director of the Victorian Funds Management Corporation, and the issue of remuneration was canvassed. Mr Hawkes made the point that:

The remuneration structures of the Victorian Funds Management Corporation are approved by the Treasurer, with advice from the State Services Authority.

We now have a situation where the Treasurer has asked for an inquiry by a former DTF executive into the payment of bonuses and into the general remuneration arrangements for senior executives at the VFMC and one of the directors of that body has already told this house, via the committee, that the Treasurer has approved that remuneration structure. We are effectively having an inquiry into a matter that, according to a director of the VFMC, the Treasurer has already approved. It will be interesting to see the results of Dr Vertigan’s inquiry, because if he finds that these bonuses and the base remuneration are consistent with government policy and are consistent with a policy that is supposed to be in place with the VFMC, it also follows from Mr Hawke’s comments at that hearing in April that this matter has already been signed off by the Treasurer. Regardless of whether the Treasurer through his inquiry by Dr Vertigan was seeking to distance himself or the government from this issue, it is clear from Mr Hawke’s comments that the Treasurer is the chief government representative in approving these remuneration arrangements; that is in black and white from Mr Hawke’s comments in April.

That leads me to the next issue I wanted to touch on, which is the general issue of corporate governance. I think all members would agree that in a body that is currently investing $31 billion worth of taxpayers money corporate governance is a key issue. This side of the house certainly believes it is a key issue. We have previously expressed concern at the instability in the senior executive ranks of the VFMC. In the last 12 months we have seen the departure of the chief investment officer, Leo de Bever, the chief executive officer, Syd Bone, and the global small companies, emerging markets and global large companies acting investment director David Roberts.

We have also seen the departure of hedge funds investment director Keith Dickie, investment director

international equities Elly Lumsden and board chairman Mike Fitzpatrick. There has been a substantial departure in senior executives and board members — —

Mr D. Davis — Flight!

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS — A flight, Mr Davis, in the last 12 to 18 months from the VFMC at a time when I do not think the government or the Treasurer would not agree that the VFMC has been operating in one of the most complex and turbulent investment markets in its history. On average the seven members now on the VFMC board have two and a quarter years service between them on that board. Nearly half of the VFMC board members were not board members at the start of the global financial crisis. We have a loss of corporate memory from the organisation, and we have had a loss at both the board and executive level with substantial churn among the senior executives.

This brings me to one of the key reasons we have included governance in the motion before the house. As a consequence of Syd Bone’s departure as chief executive officer (CEO), the newly appointed chief investment officer (CIO), Mr Justin Pascoe, was appointed as acting chief executive. A cursory look at the structure of the VFMC — and for those members who are interested it is published in the VFMC’s annual report — reveals the conflict that exists between the role of a chief investment officer, in this case Mr Pascoe, and the role of chief executive officer. That this situation has arisen is not a reflection on Mr Pascoe; it is a reflection on the governance that apparently exists at the VFMC and the willingness of the Treasurer as the responsible minister to allow this to occur. A conflict exists when the roles of chief investment officer and chief executive officer are occupied by the same person because one of the checks and balances that exist in the VFMC is the chairmanship of the total risk allocation committee, which is rightfully chaired by the chief investment officer, reporting through the executive investment committee, which is rightfully chaired by the chief executive officer. When two committees are chaired by the same person, by a person acting as chief investment officer and acting chief executive officer, you have a conflict.

Mr D. Davis — Checking up on themselves!

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS — I hear Mr Davis’s phrase: checking up on themselves. Having the chief investment officer act as the chief executive officer is a complete breakdown in the governance structure of the VFMC. This is not a criticism of Justin Pascoe.



Yesterday in question time the Treasurer said the opposition was somehow trashing Justin Pascoe’s reputation. I say to the Treasurer that until now no-one on the opposition side, and certainly not me, has ever mentioned Justin Pascoe in this house. The only time Mr Pascoe’s name has been brought into this debate is when the Treasurer has mentioned it. The opposition is not seeking to trash Mr Pascoe’s reputation; the opposition is seeking to highlight the governance failures of this organisation and the failure of the Treasurer in allowing the chief investment officer to simultaneously be the acting chief executive officer at a time when those two roles are crucial to the corporate governance of this organisation.

It is not as if there were no choices. Three other senior directors in the VFMC could have been appointed to the acting chief executive role, which would have avoided that conflict. The government and the board of the VFMC chose not to do that, and as a consequence, until the imminent appointment of the new chief executive, we have a continuing conflict between the CEO and the CIO roles which should be acting as a check and balance in their respective roles.

The other issue I would like to cover in governance is the government’s decision, as a consequence of the 2006 reforms, to declare the VFMC a centre of investment excellence. This side of the house does not dispute that Victoria should be a centre for funds management; it is something I support and something my colleagues on this side of the house support. However, it does not automatically follow that the vehicle for doing this should be the VFMC. The VFMC has a statutory obligation to invest the funds entrusted with it to meet the investment objectives of client corporations. When you start diverging from that key investment role into creating centres of excellence in driving secondary objectives you dilute the focus on the key function of this organisation.

The statutory obligations and the statutory role of the VFMC are set down in the Victorian Funds Management Corporation Act. The objectives of the corporation, as outlined in section 6, are:

(a) to provide investment and funds management services to participating bodies and the State;

(b) to provide its services in a commercially effective, efficient and competitive manner.

There is nothing in the brief given by this Parliament about the VFMC being a centre for excellence, about trying to attract funds management to Victoria. By going off on this frolic as a consequence of the 2006 changes to the VFMC structure the government, and

the Treasurer as responsible minister, has moved beyond the purpose for which the VFMC was established. They are moving into another area, and we are seeing the consequences in the performance results of the VFMC. If the government wants to attract funds management to the state, that is a perfectly legitimate activity and one this side of the house would support, but the vehicle to do that is not the VFMC, and it is not the VFMC’s role under legislation established by this Parliament.

Another area I want to touch on briefly is the element of the motion relating to the disclosure of proxies and conflicts of interest. The VFMC is a major investor in Australian companies. In some cases it holds hundreds of millions of dollars of shares in Australian and international companies, and therefore it is a very powerful player in world equity markets and particularly in Australian equity markets. Its decisions in some cases as a major shareholder have the capacity to influence decisions made by those companies.

Therefore it is the opposition’s view that where the VFMC exercises its shareholdings, those exercises of power should be publicly disclosed. This is not a hypothetical situation: this arises from a very real scenario involving VFMC shareholdings. It relates in particular to an instance several years ago where the chairman of the VFMC was one Mike Fitzpatrick. Mr Fitzpatrick was a longstanding board member and chairman of the VFMC. Unknown to the public and anyone outside the VFMC, at the time Mr Fitzpatrick was seeking re-election to the board of Rio Tinto the Victorian Funds Management Corporation was a significant shareholder in Rio Tinto; it held 1.2 million shares in the company.

Unknown to the people of Victoria was the fact that when Mr Fitzpatrick was up for re-election to a position on the Rio Tinto board — a job that carries an annual salary in the order of US$200 000 — the VFMC voted its 1.2 million shares in favour of Mr Fitzpatrick, its chairman, being elected to the Rio Tinto board. It is our view that this should have been disclosed. Clearly this is a significant conflict of interest between Mr Fitzpatrick as a VFMC board member, and indeed chairman, and a person in his role seeking re-election to the board of Rio Tinto, which carried substantial financial benefit for Mr Fitzpatrick. The fact that the VFMC used its proxy votes to support Mr Fitzpatrick should have been disclosed. That is not to say there was anything wrong with those shares being voted in favour of Mr Fitzpatrick as a director of Rio Tinto; the point is there was a clear conflict of interest between Mr Fitzpatrick’s role as chairman and his role as



someone seeking re-election to the Rio Tinto board. That should have been in the public domain.

This issue was canvassed with members of the VFMC management when they appeared at the standing committee hearing in April, and undertakings were subsequently given by Mr Ashbolt, the head of client services, that disclosure would be made where the VFMC votes its proxy shares. However, I have to report that since that commitment was made by the VFMC to disclose its proxy voting record we have seen no meaningful disclosure. Yes, some information has been put up on the VFMC website, but it has been put up in a way that ensures no information regarding conflicts of interest will be evident to anyone looking at that information. In fact the information merely reports the number of motions that were voted upon by members of the VFMC and whether they voted for or against. From the information that has now been made available there is no way of determining whether any conflicts of interest existed between VFMC staff, executives or board members and the way in which the VFMC chooses to vote those shares. Victorians are as much in the dark now as they were prior to this issue with the Rio Tinto votes being raised in April. That is why we are seeking to bring this matter to the attention of the house via this motion this afternoon.

The other issue relates to investments the VFMC has made in government-related entities, one of which was Redflex Holdings. On 23 November 2006 the VFMC bought 4.8 million shares in Redflex Holdings. Members of this house may not be aware that Redflex Holdings is the company that operates speed cameras in Victoria, and that purchase of 4.8 million shares on 23 November made that day the single largest trading day that Redflex Holdings had ever had up to that point. It was the single largest purchase of stock in that company. It was not disclosed publicly. It became apparent subsequently, after the VFMC lodged a major shareholder notice, but it was not disclosed publicly through the VFMC reporting to this Parliament or to the public.

Likewise we see a VFMC investment in Transurban. In the period June-July 2007 when shares in Transurban, the operator of the CityLink roadway, were peaking — and they have substantially come off that peak now — the VFMC doubled its investment to 57 million shares. It was a substantial investment related to an entity that has other connections to government, and this matter was not disclosed to the public via any mechanism from the VFMC. We raised the issue of disclosure. The VFMC is a significant investment body in Victoria. It has the capacity to move markets and to alter the way that the companies in which it invests operate through

its use of its proxy powers, and these matters should be on the public record.

This motion is designed to highlight these issues to the Parliament. It is an opportunity for this house to express its concern at the way in which the VFMC has been managed, the way it has performed, the inherent conflicts of interest within its governance structure that have existed over the last 12 to 18 months and the way it has failed to publicly disclose conflicts of interest within its voting activities.

The Treasurer frequently gets up in this house and says the VFMC is at arm’s length from government. Section 10 of the Victorian Funds Management Corporation Act clearly sets out that the VFMC is subject to direction from the Treasurer — not direction with respect to its investment portfolio, but direction with respect to its operations. In fact section 10 provides:

(1) In the performance of its functions, the Corporation is subject to the general direction and control of the Treasurer.

It goes on to say that that does not extend to investment decisions, but it is very clear that it was the intention of this Parliament when the VFMC was established in 1994 that the corporation would be subject to the oversight and control of the Treasurer. Section 10(1) of the VFMC Act sets that out in black and white with the words ‘subject to the general direction and control of the Treasurer’.

When these issues have been raised from time to time over the last 18 months the Treasurer has sought to distance himself, saying, ‘It is not my responsibility. It is a matter for the VFMC board; it is not our responsibility’. The act clearly sets out that it is the responsibility of the Treasurer. This agency is subject to his direction and control, with the exception of its individual investment decisions. The Treasurer must accept responsibility. He must highlight why he has allowed the VFMC to underperform its benchmarks for a sustained period. He must highlight why he has allowed excessive performance bonuses to be paid because the director of the VFMC, Alan Hawkes, has clearly indicated that these are signed off by the Treasurer as the responsible minister. The Treasurer must highlight why he has allowed conflict of interest to exist within the structure of the VFMC while the acting CEO has been in place, and he must explain why he has allowed the VFMC to operate and exercise its power in the market in a murky and untransparent manner so that the VFMC has been allowed to vote shares in favour of the election of one of its directors to a third-party company without that matter being



disclosed. This is a significant organisation. It has enormous power as custodian of $31 billion of taxpayers money. It should operate in a transparent manner, and the Treasurer must explain why it does not.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — Mr Rich-Phillips’s motion is quite a modest and moderate approach, but I suppose he is a moderate individual in terms of personality if not politics, from where I sit! He could have gone a lot further, but I do not think it is the intention of any member of Parliament to start playing Harry Hindsight, world’s greatest stock picker. The measures that are covered in this motion are totally within the responsibility of the Parliament.

I have been listening for a number of months to the Treasurer talking about the Stockdale model, of which he is obviously a fan, and he has challenged the Liberals to support it. I would not say you would sign me on to that.

We have a situation here where a large number of funds are being oversighted by a board which manages funds for other public entities that are also oversighted by boards and all these boards have ministers at the top of them. Under this model the boards are not really like corporate boards; they do not face the shareholders. It is a strange mixture between corporate governance and Westminster accountability that we as a Parliament appear to be struggling to make good. When the Treasurer comes in here and makes wisecracks and personal reflections and does a bit of dance and then disappears, that is a symptom of this strange hybrid of accountability we have here.

However, I possibly would not get Mr Rich-Phillips’s support to go that far, so I will just talk about the individual measures that he has put forward. I think it falls totally within the remit of Parliament to ask these questions, and since Mr Rich-Phillips is asking questions of the Treasurer, who is not answering those questions, we have this motion here today.

I was part of the inquiry into the VFMC (Victorian Funds Management Corporation) and I was the one who bowled up the question about the management expense ratio (MER) and was told, ‘Look, we are unique; we can’t be compared to any other sort of fund’. I do not believe that for a second. The corporation is investing funds towards superannuation and insurance liabilities. There would be no reason this fund in its constituent parts could not be listed in a table in Personal Investor magazine comparing the usual measures. The very reluctance of the VFMC to put

itself forward for that sort of scrutiny is what has got my hackles up.

Mr Rich-Phillips’s motion is simply exploring a number of the questions that we would expect a treasurer to ask. He is not attempting to dive into issues of performance down to individual asset class, individual clients and their particular appetites for risk. However, we are talking about a very large amount of money. In the scheme of things it is perhaps second only to some of those mega-industry funds. They, with their investment strategies, target indexed-type returns and charge an index-type MER — 0.25 per cent sounds about right.

When I read about some of the investment objectives of the fund according to the information it provided us I started hearing that the fund managers are going to add value by finding particular assets in the marketplace that are undervalued. That sounds as if they are talking themselves up as a much more active fund manager, in which case you would expect a much higher management expense ratio.

It is that level of unwillingness to submit to scrutiny by the managers, their board, their clients, those boards and the relevant ministers that I find so unreasonable. If I were simply a unit holder in a managed fund or a superannuation fund I would expect to be able to ask these sorts of questions and get some answers, whereas we are told that somehow this situation is all different, that it is enshrined in various bits of legislation and various other interesting ways of being held accountable and that we are not really in a position to dig into that. I think we are, because there is one simple thing that we cannot get away from. That is that at the end of the day the taxpayer will pick up the tab, and standing in place of the voters between elections as we do, it is most certainly our job to make this line of inquiry.

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria) — I am pleased to rise and make a few comments on Mr Rich-Phillips’s motion today. In doing so I remind members that like all the institutional investors, like the Gordon Geckos on Wall Street, like the mum and dad shareholders and everyone through their superannuation, the global economy has experienced great turmoil in the period in which we are discussing the performance of the VFMC (Victorian Funds Management Corporation). This was glossed over a little by Mr Rich-Phillips. It is important to consider the performance of the fund in the context of the global financial crisis.

The investment model, of course, as other members have indicated, is the one which was established by



Alan Stockdale. The significant difference now is that under our government the model includes Auditor-General oversight of the work of the VFMC, with the Auditor-General required to report to Parliament. In relation to Mr Barber’s comments about a Westminster style of accountability for these things, this is a body that is responsible to the Treasurer but also reports to the Parliament. It is in its most recent annual report that some of the topics at hand today have been discussed.

The VFMC is primarily concerned with long-term investments. This is an important matter to bear in mind when considering its performance. A great deal of its funds come from those entities that have a long tail in payment liabilities, such as long-term superannuation payments and insurance payments. The clients of the Victorian Funds Management Corporation — 14 of them — include the Victorian WorkCover Authority and the Transport Accident Commission as well as some of our state superannuation schemes. Members would be aware, because we debate these things in this place from time to time, that when benefits are paid to victims of road trauma and workplace accidents in circumstances where there are serious and long-term injuries, assistance can be required from these insurance schemes to pay for medical support and sometimes income support for many people for a great many years, in some cases for the rest of their lives.

The mission of the VFMC is to meet individual client investment objectives based on their liability profiles, and these vary among the 14 clients; to maximise long-term returns on state assets with a risk profile in line with stakeholder-stated risk tolerances; and to maximise the advantages of scale and long-term — note again those words ‘long-term’ — nature of the state’s balance sheet.

This is of course a centralised investment model under which around 90 per cent of all government investments are made, and ensuring this is done as effectively as possible and in the most appropriate manner is an important consideration. At the end of the last financial year the VFMC was managing some $31 billion in state assets. That is a great deal of responsibility invested in the board.

Justin Pascoe, the acting chief executive officer and chief investment officer at the time the annual report was produced, commented about the great volatility that had existed during the previous 12 months and indicated that the VFMC was able to communicate effectively with clients and other stakeholders while meeting all of its obligations, including $1.1 billion in net withdrawals by its clients to pay their member

benefits and meet their other liabilities and obligations. He went on to say that the performance for the year had been disappointing but in doing so was confident that the necessary steps were in place for that to turn around.

It is important also to note that over five years the VFMC has outperformed the Australian Stock Exchange and the United States share market, the S&P 500, so there is certainly a great deal of success in the work of the VFMC, and in the last quarter some $2.8 billion has been generated through investments.

The concerns expressed by members opposite about remuneration and bonuses are being looked into by Dr Michael Vertigan, a former secretary of the Treasury under then Liberal Treasurer Alan Stockdale. Dr Vertigan’s role is to ensure that that remuneration is consistent with government policy.

Mr Rich-Phillips implied by his remarks and the wording of his motion that there has been a failure to publicly disclose proxy voting records relating to conflicts of interest. I advise Mr Rich-Phillips that this information is placed on the internet quarterly — where all of the really big secrets are kept!

There is now a new leadership team in place at the VFMC, and the government is determined that excellence in investment is built up to manage these very important funds that pay for benefits and entitlements across a range of activities of the state and that the best possible practices in investments will apply. I noted Mr Barber’s comment about Harry Hindsight, the great investor, and I am not sure I would like to be making those decisions myself.

A new chief executive officer, Justin Arter, has been appointed at the VFMC, and this complements the appointment of a new chair in John Fraser. John Pascoe is now chief investment officer. This team will provide great experience. I note Mr Rich-Phillips’s comment about board membership, but I would suggest that any organisation needs to balance experience and renewal in its composition.

As I said, and as is clearly stated in its annual report, the VFMC invests in a diverse portfolio with a focus on long-term returns. The challenges the VFMC has faced are not unique; it has been an extraordinary year in global financial markets, and the VFMC, along with the rest of us, has not been shielded from that. The government has a continuing commitment to excellence in investment with this model and to appropriate oversight by the Parliament and the Auditor-General of the work of the VFMC. I look forward to hearing the result of the deliberations of the Vertigan review and



any comments on the appropriateness of some of the bonuses, because this is a pool of money that needs to be put to the best use to achieve the greatest benefit for all Victorian taxpayers, particularly those who are beneficiaries of payments made from some of the funds managed through this process.

In bringing this motion the opposition is just adding to its campaign of fear and talking down investment and business confidence in the state. The opposition really ought to be ashamed of itself. With those few comments I urge members to treat this motion with the contempt it deserves.

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — I am pleased to rise to make a contribution to this debate on the motion moved by Mr Rich-Phillips, and I compliment him for moving this motion in the chamber. The Victorian Funds Management Corporation (VFMC) is a very important body that holds in trust an enormous amount of money on behalf of Victorian taxpayers and superannuants. It is an enormous amount of money, and it is money that must be managed wisely. It is money that must be managed with great care. Mr Rich-Phillips, the shadow Treasurer and other opposition members have been focused on this organisation because it is our responsibility to oversight the government’s activities, it is our responsibility to ensure that good results are achieved for Victorian taxpayers and it is our responsibility to ensure that Victorian money is not wasted or squandered through inefficient or ineffective investments.

Mr Rich-Phillips has brought on this motion today asking the house to express its concern at the performance of the Victorian Funds Management Corporation and the oversight failures of government and the Treasurer in particular. The Treasurer has responsibility for this organisation. He must accept responsibility for the organisation, and he must answer for it. I have to say I hope the Treasurer is going to speak, but I have looked at the speaking lists and it appears that he is refusing to speak to the motion. I would urge him to reconsider whether he speaks to the motion. This is a chamber of accountability. Because Mr Rich-Phillips has brought on this motion today we have an opportunity to debate it and to hold the Treasurer and the government to account. It is an opportunity for them to put their case. I have to say I am not overly impressed with the lightweight case that Ms Pulford put but I am impressed with the case that Mr Rich-Phillips put.

The purpose of this chamber is to debate and deal with these issues in the open, and I ask the Treasurer to

reconsider his decision not to step forward and provide an accounting to the Victorian community. He may be running scared about this. He may be unprepared to stand up and provide an account to the Victorian community, but the Victorian community, in my opinion, deserves better and should have better.

The Treasurer has oversight of and responsibility for the Victorian Funds Management Corporation. Mr Rich-Phillips has pointed to the benchmark investments, and I do not want to reiterate each and every point that he has made, but I want to point the chamber to the benchmarks that are set out on page 29 of this year’s Victorian Funds Management Corporation’s annual report — the benchmarks against which this organisation should be judged. It is true that there has been a financial crisis in the world; nobody doubts that, but that does not mean organisations cannot underperform or overperform in the market or perform at market expectations. In this case the Victorian Funds Management Corporation has underperformed by its own benchmarks, and the Treasurer must be held to account for the body that he oversights. The Victorian Funds Management Corporation, as I said, holds billions of dollars of Victorian funds. It is the largest funds holder of this sort, and it is absolutely critical that that body function at the highest level and give the strongest possible returns to Victorians.

I make the point that Mr Lenders wants to have a bit both ways. He wants to order a review and say, ‘I am not responsible. I want an accounting for what happens at the Victorian Funds Management Corporation’. At the other end he says, ‘No, I am very happy with the governance structures of the Victorian Funds Management Corporation. I am so happy that I am ordering a review’. The Treasurer cannot have it both ways. He is either responsible or he is not. I say at the end of the day he is responsible, he needs to be held to account, he needs to answer to the Victorian community and he needs to be very clear in stepping forward to give that accounting to the Victorian community.

The annual report is obviously only about one point in time — it is about one point in the cycle — but it is a fair measure and a fair take. It is true that measures change from time to time, and quarterly figures as they have come forward in the recent period show some change in these arrangements, but these annual figures provide the baseline on which this organisation and the Treasurer’s performance in oversighting it can be measured. Mr Rich-Phillips has pointed to the farrago of movements in staff that have occurred — the shifting and changing — through, as he called it, this period of great challenge in the world financial scene. Nobody



denies or doubts that challenge, but I would have thought you would want stability through that period; I would have thought you would want the best oversight; and I would have thought you would want arrangements in place so that any losses on the returns to Victorian taxpayers are minimised.

Instead of that we have poor governance. The chief investment officer, who is the chief executive officer in an acting capacity, is checking himself and his own arrangements. At the same time we have a series of awards and bonuses that are not just out of sync with the returns of the organisation and the fact that it has underperformed compared to the market but also, importantly, out of sync with what world leaders and even the Prime Minister have said. Mr Rudd has ticked off on the arrangements of the G20. He said there ought to be better arrangements in place to prevent executives being awarded bonuses when losses are occurring, being awarded bonuses when outcomes are poor and being awarded big, fat bonuses when losses are taken in the billions of dollars. The Treasurer ticked off on that. That is what the people at the VFMC are saying — that he ticked off on those big, fat bonuses.

I welcome the Vertigan report, but we want to see the details of the report and we want the Treasurer to step forward and account for his actions today. When did he know that things were going astray at the VFMC? He needs to step forward and explain when he knew. From what we saw on Stateline and from what we saw in other media, the Treasurer claims he only knew about these bonuses when he saw the annual report. In the period after the annual report was presented to the Treasurer and before it was tabled in the Parliament, if I am not mistaken, the Treasurer ordered a review. I have to say that is not good enough.

The Treasurer’s focus on the VFMC — on that huge holder of Victorian assets and funds — has not been sharp enough. I say he needs to explain to Victorians today why those funds have been lost beyond market experience and why he did not oversight those things.

Mr Rich-Phillips’s motion, in the best tradition of this house, is an opportunity for the Treasurer, who sits here today through this debate, to stand up, to get up on his pins and explain what has gone on at the VFMC. He has answered questions but not satisfactorily, and this is a chance for him to put forward a fulsome explanation as to what has occurred and why it has occurred.

I congratulate Mr Rich-Phillips on moving this motion. The VFMC’s central importance in the asset base for Victoria cannot be overestimated, and the Treasurer’s level of responsibility is high. That is why the

opposition has brought this motion before the house today. That is why we are pursuing the VFMC to see that the performance is up to scratch, because it matters. It is about Victorian taxpayers money.

We know that Labor is not good with money. We know that Labor has a bad history with money. We know that there is a risk when there is a Labor government, and we know that ultimately Labor cannot be trusted with money. This is an example. The VFMC is a big organisation, and this is a lot of money. We have seen other Labor treasurers fail before and we do not want to allow that to happen again, and that is why the opposition wants answers from this Treasurer.

Ms HUPPERT (Southern Metropolitan) — I am pleased to rise to make a few brief comments in the debate on the motion moved by Mr Rich-Phillips and to pick up some of the issues that have been raised by previous speakers.

In his contribution Mr Rich-Phillips talked about the investment performance of the Victorian Funds Management Corporation and about the responsibility for that investment performance. I remind Mr Rich-Phillips and members of the house that the act which governs the VFMC specifically states that the Treasurer cannot influence investment decisions, and those investment decisions directly relate to the performance of the VFMC.

We have all heard and we all know about the difficulty of making investment decisions, especially in tough economic times, and Mr Rich-Phillips has acknowledged that Victoria is not immune from the global financial crisis. I was very glad to hear him say that, but obviously the global financial crisis has had a great impact on the share market. It has buffeted the state, the country and the rest of the world. Based on information published in the register of members’ interests, Mr Rich-Phillips is not immune from the global financial crisis, because the shares he held in the period to 30 June 2009 would have fallen by 15.37 per cent. But Mr Rich-Phillips is doing quite well, because the shares held by the shadow Treasurer, the member for Scoresby in the Assembly, fell by 18.78 per cent, and the shares held by the Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly fell by 22.55 per cent, so I have to congratulate Mr Rich-Phillips on the way he has shone in only losing approximately 15 per cent of his shareholding.

What we need to do in judging the performance of the VFMC is look at some of the benchmarks. One of the benchmarks is the Future Fund. The VFMC in the last quarter recorded a 9.1 per cent return for the September



quarter. During the same period the Future Fund recorded a 5.6 per cent return, so clearly the VFMC has outperformed the Future Fund by 3.5 per cent in the September quarter.

Mr Rich-Phillips was quite keen to talk about a three-year period and the performance of the VFMC over a three-year period. In the three years to 30 June 2009 the VFMC outperformed its peer, as reported on page 28 of the annual report. During the three years the VFMC lost 2.65 per cent, its peer, Intech investments median manager, lost 3.17 per cent. Clearly we are looking at a number of different benchmarks. I agree there has been a loss in the assets of the VFMC because of the global financial crisis, but in comparing the results of the VFMC against a variety of other marks it is doing relatively well.

One of the other matters that was raised by Mr Rich-Phillips in his comments was the question of a conflict of interest with the same person acting as chief executive officer while holding the position of the chief investment officer. During that time the board put in place a series of processes and governance issues to ensure that there was no conflict of interest while that was occurring. For example, there are a number of committees dealing with investment decisions. There is an executive investment committee and a total risk allocation committee, and while the one person held the roles of chief investment officer and acting chief executive officer the chief investment officer was chair of the executive investment committee but Malcolm Ashbolt, the head of client services, held the role of head of the total risk allocation committee, thereby ensuring there was no conflict of interest in the operation of those two committees and that risk issues were adequately dealt with.

I remind members opposite that the financial report and the VFMC are under the oversight of the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General reviews the operations and there is a sign-off from the Auditor-General at the back of the annual report. The annual report is full and accountable; it contains a great deal of information about the VFMC and its operations.

One of the other issues that has been raised by members opposite is the question of the benchmarks which have been disclosed on page 29 of the annual report. I point out to members opposite that the VFMC actually discloses the benchmarks it is operating with. It discloses those benchmarks prior to the period in which they will operate. This is unlike most of its peers which only disclose benchmarks that they think will show their performance in a good light, so this an example of

the openness and accountability of the VFMC and its operations.

The motion moved by Mr Rich-Phillips is another in a long line of actions by the opposition which are designed to instil fear into the people of Victoria. In this instance this motion is designed to make them scared that their insurance or superannuation funds are at risk when clearly they are not. As Ms Pulford has pointed out, every call on the funds has been met during the period of concern.

This is very similar to motions moved by many members opposite regarding law and order on the streets. It is just another in the same vein, trying to make the people of Victoria scared to live in their own state. It is an example of the way the opposition talks down the economy and the society in which we live in Victoria, but on this side of the house our members are really excited about living in a vibrant state such as Victoria. We believe that Victoria is a good place to live, work and raise a family. I reject totally the move of the opposition to denigrate our state and I urge all members to vote against this motion.

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I rise to briefly speak on this motion, and I say ‘briefly’ because most of the items raised in the four points in the motion moved by Mr Rich-Phillips have been addressed on numerous occasions in this house.

I say to Mr Rich-Phillips — and I have a lot more respect for Mr Rich-Phillips on this matter than I do for his party’s leader, for the shadow Treasurer, the member for Scoresby in the Assembly, and certainly for his leader in this house, because Mr Rich-Phillips has addressed this in a measured manner — that while I refute the assertions in the four items he has put forward, I will give him credit for trying to have an analytical argument behind this.

The performance of Mr Rich-Phillips’s leader in this house today was indicative of the response of his party generally. To my knowledge, Mr David Davis showed no interest in this place on this until a TV camera came into the chamber and then he performed to the camera while being discourteous to the house by not speaking through the Chair. He performed to the camera, and I might say also breached some of the protocols of this house as to the courtesy provided to the Chair as to who speaks or does not speak, all for a media grab.

But Mr Rich-Phillips raises four serious issues, and as I said at the start of my contribution, I think they have been addressed by the government in this house, they have been addressed in the Finance and Public



Administration Committee, and they have also been part of a discussion in the media in a range of sources. However, for the courtesy of the house, I will go through the four points. The first one is the issue of benchmarks and investment returns. I think they have been addressed through discussion in this chamber over the last several years, so I will not repeat that, but I think it is interesting in this debate that Ms Huppert and Ms Pulford went through those particular issues, so I think Mr Rich-Phillips’s concern on the first point of benchmarks has been addressed.

The second point he makes is on the issue of executive payments, and the government has made its position quite clear. Our issue with executive payments is that they are appropriate to the performance of the organisation. Dr Vertigan is inquiring into that, and I am not going to add anything more in a speculative sense. I will have the courtesy of waiting for Dr Vertigan’s report before being the judge, jury, executioner, kangaroo court that Mr David Davis, the Finance and Public Administration Committee, Mr Wells, the member for Scoresby in the Assembly, and Mr Baillieu, the Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly, wish to be in this process.

We have a venerable individual, who was the secretary of the Treasury under Alan Stockdale when this body was formed, conducting a measured inquiry into the VFMC. I would rather wait for the results of this inquiry than do the media grab that Mr David Davis has done. He gets a moment of glory by piggybacking on the work of Mr Rich-Phillips. While we have got an expert conducting an inquiry into the issue, Mr Davis is scoring political points on the issue. We will wait for Dr Vertigan’s report before forming a view without evidence, as Mr David Davis has done — I might say, once again.

My third point addresses an issue that Mr Rich-Phillips has raised: it is the legitimate issue of governance. Mr Barber has touched on the issue of governance in these matters. These are legitimate issues. These are complex matters, and the governance model currently in place is the model created by Alan Stockdale. We have supported that governance model, which essentially serves to cut out as many middlemen as possible. I will not use the emotive terms Mr David Davis has been using, but from the point of view of the state of Victoria, the more fees you can cut out of the middle by managing in-house, the better value for money you will get for the state of Victoria and its taxpayers.

There has been an ongoing debate on this particular issue, and there are some governance issues arising

there. I will comment on two. Firstly, Ms Huppert has already addressed the issue of getting the facts right in relation to the two governing bodies. They were not both chaired by the chief investment officer; one was, and the other one, as Mr Rich-Phillips appropriately says, should have been chaired by someone else, and it was — by Mr Malcolm Ashbolt. That was one flaw in the facts in the presentation of Mr Rich-Phillips. The second point I will make on governance is that it is unacceptable for the opposition to come in here and say that this organisation is in crisis because its leadership team is leaving when the opposition is part of the problem. If people are in an organisation and they are trashed at every possible moment, it is little wonder that they start questioning why they are there. The opposition talks endlessly about Mr Leo de Bever, the former chief investment officer of the VFMC, and they talk endlessly of political interference. Mr David Davis might do himself a favour by actually reading Mr de Bever’s definition of the political interference that partly drove him out of the state of Victoria. This included the incessant, unreasoned and merciless attacks from the opposition. When Mr de Bever spoke of political interference he talked about the mindless trashing of the VFMC by the opposition. I am paraphrasing him, but I am happy to get the exact quote for Mr David Davis and the house. The opposition is talking about governance, but you cannot have good governance if you are just trashing the organisation.

We have got a new chair in place, Mr John Fraser. He is an international banker who has come in to do this. We now have a new chief executive officer, Justin Arter, from a reputable firm and with a reputable background. He is a great addition to the VFMC. We have a new chief investment officer, Justin Pascoe, who has come in from a major investment house in Hong Kong to manage the investments of the VFMC. The objective of this body is to cut out the middlemen, cut out the ‘fat fees’, to use the term Mr David Davis has used, to make it a leaner organisation that gets better value for money for the taxpayer. I find it amazing that Mr David Davis, who has previously shown no interest in this, is now trying to micromanage Mr Rich-Phillips — who knows more about the VFMC than Mr Davis ever will — by spinning another line, because there is a TV camera here, rather than doing the hard policy work.

The final point I will make in relation to the four items raised by Mr Rich-Phillips is on the legitimate issue of the VFMC proxies. Mr Rich-Phillips raised a correct issue on governance. This is not an issue unique to the VFMC. All major fund managers need to deal with the issue of how the fund casts its votes. That is an absolutely legitimate point that Mr Rich-Phillips has



made. What I would say to him, though, is that this is on the VFMC website at the moment. The basic principle of getting independent advisers and publishing their advice on a website is being followed.

From the government’s perspective, it will not support this motion. That is not because we are fearful of discussing governance and not because we are in any way afraid to have a debate. This has been an issue on the public record for debate for many years. In fact the model of the VFMC has been up for debate since Alan Stockdale put the basic model in place during the Kennett government, and whenever there has been an iteration or whenever there has been a change in the policy on clients, all of this has been part of an open debate.

We do not support the motion. I have respect for Mr Rich-Phillips. I think Mr Rich-Phillips will actually follow this through, in a more measured manner than any of his Parliamentary colleagues will, to try to have a debate. This needs to be a debate, and I think we have acquitted the four items that Mr Rich-Phillips has raised in his particular motion. While I welcome a debate on fact, I think the contributions from the Leader of the Opposition in both houses and the shadow Treasurer in the other place have been intemperate and designed to trash the state. One consequence of that trashing mentality was a run on a bank in Victoria. An opposition got excited, decided it had a wonderful moment in the media and a story for the nightly news during a global economic crisis, and as a result a bank had to take out full-page advertisements to protect its reputation to stop a run of depositors — because the opposition thought it had a ‘gotcha’ story.

These items are being addressed. One of them will not be addressed today because we are waiting for the results of the Vertigan report. The other three, I would argue, have already been addressed. I look forward to the concluding remarks of Mr Rich-Phillips. These are difficult decisions for a government to make. This government is dealing with them in a measured, temperate way, and I would urge the opposition to do the same.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I will respond briefly to the debate, particularly the comments of the Treasurer. The opposition does not believe that the comments of the Treasurer and indeed the comments of the other government speakers have addressed the substance of this motion raised this afternoon.

On the first point, which covers the investment performance of the VFMC over the last five years, the

Treasurer referred, or deferred, to comments by Ms Pulford and Ms Huppert. However, essentially their response was to say that global markets had gone down and, by the way, the share portfolios of opposition MPs have gone down. That is not an acceptable response to the issue of investment performance at the VFMC. I am disappointed that the Treasurer is deferring to Ms Huppert and Ms Pulford for their response on behalf of the government to the investment issue.

The next issue in the motion is the issue of the performance payments. We acknowledge that the Treasurer has asked Dr Vertigan to undertake an inquiry, but we also recognise that in his evidence to the standing committee earlier this year Mr Hawkes made it very clear that these payments and this remuneration structure are in place with the agreement of the Treasurer, and consequently whatever has been paid under that remuneration structure is also with the agreement of the Treasurer. As I said earlier, if the Vertigan inquiry finds these payments are in accord with the structure put in place, then the Treasurer needs to bear responsibility for that. We look forward to seeing the Vertigan report brought before the house.

The third element of the motion relates to governance. The Treasurer said that one of the problems is the opposition’s criticism of the VFMC, and he said it is leading to staff losses. Much of the commentary that surrounds the VFMC and much of the criticism that has been raised and concerns that have been expressed followed the loss of those key executives. It was not prior to the departure of those staff; it followed their departure. If the Treasurer is to suggest that the opposition is responsible for the loss of key staff and executives at the VFMC it is simply a proposition we cannot accept.

The final element of the motion relates to disclosure. Both Ms Pulford and the Treasurer said the proxy issue was legitimate, and I thank and respect the Treasurer for acknowledging the proxy voting issue as a legitimate issue, but I also say to the Treasurer that what has been published on the VFMC website as a consequence of those matters being raised by the standing committee in April in no way constitutes disclosure of the VFMC’s voting record.

There is no way from the information which is now on that website that an interested party could see that the VFMC voted the 1.2 million shares it owned in Rio Tinto in favour of the election of its chairman, Mike Fitzpatrick, to the board of Rio Tinto. That information is not disclosed. It has never been disclosed, and it continues not to be disclosed by the VFMC. What is disclosed is merely aggregate numbers of how many

BROOKLAND GREENS ESTATE, CRANBOURNE: OMBUDSMAN’S REPORT


votes it had participated in and whether it voted yes or no. There is no meaningful disclosure of information, and that continues to be a concern to this side of the house. While I appreciate the Treasurer’s response on this matter today, that response does not satisfy the opposition as to the serious issues raised in the motion, and I therefore encourage the house to support the motion and note the serious concerns about the VFMC.


Ayes, 20 Atkinson, Mr Hartland, Ms Barber, Mr Koch, Mr Coote, Mrs Kronberg, Mrs Dalla-Riva, Mr Lovell, Ms Davis, Mr D. O’Donohue, Mr (Teller) Davis, Mr P. Pennicuik, Ms Drum, Mr Petrovich, Mrs Finn, Mr Peulich, Mrs Guy, Mr Rich-Phillips, Mr Hall, Mr Vogels, Mr (Teller)

Noes, 20 Broad, Ms Mikakos, Ms Darveniza, Ms Pakula, Mr Eideh, Mr Pulford, Ms Elasmar, Mr (Teller) Scheffer, Mr Huppert, Ms Smith, Mr Jennings, Mr Somyurek, Mr Kavanagh, Mr Tee, Mr Leane, Mr Theophanous, Mr (Teller) Lenders, Mr Tierney, Ms Madden, Mr Viney, Mr Motion negatived.


Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I wish to move the motion standing in my name but with slight amendments. I noted some typographical errors in the motion shown on the notice paper that I would like to correct. I move:

That this house notes the Ombudsman Victoria report Brookland Greens Estate — Investigation into Methane Gas Leaks, October 2009, which catalogues a litany of failures in governance and policy, bureaucratic bungling, mismanagement and blame shifting and calls on the Premier to appoint a panel of experts chaired by a retired judge to provide independent oversight to the government’s response and implementation of the response to the Ombudsman’s report:

(1) to address the ongoing conflict of interest which exists given that many parties, including the Victorian state government, are potentially parties to legal action;

(2) to provide a comprehensive response to the exposure of failures in policy, governance and management

involving multiple parties, including the Environment Protection Authority and other Victorian state government agencies;

(3) to respond to the need for a just and negotiated resolution and implementation of all outstanding issues, including liability for cost of rectification and ongoing monitoring of the landfill and possible compensation to affected residents and communities;

(4) to ensure the adoption of an open accountability and reporting framework as an integral part of this process;

and that the panel’s report be tabled by the Premier or his representative in the Parliament by 1 April 2010.

We have had a fairly substantial debate on a lot of the issues concerning this very unfortunate set of circumstances which saw the lives of a number of people residing in Brookland Greens estate and along Stevensons Road in Cranbourne turned upside down as a result of methane gas leaks identified as emanating from a tip of putrescible landfill which had not been developed with the latest technology as we would expect now. It did not have a clay liner, and due to an unfortunate set of circumstances and flaws in licensing and ongoing monitoring, methane escaped into nearby homes.

All of that was of course fairly well covered by the media at the time. It was only through the support of this chamber, including that of the opposition, that the government was forced to step up to the plate and provide a more extensive response, as well as financial assistance, to support those affected in responding to the circumstances.

Before going on to talk about why I am moving this motion, I will welcome the Ombudsman’s report. As I have mentioned, it sheds some light on some very complex issues and highlights the multitude of failings in policy, in governance and in terms of the blame shifting that continues to this very day. I note also that at the time this occurred we as members of the opposition called for an independent investigation. We certainly welcomed the Ombudsman’s investigation, but I note that some of the areas I would have liked to have seen more extensive comment on were not really gone into far enough. Obviously the Ombudsman in his role is limited to reviewing government agencies and government departments and is possibly more limited in terms of commenting on issues of policy as well as on the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Dare I say it, conflicts in policy and a decision made by VCAT go to the heart of the problem, as they contributed to the unveiling of this particular crisis.

There are many of these conflicts of interest that continue to this day, and the blame shifting continues to



this day despite the exposé. That is why it is so important to have a mechanism by which we can bring the parties to the table and negotiate a resolution. It is the only alternative to what has really been this government’s failure to show leadership. The government has been absent without leave from the moment the crisis emerged. It trotted out some government agencies to do some of its legwork but there was a failure to provide leadership to the community, and this failure continues today.

This machinery, this mechanism, would bring the parties together in order to resolve some of the ongoing issues and to oversee implementation. It would bring parties around the table to resolve the issue of who pays the very costly compensation to the City of Casey. To date its expenditure is nearing $36 million, and future monitoring expenditure will take that to in excess of $80 million, which ultimately Casey city ratepayers will need to pay unless all parties that made a contribution to this crisis in terms of their failings pay their way and play their part.

Also, the class action that has been initiated on behalf of some 600 residents by Slater and Gordon needs to be resolved. I am not arguing in a detailed way for that, but otherwise we may see it all end up in the courts with findings perhaps being made that may generate a series of other legal actions. No-one is going to win by having protracted and expensive legal action. What we need is some sort of machinery, some sort of system, that is going to bring these things to an effective resolution so that this community can move on and so that the agencies responsible can ensure that changes and reforms are made in such a way that such events are not repeated.

I will backtrack a little. I noted a very detailed briefing paper, City of Casey, Victoria — Cranbourne Landfill Gas Issue, prepared by Mellor Olsson Lawyers dated October 2008 for the South Australian EPA (Environment Protection Authority). That is on the web, so clearly there is a lot of interest in this case. Some of the issues that emanate out of the Stevensons Road landfill methane gas crisis will revolutionise the way we deal with landfill and will have an impact on planning for the future, in particular the buffer issues and a whole range of other technical matters.

Before moving on I would like to briefly quote from this briefing to remind members of some of the key issues that led to the crisis. Much of it began in 2003. The briefing states:

In 2003, the development application to construct the estate was refused by the council, one of the reasons for which was the failure of the development to provide an adequate buffer

zone (with a 200-metre buffer zone being sought by the developer). The Victorian EPA also had expressed concern in relation to the buffer distances. At the time the EPA guidelines recommended a 250-metre separation distance between housing and landfill (which has since been increased to 500 metres).

The developer appealed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in 2004 and ultimately a resolution was reached …

… The lack of a barrier between the waste and the surrounding land has allowed the gases and leachate to disperse off site through the soil and groundwater.

Part of the problem comes from VCAT’s interpretation of where the buffer begins. The determination made at the time was that the measurement would begin from the active tipping face of the landfill and extend to the nearest residence. The City of Casey disputed this, as did the EPA. I will come back to that issue in a moment.

The report continues:

Over time the level of gas in the landfill has increased due to continued decomposition of waste, with pressure within the landfill building up as more gas is produced and tries to escape. When gas pressure increases, the gas finds the path of least resistance out of the landfill. In this case, as the landfill was capped in mid-2006, gas could not escape through the surface. An extraction system was in place, but the gas that was not moved by that extraction system migrated through the unlined sides of the landfill into the surrounding soils. From the surrounding soils, the gas found additional pathways in man-made structures such as stormwater drains and electricity service ducts. These pathways led to migration of the gas off site to surrounding land and a build-up of methane gases in enclosed spaces, such as service conduits, subfloor voids, basements and wall cavities.

The next point is very important:

The gas extraction system installed to capture and control the gas released from the landfill was not effective as the overall volumes of gases produced from this site were much higher than predicted —

part of that may be due to the problems with the water table —

resulting in an extraction scheme with an inadequate capacity to deal with the actual volume of gases produced. In addition, as a consequence of high local groundwater levels and a high volume of leachate, a number of the gas extraction bores flooded, making them less effective.

As a result there have been a number of residences affected by the gas leak. A significant risk for the residences is the potential of the methane to ignite when it reaches concentrations of between 5 and 15 per cent in the air. In one residence, the level of methane in the wall cavity was confirmed at approximately 60 per cent, which represents a risk of asphyxiation. Further testing also found pockets of methane in the ground under the houses at approximately 20 per cent.



The Victorian EPA has … recommended the relocation of all residents within a 250-metre radius of the point of detection. The residents of the affected area have been given an option of evacuation and the opportunity to apply for relocation grants. The council has also waived rates payable by residents, which will be reviewed after 12 months.

The City of Casey council has … been issued with a clean-up notice from the EPA under section 62A of the Environment Protection Act 1970 … which requires the council to undertake certain remediation measures and report weekly to the Victorian EPA on the actions being taken to mitigate the spread of gas.

A significant amount of work has been undertaken by the City of Casey. In coming to a conclusion in terms of its Victorian relevance this particular paper states under the heading ‘Likelihood of occurrence in South Australia’ that this occurrence is very specific to this particular site. It refers to a number of factors: the capping of the landfill; the landfill being unlined, with the EPA obviously being the licensing authority in that regard; the type and quantity of waste; the porous sandy substrate, which allowed the gas to disperse at a rapid rate through the ground; and lastly and most importantly, the close proximity of the residential development.

The report by the Ombudsman is comprehensive, and it took a year to complete and be presented to Parliament. I will refer members to some of the chapter headings just to give some appreciation of the breadth of the report and the many recommendations that came out of it. They include the background, a summation of which I have just given, as well as various investigations, approvals of the landfill, management of the landfill, EPA enforcement in relation to the landfill, planning decisions affecting the estate and the safety of residents in the estate. Ultimately it is the safety of residents that is crucial, and that is why this issue is so important and why it is so important for this house to get it right.

The report has been welcomed, albeit with some degree of differentiation, given that the various stakeholders and involved parties have particular interests. I will quote briefly from a press release by Slater and Gordon, a Labor law firm, that was issued on 15 October. The headline is ‘Brookland Greens — time to talk’. In part I agree with the thrust of this press release, which is that this mechanism must bring the parties together to talk rather than see the matter fought out in protracted and costly legal action. The press release states:

Lawyers representing nearly 600 Brookland Greens residents say today’s damning report by the independent Ombudsman is a victory for the residents and an important step towards resolving their problems.

It is only a step, and that is why I am asking members in this chamber to walk the journey that needs to be taken. The Slater and Gordon press release goes on to say:

… it is now imperative that the City of Casey and the EPA come to the table and try to resolve the matter through mediation.

Dare I say it is more than the City of Casey and the EPA. Clearly the City of Frankston has a 27 per cent interest in the landfill, and there are other agencies involved, as well as planning implications for which the Minister for Planning is responsible. All of those need to be facilitated. The government must do so at this point of time, otherwise we will be still talking about this in a number of years and certainly when some members of this chamber have moved on to retirement. The media release goes on to say:

… the Ombudsman has made his findings, the next step is to fix the problem.

That is certainly what I want to do as one of the representatives.

Rather than protracted and expensive legal action through the courts, the City of Casey should sit down and talk with us.

Dare I say it is more than just the City of Casey. There has been a very deliberate campaign — and this is referred to in my motion — of blame shifting, to basically pin much of it on the City of Casey. It has been done at an individual council level, a government level, and in this chamber by a minister of this government. Doing that is not going to facilitate a resolution. If it was forced to meet all of its costs and obligations exclusively for a decision which was not of their own making, the City of Casey would empty its financial reserves. It is the second-fastest growing municipality in Australia, but it is infrastructure poor. It has huge infrastructure needs and by emptying out its financial reserves the community would be doing without much-needed infrastructure and services. More importantly and more likely, it would probably lead to bankruptcy of the council because it would get into significant debt in order to meet the costs resulting from actions not all of its own making; much of it has been forced upon them.

The media release from Slater and Gordon says:

The Ombudsman concludes that Casey has continually tried to downplay the risks and put commercial considerations ahead of the environment and our clients.

I have not found this to be the case. I received a very thorough briefing on the actions taken, and these briefings were made available to all local members of



Parliament. It is disappointing that only two Labor members took advantage of the briefing. There were no attempts to conceal anything. It was a very thorough report of actions taken: the construction of the wall and the financial applications. I received a copy of the co-funding submission made to the government from the City of Frankston and the City of Casey, as well as the site management and remediation plan prepared in response to this particular crisis.

In a statement issued by Geoff Ablett, mayor of the City of Casey, the response of the council was:

The mayor said that whilst the report concluded that there have been failures by a range of government and private bodies, including the council, relating to the regulation and management of the site, council noticed the thrust of the report in highlighting the failure of the environmental regulator, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), to adequately discharge its regulatory functions. To this extent, therefore, the council’s decision to join the EPA in the class action had been vindicated.

Clearly one of the problems alluded to by the Ombudsman on a range of levels is an ongoing conflict of interest that exists across a range of parties. There are also conflicting interests in the EPA in its role as the licensing authority and enforcement authority when it enforces and monitors environmental standards. The difficulty with the structure of an environmental authority such as the EPA is that if you stuff up the licensing bit then you are going to be less likely to be forthcoming about how to fix it up. There may be a prolonged and protracted attempt to be less then forthcoming about errors that may have been made due to a range of reasons, and I will not speculate on that. In terms of the reform of the EPA and the importance of its being able to deliver the technical skill and expertise that our modern society requires, I believe that the reform and restructure of the EPA is inevitable in the state of Victoria.

The media release also states:

The mayor also said that the City of Casey had already commenced its own review of policies and procedures identified in the recommendations contained in the Ombudsman’s report, and that many of these have already been completed.

I commend the City of Casey on this. Every agency needs to do the same. Cr Ablett went on to say:

… the council is disappointed in, and rejects, the Ombudsman’s findings in two key areas:

…

Council rejects the finding that VCAT was not sufficiently alerted to the explosive risk associated with methane gas. VCAT is an expert panel and one of its members was an

industrial chemist. It is disappointed that the Ombudsman could not investigate the merits of the decision made by VCAT. Council did not want VCAT to remove the buffer and allow residential development up to the landfill boundary …

This goes to the heart of the reason why this occurred. During a very good briefing given by the Ombudsman’s office to the Leader of the Opposition in the upper house, David Davis, and me, when I asked whether methane had been found and measured outside what would have been the boundary at levels that approximated a risk, the answer was no. If that buffer had remained as the council had insisted, none of this would have occurred. For that reason this government and its agencies must come to the party and share some of that cost and move forward in terms of putting in place a mechanism for resolving these ongoing issues.

I received a letter jointly signed by Cr Geoff Ablett, mayor of the City of Casey, and Cr Colin Hampton, mayor of the City of Frankston. Both men have done a fantastic job in leading their cities. They forwarded to me copies of the co-funding submission, the site management and remediation plan and their briefing presentation. In their concluding paragraph they said:

You will note that the co-funding submission is a detailed proposal which is based around a co-funding arrangement whereby the two local councils are responsible for funding the ongoing management of the site over the next 19 years —

to the tune of $41.8 million —

… while the state government is being called upon to fund the immediate remediation works of $35.7 million. These are significant costs which the two cities alone cannot meet unless there is a drastic reduction in infrastructure and service delivery to residents of your electorate.

I agree with them. As I mentioned before, a class action succeeding against the City of Casey is only a hypothetical. Maddocks lawyers acting for Casey filed and served three third-party notices in the class action by the owners of the land, namely, the City of Casey in the Brookland Greens Estate. Council joined three entities, SITA Australia Pty Ltd, LMS Generation Pty Ltd and the EPA, as third parties to the Victorian Supreme Court class action. Maddocks has also said that third-party proceedings would only become relevant if and when the Supreme Court finds liability on the council’s part.

That means that this situation would then have a domino effect and be playing out in the courts for who knows how long. The effect of a third-party proceeding is to allege that council’s liability had been caused by the breach of contract or negligence of SITA Environmental Solutions, which managed the former Stevensons Road landfill for a period; breach of



contract or negligence by LMS Generation Pty Ltd, which provided council with advice on the extraction of gas from the former Stevensons Road landfill; and/or negligence of the EPA because in the discharge of its legislative responsibilities it did not require that the northern cells of the Stevensons Road landfill be lined. In short, council, through these third-party proceedings, is alleging that if it ever becomes liable, it will be because of the action or inaction of all or some of these three entities and any liability should ultimately pass on to them.

Of course we want to avoid that. But, as I mentioned before, I think one question that the Ombudsman’s report does not extensively cover is how VCAT resolves policy tension or conflict between different legislative requirements, in this instance most notably planning policy, and the environmental protection laws that apply in particular to the operation of landfills.

In having a look at the oral reasons for decision taken from the transcript of the final day of hearing on 5 May 2004 — mind you, this was not available at that time; it had to be, I understand, transcribed from some tapes, so there were some technical or logistical issues there in terms of this particular case — you see that the VCAT president undertook to have things addressed. Then there is the issue of maybe not having VCAT decisions appellable except within a very narrow range of possibilities. I understand that there is currently a government review which has been initiated by the Attorney-General in relation to VCAT with a view to possibly allowing appeals to occur following a VCAT determination. As I said, I think all of these things have emanated from this case.

In the reasons for decision taken from the transcript of the final day of hearings Mr Horsfall said:

In general terms, we consider the 500-metres buffer distance is unsupported by policy.

By policy! He went on:

We find the EPA best practice environment manual guidelines are not policy at this time.

In considering the merits of the case, it was still within a policy framework and context, and he gave greater weight to policy than to the environmental law guidelines, which were guidelines because that is how environmental laws seem to have been structured as a way of capturing and encouraging best practice to guide many of these things. If you enshrine particular standards in a fixed way in legislation, that does not allow us to benefit from new technologies and improved ways of protecting our environment, so the

EPA often uses guidelines. In many instances they are beefed up as a result of experience or some new technological advances that have been made, not only in Victoria and Australia but worldwide. I do not necessarily think that this is a bad thing. I think it is a good thing, and hopefully we benefit from it.

The policy conflict that existed and the challenge which fell to VCAT was to balance these two elements — planning policy on the one hand and environmental laws and standards on the other. Mr Horsfall said:

The state environmental protection policy (site and management of landfills receiving municipal wastes) —

known as SEPP (state environment protection policy) landfills —

… is the policy the planning scheme requires us to consider, and the development plan is the primary planning instrument the tribunal must apply in this case.

He went on to say:

The development plan sets a buffer distance of 200 metres … we find the point from which the buffer distance should be measured is from the open batters and the tip face within the working areas of the tip.

This is disputed by the City of Casey. I must say, having had a look at the documentation, this particular decision is not one I accept.

Mr Horsfall went on to say:

… the location of the current tip face is beyond 200 metres from the edges of stage 10 —

which was the new section of the Brookland Greens estate that was to be developed.

In making that statement he completely denied or was not cognisant of the fact that methane can travel from many of these landfills, especially when they are unlined. I understand that information was available internationally. He went on to say:

We find it difficult to understand the position taken by the EPA that no residential development be allowed within a buffer distance of 500 metres.

The senior VCAT member was quoted on page 192 of the Ombudsman’s report as having stated:

We do not agree that, after the tip is capped and filled, that it is necessary that there be ongoing monitoring of the capping and its repair or maintenance before a certificate of compliance issues. We do not consider it necessary to wait for the full year cycle of seasons contemplated by Dr Bellair.

Dr Bellair felt very aggrieved by the findings of the Ombudsman and the reflection they made on his



professional expertise. He is an expert witness used by many agencies in many cases. He felt so aggrieved that he set up a web page to make sure that his view and his information was not lost in the process.

In his decision Mr Horsfall said:

We consider the tipping activity ceases once the tip is filled, capped and the gas extraction system is operating.

Quite clearly that gas extraction system had not been operating effectively. Indeed the activity of the landfill continues.

As I said, many of these issues have been addressed or responded to very effectively by the City of Casey. I note also that its CEO (chief executive officer) was a man with a planning background. For example, in recommendation 93 in reference to the section 173 agreement and the development plan, the Ombudsman says they are:

… both unclear about how to measure the buffer; when a reduction in the buffer can be considered; and the manner in which the reduction can take place. I consider that the City of Casey and Peet failed to ensure that these documents were unambiguous.

However, the plans attached to both the section 173 agreement and the development plan clearly show the buffer as being measured from the boundary of the site, and both documents envisage the progressive winding back of the buffer when the use that generates the need for the buffer ceases. Most buffer distances used in planning controls measure from the boundary of the site, not from the actual use on the site. The issue in dispute was whether the use that generated the need for the buffer had in fact ceased. We now know that it has not, and we know that went back to mini-landfill. The requirement to provide ongoing monitoring shows quite clearly that these issues continue. The City of Casey maintained that it had not ceased and the applicant maintained that it had, and VCAT agreed with the applicant.

In recommendation 95 the Ombudsman says:

I consider that the City of Casey failed to adequately address its conflict of interest as the owner of the landfill and the responsible authority for making planning decisions about residential developments adjacent to the landfill.

However, council is the responsible authority for planning applications whether or not it owns lands within the vicinity. That point was somehow glossed over.

Recommendation 105 states:

VCAT has since acknowledged that its ‘recording facilities … are not satisfactory …

I am very pleased indeed that this was addressed.

Recommendation 150 states:

Development of the estate has been the subject of several planning objections and a hearing at VCAT in May 2004 which effectively allowed residential houses to be built along the western boundary of the landfill. This decision was made despite the City of Casey and the EPA opposing the construction of houses within 200 metres of the landfill.

This actually comes from the Ombudsman’s report, recommendation 150. It states:

This decision was made despite the City of Casey and the EPA opposing the construction of houses within 200 metres of the landfill.

I think that speaks volumes and speaks for itself.

Recommendations 385 and 386 are in relation to further conflicts of interest. Recommendation 385 begins:

Also concerning is the conflict of interest involved in the Shire of Cranbourne and later the City of Casey serving as both responsible authority and applicant for the landfill planning permit.

Of course there was no conflict at the time of the decision being made. Although the City of Cranbourne was the applicant, it was not the responsible authority. The responsible authority for processing the permit application and making the determination on the permit at the time was the then Department of Planning and Urban Growth and therefore it was under the jurisdiction of the then Minister for Planning. However, the conflict mistakenly criticised is in fact now enshrined in legislation as the Planning and Environment Act and Victorian planning provisions provide for all Victorian councils to be both applicant and responsible authority.

Recommendation 390 also concerns me. The Ombudsman says:

It is not in my jurisdiction to review or comment upon the correctness or otherwise of decisions of VCAT and its predecessor, the AAT.

That is the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This is a major concern as it goes to the very heart of the matter. If dwellings had not been permitted to be constructed within the 200-metre buffer, the situation would never have escalated as it did, and quite clearly, as I mentioned before, VCAT’s decision was guided by the policies held by this government.



I commend the Minister for Environment and Climate Change for having the Environment Protection Authority conduct the audit of Victorian landfills. There are several issues that emanate from that. I am relieved that it is happening because some of these landfills are in the southern part of my electorate.

I would just like to read the conclusion of the EPA report in relation to planning guidelines. It states:

EPA’s best practice guidelines recommend a 500-metre buffer distance between dwellings and landfills accepting biodegradable wastes. A 200-metre buffer distance is required between dwellings and landfills accepting only solid inert waste.

It goes on to say:

Where full buffer distances never existed, or no longer exist, landfill operators/managers will need to conduct a periodic assessment and review of methane generation from their landfill.

I know that Ms Hartland was actually thinking of moving an amendment with a view to providing some source of funding for the resolution of issues connected with landfill. I think we need to do that work, but also in terms of legal liability, in particular of tips that have long been completed and a whole range of other issues in terms of hypothecation of those funds and how that might impact on recycling, it is a project of work in itself. We need to get it right, and we need to move forward on it. I certainly commend Ms Hartland for being forward thinking in relation to that. I think as a Parliament we do need to come to terms with those issues and lead the way.

I was also pleased to see the president of VCAT’s response to the report. Justice Kevin Bell welcomed the Ombudsman’s recommendations. In a press release of 15 October Justice Bell said:

The community should have access to quality sound recordings and transcript of hearings.

The press release goes on to say:

Justice Bell also welcomed the reference in the Ombudsman’s report to the issue of an internal appeal process at the tribunal.

I certainly welcome that as well. He said:

As I said to the Ombudsman, the current mechanism of an appeal to the Supreme Court is too costly and burdensome in many cases. An internal appeal which was cheaper and easier to undertake could have been of real use in this case, especially in the light of the Ombudsman’s conclusion that the tribunal made an error of law which was not appealed by the parties.

I understand that for the City of Casey merely to get the EPA along to the VCAT hearing it had to subpoena it.

Let me say I find it extraordinary that the EPA did not take its responsibilities more seriously as the environmental monitor. I believe there are certainly differences of view in relation to grounds on which appeals can be made. But in relation to policy tensions that need to be resolved by VCAT in making these decisions I would like to briefly quote from a paper written by Justice Stuart Morris, former president of VCAT, titled Melbourne 2030 — From Vision to Reality, which commented on the role of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. As I said, I find some of the comments in it quite illuminating. The paper states:

The nature of review before VCAT is known as ‘review on the merits’. This is distinguished from what is known as ‘judicial review’ where the exercise is confined to examining the legal correctness of the decision.

He goes on to say:

… VCAT can play, along with the minister, an important leadership role in the making of decisions about planning matters. What distinguishes VCAT (and, for that matter, the courts) from other decision-makers is an obligation to give reasons for its decisions —

which of course in this instance had been long in coming.

Further, VCAT processes are completely open to scrutiny by the public …. If VCAT makes any error of law, an opportunity exists to have the decision overturned.

I think beefing it up by allowing internal reviews will certainly strengthen this process and make it more accessible as a court. Justice Morris points out that Melbourne 2030 specifically articulates a policy direction to:

provide more resources to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in order to:

increase the number of tribunals that can sit;

support VCAT in achieving its objective of increasing the proportion of cases that are heard by panels of two members rather than a single member —

and he goes on to talk about VCAT’s consideration of planning policy.

Turning to the way in which VCAT has approached Melbourne 2030, Justice Morris said:

The principal decision which is relevant is that of Judge Higgins, Deputy President Horsfall, Senior Member Sharkey and Member Cimino in O’Donnell Street Developments Pty Ltd v. Yarra City Council, which was handed down on 30 April 2003. The City of Yarra had been concerned by an earlier decision in Ashlyn Enterprises Pty Ltd v. Yarra City Council (referred to as the Cheesegrater case). The council argued that there was no legal requirement to have regard to



Melbourne 2030. Hence a hearing was held to determine the legal status of the policy. Essentially the tribunal concluded that the metropolitan strategy (as opposed to the implementation plans) contained in Melbourne 2030 is a final strategy adopted by the minister. The tribunal held that the plan was a strategic plan … which has been adopted by a minister within the meaning of section 60(1)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act and, hence, was a relevant matter.

He went on to quote the tribunal:

Our view is that the tribunal’s obligation in making planning decisions is to apply the current planning scheme and in doing so is obliged under section 60 (1)(b)(2) and (3) to have regard to the metropolitan strategy.

…

The primary obligation of a responsible authority and the tribunal when deciding on a permit application is to apply the existing law, being the appropriate legislation and the planning scheme currently in force, and whilst it is desirable that discretion be exercised in a way that does not compromise the metropolitan strategy, until it is incorporated in the planning scheme …

In conclusion the tribunal said:

In some situations there may be conflict or tension between the respective policies. In those circumstances it will require the tribunal to balance those conflicting interests. Each case will of course depend on its own facts.

So it is not just the merits of the case, it is also the balancing of policy conflict. I believe this has not been sufficiently addressed by VCAT. That is because the Ombudsman is limited in doing so. For that reason it is beholden on this government to set up machinery that addresses these issues, as outlined in this motion.

In conclusion I make two final points. The first relates to the EPA. The environmental watchdog has, unfortunately, failed in many ways, both in terms of governance and in terms of fulfilling its conflicting responsibilities. It played a major role in this matter and as it is a government agency the government has an obligation to meet some of those costs.

At the local council level what perturbed me — and this is something that the Ombudsman did not comment on — was that a councillor, an employee of a Labor member of Parliament, used his position to make the council the scapegoat and attempted to interfere with due process. I understand that several submissions were made to the Ombudsman by members of the community. We have heard nothing about those submissions; they have not been commented on in this report by the Ombudsman, as, for example, was the case in the Brimbank report. Although I know that this councillor is no longer in the employ of a member of Parliament, I believe these issues should have been

addressed. There certainly were examples of conflicts of interest, such as when this councillor voted on issues such as the waiving of rates when he and/or his family lived on the estate. More importantly — and I quote from a copy of one of the submissions to the Ombudsman I received in the mail:

Cr Bradford has also demonstrated this conflict of interest and conflict of duty through his comments in the press regularly on the Stevensons Road landfill gas issue affecting the manner in which this issue is played out in the public arena.

The submission goes on to say:

Because of his employer being the Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier, one can infer that minister or state government may be exercising ‘undue influence’ on Cr Bradford, who in turn has a track record of attempting to bully councillors and council officers into compliance.

The position advocated by Cr Bradford demonstrating attempts to exercise ‘undue influence’ would cause detriment to the City of Casey and its ratepayers who would have to bear significant costs of the Stevensons Road landfill rectification, response and compensation costs if Cr Bradford’s tactic succeeded.

It goes on to detail all of the examples of conflicts of interest.

I note with great interest that this particular example of a conflict of interest and undue influence has not been treated in the same way as, say, the Brimbank issue. This is disappointing because the attempts to find a scapegoat and contain the damage to the government have been demonstrated at the local level through Cr Bradford, a member of the Labor Party and a former employee of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier, Luke Donnellan, the member for Narre Warren North in the other place. But we have also seen that manifested in this chamber. For that reason I think the blame shifting has to end.

What is required is a retired judge who understands the legal pitfalls and can bring the parties together at the negotiating table to work through the Ombudsman’s recommendations and resolve the outstanding financial issues. They cannot be ignored and they should not be ignored. They are huge; they have the capacity to bankrupt the council. They will damage not only those who live in Cranbourne and whose property values have declined but also those who have suffered anxiety, those whose businesses have been affected and those who have had to be relocated, often into inappropriate accommodation — most of them have returned, nonetheless the stigma remains. They will also affect all those people who live in the city of Casey in suburbs such as Narre Warren South, Narre Warren North and parts of Lyndhurst. All of the members responsible for those electorates have a responsibility and a duty to the



people who elected them and they must force the government, force the Premier, to do the right thing.

In addition, we have the City of Frankston, a marginal seat, bearing 27 per cent of the cost. The exposure, the political fallout, is very substantial. The only way to make sure that fallout is limited is by taking the bull by the horns and agreeing to this machinery. The residents of that area deserve nothing less, and there is an opportunity, as I said, to weave a way forward out of a range of conflicts of interest that have existed and continue to exist to this day. The Ombudsman said he would monitor the implementation, but I think we need to go further and address the issues of the outstanding class action and bring the parties to the table. It is important to have an open accountability and reporting framework so that no sweetheart deals, in particular if there is a Labor law firm involved, can be made and there is no kicking of the proceeds into Labor coffers. It is also important to make sure that the panel’s report is tabled in this Parliament by either the Premier or his representative.

With those few words, all I can say on behalf of the people in an electorate I think has been shafted and left without leadership is that I hope this chamber can put in place a mechanism which will bring them a solution sooner rather than later.

Mr TEE (Eastern Metropolitan) — I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. As did Mrs Peulich, I will only speak briefly. It is an important report dealing with the causes of the methane leak on the Brookland Greens estate. The Ombudsman says this leak meant that the local community endured considerable anxiety, distress and inconvenience.

The Ombudsman’s report is divided into three parts. He identifies the causes of the leak, he considers the response of councils and agencies to the leak and finally he makes a number of recommendations.

Firstly, he deals with the causes of the leak. At page 27 of his report he says:

I consider that the methane leak into the Brookland Greens housing estate was brought about by a series of missed opportunities by the responsible agencies.

He goes on to say:

Activities such as monitoring and enforcement, contract management and management of conflicts of interest, had they been conducted more thoroughly, may have helped to halt the process that led to the emergency situation at Brookland Greens.

That encapsulates the first part of the report, which is the summary of the findings about what caused the leak.

Secondly, the Ombudsman considered the handling of the situation that emerged, and I will again quote from his findings. At page 25 he says:

… from June 2008 onwards the EPA took appropriate action in undertaking research; seeking international advice on the problem; verifying the methane findings with independent consultants; and devoting adequate resources to the issue.

Under the heading of ‘Management of the emergency response’ on page 25 he says in relation to the CFA (Country Fire Authority):

Overall I consider that the CFA, as the lead agency responsible for handling the emergency situation, performed commendably in the circumstances.

That is the second part of the report which deals with how the agencies, including the CFA and the EPA (Environment Protection Authority), responded once the situation had emerged.

Finally, as I said, the report deals with a number of recommendations. These recommendations fall into a number of categories. They deal with a review of the policy for assessing works approvals, with the City of Casey developing specific procedures to manage conflicts of interest, with the City of Casey and the City of Frankston centrally managing all future contracts through an officer or team, with a recommendation that all licences be reviewed annually, with compliance and enforcement procedures, and finally, there is a recommendation that the Office of the Emergency Services Commissioner conduct a detailed review of the emergency response to the methane gas risk at the estate and publicly report its findings. That is in the third part of the report, dealing with the recommendations.

All those recommendations have been accepted by the government agencies, and many of the recommendations have already been implemented. It is also worth noting by way of summary of the process that has occurred that we have had a careful, rigorous and independent review of what has occurred. We have had recommendations to improve the outcomes, and those recommendations have been accepted and many have been implemented. We have also had an audit of 260 current and former landfill sites across Victoria, and this audit confirmed that there are no other sites or communities in a similar situation. We also know that remediation works have now been undertaken on the Cranbourne landfill site. We know they are progressing, and we know that an $11 million underground wall has



been built which separates the landfill from the estate, and that wall is now complete. New gas bores have been installed and the extraction of liquids has been improved. We have a wall and we also have gas extraction and liquid extraction in place. The next stage is for the council to upgrade the landfill cap and to increase the gas extraction.

In addition to the report, in terms of the implementation a lot of work is under way, and that includes the $3 million provided to the EPA to assist the City of Casey in implementing other mitigation measures and to continue with the monitoring. Since 2004 the waste management policy has required that all new landfills be lined, so we know that since 2004 the lining that the Ombudsman said should have occurred in that circumstance is taking place, and that will give us confidence that the circumstances that occurred at the Brookland Greens estate will not be repeated.

That is the background and the context of this debate and discussion. It was somewhat surprising then to read this motion, because it misrepresents the findings of the Ombudsman. When you read the motion it is clear not only that it misrepresents the findings but that many of the ways forward suggested in the motion fly in the face of the findings of the Ombudsman, are contrary to the views expressed by the Ombudsman and are frankly a slap in the face for the hard work of not only the Ombudsman but those who have, in good faith, made representations to the Ombudsman.

The motion talks of failures of governance and policy, whereas the Ombudsman talks of missed opportunities, so there is a disconnect between the motion and the findings of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman recommends a review by the emergency services commissioner, and this important recommendation is completely disregarded by the motion. Not only is the recommendation of the Ombudsman for a way forward ignored, but the motion seeks to impose another process. It seeks a panel of experts chaired by a retired judge. The Ombudsman made no such recommendation.

I do not think we should be surprised that those opposite would move a motion that blatantly disregards not only the findings of the Ombudsman but the way forward proposed by the Ombudsman. We know they have never had much regard for the views of independent third parties. We know Liberal Party members have form in this area. Whenever they have the opportunity to attack or to chip away at independent institutions they do so. Whenever they are in government they are always about attacking the important pillars of our democratic system, so it comes

as no surprise that when in opposition they attack the independent Ombudsman. It is no surprise that when in opposition they fail to give due regard and due credit to the hard work of the Ombudsman. They fail to accept the process and the way of moving forward recommended by the Ombudsman.

This motion is really a continuation of that Liberal Party policy which has no respect for the work, the processes or the recommendations of this independent authority. I have no doubt that if the Liberal Party were in government, the same axe would be taken to those who have independent views. I am concerned that this motion is an attack on the Ombudsman, an attack on the way forward and an attack on the work suggested.

I am also concerned by the blatant hypocrisy in this motion. What is stark about the motion is the failure for any reference to be made to the role of the relevant local councils. The landfill was on council land. The landfill was managed by council through numerous third parties, but ultimately it was the council that was responsible, and the estate was developed through council.

The Ombudsman’s report dealt in great detail with the role of council, with the conflict of interest of council, with the failures of council, and these failures include the failure to have regard to environmental protection and to comply with the works approval process, the lack of technical expertise, the lack of record-keeping, the fact that the landfill was not managed and operated effectively, and the failure to act, so it is somewhat surprising when you look at those findings by the council that there is no reference to council in the motion. As we know, it is not as if the mover of the motion, Mrs Peulich, does not have direct access to information on the role and the workings of the council at this time. We know that Mrs Peulich had an opportunity to enlighten this house in terms of the role of council. We all know — it has been reported in this house before — that Mrs Peulich has employed as an electorate officer the very councillor who moved the planning amendment so that the estate could be created, so that we — —

Mrs Peulich — On a point of order, Acting President, I would be loath to have the member inadvertently mislead the house. That person is not in my employment now, and the motion that was moved was one to merely advertise it, not to approve it, so Mr Tee is deliberately misleading the house and I ask that he withdraw.

Mr TEE — It is a matter for debate, but the reality is there is no misleading of the house. It is a factual



situation; it is entirely factual that Mrs Peulich’s former electorate officer, who was a councillor in 2000, moved the planning amendment so that the land could be rezoned from rural to residential.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Elasmar) — Order! There is no point of order.

Mr TEE — In the report the Ombudsman is very clear about the role of the council and of councillors. They were front and centre as part of the decision-making process. The councillors were involved in every part of the process, and yet it is surprising that there is no reference to the council in the motion. There is no intention to investigate the role of councils, and at the very least it is surprising that in the face of the criticism of the council by the Ombudsman there is in this motion no attempt to investigate that role.

On the contrary, Mrs Peulich in her contribution commended the council. Mrs Peulich acted as the spokesperson, reading volumes of the council’s defence of this role. There is no consideration of investigating the role played by her former electorate officer, and it is concerning that this motion is silent on this matter. I believe it is appropriate to question why Mrs Peulich does not want to investigate that issue, why Mrs Peulich — —

Mrs Peulich — On a point of order, Acting President, the councillor concerned was not in my employment at that time. I was not a member of Parliament at the time. Mr Tee is just telling fibs and porkies.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Elasmar) — Order! That is not a point of order. The member, to continue.

Mr TEE — There is a real question about what is being hidden and what is not being said, and I think there are more questions raised by this motion, but, as I said, the motion is an attack on the Ombudsman and on the democratic institution, but what is of even greater concern around this whole process is the attack on the people of the community living on the estate. We all know that they have endured anxiety and distress. We all know that at that time of distress they needed leadership and support from their political leaders, and they got that support and leadership from the government, which ensured the Ombudsman had the resources to fully investigate these matters.

The government ensured they had an independent review. The government ensured that those recommendations were accepted, and indeed many

have been implemented. What this government and this community did not deserve was the scare campaign and the dishonest political campaign. What this community deserved was better leadership.

The members on this side of the house visited the site often to provide the leadership and support that the people of that community needed. What they did not deserve, and what they got from those on the opposite side was scaremongering and political point-scoring. They deserved better from their elected MPs, and they deserve better than what is proposed in this motion.

Ms HARTLAND (Western Metropolitan) — I am glad that I have had an opportunity to listen to Mr Tee’s contribution. I find these situations difficult because there are valid points on both sides, but in reality the Brookland Greens event should never have happened. That is what this debate comes down to. We have known for over 40 years that you do not build houses near tip sites. How many of those other sites exist? There was the sinking village in Yarraville 25 years ago, so I do not think the government can stand here and say, ‘It’s a bit of an accident, and we were really nice to the residents afterwards’.

Obviously the Ombudsman’s report goes into a great deal of detail about what happened at Brookland Greens, and Mrs Peulich has gone into that detail so I will not do so. I want to talk more about what is going to happen in the future and what I see as the absolute failure of the Environment Protection Authority not only to fulfil its own policy but also to advocate on behalf of the community.

I believe the council is at fault — both the City of Casey and the Cranbourne and Frankston councils. From my reading of the report I think there was failure, and when you look back 17 years you see that if the tip had been lined, as was required and in accordance with the knowledge at that time, for, as I understand it, $500 000, the council would not be looking at a clean-up fee of somewhere around $70 million now. You do not do environmental matters cheaply.

I also want to talk about one of the councillors at the City of Casey, Lynette Keleher, a Greens councillor, who has been advocating on these issues around tip sites around that area for a long time. There have been activists in this area talking about the problems for a long time, and the government has chosen to ignore those people.

I believe there is also a clear failure by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to listen to either the council or the EPA and a failure of the EPA



and council not to advocate strongly for their communities. VCAT said that it could do this, but why did it not go out and alert the community? Why did it not start a campaign? Why did it not engage with the community? It is responsible for that lack of advocacy. In my mind this report raises more questions than it answers about where we go on this issue in the future. When will the government face up to the issues of recycling and landfill in general? When will it raise the landfill levies to such a level where it becomes better to recycle certain materials so that these materials do not end up in landfill sites? With such actions we can avoid recurrences of what happened at Brookland Greens.

Who should pay for the clean-up at Brookland Greens? This is a point Mrs Peulich made very well. If the council has to pay for this clean-up on its own, can it afford that? Can it afford the $70 million it is probably going to cost? Will those costs be put on ratepayers? What are we going to do in the future when we see a recurrence of what happened at Brookland Greens? I have seen a report saying that those 260 landfill sites are unlikely to ever cause a problem, but that is no guarantee.

I have been involved with tip sites and contaminated sites for a long time because there are a number of them where I live, such as the Yarraville sinking village, the Ardeer lead site, Tullamarine, which continues on today, and the Burnley site, where the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board was permitted to build a major facility just three years ago on a highly contaminated site that had never been audited by the EPA and was not even on its contaminated sites register.

When does the government move on this? When is it going to start planning how to deal with these sites and all the sites in the future? Is the government thinking about putting funds aside to rehabilitate these sites? These are going to be orphaned sites. They will be abandoned sites and nobody will know who formerly owned them. The government is not facing up to its responsibility. It is not unfair to say that the residents of Brookland Greens were, in their houses, sold a pup. As I understand it, a number of the residents believed that what was going to happen on the site was it would become like an urban forest and become open ground. That is the acceptable and commonplace way you deal with these sites. There are several examples of this in the western suburbs, such as Newport Lakes. The Ardeer site has been turned into a park, and there is a great deal of parkland around what had been the munitions sites. This is what you do with these sites: you turn them into good open space.

That is not what the government did in this case; it allowed a housing estate to be built next to a tip site. It was negligence on its behalf, and it was negligence on behalf of its agencies. I hope it learns something from this and we do not have to come back and talk about other sites like this.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I rise to make some brief remarks in support of the motion moved by Mrs Peulich this afternoon with respect to the Brookland Greens estate and the Ombudsman’s report.

The motion Mrs Peulich has moved today is a way forward. We have the report from the Ombudsman which sets out what has happened. What we now need is the way forward. As one of the members of this chamber who represents that area of Cranbourne where the Brookland Greens estate is located, I have seen the impact of this issue on the people in that area — the families that have been dislocated by this issue, the families that are unable to get finance for houses and the families that were unable to sell houses in the area. We should not underestimate or overestimate the impact that this issue has had on that community and those families.

When the issue first became a significant public issue 12 months ago there were a number of meetings in the local community to address this issue. Members like Mrs Peulich, myself, David Davis, as the former shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change, and Mr Baillieu, as Leader of the Opposition, were at those meetings and heard what the community said, heard their concerns and saw the depth of feeling in those communities. At no time through that process were any members of the government present to hear firsthand how these people had been affected. Mr Tee got up and said the government has been supportive et cetera. None of his Labor colleagues were at those meetings supporting that community and hearing its concerns.

What we have heard from the government today, Mr Tee’s contribution, was patently absurd. Mr Tee is suggesting that Mrs Peulich in moving this motion, which sets out a path to move forward from the Ombudsman’s report, is somehow, in picking up those recommendations and those key issues raised by the Ombudsman, critical of the Ombudsman. This motion is not critical of the Ombudsman. We had a great diatribe from Mr Tee that this motion was an attack on the independence of the Ombudsman and is an attack on democratic institutions et cetera, which is absolutely ridiculous. What this motion does and what it seeks to do and the reason the government should support it is



that it puts in place a mechanism that picks up the issues that were raised by the Ombudsman. It is quite clear from that report, as it is quite clear from talking to the City of Casey and others, that there have been significant issues of policy and of governance between the agencies concerned that have exacerbated this situation in Cranbourne. Those issues have to be addressed.

It is fine that the Ombudsman has reported on that, but what the Ombudsman has not provided yet is a way forward. What Mrs Peulich is seeking to do with this motion is put in place a mechanism to oversee the relevant agencies as we move forward to ensure that these issues are addressed and that will ensure that we do not have the policy failures and the crossover failures between agencies that led to this problem in the first place.

For Mr Tee and the government to come in and attack this motion by suggesting that it somehow undermines the Ombudsman or attacks independent institutions is just ridiculous. This government is all about covering its own position on this issue, and frankly it does not care about addressing the concerns of those residents of the Brookland Greens estate or the surrounding area who have been impacted by this. The reality is that we now have a situation where substantial remediation costs need to be met. There is no doubt, as identified in the Ombudsman’s report, that fault for this problem rests both with government agencies and council agencies.

It should be the responsibility of the government, as it is of the council, to ensure those costs are met. It is not simply a case of the government wiping its hands of this issue and saying it is a council responsibility. The reality is the cost impost of that on the ratepayers of the City of Casey and the City of Frankston would be enormous. The government shares responsibility for this issue, and it should be willing to meet that responsibility.

The motion moved by Mrs Peulich sets out a way forward to address those conflicts that have occurred through this process. I commend the motion to the house, and I commend Mrs Peulich. She has worked tirelessly on this issue for the last 12 months to bring this motion before the house, and I encourage all members of the chamber to support it.

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I would like to respond to a couple of the comments made by Mr Tee. He tried to portray my contribution today as somehow being an attack on the Ombudsman. I thank Mr Rich-Phillips for addressing that issue in

saying we have the recommendations before us, and while the Ombudsman monitors the implementation of those recommendations he does not create a way forward. During the briefing when I asked how this could happen, given there is an ongoing conflict of interest because of multiple parties to this particular debacle, there was not an answer. As a local member of Parliament I have been supported throughout by my colleagues, and Mr Rich-Phillips listed the contributions that the community and I are grateful for, including those from the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, Ted Baillieu, David Davis, Mr Rich-Phillips, Ms Lovell, the member for Doncaster in the other place, Mary Wooldridge, Mr Guy and a range of others, including the member for Warrandyte in the other place, Ryan Smith. Of course Ms Hartland has been taking a keen interest in the matters as well given it falls within her portfolio responsibilities.

Mr Tee made the point that somehow this is a slap in the face for the Ombudsman. I would like to remind Mr Tee, who I understand is a lawyer, about the responsibilities of the Ombudsman. This is taken from the Ombudsman’s website home page. It states:

The Ombudsman promotes excellence in public administration in Victoria and seeks to ensure the highest possible standards of public sector service delivery to all Victorians. The Ombudsman inquires into or investigates administrative actions taken by a government department or public statutory body or by any member of staff of a municipal council.

It is about administrative actions; it is not about policy. I went to some length to try to point out that virtually all of the problems emanate from the fact that the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal overturned the objection of the Environment Protection Authority, which was subpoenaed to attend in support of the City of Casey’s position and its objection against Peet Ltd’s application to build on what was then and is obviously still an active tip. VCAT overturned the objections, one assumes because of the policy context in which it sits, and that is this government’s medium or high-density housing policies which were given a higher precedence of consideration over environmental guidelines. I am not sure whether that registered with Mr Tee.

There is a catalogue of bureaucratic bungles at all levels, and to suggest that I am somehow exonerating council as a player in that is a misrepresentation. Clearly we need to find a way forward because there are several parties involved in this, many of them government agencies and including, for example, not only VCAT as a tribunal but more importantly the planning policy implications which were the foundation of the decision that was made and the cause of the



crisis, because if houses had not been built there there certainly would not have been the crisis.

Obviously the Environment Protection Authority carries a significant part of the burden. The planning application for housing developments within the buffer zone was, as I said, opposed by the City of Casey and the EPA in 2000. On page 20 of his report the Ombudsman was very critical of the minimal involvement of the EPA in the VCAT hearing. He also found that the EPA was:

… neglectful in not seeking to be joined as a party to the VCAT hearing when it knew of the environmental problems at the landfill and it understood that its recommended landfill buffer of 200 metres was under challenge.

Quite clearly the neglect of the EPA to be joined as an objector at the VCAT hearing significantly weakened the objection of the City of Casey to the development, which means that government agency carries a significant part of the burden just as does, for example, the planning policy of this government and also the legislative framework under which local government works under the supervision and oversight of the Minister for Local Government. All of those play a role. The position of Peet and the role of expert witnesses also need to be looked at. But in particular we need to respond to the class action and to the legitimate concerns and to the need for closure for residents who have been affected.

It is very easy to try to paint this as something more than it is. All it is is a way forward through what continues to be a series of relationships and conflicts of interest which means there is still blame shifting going on, and we have heard that in the contributions from government members. It has got to end, and we have to bring a resolution. This motion points the way forward. I certainly hope the government supports the motion. I thank the Greens for doing so, because I think it is really important not to have this extend any further than it has. A lot of people are losing heart and losing faith in their elected representatives. As Mr Rich-Phillips pointed out, it is unfortunate that local members of Parliament have failed to play the leadership role I believe they should have. With those words I commend the motion to the house.


Ayes, 21 Atkinson, Mr Kavanagh, Mr Barber, Mr Koch, Mr Coote, Mrs Kronberg, Mrs Dalla-Riva, Mr Lovell, Ms Davis, Mr D. O’Donohue, Mr Davis, Mr P. Pennicuik, Ms

Drum, Mr Petrovich, Mrs (Teller) Finn, Mr Peulich, Mrs (Teller) Guy, Mr Rich-Phillips, Mr Hall, Mr Vogels, Mr Hartland, Ms

Noes, 19 Broad, Ms Pakula, Mr Darveniza, Ms (Teller) Pulford, Ms Eideh, Mr (Teller) Scheffer, Mr Elasmar, Mr Smith, Mr Huppert, Ms Somyurek, Mr Jennings, Mr Tee, Mr Leane, Mr Theophanous, Mr Lenders, Mr Tierney, Ms Madden, Mr Viney, Mr Mikakos, Ms Motion agreed to.


The Clerk — I have received the following letter dated 11 November 2009 from the Attorney-General:

Production of documents

I refer to the Legislative Council’s resolution of 29 July 2009 seeking production of:

all documents examining the placement of carbon trading institutions and carbon trading institutes (including a planned cooperative carbon market institute) and/or carbon exchanges including feasibility studies, assessments, analyses and/or examinations of the economic benefits and costs of establishing such institutions in Victoria and including submissions to other governments and other institutions advocating that such a carbon exchange or carbon trading institution (including Australian carbon institute) be sited in Melbourne or other Victorian location.

The government has identified all documents specifically referred to in the Council’s resolution, namely ‘feasibility studies, assessments, analyses and/or examinations’ and ‘submissions to other governments and other institutions’.

Responding to all aspects of this resolution would require the assessment of a very large number of documents. In an effort to provide the Council with a prompt response, emails have been excluded as the task of identifying and assessing emails would require a substantial dedication of resources. I am advised that this task would significantly divert the workings of government.

As the government has identified all documents specifically referred to in the Council’s resolution, and other documents apart from emails, I trust the Council will not insist on the government responding further.

Claim of executive privilege

I also refer to my letter to you of 28 October 2008 noting the limits on the Council’s power to call for documents. Those

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT (CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE) BILL


limitations centre on the protection of the public interest. In that letter I set out factors which the government would consider in assessing whether the release of documents would be prejudicial to the public interest.

The government has now assessed the documents described above against the factors listed in my letter. It has determined that the release of some of those documents would be prejudicial to the public interest. Accordingly, the executive government, on behalf of the Crown, makes a claim of executive privilege (or public interest immunity) in relation to the documents described, and on the grounds set out in, the attached schedule.

The remaining documents sought by the Council’s resolution have been produced by the government this afternoon. Some of the documents contain the names and contact details of individuals. In the interests of personal privacy, and in accordance with normal practice, these details have been excluded.

Attached to the Attorney-General’s letter is a schedule of the 29 documents being produced to the Council and a further schedule of the 81 documents upon which executive privilege has been claimed.

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

That a list of the 29 documents being produced to the Council and a list of the 81 documents upon which executive privilege is being claimed, which are referred to in the letter from the Attorney-General, be incorporated into Hansard.

Motion agreed to.

List (29 documents) incorporated at page 5373. List (81 documents) incorporated at pages 5374–5382.

Mr D. Davis — On a point of order, Acting President — and you might take some counsel on this; I am not necessarily expecting you to have an immediate answer — it would seem to me that the exclusion of a series of documents on the basis that they are emails is not in accordance with sessional order 21. I wonder if that is out of order in that sense.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Finn) — Order! It is not a matter for the Chair to rule on as such, it is a matter for the house. It is a reaction by the government to a request from the house, and it is up to the house to make a decision as to where it will take the matter from this point on.

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT (CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE) BILL

Statement of compatibility

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade) tabled following statement in accordance

with Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Electricity Industry Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2009 (bill).

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

Overview of bill

The bill will amend the Electricity Industry Act 2000 (act) to create new offences relating to critical electricity infrastructure. The bill inserts new definitions of ‘critical electricity infrastructure’ to mean a critical generation facility or a related coal mine, or a substation, terminal station or distribution system or transmission system switchyard. Clause 5 of the bill will insert a new part 4 in the act, creating new offences. New section 79 will make it an offence for a person to be present on land or premises or in an enclosure containing critical electricity infrastructure, knowing that he or she does not have authority to be present. New section 80 will make it an offence to interfere with critical infrastructure plant, equipment or vehicles if unauthorised to do so. The offences are not merely for the protection of private interests but for protection of the electricity supply.

Human rights issues

The bill does not raise any human rights issues because it simply creates new criminal offences and makes associated technical amendments.

Conclusion

I consider that the bill is compatible with the charter because it does not raise any human rights issues.

Martin Pakula, MLC Minister for Industry and Trade

Second reading

Ordered that second-reading speech be incorporated on motion of Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade).

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade) — I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Incorporated speech as follows:

Victoria has been a national leader on climate change. It was the first state to set a renewable energy target; it is investing in renewable energy and low emission technologies; and it has introduced a household energy efficiency scheme.

The Brumby government is committed to ensuring affordable, sustainable energy for Victoria’s future. Through the climate change green paper, it is seeking input into how Victoria can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adjust to

VICTORIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY AMENDMENT BILL


climate change and make the shift to a carbon-constrained future.

Victoria faces particular challenges, given our current reliance on brown coal to generate electricity, in ensuring our energy supplies remain secure and reliable as they become less carbon intensive.

In recent times, the Latrobe Valley power stations have become a major focus of some protest groups. The actions of some protesters, however, in breaking into power stations and in some instances chaining themselves to equipment such as coal risers, have the potential to disrupt production and threaten supply to the national electricity market.

This bill introduces new provisions that are specifically designed to protect protesters, protect workers and protect our power supplies, while not impeding the right of all Victorians to protest peacefully.

Intruders into critical infrastructure sites are putting their lives at risk. Power stations, electricity switchyards and other critical infrastructure sites are not public places. They are industrial sites with significant inherent dangers, and access must be restricted for safety reasons. Simply being in these areas can be very dangerous and lead to serious injury and possible death. If intruders interfere with equipment, they can also injure others — power station workers, police and other emergency response personnel.

Such intruders may also jeopardise the state’s energy supplies. We do not want our public transport, our schools and our hospitals to lose power due to the unlawful actions of intruders on critical infrastructure sites. The temporary loss of power can lead to economic losses of many millions of dollars not just in Victoria but potentially along the entire eastern seaboard if a cascading event were to occur.

This bill will therefore insert a new part 4 into the Electricity Industry Act 2000 to make provision for protecting critical electricity infrastructure. The new part is modelled on provisions already to be found in energy-specific legislation in other jurisdictions.

Clause 4 of the bill introduces definitions of ‘critical electricity infrastructure’ and ‘critical generation facility’. Generators with capacity of 1000 kVA or greater are covered, together with associated coal mines and water storage facilities. Substations, terminal stations and switchyards are also included.

New section 79 prohibits a person knowingly being on a critical electricity infrastructure site without authority. The maximum penalty will be 120 penalty units or imprisonment for one year.

New section 80 prohibits interference with critical equipment, plant or vehicles where the person is not authorised and is reckless as to whether his or her actions may disrupt the generation, transmission or distribution of electricity. The maximum penalty will be 240 penalty units or imprisonment for two years.

The aim of the new part 4 is to reflect the serious consequences to the state and to individual Victorians that can flow from disruption of power supplies and the danger to life and limb that can arise from unauthorised entry onto power stations and other critical infrastructure. Importantly, there is

nothing in this bill that restricts peaceful protests or lawful activity in public places.

The Brumby government welcomes robust community debate on climate change. It is equally determined to ensure secure and reliable power supply to Victorian households and businesses during the transition to a low carbon economy.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned for Mr HALL (Eastern Victoria) on motion of Mr Koch.

Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 18 November.


Second reading

Debate resumed from 10 November; motion of Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade).

Mr SOMYUREK (South Eastern Metropolitan) — Australia has many options for renewable energy, not just solar and wind power. These other options are not just renewable or finite energy resources, but they are also clean. They are options that we must pursue. While government should and does encourage individual consumers to take up options such as solar at a household level, it is also appropriate for government through legislation to mandate and increase the use of renewable energy sources by the energy retailers themselves.

This bill amends the Victorian Renewable Energy Act 2006 to support the expansion of the commonwealth renewable energy target (RET) scheme and to facilitate the transition of the Victorian renewable energy target scheme to the commonwealth’s expanded RET scheme.

The Victorian renewable energy target scheme is a marked measure which aims to increase the share of electricity consumption in Victoria from renewable energy sources to 10 per cent by 2016. The VRET scheme commenced operating on 1 January 2007. The Department of Primary Industries states the benefits as leading to $2 billion worth of renewable energy investment and more than 2000 new jobs, mostly in regional Victoria.

According to the department VRET will encourage additional generation of electricity from renewable energy sources, encourage investment in the generation of renewable energy and the development of renewable energy technologies, encourage regional investment and employment, contribute to the diversity of



Victoria’s energy supplies and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

The amendments to the Victorian Renewable Energy Act 2006 will provide for the end of certification under the VRET scheme after 31 January 2010, maintain the liability on energy retailers to acquire certificates under the VRET scheme until the end of 2009 after which the liability will be removed and finally, together with the amendment to the commonwealth scheme enable the certificates under the VRET scheme to be recognised as certificates under the expanded RET scheme and enable the VRET scheme participants to be recognised as participants under the expanded RET scheme.

The commonwealth Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator describes the RET scheme in the following terms:

The Australian government’s mandatory renewable energy target … was established on 1 April 2001 to encourage additional generation of electricity from renewable energy sources and achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The MRET scheme:

places a legal liability on wholesale purchasers of electricity to proportionately contribute to an additional 9500 gigawatt hours … of renewable energy per year by 2010

sets the framework for both the supply and demand of renewable energy certificates … via a REC market.

…

… an exponential increase in a number of participants in the scheme, with more than 90 000 additional participants registering with the scheme in 2008, a growth of 20 per cent from 2007. The total number of participants in the scheme was 300 000 in 2008.

The commonwealth RET scheme will increase fourfold to meet Australia’s 2020 target of 20 per cent renewable energy following the transition of the Victorian renewable energy target scheme into the commonwealth scheme. There will be a higher investment in renewable energy generation in Victoria in the long term than would otherwise have occurred under the VRET scheme. This is therefore an important bill in tackling climate change, and I commend it to the house.

Mr ELASMAR (Northern Metropolitan) — I also rise to support the bill, because realistically as our population expands so does the demand for electricity. As an increasingly popular migrant destination, Victoria needs to ensure that our electricity generation is adequate for the needs of all Victorians.

The purpose of the bill is to assist the smooth transition of the Victorian renewable energy target (VRET) to the

commonwealth’s expanded renewable energy target scheme. The Council of Australian Governments agreed at its meeting of 30 April 2009 to expand its target to increase renewable electricity generation by 20 per cent of the total electricity generation capacity in Australia by 2020.

The Victorian renewable energy target scheme announced in 2006 has managed to attract significant investment in renewable energy generators in Victoria. A new hydro-electric power station at Bogong together with new wind farms in Waubra and Portland in country Victoria are an indication of confidence by investors. Now the Victorian renewable energy target needs to be flexible. The bill seeks to remove the entitlement to create Victorian renewable energy certificates from 1 February 2010 and remove the obligations on Victorian renewable energy target participants to surrender renewable energy certificates to meet their Victorian renewable energy target for the year 2010 and onwards.

The bill will provide a cut-off date for applications by new power stations to become accredited under the Victorian renewable energy target and relax restrictions applying to VRET-accredited power stations and registered persons so that they may participate in the renewable energy target scheme from 2010. Importantly, the bill will enable accredited power stations and registered persons to create certificates under the commonwealth scheme from 1 February 2010.

The Brumby Labor government has an ongoing commitment to sustainable renewable energy for all Victorians. Only by putting in place workable provisions that will attract both investors and users alike will we be best placed to remain as the primary state in Australia for renewable energy investment. I commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

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

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFORM AMENDMENT (SCHOOL AGE) BILL



Second reading

Debate resumed from 17 September; motion of Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change).

Mr HALL (Eastern Victoria) — I am pleased to make a contribution on this bill. I indicate from the outset that the Liberal-National coalition will not be opposing this piece of legislation.

The minister’s second-reading speech tells us that this legislation is due to the fact that Victoria is a signatory to the national partnership agreement on youth attainment and transitions with the commonwealth government. I understand all states have signed up to that agreement, which in essence requires that all young people complete year 10 or its equivalent and participate full time in education, training or employment or a combination of those activities until they have turned 17 years of age. To enact that agreement, what we see here is a piece of legislation that essentially increases the age at which a student can leave school from 16 years to 17 years of age. A person under the age of 17 will now be required by law to either attend a recognised educational facility or participate in a recognised vocational program of some sort or indeed in employment itself.

In his second-reading speech the minister outlined a number of reforms in education that have contributed over the years to meeting the various interests and needs of students which have helped more students stay in formal education. One of those listed is vocational education and training, which we commonly refer to as VET in Schools. The minister remarked on the great success of that program, and I concur with those views and sentiments. It has been a great initiative in schools. I well recall the Kennett-McNamara government introducing that initiative, following the abolition of specialised technical schools. There was a glaring need for some specific vocational education programs in schools and that was brought about by the introduction of VET in Schools. As I said, it has been an absolutely marvellous success.

Another reform mentioned by the minister is the Victorian certificate of applied learning introduced in 2002 by the current government. Again it has been a very successful and worthwhile program, enabling students to participate in a vocationally orientated program. It has been particularly useful for students

who are less suited to pursuing a rigid academic program.

In his second-reading speech the minister also mentioned the local learning and employment networks (LLENs) and some of the great work they have done in terms of assisting young people to stay at school, to become involved in worthwhile programs or to make successful transitions to the workplace. The minister mentioned the regional youth commitment strategy as one of the programs which has involved LLENs. I know that strategy well; I am a signatory to it in the Baw Baw Latrobe LLENs area. It seeks a commitment from a range of people in our community to do whatever we can to assist young people in their endeavours to improve their educational levels or gain employment.

The minister also talked about additional career and transition support and mentioned in part the managed individual pathways program. In many ways some of the LLENs are involved in that as well. There are a lot of initiatives introduced over a period of time that have assisted young people in staying on at school or transitioning to employment. They have been very worthwhile programs.

One of the things of particular concern to me seems to be a funding withdrawal from mentoring programs. The East Gippsland and Baw Baw Latrobe LLENs have received some government funding to establish a mentoring program. These programs are very useful mechanisms for assisting some individuals in staying on in education or transitioning to work. With many young people nowadays coming from family backgrounds which are not as stable as one would desire, having a mentor, somebody who they can go and talk to, who can be a role model and who can give them independent advice is a useful measure. I am disappointed that the state government appears to have been defunding some of those mentoring programs. I hope both state and federal governments will assess again the value of these programs because I think they are worthy of support.

No-one would disagree with the notion of providing education or real employment opportunities for young people up until 17 years of age. The intent of the national partnership to which I referred earlier is one that all of us would readily support. What concerns me is the lack of resources made available to implement the current legal requirements of school attendance — and I see this problem only getting worse with this legislation. I want to give a couple of examples to illustrate my concern. In the last month I had two cases at my office of people not meeting current legal



requirements in terms of their school attendance. This issue has gone largely unnoticed or has not been dealt with by regional education department authorities.

One of those examples was a mother who came to my office in desperate need with a 141⁄2-year-old son, who was initially suspended from school for a period of 10 days through circumstances that I do not need to describe. Through a combination of factors, not necessarily the school’s fault, the young lad ended up not going to school for the whole term. I took the matter up for this young fellow and convened a meeting between the school and the regional education department, and with some other individuals we finally mapped out a program for this young boy. It involved the young man attending a prevocational work program; it also involved a mental health plan and some extra support from volunteers. Currently he is successfully undertaking this particular program, which suits his needs and will give him options as to what he might do next year.

This case illustrates the fact that neither schools nor regional offices have the resources to ensure that all people are currently involved in either education or a formal work plan or to track that progress. These are the sorts of young people who this legislation is intending to address, but it is not working. It is not working currently, and it is probably likely to get worse under this particular scenario. I want to mention in that particular case the boy was 141⁄2 years old. Strictly speaking, to get into a prevocational program he needed to be 15 years old. We had to bend a few rules and apply some flexibility under the rather rigid criteria to have this young fellow admitted to this prevocational program.

He was quite excited about it. We should all be striving to see someone who is somewhat disengaged from the mainstream school system get excited about doing something. There are great rewards for those who are able to deliver that outcome. We need to look very carefully at the matter of increasing the minimum compulsory school leaving age to 17 years, so we also need to ensure that programs are available that are properly resourced to accommodate the many diverse needs of young people.

Another example that came to my office in the past month relates to a homeless family. As a consequence of his family’s homelessness a young fellow has not attended school for a term and, to my knowledge, education department authorities have not tracked him. I have tried to address this matter by getting a home for this family. I thought that if I could get them a home, then we could address the issue of school attendance.

This raises some serious issues. State and federal governments need to provide resources to accommodate the many needs of young people.

I notice in this particular package, being the agreement signed between Victoria and the commonwealth, that some funds are available to assist with implementation of that process. If I recall the minister’s comments correctly, it is something in the order of $135 million over a period of four years. I hope that resource is put to the purpose of accommodating needs of the type I have just mentioned. Indeed if additional money is required, the state government should make a contribution.

In the second-reading speech the minister says:

The effect of the bill is to ensure that young people will engage in education and training until at least 17 years of age.

This bill does nothing of the sort in itself; it gives no assurance at all. It presents an ideal, but gives no assurance that it will happen.

In closing, I appeal to the government to ensure that funding and programs are available, especially for those who are not suited to mainstream schooling, so that young people have worthwhile, purposeful alternatives to participating in mainstream schooling. The intent of this legislation is fine and no-one would dispute it, which is why the coalition is not opposing it; however, I think there are real challenges for the government to resource such legislation properly so that it can deliver what we would all like to see it deliver.

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria) — I am pleased to speak on the Education and Training Reform Amendment (School Age) Bill. I was very excited when I saw the title of this bill, because I have a five-year-old with a birthday in April, and I thought this bill would be about the enormous range of starting ages in prep classes. In my son’s prep class there are four April birthdays — two of the students being five years old and two six years old. At that age it is an enormous difference. There is a firm trend for people to keep their children back, particularly when they are boys. Someone wrote a book which has been read widely and with some enthusiasm, and it says that boys ought to start school a bit later, within the age range that is allowed by the regulations at the other end of the schooling experience to the age with which this bill deals.

I have to admit to being excited when I picked up this bill, but then I saw that it concerns students who are 17 years of age and not 5 years of age. Perhaps that discussion can take place on another day; however, it was a cause of great anxiety to me and to all the other



mothers of prep students who have children with birthdays at that time of year. On the one hand a whole lot of people were saying, ‘They are ready’ or ‘They are not ready’, or ‘They should be going’ or ‘They should not be going’, and the most compelling reason to keep my boy back was that everybody else was doing it. He fitted the age range to start school, and the kindergarten teacher said he was as right as rain, so on balance what everybody else was doing was not a good enough reason on its own for him.

Turning to the subject at hand, this bill deals with the other end of the compulsory schooling spectrum and concerns 16 and 17-year-olds — a much bigger bunch of kids. However, the flow-on of the increased numbers of children who are starting school at six years of age means there are obviously more 12 and 13-year-old students in primary schools and more 18 and perhaps 19-year-old students in secondary schools as this trend reaches its inevitable conclusion down the schooling path.

This bill is another piece of legislation that has its origins in discussions on a national level and has come about as a result of a COAG (Council of Australian Governments) resolution. In this instance it was a COAG meeting on 2 July this year at which agreement was reached around the national partnership on youth attainment and transitions. This agreement requires of partners across the commonwealth that our young adults will be expected to complete year 12 or an approved equivalent and then undertake education, training or employment at least until they reach the age of 17 years.

The bill is a reasonably straightforward document which replaces the number 16 with the number 17 in a couple of places in the principal act. Clause 6 of the bill amends section 2.1.3(c) of the principal act so as to provide a reasonable excuse in respect of compulsory school-aged children not attending a registered school or undertaking homeschooling, if they participate in education or training employment or both in accordance with a ministerial order. This framework provides a reasonable excuse for a child not being enrolled in a school or not being registered for homeschooling — that is, the child is participating in education training or employment or both in accordance with a ministerial order. The purpose of the clause is to make that matter a little clearer for those affected.

Education is this government’s no. 1 priority. We often speak in this place about the types of investment being made in school infrastructure across the state and across the commonwealth; however, we also talk about what

happens in our classrooms in terms of standards and the wonderful work that our teaching community does.

This legislation seeks to send a message about expectations to our 16 and 17-year-olds. Education and the attainment of skills are very important, because they set people up to have greater options throughout their lives. The provisions of this bill respect the differences that exist amongst older teenagers. For some of them school will be a fantastic experience that will be followed by higher education, but others will have a burning desire to get into the workforce sooner rather than later and to be outside a classroom environment. This legislation respects those differences and provides different options for people with different interests and aptitudes.

As Mr Hall said, by agreeing to this national partnership Victoria will receive $135 million from the federal government over four years, which is an important boost for education funding.

The bill will take effect from 1 January next year. It will complement the work that is being done to reform higher education in the TAFE sector to a system of place-based funding so that anybody who is seeking to achieve a higher certificate level will be guaranteed a place and receive funding for that place. There is also the ongoing program of updating our school buildings across the state and the continued support of our wonderful community of educators, ranging from those teaching four-year-olds and five-year-olds, whose parents are grappling with the prep starting age, right through to those at the other end of the spectrum teaching our young adults who are nearing the end of their secondary school years and making decisions about which life course is best for them. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — It is well established that education is the foundation of social justice and democracy in a society. Therefore from the Greens’ point of view it is a good idea to keep young people in education for as long as possible. This bill, which is a very small bill with only six tiny clauses, effectively does nothing but increase the compulsory minimum school leaving age from 16 to 17. In some ways that just reflects reality, because most students who would be completing year 12 or a year 12 equivalent would be 17 years of age by the time they do that. The minister in her second-reading speech mentioned that almost 89 per cent of young Victorians who are aged 20 to 24 have now achieved year 12 equivalence and that the Victorian target, as we well know, is for 90 per cent of young people to complete year 12 or a year 12 equivalent. The number of 16 to



17-year-olds affected by this bill will be a minority; so it is a reflection of reality, but it is a good thing.

As I mentioned, public education is the cornerstone of a just society and a healthy democracy. I must say that in Australia and in Victoria the investment by governments in public education leaves much to be desired. I cannot stand here and talk about an education bill without pointing out to the people of Victoria that Victoria still languishes on the bottom of the league table in terms of funding of public education. Victoria spends the least per student in government schooling of any state. If we are talking about retaining students at school for an extra year, that is an important issue.

We know there are many benefits for young people in staying at school. Obviously there are higher completion rates of further study and they are more likely to undertake further study. As a result of that they are more likely to gain employment, they are less likely to be unemployed and they are more likely to have higher wages, better working conditions, lower poverty rates and things like better physical health and less mental illness. These benefits are all documented in the literature. We also know that those benefits that extend to the individuals extend across the community in terms of social cohesion and cultural and economic progress. So it is certainly a good thing to have young people stay in education and training or work and training for as long as possible.

However, it is important to note that the benefits of having additional years of education are only benefits if it is real education and training that the students are engaging in and it is a type of education and training in which they are interested, which they are motivated to undertake and in which they are fully supported. Those benefits to the individual and to the society that I have mentioned do not flow from just entrapping students who are 15 to 17 years old and keeping them in the school system without the motivation, the interest and the support that I have mentioned. Those are necessary conditions for this particular measure that the Victorian government is putting in place pursuant to the Council of Australian Governments agreement. They are necessary conditions for this whole exercise to be successful.

It is interesting to read the COAG communique, or part thereof, from 2 July this year, which states:

COAG today agreed the national partnership on youth attainment and transitions which will deliver the youth compact. The youth compact will support young people to gain skills through stronger engagement in education and training.

I think ‘engagement’ is the word, not ‘entrapment’ or ‘enforcement’ of young people in education and training that is not engaging them.

The communique goes on to state that the compact:

… requires young people to complete year 10 and then be in full-time education, training or employment; offers a training entitlement to all 15 to 24-year-olds; and provides improved support through career advice and better assistance with the transition through school to further training and work.

That is all good to hear but it is not in this bill. All this bill does is change the compulsory school leaving age.

The COAG communique says that the national partnership will implement strategies for increased numbers of young people attaining year 12 or higher qualifications. Again, this bill does not mention any of those.

It is interesting to note that the communique also says that the national partnership is supported by $100 million in reward funding for increased participation and year 12 attainment rates and $623 million over five years for youth career and transition programs. It further says that responsibility for youth career and transition programs will be progressively transferred to the states and territories. That is not the subject of this bill, but it is interesting in terms of some comments I will make about the resourcing of this particular measure.

Before I do so I will go to clause 6, which is the only substantive clause in the bill and does more than change a number from 16 to 17. We had a concern about this clause which substitutes a new paragraph (c) for section 2.1.3(c) of the principal act. It is part of a list of acceptable excuses for a child not attending a registered school. This clause substitutes the words ‘the child is participating in education or training, or employment, or both, in accordance with an order made by the minister for the purposes of this paragraph’. Obviously, we wanted to know what was going to be in the ministerial order. We contacted the cabinet legislation branch of the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, which advised that the application of the clause would be limited by the ministerial order to exclude students under 16 from training and work options. Students under 16 would not be able to engage in work. The order will also define what is required to meet the requirement of completion of year 10 of schooling.



In the second-reading speech presented in the Assembly the minister referred to that requirement when she said:

This means that a child engaged in an education program provided by a registered education and training organisation is only exempted from the requirement to attend school if the education, training or employment that a child is undertaking complies with the … order.

That is a bit of a circular argument. The minister went on to say that the ministerial order will comply with the terms of the national partnership, which does not outline the terms particularly clearly either. It is all a little bit circular and unclear.

Suffice it to say we are all meant to understand that the legislation means that 16 and 17-year-olds will be required to be involved in education and employment or training and employment. If that is not what is required, I would be pleased if a government speaker would clarify the issue.

In her contribution to the debate on this bill Ms Pulford said that education is this government’s no. 1 priority. I have already pointed out that Victoria’s spending on education is the least per student of any state in Australia and has been so for a long time. It is hard to see how you could reconcile that fact with education being the government’s no. 1 priority.

Mr Hall went to the concerns about resourcing of this measure, and I will also go to that matter. Ms Pulford mentioned in her speech that the national partnership agreement on youth attainment and transitions comes with funding of $135 million over four years for Victoria. However, our understanding is that most of this funding is for youth careers and transition programs, which I mentioned earlier, as outlined in the COAG communique. Only about $35 million of that $135 million is targeted at school-centred initiatives for year 12 attainment and increased participation rates — if that is what is meant by retaining students at school to the age of 17. It was a little bit disingenuous of Ms Pulford to imply in her contribution to the debate that this measure would be supported by $135 million over four years when the figure is more like $35 million — that is, if I am correctly reading where the money is going.

You can do a back-of-the-envelope calculation on that: you can divide $35 million by four and come up with $8.75 million per year, given that the funding is $35 million over four years. If you divide that $8.75 million by the 1400 students the minister said in her second-reading speech this measure will apply to, you end up with a figure of $6250 per student. Current

government funding for students in years 7 to 12 is $6602 per student, so on the figures that are presented by the government in the minister’s second-reading speech this will be $350 less per student. So we already have a funding shortfall of $350 per student. The Victorian funding of government school students is based on a per-student ratio, so every student is entitled to that level of funding.

This measure is trying to re-engage students who want to leave school; they are probably bored at school and it is probably not offering them anything, My point is that funding in addition to the standard funding per student is required, and that does not appear to be the case using the government figures I have been able to find.

As we always do on matters of education, we consulted the Australian Education Union on its views. Its only objection to the legislation is that there will be no extra resources going to secondary schools to keep bored or disengaged youth at school for an additional year. The union says schools will be expected to engage students who have no interest in staying at school for another compulsory year. If the government provided adequate funding for alternative courses, this national reform would be supported, but as it is, secondary schools will be expected to do more with no additional resources. Not only will there be no additional resources, but according to my back-of-the-envelope calculation of the government’s figures there will be fewer resources.

We also ran a bit of a check on Minister Pike’s assertion that this would apply to 1400 students, which seemed a rather low number, and when I read that I thought it was a bit strange. I would have thought that for the Victorian secondary school population that was fairly low. We asked somebody to do another rough calculation of what the number of students might be, and it appears that the number of students this may affect could be over 4000 — something like 4150 students. That comes about if you do the calculation of the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) figure that 87 per cent of Victorian students aged between 15 and 16 in June 2007, on the latest available figures, were in school full time or part time in 2008.

If you apply the 12.8 per cent who are not at school to the 39 000-odd year 10 students in Victorian public schools, it comes to an extra 5009 students. Given that the non-continuation rate is probably higher for government schools, this figure does not account for non-continuing students in other forms of education or employment. According to ABS labour force data only 17 per cent of the 15 to 19-year-olds not attending full-time education were employed in 2008 based on average 12-monthly estimates. Subtracting this 17 per



cent from the 5009 gives a figure of around 4150. I did not go to the trouble of dividing 4150 into $8.76 million per year, but I would say it is a lot less than $6250 per student.

Mrs Peulich — Times four.

Ms PENNICUIK — No, $8.7 million per year, because it is $35 million over four years.

What I am trying to show here is that there is no evidence from the government that this measure is going to be adequately resourced, and if it is not adequately resourced it is not going to be successful in whatever the aims are. We presume they are the types of aims that I outlined at the beginning of my contribution, which are the benefits to individual students and the community as a whole of retaining young people in education to the age of 17.

With the concerns I have outlined about the resourcing and support of this measure the Greens in principle support the intent of the bill, which is to raise the school leaving age from 16 to 17.

Mr P. DAVIS (Eastern Victoria) — I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a brief contribution to debate on the Education and Training Reform Amendment (School Age) Bill 2009. In commencing my contribution I have to indicate to the house my apprehension and a degree of cynicism about the motivation for this bill and particularly my cynicism for what the government would advocate to be the outcomes of such legislation. There would be an overwhelming view amongst my constituents that the greatest damage to the education and training of our young people occurred in the 1980s under the watch of Joan Kirner when she abolished the technical school system in Victoria, because those schools were where young people who were essentially disengaged from academic study were able to convert their energies into learning skills and engaging in activities which would very often lead to practical vocations and particularly the apprenticeship route.

The message that this bill sends to those young people who are disengaged from academic learning and more interested in practical learning will be adverse, because many young people are in schools today and will increasingly be in schools under sufferance because they are pressured into pursuing an academic stream. Those of us who are in touch with our communities and schools know that when we visit schools we often meet young people who are simply not equipped for or interested in the academic stream. They are disengaged, and their body language is very obvious in the

classrooms we often visit and they need a different form of education.

The $135 million on the table as part of the Victorian government’s benefit from signing off on the National Partnership Agreement on Youth Attainment and Transitions with the commonwealth government has certainly induced the state government to pursue this arrangement of amending the school leaving age, but there are a number of aspects of it I wish to refer to. Firstly, the government has given no indication about the resourcing of schools to cater for increasing numbers being retained in school. There is no indication of an assessment having been made of the effect of this change in policy on student numbers or the impact on staff, equipment and accommodation requirements or costs. It is clear that there may be constraints imposed on young people beyond the age of 16 which will preclude them from taking up opportunities that may arise because of this legislation. Again there is no real explanation of that in the bill.

One could have a clear, cynical view that politically this will enable the government to claim an improvement in school retention age by compulsion rather than on the basis of a better standard of education, and further it will assist in reducing the unemployment statistics for young people simply because, on the one hand, of the artificial impact of forcing young people who might otherwise choose not to be there to stay in school. However, on the other hand, there is clearly a potential benefit in encouraging young people to stay in education for longer if only there were a holistic approach, given the barriers that are in place for regional students in particular, if they complete their school education, to going on to higher education.

We know that changes to federal government policy in terms of accessing youth allowance for university students are a particular barrier in respect of country students. I want to spend a little time on that in particular. On 22 October I had the opportunity to attend the launch of a study entitled Deferring a University Offer in Regional Victoria. It is an interesting study, and a report was prepared on behalf of a number of the local learning and employment networks in regional Victoria in cooperation with the Youth Affairs Council of Victoria.

The author, John Polesel, has made an interesting study based on available research and existing reports and data sets, and he came to some interesting conclusions. In his presentation at the launch of the report he made some interesting comments, or comments which I thought highlighted the inequity with respect to education for young people, which is fairly obvious but



it is worthwhile reciting. He made the point that in the greater Melbourne metropolitan area there are 250 000 university students with access to more than 1000 different courses. These are interesting numbers. They have to travel less than an hour from their homes to access those courses and they can continue in established employment opportunities. However, on the other hand, to take just one regional location for example, and so I am not seen to be parochial I will talk about Western Victoria, Deakin University at Warrnambool has 1000 students. The next choice for students approximate to Deakin at Warrnambool is Ballarat, which is 21⁄2 hours travel, or Geelong at 31⁄2 hours. This equals, if you like, not equal opportunity but an unequal opportunity — and of course it is very much worse for young people from smaller communities in the outlying regions of the state.

It is clear that unless there is support for young people, they have no choice but to move. At that launch a young man by the name of Alexander Eastwood, a 19-year-old fellow, gave an impassioned commentary about his difficulty in studying. He has deferred a bachelor of environment degree because it was the only option he had for financial reasons. He said that many of his friends had given up on pursuing higher education because of the inequality, the challenge and the difficulty of the geography and demography. That was a fairly heartfelt commentary, and I had a lot of sympathy because I know fine young people in my own region who suffer the same challenges.

It is not just the access to entry to university which is a problem. In the Deferring a University Offer in Regional Victoria report I am referring to, the point is well made that there is a strong relationship between working long hours and the discontinuation of studies, with a student’s likelihood of dropping out increasing with the number of hours worked per week. That point is valid and relevant, if not for any reason other than that the argument that the federal Minister for Education makes, that by her policy changes she is going to somehow magically improve access for students, is undermined by the reality of the challenge of students transitioning from school to university in the first place. The report expressly shows that the relationship between regional students deferring and taking up further study is so significant that it is a major barrier — that is, deferring study leads to a failure to take up the opportunity. There is an increasing tendency for students who defer not to take up their qualification pursuit. Importantly, even when students have started study the financial impact and barriers mean they have to work more hours because of the lack of financial support and that increases the likelihood that the pressure of study and work will mean they will cease

their studies and drop out of university. I believe that is most unfortunate.

For my part, I also want to refer to the holistic approach to integrating the various facets of supporting young people in education and training, to look also at the issue of the function and role of Gippsland’s local learning employment networks, the LLENs, which I have already referred to, and note that they are having their position eroded by the inability to provide services to assist the region’s students in the transition from school to work.

There has been a reduction in funding from $1.5 million to just over $1 million a year for the three Gippsland networks — Gippsland East, Baw Baw Latrobe and South Gippsland — from the start of 2010, which will force them to cut staff numbers by a third to 12, restrict the scope of their services and economise on operating costs. This will potentially leave local students in the 15 to 19-year age group with dramatically less access to work transition support. The workload of the LLENs will effectively double due to the fact they will be required to serve an extended student age range down to 10, which will encompass primary as well as secondary schools.

I have a particular concern that the Gippsland East LLEN will have to scrap a key program that has trained more than 100 adult mentors over the past five years to work with schools and students in other organisations. It will also have to abandon a program called Inspiring Young People which has been conducted in all East Gippsland schools in association with the Smith Family welfare organisation. While the changes to the scope of school-to-work services provided under the LLEN and local community partnership programs would reduce overlap and create a better focused service for students, the offsetting reduction in funding and consequent restrictions on their activities, programs and fieldwork presents a major concern.

The main focus of the LLEN groups under the new arrangement would be on strategic planning and brokering training programs between schools and business and industry. Before the change the Victorian government funded the LLENs and the commonwealth funded local community partnership programs, but now the commonwealth is the sole source of the funding. I understand that Victoria has allocated only part of the lump sum it has received from the commonwealth and is withholding an amount of $4 million, so that raises questions as to what the government will spend this money on, and when. I would like to know — and perhaps a member of the government or indeed the minister responsible for this bill can give some insight



later in this debate on the appropriate resourcing — what it is that the government has in mind in terms of directing these funds that the commonwealth has provided for the LLENs and the state has withheld.

I am concerned about this bill because it seems to be primarily driven by financial reasons — those financial reasons being that the commonwealth government has provided a pot of money. The state government is obviously enthusiastic about getting hold of those resources, but it is also going along with an agenda which is clearly driven by the commonwealth to create a one-size-fits-all environment for educating our young people who have a diversity of needs. I do not believe that appropriate recognition is afforded to those young people whose interest and orientation are toward a non-academic stream. I think it is important to give a very positive and strong signal to young people to say it is okay to not necessarily follow the academic pathway but to seek a more practical vocation where they have the aptitude.

I know many fine young people who have left school early to pursue an apprenticeship and are today self-employed or working in significant roles as a consequence of being able to sustain a proper approach to their personal development by being fully engaged in a working life as opposed to studying subjects they regarded as meaningless at the time.

I am not opposed to education at all. I think it is a wonderful thing. I have encouraged my own children to pursue higher education as far as they can go. I am pleased that they have taken that encouragement seriously. I would do likewise with any young person who had the aptitude and skills to sustain that.

From my point of view, while I am not going to oppose or in any material way delay the passage of this bill, I express my concerns about the changes to federal government policy. I express my concerns about this policy change at a state level not reflecting a holistic approach to ensuring that we enable young people to pursue the careers and make the choices that are more appropriate for them rather than for education bureaucrats.

Sitting suspended 6.29 p.m. until 8.04 p.m.

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — I wish to make a brief contribution in support of the bill, which seeks to encourage young people to stay at school to complete year 10 or its equivalent and to participate in a combination of education, training and/or employment up until the age of 17 years. This bill comes about as a result of a national partnership

agreement at a Council of Australian Governments meeting on 2 July at which the states and territories and the commonwealth entered into a partnership. As a result of this four-year national partnership Victoria will receive $135 million in commonwealth funding.

As members are aware, education has been the top priority for the Bracks and Brumby Labor governments. Since 1999 the Victorian Labor governments have invested $7.9 billion in our education system and have maintained a strong and comprehensive list of continuing achievements, including funding 9550 extra teachers and support staff in our schools. The government has also made schooling more affordable by introducing a $300 School Start bonus and by increasing the education maintenance allowance by 60 per cent and indexing future payments for the cost of living.

I am also very excited about the commitment of $1.9 billion to rebuild, renovate or extend a further 500 schools in four years, and to fund every Victorian government school to be rebuilt, renovated or extended by 2016–17. This is already producing a number of new building projects in my electorate, including a number of regeneration projects and an extensive commitment together with the federal government to upgrade facilities in a range of local schools.

When the Bracks government was first elected in 1999 the education system was in disarray. Faced with a declining rate of year 12 graduates, the message we needed to get across was that completing year 12 at the very least does make a difference. School completers are relatively advantaged in terms of education and labour force destinations, and the government has successfully increased the year 12 or equivalent completion rate to 88.7 per cent, which is the highest of all the states up from 81.8 per cent in 2000.

The bill raises new expectations of our young Victorians. The amendments put forward aim to encourage young people to recognise they have an ability to contribute to their community and to enrich their own lives. The bill also recognises the diverse and sometimes divergent needs of students in our education system. It maintains the flexibility and choice inherent in our current system to ensure that each individual student can thrive and access the style, location and content of learning that best suits them.

Students are offered pathways including the Victorian certificate of education, the Victorian certificate of applied learning and a variety of vocational education and training subjects in schools and training locations. Further, the managed individual pathways initiative



sees all students in government schools who are 15 years and over develop an individual career pathway plan. While the focus is most definitely on getting more and more children to complete year 12 or equivalent, there is also a Career on Track pilot program aimed at providing careers counselling and guidance for early school leavers.

Youth Connections, one of the three streams of programs to be implemented in Victoria as part of the national partnership with the federal government, will provide support to disengaged young people to assist them with re-entry into the education and training sectors. Local learning and employment networks (LLENs) will be enhanced to deliver the School Business Community Partnership Brokers, which is another national partnership program.

Research shows that people who have achieved a year 12 or equivalent qualification earn more over their lifetime and have better prospects in the course of their career. Especially in times of economic uncertainty possessing skills and qualifications will put young people in a strong position to gain employment and contribute to our nation and our economy. Skilling young Australians to be able to participate and to be productive in the economy and society must continue to be our focus. The Brumby government firmly believes that each young person should be given every opportunity to attain a qualification and that doing so will allow them to fulfil their potential and succeed in life with the best foundation for their future.

Mr Leane and I are both members of the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee. It recently tabled a report in this house relating to strategies to reduce juvenile and repeat offending. We took evidence and visited juvenile justice detention facilities, and the thing that struck us when speaking to juvenile offenders was that a great number of them had dropped out of the education system at very young ages. In fact a large number of them had dropped out of school in about grade 6, which I found quite shocking. There appears to be a clear correlation between lack of education or leaving school early and juvenile offending. It is obviously in the interests of the whole community to encourage young people to stay in education and training as a way of their not only getting into appropriate career pathways but also ensuring they do not engage in antisocial behaviour.

As a daughter in a working class migrant family and having had many opportunities that my parents did not have, I am very appreciative of the value of a good education. I was fortunate to have a supportive family whose members encouraged me to go on to tertiary

education and provided me with many opportunities in life. It is for that reason that I am a strong supporter of our public education system. I think we need to do whatever we can to strengthen our schools and to encourage our young people to fulfil their potential.

I believe this bill builds on the many strengths of previous legislation and policies our government has embarked upon to strengthen our education system. It will assist in ensuring that young people in our state remain engaged in formal education and training for longer, both for their personal benefit and for the advancement of our state. For these reasons I commend the bill to the house.

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I thank you, Acting President, for filling in so that I can make a very brief contribution to the Education and Training Reform Amendment (School Age) Bill 2009. Following on from Ms Mikakos’s contribution, I note I also am a child from an immigrant background — I immigrated here as a 10-year-old — and I can certainly empathise with some of her comments. However, at the same time, I note the school I attended was a fairly failed and underperforming school. I say up-front that during year 11 I wagged two terms until this was discovered by my parents and my father very quickly remedied it. By the end of the year I had passed with flying colours.

On my year 10 report there was a message from the principal to my parents which said, ‘Dear Mr and Mrs Dosen, we advise you to take Inga out of school as soon as possible, for we feel she has nothing further to gain’. That was partly a product of the fact that when we immigrated to Australia I had completed only two grades, grade 1 and grade 2, because school in many European countries and particularly in the communist bloc started at age 7. I had an idyllic childhood on my grandparents’ farm, and I remember vividly my first day at school. There was none of this orientation and no shortened day to help me get used to it. I was taken to the classroom, and I saw all of these boys and other children. My father was going to leave me, and I clung on for dear life, not wanting to let go. My experience was in very much a working class area, and as I said it was an underperforming school. I do not have a single photograph as a memory of my school experience, because at the end of the day the school really did not give a hoot — not much of one anyway.

Unfortunately there are still many underperforming schools. This government came to office in 1999 pledging to make education its no. 1 priority. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, the most important part of the government’s pledge was to



reduce and cap class sizes. The government sort of honoured that for grades 1 and 2 for a little while. However, it really has made not one iota of difference in terms of improving literacy, numeracy and science skills — and that is a reflection of an Auditor-General’s review of attainment standards and expenditure over the 10 years of this government. It has failed in terms of raising the standard of education.

The government claimed that education was its no. 1 priority, but for 10 years it neglected school facilities to such an extent that they were falling down around people’s shoulders. Schools are dilapidated, neglected and decaying, and it is only as a result of the federal economic stimulus money that has come through — as a result of the $315 billion of debt that the Prime Minister, Chairman Rudd, is going to incur by spending it on our behalf — that money has been made available to schools to address the longstanding neglect of this government. The government failed to provide a regular and ongoing program of maintenance and capital works, and I think many parents and members of the school communities know that to be the case.

There were a few exceptions — schools that were well looked after, which were predominantly in key marginal seats the Labor Party needed to hold on to. The reason those schools got funding was that they had learnt very quickly that if you wanted to be looked after, you needed to suck up to your local Labor MP and ingratiate yourself, something I do not believe any school community or any professional should have to do. The provision of educational services to our children should be above sucking up to your local politician.

I am a former member of the Kennett government and a person who taught in the government system for 14 years — I have a masters of education, was head of the English faculty and taught VCE (Victorian certificate of education) English and psychology predominantly — and I am very proud to have seen the implementation of the physical resources management system. This established a scale between 0 and 5 of works that needed to be done in schools and stipulated that all funding for maintenance was made available on the basis of objective assessments against that scale. This meant that teachers, principals and school communities did not need to be going cap in hand to local politicians to ingratiate themselves. Our schools deserve better than that, our children deserve better than that, and our teachers as professionals deserve better than that.

Unfortunately this government has continued to politicise schools to the extent that even in recent times

the government has been resorting to holding community cabinets in schools. Teachers, parents and school communities are contacted by the Premier’s office advising that the school is being used and insisting that advertisements for the Labor community cabinet go to parents and school communities in the school newsletter. The government hijacks the school for a day, interrupts the flow of education and hijacks the staffroom as part of a public relations circus. The government ought to hang its head in shame about that misuse of what ought to be a very important experience for our schools and teachers. The government has the audacity to come into this place and say that education is the no. 1 priority. It is a big lie, and anyone who cares about that education knows that to be so.

What will this legislation mean? It will increase the compulsory minimum school leaving age from 16 years to 17 years. This apparently relates to some 1400 students. I find that hard to believe. I find that hard to believe because for 14 years I was an English examiner and most years there were approximately 34 000 students who sat for the English exam. Some of those may have been adults students, some of them may have been overseas students, but somehow the numbers do not match up. Therefore if the numbers are wrong, the funding commitment is certainly inadequate. I completely concur with Ms Pennicuik that the funding being made available to provide for this additional cohort in compulsory education is manifestly inadequate, but what is more manifestly inadequate is what the government will do with these kids it is keeping in schools by compulsion and not by choice.

A Labor government presided over the closure of technical schools in the 1980s. It wanted to make all schools equal — single certificate. The Joan Kirner vision was that every subject — it did not matter whether it was knitting, crocheting or physics — was going to have parity. Everything would be equal, like good old communist Russia or Yugoslavia. Unfortunately this is not so. It did not work. The then government closed technical schools and denied our young men and women an opportunity to get an education, especially those who did not aspire to attend university. There has been nothing that has filled the void. The government introduced the Victorian certificate of applied learning, the Victorian essential learning standards and TAFE. It has absolutely fragmented technical and vocational education in this state, so much so that if any child actually succeeds in getting a technical education, we need to take off our hats to them.

Earlier this year the Brumby government said it was reforming the TAFE system and was going to charge



full fees for anyone who wanted to pursue a second stream or diploma of studies. This is in a nation that prides itself as being the knowledge nation and where exporting education services is one of the biggest earners of income. Yet the government will penalise those who need to upgrade their qualifications to a second diploma in response to the need in our labour markets for a flexible and skilled labour force. It makes no sense. With the one hand the government giveth, but with the other hand it taketh away. There is no policy consistency whatsoever in terms of where the government is going with its vision for education in this state.

Like some of the previous speakers I also have reservations about what the legislation really means. What it really means is that suddenly a cohort of young people who would not necessarily stay at school by choice will be forced to do so, and with a single wave of the pen the government will address youth unemployment, which has been steadily creeping up in Victoria. It has been creeping up precisely because of the botch-up of technical and vocational education in this state and the underperformance of some of our schools, especially those that cater for the less gentrified suburbs and sections of our population, where there is a real need for an effective and responsive education. The government will do that with a single stroke of a pen by changing the act and making it mandatory for kids to stay on at school for another year.

The legislation to increase the minimum school leaving age from 16 years to 17 years as part of Victoria’s commitment to implement national agreed reforms coming into effect by 1 January 2010 will require all Victorian students to complete year 10 or its equivalent and all youth up to the age of 17 years who are not in school to be trained or employed, or a combination of both, for at least 25 hours per week. As part of that package the government may increase the educational maintenance allowance by a small amount, but what it is doing is denying the youth allowance that young people would ordinarily be able to access. It is really about cutting the social security bill and keeping the youth unemployment numbers down so the government looks more effective.

In terms of being able to track early school leavers, presumably that is why the Victorian student number is being introduced. The next thing is we will be microchipping them. We will track the movement of the young people, and this is in a system — —

Mr Leane — Julie Bishop wanted to weigh all grade 5 students, so maybe you could put a chip on them when you do that.

Mrs PEULICH — I would prefer the weighing to the microchipping. Speaking of Julie Bishop, I do not necessarily agree with the compulsory weighing of children at that young age, but I am concerned with the phasing out of physical education and sport from Victorian schools. That is certainly contributing very significantly to — —

Hon. M. P. Pakula interjected.

Mrs PEULICH — What it shows is that you are not resolving the real educational issues.

Hon. M. P. Pakula — But it is not happening. You just made it up. The phasing out of physical education: where is that happening?

Mrs PEULICH — Absolutely everywhere.

Hon. M. P. Pakula — That is absolute nonsense. You just made that up.

Mrs PEULICH — No, I am not saying they are abandoning it, but you have far fewer young — —

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Pennicuik) — Order! Mrs Peulich, through the Chair.

Mrs PEULICH — You have far fewer young people taking up physical education, and there are certainly far fewer schools participating in full sporting programs.

Hon. M. P. Pakula — It is just a complete fabrication.

Mrs PEULICH — No, it is not. It is absolutely on the record. As a mother of an athlete, I take a very keen interest in — —

Hon. M. P. Pakula — I am the father of a primary school child, and I can tell you it is complete nonsense.

Mrs PEULICH — Let me say for starters that the very fact that the government has mismanaged water so badly that 75 per cent — —

Hon. M. P. Pakula — Water?

Mrs PEULICH — The fact that 75 per cent of our sporting fields are unusable means that there are far fewer young people who can belong and take an active part in — —



Hon. M. P. Pakula interjected.

Mrs PEULICH — Mr Pakula, do you think that is a fabrication? I suggest you get out of your ivory tower and find out what is going on.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Pennicuik) — Order! I ask Mrs Peulich to refrain from speaking across the chamber to Mr Pakula and to address her remarks through the Chair.

Mrs PEULICH — Let me say, as someone representing more than half a million voters in the South Eastern Metropolitan Region — probably 650 000 persons or more — that clubs are constantly complaining about not having the grounds to field the number of teams for which there is demand, because those grounds are unusable. The government is now moving towards providing funding and grants for synthetic fields. That does not really help with climate change either, and it is certainly not acceptable to peak bodies because it increases the incidence of injuries. There is a whole cluster of issues where the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. The government’s notion of education reform is a catalogue of initiatives without any effective integration of policies to make sure they are given an opportunity to work. That is the problem, and that is the point I am trying to make, despite Mr Pakula not wishing to understand or appreciate it.

Schools will be required to track early leavers supposedly to ensure that these conditions are met, because under the current legislation parents of children who apparently fail to meet these requirements could be fined. By agreeing to implement national partnerships, Victoria will receive $135 million of commonwealth funding over a four-year period. Ms Pennicuik dissected this figure, arguing that perhaps it was a misrepresentation to suggest it was going to benefit students. The number of students referred to in the second-reading speech was 1400. I presume that may be over a single year, but when you multiply that by the four years of funding for the program that is manifestly inadequate. The funding will be used to support young people’s school engagement, attainment and transition into further education and training, and employment. The other night I attended one such consultation, and the participants were all concerned about what the reforms mean, how they are going to be resourced and what they are realistically going to be able to achieve.

The New South Wales government recently raised the school leaving age from 15 to 17, estimating that 1000 extra pupils would stay at school next year, adding $18 million to the education budget. The

Victorian government could not tell the Sunday Age how many extra students were likely to remain in the system, but it said no special allocation, above the normal funding, was going to be put aside. Brian Burgess, president of the Victorian Association of State Secondary School Principals, said schools were already required to track early school leavers, but that monitoring ended after six months. He said that after that schools had no resources to track or help teens who might be drifting in life after losing their job or training position. Clearly that is the sort of issue that the local learning network was expressing concerns over and that schools have been expressing concerns to me about. It is the state’s responsibility. It is obviously very keen to let the feds take the lead in education because this government has failed for 10 years. Mr Burgess said, ‘If the government is serious … they need to put in place other resources to make sure people don’t fall between the cracks’.

Martin Dixon, the shadow Minister for Education in the other house, said a rigid response to early school leavers was undesirable because keeping kids at school artificially when they were not in the right place or in the right program was going to be a detriment not only to those kids but to those around them as well. Mr Dixon also suggested that the motivation to raise the school leaving age was to make unemployment figures look better.

Welfare experts say the federal government’s learn or earn program may prevent young people from finding stable work. Under the new scheme people below the age of 21 who have not completed high school will be ineligible for welfare payments unless they complete 25 hours of approved training per week. Not only is this an erosion of income support, but you could be creating an underclass of already hopelessly unsupported young people in the community. I urge very close monitoring of the situation.

Where are the additional resources to assist schools in supporting that engagement and providing a relevant and meaningful education program? Given their budgets, secondary schools are already stretched beyond any reasonable expectations. Additional resources to fund staff to track students beyond the current six months is vital. The impact may also be felt in class sizes, which after 10 years this government has said is less important than the quality of teachers. Finally it may have registered; the penny may have dropped.

I have spoken about the fragmentation of technical and vocational education. I will not recount that. I have spoken about the misguided nature of the TAFE



reforms and the youth allowance changes that are going to have a major impact on students, especially in rural and regional Victoria. I would just like to turn my mind to VCE completion rates. The Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians made by all Australian ministers in 2008 identified the rate of year 12 or equivalent completions as one of three key areas in which education in Australian schools required significant improvement. I would prefer to see kids motivated and want to stay on because we are providing good quality programs that meet their needs and enable them to pursue whatever path they wish, rather than with a stroke of a pen forcing them to stay in a classroom or in a school where programs are not catering for them.

The completion rate of VCE (Victorian certificate of education), the main pathway into higher education for school leavers, has decreased. According to the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority the VCE completion rate for 19-year-olds declined from 67 per cent in 1998 to 62.9 per cent in 2008. Looking at the year 10 to 12 apparent retention rate at Victorian government schools by DEECD (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development) region, between 1999–2008 the Southern Metropolitan Region is actually at the lowest, with 79.5 per cent. Amongst metropolitan regions the apparent retention rate was the highest, surprisingly, in the Northern Metropolitan Region, at 88 per cent. In the Eastern Metropolitan Region it was 85.3 per cent, and it was lower in the Western Metropolitan Region, with 81.1 per cent and, as I said earlier, in the Southern Metropolitan Region — the area I represent — it was 79.5 per cent.

My son was involved with the On Track study, which shows that in my area Casey and Frankston students are amongst the worst in Victoria. State government data shows that the proportion of year 12 graduates who undertake further education or training has remained unchanged over the past two years and is markedly lower than 2005 levels, despite a concerted effort to improve pathways for people who complete school. The latest On Track study shows that youth unemployment is increasing across the state, which is probably the reason for this particular legislative reform.

The study also found that as the economic downturn took hold the number of students who secured a job had fallen, from 14.4 per cent in 2008 to 12.4 per cent this year. At the time Steve Herbert, the Parliamentary Secretary for Education, said the survey showed the government was delivering real results for every student. I say that with a degree of irony.

Some 8 per cent of VCE graduates in Casey state schools are now unemployed. A year ago Casey VCE students were celebrating their graduation, but now, along with their counterparts, they are damaged in an economy that is not providing for them. They are lost in a maze of poor education and technical education delivery. Locally the findings also show that 62.86 per cent of government school graduates in Casey are in further education or training, compared to 75.7 per cent of all schools in Melbourne’s south-east. Some 8 per cent of government school graduates in Casey are unemployed, compared with 6.78 per cent in Dandenong, 11.67 per cent in Frankston, 4.6 per cent in Kingston and 2.5 per cent in Monash. The findings are also of concern because of the high rate of students who deferred their studies in a bid to qualify for the commonwealth youth allowance.

If students are being kept at school or are in training, theoretically they are not unemployed, and accordingly youth unemployment is miraculously reduced. According to figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, currently youth unemployment for those aged under 25 years as a percentage of the Labor force is looking pretty grim by other standards.

Apart from that, there are other failings in youth policy which I have mentioned in the area of sport and recreation and a whole range of other areas. There is the bungling of the 2 o’clock lockout, which affects a slightly older cohort, and a range of other failures. These failures mean that our young people have been betrayed and left adrift. Should we be at all surprised to see the endemic problems that are unveiled before us in the news?

I suggest that instead of focusing on policy development as if it were an advertising catalogue, this government thinks it through and makes sure that the initiatives are integrated, comprehensive and well implemented. Government members should reflect on those results and make sure that government policies are achieving what they are intended to achieve. With those few words, I indicate that the opposition will not be opposing the bill.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan) — I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Education and Training Reform Amendment (School Age) Bill. I will try to keep my comments brief.

Probably the main feature of this bill is that it provides that young Victorians are now expected to complete year 10 or an equivalent education and training employment level at least until they reach the age of 17 years, which reflects my official school record. I am



pleased that the level of schooling I attained has become the minimum standard. It makes me feel quite good.

I will comment on the contribution to the debate made by Ms Mikakos. She spoke about work done by the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee in its inquiry into juvenile repeat offenders. The recommendations of the committee centred around levels of education and how education and training and employment were absolutely critical in keeping young men and women on track and helping them contribute to the broader community.

During the inquiry we spoke to young men who were in a detention centre for very good reasons. Every one of them to a man said that they had left school at an extraordinarily young age — around year 6 or year 7 — which amazed us. However, I was heartened when one of them said he had a friend who was in a similar position and had ended up at a school in the electorate I represent — Croydon Community School, which is noted for helping young people who may struggle in the mainstream school system to complete a good level of education and training and employment.

In her contribution Ms Pennicuik spoke about the need for certain provisions and the need for the government to supply certain facilities to help keep disengaged and bored young people at school, and I think that is a very good point. Reflecting on my experience in the electorate I represent, I know that a lot of good work is being done in that area already. Dr Jim Watterson, who was the director of education in the Eastern Metropolitan Region, was very strong on this issue. He was a champion in this area and in making sure that disengaged youth had alternative education opportunities to help keep them engaged and in training. Dr Watterson has recently moved to Canberra, but I understand the new director in the Eastern Metropolitan Region is very strong in this area as well, which I think is fantastic.

I have already spoken about Croydon Community School, so I will use that as an example of an alternative education setting. We need to understand that disengaged and bored youth can struggle in the mainstream schooling system, so an alternative needs to be supplied. Staff at Croydon Community School try to supply an alternative setting with a view to trying to keep young people at school and involved as long they can in an area where they can complete a level of education so that they can gain work or move on to further training.

An example of one measure used at Croydon Community School is that young people are supplied with breakfast when they turn up for school. Some of these young people in the east are in family situations that might not be as amenable as conventional family situations, so the simple measure of giving them breakfast can have a positive effect. Staff at the school then try to tackle what I would consider — and probably a lot of other people would also consider — to be the harder subjects on the curriculum, such as maths, English and science. Later in the day the focus shifts to areas that students might find more engaging, such as a graphic art program and a high-tech music program.

There are a number of programs, including sport, which students who have struggled in the mainstream system find very enjoyable and through which they can find a career path. One of the programs they have is a martial arts program in which these young people are taught a martial art. As part of the program they are taught discipline and control. Some of the children who finish this program go out to other primary schools in the area and teach the program themselves. The ownership and responsibility they feel is very important. It is a fantastic program.

There was an article in one of the mainstream papers about this program. The reality is that the guys who teach this martial arts program are pretty big, strong martial arts-looking guys, and I was disappointed by the shadow Minister for Education, Martin Dixon, the member for Nepean in the other place, referring to this article and saying that this is the state that we have got to with education — that we need heavies in schools to control students. I plead with the shadow minister to go down to the school and look at what this program delivers and see the good work it does before making comments about it.

Some of the programs and subjects that Croydon Community School does are being annexed at schools across the east — at Bayswater Secondary College, just to name one. It is interesting that we are talking about keeping students at school to year 10 level or at least until they are 17. One thing Croydon Community School does for year 10 students is get them at a certain point in the year to all sign a charter. The students agree to a charter that at the end of the year, their year 10 year, they will either be at school, at other training — an equivalent education program — or they will be in employment. Mr Hall spoke about mentors before. The school gets a noted person in the community to come and witness the signatures of those students.

He has unfortunately now passed away, but a number of years ago Peter Brock was the signatory to one of



those charters. The children absolutely loved Peter Brock coming out and speaking to them and witnessing them sign a charter saying they were going to stay in school or employment until the end of the year. Another person who witnessed the charter was Glenn Manton, the ex-Carlton and Essendon footballer. Glenn Manton has done a bit of work with young people who might be disengaged from society through his work with Whitelion, and he was a very good mentor for this particular school.

I have got to say that this is not just an issue of young people being disengaged or maybe coming from areas where it is hard for them to achieve a level of education at secondary school; it is an issue at primary school level as well. I can see that a similar model of school could be utilised for primary school kids. I would hope that if a similar school were developed because there is a problem with very young people, it would not mean we would have headlines like some we have seen in the Herald Sun calling it ‘Brat school’ and talking up the idea that it is a bad facility. If we are going to be fair dinkum about keeping all young people in education, we have got to be fair dinkum about trying different ways to do that. I can see that there could be a need for what Croydon Community School does all the way down to primary school children.

Mr Hall and Mr Philip Davis mentioned the LLENs (local learning and employment networks) that they deal with in the electorates they represent. I have had a lot of long conversations with Fiona Purcell who leads the LLEN in the outer east. She is a very good person who has thought a lot about ways of getting young people into training and education.

I would like to touch on one example of something the LLEN did as a way of keeping young people at school and giving them ideas and career paths. It was a program with Powercor which got 20 young people from five different schools at around year 10 age to learn what it is to be a linesman. This is another part of our education system that is very important. There are jobs and roles in our community that if you were a year 10 student, you would not have a clue about. I think these sorts of programs are important. They take young people out to see what work roles some people have in our community and to see whether that might be a career path for them.

I have to congratulate the LLEN for that program. I attended the graduation night for the 20 young people who went through the program. I think the majority had been signed up by power companies to become linesmen the next year. They were very keen to do that, and those who had not been signed up were working

very hard to see if they could get an apprenticeship at one of the power companies the following year.

Just to touch on the issue of lifting the age at which students have the right to graduate from 16 to 17, I know members have spoken about apprenticeships and training, and I can talk about the field that I came from, the electrical field.

Mr Finn — An electrical field is called a magnet.

Mr LEANE — No, I did not come from a magnet, but that’s a good one. A lot of employers now require students to have a year 12 level education to enter an apprenticeship. I think 15 years ago there was the possibility of gaining an apprenticeship when you were 16 or even younger. Some guys I did my apprenticeship with started their apprenticeships at 15. I think the possibility of gaining an apprenticeship is different now though.

As I said, I know in the electrical industry there is a real emphasis on young men and women having year 12 to enter into apprenticeships. I think that earlier benchmark has changed, and it is important that we understand that. It is also important that we understand that the days are gone when someone could leave school at the age of 15 and pick up a trade. This may be because of the competition to find a job — I am not too sure — or it may be because employers like young apprentices to get a driving licence within a year so that they can utilise them more effectively.

Getting back to schools, in her contribution to the debate Mrs Peulich put a negative slant on schools in Victoria. I visit a lot of schools in the electorate I represent and every school I go to is fantastic. I find that school communities are proud of their schools. Every school I have been to is unique, in a good way, in the way it approaches education. I will give members opposite the tip that school communities hate people talking down their school. They hate stories about their schools being on the front of local papers with opposition MPs saying their school is no good. There is a good reason for that, and it is because schools all compete for enrolments. Another good reason is that they are proud of their schools. That is a fact, and as much as the opposition tries to talk them down, the school communities I have come across are actually proud of their schools. They are pleased with the capital works funding they have recently been receiving, and I see a great future for the young people who are being educated in our schools.

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) — As a person with quite a lot of exposure to our tertiary



education system and as a teacher in high schools for 12 years or so and a couple of years teaching in the tertiary sector in Malaysia I have opinions about education and, perhaps, a little bit of expertise, therefore I feel an obligation to speak about this particular bill.

The object of this bill is to keep students at school longer. Of course under many circumstances it is desirable for a young person to remain at school longer. It is desirable for our society in that it helps to improve productivity if it is done properly; it can lead to a higher standard of living for the individual concerned and, importantly, it can bring benefits in terms of their quality of life by developing an appreciation of art and history and some of the finer things in life.

We have had comment tonight from Ms Pennicuik, who said that the funding per student in Victoria is the lowest in Australia. I am not sure whether that assertion is correct or not but the point I make is that Victoria is the most densely populated state and the cost of providing services decreases per person as population density increases. Naturally, it is going to cost less per student to run schools in Victoria than it does in Western Australia, for example, where the government might be providing funding to a lot of schools with four people in them that are 9000 kilometres away from the state Parliament, so whether Victoria does or does not provide the lowest funding per student is really not the issue.

I would also make the point that, contrary to public perception, in my view educational standards are really not dependent on funding or even facilities. In my experience a student who loves learning, who has a respect for knowledge, for teachers and for skills and has consideration for his fellow students’ educational aspirations is the kind of student who will do well at school and benefit from it even if there has not been as much money spent on facilities for that student as for another student.

Of course, when it comes to questions of culture in a democracy, it is for people to determine their own culture and not for the government to tell them what culture to develop, so I guess the people I am speaking to are more the parents of students than the government. It would be a very helpful thing if parents emphasised to their children the importance of learning and were even seen to be reading a book occasionally, for example, and not always watching the television.

Governments, and even the education system itself, sometimes serve to undermine education in Australia. Mr Philip Davis talked about the spectacularly foolish

decision of the Kirner government to eliminate technical schools in Victoria. It had performed the amazing feat of producing at least four major kinds of damage to the state at the same time, with no benefit at all. It vastly increased the expenditure on education while destroying educational options for those who were not engaged in academic education. That is, it eliminated entirely the technical option for students while adding those students to the academic stream. These students typically became disciplinary problems in academic classrooms and their presence effectively degraded the academic standards throughout high schools as well. Perhaps this is one reason why in Victoria we have now got to the bizarre situation where even the University of Melbourne is offering remedial English and maths classes to new students, the creme de la creme of our high school students. Some of them cannot read or write or do arithmetic to a basic acceptable standard.

At the same time universities have developed policies for mature entry. Their policies say that if you are, say, 25 years of age or older, you do not need to have completed year 12, year 11, year 10 or even year 9, and the university may say you have acquired those skills anyway, even though you left school at the end of year 8. If you left school at the end of year 8 but have acquired the skills that you would have acquired if you had stayed at school and done years 9, 10, 11 and 12, what is the point of staying at school and doing years 9, 10, 11 and 12? Are not the universities themselves saying those years at school are not useful?

Mr Hall — Life experience is the best education, anyway.

Mr KAVANAGH — Life experience could be very cheap. We could close our schools, everybody could get life experience and it would be a lot easier for us, wouldn’t it? In short, I have reservations about the strategy of in effect forcing students through acts of Parliament like this to remain at school, even though remaining at school is no doubt a very valuable option in many circumstances. Although I am sceptical about the motives for increasing the minimum school age, in spite of those things I will not vote against this bill.

Motion agreed to.

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

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (BRIMBANK CITY COUNCIL) BILL



Second reading

Debate resumed from 15 October; motion of Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change).

Mr HALL (Eastern Victoria) — As the Clerk mentioned, this is the Local Government (Brimbank City Council) Bill 2009. Brimbank City Council has been the subject of much commentary in the media, in reports and in debate in this Parliament, and here we are again tonight. The first commentaries were based on a report by the Ombudsman which was tabled in May this year. The Ombudsman undertook a fairly substantial report pursuant to provisions in the Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001 and a complaint made by a Labor MP about certain practices at Brimbank City Council.

The Parliament received from the Ombudsman a very substantial report which commented about the practices and matters related to the operation of Brimbank council. He ultimately made a series of recommendations to the government of the day, and the government accepted those recommendations. I am not about to trawl through that report and elaborate or comment on the accusations made by the Ombudsman in the report. Some members will probably choose to do so tonight, but I choose not to do that, given the fact that there has been opportunity to comment in a more substantial way in previous debates we have had in this chamber.

The Ombudsman’s report was followed up by a report by an inspector of municipal administration, Mr Bill Scales, tabled in the Parliament on 15 September 2009, and there has previously been some comment made on this report. It is significant that it is the report by the municipal inspector that has led to the legislation before us tonight. Again, I am not going to canvass all the issues mentioned in this report. Some members have already challenged the veracity of some of the findings of the municipal administrator in the report, and I guess some speakers will mention that during the debate tonight. I want to talk about one aspect mentioned in Mr Scales’s covering letter to the minister at the start of the report where he says:

I have concluded that the problems identified by the Ombudsman in his report are deep seated and are still sustained within the Brimbank City Council.

It is also important to recognise that there is widespread concern amongst the community of Brimbank about the performance of council and a substantial level of cynicism

about the possibility of any change in the culture or the actions of this council in the future.

He goes on to make a conclusion and recommend to the minister that he consider suspending and/or dismissing the councillors of Brimbank City Council, and we know the outcome of that. The minister has now accepted the report and decided to take action along the lines recommended by Mr Scales in his report, and so it is that we are here tonight with this legislation before us.

It is worthwhile putting on the record that action to dismiss a council requires special legislation. Subsection 74A(2) of the Local Government Act says a council cannot be dismissed except by an act of Parliament relating to the council. It is a very serious measure to sack the council. There is no provision in the Local Government Act that enables the minister to do that as of right. It requires a special act of Parliament, and that is why we are here tonight.

The bill dismisses the council and provides for the appointment of a panel of administrators to be the council and act as the council in every way until the next cycle of local government elections in 2012. The bill sets out various provisions to put the administrators in place. The minister’s second-reading speech very clearly says that he has chosen to appoint three administrators to be the council for that period of time, and those administrators will act as the council and legally be the council for the purpose of all the statutory provisions of the Local Government Act in that period of time up until 2012. The Liberal-National coalition will not be opposing this bill; however, I say that without any great joy, because I do not think any of us in this chamber feel glad about or welcome this decision. I feel — —

Mr Drum — Sickened.

Mr HALL — I feel sickened, as Mr Drum said, that we have come to this point. We have been forced into this position because of the Australian Labor Party’s refusal to clean up its own backyard. This imbroglio has been portrayed by both the Ombudsman and the municipal inspector as a direct result of the fact that there has been political interference in the operation of council’s activities in the municipality of Brimbank, and that is a great shame. If the Australian Labor Party had taken more decisive action much earlier in the piece we would not be where we are today, faced with the unpleasant task of not opposing legislation that ultimately sacks the council.

It is the view of the coalition that the majority of citizens of Brimbank support the dismissal of the



council, albeit reluctantly. That was the conclusion of Mr Scales. Many of my colleagues in the coalition who have a more direct association with the Brimbank community than I do accept that that is the most commonly held view across the municipality. It needs to be said that, while we all enjoy the democracy in which we live, laws govern the extent to which we can do as we like. There are times when we all step over those limits, and the law guides us back to practices that are acceptable to the community. The reports indicate that the mark has been overstepped in many regards at Brimbank, so we need laws to bring things back to what we would all say is acceptable community practice.

There is no doubt that many people in Brimbank municipality would hold the view that democracy in Brimbank is being eroded with this law, but I also hope the majority would acknowledge that in this instance the law is necessary and that the outcome in 2012 will provide a sound basis for a better operating democracy in Brimbank in future years, and certainly that is the desire and the hope of the coalition.

I note there are councillors who will contest or who are certainly considering contesting their sacking through a legal challenge. I noted with interest an article in the Age of 7 November headed ‘Lawyer slams council sacking’, and legal advice to Brimbank councillors suggesting that, in this legal opinion at least, it was unlawful as there was not enough evidence of poor behaviour to justify the move. I simply hope that the legal advice received by the Minister for Local Government will show that he is well founded in his decision to bring about this legislation here tonight. But in the democracy in which we live and with the legal system we have, there is an absolute right for those former councillors of Brimbank to challenge this action if they believe they are well founded in doing so. That is part of our process, and it appears that will occur.

I want to also make a comment about a proposed amendment, although it has not been announced yet. The Greens party has given the coalition the courtesy of indicating that it intends to move an amendment that would reduce the period of suspension of the council to November 2010 and bring it into line with the next state election rather than the next local government election scheduled for 2012. From the coalition’s point of view we are not convinced that a 12-month period would be sufficient breathing space between those practices criticised by the Ombudsman, nor do we believe it would give sufficient time for establishing sound practices that would enhance future democratic governance of Brimbank, so we will not be supporting that amendment for those reasons. This is a serious

issue and I believe it will take some time to resolve, and therefore we do not believe a period of 12 months would be sufficient time to, using the term I used before, give enough breathing space to have these issues resolved and allow sound governance practice to be embedded and practised within Brimbank municipality.

As I said, it is with some reluctance that we are here tonight to debate this legislation. It gives me no great joy to indicate that we are forced into the position of reluctantly not opposing this legislation, because the coalition certainly has great respect for the work of local government throughout this state. Again I put on the record that we believe the vast majority of councillors who serve in local government right across the state of Victoria do it well, often at great personal sacrifice. Equally I am sure that there are current and previous councillors of Brimbank who have served with diligence and responsibility. However, we are seeing here reports from the Ombudsman and from the municipal inspector that indicate there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. The government has chosen to address it by the provisions within this bill, and reluctantly we will not be opposing it.

Ms HARTLAND (Western Metropolitan) — I will be responding to this bill on behalf of the Greens, and later I will circulate an amendment in relation to the date of the election.

I have lived in the western suburbs for over 20 years, and one of the constant complaints commonly heard is that the Labor Party takes this area and its people for granted. I find it very difficult to argue against that notion. I find it very difficult to understand why the Premier and the local government minister acted all shocked when the Ombudsman’s report came out, because the problems at Brimbank were well known. There have been many letters to the office of the Minister for Local Government, Mr Wynne, from residents complaining about corruption. I have seen a number of these letters. The Ombudsman’s report states that the Brimbank chief executive officer, Nick Foa, tried several times to bring matters to Mr Wynne’s department through Local Government Victoria, but the department basically refused to act.

When the Ombudsman’s team arrived at Brimbank, the staff welcomed them with open arms. The CEO sent an email to all staff welcoming the inquiry and encouraging staff members to participate, telling them how to make protected disclosures. I will come to this issue again later, but I do not think the staff members at Brimbank are the problem. I think some of them have



been absolute heroes, because they have stood up and made statements to the Ombudsman.

Another one of those quiet heroes at Brimbank is Geraldine Brooks. In her first nine months on council Geraldine was often the only councillor asking about issues and officer recommendations such as contracts, submissions and policies. She was often the only one contributing to discussion and debate in the chamber. She put at least 15 motions to the chamber ranging from requests for support for a container deposit scheme and community meetings following the release of the Ombudsman’s report to opposition to the funding of Reconciliation Victoria and the extension of the urban growth boundary.

At least two-thirds of Cr Brooks’s motions failed because nobody would second them, effectively blocking debate. When debate was allowed, in most cases the vote in the chamber was 10 to 1 against her proposals. Geraldine was dismissed along with the rest of the council, and this was at a time when she was organising a public meeting about the Ombudsman’s report. I would have to say it is a tribute to her that she simply carried on organising that meeting. I went along to the meeting, and it was a classic piece of good public consultation. I understand exactly why Geraldine was so popular in her community and such a popular councillor. She was a genuine local councillor, and I am proud that she represented the Greens.

This bill sacks Geraldine Brooks, but she has taken it on the chin, and she is not part of the legal challenge. Nevertheless I can understand why other councillors at Brimbank have engaged in the legal challenge, because they have no ability to clear their names, and I do not think that is fair either.

In the Ombudsman’s report, George Seitz, Theo Theophanous, Andrew Theophanous, Craig Otte and Hakki Suleyman were all found to have unduly influenced Brimbank council. None of these five people were councillors before the sacking. You can sack the council as many times as you like, but if the problem is unelected people seeking to exert influence, they will just seek to influence the new council.

Other issues in the Ombudsman’s report included the improper use of powers. This was about councillors placing the council at financial risk for a personal vendetta to do with internal ALP battles. If the government does nothing between now and the next election other than appoint administrators, there is nothing to stop the next lot of ALP councillors and non-councillors doing exactly the same thing.

Bullying and intimidation were pointed out in the Ombudsman’s report. In my view the best fix for this was the appointment of the municipal inspector to work with councillors. If a councillor continues to be a bully, you sack them individually. Misuse of council funds and equipment and inappropriate release of information were also issues best worked on with the councillors in place, monitored by the municipal inspector with the threat of sacking if they continue to do the wrong thing.

In regard to Local Government Victoria, earlier I spoke about the attempt by the Brimbank CEO to alert Local Government Victoria to the problems at Brimbank and how it fell on deaf ears. The report says that this problem has been fixed because Brimbank council now has a councillor conduct panel. How did the situation get to the stage of the sacking an entire council without reference to the councillor conduct panel? I will ask a number of questions about this during the committee stage of the bill.

I do not think this is the time to rehash the question of whether the government made the right choice in not dismissing the council after the Ombudsman’s report or dismissing the new council after the Scales report. The government knew there were problems with the council long before the Ombudsman’s report and that the council was particularly bad in the 2005 to 2008 council period. An example of this can be found on YouTube by entering the search term ‘Miles Dymott’. In a video clip of a packed council meeting Cr Dymott can be seen involved in discussion about the politically motivated, corrupt allocation of resources occurring through factional deals. Cr Dymott attempts to prevent the discussion being moved to a back room where the packed public gallery would have been excluded. The deals being discussed were those that were later exposed in the Ombudsman’s report. The public knew exactly what was going on and turned up in force to try to prevent it. I attended a number of these meetings, and I am very proud of the way the community responded.

On 22 July that year Cr Dymott moved a motion that, ‘The real issue is that the council should be allocating resources based on community need’. I do not think that is a radical proposal. If you are a councillor, you should be looking at community needs. The majority of Brimbank councillors voted against the motion. Every single one of the six councillors who voted against allocating resources based on community need were from the ALP.

It is clear that the intention of the Local Government Act, amended by this government only last October, is that ratepayers should not be left without representation for more than a year. In fact the minister acknowledges



as much in the second-reading speech for this bill. But he has said that the Brimbank council will need an extra two years to rebuild effective governance from the ground up and restore community confidence. The obvious questions are: why is three years needed for this process, and what does the government plan to do to rebuild effective governance during those three years?

The administration of the Brimbank council is efficient. Any objective measurement, including the Auditor-General’s report that came out today, indicates that the staff and the administration at Brimbank are generally efficient. The Ombudsman’s report found no fault with the administration. In the last Department of Planning and Community Development local government satisfaction survey the council’s community engagement score increased from 60 per cent to 64 per cent. This is because of the extensive plan for consultation that the staff put in place in spite of the council of the day having some objection to starting the process — some of the councillors felt that consultation empowering the community would erode their power. So we can assume that the Minister for Planning does not need three years to sort out the administration and staff and give them counselling for being, in some cases, subjected to bullying by former councillors.

What does the minister intend to do in these three years? Unfortunately the second-reading speech does not give us very much detail. At the briefing on the bill I asked the minister’s office why three years was needed for this process. I also asked what the government’s timetable for reform would be during those three years. The answer, in an email from the minister’s office, was that the administrators will administer for three years and that this measure alone will restore democracy. I am not really sure how that works.

I want the voters to go to the polls thinking about what Labor has done to fix the root cause of the problem. That will give the Labor Party some motivation to do something about this situation. The salaries of the three administrators will be coming out of the Brimbank council budget. That budget is already cash strapped. I do not have a problem with three administrators being appointed instead of one, because we know they have a huge job, but I am worried about what other services will be sacrificed to pay those salaries. I do not want to pay three administrators for three years instead of one just so the Labor Party can push the problem aside until after the election. I have had people from the Labor Party tell me that they do not want the administrators there during the election campaign and they do not

want to be embarrassed by them. The Labor Party has had 10 years to do something about this problem and now it has become all too much so it pushes the problem aside. I will be talking more about this during the committee stage of the bill.

Furthermore, following the spirit of the Local Government Act, the amendment provides that the next council election will be in 2012 on the same day as all other Victorian local governments go to the polls. The Ombudsman’s report basically said that democracy in Brimbank is in shreds, but taking away the council leaves no representation at all. You are asking people to pay rates but not to get a vote. There should be no taxation without representation.

Ms Pennicuik — Is that Labor Party policy?

Ms HARTLAND — I think so, Ms Pennicuik. Thank you very much.

An email from the minister’s office states:

… the administrators will be expected to demonstrate the highest standards of probity, impartiality and a constant attention to the interests of the community. Over this period it is expected that Brimbank residents and ratepayers will develop renewed confidence in their council, and appropriately high expectations of local governance and service.

They are lovely words, but why has the government not done this for the last 10 years? In other words, the minister will appoint some administrators and hope the problem will go away. I am not quite sure whether that is what is going to happen.

It appears to me that the minister has no other plans for reform and that the Labor Party has no plan to address the issues of branch stacking, the behaviour of MPs in the local area or the undue influence of MPs in the area. I do not see a plan for dealing with any of those issues.

A former Premier, Jeff Kennett, sacked the Brimbank council, as he did all councils across Victoria, and that did a fat lot of good. Sunshine and Keilor councils had been previously sacked for corruption and this did not change matters either because the basic work was never done afterwards. What I want to know is what the ALP is doing that is different from what Jeff Kennett did.

I will be circulating some amendments to bring about an election in one year instead of three years.

Greens amendments circulated by Ms HARTLAND (Western Metropolitan) pursuant to standing orders.



Ms HARTLAND — The amendments provide for an election for the Brimbank council on the same day as the next state election. In my view the only reason the minister has chosen a 2012 election date is to make the issue disappear until after the state election next year. In part the amendments indicate that the next election would be called in one year’s time and then the council would be lined up with the elections in 2012. It happened previously when councils were sacked in Victoria and then all the elections were lined up. If it could be done previously, I do not see why it could not be done again.

As I said at the start of my contribution, I have lived here for 20 years, and I have watched Brimbank council closely. I am aware of the amount of moral and political corruption that has occurred in Brimbank. The state Labor government has chosen to ignore it because a number of people on that council supplied numbers for various people’s preselections. Unless you deal with the heart of that corruption, I do not see how you are going to change what happens at Brimbank.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) — Here we are gathered at approaching 9.30 p.m. on 11 November for what is, I suppose, unofficially the funeral of the Brimbank City Council. The firing squad has done its job and the corpse of the Brimbank council has been laid in its coffin. The grave has been dug, the prayers have been said, the Minister for Local Government, Richard Wynne, is standing by the side of the grave with a shovel in his hand, and the government is hoping beyond all else that this will all just go away.

Mr Barber interjected.

Mr FINN — If the clown over here to my left would like to come over from Yarra occasionally, he might have some idea about what is going on in the western suburbs — and I withdraw calling him a clown.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Leane) — Order! I thank Mr Finn.

Mr FINN — The situation is that this is not going to make the corruption at Brimbank go away. There are far too many ghosts wandering the cemetery that is the ALP. There is a dreadful knocking noise coming from within the coffin as well. It is those councillors who just refuse to die, but I will talk about them in a little while.

The government thinks it has been very clever, but it has been too clever by half. Everything the government has done at Brimbank in recent months has been driven by pure panic. Government members are terrified of what will happen to them at the next election as a result

of what they have allowed their party to do in the western suburbs of Melbourne.

As Ms Hartland pointed out, after years of complaints the Minister for Local Government, Minister Wynne, finally decided he had no option but to do something. The man who is often openly referred to in the western suburbs, and particularly in Brimbank, as Do Nothing Dick decided he would do something.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Leane) — Order! I ask Mr Finn to withdraw that reference to the minister.

Mr FINN — I did not actually refer to him as Do Nothing Dick; I was referring to him as he is referred to in the electorate.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Leane) — Order! I think we have been through this before with one of Mr Finn’s contributions. Mr Finn withdrew then, so I do not think tonight should be any different.

Mr FINN — Life is changing all the time, but I am happy to withdraw. It does not change the fact that that is what people in Brimbank and in the western suburbs call him.

Mr Vogels — It should be Do Something Dick.

Mr FINN — Unfortunately the fact that he did something does not change the fact that he is referred to by the name I cannot refer to myself. This is a strange place sometimes.

The minister commissioned an Ombudsman’s report. Over a period of about seven or eight months the Ombudsman went through a number of complaints that had been lodged against the council over an extended time, and his final report was somewhat damning not just of the council but also of a number of people who were involved in influencing the council. That is something the ALP has to take total responsibility for, because I think, with only one exception, everybody named in the report as a culprit is a member of the Australian Labor Party. The Ombudsman’s report is a damning indictment not just of the Brimbank council but of the Victorian ALP.

The Ombudsman’s report was presented and the minister had to decide if he would do anything about it. As we know, at times he has some difficulty in deciding what action to take, and after another brief period an inspector was appointed. The inspector was put to work briefly and he presented a report to the government. This report was nowhere near as damning as the Ombudsman’s report had been just a few months



before, but the government decided that the report had to be acted upon.

The finger pointing started and we saw a number of councillors of the new council being blamed for the sins of the old council. That is an extraordinary situation. We now have this legislation before the house, and very soon I assume we will have a situation where the City of Brimbank will be administered by three commissioners. Already in the City of Brimbank there is significant speculation as to who those commissioners will be. Interestingly enough, all the names that have been mentioned in despatches to this point are members of — you guessed it — the ALP. Surprise, surprise! What we are looking at just at the moment is removing elected corruption and replacing it with appointed corruption from within the ALP. That does not make a great deal of sense to me, but as was said earlier the community is certainly very supportive of the removal of the council at this time.

All I believe that is necessary now is for us as a Parliament and a community to get to the truth, because as I have pointed out on at least a couple of occasions in this house the Ombudsman’s report did not get to the whole truth; it barely scratched the surface. What we need — —


Mr FINN — Mr Theophanous may well agree, but he might not support my next suggestion. It is my very strong view that what we need to get to the very bottom of the corruption in Brimbank is a royal commission; and not just in Brimbank but in some of the surrounding areas as well given the government’s opposition to and refusal to set up an anticorruption commission — and you cannot blame it because there is such a thing as self-incrimination I suppose.


Mr FINN — Mr Theophanous screws up his face, and I tell you what: if I was involved in some of the things that the Ombudsman suggests Mr Theophanous has been involved in I would screw up my face as well. But we need justice for the people of Brimbank, and the only way we are going to get to the bottom of all the corruption — the only way we will find out who has been up to some of the tricks and activities we would find appalling in every way — is through a royal commission, so in this house I call on the government to set up a royal commission into the Brimbank council.

If this government is fair dinkum about wanting to know the truth and to clean Brimbank up it will appoint a royal commission. I do not for a moment think that

will happen, because I know the government does not want to know the truth — or should I say it does not want the truth to get out. This is because there are a good many members of the government who know the truth. There are a good many members of the government who have known the truth a very long time, and that is why they sat on this for as long as they did.

The corruption of Brimbank goes right to the top. This corruption goes right into the Premier’s office. This corruption goes right into the federal cabinet room in Parliament House, Canberra. This corruption is not just about the Brimbank City Council; it is about corruption within the Australian Labor Party that has been there for many years. If we are going to give the people of Brimbank and surrounding areas justice we have to root this out. We have to stop it, and a royal commission would be a very good start. On behalf of the long-suffering ratepayers of Brimbank — and I remind the house that my electorate office is right in the middle of Brimbank, in Sunshine — —

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — We know all about your electorate office.

Mr FINN — Do you? Well, you tell me about it a bit later; I will be very interested to hear.

My electorate office is in the middle of Brimbank, on Hampshire Road in Sunshine. I recall that when I was first elected to represent the Western Metropolitan Region I was inundated with complaints from locals and local community groups about the Brimbank council. I am hoping that those locals and groups will receive justice as a result of we are doing here this evening. However, I do not see that this bill alone will allow them the sort of support and relief that they deserve, particularly those who have been fighting this kind of corruption for so very long.

If a royal commission is not on the cards we may have to turn to Hollywood for our answers. As we know, the media has an enormous influence on the way people act, and the media over a very long period of time has had an enormous impact in terms of revelations of fact and truth in a whole range of areas. So perhaps we could have Brimbank — The Movie. That may be something we could turn our attention to. It could be a western, and instead of Dirty Harry we will have Dopey Harry, who indeed has no idea at all. We will see Hakki Suleyman, his trusty aide, let loose on the people of Brimbank — he of the droopy moustache and sombrero, reaching for his guns in the shootout in the Keilor pub car park. This is the western, Brimbank — The Movie, something we can look forward to.



Alternatively, Acting President, it could be a comedy.


Mr FINN — Mr Theophanous, just stick around for a minute, because I have not finished with you, as you might expect.

In this particular comedy we could have the Minister for Local Government, Richard Wynne, who is referred to as something else by my constituents out there in Brimbank. We could have Rob Hulls, the Deputy Premier and Attorney-General and John Brumby, the Premier of this state, who were both outraged — appalled! — when the Ombudsman revealed just a portion of what had been going on in Brimbank for so long.

Now, you have to remember that Dick Wynne, fair enough, had known for years what was going on in Brimbank, because people had been telling him about it for years. You have to remember that Rob Hulls knew for years what had been going on in Brimbank, because he represents part of Brimbank. It is his electoral base. You also have to remember that John Brumby, the Premier of the state, knew exactly what was going on in Brimbank, because when he got the call to come to state Parliament he got it through the province of Doutta Galla, and the numbers that were put together to allow the man who is now Premier of our state to enter the Victorian Parliament were put together in what is now Brimbank.

The very same people, therefore, that are involved in the sorts of shenanigans that we have seen over such a long period of time were involved in putting John Brumby into Parliament. He now tries to tell us he did not know anything. We don’t — —

Mr Koch interjected.

Mr FINN — He is not a cleanskin, Mr Koch, I can tell you. In any movie we have to have some new stars, and that is where the Theophanous brothers come in. As the Ombudsman has pointed out, they have a role to play. Perhaps they could go in under the title of Theophanii Inc.. That could be how we could introduce them to the silver screen.


Mr FINN — And of course any movie worth its salt has to have its villains; they are a very important part. Mr Theophanous should relax; I have not included him in this particular segment, because the real villains here have not been exposed. They should be exposed, and a royal commission would expose them. I am talking

about people like Bill Shorten, Stephen Conroy and Brendan O’Connor. These are the puppet masters behind the scenes.

Their activities would stump Batman and send Elliott Ness to a home for the permanently bewildered, such are the activities of these sorts of characters in the Brimbank area. They have not been exposed; they have not had to face justice as they should. As in a good many movies there is an element of tragedy. Perhaps the most tragically afflicted in Brimbank — The Movie could be the councillors who have been sacked. As I mentioned earlier, these councillors were sacked largely for the sins of the councillors who went before them. Councillors such as Margaret Giudice, who I regarded as an excellent mayor of Brimbank when she held the position, and Marion Martin, who was newly elected to the council. They were sacked, but they were without guilt. There is no justice when people are sacked for somebody else’s crime. It does not make a lot of sense to me, and if that is the government’s attitude, then there are probably a lot of people in a lot of strife. Justice in this regard has been a major casualty.

A major tragedy has been suffered for a good many years by the people of Brimbank — the people in sports clubs, in community groups and in a range of council-supported services — who have suffered over a long period because of the carry-on of this council. These are the people at the forefront of my mind whenever I have raised this matter in the past and as I stand and speak in the house tonight. I am hopeful we can work together to get the sort of justice for the people of Brimbank that they deserve. That is first and foremost in my mind.

That leaves only one question: will we have a happy ending to this episode? I have to say I very much doubt it. With respect to Ms Hartland, it will certainly take more than one year to sort out the mess that is Brimbank and the Labor Party in Brimbank.

Mrs Peulich — It is like Days of Our Lives.

Mr FINN — It is not a very pleasant life, I have do say. This sort of abuse and corruption will continue as long as the Labor Party continues to take the people in the west of Melbourne for granted. This sort of corruption will continue as long as the Labor Party regards the people in the west of Melbourne with complete contempt. That is what we have seen. When we see what has happened in Brimbank it all comes back to one thing — the Labor Party taking the people of Brimbank and the people of the western suburbs for granted. It has got to stop. It does not matter how many councils are sacked, as Ms Hartland said, and it does



not matter what we do: this sort of corruption and abuse will continue as long as the Labor Party has such total contempt for the people of the western suburbs. It must stop! It can no longer be tolerated.

The fact that Labor Party members — the government of the state — have chosen not to speak on this bill is a fair indication to me that that contempt is alive and well and going strong. At the very least one member, perhaps even a lowly backbencher — perhaps Mr Theophanous — might get up before the debate is over and apologise by saying, ‘We are sorry for what we have done to you’. I say to the members of the Labor Party that if they have a conscience, they should apologise to the people of Brimbank for what they have done to the councillors who have no guilt and most importantly for what they have done to the ratepayers and residents of Brimbank, who do not deserve what this government has meted out to them over so many years.

There are many points to be made, more than I can possibly ever make tonight, but there is one thing that is overwhelmingly clear. As this debate continues — and I have to say it will not go away, because too many people have been hurt by the Labor Party in Brimbank for it to just disappear — there is one point that is clear and understood by everybody, wherever they may be and whoever they may be, and that point is that Labor stands condemned in this whole shameful episode. Hopefully it can get its act together, but I will not be holding my breath.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Northern Metropolitan) — I want to make some brief comments. I will not get involved in hype over this issue or political mud-slinging, because that is not what I want to do. What I want to do is to talk briefly about principles, three in particular. I want to talk about the principle of the separation of powers, the principle of accountability and the principle of democracy.

It is my view that before we condemn democratically elected councils, the process has to be very clear and very accountable. It has to be based on real evidence. As the previous speaker said, we are talking about some people who had absolutely nothing to do with any of the previous issues at the council. If we go back further, we can talk about 30 people who lost their jobs who had absolutely nothing to do with the Brimbank City Council. When we are making decisions based on reports we had better be sure that the reports themselves are based on clear principles of evidence that have been collected along those lines.

I do not know whether there is enough evidence of wrongdoing or not in relation to the new Brimbank council, but I do know that there are some principles and that we have to be careful in criticising, for example, a branch meeting of a political party for passing motions which express a particular policy view. If we are to seek to make it illegal to pass policy views in political branch meetings, then I think we are heading down a slippery slope that none of us wants to head down in a democracy. The fact of the matter is that the state conferences of the Liberal and Labor parties pass motions which are meant to bind their members in particular situations. I know the Liberal Party will say that they do not, and in principle neither the Liberal Party nor the Labor Party ones actually can.

Mr D. Davis — Ours do not bind, unlike yours.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — I will take up the interjection, because the fact is that in the case of the Brimbank council whether a branch meeting passed a motion or not, nobody could argue that that motion was binding on anyone. As a consequence — —

Mr D. Davis — They could actually.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — They cannot — I know Mr Davis might want to. I am trying to put a set of principles down about which we should all be concerned. The point that I am trying to get across is that it is within the rights of our democracy for branches of political parties to pass motions. There is nothing wrong with that.

We need to consider this kind of evidence. What we need is accountability at all levels of government and even at the investigator level. I have spoken before about the need for the Ombudsman himself to be accountable, and I think he should be. I think there is a need to have that accountability. I think the Ombudsman should be accountable to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee or a similar committee of the Parliament like the Auditor-General is. I would make the point that — —

Mr D. Davis — On a point of order, Acting President, we are about to see Mr Theophanous launch into one of his regular attacks on the Ombudsman, and in order not to head down that way, I ask you, Acting President, to caution him.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Leane) — Order! There is no point of order.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — Thank you, Acting President. We have not yet lost the democratic

JUSTICE LEGISLATION MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS BILL


right to debate some things in this house, including the powers of independent officers of the Parliament.

I call on the Ombudsman to do what Ches Baragwanath did a number of years ago when he publicly stated that he supported the notion of the Auditor-General being accountable to the Parliament. The Ombudsman would do himself a big favour if he were to say that he supports the notion of the Ombudsman being accountable to a committee of the Parliament. It is a good idea. It is an idea around accountability.

Let me tell members that I do not accept that the Ombudsman has some kind of automatic right to be considered to be correct in all cases. I can tell the house that in my case he was absolutely wrong. I have said it, and I will continue to say it, and I would challenge him in any circumstance. I would love the opportunity to go before a court of law because it would never be able to be sustained in that kind of environment — to say that somebody thought that they might have been under pressure but nothing was ever said to them in relation to their job and then to make comment in relation to those matters. I do not think that is how we should be dealing with people if we want to deal with them in a just way based on real evidence. Or at least the persons who are going to make those kinds of judgements should themselves be accountable through a public accountability process.

I just want to say in relation to this matter that the decisions have been made and the council has been sacked. I hope that in a few years when a new council is elected it will be able to move on to represent the people of Brimbank in an appropriate way. I also think though that if we do not stand back a bit from simple party politics on all of these things and look at what lessons — —

Mr D. Davis — Or self-interest.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — And self-interest, Mr Davis, including your own self-interest. We should stand back from those things and start to talk about the real principles that are involved here — the principles about what constitutes conflict of interest, what it means, how it should be expressed and what and where the guiding principles are. All of these issues around accountability, principles of democracy and the separation of powers are things that we should try to learn from.

I do not want to be critical of the Ombudsman in relation to his other findings, because I am not in a position to say one way or another whether those findings are true or not. I accept that those findings are

there. What I do hope is that we are able to move on and create a democratic local council in the Brimbank area in due course when the next set of arrangements is passed. Let me say again that I think the government is doing the right thing with the legislation. In any case, I do not think we have any choice given the findings, and I would simply hope that there are some lessons to be learnt.

I hope it is possible to find a way for people who genuinely believe they have been wronged in some way to have an appeal mechanism or at the very minimum to have some kind of accountability for officers like the Ombudsman. I think if those things came out of it as well as a better council in Brimbank, then it would indeed be a very good set of things that comes out of this situation.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

JUSTICE LEGISLATION MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS BILL

Introduction and first reading

Received from Assembly.

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

ADJOURNMENT

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

That the house do now adjourn.

Schools: Shepparton

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) — The matter I wish to raise is for the attention of the Minister for Education and regards the future of education in Shepparton. My request is for the minister to ensure that more comprehensive consultation is undertaken and any decision regarding the future of Shepparton’s secondary colleges is not rushed.

Shepparton’s four government secondary colleges are working together to address the current and future educational needs of the Shepparton community. However, I am concerned about the apparent lack of an adequate consultation process and the possibility of a December deadline for a final decision. Despite being a local member of Parliament who takes great pride in being well informed of the issues affecting my constituency, I only found out about the proposals for

ADJOURNMENT


Shepparton’s four colleges — three in Shepparton and one in Mooroopna — via the media and concerned parents who have contacted me.

As a local MP I was not offered a briefing, but as soon as I found out about the plan I requested one. At that stage very little information had been made available to parents, and many of them had contacted me saying they were quite concerned. A survey was sent out to parents whose child or children attend one of the four colleges. Unfortunately this survey was so vague that it was very difficult for parents to make a comment, let alone understand what they were meant to be commenting about. At a recent public forum the inadequacies of the survey were admitted to by a representative of one of the schools. Parents whose children attend Shepparton and Mooroopna primary schools have not been contacted or consulted regarding the proposed changes, even though it is these children who will be impacted on most by any changes in Shepparton’s education system.

Given that the Brumby government’s Bendigo education plan has already resulted in the closure of six schools by stealth, parents and students in Shepparton have a right to be concerned that there may be a similar hidden agenda. If there is no hidden agenda, the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development should allow enough time for adequate and thorough consultation to ensure a bright future for education in the Shepparton region.

A public forum was held last week. At that meeting it was evident there are still a lot of questions to be answered and a lot of consulting to be done before an informed decision can be made about the future of education in Shepparton. Of great concern at the meeting was the response to a teacher from one of the schools who called on those running the meeting to admit that a final decision on the plan was to be made by the middle of December. It was admitted that mid-December was the decision time line; however, it was also acknowledged that the decision could be delayed. I therefore request that the minister ensure that more comprehensive consultation is undertaken and any decision regarding the future of Shepparton secondary colleges is not rushed.

Housing: Northern Victoria Region

Ms BROAD (Northern Victoria) — The matter I wish to raise before the house is for the attention of the Minister for Housing. There is a real and immediate need for good quality affordable housing across rural Victoria. In the electorate of Northern Victoria Region, a number of towns, including Shepparton, Wodonga

and Echuca, are developing rapidly and growing. These townships are important regional centres that provide job opportunities for Victorians. In order to accommodate this growth and meet the demands of established populations in regional towns in northern Victoria there is an urgent need for affordable housing. This includes public and social housing as well as private rental accommodation.

The Brumby government is leading the way in expanding housing choices for low-income Victorians through a record investment in public and social housing as well as schemes such as the national rental affordability scheme. The government is also committed to growing the social housing sector across the state. In 2008 the Brumby government made a record $510 million investment in public and social housing. A number of these projects have already been completed or are under way across rural and regional Victoria.

In addition, as members are aware, we have secured funds from the Rudd government for housing as part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. The $1.16 billion investment in social housing from the commonwealth provides a unique opportunity to make a further investment in social and public housing. The government will build up to 4500 units of social housing across the state, and many of the new homes are already under construction.

I call on the minister to build both public and social housing in my electorate of Northern Victoria Region, in particular in Shepparton, Wangaratta, Wodonga, Echuca and Mildura, as these are areas that are rapidly growing and in need of more affordable housing. It is vital that this new social housing is well located; it needs to be close to jobs, public transport, shops and community facilities. New public and social housing must provide safe, comfortable and sustainable accommodation for individuals and families. It must also provide opportunities for tenants to identify as part of a community and to feel at home in the town in which they live.

Investment in social housing in rural areas has the added benefit of stimulating economic growth by providing jobs for local workers and providing opportunities for local construction companies. For all of these reasons I call on the Minister for Housing to ensure that the people of northern Victoria benefit from the economic stimulus investment in social and public housing.

Mr Drum — On a point of order, Speaker, I believe Ms Broad has effectively called on the minister to

ADJOURNMENT


ensure that the people of northern Victoria benefit from the federal stimulus package.

Mr Lenders — What’s wrong with that?

Mr Drum — That is certainly not an action, Treasurer. To call on a minister to — —

Ms Broad — On the point of order, Speaker, in addition, in my concluding statement to my adjournment matter I also called on the minister to build public and social housing in a number of areas of my electorate. There is a very large investment here, and I am calling on the minister — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! There will be no debate. Whilst Mr Drum raises a legitimate point, I think he may have missed the earlier requests made by Ms Broad to the minister, which in my view are entirely appropriate. The fact that she has at the end asked the minister to ensure that he acts is not unreasonable. Mr Drum may not recall it, but we did change the requirement for adjournment matters from being specific to general. Mr Drum may recall that in earlier days an adjournment matter had to be a specific request. We changed that because we had many nights like this on which we debated whether or not a matter was in or out. I rule that there is no point of order.

Glenelg Highway: maintenance

Mr KOCH (Western Victoria) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Roads and Ports about the atrocious road conditions along the Glenelg Highway, particularly east of Casterton, and my objection to the state government using rhetoric to disguise the poor state of roads in western Victoria. The Glenelg Highway is a major heavy vehicle transport route between Ballarat and Mount Gambier. Significant western Victorian towns along its route include Casterton, Coleraine and Skipton. Many sections of the highway are potholed, fractured and littered with signage alerting motorists that they are driving on rough surfaces. This is totally unacceptable for a major transport corridor which accommodates B-doubles, school and tourist buses along with local and regional traffic. Over the last five years this city-centric Brumby government has spent just $400 000 to fill potholes over the 67 kilometres between Hamilton and Casterton. Only $1 million has been expended on random pavement rehabilitation to address dangerous sections of the Glenelg Highway west of Hamilton.

Concerned residents of Casterton, such as Max and Jean Dunstan, wrote to the minister in October to express their concern about the condition of the

highway. The Dunstans requested that the poor state of the highway be addressed as a matter of urgency. Unfortunately the minister does not recognise the significance of the Glenelg Highway and the safety consequences of neglecting it, leaving it to his administrative staff to issue a generic response. This is yet another example of the ongoing disregard shown to road users the further west they travel from Melbourne.

The condition of the highways in western Victoria has been raised in Parliament on many occasions, but this has resulted in little or no attempt to make budget allocations for their reconstruction. The minister and procrastinating city-centric western Victorian government members have again demonstrated how out of touch they are with what is happening to regional roads in this region.

The Dunstans have since received further correspondence from VicRoads informing them that a million-dollar rehabilitation program will commence before Christmas and further work on other sections will be considered in the future. The Dunstans, like many in western Victoria, only want action, not spin and ongoing lip-service. The minister and his agencies continue to refuse to acknowledge that what is needed along the Glenelg Highway is a total reconstruction, not just patchwork maintenance that will not improve the long-term quality of the road.

My request is for the minister to support making funding available in the next budget for a complete reconstruction of the Glenelg Highway between Muntham Hill and the Edenhope road intersection and to abandon the current policy of bandaid maintenance and short-term rehabilitation of this important state highway.

Smoking: minimum age

Mr DRUM (Northern Victoria) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Small Business, Joe Helper. The matter concerns a press release recently put out by the Australasian Association of Convenience Stores which calls on the government to make smoking illegal for young people under the age of 18 years. Currently the onus for stopping young children acquiring cigarettes falls fairly and squarely — and quite inequitably — on retailers within this state.

The executive director of the Australasian Association of Convenience Stores, Sheryle Moon, says existing youth antismoking measures place a disproportionate burden on retailers. She asks where there is a deterrent to make our kids stub out. She believes it is high time the responsibility for youth smoking was shared and

ADJOURNMENT


that our young people are given a reason to think twice before sparking up.

The association believes that whilst convenience store proprietors have a key role to play in limiting minors’ access to cigarettes, they realise they can only do so much. At the moment there are laws which make it illegal for retailers to sell tobacco to minors, and heavy fines apply if they do so. Creating a minimum age for smoking would make it tougher for kids, but it would also give police the opportunity to confiscate children’s cigarettes and inform parents that their children have been caught smoking in a public place.

This call from the Australasian Association of Convenience Stores deserves to be looked at seriously. I call on the Minister for Small Business to take on this issue from a small business perspective. So often this debate is about health and what is best for young people and how to stop young people from starting to smoke, which is a relevant part of this endeavour, but I highlight that this call is coming from a small business perspective. Some 70 000 young people start to smoke in Australia every year. Although there is a health aspect to this request, this particular call comes from a small business perspective. At the moment an inordinate responsibility is placed on retailers to stop children accessing cigarettes.

I call on the minister to launch a review and to consider potential legislation which would introduce a minimum age for smoking in a similar manner to the way the consumption of alcohol has a minimum age attached to it. That would make it harder for children to access cigarettes in a similar way to the difficulty they have in accessing alcohol at present.

Planning: Port Phillip Woollen Mills site

Ms HARTLAND (Western Metropolitan) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Planning, Mr Madden. My adjournment matter relates to the former Port Phillip Woollen Mills site in Nelson Place, Williamstown. The site is under consideration for a major residential development of 453 dwellings, which would accommodate roughly 1000 people. The development has a lot of the usual problems that are the result of poorly conceived ideas. There is not enough parking in the streets and the infrastructure cannot cope, let alone schools and child-care facilities. However, that is not the main aspect I want to raise today.

This residential development has the potential to destroy approximately 1500 jobs in Williamstown. The Williamstown shipyard, which is just across the road, employs about a thousand people and will soon employ

another 500. The shipyard makes quite a bit of noise, which is okay because it has always had a bit of space around it, but the proposed development would overlook the shipyard and you can guarantee that as soon as people move in there will be complaints about industrial noise and the shipyard siren going off at 6 o’clock each morning. If this shipyard has to work around the clock to meet deadlines, you can guarantee there will be complaints about noise at night.

There is an alternative for that site which could not only save the shipyard but also create more local jobs for Williamstown. The Save Williamstown group has an alternative proposal for the site — a combination of film studios and low-rise residential development away from the shipyard and a mixed use community health and wellbeing centre as well as a business hub. Local jobs not only benefit the economy but also reduce the strain on the West Gate Freeway and public transport going into the city. The Save Williamstown members are not a pack of nimbys. They want industry in Williamstown. In fact their alternative proposal is to keep and develop industry in Williamstown, and jobs are the group’s key focus.

My request of the minister is that he meet with the Save Williamstown group representatives so they can explain their alternative proposals for the site and explain the problems with the residential proposal.

Bushfires: Apollo Bay Airport

Mr VOGELS (Western Victoria) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Bob Cameron. The matter concerns the lack of an airfield on the southern side of the Otway Ranges which is capable of allowing fixed-wing emergency services aircraft to land. We all know that during the summer period — the worst possible fire danger period — tens of thousands of people travel along the Otway coast to soak up the sun on the beaches and visit the many other tourist attractions. We also know that the Otways National Park is an extreme fire hazard and that locals and tourists will not be able to get out by road in case of an emergency if the national park is ablaze.

It has been brought to my attention that the Apollo Bay airfield is considered unsuitable to land fixed-wing emergency aircraft. However, it would not be difficult to improve the present facilities to make this airfield suitable. Suggestions include increasing the width of the sealed runway from 6 metres to 10 metres, providing sealed turning areas at both ends of the runway, sealing the taxiway and a portion of the

ADJOURNMENT


parking area and reducing the vegetation at the eastern end of the runway.

It is my understanding that the above four proposals have been suggested to the Country Fire Authority, the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Colac Otway Shire and have either been ignored or strongly opposed.

The action I seek from the minister is to ensure that Apollo Bay airfield is able to safely conduct bushfire operations which will save lives and assets. There have been previous studies carried out on the best way to make Apollo Bay airfield safe for landing fixed-wing emergency aircraft, but they have obviously gone nowhere. However, the recent Black Saturday fires are a warning to us all. We need to ensure that no stone is left unturned in the effort to be fire ready, and we all know that the fixed-wing aircraft resources available today greatly enhance fire protection and fire behaviour prediction, not to mention the saving of lives through the use of fixed-wing air ambulances and flying in emergency service personnel, including the State Emergency Service, police, CFA, DSE et cetera.

Schools: student punishment reporting

Mrs COOTE (Southern Metropolitan) — My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Education. I was particularly concerned to see a report this morning in the Herald Sun about records on schools’ punishments. The guidelines that were brought in by the government earlier this year are to be commended in many ways, but I think the problem, which is outlined in this article that I read, is discrepancies in the reporting of punishments.

For the record it was interesting to see the reasons children are expelled in this state. In the category of being a danger to others there were 110 expulsions; for violence and destruction there were 67; for threatening good order there were 45; for drug use or possession there were 23; and for discrimination against others there were 21. Each one of those expulsions will have a story behind it, and will have made life difficult for not only principals but also teachers and indeed the other students. I think it is important that we understand just what these expulsions mean and for us to ensure that our principals and teachers are given the skills, the support and the resources to enable them to deal with these increasingly troublesome children. It is important to us as a community that we make sure that we have properly laid parameters whereby people know they can be safe in the classroom or on their way to school and parents can feel confident that their children are

going to receive a top-class education no matter what school they attend.

However, the disturbing part of this is that although the statistics indicate that the number of expulsions has declined there is now an undercurrent of a lack of reporting. Because of the increased red tape it would seem that principals are disinclined to go through these hoops to expel children, who instead are being given detentions and time off. I do not think this is helping anybody. The guidelines are there. They were controversial, and there were some people who did not like the fact they were being introduced, yet they are there and I think it is important for the educators in our system and our community as a whole to know that the system is working.

I ask the minister to introduce a comprehensive monitoring program and make it available to all Victorians in order to ensure that this program is working as it was intended to do, because we need to make certain that our children are safe, that children who need to be punished are properly punished and dealt with and that children and families and teachers and principals can operate in a safe environment.

Member for Gembrook: conduct

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Premier. In July last year when members of the Plug the Pipe group stupidly threatened to enter the Premier’s property in central Victoria he said he felt ‘disbelief, anger and despair’ and characterised those considering entering his property as ‘cowardly and unacceptable’. He went on to say, ‘It’s our property, not anyone else’s’. On this point I agree with the Premier. The right to the quiet enjoyment of one’s property and the right to privacy is a fundamental right in Victoria. I also understand the importance of the right to protest; thankfully we do not live in a police state. However, it is not appropriate for a protest to compromise the above-described rights.

The removal of the moratorium on genetically modified (GM) crops by this Labor government in late 2007 has been controversial. Indeed there have been various protests by different anti-GM groups around Victoria. Most recently, on Monday a group protested at the front gate of a family farm in the Berwick district, blocking the driveway and clearly impinging on the rights of the family to privacy and quiet enjoyment. This family was targeted because, as the Gene Ethics press release states in its second paragraph, the owners of the property are relations of the Leader of the Opposition.

ADJOURNMENT


Whilst this behaviour is regrettable, what is absolutely reprehensible is that taking part in the protest was Tammy Lobato, the member for Gembrook in the other place, seeking to score a cheap political point. Is it not ironic that it is the government of which she is a part which lifted the moratorium on GM crops, something she has conveniently omitted from her numerous comments to the press — although I note she refused to speak to Neil Mitchell, despite repeated requests? The Premier’s spokeswoman is reported today to have said that Ms Lobato has been ‘counselled about this matter’. This is absolutely not good enough. Ms Lobato has prior form in this sort of behaviour. It is alleged that last year she forcibly handled a representative of the timber industry in the north of her electorate after a disagreement.

The action I seek from the Premier is for him to be consistent in how he responds to those who seek to play cheap politics with the privacy of others. I ask him to bring the member for Gembrook, Ms Lobato, into line, to force her to apologise to the relations of the Leader of the Opposition who have been impacted, and to guarantee that she will not engage in this sort of cheap gutter politics again.

Health: Wallan super-clinic

Mrs PETROVICH (Northern Victoria) — My matter today is for the Minister for Health and concerns the promised super-clinic in Wallan. What the people in Wallan and surrounding areas want to know is whether this government is planning to prop up its federal counterpart to deliver this community its promised super-clinic or whether this will be just another of Prime Minister Rudd’s empty promises.

I stated at the outset that the $1 million that was promised before the last federal election was totally inadequate. By comparison Ballan, a much smaller and more remote place, was given $1.4 million for its super-clinic, and what it got was two consulting rooms, a coat of paint and some new carpet. Now it seems that the so-called super-clinic is actually going to be a few consulting rooms at the back of Wallan’s neighbourhood house, to be run by Mitchell Community Health and Mitchell shire. Let me be unequivocal here: this is a far cry from what the Wallan community was expecting and a million miles from what it wants and needs.

Despite Mr Rudd’s claims last week at the opening of a real super-clinic that ‘GP super-clinics are the way of the future’ it would seem not to be the case for Wallan. In his words, if you have a sick kid at 10 o’clock at night, you would rather go to your local GP than wait

hours at an emergency ward. He also said that we need to be more flexible with the community services available. I could not agree more, but it would seem that these rules do not apply to Wallan, despite its being one of the fastest growing areas in the state of Victoria. This community requires a purpose-built clinic, which I understand would cost about $3.2 million.

The action I seek is for the Minister for Health to step in and work with the federal government to find the necessary extra funding that will ensure Wallan gets its promised super-clinic — a real one with real services, including the promised after-hours GPs, physiotherapy, dieticians and podiatry services.

Bushfires: East Gippsland

Mr P. DAVIS (Eastern Victoria) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. I draw the minister’s attention to the repeated pleas of the East Gippsland wildfire task force for urgent action on fuel reduction burning to provide improved protection against fire for communities in the far east of the state.

The situation today, less than a fortnight since the fire season officially began, underlines the need for increased fire prevention. Crews from the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) have already attended 125 fires in that time, and as of this afternoon 30 fires had yet to be declared safe. Two are still burning, including one blaze that has burnt more than 1700 hectares in the Cape Conran Coastal Park. The second largest of the current fires has destroyed almost 600 hectares adjacent to the Mallacoota Road, just 2 kilometres from the township, and I remind the minister that Mallacoota is one of three designated high-risk fire centres in that eastern area, along with nearby Cann River and Bemm River.

On 14 August the wildfire task force wrote to the secretary of DSE of its concern about the ‘dirty state of the bush in our area and the associated risk of wildfire’. It received what the task force chairman, John Mulligan, described as ‘a very patronising reply’. On 21 October the group wrote to me stating that it was ‘extremely concerned at the lack of action in regard to fuel reduction burning in our area during this last winter and now spring. Good opportunities have been passed over with little action’.

Mr Mulligan has been expressing similar concerns to me in recent days as the state has experienced soaring temperatures and a spate of early season fire outbreaks. Action on fuel reduction burning has been lacking at a time when it would have been more opportune, despite

ADJOURNMENT


the urging of local people whose local knowledge and decades of experience have been ignored.

I therefore ask the minister to instruct his most senior fire officers to implement a fully consultative program with local people on fire-risk mitigation for far East Gippsland communities in the future.

Gould League: centenary

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I know it has been a long, draining day for everyone, but the matter I wish to raise for the Minister for Education relates to the Gould League, which is located in Moorabbin. I had the pleasure of attending its centenary muster on 25 October.

An honourable member interjected.

Mrs PEULICH — The Gould League in Moorabbin.

An honourable member interjected.

Mrs PEULICH — It was relocated to Moorabbin when I was formerly the member for Bentleigh in the other place. The facility became available, and we thought that was a very good move. It provided excellent education for local schools, especially in the areas of environment and sustainability. Thousands of schoolchildren have been through that facility, and many have very fond memories of it. I attended the facility with my son who, as a primary school kid, had gone through the Gould League a number of times.

It was good to see the league reactivate; I know it has had some challenging times. It has embarked on a restructure and is now registered as a charitable organisation. However, I was very sad to see the lack of utilisation and the dilapidated state of certain parts of the Gould League facility.

It strikes me as rather odd that in a state and in a nation where our children are lagging behind in the area of science these wonderful opportunities are not better utilised by our schools to enhance the science experience and education available to our schoolchildren, so I call upon the Minister for Education to see how the department can work with the Gould League to provide a broader range of experiences and programs, especially for our primary school children. I know that the Gould League has expanded its programs to the broader community as a way of generating some income, but I think it would be a very sad loss for our education system if we did not continue to take advantage of the enormous expertise of some of the volunteers who have been involved in the

Gould League for many years as well as its specialist programs and tactile rooms, especially for children who do not necessarily have the opportunity to see flora and fauna as a normal part of their daily lives.

The Gould League has also tried to specialise in the area of cultivation of fauna for drought and in the area of sporting ovals and recreational space, so I would urge the Minister for Education to see how the Gould League can be better utilised to advance the educational opportunities available to Victorian schoolchildren, especially primary school children, in terms of accessing scientific education.

Responses

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I have written responses to adjournment matters raised by 12 members.

Eleven members raised issues for ministers on the adjournment tonight, and I will forward those to the respective ministers.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The house now stands adjourned.

House adjourned 10.31 p.m.

INCORPORATION BY ORDER OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL



parliamentary debates (hansard) - parliament of victoria 20… · ‘fast-tracked’ social...

Documents