PROOF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DAILY HANSARD PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA
PROOF PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DAILY HANSARD Wednesday, 6 April 2011 SUGGESTED CORRECTIONS FOR THE FINAL EDITION MUST BE NOTIFIED TO THE EDITOR (ASSEMBLY) BY 12 NOON — FRIDAY, 8 APRIL 2011 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 and Minister for the Arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. E. N. Baillieu, MP Deputy Premier, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for Bushfire Response, and Minister for Regional and Rural Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. P. J. Ryan, MP Treasurer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. K. A. Wells, MP Minister for Innovation, Services and Small Business, and Minister for Tourism and Major Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. Louise Asher, MP Attorney-General and Minister for Finance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. R. W. Clark, MP Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, and Minister for Manufacturing, Exports and Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. R. A. G. Dalla-Riva, MLC Minister for Health and Minister for Ageing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. D. M. Davis, MLC Minister for Sport and Recreation, and Minister for Veterans’ Affairs . . . . The Hon. H. F. Delahunty, MP Minister for Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. M. F. Dixon, MP Minister for Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. M. J. Guy, MLC Minister for Higher Education and Skills, and Minister responsible for the Teaching Profession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. P. R. Hall, MLC Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. N. Kotsiras, MP Minister for Housing, and Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. W. A. Lovell, MLC Minister for Corrections, Minister for Crime Prevention and Minister responsible for the establishment of an anti-corruption commission . . . The Hon. A. J. McIntosh, MP Minister for Public Transport and Minister for Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. T. W. Mulder, MP Minister for Ports, Minister for Major Projects, Minister for Regional Cities and Minister for Racing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. D. V. Napthine, MP Minister for Gaming, Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Energy and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. M. A. O’Brien, MP Minister for Local Government and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. . . . . . The Hon. E. J. Powell, MP Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Technology and Minister responsible for the Aviation Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. G. K. Rich-Phillips, MLC Minister for Environment and Climate Change, and Minister for Youth Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. R. Smith, MP Minister for Agriculture and Food Security, and Minister for Water. . . . . . The Hon. P. L. Walsh, MP Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Women’s Affairs and Minister for Community Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. M. L. N. Wooldridge, MP Cabinet Secretary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr D. J. Hodgett, MP Joint committees Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee — (Assembly): Mr Battin and Mr McCurdy. (Council): Mr Leane, Mr Ramsay and Mr Scheffer. Education and Training Committee — (Assembly): Mr Crisp, Ms Miller and Mr Southwick. (Council): Mr Elasmar and Ms Tierney. Electoral Matters Committee — (Assembly): Ms Ryall and Mrs Victoria. (Council): Mr Finn, Mr Somyurek and Mr Tarlamis. Family and Community Development Committee — (Council): Mrs Coote and Ms Crozier. Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Committee — (Assembly): Ms Graley, Ms Hutchins and Ms McLeish. (Council): Mrs Kronberg and Mr Ondarchie. Public Accounts and Estimates Committee — (Assembly): Mr Angus, Ms Hennessey, Mr Morris and Mr Scott. (Council): Mr P. Davis, Mr O’Brien and Mr Pakula. Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee — (Assembly): Ms Campbell, Mr Eren, Mr Gidley, Mr Nardella and Mr Watt. (Council): Mr O’Brien and Mr O’Donohue. Heads of parliamentary departments Assembly — Clerk of the Parliaments and Clerk of the Legislative Assembly: Mr R. W. Purdey Council — Clerk of the Legislative Council: Mr W. R. Tunnecliffe Parliamentary Services — Secretary: Mr P. Lochert MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FIFTY-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT — FIRST SESSION Speaker: The Hon. K. M. SMITH Deputy Speaker: Mrs C. A. FYFFE Acting Speakers: Ms Beattie, Mr Blackwood, Mr Burgess, Ms Campbell, Mr Eren, Mr Languiller, Mr Morris, Mr Nardella, Mr Northe, Mr Pandazopoulus, Dr Sykes, Mr Thompson, Mr Tilley, Mrs Victoria and Mr Weller. Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party and Premier: The Hon. E. N. BAILLIEU Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party: The Hon. LOUISE ASHER Leader of The Nationals and Deputy Premier: The Hon. P. J. RYAN Deputy Leader of The Nationals: The Hon. P. L. WALSH Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party and Leader of the Opposition: The Hon. D. M. ANDREWS Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party and Deputy Leader of the Opposition: The Hon. R. J. HULLS Member Allan, Ms Jacinta Marie Andrews, Mr Daniel Michael Angus, Mr Neil Andrew Warwick Asher, Ms Louise Baillieu, Mr Edward Norman Barker, Ms Ann Patricia Battin, Mr Bradley William Bauer, Mrs Donna Jane Beattie, Ms Elizabeth Jean Blackwood, Mr Gary John Brooks, Mr Colin William Brumby, Mr John Mansfield 1 Bull, Mr Timothy Owen Burgess, Mr Neale Ronald Campbell, Ms Christine Mary Carbines, Mr Anthony Richard Clark, Mr Robert William Crisp, Mr Peter Laurence D’Ambrosio, Ms Liliana Delahunty, Mr Hugh Francis Dixon, Mr Martin Francis Donnellan, Mr Luke Anthony Duncan, Ms Joanne Therese Edwards, Ms Janice Maree Eren, Mr John Hamdi Foley, Mr Martin Peter Fyffe, Mrs Christine Ann Garrett, Ms Jane Furneaux Gidley, Mr Michael Xavier Charles Graley, Ms Judith Ann Green, Ms Danielle Louise Halfpenny, Ms Bronwyn Helper, Mr Jochen Hennessy, Ms Jill Herbert, Mr Steven Ralph Hodgett, Mr David John Holding, Mr Timothy James Howard, Mr Geoffrey Kemp Hulls, Mr Rob Justin Hutchins, Ms Natalie Maree Sykes Kairouz, Ms Marlene Katos, Mr Andrew Knight, Ms Sharon Patricia Kotsiras, Mr Nicholas Languiller, Mr Telmo Ramon 1 Resigned 21 December 2010 District Bendigo East Mulgrave Forest Hill Brighton Hawthorn Oakleigh Gembrook Carrum Yuroke Narracan Bundoora Broadmeadows Gippsland East Hastings Pascoe Vale Ivanhoe Box Hill Mildura Mill Park Lowan Nepean Narre Warren North Macedon Bendigo West Lara Albert Park Evelyn Brunswick Mount Waverley Narre Warren South Yan Yean Thomastown Ripon Altona Eltham Kilsyth Lyndhurst Ballarat East Niddrie Keilor Kororoit South Barwon Ballarat West Bulleen Derrimut Party ALP ALP LP LP LP ALP LP LP ALP LP ALP ALP Nats LP ALP ALP LP Nats ALP Nats LP ALP ALP ALP ALP ALP LP ALP LP ALP ALP ALP ALP ALP ALP LP ALP ALP ALP ALP ALP LP ALP LP ALP Member Lim, Mr Muy Hong McCurdy, Mr Timothy Logan McGuire, Mr Frank 2 McIntosh, Mr Andrew John McLeish, Ms Lucinda Gaye Madden, Mr Justin Mark Merlino, Mr James Anthony Miller, Ms Elizabeth Eileen Morris, Mr David Charles Mulder, Mr Terence Wynn Napthine, Dr Denis Vincent Nardella, Mr Donato Antonio Neville, Ms Lisa Mary Newton-Brown, Mr Clement Arundel Noonan, Mr Wade Mathew Northe, Mr Russell John O’Brien, Mr Michael Anthony Pallas, Mr Timothy Hugh Pandazopoulos, Mr John Perera, Mr Jude Pike, Ms Bronwyn Jane Powell, Mrs Elizabeth Jeanette Richardson, Ms Fiona Catherine Alison Ryall, Ms Deanne Sharon Ryan, Mr Peter Julian Scott, Mr Robin David Shaw, Mr Geoffrey Page Smith, Mr Kenneth Maurice Smith, Mr Ryan Southwick, Mr David James Sykes, Dr William Everett Thompson, Mr Murray Hamilton Ross Thomson, Ms Marsha Rose Tilley, Mr William John Trezise, Mr Ian Douglas Victoria, Mrs Heidi Wakeling, Mr Nicholas Walsh, Mr Peter Lindsay Watt, Mr Graham Travis Weller, Mr Paul Wells, Mr Kimberley Arthur Wooldridge, Ms Mary Louise Newling Wreford, Ms Lorraine Joan Wynne, Mr Richard William 2 Elected 19 February 2011 District Clayton Murray Valley Broadmeadows Kew Seymour Essendon Monbulk Bentleigh Mornington Polwarth South-West Coast Melton Bellarine Prahran Williamstown Morwell Malvern Tarneit Dandenong Cranbourne Melbourne Shepparton Northcote Mitcham Gippsland South Preston Frankston Bass Warrandyte Caulfield Benalla Sandringham Footscray Benambra Geelong Bayswater Ferntree Gully Swan Hill Burwood Rodney Scoresby Doncaster Mordialloc Richmond Party ALP Nats ALP LP LP ALP ALP LP LP LP LP ALP ALP LP ALP Nats LP ALP ALP ALP ALP Nats ALP LP Nats ALP LP LP LP LP Nats LP ALP LP ALP LP LP Nats LP Nats LP LP LP ALP CONTENTS WEDNESDAY, 6 APRIL 2011 PETITIONS Cycling: Box Hill to Ringwood rail trail ........................1 Rail: regional link ...........................................................1 Rail: Altona loop service.................................................1 Doreen: secondary college .............................................1 DOCUMENTS ......................................................................2 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Adjournment....................................................................2 Orders of the day...........................................................29 Sessional orders ......................................................34, 48 MEMBERS STATEMENTS Celebrate Mooroolbark 2011 .........................................2 Dental services: waiting lists ..........................................2 Penola Catholic College: redevelopment.......................2 Echuca Regional Health: funding ..................................3 Autism: eastern suburbs school ......................................3 Asian honeybees: control................................................3 Brunswick Secondary College: funding .........................4 Planning: Mount Eliza land............................................4 Toorak College: music centre opening...........................4 Geelong Trades Hall Council: Labour Day dinner ..........................................................................4 Oxfam: Trailwalker fundraiser.......................................5 World Autism Awareness Day: Teddy Bears Picnic...........................................................................5 Victorian Women’s Honour Roll: inductees ..................6 Schools: previous government performance ..................6 Schools: Kyneton K–12 school .......................................6 Youth: under-age drinking..............................................6 Sunshine Football Club...................................................7 Small business: Israeli products .....................................7 Berwick Trades Career Centre: funding ........................7 South Barwon Football and Netball Club......................8 Barwon Heads Bowling Club: 40th anniversary ...........8 Deakin University: funding.............................................8 Kangaroos: Eden Park cull ............................................8 World Autism Awareness Day ........................................8 Roberts McCubbin Primary School: students................9 Ashburton: community fun day.......................................9 Ian and Mena Camier: 60th wedding anniversary..................................................................9 Brian and Miriam Cherry: 50th wedding anniversary..................................................................9 Brimbank mental health forum .......................................9 Margaret Hardy: 80th birthday......................................9 MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Industrial relations: government policy .........................9 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS........................................37, 92 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Mr Finn (Western Metropolitan): comments ...............38 Taxation: GST revenue .................................................40 Community services: critical incident reports..41, 43, 44 Auditor-General: Facilitating Renewable Energy Development.................................................42 Police: election commitment.........................................43 Rail: Lynbrook and Cardinia Road stations ................45 Children: protection ............................................... 46, 47 Rock Eisteddfod Challenge: funding............................ 47 SUSPENSION OF MEMBER Member for Yan Yean................................................... 46 RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT (PUBLIC HOUSING) BILL 2011 Second reading ..................................................... 58, 105 Third reading .............................................................. 106 MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Second reading ......................................... 59, 87, 92, 106 Third reading .............................................................. 106 PUBLIC HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT BILL 2011 Statement of compatibility ............................................ 79 Second reading ............................................................. 80 CRIMES AMENDMENT (BULLYING) BILL 2011 Statement of compatibility ............................................ 81 Second reading ............................................................. 82 FAMILY VIOLENCE PROTECTION AMENDMENT (SAFETY NOTICES) BILL 2011 Statement of compatibility ............................................ 83 Second reading ............................................................. 84 DENTAL HOSPITAL LAND BILL 2011 Statement of compatibility ............................................ 86 Second reading ............................................................. 86 LIQUOR CONTROL REFORM AMENDMENT BILL 2011 Second reading ........................................................... 101 Third reading .............................................................. 105 HEALTH SERVICES AMENDMENT (HEALTH INNOVATION AND REFORM COUNCIL) BILL 2011 Second reading ........................................................... 106 Third reading .............................................................. 106 ADJOURNMENT Somerton Road: duplication....................................... 106 Kilsyth electorate: sports facilities ............................. 106 Roads: Yan Yean electorate........................................ 107 Princes Freeway: Morwell closure ............................ 107 Rail: Geelong station.................................................. 108 Schools: Forest Hill electorate................................... 108 Vertex: Ballarat customer support centre.................. 109 Floods: Murray Valley electorate .............................. 109 Essendon electorate: Lionsville aged-care facility...................................................................... 110 Kananook Creek: management plan.......................... 110 Responses.................................................................... 111 PETITIONS Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF Rail: Altona loop service Wednesday, 6 April 2011 09:30 The SPEAKER (Hon. Ken Smith) took the chair at 9.33 a.m. and read the prayer. 09:35 PETITIONS Following petitions presented to house: Cycling: Box Hill to Ringwood rail trail 1 To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria: The petition of certain citizens of the state of Victoria who travel on the Altona train line draws to the attention of the house the Baillieu government’s plan to cut train services, cut the frequency of city loop trains and abandon the regional rail link project. In particular we note that these changes would: 1. increase crowding on existing train services; To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria: 2. be less convenient for commuters; The petition of residents of Victoria, particularly those residing east of Melbourne, draws to the attention of the house the need for a safe cycle trail following the railway line from Box Hill to Ringwood to connect these planned central activity districts, and to link with existing trails. The proposed trail should as far as possible be off-road to encourage use by schoolchildren and less confident riders of the general population. Such a trail will reduce road congestion and atmospheric pollution and simultaneously increase the health and fitness of riders. Refer to the BHRRT report by Whitehorse Cyclists 2010. 3. result in further delays and longer travel times The petitioners request that the Legislative Assembly of Victoria constructs a 10 kilometre shared path between Box Hill and Ringwood. By Ms RYALL (Mitcham) (3031 signatures). The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly urges the Baillieu government to reverse its plans to cut services and abandon the regional rail link project. By Mr NOONAN (Williamstown) (323 signatures). Doreen: secondary college To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria: The petition of certain citizens of the state of Victoria draws to the attention of the house the rapid increase in families moving to Doreen and Mernda, suburbs of northern metropolitan Melbourne. In particular we note: Rail: regional link 1. there are now almost 1000 students enrolled at government primary schools in Mernda and Doreen, with that figure set to increase in the years to come; 2. there are no government secondary colleges in Mernda or Doreen; 3. land has been purchased by the previous Labor government for a secondary college to be built in Cookes Road, Doreen. To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria: The petition of Wyndham residents and public transport users in the western suburbs of Melbourne draws to the attention of the house the Baillieu government’s failure to commit to the regional rail link project. In particular we note the project would provide: 1. 2. capacity for an extra 9000 passengers per hour by providing up to 12 extra train services every hour on the Werribee, Sydenham and Craigieburn lines; two new stations in Manor Lakes and Tarneit, with the Manor Lakes train tracks to be located in a full-depth cutting between Lollypop Creek and Ballan Road in Wyndham Vale; The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly urges the Baillieu government to urgently fund the building of a secondary college in Doreen. By Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (328 signatures). Tabled. 3. 4. 14 new grade separations to ensure no new road-rail level crossings will be constructed, making sure that local road links continue to flow; Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo with 50 kilometres of dedicated new rail track running from West Werribee to Sunshine and then through to Southern Cross station. The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly of Victoria ensure that this vital project proceeds. By Mr PALLAS (Tarneit) (1790 signatures). Ordered that petition presented by honourable member for Williamstown be considered next day on motion of Mr NOONAN (Williamstown). Ordered that petition presented by honourable member for Mitcham be considered next day on motion of Ms RYALL (Mitcham). Ordered that petition presented by honourable member for Yan Yean be considered next day on motion of Ms GREEN (Yan Yean). DOCUMENTS 2 ASSEMBLY PROOF Ordered that petition presented by honourable member for Tarneit be considered next day on motion of Mr NOONAN (Williamstown). Wednesday, 6 April 2011 competitions; scouts and Country Fire Authority activities; stalls selling a wide variety of goods; and as always the stalwarts of the community, the Lions Club of Mooroolbark, and its sausage sizzle. 09:40 DOCUMENTS Tabled by Clerk: Auditor-General: Facilitating Renewable Energy Development — Ordered to be printed Problem-Solving Approaches to Justice — Ordered to be printed Crimes (Controlled Operations) Act 2004 — Report of the Special Investigations Monitor under s 39 Parliamentary Committees Act 2003: Government response to the Family and Community Development Committee’s Report on the Inquiry into the Adequacy and Future Directions of Public Housing in Victoria Government response to the Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Committee’s Report on the Inquiry into Farmers’ Markets Statutory Rule under the Building Act 1993 — SR 14 Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 — Documents under s 15 in relation to Statutory Rule 14. The festival was supported by the Yarra Ranges Shire Council, the Bendigo Bank and many other organisations which donated funds to ensure that this true community festival was a success. Congratulations to the committee chair, Andrew Lang; the vice-chair, Randall Bourchier; the secretary, Jean Mitchinson; and their loyal band of helpers. Dental services: waiting lists Mrs FYFFE — Another matter I wish to raise is dental waiting lists. The appalling inaction of the previous Bracks and Brumby governments left many poor, hardworking Victorians suffering excruciating pain and waiting ridiculously long times to get basic dental care. Two constituents came to my office on the same day last week complaining about separate public day dental clinics, the Ranges Community Health clinic in Lilydale and the Royal Dental Hospital of Melbourne. Both patients were on waiting lists for close to three years, and they had even had to wait over 4 hours for emergencies. Fillings falling out, severe nerve pain and gum inflammation did not count as emergencies. Penola Catholic College: redevelopment BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Adjournment Mr McINTOSH (Minister for Corrections) — I move: That the house, at its rising on Thursday, 7 April, adjourn until Tuesday, 3 May. Motion agreed to. MEMBERS STATEMENTS Celebrate Mooroolbark 2011 Mrs FYFFE (Evelyn) — This year’s Celebrate Mooroolbark festival, held on Saturday, 26 March, was a terrific event with a great family and community atmosphere. Brice Avenue was closed off in the morning for the fantastic parade of local groups, bands and schools. Horse-and-carriage rides were very popular with many visitors. The festival included bagpipes; belly dancers; jumping castles; a miniature railway; children’s activities, including writing Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) — I rise to acknowledge the redevelopment of Penola Catholic College in my electorate. Last week I had the privilege of opening the digital language laboratory and the hospitality centre at the Broadmeadows campus of the school. It is critically important that students have access to the highest quality infrastructure and opportunities at school. The new hospitality centre means students undertaking the school’s program will no longer need to go elsewhere for practical experience. The facilities add to the serene surroundings of the school, which resemble those of a university campus, and have helped to raise educational aspirations throughout the community. When I asked the school’s co-captain, Christian Makhol, what the new language centre meant to students, he gave a one word response: ‘Awesome’. He meant that in both the original and the contemporary meaning of the word. It sums up the appreciation of students for what has been delivered and their engagement in terms of what they can achieve in the future. MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF These state-of-the-art facilities provide students with the highest quality of infrastructure, and I would like to pay tribute to the Australian government for its significant investment in the school. 09:45 I would like to applaud the federal member for Calwell, Maria Vamvakinou, for her work in helping to deliver these projects and thank the college’s principal, Mr Christopher Blake, the chair of the college board, Mrs Gabrielle Rees, and the Penola community for their commitment to ensuring that their vision became a reality. In particular I would also like to thank Madison De Zilva and Christian Makhoul, the co-captains who conducted the guided tour with infectious enthusiasm. Echuca Regional Health: funding Mr WELLER (Rodney) — I would like to thank the Minister for Health for accepting my invitation to visit Echuca Regional Health later this month for a briefing on the urgent need to commence the hospital’s redevelopment. The Liberal-Nationals coalition brought great joy to the people of Echuca and district when it came to power at the November election and committed $40 million to this exciting and long-overdue project. This $40 million commitment is in stark contrast to Labor’s refusal to acknowledge or fund the desperately needed upgrade during its 11 years in government. The commitment includes a new accident and emergency department, maternity, paediatric, surgical and medical wards, a pharmacy and a new reception area, public cafeteria and entry foyer. At the conclusion of this redevelopment hospital bed numbers will have increased from the current level of 68 to 113, representing a 66 per cent increase. In itself this will provide a major boost in the ability of the hospital to deliver the full range of health services so necessary to a large and ever-growing regional centre. I was pleased recently to receive confirmation of this funding commitment in a letter from the Minister for Health, and I am also appreciative of advice that the Baillieu-Ryan government has written to the federal Minister for Health and Ageing seeking additional funding under the Health and Hospitals Fund for further additional works at Echuca Regional Health. I look forward to meeting with the minister when he visits Echuca hospital on Tuesday, 19 April. Autism: eastern suburbs school Mr HULLS (Niddrie) — I want to congratulate the principal, Gail Preston, and the parents of Wantirna Heights ASD (autism spectrum disorder) facility on their successful campaign to secure funding for the 3 second stage of the eastern autistic school. The school is a very important facility catering for children with autism spectrum disorder in the eastern suburbs. In government Labor funded stage 1 and committed a further $8 million for stage 2. However, in what has become the standard operating procedure of the Baillieu government, it dithered and dithered and tried to rewrite history causing unnecessary anxiety and uncertainty. The members for Ferntree Gully and Bayswater inappropriately took the principal’s comments out of context for their own grubby political purposes. Along with my colleague, Shaun Leane, who is a member for Eastern Metropolitan Region in another place, I had the pleasure of meeting with members of the ASD secondary school action group. We are more than happy to support their very important campaign on this issue. I am pleased to say that the clear arguments, passion and commitment of the school principal, parents and local community have now convinced a reluctant minister to fund the vital next stage of this very important facility, and we can now look forward to the completion of the school, hopefully without any more political game playing. Asian honeybees: control Mr BLACKWOOD (Narracan) — I rise to speak on a major food security issue facing agribusinesses in Victoria and across the nation due to a lack of leadership by the federal government. Recently I had the good fortune to speak with a local honey producer, Mrs Jodie Goldsworthy from Beechworth Honey. Mrs Goldsworthy has described to me the potential devastation that the invasion of the Asian honeybee — Apis Cerana — may cause. This is a complex matter, and decisions must be made on the best available scientific advice. However, there is a substantial divergence of expert scientific opinion on the potential of the Asian honeybee to spread across the nation and into Victoria. There is scientific uncertainty, and the potential consequences threaten Australia’s honeybee industry, food producers and food stakeholders as a whole, who are vital to Victoria’s contribution to feeding not only its own population but also the nation’s population. No satisfactory method has been developed to control the Asian honeybees. Finding the nest and destroying it has been the only control measure used to date. The cessation of eradication funding is the latest indication that the federal government has no interest in MEMBERS STATEMENTS 4 ASSEMBLY PROOF Australia’s biosecurity, and it is costing business in north-eastern Victoria. More than 200 bee campaigners descended on Parliament House in Canberra earlier in the month to protest the lack of action by the Gillard-Brown government. I join with the federal member for Indi, Sophie Mirabella, and the federal shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security, John Cobb, in calling for the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Joe Ludwig, to do the right thing by rural business and commit to further eradication works. 09:50 Brunswick Secondary College: funding Ms GARRETT (Brunswick) — It is becoming increasingly apparent that this government is determined to ignore the needs of our northern suburbs. Of critical concern to the many constituents in my electorate is the need to ensure that there is adequate provision of quality secondary school places in the area. Brunswick Secondary College has achieved great success. It has had an outstanding reputation in recent years and is subject to an ever-growing demand from families in the area. It is a proudly diverse, academically focused school with a strong commitment to sports and the arts. I was most disappointed with recent comments from the spokesperson for the Minister for Education indicating that the minister and this government will continue to play politics with the provision of education in this state, particularly in the northern suburbs. The minister has refused to commit to schools in the north, instead reiterating that only coalition election promises will be given priority. This approach is not based on good public policy or on the needs of this state’s children. At the last election the previous Labor government committed to a substantial capital upgrade and modernisation of Brunswick Secondary College which would allow the school to expand its student body and its offerings. This is important, given the growing population in the area and the increase in the number of families staying in the inner city to raise their children through to adulthood. This growing demand has also been acknowledged by the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. In the lead-up to the budget and on behalf of my constituents I reiterate my calls to this government to come through with the goods for this vital school. Wednesday, 6 April 2011 Planning: Mount Eliza land Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — In late March the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council moved to advise the Minister for Planning of its support for a planning scheme amendment to introduce controls to protect the Mount Eliza Woodland area, similar to the controls scuttled by former planning minister, the member for Essendon, after they had gathered dust on his desk for two years. The council decision will support the government’s election commitment to protect the Woodland area from the threat of extensive subdivision. It will allow local and state agencies to work with the community to introduce planning controls in line with community expectations and protect this sensitive area from inappropriate development. The plan to protect the woodlands has a very high level of support, both within the immediate area and in the broader communities of Mount Eliza and Mornington. I congratulate the council on its decision to continue its support for an appropriate planning regime for the Woodland area, and I look forward to working with the council and the community to achieve the best possible outcome. Toorak College: music centre opening Mr MORRIS — On another matter, last Wednesday night, my wife Linda and I had the great pleasure of attending the opening of the Toorak College music centre. The centre is an exciting project which provides opportunities for students to take individual lessons, rehearse in ensembles, compose and record music, and of course perform in an indoor/outdoor performance space. The centre brings together students of all ages, musical disciplines and teaching staff under the one roof. Opening night was headlined by James Morrison and a cappella group The Idea of North, who were joined by many staff and students from the school, culminating in a grand finale of over 200 talented performers. My congratulations to the Toorak College board, principal Noel Thomas and the school music staff on a tremendous achievement. Geelong Trades Hall Council: Labour Day dinner Mr TREZISE (Geelong) — On Friday, 18 March, I once again had the privilege of attending the Geelong Trades Hall Council’s Labour Day dinner. As usual the MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF night was a resounding success, with in excess of 250 people commemorating the history of Labour Day, the Eight-Hour Day and the union movement in Geelong. Fittingly, a book titled 100 Years of Struggle — The History of Geelong Trades Hall Council was launched. The book was researched and written by Allan Sargent, and I congratulate him on his efforts. The night also saw a number of other important achievement recognised. Anne Morrison, office manager at the Geelong Trades Hall Council, has provided 20 years of dedicated service, and this service was recognised with a moving presentation to her. I take this opportunity to commend Anne on her service and thank her for all the help she has given me over the years. In addition, each year the Geelong Trades Hall Women’s Network recognises one female unionist for her work or achievements throughout the year. Fittingly in 2011 Sharon Rowlands, an Australian Services Union delegate, was recognised for her work and commitment in negotiating into the workplace enterprise bargaining agreement a clause covering leave for employees who are affected by domestic violence. I congratulate Sharon on her work in paving the way by negotiating the introduction of this groundbreaking clause. Finally I commend the Geelong Trades Hall Council secretary, Tim Gooden, and president, Dave Ball, and their team for another successful Labour Day dinner and for their important work in representing, protecting and promoting workers’ rights in the Geelong area. Oxfam: Trailwalker fundraiser Mr NORTHE (Morwell) — Last Friday I had the opportunity to witness the 100 kilometre Oxfam Trailwalker endurance event commencing at Jells Park, Wheelers Hill, and concluding at Wesburn Park near Warburton. This is an amazing endurance event that raises funds to support those in need, and this year’s event raised approximately $2.5 million. Many residents from the Gippsland region competed in this year’s event, and one can only admire the efforts of all the participants from in excess of 700 teams. I had the pleasure of being part of the support crew for the Fearless Foursome team consisting of four ladies from the Morwell electorate. Sandra Timmer-Arends, Deb Piercy, Leanne Keating and Jenny Northe completed the 100 kilometres in 13 hours and 40 minutes, finishing in 10th place and not far behind 5 Team Holding. It was a great effort by these ladies and all competitors. Also competing was Team Whoopsadaisy, consisting of members from the Latrobe Valley police force, including Constable Sarah Bartorelli and Sergeant Sharon Matheson. Team Crorajoto and Macca’s Megga Team competed in honour of a past participant, Dave ‘Crocka’ Williams, who passed away suddenly on New Years Day at the age of 38. Crocka was a local Churchill football legend who was widely respected, not only by the football community but by the community in general. I also applaud the Churchill Football Netball Club for hosting a recent dinner to raise funds for Crocka’s family. The fundraiser was a huge success with a massive crowd in attendance, and it was a fitting tribute to a person who was universally admired. Our sympathies are with Crocka’s wife, Kylea, and their three children. World Autism Awareness Day: Teddy Bears Picnic Ms HUTCHINS (Keilor) — I rise to acknowledge the second year of the Teddy Bears Picnic in Keilor on 2 April, World Autism Awareness Day, which I attended. The annual picnic raises awareness about autism, raises funds for the non-profit organisation Autism Angels and provides a fun day out for local families, including families with autistic children. Autism Angels, led by its president, Dina, and secretary, Despina, does an amazing job advocating on behalf of families with autistic children in the west. I also commend the Taylors Lakes Lions Club on its efforts in organising the event, staffing the teddy bears doctor stall and assisting with the barbecue. I acknowledge the sponsorship of Brimbank City Council and the volunteers from the council, in particular Dominic, Effie and Lisa Frost. I also acknowledge the volunteer efforts of Don, Margaret, Virginia, Jackie, Diane and Mark. It was a great event with a sausage sizzle, a jumping castle, a teddy bears doctor stall, a teddy bears fashion parade and a teddy bears and kids dance-off, which was a highlight of the day. Special thanks go to the member for Altona and her staff for their kind contributions and donation of two large teddy bears and to Steve Moncur from Aussie Farmers, our local milkman, for providing the fruit and vegie boxes for the raffle. 09:55 MEMBERS STATEMENTS 6 ASSEMBLY PROOF Victorian Women’s Honour Roll: inductees Mr THOMPSON (Sandringham) — I mark the induction of two Sandringham electorate residents into the Victorian Women’s Honour Roll. Professor Jayashri Kulkarni is described on the Department of Planning and Community Development website as: Winner of the 2010 New Inventors grand final for inventing a biomarker device to diagnose mental illness. Internationally recognised for her work in the treatment of mental health disorders, particularly in women’s mental health, pioneering the use of oestrogen as a treatment in schizophrenia and depression. I also acknowledge the excellent contribution of the many professionals working in the field of mental health who have made an important contribution to the welfare of my constituents in the Sandringham electorate. Ms Virginia Simmons, the other inductee whose induction I wish to mark, is described by the department’s website as an: … innovator in vocational and tertiary education. First female director of a TAFE Institution in Victoria; longest serving female TAFE CEO and director in Victoria (Chisholm). She also pioneered youth training access to TAFE and funding support for people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Schools: previous government performance Mr THOMPSON — I also mark the failure of the previous government to properly fund Victorian secondary schools. When I was first elected to this place I was staggered to learn that in Labor heartland schools had walls that had been kicked in and spouting that had rusted up, with weeds growing out of it. I find it remarkable that in the current context, when the Labor Party has been in office for almost 75 per cent of the last three decades — — The SPEAKER — Order! The member’s time has expired. Schools: Kyneton K–12 school Mr HOWARD (Ballarat East) — Kyneton Secondary College is a great school with a great history. However, many of its facilities are in need of major redevelopment. This redevelopment would have been under way, but the college, working with the primary school, recognised a greater educational opportunity for Kyneton and the surrounding district if the schools developed a master plan together. Wednesday, 6 April 2011 Principals Glenn Davey, of the secondary college, and Wendy Pearce, of the primary school, have therefore worked with their school communities, Macedon Ranges Shire Council and the local Lady Brooks Kindergarten, along with the regional education office and many other interested stakeholders, including me. The master planning process has worked well over the past five years and has seen the educational community develop an exciting plan for a new K–12 school to be located on and adjacent to the present secondary college site. In recent years both the primary school and the secondary school have relinquished their opportunities to apply for major federal stimulus funding. The school community, working with the regional education office, is very excited by its plans, which it sees as highlighting the need to start works to replace buildings on the secondary college site as quickly as possible. The school community and I have made the new education minister aware of the situation and have encouraged him to visit, but I hope this can happen as a priority and that the schools will receive substantial funding in the upcoming budget to enable this plan to become a reality. Youth: under-age drinking Ms MILLER (Bentleigh) — Recently I visited several schools in the Bentleigh electorate to talk to them about politics and the political system. I was struck by the amount of concern these young people have about under-age drinking, including legalities and potential health effects. The acceptance of alcohol within both their friendship groups and their families led them to the understanding that under-age drinking was okay. Over the 11 long years of Labor the previous government turned a blind eye to this escalating alcohol-fuelled behaviour on our streets and the growing problem of under-age drinking. The Baillieu government is taking the lead and a strong position by saying that under-age drinking is not okay. The students and I discussed the real risks involved with alcohol — not just the medical effects but the dangers involved with drink driving and impaired judgement. I used the horrifying example of the recent tragedy at Crib Point, where a car load of five navy cadets hit a concrete power pole, killing two and injuring three. It is unfortunate that extreme imagery and true-life situations are required to illustrate to some young people the real dangers of alcohol and to show them that they are not invincible. I commend the students of Bentleigh for listening and now starting to think before they drink, and I applaud 10:00 MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF the Baillieu government for providing a clear direction for our youth into the future. Sunshine Football Club Ms THOMSON (Footscray) — Last Wednesday the member for Derrimut and I were fortunate to attend the Western Football League’s season launch. I was very pleased that Sunshine Football Club, which is in my electorate, and the Sunshine Heights and Altona junior football clubs were the recipients of the 2010 teams of the year awards. It was a fantastic night enjoyed by all, and I congratulate the organisers of the event. In this statement I want to concentrate on the Sunshine Football Club, which does wonderful work in a very disadvantaged area encouraging many people from many different ethnic groups to participate in Australian Rules football. The club creates an atmosphere where friends and family can go and enjoy the club’s activities. I congratulate everyone involved in the management of the club on their well-deserved award, and I wish them all the best for the 2011 season. I will certainly be supporting them through the year. Last year the Brumby government gave a grant to the Sunshine Football Club to renovate its kitchens, and I am looking forward to seeing meals served from that kitchen to the hundreds of people who come there to have a meal every Thursday night. I also look forward to working with them on the development of their grounds and meeting their future needs and the future needs of young people. Small business: Israeli products Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) — I rise to speak about a protest which was held in Melbourne Central shopping centre last Friday, where extreme groups, largely comprised of left-wing students, attempted to threaten and intimidate retailers selling Israeli-made goods as part of a disgraceful and racist Boycott Divestment and Sanctions, or BDS, campaign. This global campaign, which carries the endorsement of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Greens, is an appalling effort by the extreme left to attack Israel through consumer-led sanctions, with the aim of hurting Israel’s economy and small businesses here in Victoria for having the audacity to sell Israeli products. The retailers here in Melbourne suffered financial loss owing to the need to close, and their staff were intimidated and denied the right to work while the leftist anti-Israel fanatics rampaged through the public shopping centre. This is even more concerning when it 7 appears that this group is determined to cause mayhem and in some cases violence. There is now talk that this group is not only threatening businesses that sell Israeli products but businesses that are owned by members of the Jewish community. Given this local disgraceful activity in Melbourne and the current turmoil in the Middle East, it is disappointing to hear that on this day the Labor Party, through the member for Thomastown, seeks to create a Victorian Parliamentary Friends of Palestine friendship group. I know that Melbourne’s Jewish small business community will not be threatened, intimidated or prevented from trading as a result of the actions of this extreme element in our society. I am sure that Bialik College, which has representatives in the gallery today, will be aware of this issue. Berwick Trades Career Centre: funding Ms GRALEY (Narre Warren South) — Chisholm TAFE needs certainty from the Baillieu government over the future of the Berwick Trades Career Centre. The former Labor government has a proud record in providing for the vocational education and training needs of our young people in the south-east. We built the Berwick Technical Education Centre (TEC), which has been highly successful in the completion of pre-apprenticeship programs. The greatest immediate need for the current and future training and employment prospects of our young people is the trades career centre. The centre is needed to offer pathways to further training, apprenticeships and employment for those completing pre-apprenticeships at the TEC. Chisholm TAFE, under the leadership of the chief executive officer, Maria Peters, has been lobbying hard for this facility for a long time. I have met with Ms Peters on a number of occasions, and I brought the matter to the attention of the former Labor government. I was pleased with our pre-election commitment of $23 million to build the Berwick Trades Career Centre. The Baillieu government has so far refused to match Labor’s commitment and provide funding for this important facility. In fact the member for Gembrook suggested in the Casey Weekly Berwick that he and the Baillieu government are unsure of the requirements of Chisholm TAFE. The government can deliver on this. One need only look at the midyear financial report to see that it has inherited 11 years of sound financial management and a substantial budget surplus. The Berwick Trades Career Centre would be located in what we commonly refer to as the Berwick education 10:05 MEMBERS STATEMENTS 8 ASSEMBLY PROOF precinct, which includes the TAFE, TEC, Monash University and Nossal High School — all proud achievements of the Bracks and Brumby governments. If the member for Gembrook and the Liberal government cared about the education and training needs of young people in our community, they would ensure that the funding for the Berwick Trades Career Centre is included in the coming state budget. Our community and our young people deserve nothing less. South Barwon Football and Netball Club Mr KATOS (South Barwon) — On Saturday I had the pleasure of attending the season launch of the South Barwon Football and Netball Club. There is no doubt that it has been one of the most successful clubs in Geelong Football League history, winning the 2001, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010 premierships. I was also very humbled, along with Margaret Whealan, to be made the club’s no. 1 ticket-holder for the 2011 season. Congratulations to club president Richard Holz on organising a fantastic event. I wish the club every success for the 2011 season. Barwon Heads Bowling Club: 40th anniversary Mr KATOS — On Sunday I attended the 40th anniversary of the Barwon Heads Bowling Club. It was a good old-fashioned community afternoon, with the clubrooms filled to capacity. The first Barwon Heads Bowling Club committee was formed in 1971 and included Mr John Van Den Eykel, who is a life member and still bowls at the club today. I would like to congratulate men’s president Les Jennings, women’s president Sandra Green and executive officer Maureen Brooks. The club now has around 120 active members. I wish the Barwon Heads Bowling Club every success over the next 40 years. Deakin University: funding Mr KATOS — I am proud that there is already an excellent working relationship between the Baillieu government and Deakin University. Last week the Baillieu government announced $10.2 million to go towards 311 new beds for student accommodation at Deakin University’s Waurn Ponds campus. Approximately 70 per cent of students who study in regional Victoria stay in the region where they study. I would also like to welcome the Victorian government’s announcement of $7 million towards a new regional community health hub at Deakin University’s Geelong campus. The health hub is Wednesday, 6 April 2011 expected to accommodate 1500 new students and 172 new staff — — The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The member’s time has expired. Kangaroos: Eden Park cull Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) — This morning I call on the Minister for Environment and Climate Change to take action to suspend and withdraw the Department of Sustainability and Environment’s issuing of permits to Northern Melbourne Institute of TAFE to cull 300 kangaroos at Eden Park within the Yan Yean electorate. It is extremely disappointing that the DSE has issued cull permits in this instance without consulting the local community. This is a sensitive environmental issue which has raised considerable concern in the community. Residents have expressed their anguish over the welfare of kangaroo populations and the lack of notification and consultation with the community. Many residents in Whittlesea and district remain traumatised following the fires of Black Saturday, and the loss of kangaroo families is simply another symbol of loss and damage to our community’s fragile environment. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has advised that it will investigate all reports of animal cruelty in the kangaroo cull. I call on the department to provide information to the residents of the city of Whittlesea on the following questions: how many kangaroos are to be shot; who will do the shooting and what expertise do they have; how will the culling be monitored and recorded; how is it decided what kangaroos are shot — male, female or joeys; what will happen to joeys that are orphaned in this process; how will our neighbours notified; and, importantly, how will their safety be protected? In 2005 I was involved in a similar case in the shire of Nillumbik, and there were new protocols adopted by the then Minister for the Environment, John Thwaites, which protected the kangaroo populations and the community. I call on the government to adopt these protocols, protect the local community and protect the kangaroos at Eden Park. World Autism Awareness Day Mr WATT (Burwood) — On Saturday, 2 April, I joined approximately 1500 Victorians, including the Minister for Community Services, in a walk from Peanut Farm Reserve to the lower esplanade in St Kilda. The walk was in recognition of World Autism Awareness Day and coincided with the release of MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF thousands of multicoloured balloons representing the individuality of those with autism spectrum disorder. 10:10 I would like to congratulate Murray Dawson-Smith and Autism Victoria for organising the walk. I would like to mention the work of Matt Hore who organised a walk the Kokoda track in October this year to raise money and awareness of autism. I am sure that all those touched by autism would join me in thanking Matt for his efforts. Roberts McCubbin Primary School: students Mr WATT — I recently visited Roberts McCubbin Primary School in my electorate and was joined by the Minister for Education. Roberts McCubbin students have been making paper cranes for their fellow Japanese students as a sign of compassion and optimism following the recent disaster in Japan, something that I am sure will be well received. Ashburton: community fun day Mr WATT — I invite all members, along with members of the Ashburton community, to join in the community fun day on 10 April at Markham Reserve. The day will include a soccer game between community members and police as well as a world-record tunnel ball attempt. Everybody is welcome. Ian and Mena Camier: 60th wedding anniversary Mr WATT — I congratulate Ian William and Mena Patience Camier on their 60th wedding anniversary celebrated on 31 March 2011. What a marvellous milestone. Brian and Miriam Cherry: 50th wedding anniversary Mr WATT — I congratulate Brian and Miriam Cherry on their 50th wedding anniversary celebrated on 31 December 2010. Brimbank mental health forum Mr LANGUILLER (Derrimut) — I was happy to attend the Brimbank mental health forum organised by the Latino-American Women’s Association of Victoria. People living in communities in the western suburbs are susceptible to suffering mental illness in silence, according to community leaders. The Latino-American Women’s Association of Victoria coordinator Cecilia Gomez-Benitez said the stigma around mental illness 9 keeps many people from discussing the matter with anyone, even friends and family. She said: We cannot say anything if we are suffering. People are afraid to accept they have a mental illness, to go out and find the help they need. This realisation prompted Ms Gomez-Benitez, a Sunshine West resident, to organise a mental health forum at Glengala Community Centre last Friday. The forum is open to all residents in the region. Speakers included Vanessa Couzens, sharing her experience of mental illness, and Janet Glover, manager of Mind’s Building Family Skills Together. Stress, psychosis, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia were among the topics that were discussed. Vanessa talked about her experiences and how friends and family have helped her through the journey, according to the stories that she took to the forum. This event, like many other events, was organised for the purposes of breaking down the barriers of social isolation, and was another crucial step in tackling mental illness. I commend the organisation for its good work and encourage it to continue. Margaret Hardy: 80th birthday Ms CAMPBELL (Pascoe Vale) — Congratulations to the kindest, most beautiful and youngest-in-heart woman in my electorate, who today celebrates the first anniversary of her 79th birthday. Happy birthday, Mum. MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Industrial relations: government policy The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The Speaker has accepted a statement from the member for Tarneit proposing the following matter of public importance for discussion: That this house condemns the Premier for his sustained attack on Victorian workers through: (1) proposing wage increases below inflation for Victorian public sector workers; (2) passing as his first act the Shop Trading Reform Amendment (Easter Sunday) Bill 2011; (3) seeking a reduction in the minimum hours of work for young people; and (4) constraining wage increases for Victoria’s lowest paid workers. Mr PALLAS (Tarneit) — It gives me great pleasure to address this chamber in respect of the matter of MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 10 ASSEMBLY PROOF public importance. At the outset I make the point that this is a government which in many ways sought to obtain the high office of government in this great state in misleading and contrived circumstances. It told the people of Victoria, in what effectively constituted a commitment, that it was about making sure that Victoria’s welfare and wellbeing would be protected. Of course it has failed to deliver the high standard it set for itself. a shred of introspection this government has shown that it does not care that workers will be required to work on Easter Sunday without even being afforded public holiday rates of pay. What an outrage! It is a demonstration of this government’s priorities. To demonstrate exactly how far this government has fallen below the level of expectation, I will quote a Scottish essayist, Thomas Carlyle, who once wrote in relation to wages: Mr PALLAS — One of the most important dates in terms of festivities and religious belief has in effect been made a day on which workers can be made to work while receiving only ordinary Sunday rates of pay. All the government had to do to show one shred of compassion for working people was to ensure that it at least had the day gazetted as a public holiday, but those opposite could not bring themselves to do it. A fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work: it is as just a demand as governed men — and women in our case — ever made of governing. The mere fact that workers seek a just pay for their work is or should be something that is a matter of bipartisan acknowledgement and the right and entitlement of every working person. The right to a fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work is something that the Labor Party has for many years sought to achieve for both men and women in the state of Victoria and right across the country. 10:15 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 It is a core belief of the group of men and women who sit on this side of the chamber. It is not so for the men and women who sit opposite and their leader, Premier Baillieu. Since its election to office this government has shown time and again that it is prepared to break promises and that it is prepared to break the hearts of the working people who put so much faith in the coalition at the last election. So far the achievements of the Victorian government include its proposed wage increases at a rate that is below inflation for Victorian public sector workers. So much for the commitment to assist working people! Mr Clark interjected. Mr PALLAS — I hear from the minister at the table that that is not right. Of course the minister will at some stage rise and explain to us how an offer of 2.5 per cent is anything other than a reduction in real wages. We then saw the government pass as its first act the Easter Sunday trading bill, which will be crippling for Victoria’s small retailers as they will be forced to open under the changed requirements. Let us not forget what this will mean for employees on Easter Sunday. The two days before Easter Sunday and the two days after Easter Sunday will be public holidays, but without even Honourable members interjecting. The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! What else has the government done? It has sought a reduction in the minimum hours of work for young people, and it has constrained wage increases for Victoria’s lowest paid workers. There is no real commitment to a fair day’s wages for a fair day’s pay for Victorians — — Ms Ryall — On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I believe the member is reading from his notes. The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Is the member reading from his notes? Mr PALLAS — Less than the transport minister was yesterday, but let me say — — The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Can the member confirm that he is referring to notes? Mr PALLAS — I am referring to notes. The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The member for Tarneit, to continue. Mr PALLAS — Here we are in a position where we have a government that is in effect prepared for its principles to be constrained. Let us think for a moment about where this government has let Victorians down and what its philosophical predisposition is. Let us not forget — — Ms Ryall — On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I believe the member is reading from his notes. The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Members are permitted to refer to notes but not to read whole speeches. I ask the member for Tarneit to confirm whether he is reading from notes. MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF Mr PALLAS — I am referring to my notes, Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The member for Tarneit, to continue. Mr PALLAS — Let us not forget the observations that the now Minister for Public Transport made when he compared workers to dogs in this chamber. He said: It is possible for a dog to replace two people on a farm. On a big farm a farmer would pay $30 000 a year for each labourer hired. A dog would not attract any WorkCover premiums, superannuation, holiday pay or sick leave entitlements. It would never complain, and it is cheap and easy to maintain. It is hard to replace that type of value-added source of farming income. There you go. Members have heard from the now Minister for Public Transport, who is now known by working people throughout the state as Old Two Dogs. We have heard his basic belief that you can compare the productive value of workers to that of dogs. In many ways we see nothing other than a continued diminution of the contribution working people have made to this state’s productivity. On WorkChoices and AWAs (Australian workplace agreements) we know exactly where those opposite stand. They support antiworker legislation, as we see, for example, from what the now Minister for Corrections said on 10 August 2006 in this place: … when you compare award conditions with conditions under an AWA, you are almost universally better off under an AWA. 10:20 That is very interesting, because work has been done comparing this in a considered way — that is, when ideology has not been the motivating factor behind the comparison. Professors David Peetz and Alison Preston conducted a study in July 2007 in which they found that the median AWA worker earnt 16.3 per cent less than the median EBA (enterprise bargaining agreement) worker. They found that men on median AWA earnings earnt 15.4 per cent less on AWAs than on EBAs. They also found that typically Victorian workers not on collective agreements earnt 23 per cent less than workers on collective agreements, which reflected the industry composition of employment in Victoria and different patterns of AWA uptake by industry. Putting aside ideology, overwhelmingly what we see is that if you deny the fact that there is a difference in bargaining position and you put workers in a position where they have to bargain with their employer, then of course workers will lose out when they are on their own because the bargaining position and economic power an employer wields is far superior than anything an 11 isolated worker can muster. That is why the state has to maintain a role of moderating and regulating fair and effective outcomes. That is where this government has so far failed Victorian workers. In effect it has indicated that it will continue to be supportive of the idea of individual choice over collective bargaining even when it comes to a worker seeking to get just pay for their work, as Thomas Carlyle said. On 10 August 2006 in this place the now Premier said, ‘WorkChoices is about two things — work and choices’. He went on to say that WorkChoices: … provides them — employers and employees — with the prospect of flexibility — and they can choose. They can choose their collective arrangements. They can choose to be represented. They can choose to do it the minister’s way — as it then was — if they want to. They can also choose to represent themselves with AWAs and be part of a flexible system. … WorkChoices offers Victorians the capacity to control their working relationships. I do not believe you would ever hear anything more ludicrous, anything further from what is the reality of the interaction between worker and employee, and anything that could be any more patrician in its perspective. We know by the voting record of this government exactly where it stands when worker legislation is brought before this place. We can look at all the bills that the now government opposed when it was in opposition — bills such as the Federal Awards (Uniform System) Act 2003, the Outworkers (Improved Protection) (Amendment) Act 2005, the Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Act 2005, the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, the Child Employment Act 2003, the Long Service Leave (Amendment) Act 2003, the Long Service Leave (Preservation of Entitlements) Act 2006, the Construction Industry Long Service Leave (Amendment) Act 2004, the Workplace Rights Advocate Act 2005, the Public Sector Employment (Award Entitlements) Act 2006, the Working with Children Act 2005, the Victorian Workers’ Wages Protection Act 2007, the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Family Responsibilities) Act 2008 and the Equal Opportunity Amendment Act 2007. It is a list of shame which demonstrates that this government’s MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 12 ASSEMBLY PROOF preferences and priorities are clearly constrained. Its view is that what it really should be doing is providing rights and entitlements to employers and businesses, and it shrouds its disdain and lack of concern for working people by hiding behind a mantra of ‘freedom of choice’. 10:25 During the election the Premier and the member for Doncaster, who is now the Minister for Women’s Affairs and the Minister for Community Services, promised a pay rise to the community sector if it was ordered by Fair Work Australia, even if the budget for it went over $200 million over four years. However, following the election the Premier and the Minister for Community Services suddenly backflipped on the promise and in effect abandoned that commitment to community workers, who are predominantly female. That should come as no surprise. It is more evidence that the government supports the big end of town and pursues antiworker policies. That was seen in the first act it passed after coming to government and its refusal to enable public holidays entitlements. The government has set its colours to its mast. I will refer back to its fundamental philosophical predisposition and quote a Liberal in the small ‘l’ sense of the word, the founding father of the Liberal Party. In his famous 1942 speech, The Forgotten People, Robert Menzies talked about people being more than mere calculations in an economic equation. He went on to say in his last address to the Liberal Party federal council in 1964 that individual welfare and the development of men and women must be the main concern of government. Whatever happened to the Liberal Party that Robert Menzies founded? Where is the concern for individual men and women? It is lost, because the Liberal Party is valueless. That is not the creed of the Premier and his team, which has effectively undermined the coalition’s commitment to more police numbers and to real wage increases. The Liberal Party gave a commitment to teachers that they would be the highest paid in the country, but we have seen nothing of it. The Premier has never in this chamber uttered the words ‘wage’ and ‘increase’ in the same sentence. That shows where his priorities lie. He has absolutely no concern for working people. It is about time that this government lived up to its policies and its promises and looked after working people in this state. Mr CLARK (Attorney-General) — What a laborious effort by the member for Tarneit! He tried to mount an attack on the government, but it is clear his heart was not in it. He obviously drew the short straw in Wednesday, 6 April 2011 caucus and was sent out to mount this weak, rostered attack without being committed to it. If one wants to see any evidence of the lack of commitment and the lack of attention to the motion that has been moved in this house, one need only look at item 2 of the honourable member’s matter of public importance. He claims that the Premier passed as his first act the Shop Trading Reform Amendment (Easter Sunday) Bill 2011. That is absolutely factually untrue. One need only look at the Legislative Council Hansard to see that it is not true. One can see at page 478 of Hansard of Tuesday, 22 March, that the first piece of legislation passed through this Parliament was in fact the Shrine of Remembrance Amendment Bill 2011. It is just plain factually wrong. If the member cannot get the basics right, how can he expect the rest of his motion to have any credibility? Just in case the honourable member and his colleagues want to try to weasel out of that and say they are talking about the first piece of legislation to end up on the statute book, that is wrong again. The first bill to end up as the first act of 2011 on the statute book is the Civil Procedure and Legal Profession Amendment Act 2011. The honourable member has not done his homework and has not got his facts right. His matter has no credibility whatsoever. Let us go through the rest of the items that the member for Tarneit has put in the motion. Item 1 relates to the government’s wages policy. The fact of the matter is that we have basically continued the policy of the previous Brumby government. Under the previous government’s policy the initial guideline increase was 2.5 per cent. That was introduced by the previous government in 2009, and it is being continued by the current government. The singular difference between our wages position and that of the previous government is that increases above that 2.5 per cent need to be matched by genuine productivity savings, unlike the charades the previous government often engaged in. We are more than happy to arrive at a figure above the 2.5 per cent starting point guideline, as long as it is accompanied by genuine productivity savings. We would welcome that, because we are looking for a flexible, innovative and productive workforce. The honourable members opposite should stop crying crocodile tears over this matter. Let me make a further point about the 2.5 per cent starting point guideline. It is consistent with many other states around the nation, including Labor-governed states. There is nothing out of the ordinary on that point. It is a continuation of the position of the previous government. MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF Let us leave aside the honourable member’s basic error about the Easter Sunday trading bill being the first act passed under the new government and look at the issue of substance. The debate on this point revisits the issues that were argued before this house in relation to the legislation itself. The position adopted by the previous government was riddled with flaws and anomalies. On the one hand it had a piece of legislation, and on the other hand it had a list of exemptions as long as your arm. There is no fundamental issue of principle on which those opposite can seek to take a stand on that matter. Let us have a look at the third item on the honourable member’s list, minimum hours of work for young people. In effect what those opposite are saying is that they do not want school students to have the opportunity to have employment after school hours. The so-called Fair Work legislation, put in place by their federal counterparts, has led to award conditions that make it practically impossible for young people to get — — Ms Hennessy interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The member for Altona will cease interjecting in that manner. Mr CLARK — It will become practically impossible for young people to get a start in the workforce through working during after-school hours, as many generations have done for years and years. It gives a win-win opportunity. It is a win for a young person, gives who can earn some money while being a student, learn the ways of the workforce, build up their experience and training and get a good start in life. It is a win for young people to have that opportunity, and it is a win for small businesses and other businesses across the state, which can have young and enthusiastic people coming into the workforce, getting some experience through their after-school-hours work and taking the opportunity to be productive members of the workforce going forward. What are those opposite and their federal counterparts seeking to do? They are saying that under their scheme young people would not be allowed to work after school hours to earn a few dollars in the way that they, their parents and grandparents and generations before them have done. They brought in that initiative as part of the Fair Work package, but they failed to acknowledge the injustice and the anomaly in doing so. The retailers have tried to get some sense into it, and the Victorian government has been backing them in that effort. What we need to hear from honourable members opposite during the course of this debate is whether or 13 not they are going to stand up for Victorian school students and employers and for opportunities for young people in Victoria and whether they are going to support getting this ridiculous anomaly in the legislation fixed or whether they want to see young people across Victoria not have the opportunity to earn some money after school hours in the way they have done traditionally. This will be a real acid test of where the hearts, souls and commitment of those opposite lie. Let us look at the last ridiculous point that has been raised in this motion by the member for Tarneit in relation to the national wage case submission being made by the Victorian government. The accusations being made by the member are completely off the mark. The Victorian government has indeed made a submission to Fair Work Australia for the national minimum wage case review. We have been supporting a responsible increase in minimum wages. The government believes that the national wage review outcome needs to promote a strong Victorian economy, be conducive to sustained employment growth and the creation of real Victorian jobs to foster competitive and productive workplaces and facilitate the determination of conditions by employers and employees at the enterprise level. We said in our submission that Fair Work Australia needs to have regard to a variety of factors in settling a new minimum wage and in any determination it makes to vary the modern award minimum wages. The sorts of factors we have been talking about are the performance and competitiveness of the national and Victorian economies, including the impact on Victorian businesses and regional economies, easing economic conditions in Victoria, the provision of a safety net that encourages bargaining between employers and employees at the local enterprise, the needs of the lower paid — we have emphasised that point in our submission — and the need to encourage high levels of workplace participation. We have been arguing for a fair and responsible outcome in the national wage case review. For Labor members to say that we are acting against providing appropriately for the interests of Victoria’s lowest paid workers is just utter hypocrisy, because when we look at the submission made by the Brumby Labor government to the national minimum wage case review last year, we see it made very similar points to the points that are being made by the current government. The previous government called on Fair Work Australia to consider the economic impact of any increase in minimum wages. When it was in 10:35 MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 14 ASSEMBLY PROOF government it said that Fair Work Australia needs to have regard to economic impact, as it should and as the current government is. We are exactly maintaining the position in that respect that was being maintained by the previous government. For members opposite to suddenly change their tune when they are in opposition shows the hypocrisy, inconsistency and lack of responsibility they are showing now that they are in opposition. The previous government said specifically that there needed to be an economically sustainable increase for low-income earners in the increases that were provided. It also said that the increase needed to reflect prevailing economic and social conditions. It made the point that that was necessary in order to ensure that a balance was made between the outcome for workers and employers. That is exactly the point that the current government is making and asking Fair Work Australia to consider. And as I have been saying, what members opposite need to demonstrate now that they are in opposition is whether or not they are going to act responsibly in the interests of Victorians, whether they are going to act responsibly in seeking a fair and balanced outcome from Fair Work Australia, whether they are going to act responsibly in standing up for young Victorian workers and defending their right to get opportunities in the workforce through working after hours, whether they are going to continue to support the policy on public sector wages which they followed when they were in government or whether in opposition all that approach is to go out of the window, and whether they are going to accept that their Easter Sunday trading policy was absolutely riddled with anomalies and caused all sorts of difficulties for the Victorian economy, particularly in regional Victoria. This matter of public importance (MPI) is ultimately a matter about responsibility and the credibility of the opposition and whether it is going to attempt to maintain any degree of respectability and coherence in its position or whether it is going to resort to every wild and intemperate argument that it can come up with without regard to a consistent and appropriate policy position and abandoning the things that it was saying just a few months ago when it was in government. As I said at the outset, the member for Tarneit does not seem to have his heart in this MPI. His contribution was one of the most laborious and uninspiring critiques of an MPI that I have come across and shows the complete lack of credibility of the matter the member has put before the house. Wednesday, 6 April 2011 The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Are there no further speakers? Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) — Thank you Deputy Speaker. Ms Hennessy — On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member for Thomastown was actually in her place, standing, before you called the member for Ferntree Gully. The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The member was not on her feet and the house calls the member who is standing. I asked for further speakers to encourage the member to stand, but she did not rise and I am then bound to call the member who is on their feet. The speaking lists are for the guidance of the Chair only. It is up to members to be ready to stand. I have called the member for Ferntree Gully. Mr WAKELING — Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Certainly members on this side of the house are keen to participate in this debate. It gives me pleasure to rise to contribute to the debate on this matter of public importance. I congratulate the Attorney-General, who spoke before me, for his contribution on this matter of public importance (MPI). I acknowledge that the performance of the member for Tarneit was a little half-hearted. I have heard better contributions in this house by the member, who was a former minister, but clearly this is not an issue that he is passionate about. Obviously someone in the Leader of the Opposition’s office has tapped him on the shoulder and said, ‘This is your turn to speak. Go out; here are some prepared notes, do your best’. Clearly his best was not that great, and he did not realise that point 2 of the MPI prepared in his name — and I am assuming now he had nothing to do with it because he is walking away from it at a million miles an hour — concerning the first act passed in this Parliament being the Easter Sunday trading bill was wrong. I am happy to come to that in a moment as part of my contribution. It is interesting to hear those opposite talk about industrial relations in this place. I am reminded that back in 1996 the Kennett government ceded industrial relations powers to the federal government. At that time those opposite were bleating about the supposedly parlous state of industrial relations in this state. One would have thought the first thing they would have done would have been to reintroduce the state award system for Victorians — other states had state awards systems and the Kennett government had abolished the state award system — but no, the first thing the then Bracks government did was to create an industrial 10:42 MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF relations task force chaired by the eminent Professor Ron McCallum, an eminent and respected industrial relations professor, who came up with a proposal for the Fair Employment Bill. What became of the Fair Employment Bill? History will tell us nothing. Interestingly, the then government changed its tune, saying, ‘In fact, we want to continue with having a federally regulated industrial relations system’. Those opposite talk about WorkChoices. Those who have actually worked in the industrial relations field — and there are some on the other side who I know have been industrial relations practitioners — would be well aware that the federal government utilised the constitution’s corporations power to facilitate WorkChoices for incorporated organisations. However, the only reason unincorporated businesses in the state of Victoria were covered by WorkChoices was that the former government was agreeing that those businesses be covered by WorkChoices as part of its referral. At any point in time those opposite, who had the numbers in both houses, could have introduced legislation to remove the referral and to create an industrial relations system that included an award system for unincorporated businesses. Despite all the bleating and protestations of those opposite, for 11 years they did nothing. What they did was to create the workplace rights advocate. The member for Tarneit was preaching about the benefits of the workplace rights advocate, but those of us in who were in that Parliament will recall that the former government took actions to defeat, to remove and to abolish the workplace rights advocate. As a former industrial relations practitioner I attended a forum convened by the advocate where the question, ‘What was the greatest achievement of the Office of the Workplace Rights Advocate?’, was asked. This was its greatest achievement; its representatives stood up there and said how fantastic it was that they had referred a number of issues to the federal department of workplace relations. Their greatest achievement was to pick up a phone and call the federal department, which, funnily enough, regulated workplace relations, and say, ‘Here are some people with issues; can you please investigate these matters for us?’. For all the hype and the millions of dollars that those opposite wasted, all they had to show was a phone advisory service that effectively referred people from a state government department to a federal government department. What a crock! What a waste! It belies the manner in which those opposite claim they dealt with industrial relations in this state. I heard the member for Tarneit talking about Easter Sunday trading. I would like the member to explain to someone who worked at Bunnings last year on Easter 15 Sunday under legislation that was introduced and established by those opposite why that person was allowed to work on Easter Sunday and not get public holiday rates. The question I would like that person to ask the member for Tarneit is: ‘When did the member for Tarneit stand up in this house calling upon the government to introduce legislation to establish Easter Sunday as a public holiday?’. Did he do that in 2010? Did he make that call in 2009? Or in 2007? In 2006 he was not a member, but was it done by members such as the member for Melton, who is sitting in the chamber and who was a member in 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003? Clearly the answer is no. Those opposite were more than happy to allow people who worked in hot bread kitchens, in service stations, at Bunnings or for a myriad of other small organisations across this state to work on Easter Sunday and not receive a public holiday rate. Then — shock, horror! — those opposite lost government, and now all of a sudden it is our fault that people are working on Easter Sunday and not getting public holiday rates. Those opposite had years to deal with this issue. You just have to look at their wages policy. This government has adopted the policy that was implemented by the former government. John Brumby, the former Premier, and John Lenders, the former Treasurer, who is a member for the Southern Metropolitan Region, who ran the ship, believed it was appropriate and developed the guidelines and established the principles of a 2.5 per cent wage increase. That increase was not established by this government, which simply inherited the system established by those opposite. Those opposite have come into this chamber thinking this was the matter of public importance that was going to bring the government down. However, this is a lazy opposition that could not even work out what the first act of Parliament passed under this government was. I would be more than happy to move an amendment to fix the mess for them, but given that this is their MPI, I will let those opposite move the amendment to fix this mess. Those opposite sit there and moan, whine and carp, but when they were in government they could have done a lot more if they actually believed in this stuff — but their heart was not in it. The minimum number of hours for work were raised by a young person on the Neil Mitchell radio program. He had gone to his business and said, ‘I want to work’, and the business owner said, ‘You are not allowed to work because of the law’. A campaign was run; they tried to get the federal government to change the law, but it refused to participate. All we are doing is standing up 10:50 MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 16 ASSEMBLY PROOF for young people and giving them an opportunity to work if they want to work. I will stand up in this place and support that. Ms HALFPENNY (Thomastown) — I rise to add my voice to condemnation of the Premier, who leads a government that seems hell-bent on attacking Victorian workers on all fronts in spite of its attempts to hide its real intentions behind rhetoric and slippery words. I do so not just as a trade unionist but also because I believe in the standards of fairness and equity held by most Victorians, who do not believe that the sort of thing this government is doing is right. It seems the Liberal and National parties and their leaders really cannot change their spots. Just looking at leaders from the not-so-distant past we see John Howard and his vicious antipeople WorkChoices laws, and former Premier Jeff Kennett, who ripped up minimum standards of working conditions for some of the most vulnerable, slashed pay and privatised public services. We are still paying for the damage he wreaked especially on those living in the Latrobe Valley and on women who required refuge because of domestic violence and who had nowhere to go because of funding cuts. Now the Baillieu-Ryan government is showing its true colours and going down the same path of reducing the rights of working people and their families. Already it has cut penalty rates and work rights on Easter Sunday, and it should be condemned for that. Already the government has announced cuts to real wages to teachers, nurses, police and public servants, and it should be condemned for that. Already it has announced that Victoria’s youngest workers — schoolchildren working part-time around their studies — will have their minimum shifts cut in half so that their already low wages will struggle to cover the cost of travel and the time taken to get to and from work, and the government should be condemned for that. Already the government has announced a backflip on its commitments to fund equal pay in the community sector, demanding that workers, the low paid and the poor pay for equality through cuts to services, and the Baillieu-Ryan government should be condemned for that. Here we are a little more than 120 days into the Baillieu project, which is designed to fix the problems and build the future, and — surprise, surprise! — it turns out that the Premier will not be governing for all Victorians as he promised. Let me turn to the Victorian government’s submission to the Fair Work Australia annual wage review that Wednesday, 6 April 2011 determines the wage increases, if any, for the lowest paid workers in the country. Guess what? The Baillieu-Ryan government’s submission is less than supportive of a fair and adequate increase to the safety net minimum wage or award rates of pay. The government has said that the best way to provide for the needs of the low paid is to facilitate employment — but these people are already working. We are talking here about an adjustment to compensate for the increasing cost of living and the soaring price of basic necessities. This is about getting a fairer share of the economic pie. The Baillieu-Ryan government’s submission cautions Fair Work Australia on awarding an increase to minimum rates because in its opinion it may hurt employers. It also argues that workers in regional areas are the lowest paid and that they should stay that way. It is regional workers who have most to gain — or, if the government has its way, the most to lose — in the minimum wage review. So now we get a glimpse of the real coalition conservative government, which is a very different picture to the spin of the 2011 Victorian Families Statement that was given by the Premier less than two months ago. The Premier said that his statement was for families, whatever form they take, because this coalition government governs for all Victorians. That is not true. The government is not governing for the families of the low paid, for working families in regional Victoria, for families of public sector workers or for our kids who have entered or will soon be entering the workforce. The Premier tells us in his statement that families thrive best when their most basic of needs are met and that the government will better represent the interests of Victorian families. Yet when it really matters, when families really need government support to maintain the most basic of living standards, this government lets them down. For those who may not be aware of it, the current minimum wage rate for an adult is $15 per hour — or $29 600 a year. The junior rate can be almost half of this. That is in spite of the $28 or so awarded at the last review, and according to the most conservative of definitions it is below the poverty line, but we do not see anything about that in the government’s submission to Fair Work Australia. To put it into context, it is an annual wage that is less than the annual electorate allowance paid to members to provide visitors with tea and scones, to attend conferences and functions and to reimburse them for general small-change items. That allowance is more than the amount received by low-paid workers. Yet the government argues caution in deliberations on the awarding of a modest lifting of the minimum wage rate. MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF Coming back to the families statement, the government complains about high Victorian taxes, but our taxes are subsidising employers so they do not have to pay a wage that working people can actually live on. I am new to this place, having been elected in November last year, but I get around to various people and organisations in the Thomastown electorate — — Mr Battin — On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that the member for Thomastown seems to be reading her speech. The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Is the member reading her speech or referring to notes? Ms HALFPENNY — I am referring to notes. The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! I believe the member is referring to notes. Ms HALFPENNY — The Thomastown electorate covers Fawkner, Lalor, Reservoir and Thomastown. I see the daily struggles of many people on low wages. They are earnest people trying to get by on the minimum wage. Many are women now single due to marriage breakdown or because their children have grown up and moved out of home. At this point they do not receive the family income supplements any more. They are working, yet their largest bills — rent and utility costs — are still the same, and they are having trouble getting by. Last night in this chamber the member for Benalla said that many in the coalition government had come from humble beginnings, but that has not made the government more tolerant, more understanding or more supportive of the need to lift the minimum wage, to protect young workers and public holidays or to recognise and remunerate our public sector workers. On the contrary; the government seems to have hardened its resolve to push through this agenda to slice back the rights and conditions of Victorian workers and their families. The government could not keep a lid on its real agenda for too long. It has been in office for a little over four months, and the cat is out of the bag. It is not governing and does not intend to govern for all Victorians at all. Judging from an article in the Australian Financial Review yesterday, there is one hard-nosed, antiworker warrior from old who will be proud of this government. Do members remember Peter Reith? He is the person who organised balaclava-hooded thugs carrying iron bars on the waterfront. They were hired to carry out the orders of Patrick Stevedores and other employers on the waterfront to smash workers’ rights and challenge democracy and decency. Mr Reith is now urging 17 coalition members of Parliament and business leaders to put practical reform back on the agenda. He is expressing disappointment that the coalition has not made a concerted effort to argue that individual contracts are a good idea, especially for young people. If this is where this government is heading, it should tell Victorians now so it can be judged, and I am sure condemned, by Victorian workers and their families. Mr NEWTON-BROWN (Prahran) — The member for Tarneit suggests that the Liberal coalition has engaged in a sustained attack on workers. In 100 short days and three weeks of the sitting of the Parliament, apparently we have engaged in an attack on workers — and not only just an attack but a sustained attack. The motion implies that the Labor Party is the great friend of the worker in Victoria, but it had 11 years to show how strong that friendship was. Let us have a look at what the Labor Party did for workers and what it did to the Victorian economy to create meaningful jobs for Victorian workers in those 11 years. One area which it is useful to look at is the area of innovation. This is an area where, with the right government input, significant new jobs can be generated. It is an area where jobs can be created which are meaningful to workers and provide great opportunities for career advancement. Under Labor we had plenty of rhetoric for 11 years, but it failed to chart a way forward for innovation in this state. It failed to provide opportunities for workers in new jobs and new industries. It ignored the needs of young Victorians who would prefer the creation of meaningful jobs rather than members such as the member for Thomastown squabbling about how many extra cents per dollar they should be paid for working in a job they do not like. The view of the Liberals is that the state government should allow innovation to flourish. In the course of our government this house will see the Liberal government fostering the passion of innovators in our community. It will be assisting them to fulfil their vision and creating an economic environment where their ideas can grow. It will be helping to deliver sustained economic prosperity by providing research infrastructure, putting resources into education to inspire and motivate students — — Mr Nardella interjected. Mr NEWTON-BROWN — Let us talk about teachers; let us talk about education — maths and science. Under the former Labor government maths and science was an area in which Victorian school students 11:00 MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 18 ASSEMBLY PROOF were well below the national average. The Baillieu-Ryan government is going to invest money in that area, where in the past it was neglected. We will give our kids maths and science teachers who are on a par with those in the rest of the country. We will reward enterprise; we will increase research and development investment, inspire the next generation of innovators and encourage the best and brightest of Australia’s expatriates to come back to Australia. What comes out of all this investment in innovation by the Liberal coalition government? We grow the pie for Victoria. We do not squabble about petty issues such as those that have been raised by many members in the house today. We grow the pie and we create meaningful jobs for Victorians for the future. Another good area to look at in this debate is liquor licensing, an area which also provides great potential for employment. The jobs are less skilled than some of the jobs that can be created in the innovation sector, but they are nonetheless jobs that are very important for Victorians. In 100 short days we have provided a stable environment for liquor licensees. Members would not believe the number of people who have stopped me in the street in my electorate of Prahran and said, ‘We are so glad that Michael O’Brien is now the minister in charge of the liquor licensing area’. When the member for Malvern took on the portfolio he acted swiftly to cut liquor licence fees by half. This action was delivered to liquor licensees in Victoria within months. We eased the financial pressures on these small businesses and ensured that they could thrive and prosper. We introduced a fairer regime for liquor licensees that recognises and respects the role they play in providing employment for so many young Victorians. On the other hand, let us turn our minds back to last year — just 100 short days ago. What was the employment environment like for these small businesses then? What did the government do to ensure that the tens of thousands of young people who work in this industry had jobs? Under Labor holding a liquor licence became unaffordable for many businesses. From 2008 many sports and community clubs had their fees increased by over 1000 per cent. Labor oversaw a $20 million increase in the state government take from liquor licensing fees, and what did licensees get for it? Nothing. There was no return to businesses. They received nothing to invest back into their businesses, which would then have helped their workers. It was shameful. The government attached itself to this industry like a leech and sucked it dry. It did not care about the collateral damage; it did not care about the workers employed in those licensed premises. Many businesses gave up their licences, and the jobs went with them. What did Labor do? Wednesday, 6 April 2011 Mr Nardella — Like who? Mr NEWTON-BROWN — Like who? The Tote. The Tote Hotel has reopened, but I will get to that in a minute. It is just one example. Labor blamed the liquor licensees for the out-of-control, alcohol-fuelled violence. The licensees were the scapegoats for the problems of the last government. Look at the 2.00 a.m. lockout. What a failure; what a shameful passing of the buck to small business in the state. The previous government demonised those small business owners because Labor had lost control of law and order on our streets. Ms Green — On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Prahran appears to be reading from a document, and I ask him to make it available. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Tilley) — Order! Is the member for Prahran reading from notes? There is no point of order. Mr NEWTON-BROWN — The 2.00 a.m. lockout did not even work. KPMG evaluated it, and its report on post-midnight hospital admissions for assault stated that there was actually an increase after 2.00 a.m. That strategy did not even work. What about the impact on those small businesses and their workers? They were collateral damage. Many small businesses went under at that time, the most high-profile one being the Tote Hotel. The Tote was closed due to the unrealistic expectations of the previous government that businesses would employ large numbers of security guards. The previous government was passing the buck again. It was virtually saying, ‘Let us blame the venues; let us make them employ more security guards and we can say that it is their problem. They are the problem and they can fix the problem’. The Tote has thankfully opened under new owners, but let us not forget about those working at the Tote at that time who lost their jobs as a direct result of Labor government policy. Let us not forget that the former government’s own report showed that there was no link between alcohol-fuelled violence and live music. Let us not forget that many of the venues which were impacted upon had no record of violence. It did not matter. They were there to solve a problem — to be the scapegoat for the previous government — and the workers were the collateral damage. Many young workers became innocent victims in the dying days of the last government, as it flailed around trying to find someone but itself to blame for the mess that Victoria had become. 11:07 MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF This is no sustained attack on Victorian workers. In the course of the Baillieu-Ryan government we will see the business environment improve and the number of jobs — and meaningful jobs — grow. We will not see petty squabbling from this side of the house. Ms HUTCHINS (Keilor) — I rise to speak on the matter of public importance put forward by the member for Tarneit, which says in part that the house condemns the Premier for his sustained attack on Victorian workers. There is a myth in society that generation Y and generation Z, the new generation entering the workforce, do not want to work. Why would they be motivated to work under the changes the government is currently pushing? If workers are rostered on Easter Sunday, they will not get penalty rates. In fact young workers in the retail sector will probably be pushed into working on Easter Sunday. Will they ever aspire to work in the public sector when the pay increase offer is 2.5 per cent with lots of trade-offs? When the minimum shifts for young workers will be cut from 3 hours to 1.5 hours, what is the motivation for young Victorians to work? This is clearly an attack on them. I wonder where the member for Prahran has been living for the last 10 years, because he is certainly out of touch with Victorian workers. One of the first pieces of this government’s legislation to pass, the Shop Trading Reform Amendment (Easter Sunday) Bill 2011, which abolishes Easter Sunday as a public holiday by allowing shops to trade, opened the gates for young people to be forced to work on Easter Sunday whether they want to spend time with their family or not. They will not be given a choice, as it will come down to whether they want their job or not. I spoke to some of the workers at my local Woolworths only last week, and I asked them what their views were on Easter Sunday trading. It was the more mature women who said, ‘No, we have rostered ourselves off. We will not be put in the situation of not being compensated for working on that Sunday’. However, the young workers — the 16-year-olds — looked blankly at me and said, ‘What are you talking about? What do you mean, we will not get paid penalty rates for that Sunday?’. Honourable members interjecting. Ms HUTCHINS — Public holidays, forced to work, not time with their families! Opening shops on Easter Sunday will mean that retailers will treat that day like any other day and in most cases will simply roster people on to work. 19 As a mother and a stepmother I know what an important time Easter is to spend time with kids, particularly teenagers and kids in their early 20s, because there are really only two times of the year when you can usually guarantee that you will see them and they will spend the day with you — and they are at Christmas and Easter. However, the chances are that kids who have part-time jobs in the retail or hospitality sectors will be forced to work, because those who are a little brighter or smarter and have been in the workforce longer would have already rostered themselves off. The Baillieu government’s choice of this bill as one of the first to be passed demonstrates its lack of understanding of what it is like to work in the retail sector. I doubt that the Premier is ever worked on Easter Sunday. The other part of the government’s attack on Victorian workers is on public sector workers and their wages. Before the election many promises to look after workers were made, but they have not come to fruition. We are 120 or so days into the government’s term and we have a mooted offer of a 2.5 per cent wage rise, with productivity savings that put cash in the bank. What does that really mean? What is a productivity saving in the public sector? Is it about how quickly a prison officer locks up an inmate during a riot? Is that a productivity measure? Is it about how many minutes it takes for a prison officer to put someone back in jail? Is it about how many kids are removed from or returned to their families by a Department of Human Services officer? Will that be a productivity measure? I do not think the government has any idea about productivity when it comes to the public sector, and it certainly has no idea of the real costs of living for Victorian families and the public sector workers who underpin the running of the state. A 2.5 per cent increase does not cover the gamut of economic growth. It does not cover mortgage costs, the increased cost of petrol and the increased cost of communications — that is, mobile phones and the internet — that come in on top of a household’s weekly grocery bill and their electricity, gas and water bills. These are the extra costs that are not factored in to the consumer price index but they are a real part of increased household costs. The federal government has had a look at the real growth for federal public sector worker wages; it is really around 4 per cent, not 2.5 per cent. We know that the government’s calls for productivity gains to be made by public sector workers is code for cutting conditions. We know that leave loading has been costed by the Department of Treasury and Finance and will be on the table as a 1.4 per cent saving, something that will be attacked in these negotiations. MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 20 ASSEMBLY PROOF The government will try to strip this from public sector workers. The productivity cash-in-the-bank clause is about cutting public sector jobs; that is the reality of it. The Baillieu government is again out of touch, and I condemn this attack on fairness for Victorian public sector workers. They were promised the world pre-election, but those promises have been left to slide after the election. The substandard, retrograde wages offer for Victorian public sector workers provides no growth to the real economy in Victoria. The government has backflipped on its pre-election promises. It said, ‘We are going to deliver wage increases to police and make Victorian teachers the highest paid’. These are the things the then opposition promised. It said it would do better in looking after the health system. Nurses are the backbone of the health system. They do a terrific job caring for Victorians, but Premier Baillieu does not understand their plight. He has probably never been in the care of a nurse at a public hospital in his life. 11:15 In fact he probably does not even know what minimum wages are for many of those who work in our public sector. A Victorian police officer recruit earns $37 982 in their first year — hardly big bucks. An entry point project fire officer in the Department of Sustainability and Environment earns only $38 668. With the current cost of living rising and bills and other costs increasing every week, these basic wages in our public sector do not stretch very far. An entry-level nurse earns $42 536, and a first-year entry-point correctional officer earns $33 182 — about the same as a junior manager at McDonald's. The race to the bottom begins with the drop in minimum hours of work for young people, from 3 hours to 1.5 hours — 90 minutes. I will tell you what: it is not much incentive for young people to drag themselves to work. Mitchell, a 16-year-old worker in my electorate, travels from Hillside to the Keilor Rd McDonald's to work a couple of shifts a week. It takes him an hour and a half to get there by public transport. The wages for an hour and a half are not going to cover his time or travel costs. On behalf of young workers and all the casual workers in my electorate, I condemn this attack on their earnings. Premier Baillieu’s choice to constrain wage increases for Victoria’s lowest paid workers needs to be condemned. He has probably never had a job with a 3-hour minimum restriction on it. He has probably never had a job which has had a 1.5-hour shift. He says he stands for families. What about these families? What about their jobs? The Premier’s choice to constrain wages for Victoria’s lowest paid workers says Wednesday, 6 April 2011 everything about him. He does not understand what it is like to work for a minimum wage. The Baillieu government’s decision shows that the Premier does not understand what Victorian families really need. Ms RYALL (Mitcham) — I rise to speak on matter of public importance submitted by the member for Tarneit, which must not be important to members of the Labor Party because most of them are not in the chamber for this debate. If they are not here, how important is this matter to them? Members of the Labor Party think they have a monopoly on the protection of workers, but interestingly enough I am wondering how many of those opposite have ever started a business? How many of them have employed people? How many have lived on a loan with no income to make sure somebody else had a job? How many? Honourable members interjecting. Ms Graley — Me. Ms RYALL — One! That is good to see. As someone who has actually started a business and employed people, I know it is not as easy as it seems to those opposite. Most of those opposite think that people who run small businesses crunch the gravel on the way to the golf course when running those businesses. How far from the truth that is! Those in small business know how much we go without, how much we set aside and how difficult it is to run such an enterprise. The increasing cost of compliance for small business makes it hard to keep the doors open. On the other side of the small business equation sit young kids who want to work for an hour and a half; they want to spend their afternoon between the end of school time and the dark evening hours of study and home time working for an hour and a half. Members of the former nanny government over there — — An honourable member — They want the jobs for the paid-up union members. Ms RYALL — That is right. The members of the former nanny government opposite do not want those kids to be able to work for an hour and a half. Many of us who did work while we were at school know that it taught us a work ethic; it helped us understand what work was about. It gave us an income in that period of time, and we liked it. Those opposite would like to take that opportunity away. Imagine if a plumber came around to your house to do some work. If the job is done within an hour, are those opposite going to insist that the plumber stay for 3 hours? That is not going to happen. These kids want MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF an opportunity to work, and small business has time available to give them, yet those opposite do not want them to have that opportunity to learn a work ethic, to earn some money and to spend the very small amount of time they have after school to contribute to employment and to the country. Those opposite may not know, but people in small business are the second-largest employers in the country, next to government. That is absolutely huge. Without small business there would be no work for anybody. Do those opposite want to put more pressure on those young people who want an opportunity and more pressure on people in small business who would like to give them that opportunity? Are those opposite saying, ‘No, you have got to cough up 3 hours?’. Sorry, but people in small business do not have enough fat in their budgets or enough money from what they make to be able to do that. It is ludicrous that those opposite would deny two people the opportunity to work out a solution so that a young person can work in retail, or wherever the workplace may be, for a couple of hours in the afternoon, when they want to work. Often these jobs provide young people with their first taste of work and their first taste of real money. It is their also their first opportunity to build their reputation and their work ethic. My daughter works part time and goes to school. She has the opportunity to work part time, and she loves it. Why should she sacrifice that opportunity with a small business? What does it matter if those kids work for only an hour and a half? What is the problem with that? If they want to work for an hour and a half, why is that an issue? Who says those opposite know what is best? Who says members of the former nanny government know what is best? Mr Newton-Brown — School, homework and a minimum of 3 hours work. Ms RYALL — That is it. People in small business live on loans. I went six months without pay. Would an employed worker go for six months without pay? I do not think so. It is about time those opposite looked at small business owners as people as well as workers. All people should have an opportunity to earn a dollar. The view that someone who owns a business is flush with money is a disgrace; it has never been the case. Honourable members interjecting. Ms RYALL — That is right. We cannot afford to have small businesses close if they are the second-largest employers in this country, next to government. They need to do what is in their own interests and what is in the interests of young people. 21 Employers and workers need to be able to work together and not have some group of people dictate to them what is right. We do not want the dictators on the other side of the house, thank you very much. Those who go into small business are constantly living on the edge. Often they live on loans, they go without and they care about their staff. Why do we care about staff? It is because we know that without staff we have nothing. Staff and small business owners are as important as each other. I am sorry to disappoint those opposite, but this argument is not just about one side; it is a two-sided argument, and it is important that those opposite understand how important it is. My thoughts are that this situation has arisen because of a bungled federal Labor initiative to deprive countless numbers of young people of the opportunity to work for periods of time less than 3 hours. Those of us on this side of the house want to give young people the opportunity to work, including too perform casual retail work. This issue does not need a one-size-fits-all approach, and it is about time that those opposite understood that. People on one side of the equation are not more important than those on the other. The argument is about how to work together to get the best outcome for everybody and the best outcome for the country so that we can all benefit. It is absurd to suggest that all small business owners can afford to employ young kids for 3 hours. This idea that suddenly young kids have 3 hours to work in the afternoon is just ludicrous. They have study, friends and family. If we are talking about work-life balance, then let us be serious. The government is about improving the working opportunities for ordinary working people and young kids who want to get a foothold in the workforce and increase their employment opportunities. We are about giving small business the ability and openness to provide that opportunity. I have been a worker and a business owner. I have been on both sides of the fence. Honourable members interjecting. Ms RYALL — That is right. This is coming from someone who actually has an understanding of both sides, as opposed to most of those opposite. We believe in lower minimum casual shifts for young people entering the workforce, smoothing their transition into full-time employment. This will make it easier for employers to get staff for shorter periods when they need to. 11:25 MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 22 ASSEMBLY PROOF Ms KNIGHT (Ballarat West) — I am very pleased to rise to support the motion of the member for Tarneit ‘That this house condemns Premier Baillieu for his sustained attack on Victorian workers’. An attack on workers is an attack on families, and that is what I fear is happening with this new government. The Premier is very good at making grand family statements, but I do not believe that there are any actions that follow through on those statements. To stand and make statements suggesting that the wellbeing of families is a priority, that the government considers families in the course of its decision making and that in fact the issues of families are critical to the government’s decision making would be funny if it was not so insulting. How can the government have the audacity to make these claims and statements and then cut at the foundations and at the very heart of families? We just need to look at the government’s record so far to see what is happening. Firstly, I will look at the Shop Trading Reform Amendment (Easter Sunday) Bill 2011. Labor opposed that bill because it does not believe that families have been put at the centre of that bill. We would do that. Easter is a very important time of religious significance, but it is also an important time when families have the opportunity to spend some time together. Easter Sunday was one of the few days of the year when larger retailers closed their doors, thereby allowing smaller businesses to also keep their doors closed. This may not be an option now. Retail workers will be expected to work without even receiving any penalty rates to compensate them. There are no safeguards for Victorian workers who could be pressured, harassed or coerced into working on Easter Sunday. I cannot see families as central to that decision at all — certainly not the families of retail workers. There are precious few opportunities during the year for families to get together. Now we have one less. I condemn this attack on fairness for working Victorians who should be appropriately and fairly paid for work done on Easter Sunday. I condemn this attack on fairness for the people of Ballarat West who will be forced to work on Easter Sunday. I also condemn this attack on their families. I turn now to the issue of constraining wage increases for Victoria’s lowest paid workers. I fail to see how putting in a submission to Fair Work Australia calling for restraint in minimum wage increases for Victoria’s lowest paid workers is conducive to supporting families. It is also beyond me how a government that claims to have a focus on reducing the cost of living Wednesday, 6 April 2011 can in the same breath constrain wage increases for Victoria’s lowest paid workers — workers like my partner, a storeman, who works for about $15 an hour in the retail area. But we should not be surprised that the government does not want to play fair. There is a list of legislation enacted by Labor and opposed by the Baillieu government when in opposition. In opposition the Baillieu government opposed providing an award safety net for schedule 1A workers through the Federal Awards (Uniform System) Act 2003. It opposed allowing vulnerable outworkers access to award entitlements through the Outworkers (Improved Protection) Amendment Act 2005. It opposed requiring owner-drivers with information to assist informed decision making through the Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Act 2005. It opposed keeping workers safe through the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004. It opposed protecting children under 15 years of age so they can benefit from work experience without jeopardising their health, education or social wellbeing through the Child Employment Act 2003. When in opposition the Baillieu government opposed improving long service leave access through the Long Service Leave (Amendment) Act 2003, the Long Service Leave (Preservation of Entitlements) Act 2006 and the Construction Industry Long Service Leave (Amendment) Act 2004. It opposed establishing a workplace rights advocate through the Workplace Rights Advocate Act 2005. It opposed protecting the award wages and conditions of more than 254 000 public servants through the Public Sector Employment (Award Entitlements) Act 2006. When in opposition the Baillieu government opposed assisting in protecting children by ensuring that people who work with or care for children are checked by a government body through the Working with Children Act 2005. It opposed protecting vulnerable workers through the Victorian Workers’ Wages Protection Act 2007, and it opposed expanding the range of what constitutes discrimination through the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Family Responsibilities) Act 2008. The member for Ballarat states that the minimum wage is a petty issue. I would absolutely disagree. Certainly on this side of the house we do not see it as petty at all. We see it as being really important and crucial to people’s wellbeing and quality of life. I condemn this attack on fairness for working Victorians who rely on minimum wage increases to make ends meet. I MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF condemn this attack on the working people of Ballarat West and their families. I turn now to the issue of wage increases below inflation for Victorian public sector workers. This government has betrayed the trust of Victoria’s public sector workers. It went to the election with a promise to make teachers the highest paid in Australia. It went to the election on a law and order platform and quite rightly praised our police force for reducing crime, having a real impact on the road toll and doing a difficult job under often difficult circumstances. It was absolutely right to do so. This government is now treating the police and their families with contempt by responding to a pay claim with only a 2.5 per cent increase — and that increase is contingent upon trade-offs of conditions. 11:32 I do not know how this is going to affect the goal of recruiting 1700 more police for this state, but I believe that target has just become much more difficult to reach. What of those front-line community sector workers — those who care for the most vulnerable in our community? What happened to the promise that they would receive significant wage increases? Six months ago I was one of those workers, working in Lifeline and UnitingCare’s family counselling services alongside drug and alcohol workers, those who work with the homeless, those who provide hot meals every single day to people who would not otherwise have an opportunity to eat, those who work with families who face complex struggles and challenges in their lives every single day and people with mental health issues who must face those challenges every single day. Each day those people go to work to help those whom society tends to forget or ignore or does not know what to do with, and they get paid a pittance to do it. These people, my ex-colleagues, deserve to get paid properly, for their sake, the sake of their families and the sake of the families they support every single day. I condemn this attack on fairness for Victorian public sector workers, whose trust was betrayed and who were promised the world but are now being offered a slide in pay and conditions. I condemn this attack on their families and the families they support. I do not even know where to begin with the reduction of the minimum hours of working for young people. Despite having two children of my own who were working part time from the age of 15, this reduction is something I cannot even fathom. I know a little bit about this, because I spent years ferrying them to and from their part-time jobs and our home. Luckily I did not have very far to take them, but there are people in 23 my electorate and in the region who have to travel half an hour or longer just to get their child to their part-time job. To get them there for just half an hour or an hour and a half makes it a lot more difficult. However, they all do it because they know it is very good for their kids to have part-time work. I do not think anybody on either side of the house would argue that it is not great for young people to have part-time work, so those people continue to do that. It is a very good experience for young people. From my perspective it was a necessity, because we simply did not have enough money to provide some of those extras like concert tickets that my children wanted. Young people deserve a fair go in the workplace, and they deserve to know that when they go to work they will get a substantial amount of time in their shift, particularly if it has taken a substantial amount of time to get there. I condemn this attack on the rights of young working Victorians, who deserve a fair go, and I condemn this attack on their families. In conclusion, I absolutely support the motion the member for Tarneit has put to this house. Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) — I rise to speak on the matter of public importance raised by the member for Tarneit. When I first saw this matter I could not believe my eyes. Firstly, I take note that the member for Tarneit is not even here to support his matter. That shows how important he feels this matter is. Secondly, if you look at the wording, you see that the second item is factually incorrect. In the haste of putting the matter of public importance together the opposition failed to realise that the Shop Trading Reform Amendment (Easter Sunday) Bill 2011 was not the first act that was passed by this Parliament. It has been a sloppy attempt by the member to put this matter together. It is quite ironic, because we have all been waiting for the big matter of public importance that was going to bring down the government. This was a matter that was going to make us return to the opposition benches. We can see that there is hardly a member of the opposition in the house. Every single speech by opposition members that we have heard thus far has been delivered in a very half-hearted manner, and they certainly do not speak with any conviction about what they believe. One must question if they believe in anything they have said. I am pleased that the member for Tarneit has finally chosen to join us again. Welcome back. What we have heard here today is very interesting. We have heard a whole host of things about supporting workers. If we are being clear, this is not about MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 24 ASSEMBLY PROOF supporting workers at all; it is about supporting the unions and union mates. Every single element of it is about that. The opposition members are not fair dinkum. They are not here to support workers, and if they were, they would have done a lot more in the 11 years that they were in government. They had 11 long years to do something about this, but unfortunately in those 11 years — long, dark years — they did absolutely nothing. This matter was raised this week, the same week that the member for Tarneit and his opposition colleagues put the needs of their Labor mates in Canberra ahead of Victorian families by not allowing the Treasurer to attend an important GST summit. What hypocrisy! You did not support him. You could have paired him off, but you did not do it and you do not care. Instead all you continue to do is attack Victorian workers. That is what you do, and your federal colleagues ripped the guts out of us — $2.5 billion just ripped out. If you were fair dinkum, you would have taken that $2.5 billion and stood up for Victorian families — — Ms Pike — On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that the member is not referring to those opposite with the correct parliamentary terminology. He should understand that he uses the word ‘you’ those comments are in fact directed to the Chair, and it is unparliamentary to refer to the Acting Speaker in those terms. The member needs to refer all his comments through the Chair, and therefore the use of the word ‘you’ is unparliamentary and inappropriate when referring to opposition members of Parliament. I ask you to bring the member back to using correct parliamentary terminology. 11:40 The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Tilley) — Order! I ask the member for Caulfield to be mindful of those points and to address the house through the Chair. Mr SOUTHWICK — Let me continue. The fact of the matter is that we have seen that Victorians will have a great result under this current government, a result that we would never have seen under the former government. Let us look at this matter of public importance (MPI) that has been put forward, this very weak matter of public importance. Let us start with point 2 relating to the Easter Sunday trading act, which was supposedly the first act that we passed but in fact was not. The MPI is a bit unclear there, but that is okay. Let us proceed with what this means. There is nothing clearer than the fact that this is an attack on small business. This is, again, Labor Party payback to their union movement mates. We recall a $240 000 promise that was made to Wednesday, 6 April 2011 Labor’s union mates to try to stop Easter Sunday trading. Unfortunately for the unions that did not succeed. The $240 000 gift from the union movement to the Labor Party was a very poor decision, a very unwise choice, by them. That sweetheart deal did not work out so well for Labor’s mates in the union movement. We have to look at protecting families. We have to stop this cloak and dagger approach that has been continually adopted by the Labor Party. It used a whole lot of approaches during the Easter trading debate. We heard from the opposition about religious freedoms. We looked at the union fix. We looked at a whole lot of different things. What we did not look at was what the effect would be on many of the workers who are now able to work. The member for Tarneit has Cosco and Mitre 10 in his electorate. Those retailers were open over Easter for many years while he was in government. Certainly none of those workers were ever given overtime or double time during Easter, and the member for Tarneit was never in this house standing up for them then. Very conveniently he has forgotten that and has tried to stand up for them while in opposition. Labor had 11 long years to do something, but for those 11 long years the former Labor government did absolutely nothing. Let us turn to the part of the MPI that looks at wage increases for Victorian public sector workers. The coalition government’s wages policy is well known. Increases above the guideline of 2.5 per cent are available to be negotiated where parties can achieve a genuine productivity offset. I am very disappointed that the opposition is unaware of exactly what productivity means. We have seen plenty of examples of this. Unfortunately every single project the former government did was done with budget blow-outs and was never delivered on time. Never once was a project delivered on budget — not once on budget. So in the language of the opposition, productivity is unfortunately unheard of — — Ms Green — On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I am afraid that I will have to ask the member for Caulfield to withdraw that comment. He is misleading the house. I could go through a list of projects, including the bridge on the Greensborough Highway over the Plenty Gorge, that were actually delivered ahead of time and under budget. The things that are said in his house need to be factual, and I ask the member for Caulfield not to mislead the house with blanket comments. MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Tilley) — Order! I have been listening intently, and I do not uphold the point of order. remote, removed and aloof, and he has little understanding of what real families do, how they conduct their business and how they go about life. Mr SOUTHWICK — Let me continue about the budget blow-outs under the former government. There was a huge number of budget blow-outs. We can talk about the desalination plant, he cost of which members of the public — the Victorian taxpayers — will have to live with for 30 years because they have been signed up to a deal about which they unfortunately made no decision. Unfortunately they have been signed up for — we have been signed up for — a blow-out of $2.6 billion. The EastLink freeway project blew out by $2.5 billion — and the list goes on. If you want to look at what Victorian workers deserve, they deserve a government that cares about them. They deserve a government that will seek to look after them. They need a government that is there for them. That is what we are here for. This government cares about Victorian workers, not about unions and not about union mates. We will be here standing up for families. We will be here standing up for Victorians. We will be here standing up every single day for Victorian workers. The conservative Liberal-Nationals coalition has tried to do many things in its first 100 days, or so it says, but it has had very little impact or effect. The most important thing it has done is signal what sits at the core of its ambitions: its desire to reduce the working conditions of the most important and vulnerable workers in this state. Members of the conservative coalition conduct themselves in a manner they consider to be paternal — that is, they say they are doing the right thing — but in the end their manner is patronising, and they display that in all the actions they take. Mr MADDEN (Essendon) — I rise today to condemn the Premier on an issue that is certainly critical to this debate. I think the best way to describe this government and to describe this Premier is the way former leaders of the federal Liberal Party have been described over time — that is, as ‘mean and tricky’. They are words that came from within the Liberal Party. I say ‘mean and tricky’ because what the electorate thought it was getting when it elected this Premier was a sensitive new-age Premier — the Renaissance man, the swimmer, the architect, the aesthete, the athlete — but unfortunately the only Renaissance characteristic that is displayed by this Premier — — Mr Burgess — On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member is clearly reading, and I ask you to stop him from doing so. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Tilley) — Order! Is the member for Essendon referring to notes or reading a speech? Mr MADDEN — I am just referring to copious notes, Acting Speaker. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Tilley) — Order! I do not uphold the point of order. 11:47 25 Mr MADDEN — The only Renaissance characteristic displayed by this Premier is the way he strolls around like a latter-day Medici: he is distant, What we are seeing on a number of fronts is the impact this government has had on key workers, whether they be police officers; teachers, who have received broken promises about wage increases; or nurses, who care for the most vulnerable. All of these workers had expectations of this government. Prior to the election the coalition indicated that it would deliver for them, but we know the government is backtracking on what it promised to deliver with the enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA) process. We already know about Easter Sunday trading — I will not go into that in great detail — but what I want to do is give a few examples of what happens to real people, something I suspect that members of the conservative coalition fail to see in their day-to-day lives. I will give you an example that relates to Easter Sunday trading. There is a small trader who operates not far from where I live. She is a retailer and an elderly lady. She likes to spend Easter with her family. She does not have to open her business on Easter Sunday, as she sells young children’s and baby’s clothing. However, her business is not far away from one of the major retailers. What will happen on Easter Sunday is that the major retailers will open their doors and so will the indoor shopping complex around the corner. This elderly lady will have to spend the entire day in her shop because of the likes of Woolworths and Coles, which sell the same sorts of clothing she does, being open. If she does not open on Easter Sunday, she will potentially lose that sort of trade. It is highly likely that she will sell very little clothing on that day on which she will spend a lot of time away from her family. She tells me that Easter Sunday is one of the few days of the year on which she has the opportunity to spend time with her family. In relation to minimum hours of work, I want to talk about the example of a family I know very well. We have heard from the government — the conservative members opposite — that we are doing young people a MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 26 ASSEMBLY PROOF favour by employing them for only 11⁄2 hours at a time. We hear that patronising tone again. There is no doubt that employment is going to help young people. Wednesday, 6 April 2011 family, because this family’s child will now get paid for 11⁄2 hours work rather than 3 hours work. That will make a significant difference to the family budget at the end of the week. Ms Ryall — You have no idea! Mr MADDEN — I will take up that comment. I do have an idea. I have worked with young people in vulnerable situations, and I will give you some examples: I was self-employed for many years in a small business as an architect, I taught younger people for many years, and I was the president of the AFL Players Association at a significant time of change for the AFL. At that time there were highly motivated young people desperately wanting to do the work, but they were not respected by their employers, who took a patronising tone towards them. There is another thing that members opposite have forgotten in relation to these matters. They say good parents have to drive back and forth. We have all done that and we are expected to do that for our children, but the other thing they have not taken into account is what is known as the vampire index. This index is used in urban planning, and it relates to the amount of petrol you have to use to travel long distances and the effect that has on your family budget. What this government wants to do is reduce the income of key workers — nurses, police, teachers, health workers and the like — — I return to the example of the family I know very well, which needs the money that the children bring in to make ends meet. I take up the point we heard from members on this side in relation to that. Government members are saying that this kind of money is a sort of add-on, but for many families the money that their adolescent children can bring through the door helps make ends meet. This family I know has five children. The daughter works at an ice-cream parlour in a main street shopping centre. She will take the shortest shift she can get because of what happens on a hot day. You might have a situation where the weather changes or different things happen, and that has an impact on the amount of ice-cream you can sell on a hot day. Mr MADDEN — I will take up that interjection. Workers’ incomes will be reduced, because inflation is rising at a faster rate than the minimum wage the government is offering through the EBA process. What you will see is real income reduced and a greater reduction in income because of that vampire index, particularly with rising petrol prices. The government is encouraging the notion of parents driving across town to shopping centres and the like more often, getting them to spend their hard-earnt money on the petrol it takes to drop off and collect their children when they are doing 11⁄2 hours of work. After school this mother takes her adolescent child to the main street shopping centre to work on a hot day, or any day really, to sell ice-cream. If it is not a hot day, her daughter will have a 11⁄2-hour shift, with the possibility of increasing the shift to 3 hours if the owner chooses to do so at the time. However, what that means is that this lady has to pack her four other children into the car, take her adolescent daughter down to the ice-cream shop for her daughter’s 11⁄2-hour shift, and then drive her home afterwards. That is called good parenting, and these people are great parents. With the change to working conditions this girl would have had to work 3 hours. Currently if the shop is not selling ice-cream, she is allowed to go home before the 3 hours is up because there is no point in keeping her there, but what will happen in the future is that she will only be paid for 11⁄2 hours regardless of the situation, but then she may be asked to stay on for a bit longer. As well as that, what the government is intending is to push more people into the outer suburbs. We know that the demand for housing in inner suburbs by the key workers I have just mentioned will not be met, because they will not be able to purchase those houses and cover the mortgage payments. What the government is saying is, ‘We’ll put as many people in the outer suburbs as we possibly can, and we won’t let anybody else in those expensive suburbs’. What we are going to see is more vulnerable people out on the fringes with their salaries reduced. They will include key workers who have to drive miles to take their kids to their places of employment for small periods of time, and the government says this is a great thing. The government does not understand; the Premier does not understand because the Premier has never had to lead a real life in his world. He has never had to rely on those services, and he has never had to rely on a real income. Members opposite will say that it will be the end of civilisation if you change the minimum hours to 11⁄2 from 3 hours. What the proposed new minimum hours will do is make a very real difference to this Dr SYKES (Benalla) — Now we have seen it grovelling in the gutter — 6 foot, 7 inches grovelling in the gutter! Mr Weller — Reduce? You want to reduce income? 11:55 MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF Mr Madden — On a point of order, Speaker, the member is misleading the house again, because I am 6 foot, 10 inches! Dr SYKES — Still, he did not disagree with the second part as to how low those people on that side can stoop to try and drive a wedge between us on this side and the people who elected us to represent them. We were elected by the people of Victoria to represent them because they know we are the people who stand up for a fair go — a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work. This matter of public importance is about containing wage increases and common sense in working hours. I will put it in context. It is about managing a budget. The first principle of managing a budget is to live within your means; do not spend more than you earn and generate a budget surplus. Secondly, basic budgetary management dictates that you spend wisely; you get value for money and spend it equitably so that everyone benefits from the wealth and prosperity of this state, not just a few, whom I will talk about in a moment. That is not how Labor operated in its 11 years. We have had unbelievable financial mismanagement because Labor cannot manage money. It has never been able to manage money, and it never will. Do you know why? It does not care because it is not its money, Ralph! It is taxpayers money, and it just blows it. The Baillieu-Ryan government has been elected by the majority of Victorians to bring in responsible financial management to fix Labor’s mess, and what a mess it is. Let us look at the specifics of the matter of public importance. Easter trading is extremely important to the electorates of Benalla and Benambra. We rely on tourists coming to north-eastern Victoria, which is a fabulous part of Victoria, as is Echuca, the member for Rodney’s location. We have key towns in our electorate that rely heavily on the tourist dollar: Nagambie, Eildon, Mansfield, Bright, Myrtleford, Mount Beauty, Benalla and Euroa, and until — — Mr McCurdy interjected. Dr SYKES — With the help of the member for Murray Valley — and Wangaratta! Until we introduced the Easter trading arrangements we had the absolutely ludicrous situation where businesses with less than 20 employees could open but businesses with more than 20 employees could not open unless it was a hardware business or a nursery or unless there was an exemption for the whole community, such as the one for Bendigo, which is represented by a Labor MP. We had the situation in Bright where there was only one business in all of Bright — a community of a couple of thousand people catering for up to 10 000 visitors — 27 that could not open on Easter Sunday. Do members know what business that was? It was the IGA supermarket, the source of food. We had people coming up to Bright to relax and have a hassle-free few days — ordinary working people bring their caravans to Bright and camp in the camping grounds and want to enjoy the simple pleasures of the magnificent autumn tones of Bright — and Labor was saying to them that they could not get food from the IGA supermarket. This legislation brings in common sense and enables working people to have an enjoyable family holiday and a low-cost meal without having to worry about a lot of storage and refrigeration, because they can get fresh food from the local supermarket. That is common sense in legislation. It is about looking after working people. Let us look at the issue of containing wages, which has been raised by those in opposition. Let us put this issue in context by looking at what has happened on the West Gate Bridge. I have a niece whose partner worked on the West Gate Bridge. He told me he was on 100 grand a year as a labourer but the work ethic was mind-blowing. That is only one issue. I am pleased that the member for Lyndhurst, the former Minister for Water, is here in the chamber. I refer to the north–south pipeline, which we plugged. One of the locals got invited to work on that job. He put in a quote for windscreen repairs at $60 an hour. The organisation came back to him and said, ‘You’re going to have to work those figures; it’s just not on’. He said that that figure was as low as he could go. The organisation said, ‘No, we don’t want you to take the figure lower; 60 bucks an hour is far too low, we want you to go to $300 an hour.’! Why? Because it is just taxpayers money. Then we have the daddy of them all: the desalination plant, where there are outrageous arrangements. Tradies there are getting 150 grand or 200 grand a year, and their work culture, as reported in today’s Age, is absolutely appalling. Let us get it right. If we are going to have a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay, we cannot have the system put in place by the previous government, where there was outrageous ripping off at the top, and then the money will be available to make sure that the people we care about are looked after properly. Let us move on to the issue of minimum hours, which is particularly affecting newsagents. We have the situation in Benalla where the minimum hours have been pushed out to 3 hours. That has had an impact on business flexibility. It has made the businesses less cost-effective, as it is costing more money to deliver the same services. People have had their rosters changed; they are working fewer days and longer hours, and jobs MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 28 ASSEMBLY PROOF have been sacrificed. The problem is that the situation is making it harder for our young people. A couple of our young ones who work at the Benalla newsagent want to move to Melbourne so they can find work that fits in with their tertiary education. These country kids have missed out on the opportunity to qualify for the Youth Allowance, and the opposition has failed to stand up for country Victorians and ensure that they get a fair opportunity for education. The opportunities for country kids to work in Melbourne are being restricted because of the minimum number of hours. It is interesting to hear the member for Essendon talk about how it works the other way. He said that increasing the minimum number of hours works against the worker. I am giving an example where increasing the minimum number of hours is working against our young people, who are currently severely disadvantaged and need to work to pursue their educational opportunities. Ms Graley — But you don’t want them to be paid for working on a public holiday. Dr SYKES — I thank the member for Narre Warren South — they will get paid for working on Easter Sunday, and they will continue to get paid a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. 12:05 I conclude by referring to the start of this debate, in which the member for Tarneit made comments accusing the coalition of misleading Victorians in a contrived fashion. Is that not the pot calling the kettle black? From his copious notes the member came up with those little gems. On top of that, when the member for Box Hill replied he immediately exposed the factual incorrectness of the statements by the member for Tarneit. Let us examine where we fit into this. On this side we represent all Victorians, including the workers. We are sick and tired of the opposition attempting to create a class divide, and I advise the opposition that many people who used to vote Labor now vote Liberal-Nationals because we stand up for all Victorians. Ms KAIROUZ (Kororoit) — The Premier, Ted Baillieu, has been caught out. Baillieu and Co. has been caught out. A leopard never changes its spots. It has taken less than five months for Mr Baillieu’s true colours to come out and show his disregard for Victorian workers and Victorian families. It took less than three months in office before Baillieu and Co. launched a two-pronged attack on the wages and conditions of workers in the retail industry. Wednesday, 6 April 2011 First, the Liberal government moved swiftly to introduce legislation that would allow open-slather trading on Easter Sunday. This legislation clearly represents an attack on workers and workers’ families during a time of year that should be one of celebration and relaxation. Instead this government — in what represents an ironic twist, given the Premier’s first statement on the importance of families in Victoria — has slapped Victorian working families in the face by removing the protection from being forced to work on Easter Sunday. In that statement the Premier claimed that under his government families would be ‘at the centre of our decision making’. He also claimed that ‘All decisions of cabinet now consider in advance the benefits for families’. I ask Baillieu and Co.: how does trading on Easter Sunday pass this test? How can this Liberal-Nationals government look the Victorian people in the eye and say it legitimately cares and puts the interests of Victorian workers first when it has taken away the protection of workers from working on Easter Sunday? Premier Baillieu has also provided no proposals to protect workers from being compelled to work on Easter Sunday, and nor has he allowed for the provision of compensation beyond the normal Sunday rate through public holiday penalty loadings for this day. Easter Sunday is not a public holiday, and the government has not legislated protections for workers in Victoria in relation to Easter Sunday under the general retail industry award. This highlights the hypocrisy of the Baillieu government, on one hand crowing about the importance of families and cutting the cost of living for Victorian households but on the other hand ripping out the heart of Victorian workers. Ted Baillieu’s choice to make the Shop Trading Reform Amendment (Easter Sunday) Bill 2011 the first bill to be passed by this government says everything about him and his priorities. Ted Baillieu has no understanding about what it is like to work, let alone work on Easter Sunday. He has no understanding about what it is like for a retail worker at Coles to earn $18.40 per hour, and he has no understanding of what it is like to pay rent or a mortgage, maintain a car, pay the bills and put food on the table on a weekly minimum wage. Baillieu and Co. were elected on a platform to fix the problems. With all the things they said they would be dealing with, such as transport, health care and flood relief, they have chosen instead to target Victorian workers through passing the Easter Sunday trading bill as the first act in the 57th Parliament. Premier Baillieu’s announcement of the government’s intention to seek a reduction in the minimum hours of work for young people is another attack on Victorian BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF workers. This is despite four failed attempts by the Australian Retailers Association in the last three years to get Fair Work Australia to accept changes to minimum casual hours. Again, with all the things the government said it would be doing, it has chosen to attack the most vulnerable workers — schoolchildren — and their wages and conditions. The 3-hour minimum casual model is just and fair, but the 11⁄2-hour minimum is not. In fact the Australian Retailers Association withdrew its submission when given a deadline by Fair Work Australia to provide evidence that workers would be better off working 11⁄2 hours. Yet Ted Baillieu is pushing ahead, and he made a special request to Fair Work Australia — — The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris) — Order! I draw the attention of the member for Kororoit to standing order 108, which states: A member must refer to other members by their title of office or by the name of their electorate. Ms KAIROUZ — Premier Baillieu is pushing ahead, and he has decided that he will put in a submission to Fair Work Australia to lop the minimum casual hours from the current 3 hours to 11⁄2 hours. That is despite Fair Work Australia delivering condemnation of the Australian Retailers Association case on a reduction of hours last year. In its decision the ARA said: It is hard to imagine a weaker evidentiary case for a general reduction in the minimum period of casual engagement. 29 everything about him. He obviously does not understand what it is like to work for a minimum wage. He does not understand the relative living standards and the needs of the low paid, and he does not understand what it is like to live on wages below the minimum wage or to earn the current minimum wage of $15 per hour or $569.90 a week. He does not understand any of this because he has never had to, and now he simply does not want to. Let us turn to the Victorian public sector workers — workers that this state cannot function without, such as police, teachers and nurses. The Premier promised the world to these workers before the election, and after the election he reneged. Premier Baillieu’s decision to propose wage increases below inflation for the Victorian public sector workers is a further alarming symbol of the importance he places on the fiscal over the fair. In fact Baillieu and Co. have decided to move the enterprise bargaining unit from Workforce Victoria to the Department of Treasury and Finance, which basically means that the public sector negotiations will now be controlled in every part by the government, which wants to keep wage increases below inflation. Sadly we have a Premier without any credibility. We have a Premier who is very good at providing commentary but is not good at delivering on his promises. We have a Premier who does not understand what it is like to work and does not understand what it is like to make ends meet from pay to pay. 12:12 This attack on school student workers and their families represents the government’s malicious agenda and sole function of representing employers and big business. The cruel decision by Premier Baillieu will have a detrimental effect on the vulnerable and poor within our society, but what would he know? He has never had to work for a living. He has never had to save every cent to treat himself to go to the cinema or work to catch public transport or buy a treat from the school canteen, so the choice to reduce the minimum hours of work for schoolchildren from 3 hours to 11⁄2 hours is not surprising at all. Every Victorian deserves to know that their government will not abandon them to face the challenges alone, particularly the lowest paid workers. Instead we have a Liberal-Nationals government that attacks some of Victoria’s lowest paid and most vulnerable workers. We find once again Premier Baillieu launching an attack on Victorian workers by recommending constraining wage increases for Victoria’s lowest paid workers. Premier Baillieu’s choice to restrain wage increases for Victoria’s lowest paid workers says BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Orders of the day Mr McINTOSH (Minister for Corrections) — I move: That the order of the house making the resumption of debate on the second reading of the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011 an order of the day for Thursday, 7 April 2011 be read and rescinded and that the bill be made an order of the day for Wednesday, 6 April 2011. Two weeks ago a decision was made to place the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011 on the notice paper for Thursday, which constituted a two-week adjournment from the Thursday of the last sitting week. It is felt that in the circumstances of this week, ample time will be provided tomorrow to give an opportunity to a number of members to make their contributions to the address-in-reply debate. I am sure there are also a number of members on both sides of the house who wish to speak on the Japanese earthquake and tsunami motion. That could be accomplished by 4 p.m. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 30 ASSEMBLY PROOF tomorrow. Most importantly an opportunity to speak on both the address-in-reply motion and he Japanese earthquake motion will be afforded to all members tomorrow. When the government business program was being contemplated we kept the number of bills to be debated in the house to a minimum of four rather than allowing the usual six, seven or eight, which we have seen in normal business weeks of both this Parliament and previous parliaments. We feel four bills is a more than adequate number for completion in two days. Accordingly we have decided to bring on the government business program guillotine tonight. The Multicultural Victoria Bill is obviously an important bill, and many members will be given the opportunity to speak on that later today. As an important bill it merits as many members as possible making a contribution on it. Accordingly this motion rescinds the motion agreed to by the house two weeks ago which put the Multicultural Victoria Bill on the notice paper for tomorrow and brings it on today. It is only one day earlier than was originally agreed to when the debate was adjourned for two weeks. That will enable that bill to be debated today and put to the vote as part of the guillotine at 10.00 p.m. tonight, along with the other three bills. It is the government’s view that this will mean as many members as possible will be able to make a contribution on this very important bill as well as giving the house the opportunity of making significant inroads in getting through the contributions of members who want to speak on the address-in-reply and Japanese earthquake and tsunami motions. The timing of those matters will obviously be dependent on discussions between the various parties. However, we can start with the address-in-reply debate and Japanese natural disasters motion can be debated at some later stage. As I said, that will be the subject of discussions between parties in the house. Given the unusual situation of the Treasurer being required in Canberra, we would like the house on Thursday to deal with non-controversial matters, including the address-in-reply and the Japanese earthquake motions. Both of those matters are perhaps non-controversial in the sense that they do not necessarily carry specific outcomes even though all members have the opportunity to make a contribution. The address-in-reply debate can of course be partisan in content — the nature of the beast is that there is no opposition to the motion itself — and I am sure there will be no opposition to the tsunami motion. Wednesday, 6 April 2011 The government’s view is, therefore, that given tomorrow’s circumstances, which have been created by the opposition not providing a pair for the Treasurer, and given the government is putting four bills on the government business program with a guillotine at 10.00 p.m. tonight, we will be accommodating as many members as possible making their contributions on those important bills, including the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011. We think this will enable us, as I said, to move on tomorrow to the less controversial matters I have already mentioned Accordingly I am happy to commend this important motion to the house. Ms BEATTIE (Yuroke) — The opposition will be opposing this motion. An honourable member interjected. Ms BEATTIE — If the member will listen, he will give me an opportunity to speak. The opposition has always supported multicultural affairs in a bipartisan way, and we hope to continue that bipartisan support. However, we do not support being gagged in a debate. In this great state the grandson of a Lebanese migrant can become Premier, and the child of Sri Lankan parents can rise to become Governor. We have always supported the multicultural nature of our state, and we want the opportunity to have a fair debate on this matter. We need more time on this matter, which is really important for this state. Members will know that just recently there was a cricket match in India. Many of my Indian constituents went to India to watch that match, and they are coming back to Australia now. I have not had the opportunity on behalf of my constituents to consult with them on this very important bill. This bill will take multicultural affairs forward in this state, but it is a great change from what has been the case in the past. We have had multicultural commissioners; now we are moving to regional councils. We want an opportunity to go back to our communities, no matter where they are and no matter which country they are from or which religion they practice, to consult with them about the bill. We thought we would have this extra time to consult, but now we do not because the Treasurer wants to go to Canberra. That is his right and we want him to go. We support him going to Canberra. I will even lend him a Melway to show him where the airport is — although the Liberals always know where the airport is, because they cannot wait for July to have the long winter break to go overseas. I am willing to take time out to give the Treasurer a copy of Melway so he can find his way to 12:20 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF the airport, because I want him to go to Canberra and I want him to argue Victoria’s case. But there seems to be some reluctance on his part, maybe because he has to pay for extra baggage to get his abacus onto the little plane that goes to Canberra. He cannot fit it in. We want to debate the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011 with our communities. In my community, in the municipality of Hume there are people from some 120 nations. In two weeks it is impossible to get around and consult every community in Hume to get their input. Indeed, I have some people coming in today so that I can get their input on the bill. I want to have a fulsome debate. I want to continue the great tradition of bipartisanship on multicultural affairs in this state, but how can we make our multicultural communities feel included in the debate when the guillotine is going to be applied? The guillotine is one of the great traditions of the Liberal Party, and it never ceases to use it. We are four months into this government’s term and we see it being used all the time, because the government does not want to consult. It made decisions about the Multicultural Victoria Act before it came to government, and it does not want us to consult. I know that a former Minister for Multicultural Affairs has been consulting widely, as indeed has the member for Dandenong and the Leader of the Opposition. We want more consultation. We do not want the guillotine to be applied. We want the Treasurer to go to Canberra with his abacus to fight the case. Mr HODGETT (Kilsyth) — I rise in support of the motion moved by the Leader of the House. As has been outlined, the motion seeks to move the order of the day for the resumption of debate on the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011 from Thursday to today, to allow the bill to be debated today and put to the guillotine tonight. We are seeking to change the process to allow that to occur. I am informed by the Opposition Whip that the opposition has a number of speakers who wish to make a contribution on the bill, as do government members, who are also looking forward to making a contribution to the debate. As we heard from the member for Yuroke, members are keen to make their contributions, and it will be interesting to see how much time opposition members spend on debating this motion and the next. If they are keen to get up and make a contribution on the Multicultural Victoria Bill, we are keen to facilitate that and to allow them to speak. Mr Eren interjected. 31 Mr HODGETT — We look forward to the member for Lara also making a contribution and perhaps saying something sensible in the house for a change. As the Leader of the House has outlined, this will allow all of Thursday to be used to debate the address-in-reply to the Governor’s speech and the motion on the Japanese earthquake and tsunami. As I outlined yesterday, we have a number of speakers who are directly or indirectly affected by those disasters, and a few of them are keen to make a contribution on that motion. As has been outlined, this will allow the Treasurer to go to Canberra tomorrow to argue Victoria’s case for a fair share of funding and to stand up for Victoria. Of course, it is without the support of opposition members, who have failed to give him a pair to facilitate his going to Canberra to argue our case for a fair share of funding. In the interests of time, I say that I support the motion, and I urge opposition members to do the same. Mr EREN (Lara) — At the outset I want to record that the opposition does not oppose the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011, but what we are opposing is the procedural motion before the house. In its first 100 days the government has brought in legislation and tried to gag us and guillotine debate. Yet again we are seeing four important bills and it wants to curtail debate on them. It is trying to compress debate on four important bills, bills that are important to the constituencies of all of us. It wants to come in on Thursday and have a comfortable day, because there will be nothing on the legislative agenda. Once again government members are proving themselves to be extremely lazy. They have no legislative agenda, and they want to guillotine debate on any important legislation before the house. Let me get on to the matter of the Treasurer going to Canberra tomorrow. All we have heard from the government is whingeing, carping, moaning and dithering. It is somehow trying to blame the opposition for not letting the Treasurer go. He can go. He should not be afraid. I think he is trying to find an excuse not to go; that is what he is doing, because he will go up to Canberra and be exposed for the fool that he is. That is what he is afraid of. He is looking for all the excuses under the sun as reasons not to go. When you look at the pairs book, which sits just in front of the mace, you see that the last time there was a pair in this house was 2001 — 10 years ago, and that was for a very serious reason, as we heard yesterday. An honourable member interjected. Mr EREN — Excuse me! It was outlined yesterday that the reason why there was a pair in 2001 was BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 32 ASSEMBLY PROOF because a former member’s partner had passed away, and that was a decent thing to do. This is purely about government procedure. As I have indicated, the government should not try to compress debate on these four important bills into a matter of hours. We have a lot of things to say; we are very proud of our history in multiculturalism, and government members, knowing we have that proud history, are trying to gag us. Through the motion we are debating the government wants to change procedures and it says that is so the Treasurer can go to an important meeting tomorrow. That is absolute rubbish. I want to get back to how important multiculturalism is for my community in particular. We are very proud of the investments the former government made in multiculturalism. Only recently the new Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship came to Geelong to celebrate the Pako Festa with us. The Pako Festa is a huge success as a result of the Labor Party’s policies when it was in government. 12:30 Over 100 000 people attend the annual Pako Festa in Geelong, and when the minister came to the festa this year he was amazed at how many people were participating in the event. There is Diversitat, a very important organisation in my electorate with which we work closely. I am proud that the former Labor government invested over $1 million in a $3.5 million project to create a community hub which will provide services for migrant communities in my electorate and North Geelong. It is a fantastic project, and we are very proud of investing over $1 million in this hub, which is almost complete. What will happen now? After Labor has done all the work, the new minister will come to Geelong and open the building. That is fine, but what I oppose is the government trying to stifle debate and gag the opposition on this important bill, the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011. We will not be gagged. Mr WELLER (Rodney) — It appears that members of the opposition are suffering from amnesia after their big fall on 27 November last year. Every sitting week during the last term of Parliament we had the guillotine at 4 o’clock on a Thursday, and in many cases I was denied my full 10 minutes to contribute to the debate on the bills. Back then there was an agreement that members would speak for a shorter time so that everyone could contribute. Agreements were worked out. The government and opposition whips sat down and worked out how everybody could have the opportunity to contribute. There was none of this rot of Wednesday, 6 April 2011 opposing things just to waste time, such as we are going through now. If the opposition wants to get onto the bill, let us get through this motion and have the actual debate on the bill. It is absolutely essential that the Treasurer go to the ministerial meeting tomorrow and defend our entitlement to the $2.5 billion that the federal government has ripped out of the Victorian economy. Ms Allan — On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this matter of public importance is not about the Treasurer’s attendance at the ministerial council meeting; it is about the restructuring of the government business program to accommodate debate on the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011. Perhaps the member for Rodney could come back to addressing the motion before the house. Mr WELLER — What has to be remembered — — The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris) — Order! Before the member for Rodney continues it might be helpful for me to rule on the point of order. Mr WELLER — If members of the house were quiet, I could hear the Speaker. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris) — Order! On that point, as difficult as it might be to believe, I am having trouble hearing the member for Rodney. I ask that we just lower the temperature in the house a bit. There is no point of order, but I would appreciate the member returning to debate the motion. Mr WELLER — What we have to remember is that it has been the practice of this house to have the debate on all bills guillotined as part of the government business program. In the last sitting of Parliament, between 2006 and 2010 — — An honourable member — The dark years. Mr WELLER — They were very dark years, but agreements were often made that members would speak for a shorter time so that all members could have their say. Unfortunately in this Parliament members of the party now in opposition do not want to work towards all members getting a fair go. They are pulling stunts like this where we are wasting 15 to 30 minutes debating a procedural motion rather than getting on with debating legislation. Honourable members interjecting. Mr WELLER — The member for Lyndhurst interjects and says I am doing the talking. The reason I BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF am doing the talking is that members of the opposition are opposing this motion. They have chosen to waste half an hour debating this motion when we could be debating the bill. As we have seen throughout this Parliament so far, they want to play games. They want to muck around and waste time when we should be having a proper debate on the bill. Let us get on with it. Ms GRALEY (Narre Warren South) — We are not opposing this. There is a good saying that we should do twice as much listening as talking. Members opposite should take notice of that, because the fact is we are not opposing it. We are very pleased that the Government Whip has told us that the Treasurer is off to Canberra. That is great news. That is terrific, because members on this side of the house cannot wait for him to get to Canberra. We are hoping that Mr Recurrent Capital will get a lesson in economics and accounting in Canberra. We cannot wait for federal Treasurer Wayne Swan to sit him down and tell him how to add up and how to read the budget papers. We just hope he will understand what is going on in that room tomorrow. We really hope that he will do Victoria proud. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris) — Order! I ask the member for Narre Warren South to return to the motion. Ms GRALEY — As the members for Yuroke and Lara said, on this side of the house we are proud of our record on multiculturalism. Victoria has a proud history in this area. Even members on the other side of the house have always championed multiculturalism in Victoria. I understand that the Premier recently made an excellent speech at a Victorian Multicultural Commission (VMC) dinner which many people attended. However, people from the Indian, Greek and Latin American communities are coming to my office and asking, ‘Judith, what is going on in Victoria with the changes to this act?’ Many people are upset, and they are asking me very pertinently — — The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris) — Order! I again ask the member to return to the motion. Ms GRALEY — They are asking, ‘Why did George have to go?’. They are wondering what has happened, and they are asking, ‘What do we need to do to keep our funding? What is changing here? What is happening?’. They are very disturbed. I say to the members opposite, who are trying to increase the teaching of languages in schools, that one of the basic things you have to understand when dealing with ethnic 33 groups is that you have to give them the time and resources to understand change. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris) — Order! Does the member intend to return to the motion? Ms GRALEY — When the VMC was set up it took nine months. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris) — Order! Does the member intend to return to the motion? We seem to be debating the bill at this stage. Ms GRALEY — I am returning to the motion. I am talking about the lack of consultation in relation to this bill. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris) — Order! If that is so, the member should couch her comments in those terms. Ms GRALEY — I am talking about the lack of consultation of the very concerned people in my electorate. As I said, people are turning up at my office worried about not only how they will operate but also how they will be able to afford to operate in the future. When the VMC was set up there was nine months of extensive consultation. People sat around and talked about the best model for pursuing a healthy multiculturalism in Victoria. If I recall correctly, it was led by Liberal minister Haddon Storey at the time. This is another example of the bipartisan approach Victorians expect from government when it comes to multicultural affairs. What is happening with this bill is a real shame, one which many people are concerned about. Because of the lack of consultation, we have no understanding — and the bill certainly does not give us that understanding — about the transition from one authority to another. I understand even people in the department are struggling to comprehend exactly what is happening, so what hope do people in the community, who often have limited resources, have in trying to deal with what they consider to be dramatic changes regarding the very good things that so many of them are doing in the community? Motion agreed to. 12:37 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 34 ASSEMBLY PROOF BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Sessional orders Mr McINTOSH (Minister for Corrections) — I move: That the following new sessional order be adopted, to come into operation with immediate effect: ‘8 Interruption of business for adjournment Standing order 32 be suspended and the following to apply: (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the Speaker will interrupt the business before the house at: (a) 10.00 p.m. each sitting Tuesday and Wednesday; (b) 4.00 p.m. on any other sitting day. (2) If a division is taking place when the time for the interruption arises, the division will be completed and the result announced. If the division is on a closure motion, and the motion is agreed to, the question or questions then required to be put to close the issue before the house will also be dealt with. The Speaker will then interrupt business. (3) If the time for the interruption arises: (a) at the same time as the completion time set by the government business program; or (b) after the interruption for the completion time of the government business program, but before all business on the program has been dealt with — all business on the government business program will be completed first. The Speaker will then interrupt business for the adjournment. (4) After the interruption: (a) before a motion for the adjournment is proposed by the Speaker, a minister may move that the sitting be continued. That motion must be put immediately without amendment or debate. If it is agreed to, the house will resume debate at the point at which it had been interrupted; or (b) if a motion is not moved, the Speaker will immediately propose the question ‘That the house now adjourns’. Any business under discussion and any other business not concluded at the time of the adjournment will be listed on the notice paper for the next sitting day. Any member speaking at the time of the interruption may, when debate resumes, continue his or her speech.’. The new sessional order largely replicates existing standing order 32, but makes two significant changes, which I will outline to the house. The first is a change to the current arrangement whereby on any day the house sits there is the opportunity for an automatic Wednesday, 6 April 2011 adjournment at 10.00 p.m. Of course a minister can move that the sitting be continued, but otherwise the question that the house adjourn is put automatically, without debate. The new standing order makes no change to this procedure except by adopting the clear present practice of the house — that is, that it usually sits for a shorter time on Thursday. It also acknowledges that the time for remaining government business has usually concluded by 4.00 p.m. on Thursday. Of course there is always the opportunity for a sitting to be continued on the motion of a minister. That option will remain, and it may be the common practice in relation to second-reading speeches — we will have to wait and see. I note that certainly in the last two years of the former government’s administration a number of second-reading speeches were made during the course of the debate. This government has not availed itself of that option on too many occasions. Second-reading speeches will be made later this afternoon, but I understand that will only be a matter of some 15 minutes, so it should not trouble the house too much. The change is to reflect the common practice in this house — that is, to adjourn at 4.00 p.m. on most sitting Thursdays, or any sitting days other than Tuesdays or Wednesdays. As I said, in each case there is still the opportunity to extend the sitting in circumstances where further business needs to be transacted, but the question would automatically be put at 4.00 p.m. The second substantial change is made by paragraph (3), which talks about the government business program. The government business program has been extensively used during the 11 years I have been in this Parliament. It has been common practice, but there is a slight anomaly in relation to it. Under the existing regime it would occur only at 10.00 p.m. on any sitting day, and the anomaly is that if we had a government business program concluding on Tuesday or Wednesday, then the questions may not be put. They would have to be put before the automatic adjournment or the sitting would have to be continued. This change makes it perfectly clear that if there is a government business program set for the same time as the adjournment, then the government business program would be cleared before the automatic adjournment takes place. Apart from those two substantial changes, the new sessional order in effect replicates existing standing order 32. As I said, for many years it has been the common practice for the house to sit for only a limited time on Thursday, with the questions for the government business program being ultimately put at 4.00 p.m. The new sessional order merely reflects the fact that on any sitting day there is the ability to move BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF an extension of the sitting and provides for an automatic adjournment at the time that is the common practice of this house. I commend the motion to the house. Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East) — I rise to make a contribution to this debate regarding the new sessional order moved by the Leader of the House. It was discussed yesterday and we are debating it today. We appreciate that the government is very keen to have this sessional order adopted and to have it become part of the practice of this chamber as soon as possible. I will come to the reasons for that in a moment. For the information of the Leader of the House and the government, the opposition will not be supporting these changes to the sessional orders, which I will go through shortly. 12:45 In his contribution the Leader of the House suggested that the changes to the sessional order largely replicate the current practice under standing order 32. Whilst that may be true in part, it is not true in the whole. The change to the sessional order outlined in paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) cover matters the opposition takes no issue with. I think the Leader of the House said this change redresses an anomaly when there is conflict between the government business program and the adjournment of the house landing at the same time in the course of a sitting day, and it certainly makes sense that that change be made. If members of the government would like to extract that part of the sessional and put it forward separately as an individual item, they would find that opposition members would support that part of the sessional order. However, the area opposition members take issue with is contained in paragraph 1(b). It appears that the government is very keen to gag parliamentary debate at 4.00 o’clock on every Thursday of every sitting week. At the moment the interruption for the adjournment is at 10.00 p.m. each sitting day, and we have established over quite a period of time that there is routine that Parliament adjourns at 10 o’clock on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, and then on Thursday to facilitate a number of things — including the second-reading speeches that need to be delivered by government ministers, or perhaps the need for members to get back to their electorates ready to spend Friday in their offices — it has been a convention that the house ceases its business at 4 o’clock and the government puts in place the guillotine on the government business program at that time. 35 The change in proposed standing order 8(1)(b) goes one big step further, and it is that big step that the opposition takes issue with. Bringing in a requirement that the house adjourn at 4 o’clock on any other sitting day constricts the opportunity for the Parliament to have a full debate on a range of different matters. Over my 11 years in this chamber it has been the practice from time to time that we have sat late on Thursday; indeed I recall that we have sat on Friday from time to time. The reason those circumstances arose under the previous government was that we had a full legislative program. We came to office ready to go; we were ready with an agenda to implement new programs and new policies for Victoria. Unfortunately what we have seen over the four sitting weeks of this government — and let us not forget the one glorious day we sat to open the Parliament before Christmas — the government business programs and the passage of legislation through this Parliament have been nothing short of a shambles. Let us recap and cast our minds back to those shambles. When this Parliament opened we had a sitting week of one day. Members of the opposition were keen to have a full parliamentary week; we were keen to sit on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of that week, or even have a Wednesday, Thursday and Friday session, but members of the government were only interested in sitting for one day. They were more interested in having their garden party, with the cucumber sandwiches and the orange juice in the parliamentary gardens and the hats and the celebrations on the floor of the Parliament. That is what members of the government were more interested in. As you will recall, Acting Speaker, this situation was exposed when the opposition forced members of the government to bring in their legislative program. The government was quite content to have bills introduced but not exposed to scrutiny over the Christmas period. Opposition members called on the government — we used parliamentary procedures — requiring the government to second read those bills and expose them to scrutiny, and we had to do it repeatedly because the government was not ready to get down to work. Then there was the start of the 2011 sitting year and sitting weeks with very skinny legislative programs, and this week provides an illustrative example of how skinny the legislative program has been. Once again it shows that members of the government are just not ready. They are happy to debate censure motions and attack opposition members relentlessly. They are quite happy to pull stunts, such as introducing the Parliamentary Salaries and Superannuation BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 36 ASSEMBLY PROOF Amendment Bill 2011, which provides for fining members of Parliament. Members of the government are quite happy to pull stunts and engage in those sorts of activities, but they are not quite ready to do the hard work that the Victorian public elected them to do. These events have led to a circumstance where a proposed sessional order is being brought in not to help the smooth running of Parliament or the procedures of this place and not to see legislation pass in a timely manner; this sessional order is being brought in as yet another example of this government failing to do its job properly and wanting to hide the Treasurer from the ministerial council meeting in Canberra. I have a theory on this bluff and bluster we have seen from the government over the Treasurer’s attendance of the ministerial council meeting. I think government members quite enjoy it. I think they are quite happy for this to continue for quite a while, because it covers up their true feelings on this matter. Government members are quite happy for the Treasurer not to go and quite happy for him not to be exposed at the national level — at a national forum — as being the incompetent Treasurer that he is. I think they are quite secretly pleased. Honourable members interjecting. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris) — Order! The member for Bendigo East, without assistance. Ms ALLAN — We only have to look at the bluff and bluster to which we have been subjected over the last few days for proof of that. On Saturday afternoon out trotted the Attorney-General, who very solemnly declared the travesty that was brought on the state of Victoria and the need for the Treasurer to attend the ministerial council meeting in Canberra. What was the response of the opposition? The opposition’s response has always been that the Treasurer should go. The issue of the Treasurer’s attendance at the ministerial council meeting tomorrow in Canberra is not a matter for the opposition. Here is a newsflash for the government: it is the government, and it has to run its own diary. It is not my job, the shadow Treasurer’s job or the Leader of the Opposition’s job to run the Treasurer’s diary; it is the Treasurer’s job and his office’s job to run his own diary. He makes those decisions himself; it is not our job. Obviously the poor old Attorney-General drew the short straw on Saturday; he was the minister on media duty that day, so they wheeled him out. I can imagine him sitting there in his office saying, ‘I wish I had followed football; I wish I barracked for an AFL team Wednesday, 6 April 2011 that was playing today. I wish I had a good excuse for not being here. I wish I was up at Mount Hotham or even in Mildura visiting the member for Mildura. I wish I was somewhere else. I wish I was anywhere but here having to continue this charade of defending the Treasurer’. This state of affairs continued through question time yesterday, and indeed to today. Repeatedly members of the government have stood up demanding that the Treasurer be allowed to go to the ministerial council meeting. Go! We agree: he should go. We have supported him in going. Then yesterday it was revealed that he is going, so what was all the fuss about? What was all that bluff and bluster about? He is going. There is no need for a pair to be provided. The absence of the Treasurer does not change the circumstances on the floor of the Parliament, so what was all the fuss about? You can only wonder what the fuss was all about. Mr Holding — It was just a try-on. Ms ALLAN — It was a try-on. Members of the government were trying to conceal the real reason, which is that they did not want to send the Treasurer to Canberra. They were quite happy for him to be tucked up on level 4 at 1 Treasury Place, surrounded by his bureaucrats in his little cocoon. They do not really want to let him out and be exposed to the rough and tumble of ministerial councils, because they know he would be chronically exposed for his inability to do the job that is required of a Victorian Treasurer. We are a major economy, not just by Australian standards but internationally. We are an important economy. We are an economy that is in transition. We are an economy that needs not just a safe pair of hands but a clever pair of hands — and we are not getting that from this Treasurer. During the Treasurer’s past applications he made to be the treasurer of his local scout group or similar organisations were probably rejected. I am sure he would have been rejected for appointment to such roles in the past. But he is our Treasurer now. He is the Victorian Treasurer. Once again the government is trying to hide him away from scrutiny, just as they did for each and every one of the days of the election campaign last November. It does not want to put the Treasurer up for scrutiny, and it is trying to blame the opposition once again. Whenever the government gets into a bit of a pickle somehow it is the opposition’s fault. Opposition members go through their list of excuses. ‘What is it today? Oh, we will use that one we love the best — playing the opposition’. Somehow election commitments that were not made by the government are the opposition’s fault. The decision to not commit to fund the Olivia Newton-John Cancer 12:55 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF and Wellness Centre is somehow our fault — but it is not our fault that the Treasurer failed to include it in his costings document — — Mr McIntosh — On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is drivel. This is utter drivel. I ask you to direct the member back to the motion. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris) — Order! I think it was more editorial comment, but I would appreciate it if the debate were turned closer to the motion before the house. Ms ALLAN — The motion before the house is about the government trying to restructure the standing and sessional orders just as it has had to restructure its government business program so it can make sure that the Treasurer goes to Canberra tomorrow. That is what we support. We support the Treasurer going to Canberra for the Ministerial Council on Federal Financial Relations. The government should not give us this charade along the way. It is trying to cover up its embarrassment about this Treasurer, and we are seeing this with excuse after excuse from both the Treasurer and the government not wanting to get on and do their job. I would now like to address the issue of pairs, because it has been raised repeatedly over the course of today. I was a member of a minority government between 1999 and 2002. During that time pairs were not provided to the government to attend ministerial council meetings. Indeed if you look at the pairs book, you will see that a pair was provided in 1993. I am not sure of the reason why — — 37 Ms ALLAN — On this matter of pairs, we were a minority government and were not provided with a pair between 1999 and 2002 for ministers to attend ministerial council meetings. That is a fact. That is the practice that those opposite followed when they were in opposition; that is what was continued. In the past 111/2 years that has been the practice and custom of this house. What we are seeing now is that the government is trying — — Mr McIntosh — You petty little thing. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris) — Order! The member for Bendigo East, without assistance from the Leader of the House. Ms ALLAN — I ask the minister to withdraw that reference to me being a ‘petty little thing’. Mr McIntosh — I withdraw. Ms ALLAN — Thank you. The difference between 1999-2002 and today is that the government is a majority government, not a minority government. It has the numbers on the floor of the Parliament. We accepted the outcome of the election of last November. It is just a damn shame for the state of Victoria that members opposite have not done their job. They are not doing the job they were elected to do. They have used every opportunity to blame the opposition for their failures — whether it be failing to deliver on projects or failing to fund their commitments, they blame the opposition for their failures. Once again when it comes to procedures in this house we are seeing the government once again trying to use the opposition as an excuse. Mr McIntosh — 2003. Ms ALLAN — It was 1993. If the Leader of the House checks the pairs book, as I did yesterday — — I will tell the government one thing: we are not going to play that game. We can see the government for what it is. We can see that the government does not want to carry out the job that it was elected to do. Mr McIntosh interjected. Sitting suspended 1.00 p.m. until 2.03 p.m. Ms ALLAN — I said 1993. If the Leader of the House would clean the wax out of his ears and stop trying to bully those opposite he might hear the contributions we are making. Mr McIntosh — On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the manager of opposition business is just wasting the time of the house. It is utter drivel, and I ask you to bring her back to the motion before the house. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris) — Order! There is no point of order. Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS The SPEAKER — Order! Before calling for questions I would like to acknowledge in the gallery today the Victorian Youth Week Ambassador, Laura John. Welcome to you, and welcome to this house of democracy here in Victoria. As a youth ambassador we particularly welcome you here to the Parliament, and we thank you. 13:02 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 38 ASSEMBLY PROOF I would also like to acknowledge in the gallery Don Hayward, the former Minister for Education in the Kennett government. It is great to see you here, Don. Thank you, and feel welcome. Ms Allan — On a point of order, Speaker, yesterday I raised with you an incident that occurred in the parliamentary precinct involving the member for Tarneit and a government staff member. I requested that you consider this matter and advise if you believed the longstanding protocols and practices governing the recording of members of Parliament needed to be updated. In response you simply read into Hansard a letter from the Premier’s chief of staff which conceded that the issues I raised on the point of order were an accurate account, but it then went on to make gratuitous comments about my reasons for raising this matter. I ask you whether the reading of this letter into Hansard constitutes what you would describe as a completely independent investigation into this matter, and I repeat my request from yesterday that you advise the house, in light of the incident involving the member for Tarneit, whether you believe the longstanding protocols and practices governing the recording of members of Parliament need to be updated. The SPEAKER — Order! Yesterday I made inquiries, and I have made further inquiries since then. There are no set protocols in place. I believe members of Parliament have always been in a position where they have used media people to record interviews with the media. The matter was dealt with last night, and I consider the matter dealt with properly. Mr Hulls — On the point of order, Speaker, as you would know, and as you have stated in this house on many occasions, the role of an independent Speaker is to act without fear or favour and to treat all sides equally. To assert that your inquiry simply involves quoting a political letter from the Premier’s chief of staff is, I respectfully suggest, not an independent inquiry. If you are asserting that it is, I suggest that you perhaps re-read yesterday’s Hansard — your contribution in Hansard and the issue raised by the manager of opposition business — and then reconsider whether you believe your response was an independent response or a political response. Mr Clark — On the point of order, Speaker, the point made by the deputy leader of the opposition is a gross misrepresentation of what occurred in the house last night. As you undertook — — Mr Andrews — You weren’t here! Wednesday, 6 April 2011 Mr CLARK — I was in the house last night when the Speaker reported on the matter, and I listened to the numerous points of order that were raised at that time. Speaker, as you indicated at that time, you have done what you had undertaken to do, which was to make inquiries. You have received an account of the matter in response to various points of order that were raised on that occasion. You indicated your conclusion on the matters that had been raised. It seems to me that this was in effect a matter of etiquette. It has been dealt with on that basis, and you have fully discharged your duties. These points of order are spurious in the extreme and should not be taken further. The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the point of order. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Mr Finn (Western Metropolitan): comments Ms GARRETT (Brunswick) — My question is to the Premier. I refer the Premier to the Islamic Council of Victoria’s submission to a federal parliamentary inquiry, as reported in the Herald Sun of Monday, that some Victorians of the Islamic faith are concerned about racism, and I ask: does the Premier condone the Facebook comments of Bernie Finn, a member for Western Metropolitan Region in the Council, on this matter? He stated: I don’t understand how concerns about a religion that seems to sanction decapitation can be construed as racism. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER — Order! I will call the Premier when I have some silence. Mr BAILLIEU (Premier) — I am pleased to get a question about multiculturalism, because multiculturalism — — Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Lara! Mr BAILLIEU — I am pleased to get a question about multiculturalism, because multiculturalism in this state has been important to the continuing development of the state. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of the Opposition! 13:10 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF Mr BAILLIEU — We will stand up and defend multiculturalism at every opportunity. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Footscray is on a warning. Mr BAILLIEU — And there is a bipartisan approach to multiculturalism. I have not seen the comments to which the member refers. Ms Garrett — On a point of order, Speaker, I am more than happy — and seek to do so — to table the documents to assist the Premier. If the Premier is unable or unwilling to answer the question, we can assist him with the information necessary. The SPEAKER — Order! There is no point of order. Honourable members interjecting. Mr BAILLIEU — Speaker, I am — — The SPEAKER — Order! We do not need props. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to put it down. 39 Honourable members interjecting. Ms Allan — On a point of order, Speaker, just to assist the opposition with this request that has been made by the member for Brunswick, under standing order 145 the member may seek leave to table a document without giving prior notice. That is exactly what the member for Brunswick was doing, and your guidance on this matter would be appreciated. The SPEAKER — Order! Documents are to be tabled at the appropriate time, not during question time. I ruled on that yesterday when the member for Bendigo East asked to table a document. Mr BAILLIEU — As I say, Speaker, I have not seen the comments — — Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of the Opposition is on a warning. Mr BAILLIEU — I have not seen the comments. I would encourage all Victorians — — Mr Andrews interjected. Ms Garrett — On a point of order, Speaker, I have sought to table the document which is pertinent to this question, and I seek a ruling on it. The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of the Opposition! The SPEAKER — Order! There is no point of order, and this is not the time to table documents. Mr BAILLIEU — I would encourage all Victorians to demonstrate tolerance, demonstrate their commitment to multiculturalism — — Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER — Order! I have ruled on the point of order. There is no point of order. This is not the time to be tabling documents. Ms Garrett — On a further point of order, Speaker, this is a very important matter to everyone in Victoria. I seek leave to table this document that shows that members of this government — — The SPEAKER — Order! Ms Garrett — Members of this government are out putting things on their Facebook — — The SPEAKER — Order! I will not tolerate such behaviour in the chamber. When I call for order, that is what I want from the member for Brunswick. The member has raised her point of order and I have ruled against the point of order. If the member wants to table a document, she should do it when it is meant to be tabled. Ms Garrett — On a point of order, Speaker, the Premier may not have seen the comments and he may be unwilling to read them now, but he heard them, and I ask that he come back to the question and answer the question that was asked, which was: what is his position on the comments made by someone in his own government team? The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the point of order. The Premier’s answer was relevant to the question that was asked. Mr BAILLIEU — I suspect that opposition members are not interested in an answer. They are interested in the question, not the answer. I would encourage all Victorians to demonstrate their tolerance and demonstrate their commitment to multiculturalism. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Melton! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 40 ASSEMBLY PROOF Mr Hulls — On a point of order, Speaker, the Premier is clearly debating the question. The point of order is quite simple. The question was: does the Premier support the dog-whistling policies of Mr Bernie Finn or not? Yes or no? Honourable members interjecting. Dr Napthine — On a point of order, Speaker, what we have seen from the opposition is an orchestrated pattern of behaviour which has clearly demonstrated its lack of commitment to democracy, lack of commitment to a fair go and lack of commitment to getting an answer to the question The SPEAKER — Order! What is the member’s point of order? Dr Napthine —. The Premier was being relevant to the question. He has hardly had an opportunity to answer the question, and I ask you to allow the Premier to answer the question without being continually interrupted by this antidemocratic mob over the other side. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the point of order of the Minister for Ports. 14:15 Ms Garrett — On the point of order, Speaker, given that we are at the heart of democracy in this chamber, I ask that the Premier answer the question he has been asked — that is, does he condone the comment? The SPEAKER — Order! There is no point of order. I had ruled on the point of order. I do not uphold the point of order. The Premier’s response has been relevant to the question that was asked. Mr BAILLIEU — I say again that I would encourage all Victorians to demonstrate tolerance, common sense and sensitivity in dealing with multiculturalism and the related issues. Multiculturalism has been good for this state, and we stand by it. Wednesday, 6 April 2011 Mr BAILLIEU (Premier) — As members would know, the commonwealth, through the grants commission, has recently cut $2.5 billion from Victoria’s GST revenues over the next few years. In response to the serious impact that this will have on the state’s budget position and Victorian families, the Victorian Treasurer wrote to the federal Treasurer and pointed out the flaws in the system which was used to make the decision about the $2.5 billion cut. The Prime Minister recognised the logic of the Treasurer’s argument and has called for a review of the system. In doing so the Prime Minister has indicated that the system is flawed, but that is the system that is being used to take $2.5 billion out of Victoria’s revenues. That will have a significant effect on Victorian families. We have sought to have representation of Victoria’s interests by the Treasurer at the ministerial council meeting tomorrow. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of the Opposition! Mr BAILLIEU — We wrote to the opposition last week seeking a pair for the Treasurer. I am sorry to say that that request was declined. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Melton is on a warning. Mr BAILLIEU — Today I again wrote in good faith to the Leader of the Opposition seeking a reconsideration of his position; he wrote back to me this morning, and he has again declined to reconsider. He has acknowledged that the opposition is prepared to give a pair in the other house, but it will not give a pair for the Treasurer in this house. Accordingly we are taking steps to make provisions — — Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER — Order! I do not want to have to warn the Leader of the Opposition again. Taxation: GST revenue Ms MILLER (Bentleigh) — My question is to the Premier. Can he inform the house of progress to ensure that Victoria is properly represented tomorrow at the meeting of the Ministerial Council for Federal Financial Relations in Canberra so that the very best case to reverse the $2.5 billion cut to our state’s GST revenue can be put forward? Mr BAILLIEU — We are in the process of taking steps to facilitate the Treasurer’s visit if that remains possible. What we have learned in the last few sitting weeks of Parliament is that some members of this chamber are prepared to obstruct, undermine, disrupt, quibble and do anything they possibly can to hobble the operations of the Parliament. That is fine; some people can do that. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF Honourable members interjecting. 41 Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Narre Warren North! The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of the Opposition! Mr BAILLIEU — It is childish, but they have the right to do it. They will be judged accordingly. However, some members of this chamber have remained absolutely silent about the $2.5 billion cut to Victoria’s revenues. Some members are actually cheering from the sidelines, saying, ‘Take more!’ and inviting the commonwealth to take more. Some people are urging the commonwealth — — Mr BAILLIEU — They wish to satisfy their objective to disrupt and hobble the Victorian economy and to make it harder for Victorian families. In the reply I got from the Leader of the Opposition there is not one mention of the $2.5 billion cut, there is no acknowledgement of how inappropriate it is and there is no acknowledgement of the flaw in the system. Opposition members do not care. The SPEAKER — Order! Stop the clock. Ms Allan — On a point of order, Speaker, I refer to Rulings from the Chair, November 2010, page 158, where the issue of opposition policy is mentioned, and it says: ‘A minister should not be invited to comment on opposition policy’. The Premier is clearly not addressing matters of government administration. The government decided two days ago to send the Treasurer to the ministerial council. It has nothing to do with the opposition. It is entirely a matter for the government. I would suggest that the Premier is out of order in answering this question. The SPEAKER — Order! There is no point of order. Mr BAILLIEU — As I was saying, some members of this chamber are actually hoping for a deeper cut. They want Victorian families to lose — — The SPEAKER — Order! Stop the clock. Mr Foley — On a point of order, Speaker, the member for Bentleigh’s question was about Victoria being adequately represented. I do not think the Premier is answering the question in an appropriate manner in that if Victoria were to be adequately represented, the last person you would send would be the Treasurer! So I would ask that — — The SPEAKER — Order! There is no point of order. Community services: critical incident reports Mr ANDREWS (Leader of the Opposition) — My question is to the Minister for Community Services. I ask the minister: how many category 1 critical incident reports has she read and noted since becoming Minister for Community Services? Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. Ms WOOLDRIDGE (Minister for Community Services) — I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Category 1 incidents are traumatic, heartbreaking and incredibly disappointing when they occur. They include incidents of self-harm, allegations of sexual assault, harm from alcohol and drugs, accidents — all types of incidents are reported. I can assure the house that all category 1 reports received by my office have been read and dealt with absolutely appropriately. The reports have been read — — Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER — Order! Members will hear the answer if we can get some quiet. Ms WOOLDRIDGE — The reports have been read and acted upon by my office. It is clear that the response of the department and the response of the police are appropriate. My office is satisfied — — The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the point of order. It was a frivolous point of order. Mr Andrews — On a point of order, Speaker, in relation to relevance, the question was about reports the minister has read. The question did not relate to her staff or her office; it was about how many reports she has read. It is a very simple question indeed. How many reports has she, not her staff, read? Mr BAILLIEU — Some people in this chamber are looking for a greater cut, and I ask: why would some people do that? Mr Ryan — On the point of order, Speaker, this point of order should be ruled out of order. The simple fact is that this is another aspect of a pattern of Mr BAILLIEU — On the point of order, Speaker, I think we have just seen a demonstration of the absolute epitome of this opposition’s capacity to disrupt. 14:22 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 42 ASSEMBLY PROOF behaviour adopted by the opposition and led by the Leader of the Opposition which is intended to achieve the situation of questions being repeated without the minister, who is the subject of those questions, having a proper opportunity to answer those questions in a respectful manner. I ask you, Speaker, to rule this point of order out of order. The SPEAKER — Order! I do rule the point of order out of order. The minister was being relevant. It was a question in regard to category 1 reports, and she was answering in regard to category 1 reports. Ms WOOLDRIDGE — Where it is clear that the response of the department and the response of the police are appropriate and that all appropriate actions have been taken in relation to the child, the staff and the investigations, I do not intervene. When I do intervene is when it is needed to ensure the safety of the child and to make sure that appropriate investigations are conducted. Having been satisfied that the child is safe, my focus is then on where the failures have occurred. I ask whether we have failed to respond to the incident, whether there is a failure in terms of the process, whether there is a failure of response in the system or whether there is a failure in the policy. That is when I intervene to make sure that our response to the incident is appropriate and the child is safe. That is what I will continue to do — — Mr Merlino interjected. The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Monbulk! Ms WOOLDRIDGE — That is what I will continue to do because of the many hundreds of incidents that are the result of the failure over 11 years of Labor to protect children who are vulnerable in this state. Ms Green interjected. The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Yan Yean is holding up question time. Auditor-General: Facilitating Renewable Energy Development Dr SYKES (Benalla) — My question is to the Minister for Energy and Resources. Will the minister advise the house of the findings of the Auditor-General concerning the former Labor government’s renewable energy programs and the consequences of those findings for current government policy? Ms Green interjected. Wednesday, 6 April 2011 The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Yan Yean is on a warning. Ms Green interjected. The SPEAKER — Order! I will not ask the member for Yan Yean again. Mr O’BRIEN (Minister for Energy and Resources) — Members would be familiar with the fact that the Auditor-General’s report on facilitating renewable energy development was tabled in the house this morning. Ms Green interjected. The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Yan Yean is on her second warning. Mr O’BRIEN — I am afraid I have to report to the house that this Auditor-General’s report has blown the whistle on the former Labor government’s dishonesty and incompetence when it comes to renewable energy policy. There is no doubt this report shows that Labor has failed the environment and failed Victorian families. There is one absolutely crystal-clear finding, but I will give the house some history first. In July 2010 the former Labor government announced it was introducing a large-scale solar feed-in tariff, which is essentially a way of saying that large-scale solar generators will get paid a premium price for the energy they produce. At the time there were a lot of questions about how much of an impact that would have on the electricity bills of Victorian families. The Premier of the day could not have been clearer. In an interview that he gave to the Climate Spectator publication he said: So it is the feed-in tariff that would provide the necessary financial support for those projects. You saw the numbers we ran out, starting at $5 a household, building to $15 … The former government was absolutely clear: this large-scale solar feed-in tariff would cost Victorian households between $5 and $15 a year. What did the Auditor-General find? The Auditor-General found when examining this scheme that: This represents an increase in average annual household electricity bills of $23 to $47 each year over the lifetime of the scheme. The claim from Labor was that the increase would be between $5 and $15, but the Auditor-General found it would be between $23 and $47. Those figures were known by the government of the day. This did not involve the then Premier going off on a frolic of his own; this was a matter that the government knew about. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF The government knew about those figures, and it stood by mute while the former Premier peddled to Victorian families a lie about the impact of Labor policies on the cost of their power bills. Members opposite are accessories before and after the fact. It is absolutely disgraceful. Let us look at the targets the former government set for renewable energy. What did the Auditor-General find? He found that instead of Victoria’s share of renewable energy increasing by 6 per cent it had increased by just 0.3 per cent over seven years. In seven years all the government could come up with was a 0.3 per cent increase. It is no wonder that the Auditor-General found that ‘Using targets to facilitate the development of renewable energy has not been effective’. The Auditor-General went further. This might be of interest to members opposite. He referred to the flaws, the lack of planning, the lack of business cases and the absolute failure of the former government to do its homework, and then he said: The same issue was raised in our November 2009 report, Towards a ‘Smart Grid’ — the Roll-out of Advanced Metering Infrastructure … The party that gave us the smart meters has done the same thing to solar energy. It has jacked up power bills, it has failed on wind, it has failed on solar, it has failed on the cost of living, it has failed on the environment and it has failed Victorian families. Community services: critical incident reports Mr DONNELLAN (Narre Warren North) — My question is for the Minister for Community Services. I refer the minister to her answer yesterday when she rejected the assertion that she had directed the department not to send her briefs and to the subsequent admission in the Age this morning that this had indeed occurred, and I ask: at what point after question time did the minister remember this directive had been issued? Ms WOOLDRIDGE (Minister for Community Services) — I thank the member for his question. As a minister it is perfectly reasonable to help to refine and improve the briefing and advice — — 43 terms of its quality, its content and its timeliness. What we want is a closer relationship with departmental officers so they can pick up the phone and talk to us about what they are briefing on, what the advice is and what we are thinking in relation to that. That is the process that we are developing to improve our advice and my decision making — — Mr Madden interjected. The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Essendon is on a warning. Ms WOOLDRIDGE — That is the process we are developing to improve my advice and the decision making in relation to vulnerable Victorians, which is where our focus and priority is. I was involved in determining that we needed to improve the advice that I was — — Mr Madden interjected. The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Essendon! Ms WOOLDRIDGE — Of course I was involved in determining that we need better, more timely, more relevant and more engaged advice from my department. I did not draft the email and I was not copied into the email, but there is a system in place to improve the advice we receive so that we can make better decisions for vulnerable young people — in contrast to the last 11 years under the government of those opposite. Ms Allan — On a point of order, Speaker — and I waited an appropriate period of time before raising this point of order — the minister was not answering the question she was asked, which was: at what point during yesterday afternoon did she realise that she had instructed her department that she did not want to know about vulnerable children? The SPEAKER — Order! The minister had concluded her answer. There is no point of order. Police: election commitment The SPEAKER — Order! The minister will be heard in silence. Mr SHAW (Frankston) — My question is to the Deputy Premier, who is also the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the minister inform the house of the government’s commitment to deliver 1700 new police officers to protect Victorian families and make our streets safe again? Ms WOOLDRIDGE — It is perfectly reasonable as a minister to want to reform the advice that is provided to my office and to me and to improve it in Mr RYAN (Minister for Police and Emergency Services) — I thank the member for Frankston for his very good question. As a government, we are Honourable members interjecting. 14:32 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 44 ASSEMBLY PROOF proceeding with the commitment we made to the Victorian public that we will provide 1700 front-line operational police by the time our first term concludes. This is necessary because we need to address the chronic shortage of police officers in Victoria, particularly as a result of the policies of the former failed Labor government. As has been announced this week, another 600 police will be out there on the front line by 30 June; 450 of them having graduated from the academy and 150 of them having been redeployed from other duties. We are pleased and proud to announce that we will have these additional 600 police officers out there. It is very important that the house appreciate that the distribution of the police and their allocation to police stations around Victoria is done using Victoria Police’s demand-based model. The Chief Commissioner of Police makes the decisions about where these police are allocated to. We are delighted to see that that decision-making process has resulted in great outcomes for the respective communities of so many members of this house. I know that the member for Frankston will be delighted that 35 additional police officers are going to be allocated to the police station in Frankston by 30 June. But it does not stop there; there is more good news. Ballarat will get 24 additional police; Bendigo, 12; Mildura, 14; Latrobe, 16; Brimbank, 24; Melbourne, 21; Shepparton, 11; Hume, 18 — and on the list goes. These police officers will be located throughout Victoria not only at police stations but also on our transport system. There are many programs — — The SPEAKER — Order! Stop the clock. Mr Eren — On a point of order, Speaker, the minister has been talking for some 3 minutes now, and he has indicated that there will be an extra 1700 police officers. I ask him: when are the 70 extra police officers coming to Geelong, because we have only got 8 so far? The SPEAKER — Order! There is no point of order. The member for Lara can ask a question later. Mr RYAN — These extra police officers being available helps with the transport system, as I said to the house yesterday. Operation Barracuda, which is very important, operates during the day, and it is important to support that program. Then there is Operation Trojan, which can operate at any hour of the day or night. There is also Operation Omni, which has recently been very successful in picking up people who choose to go onto railway stations armed with a Wednesday, 6 April 2011 weapon of some sort. There is the new transit force, which is a group of about 25 police officers who are available day and night to go to those trouble spots in our transport system where that assistance might be needed. Mr Andrews interjected. The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of the Opposition! Mr RYAN — This means that there is a variety of mechanisms available to police to help them assist the travelling public of Victoria, which I am sure everybody in the house well understands is necessary. In addition to all of this, we are going to have more police officers being rolled out over the course of the balance of our period of government. We need to do that because under the former government’s policies Victoria had sunk to the stage where the then government was spending less per capita on front-line operational police than any other state in the nation. We had fewer front-line operational police per capita in Victoria than any other state in the nation. It is an appalling legacy. When we released our proposal to fix this it was called magic pudding economics — that is what the former Attorney-General called it — but the former government then made poor efforts to try to match what we said we would do. We have undertaken to provide 1700 police, and we will do that. Community services: critical incident reports Mr ANDREWS (Leader of the Opposition) — My question is again to the Minister for Community Services, and I ask: how is the minister’s directive not to receive category 2 child protection incident reports, which include serious threats made against clients or staff and client behaviour that could result in potential risk to others, consistent with her claim yesterday when she said, ‘We know what is going on’. Ms WOOLDRIDGE (Minister for Community Services) — I thank the Leader of the Opposition once again. There was no directive not to receive category 2 incident reports. Every matter that needs to be brought to the attention of my office and myself — — Mr Wynne interjected. The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Richmond is on a warning. Ms WOOLDRIDGE — Every single matter that needed to be brought to the attention of my office and QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF myself, both incident reports and briefings, was provided to the office, and that is very clear. There has never been a precedent for category 2 incident reports to be provided as a matter of course either under the former government or under this government. Certainly — — Mr Andrews interjected. The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. If he wants to ask another question, he can get up and do so afterwards. Ms WOOLDRIDGE — My advice is that we are getting information about all serious matters that need to be brought to our attention. That is my advice in relation to what has happened in the past and also what is happening now — — Ms Allan interjected. The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Bendigo East’s constant chatter across the table is not good, and I would like it to stop. 14:40 Ms WOOLDRIDGE — We will continue to focus on the safety and protection of vulnerable children as the priority and to reform a system that has been left in crisis by the Labor government. Rail: Lynbrook and Cardinia Road stations 45 signalling to run the trains with, a project that was to be built without enough money to purchase the land on which the rail line was going to run, a project that had no funding for the trains to run on the line. The former Labor government’s members brought the cart but they left the horse behind. It gets worse than that. Each and every rail project you look at that involved the former Labor government has the same scenario. You can look at Laverton; an ambulance trolley could not fit in the lift, and when the lifts break down taxis turn up to take commuters to the other side of the station. You could look at Wodonga, where security guards have been employed to guard the station because the former Labor government failed to oversee our investment in the Albury-Wodonga– Melbourne rail project. When you think it could not get any worse, you find out it has got worse. I have advice from my department that in relation to the Cardinia Road and Lynbrook stations, which were to be opened in late 2011, there is a further problem. These projects, once again, were not scoped properly by the former Labor government. Ms Richardson — On a point of order, Speaker, I ask that the minister table the advice he is reading from. The SPEAKER — Order! Is the minister reading from advice? He is not reading from advice, so it cannot be tabled. Mr BATTIN (Gembrook) — My question is to the Minister for Public Transport. Can the minister advise the house of any cost blow-outs he has identified as a result of the previous government’s failure to properly provide essential infrastructure for the new Lynbrook and Cardinia Road stations on the Cranbourne-Pakenham line? The SPEAKER — Order! Was the minister reading? An honourable member — Have you got your notes, Terry? The SPEAKER — Order! There is no point of order. Mr MULDER (Minister for Public Transport) — I’ve got my notes. Can I read again? Mr MULDER — I am more than happy to give a run-down on the advice that I have received. The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the minister to ignore interjections. The SPEAKER — Order! I would ask the minister to return to answering the question. Mr MULDER — I thank the member for Gembrook for his question and his great interest in public transport. You would not get any clearer example than what unfolded this week in front of the Victorian public in terms of a former Labor government’s incompetence in being able to present or produce a rail project for Victoria on budget and on time. The regional rail link project was a $1 billion-plus black hole — a project that was to be built without Mr MULDER — I will give it to you right now — — Honourable members interjecting. Mr MULDER — I am not reading from advice, Speaker. It is advice I have received in relation to this. The SPEAKER — Order! I will sit the minister down. I ask the minister not to argue across the table, to ignore interjections and to answer the question. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 46 ASSEMBLY PROOF Mr MULDER — The problem with both the Cardinia Road and Lynbrook stations is that there is not enough overhead power to run the trains. Honourable members interjecting. Mr MULDER — There is not enough power to run the trains! There was not enough spark put into the project when the former Labor government decided to proceed with it. What the advice is saying is that Lynbrook station trains could only operate under restrictions and Cardinia Road would be jeopardised because there would be no redundancy remaining in the system. At the end of 2011 we will have two railway stations completed and ready to open but not enough power to run the trains with. Once again we will be in the position we have been in up at Wodonga, where there are security fences and security guards while a power upgrade is carried out. I am advised that the power upgrade could take somewhere up to a further six months, so it will not be completed until about the middle of 2012. We have this yet again. This was a smaller project, a simple project where you would have thought, no. 1, that trains need power — unless of course we were going to get back to the water tower and the coke shovel. Was that the former government’s idea with this particular project? It is an absolute debacle. Each and every railway project I look at, each and every project that the former government had its fingerprints on turns out to be exactly the same. In terms of handling, scoping, costing and delivering projects, the former Labor government was absolutely hopeless. Children: protection Mr ANDREWS (Leader of the Opposition) — My question is to the Minister for Community Services, and I refer the minister to comments by her in this place, and I quote, ‘We are committed to … greater transparency and accountability’. I ask: how is directing her department not to send her briefs and then refusing to read the ones she gets consistent with providing greater transparency and accountability? Ms WOOLDRIDGE (Minister for Community Services) — I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I am very pleased to provide more transparency in relation to child protection. Let us be transparent about the situation that is facing us: huge numbers of children without allocated caseworkers, hundreds of category 1 incidents, thousands of category 2 incidents just in three short months as a result of the failure in the system Labor has managed for 11 years, massive turnover — — Wednesday, 6 April 2011 Mr Andrews — On a point of order, Speaker, on the issue of relevance, the question was about the minister’s processes in her office and her commitment to transparency. She is happy to talk about 300 critical incident reports, but for two days running will not tell us how many she has read. It is a simple question about her own office and one she ought to answer. It was much easier for her to ask questions, it seems, than it is for her to answer them. The SPEAKER — Order! There is no point of order. The minister was being relevant to the question that was asked. Ms WOOLDRIDGE — It is clear that the opposition does not like — — An honourable member interjected. The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Yan Yean! Ms WOOLDRIDGE — The opposition does not like the transparency that shines the light on the mess its members left — — Mr Wynne interjected. The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Richmond! The member is on his second warning. Ms WOOLDRIDGE — It shines the light on the failure and the crisis in child protection that opposition members left after 11 years of neglect. Foster carers were leaving in droves. We had front-line child protection workers leaving at massive rates all because of the system. The former government had 4000 days to run a child protection system, and frankly, we are not going to fix this in 4 days or 4 weeks or 4 months; it is going to take a long time. But we are there for the long haul — — Ms Green interjected. Questions interrupted. SUSPENSION OF MEMBER Member for Yan Yean The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Yan Yean has had her third warning. Under standing order 124 I ask the member to leave the chamber for 11/2 hours. 14:47 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF Honourable member for Yan Yean withdrew from chamber. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Children: protection Questions resumed. Ms WOOLDRIDGE (Minister for Community Services) — We are here for the long haul for children who have been neglected and abused. We are not going to give up on them as the previous government did. We are going to make sure they are safe, we are going to make sure we have a system and policies in place and we are going to make sure that we have the transparency to shine the light on what was left by the previous failed Labor government. Rock Eisteddfod Challenge: funding Ms McLEISH (Seymour) — My question is to the Minister for Youth Affairs. Will the minister provide an update on the government’s promise to provide funding for the Rock Eisteddfod Challenge? Mr R. SMITH (Minister for Youth Affairs) — I thank the member for Seymour for her question and for her interest in youth affairs. In the middle of National Youth Week I am absolutely delighted to announce funding of $200 000 towards the staging of this year’s Rock Eisteddfod Challenge, an event which encompasses so many of the values and aims of National Youth Week. This first instalment of $200 000 is just part of the $800 000 that the coalition government has committed to the challenge over the course of its first term. The Baillieu government is absolutely committed to making sure that young people have access to the opportunities that encourage healthy and active involvement in recreation and the performing arts. These opportunities are why we are sponsoring the Rock Eisteddfod Challenge Foundation to deliver this very important secondary school-based event. The Rock Eisteddfod Challenge is much more than just getting up on a stage to perform. It is about getting physically active, it is about making friends and it is about having fun. In short, it is a great event. It is an event that is embraced by many in the Victorian community. That is why it was so surprising that the former government refused to step up and fund this event last year. It was a real — — Ms Allan — On a point of order, Speaker, the minister is breaking two standing orders. He is debating 47 the question and he is going down the path of misleading the house — and he is reading from his notes — because the former government did indeed support the Rock Eisteddfod organisation. The SPEAKER — Order! There is no point of order. Ms Allan — Further on the point of order, Speaker — — The SPEAKER — Order! Which point of order? The first one or the second one? Ms Allan — On a further point of order, Speaker, you cannot deny that the minister was debating the matter. He was referring to the previous government — — The SPEAKER — Order! There is no point of order. The minister was being relevant to the question that was asked regarding funding for the Rock Eisteddfod. Mr Andrews — Speaker, I raise a point of order not on whether the minister’s answer is relevant to the question but on whether he is debating the issue — and he is clearly debating the issue. I am not challenging whether it is relevant to the question, but it is clearly debating the issue. That is not permitted under the standing orders or by numerous rulings in the last 150 years. The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the point of order. If I considered the minister was debating the issue, I would have asked him to stop debating it. Mr R. SMITH — I can see why the opposition is embarrassed after it kicked Victorian students in the teeth last year. After the former government — — Mr Andrews — On a point of order, Speaker, I put it to you respectfully that to refer to the opposition is debating the issue. It may be relevant, or the minister may see it as relevant, to the question he was asked. He is a minister and he ought be answering about government business and not attacking anyone else in the chamber or previous governments. He is clearly debating the issue, and I ask you — as you just indicated — to pull him up for clearly debating the issue. The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold Mr R. SMITH — As a precursor to this funding announcement I have to acknowledge the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs when he was the shadow minister for BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 48 ASSEMBLY PROOF youth affairs for stepping up and encouraging the then opposition to commit this funding. I am very pleased to be able to fulfil the announcement that we made before the election and to be able to come into this chamber to announce funding for this great event. I am absolutely delighted that students, teachers and parents will once again have the opportunity to come together to put on such an amazing event. They will be able to showcase their talents and to show Victoria why we can be proud of our students. My message to all students during National Youth Week, and to all the students participating in this great event, is to get up there and have some fun. I look forward to the opportunity of looking at some of the performances in the future. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Sessional orders Debate resumed. Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East) — Before the lunch break we were debating the changes to the sessional orders that have been introduced by the government. I was reminding the Parliament of the situation between 1999 and 2002 when the then Labor government was a minority government and the then Liberal-Nationals coalition opposition refused to provide a pairing arrangement for ministers to attend ministerial council meetings. What we have seen repeatedly is a lot of bluff and bluster from those opposite over the true nature of this debate. The opposition is not the story here. The decision-making processes of the government are not a matter for the opposition to determine. In question time we have just seen that once again this government is failing to do its job in governing for Victorians. It prefers to attack the opposition. We saw the Premier make a hysterical attack on the opposition. He was very happy to devote enormous amounts of energy to hysteria on attacking the opposition over this issue but not when it came to the issue of refuting one of his colleagues, a member for Western Metropolitan Region in another place, and the comments made by the member for Brunswick during question time. Did the Premier show the same passion and commitment to slap down those comments? No, he did not. But we saw plenty of passion from the Premier when it came to attacking the opposition, and I think that says it all about this government. It spends a lot of its time and energy attacking the opposition and thinking up new Wednesday, 6 April 2011 and different ways to blame the opposition for the government’s inability to deliver on its election commitments. It spends its question time talking about opposition policy and talking about opposition commitments rather than government business. Really that is the great failure of this government — — Mrs Bauer interjected. The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Carrum will desist! Ms ALLAN — The government needs to recognise that it has a job, and that is about governing. Changing the sessional orders to make sure that the Parliament behaves itself tomorrow and changing the government business program to minimise the issues around tomorrow is not governing. We just want the government to get on with its job and stop blaming the opposition for its failures and problems. As I said earlier, there are parts of this motion around the sessional orders that the opposition would be comfortable with. That goes to the issue where there is a conflict between the government business program and the adjournment, which is dealt with in paragraphs (3)(a) and (b) of the sessional order proposed by the government’s motion. If the government was happy to consult with the opposition, we would be willing to work towards putting that change to the sessional orders through the Parliament. However, we have an issue with paragraph (1)(b) of the proposed sessional order. The issue of consultation is an interesting one, because this motion and the one moved before it regarding the changing of the orders of the day to accommodate the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011 were both introduced to the Parliament. The government has every right to introduce this notice of motion into the Parliament; however, it would have been appropriate, it would have helped the smooth operation of this Parliament and it would have been courteous of the government to give a bit of notice of its intentions to those across the chamber. Even 5 minutes notice would have been nice just to give a bit of a heads-up and say, ‘We’re proposing these changes. We’re going to put these up in a moment, and we just wanted to let you know’. It is just a small courtesy, but it is a way in which, when we have a Parliament — — Ms Miller interjected. The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Bentleigh! The four members on the back bench are making a lot of noise. I ask them to desist. 14:57 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF Ms ALLAN — It appears that the Leader of the House is confirming that his behaviour and the behaviour of the government is retribution for perceived sins that were committed against them in a previous lifetime. We are not into that. We want to see the smooth operation of the Parliament; that is why we seek cooperation. Honourable members interjecting. Ms ALLAN — I hope that was not a rolling of the eyes, Speaker. The SPEAKER — Order! The member is reflecting on me, and I ask her to apologise. An honourable member interjected. The SPEAKER — Order! The member knows what she is saying. Ms ALLAN — I apologise, Speaker, and I hope that what I claimed was not correct. As I said, I would hope that there would be an opportunity — — Mr McIntosh interjected. Ms ALLAN — You can roll them as much as you like. You can do it as much as you like! The SPEAKER — Order! The member should ignore interjections from across the table. Ms ALLAN — It would be an opportunity now for the government to perhaps draw a line in the sand, to reach out to the opposition and say, ‘Let’s have some cooperation and consultation on the operation of this Parliament. Let’s have some discussion about how Parliament operates’. If we want this Parliament to operate smoothly and see legislation go through appropriately, then let us have some appropriate consultation and cooperation on the way through. We are up for that dialogue; we are up for that arrangement. Honourable members interjecting. Mr McIntosh interjected. The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Leader of the House to stop interjecting. Ms ALLAN — Unfortunately, though, it appears from the behaviour of those opposite that that courtesy is not going to be extended. So be it. That is the government’s decision, just as it is the government’s decision to send the Treasurer to the ministerial council 49 meeting. It appears that it has done that. The game is over. The fun is over, guys. You have got to get back to operating like a government. Mr WALSH (Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) — I rise to support the motion by the Leader of the House on changes to the orders of the day. An honourable member — Sensible. Mr WALSH — Very sensible; and I congratulate the Leader of the House on the good job he is doing in managing the affairs of the house. It is interesting to follow the member for Bendigo East. While I listened to the 20-minute contribution to the debate by the member I thought of the very old saying that if you have got nothing to say, you should just revert to personal abuse. All we have done is listen to 20 minutes of criticism of the government of the day. Honourable members interjecting. Mr WALSH — It was personal abuse; it was personalised around particular people. All I can say is that opposition members, particularly the member for Bendigo East, are obviously such precious petals that they do not want to engage in the proper process. The member for Bendigo East is very good at rewriting the history of the last 11 years. If we think back on how this chamber has operated over that period, we can see that this motion by the Leader of House is to put in place some sensible sessional orders to make sure the house runs in an organised and proper fashion. The member for Bendigo East in her wide-ranging contribution to the debate talked about issues that occurred between 1999 and 2000 and the fact that the then government believed it was a minority government. I think anyone from country Victoria would know that the former government was never a minority government. They would recall that these three so-called Independents who were members of the house at that stage were not independent. We also saw how they acted at the time they were in this Parliament. They were never Independents representing country Victoria; they were creatures of the Labor Party. They proved that in the way they voted all the time. It was very pleasing at the 2010 election to see the last of the Independent members leave this chamber and to welcome Tim Bull as the new member for Gippsland East. Those three Independent members never acted independently in this house. They were effectively part of the Labor Party for all the time they were here. The BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 50 ASSEMBLY PROOF member for Bendigo East was trying to rewrite history in saying that the government between 1999 and 2000 was a minority government — it had the support of the three Labor Independents. The changes that are being proposed by the Leader of the House are about putting in place some sensible operating rules. In particular the Treasurer can now represent us in Canberra. He can stand up and get a fair go for Victorian families. An honourable member interjected. Mr WALSH — I know it is unruly to respond to interjections, but I think the Treasurer will do a very good job on Victoria’s behalf. I think we are sending a very strong advocate to the ministerial council meeting on our behalf who will make sure we get a good outcome for Victorian families. If you look at what the other states are doing, you see that the parliaments of Tasmania, West Australia and South Australia are allowing pairing. Their houses are sitting; they are allowing pairing so that their Treasurers can attend the discussion in Canberra. 15:05 The debate over the last two days about whether the opposition will allow a pairing for the Treasurer has been because opposition members are Labor Party first, Labor Party second, Labor Party third and Victorians last. They do not care about Victorian families. They will stand condemned for their rhetoric over the last few days. This just reinforces the fact that Victorians got it right last November when they voted for the change of government. Mr HOLDING (Lyndhurst) — This debate is essentially about two things. Firstly, it is about a change to the sessional orders. Members of the opposition have, through the member for Bendigo East, made it clear that we do not support one of the key changes to sessional orders that is being proposed by members of the government this afternoon. Secondly, it is something of a proxy debate about the issue of pairs. The changes to the sessional orders to facilitate tomorrow’s arrangements are really about the government trying to prevent itself from being exposed to what it perceives as some kind of jeopardy in relation to the arrangements around pairs. We heard the Leader of the House putting the view that somehow the position that has been adopted by the opposition in relation to pairs is unprecedented and puts at risk the best interests of Victorian families. That is the line that was trundled out in question time and has been put forward by government members during this debate. Let us put to bed the farcical argument about Wednesday, 6 April 2011 pairs that has been made by members of the government. The truth is there has been a longstanding arrangement around pairs in the Legislative Council. In the Legislative Council pairs are provided for, and they are granted for a range of different reasons. It is the business of the members in the other chamber — both opposition and government — when they provide those pairing arrangements, but they are provided often and there is custom, form and practice in relation to the issue. In this chamber pairing is a totally different matter. Over the entire 11 years that Labor was in government pairs were never provided for any ministerial council meeting. No arrangement for pairs was granted by members of the current government when they were in opposition in relation to ministers from the Bracks and then the Brumby governments who sought to attend ministerial council meetings. In fact no formal pairing arrangement has been consistently applied in this chamber since 1992. That is because members opposite, when they were in government during the Kennett years, took the view that it did not suit their political interests to have a pairing arrangement in place, so there was no such arrangement. An honourable member interjected. Mr HOLDING — They did not need them, as the Minister for Ports interjects. If you look in the pairs book, you will find that since 1992 there have been almost no entries. There was an entry in 1993, and from that time on the Kennett government refused to broach pairs. From 1999, when the government changed and a minority government was put in place, there was not one instance in the next 11 years — in the Bracks years or in the Brumby years — when a pair was provided to a Labor minister to attend a ministerial council meeting. Dr Napthine interjected. The SPEAKER — Order! The Minister for Ports! Mr HOLDING — That was the case when we were in a minority government position, when we had a large majority after 2002 and when we had a smaller majority after 2006. What this argument about pairs is really all about is demonstrated by the fact that the Treasurer will be attending the ministerial council meeting in Canberra regardless of whether he gets a pair. It is a try-on from those opposite — an attempt to establish a precedent for pairs that has not existed in this chamber for the last 18 years. We will simply not stump up to an arrangement whereby ministers can skulk off at any time, seeking a pair, whether it be to attend a ministerial BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF council meeting or to attend a fundraiser for the Higgins 500 Club, which would be of more concern. We will not provide pairs in those sorts of situations, and we are not willing to provide a precedent that those opposite were not willing to provide over the last 18 years. That is what this boils down to. If those opposite were really so passionate about pairs, if they took the view that the interests of Victorians desperately require a pairing arrangement in the Legislative Assembly, if they took the view that parliamentary democracy could be enhanced and asserted by such an arrangement, they would have supported it over the last 18 years, but they did not. We will not allow a pairing arrangement to be brought into this chamber essentially through an act of bullying by those opposite. We will not sit still for that. We will not have a situation whereby ministers, instead of being required to attend in this chamber, are able to be sent off to the four winds for political or other campaigning. We will not support that proposition. We are being asked to support changes to sessional orders this afternoon. The change we do not support is made by paragraph 1(b), which sets in stone the interruption of business at 4.00 p.m. on any sitting day other than Tuesdays and Wednesdays. As the Leader of the House has already outlined to the chamber, the change is simply an expression in the sessional orders of the custom and practice of the last 11 years. Those were his words. That is the reason we do not support it. We simply say that if that custom and practice has been able to operate effectively over that time, it should continue to do so. We know what this is actually about — that is, giving the government another blunt, crude and undemocratic instrument that it can use to stifle debate when the time comes for the guillotine. We just do not support that proposition. 15:12 If it has been custom and practice — certainly during the years I have been a member of this chamber — ordinarily for the question to be put at 4.00 p.m. on a Thursday, then there is no reason that arrangement cannot continue with the sessional orders drafted the way they are. When circumstances require a deviation from that, then it is fully within the competence, capacity and power of this house to be able to manage those situations when they arise. This is all about the government being able to use its numbers crudely and undemocratically when the time comes to interrupt the business program at 4.00 p.m. on a Thursday afternoon, or any day other than a Tuesday or a Wednesday, and members of the opposition just do 51 not accept that proposition. If the government has been able to work effectively on the back of custom and practice and within the confines of the existing standing orders and sessional orders, then it should be able to continue into the future. Those opposite keep flinging across the chamber how difficult members of the opposition are making the functioning of this house. We simply make the point that our door is always open. If members of the government wish to sit down with the opposition and have a sensible discussion about the best way to manage the business of this house, our door is always open to have that discussion. Dr Napthine — Give us a pair! Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER — Order! Mr HOLDING — The member for South-West Coast interjects, ‘Give us a pair!’. Basically he is saying that we should give the government what it wants, and then we will sit down and have a discussion about how the government can use its numbers to bludgeon the opposition into giving the government whatever it wants. We reject that proposition. Does anyone support the notion that a sensible, constructive, cooperative dialogue can be entered into with the terrorist smash and grab by those opposite taking the things they want and then asking us for a discussion about how we can improve the forms and operations of the house in a way that would suit the government’s interests? Members of the opposition simply say to government members that our door is open; we are willing to have a discussion about these matters, but there needs to be a bit of give and take. Those opposite need to be willing for that to happen. Members of the opposition recognise that the people spoke in November, and we do not have the numbers in this chamber, but the government also needs to recognise that the smooth operation of this chamber is best facilitated by a constructive and cooperative approach being taken by both sides. We stand ready to participate in that discussion. Members of the government should put to one side their hubris following the election. They should step up to the plate and enter this discussion in a mature and sensible way. They say they are simply asking us to give them a pair because it is in the interests of all Victorians, when the fact is that pairs have not been provided consistently in this chamber for the last 18 years, and never for a ministerial council meeting in the memory of any member in this place. Mr Wynne interjected. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 52 ASSEMBLY PROOF The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Richmond had better remember he is on two warnings. Mr HOLDING — I simply put the proposition that this has got nothing to do with Victorian families. This is all about a smash and grab from those opposite, desperate to establish a precedent that we will not sit still for. Dr NAPTHINE (Minister for Ports) — The previous speakers have talked about taking a cooperative approach. We in government would prefer to take a cooperative approach, but it is a pity that opposition members have decided to throw out the window any semblance of a cooperative approach. When opposition members were approached in a sensible way by the Leader of the House with respect to a pair for the Treasurer — in the best interests of Victoria and Victorian families to represent Victoria at the federal council of treasurers — he was refused. The Premier made another approach today to the Leader of the Opposition in a very fair and reasonable fashion, and again the Premier was refused. The Premier and the Leader of the House have made it absolutely clear: they are trying to seek cooperation and the outcome that is in the best interests of Victoria and Victorian families. Victoria has suffered a withdrawal of $2.5 billion worth of GST revenue by the federal Labor government, the members of which have admitted the system they used to withdraw that funding is fundamentally flawed and needs to be changed. We need to have our Treasurer at the table in Canberra on Thursday, with the cooperation of the house — and hopefully with the support of both sides of the house — fighting for Victoria. I would have thought that members of the opposition would have been prepared to stand up for Victoria. I would have thought they would stand up for getting the $2.5 billion back and for getting the best outcome for Victorian families, but it is clear that, rather than taking a cooperative approach, members of the opposition are taking a destructive approach. They have taken the same approach as they took in question time. Clearly they are an antidemocratic rabble engaging in antidemocratic behaviour that does not seek to allow ministers to answer questions and seeks to disrupt the smooth running of the house. I have been in this house for 22 years. Interestingly I have seen substantial changes to both standing orders and sessional orders. The member for Lyndhurst talked about the 4 o’clock guillotine. That is only a relatively recent invention in this house — it was introduced firstly by the previous Labor government; it did not Wednesday, 6 April 2011 exist in the 1980s and 1990s — yet members of the opposition talk about it as though it has been the custom of this house for 150 years. That is absolute and utter rubbish. There have been consistent changes to sessional orders and standing orders over the 22 years that I have been here and for the many decades prior to that. Most of the changes to standing orders, like the one that has been put forward by the Leader of the House, are — to echo the words of the member for Bendigo East — to provide for the smooth operation of this Parliament, including the operation of the 4 o’clock rule on any other sitting day outlined in paragraph 1(b) of this motion. The member for Lyndhurst also talked about the history of pairs. Again I think that a substantial rewriting or interpretation of history is going on here. It is important to know that between 1992 and 1999 there were no pairs because there was no need for pairs. The government of the day had a sufficient majority and did not need to seek pairs, so there was never a request for pairs. It is not as though the pairs were refused; they just were not requested. Similarly, between 2002 and 2010 the Labor government had a sufficient majority and its members never requested pairs. It is not as though there is a history of knocking back pairs; there is a history of no requests for pairs. That is what the history is. I was Leader of the Opposition between 1999 and 2002, and to the best of my recollection I can only recall one representation to me as Leader of the Opposition for pairs, which was granted. Labor continues to try to rewrite history when it comes to pairs in the Legislative Assembly. There is provision for pairs in the customs and traditions of this house. The provision of pairs is not automatic, but it should be for times of significance and importance, whether they be personal issues to do with an individual member and their family or for a minister or a member to represent the interests of Victoria and act in the best interests of Victoria. I suggest that on this occasion what we have is a clear example of where providing a pair for the Treasurer is in the best interests of Victoria and Victorian families. Surely that is what we are all here for, or what we should all be here for. We are elected as individual members of Parliament, irrespective of our political persuasion and irrespective of the party we represent. I am elected first and foremost as the member for South-West Coast. The member for Albert Park is elected first and foremost as the member for Albert Park, and his responsibility is to represent the people of his electorate to the best of his ability. It does members of the opposition no credit BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF whatsoever when they put the interests of their party and petty politics ahead of the interests of their individual constituents, individual families and all Victorians when they refuse a pair for the Treasurer to attend this important ministerial council meeting, where the Treasurer is needed to represent the interests of all Victorians. 15:22 Victorian families in Albert Park, Richmond, Derrimut and elsewhere right across the state need to be represented by the Treasurer of this state at that ministerial council meeting. Whether or not the opposition likes it that the Treasurer happens to be a Liberal Party member of Parliament and a member of a coalition government, he is the Treasurer of this state and he is fighting for the interests of all Victorians and all Victorian families. There should be enormous support right across the chamber in agreeing that it is unfair, unreasonable and downright wrong that the federal government is taking $2.5 billion from Victorian families, affecting our budget and our ability to deliver better services and infrastructure for all Victorians. Let us not have any more of this humbug about trying to rewrite the history of pairs. Pairs have been given in this house. They were given when we were in opposition between 1992 and 2002 in special circumstances. That is what this is about: these are special circumstances. In most other times in this house pairs have not even been asked for. They have not been refused; they have not even been asked for, mainly because the government of the day had a sufficient majority not to require a pair. Members of the opposition are continually trying to rewrite history. We have heard today that in other jurisdictions pairs are given for treasurers to attend ministerial council meetings. The members of those parliaments recognise their primary duty to their state or territory and make sure their state or territory is represented by their treasurer at those ministerial council meetings. Today in his response to the Premier the Leader of the Opposition said that the Legislative Council has a history of giving pairs, including one for the previous Treasurer, John Lenders, and suggested that if the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Gordon Rich-Phillips, wanted to go to the ministerial council meeting, it would consider giving him a pair. So this is absolute and utter tommyrot, humbug and political — — Mr McIntosh — Bastardry. Dr NAPTHINE — I would not use that word. The opposition is playing political games in this house with regard to this issue of pairs. Let us not have any of that 53 rubbish. Let us come back to what this sessional order is trying to achieve. It is interesting that the member for Bendigo East has said that the opposition supports many aspects of the proposed sessional order but that it has an issue with paragraph 1(b). I put it to the opposition that sessional orders are the same as standing orders. Let us not forget that the standing orders were completely rewritten from A to Z by the former Labor government. The idea that standing orders and sessional orders are set in concrete, that they can never be changed and that they cannot be altered to best suit the interests of the house and the interests of democracy and the people of Victoria is again further political humbug from the opposition. It is just a political game. The opposition is playing games and trying to put the interests of Labor ahead of the interests of Victorians and Victorian families. It is a disgrace. I support the adoption of this sessional order. Mr FOLEY (Albert Park) — I thank the Minister for Ports for acknowledging that it is in the interests of the families and the people of Albert Park that I continue to represent them in this place — just as I am sure it is the job of the Minister for Ports to represent, amongst other things, the interests of his constituents — and I will do so to the best of my abilities. However, what the people of Albert Park also expect — and there is a high density of constitutional lawyers per square metre in my electorate who would be particularly keen about this — is that we, as a Parliament, will protect, enhance and develop the finest aspects of the Westminster system and that we will use the elements of this place, as reflected in the sessional and standing orders, in a way that holds the executive to account. That is the role of the opposition. For the Leader of the House, on behalf of the government, to propose a new sessional order that particularly affects standing order 32(1)(b) — the standing order that relates to the 4.00 p.m. cut-off on any other sitting day — it appears to be a case of the government trying to neuter the ability of the opposition to hold the executive to account. This debate has rolled on through all sorts of topics. I cannot comment on what happened in this place 22 years ago. I have been a keen student of some of those issues, but I take it that sessional and standing orders are always evolving. What is not an evolving issue is the responsibility of the opposition, whoever it might be at any particular point of time, to maintain the finest traditions of the Westminster system, including the responsibility to hold the government to account. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 54 ASSEMBLY PROOF I believe there is a strong argument in this instance to suggest that this is more than just the ‘Wells clause’ for getting the Treasurer to the ministerial conference, which I understand he is attending. This may be an issue of the government trying to manufacture an argument that it will somehow lose control of the operations of the Parliament should this not be granted. However, the fact is that the government will still be able to maintain its majority on the floor of the house. This clause is really about the ways in which this government operates. This is a government that has taken only a few months to change the position it held when it was in opposition of high indignation about the forms of the house and the need to hold the government to account. Straight after the election — an election in which it was quite successful — the government began to give form to its promises that ‘what you see is what you get’ and that it would be open to a new era of transparency, accountability and no spin. And yet less than 150 days into its first term we now see the government’s attempts, bit by bit, to roll back ways of ensuring accountability. We will see more attempts of this in some of the bills that are going to make their way before the house, but I will not forecast debate on those bills. I will restrict my comments to the issue of the proposed sessional order before us. The proposed sessional order, as reflected in the changes it would make to standing order 32 (1)(b), will provide that the guillotine can be applied at any time on any other sitting day. 15:30 In normal circumstances, if there are such things, the Thursday afternoon protocol is to allow for members, particularly country and regional members, to return to their communities in time to carry out business in their electorates on the Friday. That is all well and good, but there have been, and will be again, times in which the debate has been on substantial issues of important public policy, on holding the government to account or on a range of important issues. There have been many important issues debated in this Parliament, and there will be in the future. What we are seeing is a curtailing of the opportunities for this Parliament to hold the government to account. It will be a dark day for the democratic forms which the member for South-West Coast so eloquently championed a few moments ago if he then sticks his hand up for this change to the sessional orders, because that will see the very values that he was espousing put behind the opportunistic and political needs of the conservative Liberal-Nationals coalition. We will see the restriction of the ability provided by the sessional orders to hold the government to account on whatever Wednesday, 6 April 2011 the important public policy issue of the day is. We will see the use of the majority against the interests of Victorians. We will see the majority numbers in this place used to roll back areas of accountability and roll back the ability of the Parliament to hold the government to account. This cannot be good for the very people the Minister for Ports quite eloquently purported in his earlier contribution to represent. The people of Albert Park, the people of South-West Coast and the people of all the electoral districts that we have the privilege to represent in this place expect many things from us. The minimum they expect from us, as the minister was pointing out, is to represent their direct interests, but they also expect us to represent the tradition of accountability and to maintain the systems of government and the forms of this Parliament in holding the government to account. What this motion does, bit by bit, is chip away at that. We are seeing, and I suspect will see again in the near future in one of the bills that has been forecast in this place, an attempt by this government to roll back those traditions. It will be a sad day for the democratic forms of this place if we do not stand up and oppose this proposition, and I ask the Leader of the House and the Minister for Ports to reconsider their standover tactics and their reliance on their majority in this house. I ask them to reconsider whether proposed paragraph (1)(b) of the motion is necessary in the total scheme of things in trying to apply a better form of the running of the house. We have already heard from the manager of opposition business. There is material in this proposal that we think is sensible and enhances the smooth operation of the Legislative Assembly, and we support that material, but not the material that is tied essentially to the Treasurer’s clause and making sure this change is all about feeding the government’s media cycle and feeding the government’s spin on the story of the week, which started on Saturday and has continued every day since. When the forms of this house and the ability of the opposition and the Parliament to hold the executive to account take a secondary position to the spin cycle of this government — this supposedly spin-free government that we were promised only a few months ago — it is a very sad day, and we would urge the Leader of the House and those opposite to use this opportunity to stand back and take on board the broader interests of the Parliament and of holding the executive to account. We would urge them to make sure that only those parts of this proposal to change the standing orders that we support go forward and that they refrain from pressing the issue of sessional order 8(1)(b) as currently proposed. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — How the worm has turned in the few short months since November. Before I start on the general principle of the motion I want to speak briefly on the proposition that has been put forward in the recent comments of the member for Albert Park and the earlier comments of the member for Bendigo East expressing concern about proposed clause 8(1)(b). I refer to the current standing orders of the House of Representatives, which identify very clearly in standing order 29 that the adjournment will be proposed in that house at 9.30 p.m. on Monday, 9.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 7.00 p.m. on Wednesday and 4.30 p.m. on Thursday. It is nothing new to have in place an identified time for the adjournment. To return to the principle of the motion, what is proposed with this motion is simply a new sessional order to replace standing order 32 for the duration of the session. In effect what it does is codify the arrangements that have operated in both the 55th and 56th parliaments, arrangements that operated very much by agreement and through the cooperation between the government and the opposition. That allowed those arrangements to work, and they did work. Those days of agreement and cooperation have unfortunately evaporated. We have an opposition that will seize on every point, every opportunity and every possible way to divert the energies of the house from the purposes for which we are here. We have an ALP opposition that will put, at every opportunity, politics first and Victorian families a very distant second. In recent days we had the debate on the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill 2011. An opposition member called a frivolous point of order, was turned down and immediately sought to have a quorum called. When the count was done we were only one member short of a quorum, but the call proceeded. The lack of quorum would not have been any hindrance to the business of the house; the quorum was called simply to disrupt business. That is what we are dealing with at this moment. Every opportunity to interrupt business is taken. We have seen stunts, we have seen point-scoring, we have seen filibusters, we have seen grandstanding, we have seen procedural devices and we have seen the manipulation of any rule the opposition can come up with to disrupt and thwart the business of the house and the business of the people of Victoria. 15:37 That is what we are dealing with in this case. It is all calculated to disrupt the Parliament and to disrupt proper debate. Indeed the opposition seems to have trouble — despite the protestations of the member for Lyndhurst — with the concept that in fact it is not the government any more. 55 The changes proposed by the Leader of the House I believe are necessary to ensure that the business of the house can proceed in an orderly fashion. Cooperation is certainly preferable. If we could, we would certainly do work cooperatively, but cooperation requires two sides, and when one side will not participate you cannot arrange affairs on a cooperative basis. The people of Victoria expect us to work together to discharge their business and not to use procedural devices in order to derail a program put before us. The opposition unfortunately insists on attempting to derail the program. It has consequently become necessary to move these proposed variations to the sessional orders. It would be best to do it by agreement, as I have said. In this case we cannot. I think the Leader of the House has in fact been entirely reasonable with the changes he has proposed because they simply codify the arrangements that have been in place for two parliamentary terms. If we were really interested in gagging debate, as has been suggested by some, I am sure there would be far more effective ways of doing it. The changes that are proposed are entirely reasonable, and I commend the motion. Mr WYNNE (Richmond) — What a delight to be with you, Speaker, as always, and to have followed the member for Albert Park, who I must say gave an excellent presentation of the opposition’s position in a very thorough, thoughtful and measured way. The member for Bendigo East in her usual erudite fashion has prosecuted the case on behalf of the opposition — that is, that we largely have no opposition to the proposed changes to sessional orders as detailed by the Leader of the House. In fact we do not oppose them, with the exception of proposed sessional order 8(1)(b) — that is, of course, the guillotine. By way of some introductory comments I want to take up some remarks made by the member for Mornington, who I regard as a measured person, by and large, in terms of his general contributions here in the house. I must say, though, that it ill behoves the member for Mornington to suggest that opposition members are simply here to manipulate the various opportunities that are provided to us as members of Parliament and to frustrate the government in its endeavours. I would submit to you, Speaker, that there is nothing further from the truth. Our leader has indicated on a number of occasions — and I say it again to the member for Mornington — that we understand very clearly the will of the people. The coalition is the government. We understand that. Those opposite are the government. I have to say that the orderly transmission of legislation through the Parliament, through the cabinet secretary — there he is at the table, the cabinet BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 56 ASSEMBLY PROOF Wednesday, 6 April 2011 secretary — and the Leader of the House leaves a lot to be desired. his place and he is out of order; you know that. Come on, Speaker. The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Richmond will address his comments through me. The SPEAKER — Order! I trust that the member is not suggesting I am not doing my job. Mr WYNNE — I am sorry, Speaker, I was just — — Mr WYNNE — Not at all, Speaker; you are a delight to be with. The SPEAKER — Order! I know what the member was doing. I ask him to speak through me. The SPEAKER — Order! I thank the member. Mr WYNNE — Just a delight; you know that. Mr WYNNE — I was just momentarily distracted and harking back to the old days when in fact I had the honour of being the cabinet secretary. One of the crucial jobs — — The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the member to return to the debate on the motion before the house. It is extremely entertaining. The SPEAKER — Order! Instead of going down the old memory lane I ask the member to return to the debate on the motion before the house. Mr WYNNE — We have seen here that the government has had to curtail debate. It has had to curtail debate on a number of bills here today — — Mr WYNNE — It is very germane, Speaker, to this particular matter that is before us — that is, to ensure that we have an orderly flow of legislation into the house. An honourable member — It never ever happened to you? Mr Hodgett interjected. Mr WYNNE — What a dismal failure you have been! What a dismal failure! The issue here, as we have seen, is the use of sessional orders. The Leader of the House is an interesting character, because what he does is come in here and huff and puff and blow and carry on, because that is the job that he has, but when he gets outside of the chamber he says, ‘Look, that was all in the chamber, you know; that’s all part of the rough and tumble. We actually want to have a cooperative arrangement with you’. The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the member to come back to the debate. Mr WYNNE — He says, ‘We actually want to have a cooperative arrangement with you in the orderly running of the house.’ Is that not going a treat, Speaker? Within the broader rubric this week of saying, ‘We need the Treasurer to go to Canberra to represent the interests of Victoria in this very important Treasurer’s — — Mr Hodgett interjected. The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Kilsyth! Mr WYNNE — Go back to being the cabinet secretary and get on with the job, will you? He is out of Mr WYNNE — We never had to curtail debate by a full day. This is a stunt that the government has pulled here, because the government knows full well that it will have the numbers in the house tomorrow. That is a simple fact, which will not be affected by whether the Treasurer is here or not here. The Leader of the House knows that the government has the numbers in the house, so it should not try to wrap this argument up in some nonsense and rhetoric and say, ‘We’re the only ones who stand up for Victoria, and we’re the only ones prepared to go in and fight for the interests of Victorians’. What a load of nonsense. The question of pairs has already been very ably canvassed by a number of speakers. Last night we canvassed the matter of pairs when in fact pairs have only been given twice in the last 20-odd years and at least on one of those occasions, as we know, that was for particularly tragic circumstances surrounding one of our members. We ought to cut to the chase here. This is about the orderly conduct of business in this house. To have orderly conduct in the business of this house you have to reach across the table and have some form of cooperative arrangement, respect for those on the other side of the chamber and some form of understanding — — Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of the House is being very disruptive! Mr WYNNE — We are all elected to be here in this Parliament. We all have a right to be heard in this 15:45 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF Parliament. We all have a right to represent the interests of our constituencies in this Parliament — and indeed it is quite improper for the Leader of the House to be moving sessional orders, as we are seeing today, that fundamentally seek to curtail the opportunity of both sides of the house to reflect the views of their constituencies in this great legislature. The government will be here for four years. The Leader of the House seems to think this is a good start to having a cooperative arrangement with the opposition. All he does is deride and drag down members in his typical way that is fuelled by hubris and arrogance. If he thinks that his outrageous, ridiculous, petulant and immature behaviour is going to get him a cooperative arrangement with our side of the house, he is sadly mistaken. This is not an opportunity. This is a test of the maturity of this government, but I do not think there is much hope for this fellow. It is a test of the leadership of this government, of whether it is prepared to say, ‘Right. This is over. Let us actually try to find some common ground and have some respect for the institution of this Parliament and for the fact that the opposition was elected to have the interests and voices of its constituents heard in this Parliament’. We will not be fettered by this sort of nonsense and this proposition to curtail debate in this Parliament, to use the guillotine at will and to close down debate as it has been closed down. We are to have two days of debate simply because the government needs to maintain this ridiculous proposition that it does not want to send its Treasurer to Canberra for what is an important meeting because it has not been provided with a pair when it is simply a statement of fact that it will have the numbers on the floor of this chamber tomorrow. Shame on the Leader of the House. Mr McINTOSH (Minister for Corrections) — I will briefly sum up the debate. I thank all members for their contributions. I started this process by explaining the mechanics of what was being achieved. As I indicated from the very outset the 4.00 p.m. adjournment is something that has been an effective and standard practice of this chamber certainly for the 11 years that I have been in this place. Once we get to the adjournment there is certainly a rapid exiting of this place, and it seems that practice is being institutionalised in these sessional orders. I reiterate the words of the member for South-West Coast, the Minister for Ports. He has been a senior minister, a Leader of the Opposition and a senior shadow minister for over 20 years in this place, and he indicates that between 1992 and 1999 there were no pairs because there was no need for them. Certainly my 57 recollection is that on many occasions ministers attended to official duties and there was a constant requirement for ministers to attend to those duties and once every couple of sitting weeks at question time a minister would be away attending some official function representing the state of Victoria. This is not just about the pairing arrangement. The pairing arrangement has been something of profound concern and commentary in this debate. The reality is that it would be an appropriate thing to provide the pair; it is consistent with the forms of this house that when a pair has been sought it has been provided. Likewise in the Legislative Council, when a pair has been sought it has been provided. The government has sought a pair reasonably and responsibly. I originally did this myself. I wrote to the manager of opposition business requesting it. That request was refused. Again today the Premier sought from the opposition a bipartisan, reasonable and rational response to its request that was above politics and in the interests of Victoria to provide a pair to allow the Treasurer to go to Canberra. It was a reasonable and responsible request. The Minister for Ports has said that in the 20 years he has been in this place, having seen opposition and on other occasions government, this is the first time he can think of that a pair has been refused in this chamber. That is deeply regrettable, because a pair ensures that good government is continued and the government on behalf of all Victorians and on behalf of all 88 lower house seats can properly represent all Victorians in Canberra at the treasurers meeting. I understand that when similar requests were made in other parliaments that are sitting this week to enable their treasurers to attend the ministerial council in Canberra — that is, in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania — pairs were provided. For some reason when a pair was requested this time, it was denied. However, the utility of the 4.00 p.m. adjournment has been a common practice in this place, and certainly the amendment to provide for the 10.00 p.m. adjournment will properly reflect the practices and procedures that have been in operation since I have been in this chamber. House divided on motion: Ayes, 44 Angus, Mr Asher, Ms Baillieu, Mr Battin, Mr Bauer, Mrs Blackwood, Mr Bull, Mr Mulder, Mr Napthine, Dr Newton-Brown, Mr Northe, Mr O’Brien, Mr Powell, Mrs Ryall, Ms 15:52 RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT (PUBLIC HOUSING) BILL 2011 58 Burgess, Mr Clark, Mr Crisp, Mr Delahunty, Mr Dixon, Mr Fyffe, Mrs Gidley, Mr Hodgett, Mr Katos, Mr Kotsiras, Mr McCurdy, Mr McIntosh, Mr McLeish, Ms Miller, Ms Morris, Mr ASSEMBLY PROOF Ryan, Mr Shaw, Mr Smith, Mr R. Southwick, Mr Sykes, Dr Thompson, Mr Tilley, Mr Victoria, Mrs Wakeling, Mr Walsh, Mr Watt, Mr Weller, Mr Wells, Mr Wooldridge, Ms Wreford, Ms Noes, 43 Allan, Ms Andrews, Mr Barker, Ms Beattie, Ms Brooks, Mr Campbell, Ms Carbines, Mr D’Ambrosio, Ms Donnellan, Mr Duncan, Ms Edwards, Ms Eren, Mr Foley, Mr Garrett, Ms Graley, Ms Green, Ms Halfpenny, Ms Helper, Mr Hennessy, Ms Herbert, Mr Holding, Mr Howard, Mr Hulls, Mr Hutchins, Ms Kairouz, Ms Knight, Ms Languiller, Mr Lim, Mr McGuire, Mr Madden, Mr Merlino, Mr Nardella, Mr Neville, Ms Noonan, Mr Pallas, Mr Pandazopoulos, Mr Perera, Mr Pike, Ms Richardson, Ms Scott, Mr Thomson, Ms Trezise, Mr Wynne, Mr Motion agreed to. RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT (PUBLIC HOUSING) BILL 2011 Second reading Debate resumed from 5 April; motion of Mr DELAHUNTY (Minister for Sport and Recreation). Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) — I am pleased to rise to continue my contribution on the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Public Housing) Bill 2011. In relation to indictable offences power will be given to the director of housing to evict people from their properties. In the broader context, some of these matters go to the amenity of local residents in relation to where they live and providing them with a safe environment. In terms of the people in public housing in my electorate of Ivanhoe, particularly in West Heidelberg, part of that is done through a range of projects that we Wednesday, 6 April 2011 initiated when we were in government, such as neighbourhood renewal and the provision of advocacy for people in public housing. We have given them a stronger voice and a say in their own advocacy and representation. It is about holding the Office of Housing, the Department of Human Services and local government to account and allowing people to have a say fundamentally about the way they live their lives and about ensuring that they are treated with respect and dignity. What the people of the Ivanhoe electorate — particularly the people of West Heidelberg, where I live and where there is a large public housing community — have raised with me about this legislation is the fact that often public housing is not suitable for their purposes, either because of the size of their families or because the housing has not been maintained. These are the sorts of issues that people raise with me constantly in the Ivanhoe electorate. These are the sorts of issues that the Labor government dealt with to ensure that people in public housing were treated with respect and dignity. That is what Labor governments want to ensure. When the government talks about public housing it looks for easy and cheap headlines, but we do not hear anything about investment in public housing or about increasing the maintenance budget for public housing. We do not hear anything about building public housing on the vacant blocks in West Heidelberg. The government wants to pay consultants to draw up fancy plans, but when it comes to improving the amenity for people in public housing it says nothing about investing in public housing itself. It does not want to talk about investing in building public housing on vacant blocks in West Heidelberg owned by the Office of Housing for which the director of housing is responsible when people are looking for somewhere to live and are expecting the government to provide them with opportunities. Those blocks are sitting there vacant because this government will not provide the investment for more public housing to be built. On the subject of investing in public housing and providing opportunities for constituents in my electorate to have somewhere to live and a roof over their head, I am pleased to talk about some of the homes and facilities that have been built for people who live in West Heidelberg. I will talk about some of those out in the Bellfield — — Mr Shaw — On a point of order, Speaker, the bill is not about investment in public housing; the bill is specifically about the trafficking of drugs. MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF An honourable member interjected. Mr SHAW — The point of order is that the member is not speaking on the bill. I ask you, Speaker, to instruct the member to speak on the bill and not about investment in public housing. The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the point of order. I ask the member to return to debating the bill before the house. Mr CARBINES — This bill goes to the heart of what the residents of West Heidelberg say to me. They are keen to improve the amenity of their neighbourhood. They work hard to do that through projects such as neighbourhood renewal, through their advocacy and through discussion around improving local facilities such as those at Malahang Reserve, as well as by holding local fetes and festivals that promote Housing Week and their issues and holding local barbecues in the community. They have had barbecues at the Bell Bardia estate and the Tarakan estate. We want people to be able to put forward their issues and talk about what is important to them to ensure that the Office of Housing, the Department of Human Services and the government are listening and responding to their issues on public housing matters. 16:02 In relation to this matter, ultimately the government has a responsibility to house all vulnerable Victorians, including all those who may end up getting charged on an indictable offence, but what about their families and the homes in which they live that are public housing? Who is looking out for them, who is providing them with confidence that the government and the people of Victoria want them taken care of, looked out for and advocated for? They will continue to get advocacy in West Heidelberg, they will continue to get it in Ivanhoe and they will continue to get it on this side of the house, but what I we will wait for the next budget to see is what is being provided by this government to invest in public housing rather than shutting it down and kicking people out. That is what we want to see done by this government, but there is nothing but silence and a cheap headline. Housing is what we want to see in West Heidelberg and the Ivanhoe electorate. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr McINTOSH (Minister for Corrections). Debate adjourned until later this day. 59 MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Second reading Debate resumed from 24 March; motion of Mr KOTSIRAS (Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship). Mr ANDREWS (Leader of the Opposition) — I am pleased to make a contribution to the debate on this important bill, the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011. In my capacity as shadow minister for multicultural affairs I have a special interest in the bill, and I indicate from the outset that the Labor opposition will not oppose this bill. Firstly, I take the opportunity to talk about the value of our multicultural community and the value of multiculturalism across Victoria. I have said many times that I am very privileged to have served for a brief time as Minister assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs when Steve Bracks was the Premier and was also the Minister for Multicultural Affairs. It was an enjoyable experience and a real honour for me to serve in that portfolio, and I was very pleased to be able to assume those responsibilities as the shadow minister for multicultural affairs after the change in government last year. Many times I have said in this place and in other public forums that our cultural diversity, our multiculturalism and the fact that we are a multicultural and multifaith community are one of our greatest assets, one of our greatest strengths. That is what sets us apart from so many other parts of the world. It is also what makes us an edgy, interesting and fundamentally great place to live. We always have to make sure that we invest in and nurture that cultural diversity and multiculturalism, and that we value it in everything we do and say. We also need to ensure that we never take that diversity, and all the good that it brings, for granted. As members would know, over the years many different communities, different families and different people have come from right across the globe, some travelling for a new life in relatively peaceful and calm circumstances, many travelling as refugees, being victims of torture and trauma, victims from much less settled, less civilised circumstances than those we sometimes take for granted here in Victoria. They have made their way to build a new life for themselves and their families in Melbourne, in our regional centres and in many rural places within our great state. The contribution of so many of those waves of migrants, families and communities to our economic MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 60 ASSEMBLY PROOF prosperity, our cultural life and the diversity that is such a key strength is very difficult to estimate. So huge, comprehensive and important have those contributions been that they are very challenging to quantify. What we know without a shadow of doubt is that those contributions have been manifestly important to building a modern, respectful Victoria that is a powerhouse, if you like, both in economic activity and in the generation of ideas, innovation and reform. The contribution from our cultural and religious diversity is central to those strengths in so many different ways. were either born overseas or have at least one parent who was born overseas, that we as a community come from 200 different countries of origin, that we speak more than 230 languages and dialects and that we follow more than 120 faiths, ‘we’ means every Victorian — that is, all Victorians from all parts of Victoria. Multiculturalism is not just in Melbourne’s suburbs and not just in the centre of our capital city; it is found across the entire state. That is a significant point, and I know it is one that is not lost on the minister nor, I hope, on the government. I do not want to single out any particular group; there are many groups. We know that in our own local communities and in communities right across state just how important that contribution is almost every day. I have said many times when I have visited schools in my local community or when I have visited my own children’s school that the lived experience for them is very different from what I enjoyed only about 30 years ago when I was at primary school in country Victoria. The experience is very different; we have come a long way, and we have changed. The differences that sometimes hijack debate, sometimes stain people’s reason or colour their view appallingly are seemingly not even registered by so many today because they are just part of the lived experience; it is just what life is all about. The fact that our diversity is so beautifully grounded in our community is where our harmony and strength come from. These features have made us the unique, vibrant, interesting and dynamic place we are today. Since coming back to this portfolio as a shadow minister with the change of government, I have over the last few months had the great pleasure and privilege of attending a number of functions. These have been really important functions not only for the specific communities involved in organising them but also because they have been great examples of celebrating and sharing cultural diversity and cultural heritage and practice. They are important not just within a community in order to pass down to the next generation that cultural heritage, as significant as that is; they are almost more important for the broader community to be able to share in the culture that all those different groups have brought to Victoria. This bill and all its provisions, which I will come to in a moment, is the government delivering on an election commitment it made last year. 16:10 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 It is appropriate that we make sure we have the best and most contemporary framework. It is also obviously important and appropriate that the government deliver on the promises it has made. I have referred to diversity not just in metropolitan Melbourne but also in communities right across the state — proudly right across rural and regional Victoria. Some of the best examples of our cultural diversity and the contribution of both celebrating and sharing cultural heritage are in rural and regional areas. As a former minister who has visited places such as Shepparton, Warrnambool, Bendigo, Ballarat and Wangaratta, my home town, as well as other parts of north-eastern Victoria, and having visited ethnic communities through organisations such as Diversitat in the Barwon region, I know that so many of our rural communities do this very well. When we talk about these numbers and quote the statistics which indicate that 40 per cent of Victorians There has been the Greek national day at the shrine; the Antipodes Festival in Lonsdale Street, where I was pleased to join in and share the stage with the minister; the Afghan new year celebrations at the Springvale town hall; the Chinese New Year celebrations in Chinatown, which again I attended with the minister, the Premier and others; a number of different functions celebrating the Hindu community’s holy festival of colours; and many other examples. I have been pleased and really proud to be able to attend many of these functions in my capacity as Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for multicultural affairs. Each occasion has served as an important reminder — and we all sometimes need such a reminder — of the brilliance of that diversity and its centrality and importance to our state. Perhaps the highlight of those events was the Premier’s gala dinner at Crown Casino, which was held as part of Cultural Diversity Week. I made the point then, and I will make it again now, that we do this better than so many other parts of Australia and the world principally because we do not just tolerate our cultural diversity, we celebrate it. There is a real, meaningful pride, not just in word but in deed and in belief. We are genuinely proud to be what we have become — a fundamentally diverse state, one built on respect and on MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF acknowledging the contributions that so many communities within the broader Victorian community make on a daily basis. When Labor was in government it was pleased and proud to support Victoria’s cultural diversity. Before I return to the provisions of the bill I will just make a couple of points about our record and the various initiatives and policies we pursued in government. For Labor members they are a source of great pride, and for multicultural communities across the state the practical and meaningful support we provided to so many groups was a source of real progress and achievement. In our last year in government we provided $5.6 million to around 2200 multicultural groups, including 700 seniors groups, right across the state. That is a sevenfold increase in funding during our term in office, and again we are abundantly proud to have been able to provide that practical support to so many groups in so many different communities in a consistent way, each and every year. Through the Cultural Precincts and Community Infrastructure Fund $12 million was provided to ensure that our key cultural precincts remain suitable and available to facilitate the celebration of our multiculturalism. These are also important centres of activity, and they tell the story of migration and settlement patterns over a long period of time. They include the Eaton Mall in Oakleigh, the Little Saigon arch in Richmond and the new Hindu cultural and education centre at the Carrum Downs temple. I have had the pleasure of seeing that building site and visiting that magnificent temple on many occasions, and it is a credit to everybody involved. We also supported the enhancement of Melbourne’s iconic cultural precincts. Most members are aware of work that has taken place on Lygon Street, Little Bourke Street and Lonsdale Street. Substantial financial commitments were made to those precincts which allowed them to become the true cultural icons we always knew they were. That funding was about helping those areas as physical spaces to facilitate the best celebration of the cultural diversity that is absolutely synonymous with those three locations. We set up the 24-hour International Student Care Service, a first in Australia and a service that became a very important source of practical support for students. It was one of the many different settlement services where we either partnered with another organisation or were the key and central funder. We are very proud to have done that. 61 From a personal point of view, both when I was Parliamentary Secretary for Health and later when I was Minister for Health I was very pleased to be able to work with Bronwyn Pike, the member for Melbourne, on rolling out refugee health nurses in a number of different locations across the state. This again was targeted support for the most vulnerable — that is, people who had come to Australia to build a new life with, it is fair to say, a fair bit of primary health catch-up to be done, having left refugee camps where they may well have lived for very long periods of time, often with real and manifest mental health issues and often with physical health issues. The refugee health nurse program is something that I think has benefited many hundreds, indeed thousands, of newly arrived refugees and humanitarian settlers. It is a program of which we are very proud. The refugee communities in Brimbank, Dandenong, Hume, Maribyrnong, Moonee Valley, Melbourne, Darebin, Shepparton, Warrnambool and Ballarat, almost all of which I think I had the honour of visiting to celebrate the rollout of the refugee health nurse program, are very strong supporters of the program, and we should acknowledge the great work the nurses do in providing those services. Of course we supported more than 200 community language schools across the state that teach about 50 different languages to over 34 000 students on a regular basis. Those key government investments are central to making those programs possible. Obviously we introduced a range of reforms and provided strong financial support for interpreting and translating services for government agencies, and we made a strong commitment — indeed more than $50 million — to the teaching of languages other than English and programs like it in primary and secondary schools. Can I say as well that it is not just about resources; it is also about making sure you have a legislative framework that facilitates, promotes and is clear about what the community’s expectations are and what the standards are that we set for ourselves. To that end we are very proud to have properly developed and put through this Parliament laws like the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 and the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. These are all about making sure that no Victorian is in any doubt about the fact that across the community we support and honour, revere and value the contribution that our multicultural and multifaith communities have made, currently make and will certainly make in the future. There is no room for intolerance, there is no room for prejudice and there is no room anywhere in our state for 16:17 MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 62 ASSEMBLY PROOF people to lack the fundamental respect that is such a selling point and such a source of pride for us in a broader sense. We have to be consistent about that. We have to make sure that we support our cultural diversity so it can thrive, that we value our cultural diversity so it can thrive and that we will always be a loud and consistent voice to speak out against those who are less charitable and those who cannot for some unknown reason see the inherent value of our multicultural and multifaith community. Being loud and consistent against that sort of behaviour is a hallmark of our time in office; we are abundantly proud of that, and we will continue to do it, because I and the team I lead understand how important those messages are. I now turn to the key features of the bill. As I said, we will not oppose the bill; it is reflective of the commitments that the then opposition made, and we think it is important that the government delivers on its election commitments. Although the bill repeals the current act, many of the provisions of the current legislative framework are re-enacted. However, there are four key differences, and I will briefly go to those. The bill provides for the restructure of the Victorian Multicultural Commission (VMC). Clause 8 affords an additional function to the commission, which will be able to research, report and advise the minister on systemic community issues. We think that is important. There will be a range of implementation challenges — what type of research will there be; how well supported will the commission be to do that work? — but we think that is a broadening of the commission’s role. We have no fundamental problem with that, and we wish it well in that important function. Clause 12 details the members of the commission, and there is some change to the composition of the VMC. The number of commissioners remains at 12, but the bill introduces two new requirements in terms of the appointment of members. There are two new categories of member, if you like, for the commission. One member at least must be a youth representative — that is, between 18 and 24 years of age. I think that is a worthy thing to do. I am not sure what the actual experience would be over the life of the VMC in its different forms, but again it is important that we always promote the broadest cross-section of voices, and young adults today who are active in local community affairs need to carry much of the workload as we go forward in the celebration of cultural heritage. I think it is only appropriate that at least one younger person is there to be a voice for younger people involved in the celebration of our cultural diversity. Wednesday, 6 April 2011 As I understand it, a further member must be a representative of the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria. Again over many years and under many different leaders I think the council has done a fantastic job in supporting governments of different political persuasions and groups of all different sorts of perspective in the celebration of the diversity that is so important to all of us. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the ECCV for the great work it does. I know Sam Afra, who is the chairman, very well. He leads that organisation extremely well, but he is one of many people who have done great service at the ECCV over a long period. Part 4 sets up eight regional advisory councils across each of the whole-of-government regions. There will be five country and three metropolitan councils. Each will be chaired by a member of the commission proper, and each will include in its ordinary membership volunteers drawn from the relevant region. The bill provides that the councils will offer advice to the commission on matters relating to its function, obviously with a unique perspective from the local community. There are also new reporting provisions requiring heads of government departments to ensure that every reasonable effort is made to assist the commission when it is preparing a report. Again, there is nothing wrong with that; we think that is appropriate in terms of making sure the best policy approach is taken. I have a couple of issues and concerns I wish to raise. I am sure the minister will be able to deal with these either in his summing up or when the bill is between the houses. Whilst many of the new provisions are routine, some of the administrative changes initiated by the government are somewhat concerning, particularly the government’s decision to take away from the commission many of its policy and administrative functions. Going back some years and after a very long and intensive consultation process we made a change — and I will come back to that issue in a moment — to merge the old Victorian Office of Multicultural Affairs and the VMC so we had one voice across government with administration, policy and advocacy functions under the one roof. That was an approach we took. We saw that as a sensible, efficient and effective way of making sure that we got the best possible whole-of-government advice and delivered the best possible outcomes. The new government has a different view, and it is entitled to have that view; it took it to the Victorian community. But I would say to the minister — and I am sure he has picked up on this because he moves around the sector very regularly — that there are some MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF concerns and there is some uncertainty. The combination of these changes and the different functions for the two bodies, and also changes in terms of leadership made recently at the commission, have I think caused some concern for a number of groups. No doubt the minister will be able to provide us with some assurances in relation to these matters, as I said, either in his summing up or when the bill is between the houses. On the issue of consultation, as I have said many times today and over the years, our diversity is precious and important. Consultation and making sure that the diverse range of voices within our multicultural and multifaith communities each have a seat at the table and an opportunity to put their view is very important, and I think in broad terms there would be bipartisan support for as consultative an approach to policy making and program delivery in support of our multiculturalism as is possible. I am unaware whether there has been extensive consultation around these issues, and I ask the minister if he might perhaps give us some comfort around that at a later stage. But I am unaware of any wholesale consultation or substantial consultation to make sure communities across the state put their view on this bill or on the broader policy positions that underpin it. I am not for a moment suggesting the government was not up-front about these matters, at least in broad terms, at the election, but in terms of multicultural communities and the community more broadly, the views of groups are unknown to us because I do not necessarily think there has been broad consultation. If I am wrong in that, I will be more than happy to concede the point, but if consultation has been done, I expect that it would have been perhaps of a targeted nature and would not necessarily have been a public process. Again, I seek some clarification from the minister on that front. In terms of the transition arrangements, obviously the government has a majority in both houses and we know this bill will become law. We are going to move from one set of arrangements to a new set of arrangements. There is some doubt, some confusion and some uncertainty about the transition arrangements. 16:27 Will there be a period where there is no institutional framework, if you like, or will the government through the appointment process, through the Governor in Council and through the proclamation of this bill as an act ensure that there is a seamless transition from one arrangement to the next? This may seem to be a pedantic point, but it is important. Will there be continuity? We know that the needs of communities 63 and the value of multiculturalism are continuous; we all want to see and make sure that there will be a smooth transition from one arrangement to a new arrangement. I seek some clarification from the minister on that point as well. A number of these matters were raised with the acting chair of the Victorian Multicultural Commission, Hakan Akyol, and representatives of the minister’s office, and I thank the minister for the courtesy of the briefing. I also take this opportunity to thank Mr Akyol for his advocacy and leadership at the VMC, both now as acting chair and previously. I was very pleased to work with Mr Akyol in a previous role. He is a first-class public servant and somebody who is passionate and committed to ensuring that we make the most of and protect and promote the diversity that, as I think we all agree, is so important to the future of our state. The opposition does not oppose the bill. We have a series of questions; there is some uncertainty around how these new arrangements will work. I encourage the minister, if he can, to provide some comfort on those issues. That would be good. If not, he can write to me while the bill is between the houses. I want to conclude by making the point that what this government can count on in all things and at all times is unwavering support for our cultural diversity and the multicultural and multifaith nature of our community today. The government can bank on that. We are absolutely and fundamentally committed to the promotion and celebration of our cultural diversity. We get it; we understand it. We supported it in government, and in opposition we will be there shoulder to shoulder with anyone who has a similar view. That will be our position, and the current government can bank on that at all times and in all things. Finally this debate provides me with an opportunity to thank the former chair of the VMC, George Lekakis. I had the great pleasure and privilege of working with George during my time as the minister assisting the then Premier and Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Steve Bracks. George is one of those people who does not just work to support multiculturalism, he lives to support multiculturalism. He is a fantastic example of someone who walks it, talks it and works it every single day. There is no stronger supporter in our great state of the cultural diversity, the harmony and the respect that set us apart than George, and on behalf of the Labor Party I commend him for his leadership and the role he played. We wish him well in his new role, which is an important role in and of itself. It would be wrong if we did not take this opportunity to acknowledge the MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 64 ASSEMBLY PROOF leadership, the passion, the vision and ultimately the absolute credibility of George and the work he has done. He is always consistent and always hardworking in the pursuit of something we all value. With those few comments I wish the bill a speedy passage, and I look forward to the minister providing us with some comfort on the issues I have raised. I want to say finally that our cultural diversity is such a huge asset to our state. All of us across the community are charged with the responsibility to support that diversity in any way we can. Mr GIDLEY (Mount Waverley) — It is my great pleasure to rise to speak in support of the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011. In my contribution to the debate tonight I intend to concentrate on a couple of areas. The first is to look at the broad values and policies that are the driving force behind this bill and the second is to look at how the government intends to implement them. The bill recognises and values the cultural, religious, racial and linguistic diversity of Victoria. It recognises that the principles of multiculturalism are based on citizenship. It also wishes to promote Victoria as a united community with shared laws, values, aspirations and, importantly, responsibilities which we as Victorians from diverse backgrounds all play a part in meeting. What is very clear in this bill and in the government’s reforms is the fundamental significance of the relationship between multiculturalism and citizenship. It is very clear in the coalition’s policy and throughout this bill that we recognise and celebrate the diverse backgrounds of Victorians. We also recognise the responsibilities that go with that diversity in our role as citizens. When I talk about citizenship I am really referring to the rights and responsibilities of all people in a multicultural society. There are some key elements in the previous legislation which are incorporated in this bill. I do not intend to speak on them, but there are more than a few. However, there are some fundamental changes in this bill, and I will highlight a couple of them to the house tonight. One is that the government fundamentally supports the democratic framework governed by the rule of law as a principle of multiculturalism. I want to restate that principle tonight, and I want to restate my view and the government’s view that we believe Victoria and Australia should work towards the future interests of our people. I note that the bill reflects the government’s view that multicultural affairs and policy are fundamental and are not something to play politics with. That is why I was so pleased to see in this bill the removal of the political Wednesday, 6 April 2011 slogan ‘A great place to live, work invest and raise a family’. I am pleased to see that that slogan will be removed from the legislation because as we know it was political spin; that is all it was. It was not necessary to include it in legislation on multicultural affairs, and I commend the minister for removing it. I also want to comment on clause 4(3)(f) in part 2 of the bill, which reflects the values the coalition took to the election. It says ‘that all individuals in Victoria should be united in a shared commitment to Australia and to community service’. This is a fundamental recognition of the importance of volunteerism, which goes hand in hand with citizenship. We took this idea to the last election. The people of our great state should do everything they can to contribute the wealth they bring — the wealth of their background, the wealth of their diversity — to Victoria in all ways. It is great to see volunteerism so evident throughout the bill. The new legislation implements the whole-of-government approach that is of fundamental importance in the coalition’s policy document. The government’s multicultural policy does not stop at one office or department; it is a whole-of-government approach. The coalition government has announced a number of measures to ensure such an approach is taken. In particular I highlight the establishment of a ministerial interdepartmental multicultural services advisory committee, which will be important to ensuring that there is consistency across government and that the knowledge and skills of the different departments are brought together to put their best foot forward on multicultural affairs. The mechanisms for implementing the government’s policy are important and fundamental. They represent significant changes in Victoria. First and foremost the bill re-establishes the Victorian Multicultural Commission as an independent statutory office. It is important to highlight that because it is consistent with the overarching view of the government that the commission needs to be seen as an independent body with a specialist skill set that is apart from politics and government. I note that under the existing legislation the commission is an administrative office formed under order in council and the Public Affairs Administration Act 2004 and that its chair is responsible to the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet. One of the great things the bill does is ensure that the commission is an independent statutory office and that the chair is responsible to the minister. That is important to ensure not only the commission’s independence but also that there is the 16:35 MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF perception of its independence. I note the consistency between the coalition’s election commitment on multicultural affairs and the bill before us, which delivers on that commitment. A number of questions have been asked about the independence of the commission — not necessarily the current organisation but that of days gone by. I draw to the attention of members the fact that at one stage 8 out of the 12 members of the Victorian Multicultural Commission were card-carrying members of the Labor Party. I do not think that was healthy for the perceived independence of the VMC or for multicultural affairs in Victoria. One of the benefits of having an independent statutory office — one which will be much more independent in both reality and perception — is that we would be less likely to see that happen again. That is fantastic. I bring to the attention of the house that the bill adds a couple of key objectives to the Victorian Multicultural Commission. One is to promote the rights and responsibilities of citizenship as a unifying force that strengthens our diverse multicultural community. This highlights the government’s belief that diversity of background and opinion is especially important to Victoria. The legislation seeks to utilise that as much as possible. I am very pleased that the new commission, being independent, will have the power to conduct research and advise and report to the minister on a range of issues. It is important to ensure that it has the authority to provide that specialist advice, which is also consistent with the coalition’s policy. It is great to see in this legislation provision for the appointment to the commission of a person between the ages of 18 and 24. This is also consistent with the coalition’s policy to ensure that there is a younger member of the commission. I commend the minister on following that through. It will bring an added dimension to the commission. On the issue of independence, one great aspect of this legislation is that the commission can determine when it needs to meet; it does not need ministerial direction to do so. That is part of the added value it provides: it ensures the perception of independence as well as the reality. I commend the minister on this. The provision establishing regional advisory councils represents the bottom-up approach — rather than a top-down approach — that is consistent with the government’s view that the skills, resources and knowledge of multicultural affairs from across Victoria should be harnessed. They will be brought together 65 through the regional advisory councils, which will ensure that the information is fed up through the VMC and that the contributions of all people across Victoria are valued. I note the increased reporting requirements on the commission to make sure that it fulfils its role of reporting on whole-of-government measures. These requirements are stringent and effective. They will achieve the intended outcomes. This is a great piece of legislation that is consistent with coalition policy. It is my great pleasure to commend it to the house. Mr PANDAZOPOULOS (Dandenong) — I would like to say it is a pleasure to speak on this bill, but I think it is unnecessary. The current Victorian Multicultural Commission (VMC) has been working extremely effectively. As the member for Mount Waverley in effect highlighted with the dot points in his discussion notes, the reason this bill has been introduced is really the perception members of the government had of the commission when they were in opposition. Members of the government had talked about the independence of the commission — not necessarily the current commission, but the past commission — and the chair being responsible to the minister. This highlights the paranoia members of the government had about the commission when they were in opposition. Opposition members will not oppose the bill, because the government did at least list it out in the community and roughly said what it would do, so on that basis we will not oppose it. However, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, the reality is that apart from what took place during the election campaign there has not been a lot of discussion amongst stakeholder groups on this issue. I am not saying this because the multicultural commission has worked well or because I am a former Minister Assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs and I am passionate about multiculturalism. It is also not a criticism of the minister — who I would like to say is a friend of mine — who understands that there is a lot of bipartisan support for multiculturalism and that we say certain things because we are passionate about them. As politicians we understand that sometimes we want to make points of difference during election campaigns, and just because we seek to make points of difference does not mean that they are good public policy outcomes, and the bill we have before us is a reflection of that. The Baillieu government when in opposition had a point of difference with the government of the day — that is, the former Labor government — and there was a bit of paranoia around the commission and its centralised focus, which 16:42 MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 66 ASSEMBLY PROOF members of the former Labor government thought worked effectively. The reality is that whilst it is extremely pleasing that a consistent bipartisan approach has been taken on multicultural affairs — and I commend the minister, who has from the earliest days of his government put out positive press releases and been supportive of some of these sorts of issues, which illustrates that bipartisan support — it does not mean that the government and the opposition do not have differences around what is good public policy and around resources. The minister himself has said as much many times when he has spoken at or attended different events. It is important to understand that it is not only the government of the day that has had this issue. For good or bad, there is a bit of history in this area amongst political parties on the other side. When I was elected in 1992, within a very similar time frame — roughly 100 days — the Kennett government abolished the Ethnic Affairs Commission, which had its own legislation. That commission was a similar body to the multicultural commission — one body doing both policy delivery and implementation, and doing the grants program in consultation with the community. The Liberals got into government and created two agencies around that paranoia. They created a multicultural commission, which we did not sack or remove people from; we kept the same people on board, because we knew that the people involved in public policy in the multicultural area, irrespective of their politics, are involved because they are passionate about this area. They are not involved in public policy because they can get paid more working in this area than in other areas; they are in this field because they strongly believe in it, and people from all sides of the political fence are very passionate and involved in multiculturalism. If such people are involved in employment in this area, they are doing it for love, not money. They are doing it for commitment and because they understand that consistent approaches need to be taken over time if you are to get appropriate support from the community for diversity and if you are to get the appropriate recognition and service delivery for those people who come from culturally and religiously diverse backgrounds across Victoria to support their needs as Victorians and as citizens of our state. In 1992 the Kennett government sacked the Ethnic Affairs Commission within its first 100 days; in 2011 — bingo! — and a very similar event is happening now. I am highlighting that the government has form in this area. Yes, when you put in a lot more Wednesday, 6 April 2011 resources — as we did in government — sometimes you can confuse those extra resources going out in the community theoretically with being of political benefit to the government of the day, or you can have a look at that as an appropriate recognition of the need for resources to go into the community. In previous speeches I have given on multicultural affairs I have highlighted that in effect the amount of money going into multicultural affairs in the state budget 2 years ago was a lot higher than it was 10 years ago, but it is a pittance compared to what it is in a whole lot of other sectors, and we get good value for money from that funding. We should not confuse grants to communities — grants to encourage them to share their cultures and festivals with the broader community, grants so that we can take programs like Cultural Diversity Week into schools, grants that can support seniors groups with their activities and grants so that community groups can own their own buildings rather than using other taxpayer-funded public buildings — with political benefit for the government of the day that increased those resources. With the greatest respect to the other side, I think there is a hint of this occurring, and we heard about it from the previous speaker. I do not know whether the member for Mount Waverley was right that 8 of the 12 commissioners at one point in time were members of the Labor Party. I have no idea; that is never a requirement for me, and it was never a requirement when I was minister. If you simply create a new structure because that is what you think, then you are not doing public policy well, and I will outline some of the problems with that. Some might ask why the former government merged the two organisations when I was Minister Assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs. On the one hand one organisation was able to deliver grants, consult to its heart’s content and report to the Parliament, but if it could not do anything with that consultation, then it was a toothless tiger; on the other hand there was the Victorian Office of Multicultural Affairs — well-meaning public servants — and that agency had a very high turnover, as any new agency will. To be blunt, often multicultural affairs is an entry point to the public sector and there is a big turnover of staff, which can mean a lack of consistency in the whole-of-government approaches that we all preach about and support, including the government. It is good to keep talking about having a whole-of-government approach and developing mechanisms to develop that approach, but it was not working, because the chair of the commission, who reported independently to the Parliament — — MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF Mr Kotsiras — You sacked her. Mr PANDAZOPOULOS — No, the chair of the multicultural commission had less power, and the office of multicultural affairs was weak in the sense that the small number of people in that office — maybe 11 people at that point in time — were trying to move their own agenda within a large department. Guess what happens with departmental secretaries and the heads of departments? Multicultural affairs is not the big item of the budget. The departmental head tries to protect the biggest item of the department’s budget, and that is where most of the pressures are. The director of the office of multicultural affairs was always battling this scenario. The reason the Labor government brought the two organisations together was to attain uniformity. If you are consulting, then you need to have power and authority. The chair of the VMC, including Stefan Romaniw or George Lekakis, were able to meet with Simon Overland at Victoria Police and have a discussion. The director of the office of multicultural affairs cannot do that, because he is not a deputy secretary or a head of department. Try to get that same meeting with the head of the health department, or any other department. That simply was not happening, and that is why we brought them together. There was no political agenda. They were brought together because of the principles on which Tourism Victoria is based — and guess what? Would government members like to know where we found the model? We found it because I was the Minister for Tourism. I asked why Tourism Victoria worked: it distributes grants, consults with stakeholders, does the policy development and delivery, and also reports separately to Parliament under its own act of Parliament. Tourism Victoria’s chair is independent, which is very similar to the commission, and it works quite well because it is all streamlined. When someone talks about tourism, they know it is Tourism Victoria. Of course when you are knocking on the door to have meetings to deliver whole-of-government approaches, this tends to happen. It is the same with Regional Development Victoria, and the former Labor government created that structure. What we are simply doing now is moving away from good practice with other stakeholder-interest organisations, like Tourism Victoria et cetera, and what we will have is a weaker policy outcome in the future. A less cohesive approach will be taken. I know the minister and the Premier are committed, but you cannot rely on commitment alone, because at the end of the day what any minister understands, and the current Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship is learning it now, is that 50 per 67 cent of the time ministers work at getting the government — the public servants — to deliver outcomes and the other 50 per cent of the time ministers try to plan ahead, consult and do things on behalf of the community that elected them. If you cannot deliver the 50 per cent that you need the rest of government to click on, you will not perform as well, irrespective of how well meaning the minister of the day and the Premier of the day are in their support of multiculturalism. To me this will mean less cohesion in the future and fewer resources available to communities in a competitive environment around a whole-of-government approach to multicultural affairs, and over time I think we will see fewer dollars for the VMC as well. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Languiller) — Order! The member’s time has expired. Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) — It gives me pleasure to rise to speak on the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011. I stand in this place very proud of the Liberal Party’s support for multiculturalism and very supportive of the bill that is before the house. I must say that I was concerned and disappointed by the comments made by the member for Dandenong regarding the government’s agenda for multiculturalism in this state, because we believe that multiculturalism should be bipartisan. It should be something that is supported by both parties, but the way in which the debate has been conducted has been very disappointing. I must say that that tone concerns me if that is the way we are going to frame this debate. Nevertheless, we believe that as an incoming government we have an obligation to ensure that the Victorian Multicultural Commission (VMC) operates in a sound manner and that it is run appropriately. The objective of this government is to improve upon the system that was in place under the Bracks and Brumby governments. The former Labor government had three members responsible for multicultural affairs in Victoria: the former Premier, who was also the Minister for Multicultural Affairs; a Minister Assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs; and a parliamentary secretary for multicultural affairs. Despite the fact that there were three members of the government responsible for multicultural affairs, there remained a lack of coordination, vision and policy in the operation of this important portfolio. Under the former Labor government the VMC’s independence was compromised. Many people believed that the VMC became a mere mouthpiece of the former government. That was not just the concern of members on this side of the house but one raised by 16:52 MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 68 ASSEMBLY PROOF Wednesday, 6 April 2011 many in the multicultural community. These people expressed concern about the way in which the organisation was being run by the former government. Assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs and who is at the table, say that he was unaware that the people — — The former Victorian Office of Multicultural Affairs (VOMA) was incorporated into the VMC to guarantee political control. Concerns had been raised about the money spent on hiring consultants. There was very little value for money in terms of services delivered, and in fact issues were raised in this house by members of the then Liberal opposition about the nearly $1.5 million that was spent on casual and full-time staff and consultants. So clearly there was concern about the way in which multicultural affairs programs were being run under the previous government. Mr Pandazopoulos — No, I said that I doubted whether it was true. There was constant conflict and argument between the VOMA and the VMC, and concerns were raised about whether or not the minister was in control. The member for Dandenong, who was the Minister Assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs and who is at the table, will have his opinion about the way he operated his department, and that is his right. However, he allowed the situation to evolve to a point where he had to amalgamate the two organisations. There are examples of separate organisations being created that operate autonomously from each other. That is seen around the world. Whether you are a minister or you are in charge of an organisation, it is all about the way you set up a governance model and the way you control it to ensure that the two separate organisations operate in an appropriate way. I am pleased that the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship has taken the initiative to create this new organisation to ensure that we put multicultural affairs at the top of this state’s priorities, that we put mechanisms in place that include appropriate checks and balances, and more importantly that the organisation responsible for dealing with many of the ethnic groups around this state can do so without being directly under the control of the minister. That is the hallmark of this legislation. Some points were raised previously about the many affiliations that VMC members had with the Labor Party. People in this state have the right to be a member of any political party. There is no problem with that. All of us in this house are members of political parties. However, clearly there were concerns. You only have to look at the annual report of the VMC to see the number of staff who were members of the Australian Labor Party. There is nothing wrong with people being members of the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party or The Nationals, but it is concerning to hear the member for Dandenong, who was the Minister The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Languiller) — Order! Mr WAKELING — I can only say that I would have assumed that the then minister would have been aware of whether or not people who were serving on his board would have been members of his own political party. He may not have known if they were members of another political party, but you would have thought that in the scheme of things it would not have been unreasonable to think that he would have known whether or not they were members of his own political party. We will leave that to history; history will judge whether or not that was the case. We on this side of the house are very proud of our record on multiculturalism. We take the view that it is bipartisan, and many of us have attended functions on a bipartisan basis. Moving forward under the new government we hope that that spirit of bipartisanship will continue to prevail with respect to multicultural affairs. However, the way in which the previous government operated was deeply concerning. I am reminded by the minister at the table, the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship, of the time when he made a freedom of information request to VOMA. An email from its then acting director was revealed, which stated: It looks like Nick Kotsiras wants to know what we have in our cocktail cabinet and whether the government funds wild parties in the boardroom. I do not think that is the type of comment we want made by our office for multicultural affairs. I am advised that that particular public servant was shifted sideways into another portfolio. Maybe that was appropriate in the circumstances, but that demonstrates a great concern that we have on this side of the house about the way in which the previous system had operated. Another area of great concern to many members on this side of the house is in the area of languages other than English. That is clearly an area we have focused on as an incoming government. There was concern that, under the previous regime, this area was fragmented and faltering. As we know, international students were falling victim to growing violence on our streets and 17:00 MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF 69 there was complete inaction by the previous government about that issue. It was not until two years later that the former government acted on the concerns of international students. It took until mid-2009 for the former government to act on that issue, and we are seeing it played out now; we are seeing that enrolments of Indian students, for example, are shifting to areas such as England because they do not see this state as a safe place to be educated. That is greatly concerning, and I would hope in the spirit of bipartisanship we can arrest that situation and once again make this state a great state where international students can be educated. One of the key functions of this bill is to repeal the previous Multicultural Victoria Act 2004 and replace the Victorian Multicultural Commission with a new entity. One of the key concerns I have about this bill is the way in which it has entered this house to be debated today. The previous bill, the bill that was introduced by the former Labor government in 2004, was not put up for debate less than two weeks after being tabled in the house as this bill has been. This first we saw of this bill was when it was tabled here less than two weeks ago. There has been no real opportunity for consultation with the Victorian community. As we know, one of the biggest employers in the city of Melbourne is the education services sector, particularly as it relates to international students. It is not just a multicultural issue; it is an economic issue. It is clearly in everyone’s interests. I am very pleased to see that this government is going to take the lead on this issue and that it is going to put in place the framework that is needed. I am also very pleased that the minister at the table, the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship, is very well versed with a large number of multicultural organisations in this state. I can only hope those opposite will be willing to embrace a bipartisan approach and embrace this bill. More importantly, let us focus on being positive and supporting this bill so we can demonstrate that there is clear bipartisan support for this bill before the house. That stands in stark contrast to what happened in 2004 when the previous minister, the member for Dandenong, who is in the chamber at the moment, took the bill that was to go through the house through an extensive consultation process. The then government appointed a panel of three eminent Victorians, and I think people will remember those people: Maureen Lister, Haddon Storey and the chair, Professor John Nieuwenhuysen. They produced a discussion paper which went through an extensive consultation process. There were nine community consultation forums held throughout Victoria, both in regional Victoria and metropolitan Melbourne. People in Victoria were urged to contribute to the consultation process to help shape the legislation that was then brought into the chamber. Mr BROOKS (Bundoora) — It is a pleasure to join the debate on the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011. At the outset I reiterate the very articulate comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in his contribution about the way that this side of the house, and I think all members of this chamber, value the very important contribution of multiculturalism in Victoria and the rich diversity of our community that helps make the Victorian community the very strong community that it is. The bill itself, as previous speakers on this side of the house have mentioned, is effectively a replication of a previous bill with some minor changes. Some of those changes are worth supporting. The addition of regional advisory councils is a worthwhile one, and from a personal perspective I think it is a good addition to the function of the Victorian Multicultural Commission (VMC). It is a bit unclear how those regional advisory councils will work and how they will be based, so we look forward to hearing more detail about those. We want to know how they will complement or, if you take the negative view, how they might duplicate some of the functions of existing regional bodies that already perform fantastic work in regional Victoria and in different parts of Melbourne. Importantly that discussion paper was produced in 21 different languages, as you would expect of a bill of this type, so that people from our multicultural communities were able to have input on the important piece of legislation that was coming into this house. It is extraordinary that we have a bill here today that is very similar in nature, scope and importance — everyone agrees on the importance of this sort of legislation — but has not gone through a similar process. It is only available in English, so multicultural communities do not have the benefit of the sort of consultation process in their own languages that was afforded to them by the original Labor process. I think that is a valid concern, and it is something that this government hopefully takes onboard in future initiatives in the area of multicultural affairs. As other members have mentioned, there are no substantive concerns about the content of the bill as such. However, it would be quite reasonable to expect that the government goes out and engages the community in conversation about what it is doing. In part 6 of the bill, clause 26(b) outlines the need for government departments to communicate with the community in languages other than English and make sure the multicultural media are engaged by government departments. It is quite ironic that a bill MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 70 ASSEMBLY PROOF that actually sets out the need for communication in a range of different languages does not actually do that itself in terms of how it came to this place. The other aspect I want to talk about is in relation to the media release that the minister issued announcing these changes on 3 February. That included the announcement that the VMC would be replaced with a more independent public entity. 17:07 That was said to be in accordance with the Liberal-National coalition plan for multicultural Victoria that it took to the election. A number of changes to the Victorian Multicultural Commission were outlined in that policy document, but the replacement of the VMC was not mentioned in that policy document. Therefore I think it was unfair of the minister to include that comment in the media release and give people the impression that it was always understood that the coalition would replace the VMC when in fact that was certainly not made public. As the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Dandenong have made quite clear, this side of the house, the former Labor government in Victoria, has a very strong record in multicultural affairs. We are very proud of that record, including support for the act that I have just talked about, the Multicultural Victoria Act 2004, the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 and the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, again, went through a very extensive consultation process, with I think from memory over 5000 submissions coming in. It was a very important piece of legislation that the Labor government was very concerned to make sure came to this place only after going through a thorough consultation process. We are proud of the amount of funding that was delivered to multicultural groups through the period of the Labor government. We can only hope the new government continues to support multicultural groups throughout our community in the way that the Labor government did. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned a sevenfold increase in funding to multicultural groups over the time of the previous government. Over 2000 groups throughout Victoria are recipients of that sort of funding. I know in my local area there are some fantastic small local groups, groups like the Bundoora Italian senior citizens, the Macleod Italian senior citizens and the Diamond Valley Greek senior citizens, which bring together older people from non-English speaking backgrounds in their own cultural groups over a game of cards or indoor bowls or over a meal, which helps them connect and enjoy each other’s Wednesday, 6 April 2011 company when otherwise they might be isolated. I think the relatively small grants that are provided to these groups would come out very well of a cost-benefit analysis of the benefits they bring to our local community. Another great initiative of the previous government was the Cultural Precincts Enhancement Fund, which saw investment in our key cultural precincts — Lygon Street, Lonsdale Street and Little Bourke Street — to highlight and enhance those showpieces of our cultural diversity. There are the language services that the previous government invested in, making sure that interpreting and translating services were provided for government services. Then of course there are settlement support services. One of the services that has not received much attention that was a fantastic initiative of the previous government is the refugee health nurse program. Refugees who arrive in Victoria often come from places where there are very poor health services or sometimes even non-existent health infrastructure. These people, who are mainly from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, are sometimes ineligible for Medicare assistance. These people are assisted and their primary health care needs are addressed by the program. That helps them settle quicker and more comfortably into new communities. I think that is a very important policy initiative of the previous government. Again, I hope the new Liberal-Nationals government continues to support and in fact grow that vital service. The last area that I wanted to focus on was the changes to the VMC that have been flagged by the minister in terms of the removal of the policy and administrative functions from that body. I think it is important that there is some clarity delivered around how those changes will impact on multicultural Victoria, in particular on how the grant allocation process will work. My personal view is that it would be preferable that the situation continue where there is an independent body making decisions around grant allocation and supporting multicultural Victorians rather than having that happen within the Department of Premier and Cabinet, making it effectively the minister’s process, with the government allocating the funding. There always will be a perception, whether it is factual or not, that the government has influence on how grants are distributed. I think if we are going to have strong cultural support for multiculturalism in Victoria it is important to remove the partisan politics from this area. As I say, I think the best way of doing that would be to leave the grants allocation process and the important policy and administrative functions with MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF an independent body like the VMC. I commend the bill to the house. Mr THOMPSON (Sandringham) — In the chamber at the present time are people whose countries of origin or whose parents’ countries of origin include Uruguay, Greece, Malaysia, England, Ireland, Scotland and Germany. That is just to run through some of the people in the immediate arena at the present time. Australia is a nation of immigrants and over 40 per cent of Victorians were either born overseas or had a parent who was born overseas. Victoria has developed the reputation of being the multicultural capital of the world, in addition to being the sporting capital of the world and formerly the BYO restaurant capital of the world. That is a reflection of the diverse backgrounds of its citizens. Not far from here is what we might perhaps call a coliseum, where people have striven to advance worthy causes in a distinctly unique Australian game. The names that have become legends within that arena include the Jesaulenkos and Silvagnis through to the indigenous players, the Riolis, and the people who are now embarking upon that code who have emerged from the Horn of Africa region, not to mention the great Irish experiment of people such as Jim Stynes and Sean Wight, who made their mark on the Melbourne Football Club. It is there in the crucible of contest that people have had the opportunity to make their mark in what started out as the Port Phillip District. As successive waves of migrants have made their mark they have built the great state of Victoria. The bill before the house makes a number of important changes. These are driven by the current minister, the member for Bulleen, who spent 20 years of his life working in this field and who understands the issues. 17:15 I pay respect to other keen contributors to the arena, including previous speakers of the house, former ministers, the member for Dandenong and those people who have served in the Victorian Multicultural Commission (VMC), who have had a great depth of experience and expertise and who have sought to make a contribution to the diversity and tapestry of the Victorian community. I nominate people in my own experience of the commission, such as Professor Trang Thomas, Stefan Romaniw and in more recent decades George Lekakis, who held the brief over a long period of time. The object of the commission is not to colonise an organisation or entity with people of a particular political affiliation but rather to strengthen community groups and organisations that require support and to 71 make those organisations that are beneficiaries of the grants program function more effectively, whether they be dealing with the aged end of the spectrum or an important initiative advanced by the minister at the table, the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship, such as a promotion of the role of volunteers in Victorian community life. Volunteers have been a great hallmark of what has made Victoria a great state in which to make a contribution. From the wheatfields of the Wimmera, where the early Scottish and German Lutheran pioneers worked under the heat of the sun, through to the different parts of Victoria where early settlers predominantly from England, Ireland and Scotland made their way through the goldfields, pioneers were strengthening the state to the point at which over 100 years ago our capital city became known as Marvellous Melbourne. At that time we were regarded in per capita terms as one of the wealthiest places in the world in which to live. I would argue that the success of Victoria has not come by chance. It has come through the heritage of the early pioneers. I would also argue that the Judaeo-Christian ethos and influence has been interwoven into the fabric of Victorian and Australian institutions. In his book The Politics of Hope Rabbi Jonathan Sacks wrote that freedom is a moral accomplishment. It requires strong families, cohesive institutions, habits of civility and law abidance, and a widely diffused sense of fellow feeling. It needs virtues, rational reflection and conversation, courage and persistence, the pursuit of ideas and ideals, and the carefully cultivated disciplines of dialogue with and mutual respect for those with whom we may disagree. It also needs institutions that inculcate these values and role models who might inspire our own efforts. The VMC has an important role in this context in terms of the values which are articulated and defined and which serve to underpin the focus of future Victorian life. Historically the arena of multicultural affairs has been treated within this chamber on a bipartisan basis, and it is very important that that be outworked on a continuing basis so that there is a focus on inclusion in community debate and dialogue, not the partition, segregation or the raising of matters for pragmatic political advantage even where opportunities for that might arise. There are more serious debates in the West, but this arena is not one in which to focus on those particular discussions. There are skilled minds and keen minds that can tackle the review of debates that traverse the last 1500 years that will of necessity be undertaken. I MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 72 ASSEMBLY PROOF always liked the 13th century story that I will broadly paraphrase of the discussion between a person of Jewish faith, one of Muslim faith and one of Christian faith. They did not conclude their discussion; rather they said they would agree to disagree and would nevertheless agree to meet again to continue their discussions. It is very important that dialogue continues to take place in a spirit of respect, goodwill and rapport. As the multicultural capital of the world, Victoria has seen successive waves of migration, including the early Chinese settlers in the 19th century. Across the country there was the migration of Afghani settlers, who were involved in managing the role of camels in Central Australia. Then there were the people who arrived from the Mediterranean after the First World War, and then the post-Second World War settlements of Germans, Greeks, Italians and Slavs, followed by the migration of the Vietnamese in the 1970s. At that time a pivotal decision was made by former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser to allow the migration of Indochinese people into the country. I had the privilege of attending a number of community celebrations and gatherings which marked the contribution and successful settlement of those people from Indochina in Victoria and their ongoing regard for freedom. At such a gathering one Indochinese lady told me that you only know the meaning of freedom when it is taken away from you. There are people who migrated here from Eastern Europe in a slightly earlier time frame who have understood the meaning of freedom and have sought to live in Victoria’s prosperous economic climate that made Victoria a model which the rest of the world could follow. The bill before the house has made some important changes to the structure of the commission, and I commend the minister for those initiatives and changes, and for the redefinition of the various bodies that govern the implementation of policy in Victoria. In summary I would like to make the following comments. The role of volunteerism is pivotal to good policy and good community outcomes in Victoria. The engagement of the diasporas from over 200 countries who have settled in this state is of critical importance. There should be a process of inclusion, dialogue and outworking of policies that are well adapted to the Victorian and national political context so that we stand as a stronger state and a stronger nation to meet the challenges of the next decades. 17:22 Mr LANGUILLER (Derrimut) — It gives me pleasure to rise in support of the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011 and to follow many good speakers on both sides. It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Sandringham. We have had this discussion among Wednesday, 6 April 2011 members of both sides on many occasions. I say at the outset — if Hansard is able to record my accent! — that I am the son of a Uruguayan family of French-Italian background, which came to this country thanks to the generosity of this nation and the Gough Whitlam federal government in 1974. I turn to the things we need to do in relation to the bill. I refer to the whole-of-government approach and the responsibility the government departments will have under part 6 headed ‘Reporting requirements of government departments and ministers’. That is fundamental. It is very good that we have a whole-of-government approach, with government departments having to undertake a whole range of responsibilities and report to the minister, the Parliament and the people of Victoria. It could not be done properly any other way. In passing I say that I am proud of the Australian model — indeed the Victorian model — that we have adopted and the work that has been done by both parties, particularly by the Labor government from 1999 onwards, including the Multicultural Act we introduced. May I say that I wholeheartedly support bipartisanship. There are no winners in wedge politics. We have only to look to Europe, the United States of America and a whole range of other jurisdictions. Therefore it is incumbent on all of us to make sure that we control — if I may say that — every member of the political establishment in this country when they derail that bipartisanship. There have been examples of that. I will not refer to them because I do not wish to tarnish this debate by referring to the examples that have from time to time derailed that bipartisanship. We expect the government will ensure that no member on that side or on our side ever derails bipartisanship on this issue because, as I said, there will be no winners. Having regional councils is a good idea. The member for Bundoora raised questions that are pertinent to how they will work. I am confident the government will work through those issues, and if necessary the government and the minister will talk to us and to the community in relation to that. Since we are working in the spirit of bipartisanship we will be able to work through them. I refer to the consultation that took place before and after the introduction of the bill. The minister would have probably wanted more time for consultation before and after he read the bill a second time for the purpose of engaging the community in the process. As you would know, Speaker, this is a reflection of the fact that the government’s legislative agenda is thin. The government has no other legislation and has had to MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF bring the bill before the house today. I say to the Minister for Multicultural Affairs that it would have been better if the broader community of Victoria had had more time to engage in consultation on the legislation. However, it is good legislation, and we should support it strongly. I will quote from a paper that I presented probably more than 12 months ago at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference held in New Zealand. I talked about parliamentary democracy, parliamentary multiculturalism and democracy in Victoria. Given my background it would be remiss of me not to refer to the fact that cultural diversity stems from a shift from a policy of assimilation with a monocultural Anglo-Saxon and Celtic ideal to a policy of multiculturalism. That occurred when a speech was made by an old friend of mine and a Gough Whitlam government minister, Al Grassby. In 1973 he introduced the term ‘multiculturalism’. That was the first time the term entered into the rhetoric of Australian immigration policy. Grassby’s speech — I will quote from my own paper — ‘affirmed diversity in the context of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’. That was an important turning point and an important part of Labor legacy. We stand proud of that. We are delighted to see that other governments thereafter continued to build on that. I turn to the history of multiculturalism. It is a bit of a long shot, but again it would be remiss of me to not put this on the record. Members of this house would know that the term ‘Australia’ was first used in 1606 by Captain Quiros, a Spanish-Portuguese captain. He used the term ‘Austrialia del Espiritu Santo’, translated as ‘the southern land Australia of the Holy Spirit’. Members may have read about this. When he wrote to the king at the time about the cartography of New South Wales it was the first time the name had been used in relation to Australia. Members would know that he was accompanied by Captain Torres, another Spanish navigator who was in this region in 1606. Of course the Torres Strait, which unites us with Indonesia, carries his name. Another important contribution of a multicultural nature came from Captain Arthur Phillip. As we know he captained the First Fleet, and he was of German-Jewish background. His father spoke six languages. Why do I refer to the life of Captain Arthur Phillip? Because, as I have said in the Parliament, he was not properly recognised by either the English in the United Kingdom or by Australians at the time. As I have said in this Parliament in the past, Captain Arthur Phillip had been in my country of birth, Uruguay, prior to arriving at Botany Bay. There is a multicultural and a 73 multilingual connection — indeed one of a German-Jewish background — in the very birth of this nation when Arthur Phillip arrived at Botany Bay. I am proud of the multicultural model and the way it works in this nation. I have looked at the models of other jurisdictions such as Canada, the United States and Europe, and I passionately believe we have the best model anywhere in the world. We must treasure it, we must protect it and we must uphold it. I commend the government for introducing this bill. I particularly commend the Labor government because it introduced the Multicultural Victoria Act 2004 and the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Those two acts working in conjunction are fundamental to the wellbeing of this nation and the wellbeing of Victoria. I am delighted to be consulted by members of parliaments in other jurisdictions who want to look at the way in which we do business. It would be remiss of me not to put on the record again and commend the work of the Victorian Multicultural Commission. I accept that it will change. I wish it good luck, but I am a bit concerned about it being split into two parts. We have talked about it — the member for Dandenong talked about it at length, and I will not repeat that. Importantly, like the Leader of the Opposition, I place on record my congratulations to George Lekakis. He was a fantastic chair. He is a great Victorian and a fantastic person who stood up for multiculturalism in Victoria. I wish this bill a speedy passage. I am sure it will work well. I also wish the minister good luck. I know he will work with the opposition and the multicultural communities well. We look forward to strong bipartisanship in Victoria in relation to this bill. Mrs FYFFE (Evelyn) — I am pleased to speak on the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011. I start by commending the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship, who travelled widely around Victoria and consulted with every group he could possibly reach on this legislation and what it would do. He consulted so widely that he even spoke to a Pom, which is most unusual when you are talking about multicultural affairs. I have great admiration for the person mentioned by the previous speaker who can speak six languages. I studied French at school for four years, and I remember going to France thinking I that would be able to have a conversation. To my horror, no-one could understand my English-accented French; it was a total disaster. The minister for multicultural affairs has his second-reading speech for this bill available in ten different languages on the Victorian Multicultural Commission’s website, 17:32 MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 74 ASSEMBLY PROOF and that is fantastic. It is there on the website so that many of those who do not have English as their first language can still read and understand it. I commend the minister for that. I came here in 1967 from a tiny village in the middle of England, where my mother referred to people living down the road as ‘the new people’ even though they had been there for 25 years. Members can imagine that I was not exposed to many people of different nationalities in that tiny village. When I came here I went to a migrant hostel where the majority of people were English, Irish, Scottish and German. There were a few Turkish people and a few Europeans from Baltic countries, but it was mainly inhabited by white people. It was great; I was quite impressed and felt quite sophisticated having friends from other countries. As the years have gone by I have watched the diversity of this country grow, and it makes me so proud. There is a beautiful mosaic of people here in Victoria. When my family come out from England they just cannot believe it; even though England has so many people from many other nations, they do not get on as well as we do. It is such a broad, warm acceptance. The minister came to the Yarra Valley with me recently and met with the Italian cultural group. They are people who had been friends of mine for years, and I am ashamed to say that I had never really thought of them as being Italian or needing a cultural group. They are friends with whom we have shared food and eaten dinner. They have told me that I planted my vegetables at the wrong time, and I have told them that their wine was not as good as mine — all those sorts of things. We all belong to this great nation. I go to citizenship ceremonies and I see people moving to the Yarra Ranges, which was predominantly Anglo-Saxon or Dutch but is now changing. We also have people from Africa and the Middle East moving to country areas, which is terrific. The recent multicultural gala dinner, which was attended by over 1400 people, was a fantastic night featuring different languages and costumes along with much colour and enjoyment. Like most husbands, my husband does not enjoy dancing very much, and I was asked to dance by a lady from our table. In the end there were about 10 of us dancing together. There were Indian ladies, a Malay-Chinese lady — I think — as well as ladies from Singapore and Africa, and we had a wonderful time dancing, laughing and talking together. That is what Australia is all about, and it is something very precious and something we have to maintain. One of the things I love about this country is the predominant attitude of ‘live and let live’, a sentiment Wednesday, 6 April 2011 in which the majority of Australians really believe. They will say, ‘I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’ or ‘ I may not agree with your religious beliefs, but I will defend to the death your choice to practise the religion you want’. That is the attitude of the vast majority of Australians. There are a few ratbags who we always need to guard against and work on, but when we look at our schools and the beautiful children playing there, enjoying things and totally enjoying their lives — — An honourable member interjected. Mrs FYFFE — I suppose, Speaker, I should refer to the bill or you will pull me up. I was waxing lyrical about how much I love this country, this state and what it all adds up to. I look around at the faces in the chamber today and at members with beautiful Spanish or Greek accents — — An honourable member interjected. Mrs FYFFE — Yes, you do have an accent. The Treasurer criticises me and is always asking me to say ‘vegetables’ because he says I pronounce it incorrectly, but that is how you say it when you come from the north of England. It is to protect that diversity that we need this legislation and we need to have this independent commission. This builds on the policy which was taken to the election by the Liberal-Nationals government, and I quote from that policy: We are fortunate to live in a state where our various cultures unify us by our commitment to our nation and its democratic institutions, laws, values and the notion of a ‘fair go’ for all. The fair go for all is what really makes us strong. With the right attitude and willingness, we are going to achieve great things. We have achieved so much in the last 40 years-plus that I have been living in Australia — since I was a babe-in-arms! We need this legislation in order to implement the policies that the coalition took to the election. This bill will incorporate an updated preamble to the Multicultural Victoria Act 2004, it will update outdated principles of multiculturalism, it will re-establish the Victorian Multicultural Commission with updated objectives and functions, and it will provide for the establishment of eight regional advisory councils. This is very important. I do not really live outside Melbourne even though I think I am from the country. I am really on the fringes, but I spend a lot of time in country Victoria and it is very important that we have these regional councils. Recently I spent a weekend in MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF Shepparton and saw the diversity of the nationalities there. Mr Kotsiras interjected. Mrs FYFFE — I actually went with my husband, Minister. It was a good weekend. Thinking about Shepparton, a regional council would mean that input from that region could be fed back to the commission. The bill sets up the Victorian Multicultural Commission as a statutory authority that will report directly to the minister. It will no longer be an administrative office aligned to any department. I did not know a lot about the previous commission. I have not had any complaints about it come to my office, and I am assuming that this is because of the consultation that the minister did. Anything that strengthens its independence is something I totally support. It will have a research capacity. In the couple of minutes I have left I would like to highlight some of the objectives of the commission, including to: … encourage all of Victoria’s diverse communities to retain and express their social identity and cultural inheritance and to promote mutual respect … How important it is that communities retain and express their social identity as well as their cultural inheritance? Some of the other objectives of the commission are to: … promote cooperation between bodies … … promote unity, understanding and harmony among … diverse communities … 17:40 As we learn more about each other we certainly have that coming through. I refer back to the children again and how they play happily together as long as no-one is telling them, ‘This person is wrong, and that person is wrong’. The kids can teach us a lot about understanding, harmony and working together. The objects of the commission are also to promote better understanding; interaction between individuals and communities; the social, cultural and economic benefits of diversity; the rights and responsibilities of citizenship as a uniting force which strengthens our diverse communities; and community service as a principle that builds a stronger society, which of course refers to volunteerism. Community service is something many Australians are so good at, no matter what is happening. When my husband was ill my Italian neighbours brought food in when I was in this place, and I have to tell members he ate very well — I was quite envious. This is what we do. It is the community service, the looking after each other, the volunteering and the caring. No matter where we come 75 from, no matter what accent we have and no matter what colour our skin, we are all Australians. Mr LIM (Clayton) — As the member representing the most multicultural seat in Victoria, I suppose I may seek permission from the Chair to be a bit emotional and also a little chauvinistic about this bill. Of course the opposition does not oppose this bill, but it would be remiss of me not to address some of the talking down or dismissal of the achievements of the Labor government over the past 11 years in this field. Having said that, and noting that the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship is at the table, I will say that I think it has been taken for granted that multiculturalism is very cheap. This portfolio has the smallest budget in the state, and that has always been the case. This is very much my concern, and I will throw it as a challenge to the minister later on. Allow me, however, to address my concerns with the bill. I have four areas of concern. Firstly, I will be in disagreement with the previous speaker, the member for Evelyn, who said that the minister had consulted widely. Maybe he did consult about this bill before the election as part of his campaigning, but insofar as the introduction of the bill to the Parliament is concerned there has hardly been any public consultation. This has been drawn to my attention by many community representatives, who have been saying they missed out completely as far as consultation was concerned and that therefore there has not been any awareness of this bill in the community. My second area of concern is the splitting of the VMC (Victorian Multicultural Commission) and VOMA (the Victorian Office of Multicultural Affairs). I am surprised that we have come full circle on this, because we had problems previously. The two had been split during the coalition years and that created a lot of tension, rivalry and misunderstanding, because the respective bodies, now named VOMA and the VMC, were contradicting each other and were in each other’s way at the expense of the ethnic community. I could go on with that list for a long time. I just hope that this time the minister has got it right. My third area of concern are the so-called regional advisory councils. It may sound good on paper, but in practical terms we could take the example of Shepparton, which the Deputy Speaker, who is also the member for Evelyn, spoke about when she was on her feet. The regional Ethnic Council of Shepparton and District is a giant in its own right. It is a very powerful body with very active and committed people, and it would be bewildering to them that the minister is creating so-called regional advisory councils. They MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 76 ASSEMBLY PROOF would be attending functions and meetings and asking, ‘Who the hell are these new people appointed by the minister as members of this so-called regional advisory council in our area?’. This is creating unnecessary misunderstanding and rivalry in terms of policy input and involvement in a whole range of areas as far as multiculturalism is concerned. The fourth area of my concern with the bill is that the minister mentioned that some research would be done. This is ironic. In 1992, when the coalition came to power — I say this with the utmost respect to the minister at the table, and this pertains to him not as a member of Parliament or as a minister but as what he was at the time, the most senior adviser to the then Premier, Jeff Kennett — the whole — — Mr Kotsiras interjected. Mr LIM — You want to hear this. In 1992 a whole department of the Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission, the equivalent then of what is now the VMC, a department with more than 60 full-time staff, was abolished overnight. That department had an entire complement of research staff, and it was abolished. This bill will not mean anything if it constitutes window-dressing changes or if the minister is not serious about the ethnic community. I hope he is. I personally have enormous respect for him because of his commitment to his portfolio area. If you look at history, however, you see that in 1992 all the funding grants in this area were abolished. There was nil funding — zero funding — for the ethnic community for the whole year. It took the Kennett government seven miserable years — from 1992 until 1999 — to increase organisational funding to its highest level of $700 000. 17:47 I bring this up because we need to look at the record of governments; that cannot just be dismissed. Under the incredible leadership of George Lekakis the VMC is the most independent commission we have ever had. Let us look at its achievements, because the proof is in the pudding. When we came to power in 1999 organisational funding was $700 000. We increased that funding each year to more than $4 million at the time when we lost government, which is a more than 600 per cent increase in organisational funding alone. I am not talking about the ethnic funding, which was $4 million in the past year. We had made a promise of another $12 million if we came back to government, but that is history now. Let us look at the figures and at the achievements. Labor can walk tall so far as its achievements in multiculturalism are concerned, and Wednesday, 6 April 2011 members of the current government should not try to diminish that. But the bill will mean nothing if we do not address the concerns of the community. As I mentioned the $4 million is nothing, because the VMC is part of the Department of Planning and Community Development, which dishes out more than $400 million a year to the community, of which the VMC receives only a miserable 1 per cent. Artistic groups in my community, and throughout Melbourne and Victoria, cannot get any money, whether they be an elderly Turkish group that performs classical dance on stage or a Chinese operatic group or other groups that want to apply for small amounts of funding to, for example, get costumes so they can dance in their national dress. If they go to the VMC, they are told, ‘We don’t have money for that kind of thing. Go to the arts ministry’. That ministry says, ‘No, you are migrants. You are multicultural. You should go to the VMC’. So they end up with nothing. These people ask me, ‘Why is it that we fund the opera, the ballet and the symphony orchestra to the tune of millions and millions of dollars? Why are the rich getting richer and being subsidised with millions of dollars?’. My groups cannot even get their costumes. They pay the same taxes, and when they are older they want to have the satisfaction of reviving their culture. That is the kind of issue the minister needs to address. A previous speaker talked about the needs of newly arrived migrants, bearing in mind that Victoria takes 30 per cent of all migrants who come to this country. The attractiveness of Victoria as a multicultural centre is beyond question, and therefore unless in this new age we rise up to the challenge, the bill will mean nothing. I hope the minister takes these concerns into account, and I hope he responds meaningfully and effectively. I hope the bill fulfils the minister’s intent. Mr NORTHE (Morwell) — It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011. The bill implements the government’s election commitment to restructure and strengthen the multicultural affairs and citizenship portfolio. Members from both sides of the house have commended the responsible minister. He was very active when a shadow minister and still is as a minister. I can certainly attest that we enjoy his visits to the Latrobe Valley and wider Gippsland, and we look forward to his work in the future. The bill seeks to establish the principles of multiculturalism. It also establishes the Victorian Multicultural Commission and the regional advisory MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF councils, which I will speak about a little further into my contribution. It establishes the reporting requirements for the commission and for government departments in relation to service delivery. I wish to refer to part 4 of the bill in relation to the regional advisory councils. Clause 22(1) establishes eight regional advisory councils for the regional areas of the state. This element of the bill enjoys widespread support, not only from migrant community groups in our region but also from those who provide services to migrants in our region. They feel this is an important aspect of the bill which will allow those who settle in regional Victoria and provide services to migrants to have a say at the table. Clause 23 details the functions of the regional advisory councils with respect to providing advice to the commission. Clause 24 details the constitution of the councils and their roles. It states that a council is to consist of: (a) a member of the Commission referred to in section 12(1)(e), who is to preside over the regional advisory council; and (b) volunteers drawn from the regional area of the State covered by the regional advisory council. I reiterate the point that I think it is imperative that those who reside in regional areas of Victoria are part of the advisory councils and have a say in the service delivery that is provided in those areas. The Morwell electorate — the Latrobe Valley and wider Gippsland — has very strong links with migrants. Indeed the very foundations of the Latrobe Valley in some respects have been built by migrants to this great country of ours. When you reflect on the work ethic of migrants to this country you have to understand what they have had to endure in order to be successful, and you really appreciate their efforts. When we talk in schools about the tolerance levels of people who come from other countries it is a really good analogy to draw for students, who might have been born in Australia, to say, ‘Have a think about the difficulties associated with moving school. Then maybe think about the difficulties associated with moving to a different town, and then think of the difficulties associated with moving interstate. Then really ponder the notion of coming to a completely different country’. For that I admire our migrants, and there are many people who have come from different countries who are now members of Parliament in this place. My admiration for them is immense, because they have experienced many challenges, and in many cases they 77 have come from countries where they did not enjoy the privileges we have here in Australia. As one considers the profile of Latrobe city and the Latrobe Valley you get some sense of the strength of multiculturalism and the contribution made by migrants to our region. In 2006 census data we see that of a population of approximately 69 000 nearly 10 000 were born overseas. That gives some indication of the strength of multiculturalism and migrant groups within the city of Latrobe. Recently I had the pleasure of assisting the minister with respect to some grants through the Victorian Multicultural Commission’s community grants program. A number of my local groups were beneficiaries of that important program, which is an indication of the number of community organisations and groups in our region that provide such important service. It is terrific to see them recognised. They include Club Astoria, the German Australian Society, the Italian Catholic Federation in Morwell, the Australian Croatian Association in Gippsland, the Greek Orthodox Community of Gippsland, the Elderly Citizens Group, the International Women’s Group, Morwell Senior Italian Citizens Club, the Polish Senior Citizen’s Club of Morwell, and the list goes on. There are a number of community organisations and groups that provide wonderful service to our community and demonstrate the diversity of the migrants in our region. I also want to make mention of Gippsland Multicultural Services, again an important organisation that assists recently arrived migrants to settle into our community. Without it our community would be much worse off. I know the struggles that organisation has in terms of funding, support and resources. It plays a critical role within the community, and I commend Lisa Sinha and her team for the work they do in making life that little bit easier for migrants settling in our region. Another strong organisation in the Latrobe Valley is the Gippsland Ethnic Communities Council. Again, this group consists of a number of representatives from different migrant groups across our community, and they play an important role within our community. For example, members of the group participate in activities such as hosting and conducting the multicultural festival which I had the pleasure of attending recently. It was a wonderful opportunity for not only local residents but also people visiting the region to attend this important festival where many migrant groups were represented. They performed different dances and activities throughout the course of the day. This very successful event has been conducted over the last five years or so. 17:57 MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 78 ASSEMBLY PROOF The area where this event is hosted is called Gippsland Immigration Park. Groups there have done a wonderful job in constructing a wall of recognition, which is a fantastic asset to our region. I encourage all members who have the opportunity of travelling through our great region to stop and have a look at what is happening in that precinct. Migrants have the opportunity to place their family name on this wall of recognition to acknowledge where they have come from and when they settled in Australia. In part, the wall recognises the contribution those migrants have made to our community. I commend people such as Don Di Fabrizio, Maggie and Serge Auciello, Ted Cowper and Graham Goulding for their continuing to work to ensure the recognition of those migrants who have settled in our region and made such a significant difference. My admiration for many migrants in our community extends to the business fraternity, and I place on record that I think we have a lot to learn from the strong work ethic of people who come from other countries and just get on with the job of having a go. They have a go and get on with it, and they have been successful businesspeople because of that attitude. Again I express my admiration for them, one and all. In our roles as members of Parliament we have the opportunity of attending citizenship ceremonies on a regular basis, and that is a wonderful occasion for so many people who settle in our great country. Citizenship ceremonies are a great opportunity for us to participate in the celebration of what is a special day for them. It is an opportunity I look forward to continuing to have in the future. I commend the minister for the great work he did in his capacity as shadow minister for multicultural affairs and citizenship — a role he is continuing now as minister. I think all members of the house are as one in acknowledging his efforts and commitment, which we know will continue. This bill is a great step in the right direction, and we look forward to it passing through this house. Ms THOMSON (Footscray) — I rise to contribute to the debate on the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011, which the opposition is not opposing. Members who spoke before me have raised the concerns we have with this bill and its separation of responsibilities back to the way they were prior to the election of the Bracks and Brumby governments, with the department being responsible for certain aspects of grant allocation and the Victorian Multicultural Commission being responsible for policy. Our concerns about that Wednesday, 6 April 2011 separation have been expressed by a number of speakers. However, I think all of us in this house celebrate the fact that Victoria is a beacon for other states as an example of how multiculturalism can work and of how we have protected and valued multiculturalism. That multiculturalism is a very delicate thing, and it does not take much to disrupt it. It does not take much to incite hatred; it does not take much to see racial tensions arise. It is important that there is bipartisan support for multiculturalism if it is to work. There are plenty of places within Australia, but more so outside Australia, where we see those tensions heighten to a point where they break. That is one thing we do not want to see in this state. It is true to say when you look at the past in both the Australian and the Victorian community that people from many countries and many ethnic backgrounds and religions have played a role in forming what is now a very modern society. We can see that in the politicians in this chamber. I was tempted to get up and say that it is great to be able to join my other wog colleagues in this house in debating this bill, but in truth there are many members of Parliament here who come from many different backgrounds, and all of them bring a wealth of tradition and heritage to this chamber. That is a good thing; it is a great thing. We have also seen that heritage in the governors of Victoria, including our most recent Governor and the one who is now installed in Government House. We have seen it in our governors-general. It is an incredibly rich heritage. In science, in mathematics, in education, in the law, in sport — which of course Australians love — in music, in entertainment, in the arts and in every field you can think of and everywhere you look, the rich tapestry of multiculturalism is threaded throughout. That is something we should be very proud of. I represent a very multicultural electorate that is based on refugees, really — waves and waves of them. It is a traditional and very working-class Anglo electorate that has welcomed people from many places around the world and said, ‘You can come here, you can feel free, you can take part in democracy, you can take jobs, you can participate in education and you can express your opinion’. We welcome that. Footscray is a much richer place for the people of many cultures who have come and made it the new and modern Footscray that it is now. I am proud of my own heritage, which involves Russian and Polish Jews coming out to Australia at the onset of the war. My mother’s parents set up an orchard in Shepparton and then moved to Carlton, which is a 18:05 PUBLIC HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF place to which a lot of Jews moved, joining with the Italians and making a rich and vibrant community there. All these people have brought a lot to Victoria and enriched our lives. The bill creates the opportunity to see the next phase. Time will tell whether it is the right model. In truth the Bracks and Brumby governments did much to ensure that all people coming to Victoria, no matter where they came from — whatever their faith, colour of their skin or their ethnicity — were welcomed as equals and were encouraged to play a role in the development of Victoria’s society. We saw that with the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 and the original Multicultural Victoria Act 2004 that saw the establishment of the Victorian Multicultural Commission. I too pay tribute to George Lekakis, chair of the VMC, and all the commissioners of the VMC. They did an outstanding job in promoting multiculturalism and racial tolerance. They have served Victoria very well. I do not think any member of this house would have gone to an ethnic community function and not either seen George Lekakis there or heard everyone talking about how he had been at the previous function that they had held. I do not think anyone could keep up his pace. I do not know how he did it. Every member of Parliament would have looked at the way he did it and asked, ‘How the hell does he attend that many functions, support so many communities and make them understand how much they are valued by the government, the Parliament and the people of Victoria?’. I wish George Lekakis well for the future. He served Victoria extremely well, and he deserves a great deal of credit. We owe him a great debt for the way in which he has helped mould multiculturalism in his time as chair of the VMC. I wish George all the best in his future endeavours. We have heard much about the bipartisan approach to multiculturalism. I hope all members will respect that bipartisanship. I hope individual members will think very carefully about what they say in this place, what they put on websites, what they twitter in an indulgent moment and what they say in their communities, because we have a serious responsibility to foster the multicultural environment. As I said at the start, multiculturalism is a delicate beast. It is easily broken, and we must remember that. We saw some of the tensions here around Indian students. We saw what it could mean if we allowed it to fester. We did not; we nipped it in the bud. We took care of that issue, but it is still out there. There is within any community the 79 capacity for racism or ethnic hatred to rise up. I ask that all members, not just in this place but in the other place as well, take very seriously the responsibility they have to foster multiculturalism. If they do not believe in it — and I know some do not — I urge them to be careful what they say and what they play politics with, because they do not want to wear the responsibility for the consequences that may come with that. I am proud to be a Victorian who can travel, and has travelled, to many places and talk about the multicultural nature of Victoria and what it has to offer. I pay tribute to Ahmed Kelly, who has just broken the 100-metre breaststroke world record. He is a modern demonstration of a young person and a beacon of citizenship. He came from Iraq, has become a proud Australian and has taken on sportsmanship. He was born without fully developed arms, but he kept battling. He found an Australian who was prepared to adopt him and bring him to Australia, enriching his experience of life. He has made all our lives richer. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr KATOS (South Barwon). Debate adjourned until later this day. 18:12 PUBLIC HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT BILL 2011 Statement of compatibility Ms ASHER (Minister for Innovation, Services and Small Business) 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 Public Holidays Amendment Bill 2011. In my opinion, the Public Holidays Amendment Bill 2011, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, 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 Public Holidays Amendment Bill 2011 seeks to allow municipalities in country Victoria to request one whole day, or two half-day public holidays, in lieu of Melbourne Cup Day, across the whole or part of a municipality. The Public Holidays Amendment Bill 2011 amends the Public Holidays Act 1993 (the Public Holidays Act) by inserting a new section 8A. The new section 8A provides that: Non-metropolitan councils may request one whole day or two half-day public holidays in lieu of Melbourne Cup Day; and PUBLIC HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT BILL 2011 80 ASSEMBLY PROOF Non-metropolitan councils may request that a full-day, or two half-day substitute public holidays, taken in lieu of Melbourne Cup Day, apply to part of a municipality. Where a substitute public holiday or two substitute half-holidays have been declared and gazetted in reference to part of a municipal district, the two substitute half-day holidays, or the whole day public holiday, will only apply in that part of the district or municipality. All Victorians will continue to be entitled to the same number of public holidays. Choice of two half-day public holidays or one whole day public holiday in lieu of Melbourne Cup Day Currently, subsection 8(3) of the Public Holidays Act provides that non-metropolitan councils may request in writing that the relevant minister make a declaration appointing a substitute public holiday in lieu of Melbourne Cup Day. However, subsection 8(5)(a) of the Public Holidays Act does not allow non-metropolitan councils to request two half-day substitute holidays. Many regional shows and Cup Day events are half-day events. The new section 8A will repeal subsection 8(5)(a) and provide that non-metropolitan councils may request two half-day public holidays as a substitute for Melbourne Cup Day. Non-metropolitan councils must request either one whole day, or two half-days, to ensure that regional Victorians receive the equivalent of one whole public holiday in lieu of Melbourne Cup Day. Part-shire arrangements Currently, subsection 8(4)(b) of the Public Holidays Act does not allow substitute public holiday arrangements to apply to different parts of the municipality. Instead, non-metropolitan councils are required to observe the substitute public holiday across the whole of a municipal district. The new section 8A will repeal subsection 8(4)(b) and provide that non-metropolitan councils can request that either the two half-day holidays, or the full-day public holiday, taken in lieu of Melbourne Cup Day, may apply to part of the municipality. The amendments will stimulate local regional communities by allowing them to celebrate their own particular shows and events in their particular part of the shire. Human rights issues The amendments do not engage the charter, because all Victorians will continue to receive the same net number of public holidays, although they may be across different days. People living in regional and metropolitan areas will receive the same number of public holidays per annum. Wednesday, 6 April 2011 That this bill be now read a second time. The Public Holidays Amendment Bill 2011 provides for non-metropolitan councils to request either one whole day or two half-day public holidays as a substitute for Melbourne Cup Day. The bill also provides that non-metropolitan councils may request that substitute Melbourne Cup Day holiday arrangements apply to either the whole or different parts of their municipalities. The bill amends the Public Holidays Act 1993 by repealing the unnecessarily restrictive and inflexible provisions enacted by the former government in 2008. In recent years non-metropolitan councils have not had the flexibility to request two half-day public holidays or part-shire arrangements, because of those amendments made by the former government. However, many regional shows and cup day events are in fact half-day events, and many might be relevant to only one part of a shire, such as the Speed Field Day in Buloke shire, or the Rupanyup Agricultural and Pastoral Show Day in Yarriambiack shire. The restrictive requirement for whole day and whole shire public holidays in lieu of Melbourne Cup Day ignores the fact that some country municipalities have two or more communities within their municipality and that their communities have different local show day and cup day arrangements. This has had negative consequences for agricultural shows and events held in regional Victoria. Many local race days and shows have lost customers and turnover. A greater number of agricultural shows and regional cup days across Victoria can now be more appropriately celebrated. If the council so requests, the Rainbow Agricultural and Pastoral Show can be celebrated in the Rainbow district of Hindmarsh, while the Jeparit Agricultural and Pastoral Show can also be celebrated in the Jeparit district of Hindmarsh. Many of these types of events have simply missed out on being celebrated in recent years. Regional councils have faced a dilemma because they have been forced to recognise one regional event at the expense of others. Conclusion I consider that the bill is compatible with the charter because it does not raise any human rights issues. The Hon Louise Asher, MP Minister for Innovation, Services and Small Business Second reading Ms ASHER (Minister for Innovation, Services and Small Business) — I move: Non-metropolitan councils will now have the flexibility they need with regard to substitute public holidays and regional Victorians, including schoolchildren, will benefit from the greater opportunities to celebrate and attend their own local show days. The government supports an equal number of public holidays for regional Victorians and residents of Melbourne. Importantly, the government will therefore also ensure that the same number of public holidays CRIMES AMENDMENT (BULLYING) BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF applies across Victoria. All Victorians, whether they live in regional Victoria or metropolitan Melbourne, will still be entitled to 11 public holidays per annum. Melbourne Cup Day will continue to be the automatic default public holiday throughout Victoria. Where substitutes are requested, non-metropolitan councils will be required to request either one whole day or two half-days. Where a substitute public holiday or two substitute half-holidays have been declared and gazetted in reference to a part of a municipal district, Melbourne Cup Day continues to apply in all remaining parts of that municipal district. Specifically, the bill repeals the former government’s unnecessarily restrictive provision of 2008 and inserts a new section 8A. The new section 8A(1) provides that non-metropolitan councils may request either two half-day public holidays or one whole day public holiday in lieu of Melbourne Cup Day. Section 8A(1) also provides that a non-metropolitan council may request that the substitute public holiday arrangements apply to all or part of that council’s municipal district. In conclusion, this bill reaffirms the government’s commitment to regional communities by acknowledging their contribution to Victoria. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine). Overview of bill Human rights issues 1. Human rights protected by the charter that are relevant to the bill The bill positively engages and fulfils the right to liberty and security of the person (section 21, charter act), freedom of movement (section 12, charter act) and the right to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (section 10, charter act). Serious bullying conduct involves repeated, socially aggressive behaviour aimed at causing another person physical or mental harm. In this way, serious bullying can cause the victim to fear for their safety, thereby infringing on their sense of physical security. Further, the impact of this fear can affect the victim to the point where his or her decisions and movements are impacted, thereby limiting their freedom of movement and their liberty. Serious bullying can affect the victim’s physical or mental well-being in a manner that may cause them serious physical or mental pain or suffering, humiliation and/or debasement This is a serious breach of a victim’s right to protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It is not necessary for the harm to be intentionally inflicted in order for this right to be violated. That right is violated by serious bullying conduct that diminishes a person’s dignity and causes feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking a person’s moral and physical resistance. By ensuring that serious bullying conduct is recognised as an indictable offence, the amendments in the bill will protect these rights. The bill aims to deter such conduct in the community by providing that where such conduct occurs, it will be charged and punished under the criminal law. Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 20 March. 2. CRIMES AMENDMENT (BULLYING) BILL 2011 The bill prevents abusive or offensive words or acts in the presence of a victim where that conduct is intended to cause harm (or the accused knew or ought to have understand that the conduct would have that effect). Statement of compatibility Mr CLARK (Attorney-General) 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 Crimes Amendment (Bullying) Bill 2011. In my opinion, the Crimes Amendment (Bullying) Bill 2011, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights protected by the charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Freedom of speech Explicit in the section 15 right to freedom of expression is the statement that “[s]pecial duties and responsibilities are attached to the right of freedom of expression and the right may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputation of other persons…”. Whilst the amendment may engage the section 15 right, it is a lawful restriction to freedom of speech consistent with section 15(3), necessary to protect the rights of victims. The purpose of the restriction is necessary to ensure the respect and protection of a victim’s rights to liberty and security, movement and protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The bill limits only offensive words or acts which are intended to (or which the person ought to have understood would be likely to) cause physical or mental harm in the victim, or arouse fear or apprehension in the victim for their safety or that of another person. In this very limited situation, the rights of all members of the community to rights to liberty and security, movement and 81 CRIMES AMENDMENT (BULLYING) BILL 2011 82 ASSEMBLY PROOF protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment should prevail over the right of the accused to free expression. Conclusion In my opinion, the Crimes Amendment (Bullying) Bill 2011, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights protected by the charter act. Robert Clark, MP Attorney-General Second reading Mr CLARK (Attorney-General) — I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The government is committed to addressing serious bullying in the community. The bill honours this commitment by strengthening the law of stalking to cover the full range of serious bullying. Bullying is a term widely used to refer to conduct involving repeated verbal, physical, social or psychological attacks upon a person that causes the victim distress at the time and into the future because of fear of further occurrences. Bullying can be committed by people of different ages, in a variety of ways and in a variety of situations including workplaces, schools, sports clubs and shopping centres. This wide range of potential bullying situations demands that a wide range of responses is available. These responses sit in a hierarchy. Bullying conduct in the workplace is normally prosecuted and punished under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004. If, however, the conduct and consequences of the bullying behaviour are extremely serious, the bill provides another response — that of prosecution under the Crimes Act for the offence of stalking. In September 2006, Brodie Panlock, a young 19-year-old woman with her life before her, tragically ended her life after enduring a persistent campaign of appalling bullying. Her death was a tragic reminder of the serious consequences that bullying can have on victims, their families and the community. This tragedy was compounded by the fact that none of those responsible for the bullying was charged with a serious criminal offence under the Crimes Act. Instead, each offender was convicted and fined under provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. While that act has an important role in addressing significant workplace issues, this case demonstrates that the worst cases of serious bullying demand redress through the criminal law. Wednesday, 6 April 2011 The government has therefore resolved to act swiftly and effectively to address this issue. As part of its commitment to community safety, the government will strengthen the criminal law to ensure that bullying, be it in the workplace or elsewhere in the community, is treated with the seriousness it deserves. The bill offers protection to people who have been bullied and provides serious consequences for those who engage in serious bullying conduct where they intend to cause harm or fear, or should have known that their actions would be likely to have that result. The current stalking provisions in the Crimes Act provide that a person stalks another if he or she engages in any course of conduct with the intention of causing physical or mental harm to another, or the intention of arousing apprehension or fear in the victim. In order to ensure that serious bullying behaviour is clearly dealt with by the Crimes Act, the bill amends the current stalking provisions in four key ways. First, the bill makes clear that threats and abusive and offensive words or acts may form part of the course of bullying conduct. Second, the bill broadens the description of a ‘course of conduct’ to include any conduct that could reasonably be expected to cause the victim to physically harm themselves. While it is clear that the current provision will apply to conduct causing a victim to fear harm at the hands of the perpetrator, it is not clear whether it extends to conduct which causes a person to harm themselves. This amendment is necessary to make clear that the offence extends to conduct which causes a victim to engage in self-harm. Third, the bill provides that the fault element includes the intention to cause the victim to physically harm themselves. Under the existing provisions, it is unclear whether the intention to cause harm extends to cover an intention to cause the victim to harm themselves. The bill will resolve this uncertainty and make clear that the requisite intention for stalking includes the intention to cause a person to harm themselves. Fourth, the bill expressly provides that, for the purposes of this offence, mental harm includes psychological harm and causing a victim to engage in suicidal thoughts. Currently, the term ‘mental harm’ is not defined. Bullying is behaviour that is calculated to cause mental harm to others. The behaviour often results in a victim suffering from a sense of powerlessness and despair. In some cases, the distress bullying causes its victims is so severe that it causes the victim to engage in suicidal thoughts. The bill therefore 18:22 FAMILY VIOLENCE PROTECTION AMENDMENT (SAFETY NOTICES) BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF makes clear that mental harm includes psychological harm and causing a victim to have suicidal thoughts. In addition to enabling prosecution under the Crimes Act 1958 for serious bullying that has already occurred, the bill allows steps to be taken to prevent serious bullying through the use of intervention orders. If satisfied that an applicant is being seriously bullied and that it is likely to continue, the Magistrates Court can issue an intervention order under the Stalking Intervention Orders Act 2008 to quickly address the ongoing conduct and prevent it from continuing. Breach of the intervention order can be charged as a separate criminal offence. Everyone has the right to feel safe in our community. No one should be forced to endure the fear and degradation of persistent bullying. No family should be forced to grieve the loss of a child resulting from the cowardly acts of bullies. This bill sends the strong signal to would-be offenders that the government will not tolerate bullying behaviour. Where serious bullying behaviour occurs it will be charged and punished with the full force and stigma of the criminal law. Serious bullying conduct is now clearly punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. By strengthening the Crimes Act 1958 in this way, the bill affirms the government’s commitment to promoting community safety and reducing crime. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr WYNNE (Richmond). Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 20 April. FAMILY VIOLENCE PROTECTION AMENDMENT (SAFETY NOTICES) BILL 2011 Statement of compatibility Mr CLARK (Attorney-General) 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 Family Violence Protection Amendment (Safety Notices) Bill 2011. In my opinion, the Family Violence Protection Amendment (Safety Notices) Bill 2011, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights protected by the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Overview of bill The bill repeals the sunset provision for family violence safety notices (FVSNs). It also clarifies the power of the Magistrates Court in relation to adjournment of intervention order applications brought by way of FVSN and the power of the Magistrates Court to make intervention orders where the protected persons does not consent to the making of the application by police and/or the order by the court. Family violence safety notices were introduced in 2008 and allow police to impose short term protective conditions after hours for victims of family violence, pending further hearing by a court. These police issued FVSNs have a maximum length of 72 hours, and must be returned to a court within that time. The provisions were designed to sunset so that FVSNs could be trialled and evaluated. Human rights issues There are a number of human rights engaged by the bill. Prior to analysing the rights in detail I wish to make the following general comment. The key purpose of the bill is to ensure that victims of family violence, mostly women and children, are afforded effective protection both within and outside the family home. I believe the bill achieves this through embedding FVSNs as an option available to police when responding to incidents of family violence, and clarifying the powers of the Magistrates Court in relation to adjournment of and consent to applications for family violence intervention orders. Clauses 3 and 4 Clauses three and four clarify the court’s power to adjourn applications for family violence intervention orders commenced by way of a FVSN. In clarifying the court’s power to adjourn applications commenced in this way a number of rights may be limited including the protection of families and children (s 17) and the right to liberty and security of the person (s 21). These rights may be limited as affected family members may be placed in a position where they are without protection between the end of the FVSN and the court’s final determination of the intervention order application, thereby potentially exposing them to the family violence the FVSN was issued to limit. This limitation is considered reasonable as the adjournment of the family violence intervention order application may be due to the court requiring clarification or further evidence on which to make a final determination, or the failure of the parties to attend the hearing. In addition without clarification of the power to adjourn, the court, faced with insufficient evidence at the first hearing, may strike out the application without any further consideration of the protective needs of the affected family members, thereby leaving them completely exposed to a recurrence of family violence. This limitation is also balanced by the respondent’s right to a fair hearing (s 24) because if they are unable to attend the first hearing an intervention order may be made against them without being given the opportunity to present their case. 83 FAMILY VIOLENCE PROTECTION AMENDMENT (SAFETY NOTICES) BILL 2011 84 ASSEMBLY PROOF Wednesday, 6 April 2011 As such the limitations are considered reasonable taking into account the reasons of magistrates for adjourning hearings and the rights of the respondent. that some provisions may limit human rights, those limitations are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Clause 5 Robert Clark, MP Attorney-General Clause five of the bill repeals section 41 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (the act), thereby embedding FVSNs as one of the suite of options available to police when responding to incidents of family violence. Preservation of the FVSN regime assists in ensuring that affected family members receive effective protection from family violence after hours, on weekends and during public holidays. This protection afforded by FVSNs enhances a number of rights including the right to life (s 9), freedom from inhumane or degrading treatment (s 10), the protection of families and children (s 17) and the right to liberty and security of the person (s 21). Family violence safety notices enhance the protection of these rights through, for example, offering affected family members immediate protection from family violence thereby allowing them a greater opportunity to live a life free from family violence and the threat or fear of family violence. Preservation of FVSN will continue to place limitations on some rights of the respondent including the right to privacy (s 13) and property rights (s 20), for example through imposing a condition excluding the respondent from the family home for a period of up to 72 hours. Whilst the respondent’s rights may be limited through the imposition of conditions on the FVSN, these limitations are considered reasonable taking into account the seriousness of family violence, the real risk of irreparable harm or threat to life of affected family members and the limited duration of FVSN. Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9 Clauses six through nine of the bill clarify the courts power to make or amend a limited intervention order where the application brought by police and/or the courts order is not consented to by the protected person. The clause also clarifies that if a child(ren) is also on the application with an adult who is not consenting to the application and/or the order, the court can still make a limited order. The court’s power to make or amend an order engages the right to liberty and security of the person (s 21). This right in engaged as an intervention order may be made where the affected family member does not consent to the making of the order. The right is limited because the court is placing conditions on the way the affected family member lives their life that have not been consented to. Any limitation which may be placed on this right is, however, balanced by the right to protection of families and children (s 17) as the limitation is designed to protect children from the effects of family violence whilst recognising the importance of minimising disruption to the child(ren)’s relationship with the respondent parent and maintaining contact between parents and their children where possible. If the court is concerned that a child will not be appropriately protected by the limited order, then the court can make an intervention order to protect the child on its own initiative under s 77 of the act. Second reading Mr CLARK (Attorney-General) — I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Reports of family violence in our community are continuing to increase. During 2009–10, police responded to over 35 000 incidents of family violence, a 5.4 per cent increase on the previous year. Women and children suffer the most from the effects of family violence. Women are over three times more likely to be victims of family violence than men and around one in four children have witnessed family violence. As a society we have a responsibility to ensure that women and children are able to live a life free from violence, both within and outside the family home. In November 2003 the opposition released a policy to give greater protection to women and children who were the victims of family violence. The policy provided for on-the-spot interim intervention orders for up to 72 hours in circumstances where victims required immediate protection from the perpetrator of family violence. It was not until the introduction of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 that the then government accepted the merits of the opposition’s position on the need for immediate protection measures for victims of family violence when they introduced similar provisions called family violence safety notices. The opposition parties supported the introduction of family violence safety notices, but were disappointed that they were only introduced as a trial, pending the outcome of an evaluation. The family violence safety notice provisions introduced in 2008: provide immediate safety for victims and their children; can include a condition to exclude a violent party from the home; act as an application to the Magistrates Court of Victoria for a family violence intervention order; Conclusion act as a summons to attend court; and I consider that the bill is compatible with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act because, to the extent must be returned to court for review within 72 hours FAMILY VIOLENCE PROTECTION AMENDMENT (SAFETY NOTICES) BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF The evaluation has now occurred and has clearly demonstrated the contribution of family violence safety notices to protecting victims of family violence. The evaluation found that family violence safety notices: contributed to an improved after hours response to incidents of family violence; led to an increase in civil actions taken against perpetrators of family violence; improved victim safety by removing the burden of decision-making from the affected family member to the police; and increased perpetrator accountability by providing a clear and immediate message that family violence is unacceptable. Through the introduction of this bill the government is ensuring that family violence safety notices are embedded as one of a suite of options available to police when responding to incidents of family violence to ensure that women and children are afforded a greater level of protection from family violence. In addition to embedding the family violence safety notice regime, the bill clarifies the Magistrates Court powers in relation to two provisions. First, magistrates have the power to adjourn applications for intervention orders commenced by way of family violence safety notice where no interim or final intervention order is made on the first hearing date. This confirms that where the court is faced with insufficient evidence at the first hearing, the court has the ability to adjourn the application to a later hearing date, allowing the parties time to gather the required evidence and attend court. The ability to adjourn hearings in this way ensures that applications are not struck out without further consideration of the requirement for additional protection from family violence for the affected family members. Second, under current law, police can make an application for a family violence intervention order to protect a victim of family violence even if that person does not consent to the police taking that action. The amendment simply confirms that when police bring these applications, with or without the consent of the affected family member, if the affected family member does not consent to the court making the order, the court can still make a limited order that protects the affected family member but does not necessarily affect the living arrangements of the parties. 85 Where there is a police application for making or amending a single intervention order that protects an adult and a child(ren), the amendment confirms that the court may still make a limited order in circumstances where the adult does not consent to the making or amending of the order. The amendments to section 75 of the act maintain the existing balance between providing protection and respecting the wishes of the affected family members throughout the intervention order process, from application to the making of a final order. This balance is of particular importance as very often the affected family member, whilst recognising they may require protection, will not seek an intervention order for fear of retribution from the perpetrator. The complex nature and dynamics of family violence are such that often even where the affected family member does have the courage to initiate a family violence intervention order, or to support the police to apply on their behalf, they may be pressured by the perpetrator into withdrawing or opposing the application. The amendments confirm that police and the courts have the power to take protective action for those who may not have the capacity to act in their own interests and afford affected family members protection under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008. Finally the bill amends sections of the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010. The Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 provides courts the power to make intervention orders in circumstances that do not involve family violence. To ensure consistency and clarity for the police and courts, provisions relating to intervention orders in the both Family Violence Protection Act 2008 and the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 are procedurally identical. Amendments will be made to the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 for intervention orders where the affected person does not consent to an application brought by police or the court making or amending the order. This will ensure continued consistency between the two acts. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr WYNNE (Richmond). Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 20 April. DENTAL HOSPITAL LAND BILL 2011 86 18:30 ASSEMBLY PROOF DENTAL HOSPITAL LAND BILL 2011 Statement of compatibility Mr R. SMITH (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) 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 Dental Hospital Land Bill 2011 (the bill). In my opinion, the bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights protected by the charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Overview of bill The purpose of the bill is to facilitate construction of the new Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre at 711 Elizabeth Street, Parkville, by revoking the current permanent reservation of the site as a dental hospital and dental school. Human rights issues 1. Human rights protected by the charter that are relevant to the bill Property rights Section 20 of the charter protects against deprivation of property other than according to law. This bill does not engage section 20 because no property rights are affected by the bill. The only property right in existence at the Parkville site is a lease, which is expressly preserved by clause 5 of the bill. Conclusion I consider that this bill is compatible with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. Ryan Smith, MP Minister for Environment and Climate Change Minister for Youth Affairs Wednesday, 6 April 2011 The Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre will provide a world-class centre of excellence for the research and treatment of cancer. It will bring together recognised leaders in cancer research, clinical services, education and training — including the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne Health (which includes the Royal Melbourne Hospital), the University of Melbourne, the Parkville branch of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Melbourne, the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, the Royal Women’s Hospital and the Royal Children’s Hospital. The fundamental objective of the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre is to reduce the burden of cancer. This will be achieved through the collaboration of recognised leaders in the delivery of clinical services to cancer patients, through an increased investment in biomedical research and through the translation of innovative research discoveries into clinical practice and care. This collaborative approach will facilitate the continued education and training of current and future cancer clinicians and researchers, ensuring that Victoria retains a strong specialist cancer workforce. The Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre will benefit all Victorians, providing services and treatment to patients from rural and regional parts of Victoria. In addition the procurement, design, construction and operation phases of the project will result in significant industry participation, employment and skills development. Both the Victorian and commonwealth governments have committed substantial funding to the development of the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, along with contributions from other sources. Projected funding for the project is estimated at $1 billion. This represents a significant investment in the health and wellbeing of Victorians. Second reading Mr R. SMITH (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to facilitate construction of the new Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre on the former site of the Royal Dental Hospital in Parkville. Cancer is the greatest cause of mortality in Victoria and its impacts on the community are significant. The care of cancer patients represents a significant proportion of all health care delivered in Victoria. This government is committed to funding and supporting cancer services for the benefit of Victorians. The Parkville site on which the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre will be developed is permanently reserved for use as a dental hospital and dental school. This bill will remove the current permanent reservation over the site in order to facilitate use of the site for more general health purposes, enabling construction of the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre to commence. The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Royal Melbourne Hospital Act 1935 to remove spent provisions associated with the site. This bill will enable the development of a world-class comprehensive centre for the research and treatment of MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF cancer, facilitating a collaborative approach to fighting cancer and reducing its impact on the community. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr WYNNE (Richmond). Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 20 April. 20:00 Sitting suspended 6.33 p.m. until 8.01 p.m. MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Second reading Debate resumed from earlier this day; motion of Mr KOTSIRAS (Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship). Mr KATOS (South Barwon) — It gives me great pleasure to rise this evening to discuss the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011. Victoria has people from over 150 cultural backgrounds who speak over 130 languages. Victoria and Australia are often referred to in Europe and other parts of the world in relation to how well people from diverse cultural backgrounds are able to live and work together in a harmonious way. The bill seeks to enhance and strengthen multiculturalism in Victoria. My parents come from a Greek background so I have firsthand experience with multiculturalism. My father migrated to Australia in 1949 and my mother followed in 1956, so they have been in Australia for well over 50 years. They migrated to Australia from their war-ravaged homeland. Greece was in tatters after the Second World War and a civil war that saw the communist forces defeated by the nationalists. My parents came to Australia seeking freedom and opportunity, which is something that at times we take for granted. They sought freedom and opportunity in a new land half-way around the globe, some 15 000 kilometres from their homeland. Through hard work and determination my father created a successful small business. My parents integrated into the Australian community, but at the same time they never forgot their homeland, their language or their traditions. We should celebrate different cultural traditions, religions and customs and draw on this diversity to enhance our great state of Victoria. I recently had the pleasure of attending Greek National Day celebrations twice, if that can be done. The first celebration was at Melbourne’s Shrine of Remembrance. The Premier, the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship, the 87 Leader of the Opposition and also the member for Dandenong were there — it was a very bipartisan group. It was fantastic to see that the crowds celebrating Greek National Day were up by over 20 per cent on the previous year. Last Sunday I had the pleasure of attending the Greek national day celebration in my community of Geelong. It is good to see people, while integrating into our country, still celebrating their traditions. Food is one of the best examples of how this integration has taken place and how these cultures are celebrated. After my father came to Australia he spent nearly all of his life in Geelong apart from a very small stint in Bendigo. When he went to cafes pretty much all he had to choose from was steak and eggs, roast lamb or lamb shanks. That was the menu of most cafes in the late 1940s and early 1950s. If you walk down Lygon Street in Carlton or Pakington Street in Geelong, you can now see the diversity of culture on display with all the different foods. People take it for granted now; it is a normal part of everyday life and everyday food. It is a great example of how multiple cultures have integrated into Australia. One thing that is very important — and I believe it is the ultimate goal of multiculturalism — is that those who come here from other countries should become citizens of our country. That is one of the most important things that can happen. Both of my parents became Australian citizens and integrated very well into Australia, but at the same time they have never forgotten their roots and traditions. I believe the main role of multiculturalism is to encourage citizenship. The bill before us seeks to strengthen the Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship portfolio and set out the broad purposes of the Victorian Multicultural Commission. It establishes the principles of multiculturalism and provides for the establishment of the Victorian Multicultural Commission. The independence of the commission will be increased via new legislative and administrative arrangements. The independence of the commission is critical. In the past governments from the other side of the house have used ethnic groups and these sorts of commissions to gain access to those groups for political purposes, but the main reason for the commission should be to celebrate cultural diversity and encourage citizenship. As was pointed out earlier in the debate, at one stage 8 out of 12 members of the commission were ALP members. To my way of thinking that was no accident. That is why I believe it is critical that the multicultural commission be at arms length from the government. 20:05 MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 88 ASSEMBLY PROOF The commission should advise the minister; it should not take advice from the minister. The commission’s role is to advise the minister on the best course of action. The commission’s purpose should be to strengthen multiculturalism and citizenship, and it should not be used — as I have seen in my experience as a local councillor in Geelong — — Mr Eren — As a Labor councillor? Mr KATOS — The member for Lara forgets that I was a councillor representing Deakin ward on the City of Greater Geelong. I saw firsthand how multicultural affairs were used to gain access to groups. This access was used not just for the recruitment of members to the ALP but in some instances, I believe, to branch stack. It was certainly used for purposes other than promoting multicultural affairs and diversity. The bill also establishes the reporting requirements of the commission and of government departments with respect to service delivery to diverse communities. 20:10 The eight new regional advisory councils — three in metropolitan Melbourne and five in country Victoria — will be established and will create a situation where what is happening on the ground locally will be fed back to the minister. This advice will be given back to the minister and he — in this case, he — will have firsthand knowledge of what is going on locally on the ground. The commission structure will largely remain unchanged. It will consist of 12 members. There will be a full-time chair, a part-time deputy chair and eight other part-time members. The difference here, though, is the other two members of the commission: there will be a youth representative aged between 18 and 24 years and a member of a community organisation which is representative of ethnic groups. All current eligible members will be able to reapply for their positions unless they have already done three terms, which would make them ineligible to continue — as is the case with most boards and commissions. The eight regional advisory councils will be chaired by a part-time commissioner with the support of the commission’s office. This bill will implement the government’s election commitment by strengthening the independence and membership of the commission. It will also empower the commission to report to the minister on matters relating to its objectives. The creation of stronger links between government and diverse communities will also be a key part of the bill. I commend it to the house. Wednesday, 6 April 2011 Mr PERERA (Cranbourne) — I wish to make a few comments on the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011. The opposition, as we all know, does not oppose the bill. The bill will dismantle the existing Victorian Multicultural Commission and create a new multicultural commission under the guise of strengthening the new VMC and making it a more independent statutory authority. The policy and administrative functions which were under the VMC will be transferred to the new Office of Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship, which is a minute part of the huge Department of Premier and Cabinet. It will be a very small fish in a very big pond and will therefore run the risk of losing funding or not having adequate incremental funding. When Labor came to office in 1999 the VMC multicultural community grants were worth $750 000 per year. When Labor left office that figure was over $5.5 million for that period of 11 years. The Baillieu Liberal-Nationals government has redefined the word ‘strengthening’. The stripping of most of its important policy functions are defined in the bill as strengthening the VMC. If an organisation loses some of its core functions, it can easily be more independent because it is not interacting with other entities. Words such as ‘strengthening’ and ‘independence’ are used to confuse and mislead people and eventually to justify the dismantling of the VMC and the establishment of the weakened form of the commission. I have not seen any documentation or statement in relation to any type of consultation that might have justified the stripping of the powers from the VMC. There is no logical argument for stripping those powers from the VMC. Feedback has been sought by the government from a range of stakeholders, including the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria. Those stakeholders have expressed some concerns about the lack of consultation undertaken by the government. Mr Kotsiras — Who were they? Name them. Mr PERERA — The Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria. Mr Kotsiras — They haven’t said anything to me. Mr PERERA — I understand they have. Nowhere in the second-reading speech does it say that the current VMC is broken and dysfunctional. Why fix it if it is not broken? There was no election commitment by the Liberal Party to strip those independent functions from the VMC. MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 20:15 ASSEMBLY PROOF 89 Are these jobs for mates? Is that the hidden agenda of this exercise? Why was the chair of the VMC moved on as soon as the government came into office? Will the existing commissioners be reappointed? In general the commissioners of the VMC and in particular the former chair of the commission were well regarded within the Victorian culturally diverse community. It is a common secret that the Premier and other members of the current government gave their blessings to those who carried out the protest against the Brumby government to make it very unpopular. They gave their blessings to those who ran scare campaigns in Victoria and in India, making Victoria the worst place to study, holiday and do business. One of the largest ethnic organisations in Victoria is the Federation of Indian Associations of Victoria, which is very familiar to the minister. FIAV is the peak body of 28 Indian community organisations. More than 25 other Indian subcontinent-based entities such as dancing groups et cetera have affiliated with the FIAV. Members of the federation have mentioned to me that had it not been for the support of George Lekakis and the Victorian Multicultural Commission, they may not have been able to deliver half the community programs they have proudly carried on in the past. This is the man who was got rid of by the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship. It is a fact that the Federation of Indian Associations of Victoria stated in no uncertain terms that the attacks on Indian students were opportunistic, with the students being at the wrong place at the wrong time and that the majority of the attacks were not racially motivated. They pleaded with the troublemakers not to go ahead with those activities because they harm Victoria in general and the Victorian Indian community in particular. The then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Premier, addressed a protest rally to gain cheap political advantage, damaging the image of Victoria. In the past 18 years under governments of both political persuasions the Premier took the ministerial responsibilities for multicultural affairs. To my memory this is the first time in 18 years that a Premier has not taken up the multicultural affairs portfolio directly under his wing, including former Premier Jeff Kennett. In the past years there was a minister assisting the Premier on multicultural affairs and the independent VMC. This combination worked very well for Victoria. It is a snub to the people from diverse cultural backgrounds to withdraw that support and recognition, with the Premier not taking direct responsibility for multicultural affairs. No government spin can overcome that disdainful approach. The Premier has increased the number of cabinet members by two to create a small portfolio for one of his cabinet members. To add some muscle to this portfolio the government has stripped the policy and administrative functions from the VMC and placed them under the Department of Premier and Cabinet, which comes under the direct responsibility of the minister. The minister with the portfolio of multicultural affairs and citizenship would probably carry a workload similar to that of the current chair of the Victorian Multicultural Commission. On page 3 of the Victorian Liberal-Nationals coalition’s policy and plans document for the 2010 election it says: Labor did nothing until the public disquiet in Victoria and India began to draw strong public and media attention and condemnation, including from the Indian government. Is it not a fact that Mr Baillieu and other senior members of the then Liberal opposition were aware of the meetings taking place at the Australian Learning Training and Education Centre to organise the taxidriver protest that would bring disrepute to Victoria? Is it not a fact that the person who organised the taxidriver protest was a member of the Liberal Party who had the blessings of Mr Baillieu to seek pre-selection for a very marginal Labor seat? Probably the majority of Liberal Party members did not want an Indian-born person to represent the Liberal Party here in the Victorian Parliament, therefore he lost pre-selection. Is it not a fact that this person was offered a job in the office of the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship? Would that not be an endorsement of that person’s work of organising those protests that brought disrepute to Victoria? The Baillieu government can now act as the born-again custodian of multiculturalism. Its cheap political stunts have harmed Victoria, businesses and the prospects of Indian students studying in Australia. These events gave the impression that some of the Indian students who work long hours and travel on late-night trains expose themselves to danger because they are struggling to make ends meet while studying here. That impression resulted in the Australian High Commission in India putting in place stringent means-testing procedures when assessing the cases of potential Indian students. This prevented many not-so-well-off Indian students from entering Australia for studies. Students of well-off families were not sent to Victoria for studies because their parents feared that their children could be subjected to harm. As a result of the Liberal Party legacy a number of education institutes either closed down or stopped expansion. 20:20 MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 90 ASSEMBLY PROOF The former owner of the Australian Institute of Education and Training told me that he had licences to take in 600 students. After this saga that number dropped down to 150. Eventually he had to sell the school. Please do not repeat such unsavoury negative campaigns — — The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Thompson) — Order! The member’s time has expired. There has been a fair amount of audible conversation in the chamber. I ask that members contain the volume of their conversation in the house. Mrs BAUER (Carrum) — I rise to speak in favour of the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011. I am delighted to make a contribution to the debate. I am proud and supportive of this bill before the house. In the debate so far tonight we have heard of the strong partisan support from both sides of politics for the Multicultural Victoria Bill. This support has been illustrated in recent weeks through the establishment of many bipartisan parliamentary friends committees that have been established, including friends committees with China, the USA, Japan, Israel, Sri Lanka and Greece, to name a few. I consider myself fortunate to be part of a family that has a wide and varied multicultural history. My family is of Anglo-European origin, while my husband’s family is of German and Japanese origin. In my electorate of Carrum bloodlines of some 142 nationalities are represented, with 92 languages or dialects spoken in the home and 61 religions practised; that number includes Christian religions. One of the most fulfilling parts of my role as the member for Carrum is attending citizenship ceremonies and welcoming those who have chosen to join us as new Australians. This bill will ensure that the voices of these people are heard to a greater extent than they have been in the past. Members may have read Alan Howe’s article on the ‘Herald Sun’ website last week in which he emphatically stated that multiculturalism has worked in Victoria whereas it has not in Europe. I believe he is absolutely correct in his assertion. We are very lucky to be part of a society in which, for the most part, people accept one another regardless of the colour of their skin, the clothes they wear or the religion they practise. For the most part Victorians generally accept that everyone has the right to live their lives as they see fit, providing they act within the laws of this great country. Wednesday, 6 April 2011 Recently we have seen European leaders speak out against what they see as failed multicultural policies. Fortunately the same cannot be said of Victoria. Multiculturalism in Victoria can only be spoken of in glowing terms. Multiculturalism and our diversity makes Victoria a great place to live. Our rich tapestry of nationalities is easy to see. Areas like Lygon Street, Lonsdale Street and Springvale all consist of large migrant populations. Yet unlike similar areas in other states or countries, Anglo-Saxon Australians are welcome in these areas, with the predominant culture keen to share what they have to offer. But there is always more that can be done, and this bill seeks to do that. It seeks to make positive changes. The bill seeks to reaffirm this government’s commitment to a diverse and multicultural Victoria. The minister in his second-reading speech says: The bill renews the principles of multiculturalism to incorporate principles of citizenship, values of a shared commitment to Australia and to community service, and recognition of diversity as an asset for Victoria. It aims to do this by replacing the current Victorian Multicultural Commission with a stronger, more independent body. Under the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011 the commission will become more independent and will be able to provide a more accurate representation of multicultural society in Victoria. Following on from this, it will be able to provide stronger links between this government and its multicultural constituency. Under an independent commission the only agenda will be ensuring Victoria’s multicultural communities get the attention they deserve. When the issues confronting these groups are not being crushed under the weight of spin and partisanship, they will actually be heard and rectified. Making the Victorian Multicultural Commission independent is a step that gives a clear message that our government is prepared to listen to how we can improve the lives of those that make up our diverse communities. Furthermore, the commission will now be tasked with researching, advising and reporting to the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship. The commission will have the power to initiate investigations or as a result of a request from the minister. This bill gives the commission a purpose and a direction. The bill also provides for the establishment of eight regional advisory councils to represent regional areas of Victoria. These councils will act as conduits of 20:25 MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF information from regional areas to the Victorian Multicultural Commission. Finally, the multicultural communities in regional Victoria will now have a voice at the highest level. With so many different cultures contributing so much to the development of regional Victoria, it is about time this happened. These regional councils will be chaired by the multicultural commission’s part-time commissioners, ensuring that the voice of the regions is heard loudly and clearly at the highest level. It is intended that these regional councils will not only provide feedback and advice to the Victorian Multicultural Commission from the multicultural populations of our regional areas but also promote regional Victoria as a settling place for new migrants. Having said that, I want to put on the record that while we are not opposing this bill, I object to the fact that members on this side of the house particularly are being gagged and prevented from speaking fully on this bill. Mr Walsh interjected. Mr EREN — It is going to be guillotined tonight — there was a procedural motion. As the minister knows, the debate on the bill will be guillotined at 10 o’clock. I want to stress to the new minister that it is a dog-eat-dog world out there. You, as the minister, will need to fight for the portfolio of multiculturalism. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Thompson) — Through the Chair, please! I have recently had the honour of representing the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship at a couple of events, one being the Hindu Holi Festival of Colours celebrations at the Shri Shiva Vishnu temple in Carrum Downs and another being the opening of the Dutch association of Australia’s new premises in Carnegie. Both of these groups do fantastic work not only for their own countrymen but for the wider community as a whole. Mr EREN — The Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship will need to fight to get every single cent from the budget. Obviously — from all the excuses the government is making about black holes here and black holes there and it saying, ‘Boohoo, we are running out of money’ and all that stuff — the minister, who is in the chamber, will need to fight tooth and nail to get every cent that this portfolio deserves. I wish him all the best in that. A great example of this was the presentation by the Hindu Society of Victoria of a $10 000 cheque for the Premier’s flood relief appeal effort. It was certainly an honour to receive such a generous donation. I want to commend the people behind the minister in terms of the heavy duty work that goes on. Behind every good minister are good bureaucrats working for the portfolio. Hakan Akyol works hard for the portfolio of multiculturalism. Obviously through our term of government we had a lot to do with George Lekakis and Hakan. I appreciate both of their efforts in assisting the multicultural community. I have also had the privilege of attending Aspendale Gardens Primary School’s Harmony Day celebrations on 26 March where 40 different nations were represented. As I am sure many are aware, the aim of Harmony Day is to bring people of all cultures together to celebrate the things we have in common and to learn about our differences. If there is one thing that these events represent it is the contribution that immigrant cultures have played in making this state and Australia what they are today. How lucky we are to have such a broad spectrum of experiences to draw from in creating our tomorrow. I would like to commend Minister Kotsiras for this Multicultural Victoria Bill. It is great legislation. It is consistent with coalition policy. The minister has sought consultation from wide-ranging multicultural communities from all across Victoria. This bill further recognises the contributions of our immigrant population, and for this reason I commend it to the house. 20:30 91 Mr EREN (Lara) — It is an absolute pleasure for me to speak on the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011. I want to put on the record some of the commitments we made as a Labor government. People would recall that back in 1999 the portfolio of multicultural affairs had something like $750 000 allocated to it. We increased that figure to about $5.6 million. That is the challenge for the new minister: to make sure that not only is that level of funding maintained but it is actually increased. I am proud of the fact that we have the northern community hub in Geelong, which is led by Diversitat, a fantastic organisation led by Michael Martinez, its chief executive officer. I was very involved with that organisation during our term of government, and I was also active in terms of making sure that it was allocated $1 million. The then minister, John Thwaites, was kind enough to allocate that money, along with $1.5 million from the federal government and other moneys that were collected by the organisation. We now have a fantastic facility in North Geelong in my electorate, of which I am very proud. I am sure the minister will MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 92 ASSEMBLY PROOF come out there and open the facility. We did all the hard yards, and the minister will come out and open it. I hope he mentions some of the hard work that the local member did in relation to establishing it. We are proud of it. I am particularly proud of it as a migrant from Turkey. I remember when I came here when I was very young. Dad was a fitter and turner and we came under the skilled migration program. Fitter and turners were very much needed in Australia. There were two brothers — my brother and me — and my mum and dad. We did it tough and stayed in the hostels for a little bit. We lived in the epicentre of multiculturalism, which is Coburg, for a long period of time. Then we lived in high-rise commission flats and then moved to Broadmeadows. Then I made my way to Geelong. 20:35 I am very proud of those achievements. Having a migrant background myself I know there are trials and tribulations that every one of us goes through, particularly when coming to this country at a very young age. I am fortunate and privileged to be standing in this place and making this speech. It just goes to show that although there may be glass ceilings that prevent certain people from progressing, by working hard enough anyone can achieve anything in this country. I know that my other colleagues would like to say a few words on this bill, but we are being gagged by the government. We are not opposing the bill before the house. I would have preferred the government to have consulted some more because it is a wide-ranging bill and it makes some significant changes, but under the circumstances we are supporting it. I commend the bill to the house. Debate interrupted. DISTINGUISHED VISITOR The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Thompson) — Order! Before calling the next speaker I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the former Speaker of the House, the Honourable Ken Coghill. MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Second reading Debate resumed. Mr NEWTON-BROWN (Prahran) — Before I move on to some more positive comments I would like Wednesday, 6 April 2011 to first respond to the disappointing politicising of this issue by the member for Cranbourne, who made reference to the Indian student situation that we had in this state in recent years. The member somewhat rewrote history in his comments. I draw the house’s attention to an article from the Age of 31 March 2011, which carried the subheadline ‘Gillard Brumby ineffective over attacks on students’. The body of the article states: Concerns for Indian students in Melbourne reached fever pitch in January 2010 following the stabbing death of a 21-year-old accountancy student, Nitin Garg. A visit by the then Victorian Premier, John Brumby, was ‘similarly ineffective’ the then Victorian Treasurer, John Lenders, told Mr Thurston. Putting that aside, multiculturalism is one issue that receives genuine bipartisan understanding and support in this house, of which I am proud. What makes Australia great is that we are a true melting pot of peoples from all around the globe. Multiculturalism has made us a socially and economically wealthy, stable and tolerant country. It is a credit to our society that such a large cross-section of our cultures choose to live in Australia. They have chosen to live in this great country because they feel welcome. They can live here harmoniously. I will refer to a few statistics. In March 2010 Australia had a population of 22.27 million people, a quarter of whom were born overseas. The 2006 census showed 45 per cent were born overseas or had one parent who was born overseas. We have over 250 ancestries amongst us, and we speak over 200 languages. But our country has not always been this harmonious. The cultural harmony that we enjoy today did not always exist, and it did not come about by chance either — it was due to strong guidance from politicians, state and federal, Liberal and Labor. In the early part of the last century we had the well-known White Australia policy. The origins of the White Australia policy can be traced back to the 1850s, when half a million immigrants were attracted to Australia, particularly to Victoria, by gold. Their efforts largely went into assisting to build this magnificent building in which we sit today. The white miners particularly resented the Chinese diggers and violence flared up at Buckland River in Victoria and at Lambing Flat in New South Wales. As a result both the Victorian and New South Wales Parliaments introduced restrictions on Chinese immigrants. Can you believe that a £10 poll tax was imposed on Chinese immigrants in 1855! This virtually stopped Chinese immigration. It must have been an enormous amount of money back then. MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 20:40 ASSEMBLY PROOF Similarly, Pacific Islanders worked hard as labourers in Queensland. The factory workers there opposed their immigration for fear of losing their jobs. In 1901 the federal government passed the Immigration Restriction Act 1901. That act prohibited various undesirable characters from immigrating, including criminals or people with contagious diseases, but it also prevented the immigration of people under contract to perform manual labour, and that was the circumstance of most of the South Pacific Islander labourers who came to Queensland. There was a dictation test that also contributed to keeping non-English speakers out of the country. By and large community members applauded these policies and thought they were a good thing. When World War I broke out immigration came to a complete halt. In 1919 Billy Hughes said that it was the greatest thing we had achieved. Then during World War II the Prime Minister at the time, John Curtin, reinforced the White Australia policy. He said: This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race. Many refugees entered Australia during World War II, but most left after the war ended. Some, however, had married and wanted to stay. Arthur Calwell, our first Minister for Immigration, wanted to deport them, to much protest at the time. The first steps towards dismantling these policies came in 1949 under a Liberal government, when Minister Holt allowed 800 non-European refugees to stay. Japanese war brides were also admitted. The next major steps occurred in the 1950s. In 1955 the number of post-war immigrants to Australia reached 1 million. In 1957 non-Europeans who had lived here for 15 years could become citizens. In 1958 the controversial dictation test was dropped, and the act was revised to remove references to questions of race. When it came to 1959 the lack of support for the White Australia policy really started to jell, and the immigration reform group was founded in Melbourne. This group advocated for the end of the White Australia policy. In the 1960s student activism rose. My late father, Guy, was president of the student union at Melbourne University in the 1960s, and he led the student fight against the White Australia policy at that university, along with many other students throughout the country. In 1965 the Labor Party’s longstanding commitment to the White Australia policy was removed from its party platform. In 1966 the White Australia policy was dropped from policy. 93 In 1973 Gough Whitlam took three further steps to remove the final barriers to dismantling the White Australia policy. There was legislation that all migrants of whatever origin be eligible to obtain citizenship after three years of permanent residence. Policy instructions were issued to overseas posts to totally disregard race as a factor in the selection of migrants. All international agreements relating to immigration and race were ratified. At the same time as introducing these laudable policies the Whitlam government reduced the overall immigration intake, so therefore it did not result in any great influx of migrants from non-European countries at the time. An increase in the number and percentage of migrants from non-European countries took place only when the Fraser government came into office in 1975, which was when the great waves of modern migrants entered the country. The first time the term ‘multiculturalism’ was heard was in 1978; it was then formalised in the Galbally report that year. By the 1980s the African wave of migrants was well under way, with many coming from the famine-struck Ethiopia. Channel O/28 began broadcasting and then morphed into SBS (Special Broadcasting Service) with the help of Petro Georgiou when he was working for Malcolm Fraser. Today we have many skilled migrants, students and family reunions — — Ms Graley interjected. Mr NEWTON-BROWN — You will get your opportunity to continue the history lesson, no doubt. It has been a long road from the 1850s. Along that road eventually political leaders have joined together and united in a common support of multiculturalism. While many of the post-war migrants were displaced by gentrification in my own electorate of Prahran, there is still a sizeable population of migrants who have come from all over the world. I pay particular tribute to the Greek community. Recently I had the honour of attending the Greek Independence Day, which was catered for by Jim Pothitos from the legendary Greek Deli and Taverna on Chapel Street. That was a fantastic day. I also had the pleasure of attending the Indian Holi Colours Festival. I never imagined when I woke up that morning that by lunchtime I would be covered in colour from head to toe and would be dancing in a sweaty mosh pit with the Leader of the Opposition! The way that day ended demonstrated the depth of bipartisan support for our great multicultural society in Victoria. I commend the bill to the house. 20:45 MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 94 ASSEMBLY PROOF Ms BEATTIE (Yuroke) — I thank the member for Prahran for his history lesson. I want to touch on clause 1 in part 1 of the clause notes under the heading ‘Preliminary’ which sets out to: establish the principles of multiculturalism … I take exception to that, because I think the principles of multiculturalism in this country, including this state, are very well established. I do not think we need to legislate them because they are already in our principles. I will continue the history lesson that the member for Prahran gave us. I will not go so far as the member for Dandenong in saying the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship is a great friend of mine, but there are aspects of bipartisanship that we, on this side of the house, admire. The member for Prahran talked about great leadership. One of the instances I recall in more contemporary history was when Pauline Hanson, a former federal member of Parliament, tried to make her debut in Melbourne and the then Premier of this state, Jeff Kennett, stood up and said she was not welcome here and neither were her policies. I remember demonstration after demonstration being held when Pauline Hanson tried to bring One Nation policies to this great state, and she was rejected out of hand by people in this state. I praise the people of the state, and I praise former Premier Jeff Kennett for his actions then. I only wish that everybody in the Liberal Party had the same views as Jeff Kennett had on multiculturalism. The Liberal Party went to the election with its multicultural policy. I am not a great fan of the ‘m’ word — that is, ‘mandate’ — but people knew the Liberal Party’s policy. The Liberal Party has the right to implement its policy so we will not be opposing this bill. Having said that, I have some concerns regarding the bill. I will go through some of them. In my strongly held view — unless you are an indigenous person — we are all children of a great multicultural nation. Unless we are indigenous, it does not matter whether it is one generation, two generations or five generations ago, we all come from somewhere else. If you went around this chamber, members would mention something in relation to one or two generations ago. A member might say, ‘My grandfather was a Scot’ or, ‘My great-grandfather was Irish’. We all came from somewhere else. It is not a question of tolerance; it is a question of accepting that we all came from somewhere else. By and large people accept that. As I said, I have some concerns about the bill. Under the previous government the Victorian Multicultural Wednesday, 6 April 2011 Commission worked very well. Some of the people there are very modest, but I would like to pay tribute to Hakan Akyol, who is now the acting chair of the Victorian Multicultural Commission (VMC). He was formerly the deputy chair, and he does a great job. In the short time I have left I would like to pay tribute to George Lekakis. If there was ever a champion of multiculturalism it is George Lekakis — and from his earliest days. In conversations with George he has given me a bit of personal history. He became involved in multiculturalism because he was in a workplace where a woman spoke to him in Greek and one of the supervisors said, ‘Tell that person to stop talking gibberish and speak English’. We have come a long way since then, and it is through great champions like George Lekakis that we have come all that distance. They are people who were prepared to stand out front and say, ‘This behaviour, these words, these attitudes are not acceptable in Australia, where we all come from somewhere else’. So I salute George Lekakis. I turn to one of the points of the bill where I have a bit of a problem. I wish the regional councils well in their deliberations, but given some of this bill’s detail about people reporting to the minister, there might be a tendency at some point in time for a minister — and obviously I am not talking about the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship at the table — to seek to micromanage the VMC and interfere in its day-to-day affairs and running. I trust that that will not happen. There are many speakers on this side of the house who want to talk on the bill, so I will only take a moment longer. Having paid tribute to George Lekakis, I would also like to pay tribute to the many VMC commissioners who have given so freely of their time. It has been said before that they do not do it for money but because they have the passion for multiculturalism in this state. There are many VMC commissioners to whom I pay tribute tonight, because they have been out there leading their communities, who are being guided by those with very safe hands. The bill will go through the house. Labor does not oppose it. I have some concerns about a minister’s ability to interfere with the commission’s day-to-day running. I would like to thank the previous ministers who have taken the grants program from about $750 000 to over $5 million, and I ask that that continue. I ask the minister at the table to argue in the budget deliberations for multicultural Victoria and get those dollars increased. We are depending on the minister to support those who have gone before him and to support multicultural Victoria and relevant 20:50 MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF programs, including the cultural programs such as the cultural precincts program and the various grants such as the senior citizens grants. We are depending on the minister to take us forward into another golden year of multiculturalism. Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) — I rise to speak on the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011. I begin by congratulating the minister on his terrific work in this area. Since he hit the ground running after the November election he has done nothing but embrace multiculturalism in Victoria. He has not stopped, and I am sure all the various multicultural groups in Victoria are very grateful for the work the minister is doing. We have heard from members on both sides of the house about the work they have been doing in their various electorates. It is important that we embrace this issue, and this bill goes to extending that work. 20:55 The bill’s broad purpose is to establish the principles of multiculturalism, to establish the multicultural commission and to establish regional advisory councils. This particularly interests me. The eight regional advisory councils the bill provides for will mean that people will be represented. It takes a very holistic approach to encompass multiculturalism right around Victoria. The bill also establishes proper reporting requirements for government departments in relation to service delivery. This is important. If we are serious about this, which this side of the house is, we need to ensure that all the mechanisms are in place. This bill goes far in addressing this. This government is very much about taking a whole-of-government approach. It is taking a whole-of-government approach to multiculturalism to best serve the communities which help make up this wonderful state. The bill demonstrates that this government completely understands and embraces multiculturalism by its commitment to promoting full participation of diverse communities in Victorian life. We have heard from a number of members about specific things that happen in their electorates and that they embrace. My electorate is no different. It has a large number of residents from Russian, Indian, Chinese and South African backgrounds and a large Jewish community. Because of this, Caulfield residents know first and foremost the benefits of multiculturalism and work strongly with the government to strengthen these magnificent institutions. In fact a current commissioner of the Victorian Multicultural Commission is from my area. 95 This bill takes the party-political process out of multiculturalism. It focuses on what the intent is: to embrace; to be holistic; and to not play party politics, which I am sure is not what the multicultural commission was ever intended to do. What was intended with its set-up was to help people, to embrace people and to get people to share their cultures and their diverse mix. That is the intent: to share the love. This government is listening to the voice of the community, not the voice of government. That is what we need to be thinking about. It is about what people at the grassroots think, not what the government thinks or what the previous government thought when it was running in the race. We have taken all that away and are focusing on embracing people and on sharing things in a diverse manner. I would like to point out a recent controversy that happened in my electorate of Caulfield and just show how multiculturalism can be embraced, which, I add, was embraced under the current minister. We have a community house in Alma Road that is designed to facilitate a number of activities. Recently on Friday nights a recent Muslim prayer group had operated. There were a number of objectors, many of whom were from outside the Caulfield electorate, who objected to the Muslim prayer group operating. Due to multiculturalism being embraced through my area, six rabbis wrote and published a letter, which states: As religious leaders in keeping with Jewish tradition, we condemn all forms of racism and promote religious tolerance and harmony. As a result of that, the prayer group now exists. In the heart of Caulfield, over 30 per cent of which is made up of the Jewish community, there is a Muslim prayer group as well. We in our electorate certainly embrace multiculturalism. The terrific work our minister will continue to do is quite evident. In fact only last week the minister came to the electorate to hand out some well-deserved cheques to a number of great local organisations, including Italians and Greeks. He was Father Christmas; people were lining up to receive money; not big money, I point out — just the little dollars that make a difference, that allow community organisations to go out and do things. They were not like the Labor Party’s cheques, because they had a little bit of politics tied alongside them. We did not have any politics in ours; they were purely about the good work the local communities do. That is the way we intend to run our commission. We intend to take the politics out and put the community 21:00 MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 96 ASSEMBLY PROOF back into multiculturalism. That is what we intend to do. I want to finish by drawing the attention of the house to a Malaysian-born Chinese woman named Marion Lau who 42 years ago moved to Australia as a young migrant. Last month Marion, who is a resident of Caulfield, was inducted into the Victorian Honour Roll of Women by the Minister for Women’s Affairs. Marion was given this honour for her long history of working with migrant women and her work with the Chinese community, the people of Victoria and the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria, of which she was the first chair. She is one of the people who has made a significant contribution to the state and, I am quite proud to say, a significant contribution to my electorate of Caulfield. The residents of Victoria and the people of Caulfield need no convincing about the benefits of multiculturalism. This is a concept of society which has forever strengthened our state and my local community. I am proud to support a bill which demonstrates our commitment to multiculturalism and to the diverse past, present and future of the state of Victoria. I commend the bill to the house. Ms GRALEY (Narre Warren South) — This evening it is a pleasure to speak on the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011. While I will make a brief contribution, there are a number of points I wish to make. Victorian Labor has always had a strong commitment to multiculturalism in Victoria. Without reservation we have always been behind every ethnic community group, and we have encouraged everyone to be involved in making Victoria the successful, safe and prosperous state that it is. I take this opportunity to make a couple of brief points. The first is to recognise the outstanding work of George Lekakis, and other speakers have also mentioned him. I worked with George on a number of occasions and at a number of events. People would know that my electorate of Narre Warren South is a rather young one. It is an electorate which people have moved into mainly in the last 10 years. They have come from many different countries and many have had real settlement issues, but they have settled into this country and taken advantage of everything it has to offer, and they are making very full lives for themselves and for their children. George was absolutely terrific in supporting the groups in my electorate as they started to flourish and to support their own ethnic groups. He would come and talk to them and help them to access information. I have Wednesday, 6 April 2011 always been impressed by his passion, his commitment and his hard work. I really thank him for everything he has done for the people of the Narre Warren South electorate. I thank him especially for the grant that came from the Victorian Multicultural Commission last year to hold our first ever multicultural event — a big dinner — which was an outstanding success. I will never forget the sight of the Afghani men dancing around the room and being watched by people from India, Sri Lanka, Latin America and the Pacific Islands. It was truly multiculturalism at its best in Victoria. Whatever George does in the future I am sure he will do with the enthusiasm he showed in his commitment to the Victorian Multicultural Commission, and I wish him luck in all his endeavours. As I said earlier, I have been concerned about the bill and about the lack of consultation. I have been informed that the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria is also concerned about that. I know the council works very hard, and I understand that no-one — not one government representative, not the minister and no department officials — turned up at a meeting to discuss this bill. Either the government does not know what is going on or it does not know how to consult. A little bit more time and effort, as well as a bit more resourcing to get this bill into other languages, would have gone a long way to allaying the fears of the many people who have come to me. Mr Kotsiras — The second-reading speech is translated into other languages on the webpage. Google! Google! Ms GRALEY — They have come to my office, Minister, and actually said, ‘What is going on?’ Mr Kotsiras — Who? Name them! Ms GRALEY — I am not going to name them here, but I will come over and see you later and tell you who they are. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Weller) — Order! The member for Narre Warren South and the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship! Ms GRALEY — Those people were genuinely concerned. They wanted to know what was going on. Mr Kotsiras interjected. Ms GRALEY — They were! Mr Kotsiras interjected. 21:05 MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF 97 Ms GRALEY — The minister is putting his head in the sand. while at the same time staying in tune with the whole community’s attitudes. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Weller) — Order! The member for Narre Warren South knows that it is wrong to respond to interjections and the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship knows that it is wrong to interject. The bill sets out to establish the principles of multiculturalism and create a framework for a Victorian Multicultural Commission. It provides for the establishment of eight regional advisory councils. It also establishes reporting requirements for government departments in relation to service delivery for diverse communities and the principles of multiculturalism, and it sets up reporting requirements for the commission. Ms GRALEY — I know there are concerns in the community — and concerns have been voiced on this side of the chamber too, by both the member for Dandenong and the member for Yuroke — about making sure that this new institution will be well funded. We know that dollars, albeit small cheques, make a huge difference to community groups. I implore the minister to be on his game when he is in those budget discussions to ensure that all our community groups will be well supported, as they have been in the past by the Bracks and Brumby Labor governments, and that they will be able to enjoy the activities and occasions that they have always enjoyed in the past. As always I hope that everybody will continue to support multiculturalism in Victoria. Sometimes I have my doubts. Question time today threw a few question marks up. I hope that both the minister and the government will get behind all the ethnic groups and other groups out there in the community, because they really deserve all our support for all the good work that they do. Mr McCURDY (Murray Valley) — It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011. I congratulate the minister for his leadership on this bill. I look forward to having the minister in the Murray Valley to enjoy some of our culture in the near future. Multiculturalism is an important aspect of who we are in this country. As a blended group of people we have travelled from many different countries, and we are a diverse mix. Cultural Diversity Week recently demonstrated the unity and variety that exists throughout our communities. We have many examples in Victoria of how different cultural backgrounds have supported our communities and been the building blocks of those communities. This government is committed to multiculturalism, and it is committed to initiatives that promote and encourage this diversity. Before you can promote cultural diversity you need to understand the diversity that exists in our communities and the interaction between the different groups within the communities, In the Murray Valley there are many examples of different cultures. In Whorouly, south of Wangaratta, there is an Italian community that for many years has been involved in the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry has changed over time and has gone into recess, so to speak. People like Joe LaSpina and Frank Primerano are members of those communities who have changed from growing tobacco to growing capsicums, blueberries and various other niche products. The resilience that exists in these other cultures is second to none. In the Cobram region people like Dom Siciliano and Ang and Frank Diaco have also used their skills in the fruit-growing industry. The Italians have a strong background in farming, and they do it very well. Even the next generation of Italians in the region have combined to offer large benefits for our community. These people do not just coexist and live next door to one another; they share resources, work together and build our communities. Cobram is also home to a very strong Iraqi community which for the last 10 years has been intertwining with the local population. A real test of how different cultures come together is seen at the local football, because, as we know, for Iraqis and Italians soccer is the preferred sport. To watch junior football and see Italian and Iraqi kids playing with fifth generation Australians lets you know that multiculturalism is alive and well and people are blending into our communities. The Shire of Moira on the Murray River is a fantastic advocate for multiculturalism. During Cultural Diversity Week the shire held morning teas, and all who came brought morning tea items pertaining to their country of origin and dressed in their traditional costume. Countries such as Latvia, the Philippines, Chile, Italy, Poland, Scotland, South Africa and Papua New Guinea were all represented. Librarian Kerry Currie of Yarrawonga Library said the Friends of the Library had done a tremendous job organising and 21:10 MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 98 ASSEMBLY PROOF bringing together such diverse sections of the community. ‘Multiculturalism is alive and well’, she said. ‘Everyone has had a lovely time talking and sharing stories, and the different food people brought along was just wonderful’. As well as these activities local Moira shire councillors participated in the Yorta Yorta cultural insight program at the Yenbena Indigenous Training Centre in Barmah. The aim of this day was to increase awareness of Aboriginal culture and our Aboriginal community across the shire and to work together with traditional owners. More recently cultural diversity was experienced at the Numurkah town hall in a Celebrating Diversity event for the whole family which featured multicultural songs and dances. Rural and regional Victoria has relied heavily on cooperation between many cultures, and we are proud of this unity. Working together is what we do best, and particularly in rural and regional Victoria we need everyone rowing in the same direction to ensure that our communities will prosper and use whatever resources are available, regardless of colour, creed or country of origin. Multiculturalism is not just a part of our communities; it is a fundamental building block for our next generations. This bill will ensure that the voices of our diverse communities are better heard. Within our communities we are taking multiculturalism seriously. All of our communities will be the winners. I commend this bill to the house. Mr TREZISE (Geelong) — I am very pleased to speak in support of this important bill before us tonight, because when it comes to multicultural issues in Victoria we see bipartisanship in this Parliament. Look at the Acting Speaker I can say there are two main issues on which members of this Parliament are bipartisan: one is road safety and the other is multiculturalism. As the member for Geelong I know that Geelong and the greater Geelong area are made up of many ethnically diverse communities. An indication of that diversity is the Geelong Ethnic Communities Council (GECC), which is made up of representatives from something like 40 different communities and operates under the auspices of Diversitat, which is a great organisation. I take this opportunity to commend Michael Martin and his team at Diversitat for the work they do with their 40 affiliated communities. Through the GECC many groups have historically and significantly contributed to the establishment of Wednesday, 6 April 2011 Geelong. These include the Irish, the Scottish, the Germans and the Chinese. Then of course we move into the post-World War II era, where we saw groups like the Italians, the Greeks, the Turks, the Croatians and the Macedonians contribute significantly to the community of Geelong. Now we have seen other communities come into Geelong in the late 1990s and into the 2000s, such as the Sudanese community coming out of Africa. So Geelong is very much a multicultural community, and I am always pleased and proud to be a member of that community. I speak on a regular basis about Pako Festa in Geelong, but that really does highlight Geelong as a multicultural community. As I said in a previous speech this year, we had Pako Festa in February, when the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship came down and opened up the festa. I commended him at the time for his bipartisan speech in opening up the Pako Festa. As I have said, we do see a real bipartisan partnership within this Parliament. In supporting the bill I must also say that I am proud to have been a member of the former Bracks and Brumby governments, which contributed enormously to this state as a multicultural community. As other members have mentioned, something like $750 000 was spent by various multicultural community organisations in 1999, and in 2010 we saw something like $5.6 million spent in the area. As I have said, I was proud to be a member of the Bracks and Brumby governments for their commitment to multicultural activities in this state. With those few words I would like to commend this bill to the house and wish it a speedy passage through the house. Mr WATT (Burwood) — Firstly I would like to congratulate the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship on bringing this bill into the house. I think he has done a fantastic job in the short period he has spent as minister. One of the things I would like to mention that is specifically stated in the bill is that Parliament recognises that Victorians have diverse backgrounds and values and it recognises the richness that such diversity brings to the Victorian community. I think that is something that all members of this house would agree with, and it is fantastic to see so many members get up to speak on this bill, commend multiculturalism and say that they are greatly supportive of it. Generally it is a bipartisan issue. However, it is disappointing to hear some members get up and have a 21:15 MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF bit of a gibe, because I would not have thought that this was an issue that was at all partisan. I would hope that those members who treat this as a partisan issue will rethink that position next time they get up to speak. This bill will increase the independence of the commission by establishing a statutory body. The new statutory body will retain the name of the Victorian Multicultural Commission and will focus on strengthening our community. I think it is a fantastic thing to establish the further independence of the commission. The bill will also create stronger links between the government and Victoria’s diverse communities and provide a whole-of-government approach to multiculturalism in Victoria. As I have said, I think this is an issue that most of us would say is a good issue and an issue on which we should not be partisan. I appreciate the members in the house who do treat it as such an issue. One of the features of the bill that I would like to point out because I think it is particularly good is the diversity of not only multiculturalism within the community but also of the regions. This is not a centralised policy; it is quite diverse in its make-up, with eight regional advisory councils as well as the inclusion of a youth commissioner and of someone from a community organisation, which I think is a great initiative in this bill. I note that some people have been critical of setting up some of the principles of multiculturalism, but I think enshrining those in legislation is a good thing. 21:20 The bill sets out the objectives of the commission. The promotion of full participation by Victoria’s diverse communities in our social, cultural, economic and political life is a good thing, as are the other commission’s other objectives: to promote access by Victoria’s diverse communities to services made available by governments and other bodies; to encourage all of Victoria’s diverse communities to retain and express their social identity and cultural inheritance and to promote mutual respect; to promote cooperation between bodies concerned with multicultural affairs and diversity; to promote unity, understanding and harmony among Victoria’s diverse communities; to promote better understanding of Victoria’s diverse communities; to promote interaction between individuals and communities from diverse groups; to promote the social, cultural and economic benefits of diversity; to promote the rights and responsibilities of citizenship as a unifying force in strengthening the diverse multicultural community; and to promote community service as a principle. These are all good things. Most members of the house would agree with all of those objectives. I am pleased 99 that the majority of members in this house have treated this issue with the respect it deserves. I commend the bill to the house. Ms HALFPENNY (Thomastown) — I rise to speak on the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011 and to say that the opposition does not oppose the bill. It is wonderful to see the current government building on the great work of the former Labor government to promote multiculturalism in Victoria. As a new member of Parliament, I am still discovering the full diversity of the communities that contribute to my electorate, but it is clear that the strength people derive from their connections to their culture and history is a real asset. I have been overwhelmed by my welcome from the various communities in the Thomastown electorate. They have not only worked with me but also wanted to share their cultures and the celebration of their national days and heritage. I will mention a few such events I have been to recently in order to highlight the multicultural nature of the Thomastown electorate, and then I will talk more about the bill. I have attended celebrations for the Vietnamese Lunar New Year, the Chinese New Year and Greek Independence Day, which was on 25 March. Last year there was a festival in Thomastown for the Macedonian national day. I have been to the Thomastown mosque. Regarding the Indian community, I attended the Darebin City Council’s Festival of Friendship and Light. Of course I also attended an event to mark Remembrance Day, which was run by the Epping branch of the RSL. I have had talks with and attended meetings by the Palestinian Community Association of Victoria and the Khabour Chaldean Association. I even have a delegation from the Iraqi writers association coming to meet with me on Friday. It is fantastic that there has been such a promotion of multiculturalism, from which we have all benefited. The former government encouraged multiculturalism, and I hope it will continue to be promoted by the new legislation. As I read my list of events I have attended, one unfortunate thing I noted is that not one of the leaders of the groups involved has talked to me about the bill, because there has not been any consultation with them on it. People are concerned about change. They hope it will be a good change, but I guess it is up to us to see what happens and keep the government accountable. As I said, the opposition supports the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011 and hopes that it continues the promotion and encouragement of multiculturalism to the benefit of us all. MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 100 21:25 ASSEMBLY PROOF Wednesday, 6 April 2011 Mr HOWARD (Ballarat East) — I am pleased to speak on the Multicultural Victoria Bill 2011. My electorate is celebrating its multiculturalism really well at the moment. We have a great diversity of groups. I acknowledge the comments of the member for Yuroke. She recognised that unless we are indigenous Australians, we are either from another country ourselves or descended from forebears who were new to Australia at one point or other — that is, we are first, second or third-generation immigrants. various groups, and the Victorian Multicultural Commission (VMC) has been able to further provide support to so many of our ethnic groups. It has done so in recent years by providing significant funding support. As we have heard, during the Bracks and Brumby years the amount of support coming through the VMC to various ethnic community groups across the state increased dramatically, and I have seen that that has been of great benefit to so many of those groups. I am pleased to note that back in the gold rush, which was a very significant event for Ballarat in the 1850s and a time when its population increased quite dynamically, we saw people from many different countries come and settle in Ballarat looking for gold. We had people from all parts of Europe, parts of Asia and the Americas coming to Ballarat at that time and building a distinct multicultural community. Of course that continues. A number of our European ethnic groups, whether that be the Italian pensioners group, the Alliance Francaise, the Dutch club or the Ballarat Italian Association, are finding that their members are ageing, so they greatly value the support provided through the Victorian Multicultural Commission in supporting their groups to be sustainable and trying to find ways of encouraging younger members of their communities to be more actively involved in these groups. It is fair to say that as recently as the 1950s the predominant communities in the Ballarat area were from British and European backgrounds, but it has been quite exciting for me and so many other members of the community to see in recent years that we have had many more people from Asian backgrounds — from India, China, Vietnam, the Philippines and other parts of Asia — coming to settle in Ballarat. Even more recently we have had a number of refugees who have come from Sudan and Togo and settled in Ballarat. I think that is exciting, and it has certainly been exciting for me to attend citizenship ceremonies across my electorate in recent years where I have seen such a diversity of new citizens becoming part of the Ballarat community. The VMC also supports the newer groups, whether it be the Filipino friendship group, the Ballarat Indian Australian Association, the Chinese community groups that have been going a little longer or the new African friendship groups; they are also receiving support to ensure that their community organisations can be supported, can grow and can flourish. Although earlier speakers on this bill talked about the need to show tolerance in regard to people of other nationalities and ethnicities, I believe we need to do a lot more than that. If we are only showing tolerance, that is disappointing to me because we really can celebrate our diversity. I am very pleased to see that the City of Ballarat has got behind the concept of supporting and celebrating multiculturalism in Ballarat for a number of years now. I think we have had three lots of multicultural ambassadors appointed across Ballarat who have had particular involvement with and been supported by the City of Ballarat in running events within their own communities and in the broader community to celebrate their various cultural backgrounds. That has been very exciting, and I have been very pleased to be involved in that. On top of that the Ballarat Regional Multicultural Council has been established to help support those I have been really impressed that George Lekakis from the Victorian Multicultural Commission has been up to Ballarat on many occasions with other members of the VMC, and we have also had Sam Afra from the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria attending events in Ballarat such as the Victorian multicultural ball held last year at the Greek hall associated with St Nicholas Church; that was a great event. We have had a number of terrific events over recent years being well supported by VMC and the Ballarat City Council, whether they be related to the Ballarat Begonia Festival or a range of other community events happening in Ballarat such as Springfest. I trust that the multicultural and ethnic groups will continue to flourish. While we have all said that we are pleased to support the tenor of this bill, and those of us on this side of the house certainly want to take a bipartisan approach in our support for multiculturalism, clearly the proof of the pudding will be in the legislation and seeing how the changed Victorian Multicultural Commission will operate. In particular I will be interested to see how the new regional advisory councils will operate, especially in the Ballarat East electorate. I hope they can work to provide terrific support for our ethnic communities, and I will certainly be continuing to provide support for those groups across Ballarat so that we can continue not 21:30 LIQUOR CONTROL REFORM AMENDMENT BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF just to be tolerant but also to celebrate multiculturalism across our state, particularly in the Ballarat East electorate. We in Victoria have much to celebrate, and I hope we can keep the community on board in focusing on the positivity associated with those groups from the many different cultures that make up our community. I also hope that we can continue to celebrate multiculturalism and that the VMC and its subsidiary bodies will continue to be a very important part of that. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr DIXON (Minister for Education). Debate adjourned until later this day. LIQUOR CONTROL REFORM AMENDMENT BILL 2011 Second reading Debate resumed from 5 April; motion of Mr O’BRIEN (Minister for Consumer Affairs). Mr THOMPSON (Sandringham) — I am pleased to contribute to the debate on the Liquor Control Reform Amendment Bill 2011. From my experiences as a member of Parliament representing the electorate of Sandringham I have a couple of key recollections in relation to alcohol and drug abuse. One memory is of a visit to the Latrobe Valley, where the Parliament’s Law Reform Committee was taking evidence on alcohol and drug abuse and access to legal services. I found it extraordinary that in one particular community, along with both a high level of alcohol abuse and a high level of drug abuse, there was an accompanying problem within that community of petrol sniffing, owing to its cheaper availability. Having seen and understood the impact of petrol sniffing, let me say to members that one child sniffing petrol for one day is one child too many. On another occasion a mother came to my office and told me she was concerned to see that justice be fairly done. One day her 16-year-old daughter had completed work at a local food store and joined a group of fellow workers on the foreshore. Unfortunately her daughter was raped that evening by a number of people. Her daughter sustained a number of injuries, and there were significant medical outcomes for her that will affect her for the rest of her life. The girl’s mother was very concerned about what had transpired, and this example illustrates one of the potential outcomes of unregulated access to alcohol and the jeopardy in which it can place individuals in their own personal circumstances. 101 This bill returns control to parents in a legal sense. It sets the bar so that community members understand what their obligations under the law might be. It lets parents know that if they are holding a function or party — possibly an 18th birthday party at home — the adult person holding the party has a legal obligation to conduct that function with the explicit consent of the parents or guardians of each under-age person attending that function in relation to whether or not those under-age persons are authorised to have access to alcohol. The reverse side of the picture is that over the last decade there has been an increase in the number of ambulance attendances where young people have been drinking, and this has led on to an increased number of hospitalisations due to under-age alcohol abuse. There has been an increased number of assaults on the streets of Melbourne, the general cause of which has been over consumption of alcohol. There are myriad other outcomes through the abuse of alcohol and the correlation between over consumption of alcohol and assaults and the ramifications that have occurred not just once or twice but regularly on the streets of Melbourne. Within the Sandringham electorate there have been a number of zones around hotels — the Mentone Hotel, the former Beaumaris Hotel and the Sandringham Hotel — where incidents have arisen through under-age drinking. There has been a level of access to licensed venues where people have been able to circumvent the security card system of hotels, but also within those precincts on the Sandringham foreshore there has been unregulated consumption of alcohol, which has led to myriad other adverse antisocial outcomes within my electorate that involve a cost to the community. What this bill does is try to redress that and to set a community standard so that in terms of people who have access to alcohol, it should be supplied to a person under the age of 18 only with parental consent. This makes it easier for parents who are conducting a party to set the standard. It should encourage a wider community awareness as to what the benchmark should be, enabling young people to live productive lives rather than having certain life-changing events occurring to them through unsupervised over consumption of alcohol and through inexperience. Through my work as a member of Parliament I am aware parliamentary committees have taken on board evidence in relation to this issue. I note too that the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee had been pushing for secondary supply laws for a long time. 21:35 LIQUOR CONTROL REFORM AMENDMENT BILL 2011 102 ASSEMBLY PROOF Members of this Parliament and all-party committees have pushed for it. In addition, the Australian Drug Foundation has pushed for reform of this area of the law to mirror or duplicate what already exists in other states or to empower the Victorian legislature to enact similar provisions. This bill is a good reform, and if it makes a difference to one life this year it will be legislation well enacted. Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) — I rise to address concerns about adolescent drinking and the strategic approach to be adopted in response. The bill before the house amends the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 to make changes to the way Victorians aged under 18 obtain access to alcohol in private residences. The amendments in the bill make it an offence to supply liquor to a minor in a residence without parental consent. The fine for supplying alcohol to a minor in a private residence has been set at a maximum of $7167. The minister said this should act as a deterrent for adults contemplating supplying alcohol to children other than their own. One of the objectives of the bill is to provide parents with greater support in deciding how their child is exposed to liquor, and this is to be supported by a ‘comprehensive information and education campaign’ to deliver a greater understanding of the issues. This is crucial. Parents need to be informed before they give consent. Labor does not oppose this bill and is committed to ensuring alcohol is consumed responsibly, yet this bill remains silent on what the government will provide in its information and education campaign. I was a member of the Victorian Drug and Alcohol Prevention Council when it commissioned a survey on under-age drinking that found that 84 per cent of 16 and 17-year-olds confirmed they had consumed alcohol. Almost one-third of those surveyed two years ago had consumed 20 or more standard drinks in any one day at least once in the previous year. Put bluntly, alcohol intake is one of the major issues, if not the major issue, affecting young Victorians. Research indicates that as this cohort ages, more than 25 per cent of deaths will be related in some way to alcohol. This is tragic. In many cases it could be prevented. This bill deals with a loophole. It is not the silver bullet for adolescent binge drinking but it does provide an opportunity to address major concerns. My concern is that this bill does not strive to deliver a comprehensive alcohol strategy on the bigger levers for changing culture and reducing harm — marketing, supply, distribution and price. Wednesday, 6 April 2011 I am also concerned about whether parents can make an informed decision before granting consent for their children to drink alcohol if they do not know about the most up-to-date evidence. However, the information and education campaign provides an opportunity that should not be missed to deliver crucial messages so that informed decisions can be made — for example, young brains do not fully mature until the age of 25, according to recent research. A lot of drinking by 15-year-olds is binge drinking, which is defined as having five alcoholic drinks in a row, and getting intoxicated. This is happening to about one-third of Victorians aged 15 to 16 years according to the chair in health psychology at Deakin University, Professor John Toumbourou. Mr Wynne — One third? Mr McGUIRE — Yes. These findings need to be considered in the information and education campaign. The conclusions of this research are that about 25 per cent of young people report that parents buy alcohol for them. While the parents’ motivation is to limit the amount of alcohol minors consume, introducing or allowing alcohol consumption for minors raises some risks, according to this research. These risks also need to be considered through a nuanced education strategy. The research found that the likelihood that adolescents will drink regularly at 15 is predicted on the age at which they first consumed alcohol. If they drank at a younger age it was more likely they would be drinking regularly by the time they were 15. A conclusion was that the more regularly you drink alcohol at 15, the greater tolerance you have and the more drinks you can consume in a session. This is an issue because studies now show that the effect of alcohol on the adolescent brain is much greater than the same quantity consumed by an adult. According to the science, as young people develop a tolerance to alcohol they can drink a lot more before they get to a point where they have to stop. Drinking frequently at 15 also establishes how you are likely to be drinking in young adulthood. Research has found little of this drinking tends to be moderate. This is regarded as a particular problem for females. According to these findings, young women are drinking at higher rates than we have seen in Australia previously. Experts are concerned about the adverse impacts. The rise in the numbers of young women drinking has emerged as a clear pattern during the past two decades. One reason has been described as the changing role of young women. According to the research, parents are 21:40 LIQUOR CONTROL REFORM AMENDMENT BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF now reportedly more reluctant to set a different standard for boys and girls. The research states that in previous generations there was a double standard and young girls were often put under a different regime by parents. Another reason is that the industry has targeted young women as an emerging market for sweet-flavoured drinks specifically designed for female tastes. Disturbingly, young women are not convinced by the evidence from psychology and physiology that alcohol has a different effect on them relative to men. The research has found that they believe it is all right to drink at the same rates as young men. Under-age binge drinking is a dangerous and challenging social trend. We are constantly discovering new information that needs to be communicated to parents, adolescents and the broader community. This bill addresses one issue in a mosaic. It demands a more strategic response to consider the latest scientific findings and cultural understandings. Alcohol consumption is a major national problem that requires a comprehensive and coordinated preventive strategy. It can begin with this bill by using the proposed information and education campaign to explain in detail the evidence-based facts about which I believe many parents do not know. This is the least we should do so that parents can be informed when they consider whether they should grant consent. Parents in Broadmeadows and in communities across Victoria want to feel their children are safe at parties and that they have made an informed decision about consent. The opportunity also exists to deliver a coordinated strategy for a comprehensive response to the big picture issues such as the marketing, supply, distribution and price of alcohol. This can be done at a national level, for example, under the auspices of the Council of Australian Governments and the newly established Australian National Preventive Health Agency. To do less for our children would be a folly. Mr CRISP (Mildura) — I rise to make a contribution on the Liquor Control Reform Amendment Bill 2011, a bill which I support. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 to impose further restrictions on the supply of liquor to minors. There is plenty of notice for the commencement of this legislation, which will be February 2012. 21:45 That notice will be needed because a lot of parents of 17-year-olds and 18-year-olds, or perhaps younger children, are going to need to have some very deep and meaningful conversations. 103 The bill amends the Liquor Control Act 1998 to make changes to the way people who are under-age obtain alcohol at private premises. The amendments to the act will make it an offence to supply liquor to a minor in a residence without parental consent, and this strengthens the role of parents in making decisions regarding children and alcohol. There are some disturbing figures, and I note the contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Broadmeadows, in obtaining some of these figures. The Victorian Drug and Alcohol Prevention Council’s 2009 Victorian Youth Alcohol and Drug Survey — Final Report found that 84 per cent of 16 and 17-year-olds surveyed confirmed that they consumed alcohol, and 31 per cent of those had consumed 20 or more standard drinks in one day in the past 12 months. That is a high level of drinking for a young mind. The same survey also found that half the minors surveyed indicated they had usually consumed alcohol at a friend’s place, and 61 per cent of respondents had received the alcohol from a friend or acquaintance. Many of us would find this disturbing at such a young age. The operation of this bill is very much drafted to follow similar bills in New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania. The Victorian law has been drafted along New South Wales lines, and it brings up a number of issues. The provisions relating to the responsible service of alcohol to minors in Victoria will not be regularly enforced; their predominant value is as a deterrent. That is something that is important. We need to send clear messages that alcohol and the developing mind must be managed and must be considered. There are a number of other areas and scenarios that parents will find themselves needing to develop and understand. It is the classic dilemma of the 18th birthday party. In many cases parents seek to have these birthday parties in their homes so they can control and manage behaviour in relation to the consumption of alcohol. However, in doing that the situation where parents supply alcohol to their child’s friends who are minors is something that will have to be considered. Our interpretation of this is very much that if a minor is at a friend’s house and a friend’s parent supplies the minor with alcohol, that would be against the law unless the minor’s parent, guardian or spouse authorised the supply. People will need to have this discussion. I think it is very useful for parents and young adults to have these discussions, to talk about what happens and to understand what the law requires and what the parents require. This will be difficult, but I believe it will be good. Those scenarios can happen in many ways. The LIQUOR CONTROL REFORM AMENDMENT BILL 2011 104 ASSEMBLY PROOF consent part is important in this. The consent can be verbal or written, but it will have to be worked out with the parents. I am very pleased to be supporting this legislation. It is time for this reform to occur. We need to be vigilant about the effects of use of alcohol, particularly on developing minds. We need to be vigilant about the use of alcohol by minors without their parents’ permission. Parenting has its responsibilities, and this is one area where we are going to step up to the mark and bring this valuable reform to the state of Victoria. Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) — It gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill this evening. It is a very simple and very clear bill but yet a very profound bill. We are all well aware, and we have heard from members on both sides of the house in relation to this bill, of many examples and much discussion in relation to the current use of alcohol in society. 21:50 It is very apparent to all of us in this place, and to most people in society in general. The difficulty posed by alcohol use, particularly excessive and inappropriate alcohol use, is no doubt a major problem in our society. We as a responsible, incoming government are bringing legislation into this place to address many of the issues relating to that particular problem, and this is certainly one of them. I turn to the objectives of the Liquor Control Reform Amendment Bill 2011. The first objective of the bill that I want to talk about tonight is the fact that it implements a clear government policy and commitment in relation to prohibiting the secondary supply of liquor to a minor in a private home without parental consent. It is a clear piece of legislation and, as I said before, an important and profound one. The second objective of this legislation is to provide parents with further support in determining how and when their children are exposed to alcohol. Without a shadow of a doubt this is what the community is looking for from this place. People are looking for leadership in relation to these sorts of problematic matters in the community. This particular piece of legislation empowers parents once again, and that is what the community is looking for in relation to this particular area. This bill puts the onus on the person who intends to supply the alcohol, and, as others have commented, it talks about how any supplier of alcohol must speak to the minor’s parent or guardian and obtain verbal or written consent prior to supplying alcohol to the minor. If that consent is not forthcoming, either verbally or in writing, alcohol must not be supplied. Wednesday, 6 April 2011 This bill obviously removes the current exception of supply in a private residence, and it addresses a very important situation. Like many others in this place, I am a parent of teenage children, and we have all had the experience where our children have innocently gone off to a function. I can think of one occasion where we dropped our daughter off at a 16th birthday party only to find out later that the big brother was also having a function — an 18th or a 21st, I cannot recall. He and his mates had plenty of liquor on the premises and the mum and dad were not there. We got a call from our daughter saying, ‘This is turning into a bit of a difficult situation’. Some of her friends were not as resilient as she was and succumbed to the situation that subsequently ensued. That was a concern and, as a member of the community, that has been a concern to me for quite some time. It is good that we can stand here in this place and solve these sorts of problems for parents in the state of Victoria. It is also worth noting, as other members have noted, the minister’s comments in the second-reading speech. He stated that: … the 2009 Victorian youth alcohol and drug survey also found that over half of the minors surveyed indicated that they usually consumed alcohol at a friend’s place. Again, that situation reinforces the issue and the problem that exists, and the fact that together in a bipartisan manner we can now put this legislation through the Parliament and solve the problem. The legislation is going to be warmly received by community members here in Victoria. It is interesting to also note that other jurisdictions already have this sort of legislation. If we consider the situation particularly in New South Wales. Queensland and Tasmania, we can see they have already crossed this bridge. Other members have said that committees have looked at this issue in the past, so even though we are lagging behind those states and even though it has taken a while, it is terrific that we are here. I congratulate the minister on this bill, and I heartily support it. I commend this bill to the house. Mr WATT (Burwood) — I rise to support the Liquor Control Reform Amendment Bill 2011 and to congratulate the Minister for Consumer Affairs on such a fine piece of work. Mr Wynne interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Weller) — Order! I will hear the member for Burwood without assistance from the member for Richmond, who is out of his place. 21:55 RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT (PUBLIC HOUSING) BILL 2011 Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF Mr WATT — This bill amends section 119(5)(e) of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 to further restrict the supply of liquor in a residence so that it may be supplied to a person under the age of 18 only by: (i) a parent, guardian or spouse of the person (if the spouse is of or over the age of 18 years); or (ii) someone who is authorised by a parent, guardian or spouse of the person (if the spouse is of or over the age of 18 years) … It is a fairly simple bill. I think most Victorians would expect not to supply alcohol to someone who is not their child and that, as parents, they should have the right to determine whether or not their children are supplied with alcohol. I note that other jurisdictions have similar legislation. Both the New South Wales Liquor Act 2007 and the Queensland Liquor Act 1992 contain clauses that are similar to this. It is about time that we come on board. We have had 11 dark years of Labor with no action on this, and I think most Victorians would have expected that this was already part of the law. Most people would expect that they should not give alcohol to someone who is not their child. This bill is common sense. I would be very disappointed if someone else was plying my children with alcohol without my consent, keeping in mind that my children are fairly young. I commend this fantastic bill to the house. Dr SYKES (Benalla) — I wish to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Liquor Control Reform Amendment Bill 2011 and congratulate the Baillieu-Ryan government on introducing this piece of common-sense legislation, which signals a cultural change in that it is no longer okay to supply alcohol to someone else’s child and to see the damage that it can do to them. In the previous Parliament I was a member of the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee, which looked into this issue as well as binge drinking amongst young people. The committee made a recommendation to implement this piece of legislation. I note that it has been a number of years since that recommendation, and now the Baillieu-Ryan government has been elected and has shown the courage and common sense to bring it together. The key message is that this signals a cultural change. It will be difficult to police at times, but the message is that there are consequences if something goes belly up as a result of an adult serving alcohol to another person’s child. That is important. Linked with that no doubt will be an ongoing education program to convey 105 the messages that other members of the house, such as the member for Broadmeadows, have conveyed, which are that younger people’s brains are less well developed and less capable of dealing with the impacts of alcohol and that the damage that is done is long lasting and cumulative. We have seen the effects of alcohol in other circumstances, including where peer group pressure exists and given the bulletproof mentality of young people when it comes to death on our roads. This bill is part of the suite of legislation that is intended to protect our young people and to give parents a sense of control. It respects the rights of parents to bring up their children as they see fit and encourages young people to be responsible. As the member for Forest Hill indicated, he is doing a good job with his children. When his daughter was confronted with an awkward situation, she had the maturity and the faith in her parents to ring and express concern about the direction in which the situation was heading. This legislation takes some pressure off children such as the daughter of the member for Forest Hill and supports parents in doing what they do best — that is, bringing up their children. I commend the bill to the house. Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders. The SPEAKER — Order! The time set down for consideration of items on the government’s business program has expired and I am required to interrupt business. Motion agreed to. Read second time. Third reading Motion agreed to. Read third time. RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT (PUBLIC HOUSING) BILL 2011 Second reading Debate resumed from earlier today; motion of Mr DELAHUNTY (Minister for Sport and Recreation). Motion agreed to. Read second time. 22:00 HEALTH SERVICES AMENDMENT (HEALTH INNOVATION AND REFORM COUNCIL) BILL 2011 106 ASSEMBLY PROOF Third reading Motion agreed to. Read third time. HEALTH SERVICES AMENDMENT (HEALTH INNOVATION AND REFORM COUNCIL) BILL 2011 Second reading Debate resumed from 5 April; motion of Dr NAPTHINE (Minister for Ports). Motion agreed to. Read second time. Third reading Motion agreed to. Read third time. MULTICULTURAL VICTORIA BILL 2011 Second reading Debate resumed from earlier this day; motion of Mr KOTSIRAS (Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship). Motion agreed to. Read second time. Third reading Wednesday, 6 April 2011 members of the house know Somerton Road, but it is incomplete. When VicUrban built Roxburgh Park, Somerton Road was duplicated to Roxburgh Park Drive. From Roxburgh Park Drive to Mickleham Road it can only be described as much less than satisfactory. It is amongst the roads in the state most needing to be duplicated. That project has the support of the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria. The CEO of the RACV, Mr Brian Negus, late last week identified Somerton Road as one of the most dangerous roads in the outer suburbs. It is certainly very high on the RACV’s list of roads that need to be duplicated. One of the things that has hastened the call for Somerton Road to be duplicated is the fact that the City of Hume, through a developer-funded road commonly known as the E14, or Aitken Boulevard, is now going to intersect Somerton Road near an estate called Shannon Rise and near Kirkam Drive. That will create almost a crossroads, which will be extremely dangerous. There was a death on the corner of Magnolia Boulevard and Somerton Road late last year when a woman was doing a right-hand turn out of Magnolia Boulevard and unfortunately was hit by a truck. This road duplication needs to be done. The speed limits were dropped to 70 kilometres an hour but this section of Somerton Road goes up a big hill in front of the Greenvale Reservoir, and cars and trucks get their speed up to get up the hill. Once again, the action I call for is for the Minister for Roads to fund the duplication of Somerton Road from Roxburgh Park Drive to Mickleham Road, paying special attention to the intersection of Kirkham Drive, Aitken Boulevard and Somerton Road. This road has taken lives. It is a proven death trap, and the duplication needs to be funded now. I call on the minister to provide that funding. Motion agreed to. Kilsyth electorate: sports facilities Read third time. Mr HODGETT (Kilsyth) — I wish to raise a matter of importance with the Minister for Sport and Recreation. I call on the minister to visit the electorate of Kilsyth to update my community on the progress of the commitments made during the election campaign and for the minister to see firsthand the needs of our local sports clubs and facilities. Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders. ADJOURNMENT The SPEAKER — The question is: That the house do now adjourn. Somerton Road: duplication Ms BEATTIE (Yuroke) — I wish to raise an urgent matter for the attention of the Minister for Roads. The action I seek is for the minister to fund the duplication of Somerton Road in the upcoming budget. Many Kilsyth is an electorate with a vastly diverse demographic. There is a strong sense of community, and sports clubs are part of the glue that keeps our suburbs and neighbourhoods strong. Kilsyth is home to many sports clubs and facilities, with almost every sport imaginable available. From football, basketball and netball to BMX, table tennis and baseball, 22:05 ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF thousands of residents in Kilsyth participate in regular and organised sport. During the 2010 election campaign the coalition made a number of important commitments to improve and support some of the sports clubs in the Kilsyth electorate. I am extremely grateful for the coalition’s commitment to local grassroots sport, and I am proud of the benefits that improvements to facilities will provide to the junior and senior sportspeople of my electorate. I ask the minister to come to Kilsyth to confirm both his and the Baillieu government’s commitment to sports clubs and facilities. Pinks Reserve in Colchester Road, Kilsyth, has been promised funding towards a new netball facility. Pinks Reserve is also the site of the Kilsyth basketball centre and the Kilsyth Football Club, and the creation of a netball centre will enhance Pinks Reserve as a true sports hub. The Croydon and District Table Tennis Association, which is the biggest table tennis association in Australia and has produced four Olympic representatives, has had funding committed for new lighting, new equipment and new tables. The coalition has committed to funding for new lighting towers at Mooroolbark Heights Reserve. I am pleased to report that work on the new lighting towers has commenced and that Mooroolbark Football Club will have the facility of new lights for training during the 2011 season. Barngeong Reserve is home to the Croydon Junior Football Club, the Croydon North Junior Cricket Club and the Croydon Rams Baseball Club. The coalition committed funding for new clubrooms during the election campaign. I am pleased that the Baillieu government can provide brand-new facilities for all clubs resident at Barngeong Reserve to enjoy. A funding commitment was also made for master plan design works for new clubroom facilities at Silcock Reserve. I ask the minister to visit Kilsyth and support the Baillieu government’s 100 per cent commitment to grassroots sport. Kilsyth has a wonderful sports culture, and it is a thrill, as the member for Kilsyth, to support local junior and senior clubs. Roads: Yan Yean electorate Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) — I raise a matter tonight for the attention of the Minister for Roads. I ask him to make a commitment in the forthcoming state budget, which will be delivered next month, to invest $17 million to duplicate Epping Road from Memorial Avenue to Findon Road and to include traffic lights at 107 that intersection. I am very proud to say that Labor in government had made a commitment to duplicate the road, as it had delivered work on many roads in the north of Melbourne. They included the duplication of Cooper Street and the duplication of Plenty Road from Centenary Drive up past the South Morang fire station. The current project, which I understand this government tried to halt, is the duplication of Plenty Road heading towards Mernda. Anyone who read the media reports last Friday will understand that Melbourne in general and the north of Melbourne are part of the largest area of population growth in this country. It seems to have escaped government members opposite that the Yan Yean electorate is the most populous electorate in this state. They failed to commit a single dollar to any form of infrastructure to the north, whether it be roads, public transport, hospital beds or schools. I call on the Minister for Roads to turn around this total abrogation of responsibility for the communities of the north and in the forthcoming budget to consider the needs of the north so that people there can move around and get to schools, work and shopping centres as they need to. I am proud to represent the communities of the north. We offer a great lifestyle. We have new schools and new communities evolving. There are not just new housing estates but new suburbs. We need to support those communities by providing them with good road networks and connections. It was not enough for the Liberal-Nationals coalition to decide not to commit anything to the north. Now it is putting the wrecking ball to major job-generating projects in the north. It is walking away from thousands of jobs that the wholesale fruit and vegetable market in Epping would provide; it is not providing much-needed doctors at the Northern Health academic and research precinct; and it is not providing plans to upgrade a single school in the north. I urge the government to act on High Street — — The SPEAKER — Order! The member’s time has expired. Princes Freeway: Morwell closure Mr NORTHE (Morwell) — I seek action from the Minister for Roads. The action I seek is that he visit the Latrobe Valley to discuss measures the government is taking to minimise traffic congestion over the Easter period following the closure of the Princes Freeway in Morwell in February. 22:10 ADJOURNMENT 108 ASSEMBLY PROOF On 7 February after a large rain event a sinkhole and cracking were identified in the northern part of the Hazelwood mine and on the freeway and an adjoining area of land. As we know, that has caused great consternation. On the northern edge of the mine, not far to the north, we have an open drain. That open drain effectively carries the stormwater of the township of Morwell. Further to the north we have the freeway, and further north again we have residential parcels of land at the edge of Morwell. These areas are in close proximity, so obviously over the ensuing days an assessment was undertaken of the area. On 10 February it was determined that a full closure of the Princes Freeway in Morwell would occur. Unfortunately it would be fair to say that over time that has created much consternation for not only the residents of Morwell but also of course those who travel through the area. There is no doubt that it is a challenging situation. I take the opportunity to commend the emergency management team that is dealing with this matter — a group that is headed by the Victoria Police. Geoff Newby and his team are doing a wonderful job in communicating the current issues in relation to this incident. VicRoads, the Department of Primary Industries, International Power Hazelwood and the Latrobe City Council are also doing their utmost to ensure that the community is kept informed of the situation. The community is getting ongoing updates on the status of the freeway closure. Within the emergency management team a traffic management group has been appointed to manage the road and traffic flows through Morwell and through alternate routes where possible. It would be fair to say that over the Labor Day long weekend there were some congestion issues in Morwell and it is imperative over the Easter period that the traffic management group’s communications get out to all Victorians travelling through the area. We certainly sent out a clear message that Gippsland is open for business over the long weekend and we want to see the minister come down to Latrobe Valley to see firsthand the issues that we are experiencing. Of course the minister is very much across the issues. We are keeping him informed on a very regular basis, as we are informing all ministers who have responsibility with respect to this particular matter. I call upon the minister to visit the Latrobe Valley in the near future to discuss these concerns. Rail: Geelong station Mr TREZISE (Geelong) — I raise an issue on tonight’s adjournment with the Minister for Public Transport. The issue I raise relates to people with a disability or elderly or infirm people being able to Wednesday, 6 April 2011 easily and efficiently access platforms 2 and 3 at Geelong railway station. Currently those people who for whatever reason are unable to climb steep stairs are unable to access platforms 2 and 3 at Geelong railway station without the assistance of station staff. This is because an old footbridge provides the only access to platforms 2 and 3. The action I seek from the minister is that he investigate and fund some form of infrastructure that will provide direct access to platforms 2 and 3 at Geelong railway station for people with a disability. At present any passenger who is unable to climb the steps of the footbridge is reliant on station staff to place them on a buggy, transport them down to the end of platform 1 across rail lines 1 and 2 and then up on to platforms 2 and 3. In 2011 this is clearly unacceptable, and the time for some action to be taken is well and truly overdue. In raising this issue I recognise that the problem has not been adequately addressed by numerous governments over the last 15 to 20 years, and I acknowledge that in recent years there has been some effort by V/Line staff to ensure that people requiring assistance do get this assistance, but for people to be relying on busy railway staff is not the best solution — far from it — and it is time that some form of lift, for example, was installed to provide more direct and adequate access. Numerous people have raised this issue with me in recent years, including Cr Barb Abley and various disability groups. I in turn have raised this with both V/Line and the Department of Transport. In raising this with the minister, and before he says, ‘Oh, really’, I am not pointing the finger at the minister — far from it — for the lack of action because, as I said before, this issue has been around for a number of years, but I genuinely raise this tonight in an effort to finally and once and for all resolve this issue for the betterment of the Geelong railway station. Schools: Forest Hill electorate Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Education. The seat of Forest Hill suffered under the previous government, with many areas having been neglected during the last 11 years. For example, a number of schools in the electorate of Forest Hill suffered from the underfunding of the Labor years and now have maintenance backlogs requiring urgent attention. I have been in contact with all the school principals in the seat of Forest Hill, and they have outlined to me a 22:15 ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF number of their schools’ particular needs. One of the frequently cited needs that has been raised with me is the issue of outstanding maintenance. The previous government should be condemned for its neglect of public schools during its 11-year term. It is interesting to note that an article entitled ‘Schools in shambles’ on page 12 of yesterday’s Herald Sun newspaper talked about the issue of the school maintenance backlog. One paragraph in the article states: AEU Victorian president Mary Bluett said years of neglect had left maintenance as the number one problem for principals. Years of neglect — that certainly sums it up! The previous government failed the Victorian community in many areas, including this vital area of maintenance of public schools. The waste and mismanagement of the previous Labor government meant that taxpayers money was wasted rather than being used where it was needed. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER — Order! The members for Geelong and Ballarat East! Mr ANGUS — Given the maintenance problems that the new government has inherited, it is worth noting how some of the taxpayers hard-earnt money was squandered by the previous Labor government over the last 11 years — for example, the overrun on myki of some $1 billion. Imagine what could have been done to erode the school maintenance backlog with an extra $1 billion from this project alone. I am aware that the new Baillieu-Ryan government has been working hard to address these matters and to implement actions that will restore the condition of schools throughout Victoria. The action I seek is that the Minister for Education visit the seat of Forest Hill. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the needs of Forest Hill schools with the minister and to outline to the minister some of the very important local school issues that need to be addressed. The SPEAKER — Order! I ask all members when they get up to speak to let the Chair know which minister they are addressing their matter to and what action they want taken. Vertex: Ballarat customer support centre Mr HOWARD (Ballarat East) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Premier. The action I seek is for the Premier to come with his Minister for Employment 109 and Industrial Relations up to Ballarat. Members might be aware that in the last sitting week the Minister for Innovation, Services and Small Business spoke in this Parliament in response to a Dorothy Dixer in question time and appeared to gloat over the stalling of the establishment of a 500-seat customer support centre in Ballarat. The apparent stalling of this project, which received much support at the time of its announcement from the City of Ballarat and the former government, is obviously a source of much disappointment to Ballarat. I am pleased that the new government is aware of the Vertex project and its apparent stalling, but it would therefore seem to us a high priority to have the Premier, along with the employment minister, come to Ballarat to talk with key people at the City of Ballarat, with industry leaders and with other relevant stakeholders in the area about what can be done and what support the state government can provide to either get the Vertex project going or to see alternative job creation initiatives supported. Under the former Bracks and Brumby governments Ballarat was used to having the Premier visit to discuss key issues and to deliver important state support project funding. It is now more than four months since the government was elected and still the Premier has not seen fit to visit Ballarat, the state’s largest inland city and the third biggest city in the state. Ballarat deserves ongoing state support. To date the level of attention given by the Premier has been minimal. He will not even follow the long-established tradition of speaking on local radio station 3BA in a regular slot. He appears to be totally disinterested in the need to link with Ballarat or to speak with anybody in Ballarat. I repeat my request to the Premier that he come to Ballarat, meet our people and learn what Ballarat community leaders believe his government can do to support jobs and community development. I will certainly be happy to show him around if he is shy. The Premier should come up and show some interest in our city and our region. Clearly he is wanted. We want a Premier who cares about Ballarat. The SPEAKER — Order! Members should not use props. Floods: Murray Valley electorate Mr McCURDY (Murray Valley) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Regional and Rural Development. The action I seek is for him to support the people of Murray Valley electorate and more particularly the people of Wangaratta to help us to recover from the recent floods. 22:20 ADJOURNMENT 110 ASSEMBLY PROOF During the recent flooding in Wangaratta there was extensive damage done to private and public property. Recently the minister visited Wangaratta and witnessed firsthand the damage that was caused. During this visit he supported the council with funding for roads, bridges and other shire facilities. However, Merriwa Park, which he knows quite well, was extensively damaged, and there remains an urgent need to restore and re-establish infrastructure. Merriwa Park is an important Wangaratta asset, with many large, shady, grassed areas, a playground, a sound shell and a lawn tennis club. Many sporting groups use the park for pre-season fitness training, and the tennis courts are available to club and non-club members. Flooding last September and December damaged the recreational area badly. The lawn tennis club had extensive damage to its heritage-listed clubhouse. The unsealed and busy car park adjacent to the tennis club deteriorated considerably, requiring urgent refurbishment. The project needs to resurface the car park and install basic gates and fencing to entry areas for use at times when there is excess water. The total project cost is $201 000, and we require $150 750 in assistance from the Victorian government, a further $40 000 from the Rural City of Wangaratta and $10 000 from the Wangaratta Lawn Tennis Club. I reiterate that the action I am seeking is that the minister support the people of Murray Valley electorate to help us recover from these events. Merriwa Park is a cornerstone of many community activities, and we seek the minister’s support. This park has previously been inundated by floods, the latest being in 1998 and 1993. The park is highly valued by the local tourist communities, and if it were not for the efforts of major volunteer groups and the council in sandbagging the park and its perimeters, even greater inundation would have occurred. We request the minister’s attention to support the people of Murray Valley electorate through the Flood Recovery Community Infrastructure Fund. Essendon electorate: Lionsville aged-care facility Mr MADDEN (Essendon) — My request tonight is for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. I seek the minister’s assistance to facilitate the possible extension of a current Crown land lease. Many years ago the Lions Club of Essendon developed what is known as Lionsville. The Lionsville aged-care facility is in a prominent location on the corner of Pascoe Vale and Moreland roads, Essendon, alongside the Moonee Ponds Creek. It has existed as a residential Wednesday, 6 April 2011 village for the elderly seeking independent retirement accommodation for about 50 years. The initiative was established by the Lions Club of Essendon, which may I say recently celebrated its 58th birthday. The club would like to progressively improve, renew and redevelop the site to accommodate more residents in a contemporary setting that is more appropriate to the demands and needs of the residents and to complement those needs with relevant services. I understand that as recently as last Monday the Lionsville committee of management was given the go-ahead by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to allow a planning permit for the development to be granted by the City of Moonee Valley, which might I say is also extremely supportive of the development. The difficulty the committee has is that the situation is a relatively unique one and is different to the types of leases that the Department of Sustainability and Environment tends to deal with. My request tonight is for the minister to direct the department to negotiate in good faith and explore the options that might provide an arrangement whereby the lease can be extended for as long as possible to allow Lionsville to expand and cater to the needs of an increasing number of elderly locals seeking suitable independent retirement accommodation. The minister might even meet with representatives of the Essendon Lions Club and the Lionsville committee of management, in particular Stephen Brown, the Lionsville business director, to work towards a beneficial resolution for not only the Essendon community but those elderly residents in the area seeking independent accommodation. Kananook Creek: management plan Mr SHAW (Frankston) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Water. The action I seek is for the minister to work towards the delivery of our election promise to clean up Kananook Creek. The story of Kananook Creek is important to Frankston’s history and extends into the Carrum electorate. In 1907 our newspaper, the Frankston Standard, reported that Kananook Creek was beautifully fringed with trees and that it wound in and out in a pleasing and romantic manner. The creek made it easy for fishing boats to shelter and berth from the at times unpredictable conditions on Port Phillip Bay. At one time the creek attached to the Carrum Carrum swamp, providing a flow of water north and south. When the swamp was drained the creek became a 22:25 ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF 111 stagnant series of ponds and was polluted by waste from the Frankston township, resulting in a foul smell. A once vibrant fishing creek was no longer. Mr SHAW — That the minister visit Kananook Creek and work towards the desilting of it using the $2.5 million. For decades possible solutions have been discussed by many members of the community, all to no avail. In recent times a number of sectors of government, including Melbourne Water, Parks Victoria and the City of Frankston, have passed responsibility to each other, with no-one taking the lead and breaking through the bureaucratic barriers. No-one has stood up to provide leadership. Ms Beattie — On a point of order, Speaker, I have been listening carefully to the various contributions, and I know there are a number of new members, but the custom and practice of this house is to raise one matter for one minister. Members are raising several matters. The member for Frankston talked about police, and then he talked about Kananook Creek. The member for Murray Valley asked the minister for support. I am not sure that these are actions. I seek your guidance, Speaker. I ask that you have a close look at these matters that have been raised on the adjournment and give some guidance to the new members on exactly what form the adjournment should take. In the 1960s Kananook Creek had boat moorings, but silt build-up, amongst other things, drove away those who wished to moor their vessels. The creek has launching ramps used by many fishermen in Frankston and surrounding suburbs. Being a tidal creek, at low tide many boat owners walk their boats back to the ramps from the mouth of the creek or from the ramps to Port Phillip Bay. As a central activities district (CAD) Frankston was given $12.5 million over five years, compared to Dandenong’s $290 million. Frankston was the lowest funded of the six CADs by Labor. It was obvious Labor did not care about Frankston. Frankston was underfunded and underresourced, not just in CAD funding but also in policing. That is why, on behalf of the people of Frankston, I congratulate our government on its supplying of an additional 35 police this financial year — the single largest police allocation in the state from the largest police recruitment Victoria has seen. And what has been done with this $12.5 million CAD funding? Some $9 million of it was spent on a boulevard at Kananook Creek, including a $l.3 million bridge to 30 car spaces. What a waste of money. The boulevard not only took over 100 car spaces from people wanting to enjoy the beach but was built on a creek that is treated as a drain. I am pleased that with our commitment of $2.5 million to clean up the creek the image of Frankston will improve and a vibrant community area will be restored, where boating, canoeing and other activities will be enjoyed. This promised has been welcomed by the Kananook Creek Association — — Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER — Order! What is the action the member is requesting? It is my understanding that members should raise one matter with one minister and then call for action. The SPEAKER — Order! I very much appreciate the member’s point of order and tomorrow I will peruse Hansard to analyse the matters that were raised. Responses Mr RYAN (Minister for Regional and Rural Development) — I rise to respond to an issue raised by the member for Murray Valley. I pay tribute to the member for the great representation he is providing to his electorate. He certainly has substantial shoes to fill. They were not necessarily the biggest shoes worn by the former member, Mr Jasper, but metaphorically they were very big shoes indeed. The member is doing a great job in his role as the current member for Murray Valley. The member raised with me issues about Merriwa Park and surroundings and the damage done by the floods in September and then again in December 2010. The park is a vital asset of the Wangaratta community. Within its boundaries it has many large shady, grassed areas; it has a playground, a soundshell and, very importantly, it contains the lawn tennis club. Many of the sporting groups in and around Wangaratta use the park for preseason fitness training. The tennis courts are available to club and non-club members. They are used in the delivery of extensive tennis coaching as well as providing a very vibrant tennis competition. Indeed I am reliably informed that there are something in the order of 500 members of this club in Wangaratta. It has a great heritage of service to the Wangaratta district. In the flooding last year during the two events substantial damage was caused to this very important 22:30 ADJOURNMENT 112 ASSEMBLY PROOF recreational area. The lawn tennis club also suffered damage, which was apparent in the extensive damage to the heritage-listed clubhouse. Some of the fencing was also a victim of the event, as well as the adjacent car park which requires extensive refurbishment to be undertaken to improve access and to complement tennis facilities at Merriwa Park. The unsealed, but nevertheless very busy car park adjacent to the club deteriorated considerably and requires urgent refurbishment. As the member has indicated, all this means that very extensive capital works will be necessary if this great area of Wangaratta is able to be returned to its former glory. I am very pleased to be able to tell the member and the house that the government of Victoria will be able to provide a grant of $150 750 towards the total cost of $201 000 needed to undertake these extensive works. The project will comprise various aspects which will include the resurfacing of the two hard courts that were flooded, the restumping of the clubrooms and as a consequence that will also need to have its walls realigned. In addition, with the work done there will need to be exterior and interior painting, new floor coverings and the kitchen will need a complete refit. As we have seen so often when floods strike, the damage to kitchens, the whitegoods within them and the like, is always very extensive. The project will also see the resurfacing of a section of the car park, installation of some basic gates and some fencing into the entry areas that can be used should flooding threaten again and which will prevent the extent of the damage that was done across the park services as a result of the events of last year. I am delighted to be able to tell the member that as a result of the sort of representation that he has made to us as a government we will be able to see this work done. I pay due regard to the contribution by the Rural City of Wangaratta. Coincidentally tonight I was in attendance at a function for regional cities not far from Parliament where both Anthony Griffiths, the mayor, and Doug Sharp, the chief executive officer of the Rural City of Wangaratta, were in attendance in their official roles representing the rural city. 22:35 It is a great thing the council is supporting this initiative. In addition to that, I pay great regard to the wonderful volunteers who are part and parcel of the club and the wonderful work the club does on behalf of the community of Wangaratta. I am pleased to be able to tell the local member that as a direct result of what he has been able to put to us we can now enable this work to be done in conjunction with the council and volunteers. I am sure it will be a wonderful outcome for all concerned. Wednesday, 6 April 2011 Mr MULDER (Minister for Roads) — I will firstly respond to the issue that was raised by the member for Geelong in relation to an investigation into federal Disability Discrimination Act compliance on platforms 2 and 3 at Geelong railway station. I would just like to inform the minister that as part of the — — Honourable members interjecting. Mr MULDER — I would just like to inform the member, I mean. He is hoping! I would like to inform the member that as part of our process of dealing with railway stations, particularly new railway stations, I have put in place a panel to work with the department — it will be made up of people from the Victorian Council of Social Service and other organisations in Victoria — to better inform the department in terms of railway design, particularly focusing on the functionality of railway stations. I have done this because since having come to power and taken up this portfolio I have visited a number of the newer railway stations which have been built. Obviously there are some significant problems in relation to a lack of ramping. If you go to the Laverton railway station, you will find some very steep stairs. There are lifts in the public space that are often vandalised. Quite often this results in elderly people and people with disabilities having to be ferried around to the other side of the station in taxis, and sometimes those people have to wait for hours for taxis to turn up. Yet we have had a massive, multi-million dollar investment in a railway station that does not cater for people in that situation. I had a meeting on this issue today. The department is currently setting up this panel. Each and every new railway station that is built will have input from people from different sectors around the community. There will be people representing cycling groups; there will be people representing those people who walk a lot; there will be people representing the elderly and disabled. We want to make sure when we build new railway stations that we get it right. There could perhaps be a role for the panel to have a look at some retrofitting and upgrades of railway stations to make sure the money we spend gets the best outcome. What I have asked the panel to think about — and this is even in regards to some of the documentation I saw today about the regional rail link project — is the issue, which I highlight again, of functionality in relation to railway stations, because it is quite clear we have not been getting that outcome in relation to some of the buildings that have been constructed. That is under way. I will get my department to have a look at the ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 6 April 2011 ASSEMBLY PROOF issue the member for Geelong raised. It will also be suggested to the panel that we start to look at some of the existing stations, particularly with those issues in mind. From this point onwards those members of the community who have not been represented in terms of the design of stations will get a say in terms of how those stations are fitted out, the access to those stations and how those stations will function well. I visited a station at Wendouree. It may have some great architectural features, but when you look at the bus stop and platform area, you find that if the wind comes from a certain direction, people who are supposed to be getting protection from the weather do not get it. I walked up to the front door of that station and the glass doors did not open because I did not approach them in the right manner. If you are going to have stations that cater for the needs of people from across a broad sector of the community, you have to make sure they actually function. We have not been doing that. I am very keen to address that issue. I thank the member for Geelong for raising this matter. The member for Yan Yean raised a matter in relation to the duplication of Plenty Road and traffic lights. I will once again raise the issue with my department and get a response for the member for Yan Yean. The member for Yuroke raised an issue in relation to the duplication of Somerton Road. Once again I would take this matter up with VicRoads. I will get a response for the member in relation to that matter. The member for Morwell raised an issue in relation to me and other members visiting Morwell particularly to provide some support for the people within that community as a result of the closure of the Princes Freeway because of some subsidence in the ground that has affected the road in that location. 22:40 It is very important that we show very strong support for the people of Gippsland and, as we approach Easter, send a very strong message that Gippsland is open for business. This will involve VicRoads, in particular, working hand in hand with Victoria Police to make sure that everything that can possibly be done is done in relation to getting people through Morwell, dealing with delays, providing timely information and providing updates in relation to traffic diversions. Everything that can be done will be done for the people of Gippsland, and particularly the people of Morwell, to make sure that Easter trading continues, that people continue to visit the area and most importantly that we get timely information out there to the Morwell and broader Gippsland communities. 113 I say to the member for Morwell that I will be up there next week and will be inspecting that road with local VicRoads authorities. Whilst up there I will be sending a very clear message, and I understand other members will be up there as well supporting the people of Gippsland and Morwell and making sure we send that message to the broader Victorian community — the message that Gippsland is open for business. Mr WALSH (Minister for Water) — I want to respond to the adjournment issue raised by the member for Frankston, which concerns the Baillieu government’s commitment to clean up the Kananook Creek, the $2.5 million commitment we made prior to the election. The member for Frankston has invited me down to view firsthand the works that need doing in that area. The member clearly set out the need for something to be done with the Kananook Creek, the fact that during the last 11 years the Labor Party did nothing about it and the member’s desire for the coalition government to show some leadership and do something down there. The Baillieu government is going to show some leadership and is going to deliver on cleaning up the Kananook Creek. Along with the members for Carrum, Mordialloc and Sandringham, the member for Frankston was part of a meeting we had recently with Melbourne Water at which we went through in detail the issues in the area that need to be addressed concerning both Mordialloc Creek and Kananook Creek, to which the member for Frankston referred. Particularly in respect of Kananook Creek there was the need for Melbourne Water to do survey and design work on what needs to be done to return that creek to its former glory as was set out by the member for Frankston. I look forward to visiting with him to see it firsthand. Mr DELAHUNTY (Minister for Sport and Recreation) — I stand up to thank the member for Kilsyth for raising an important matter with me tonight. I acknowledge the great work the member has done and the strong commitment he has to his electorate, particularly in relation to sport and recreation, areas in which he has given enormous support to the community. I know he is particularly interested in increasing participation across a variety of sporting and community clubs right across his electorate. The member has outlined the diversity of clubs and community groups within his electorate, whether they be involved in netball, table tennis, football, basketball, cricket or baseball, and the concerns they have. As we all know, the member for Kilsyth was very active in developing the coalition policy on sport and recreation, particularly the initiatives affecting the ADJOURNMENT 114 ASSEMBLY PROOF electorate of Kilsyth. He did a great deal of work in relation to that and lobbied hard for it. The Victorian government places a strong priority on increasing participation in sport and recreation right across Victoria. Like the member for Kilsyth, as Minister for Sport and Recreation I want to see an increase in participation in sport and recreation right across the state. I have a strong commitment to increasing that participation across the state; I want to see more people being more active more often. My aim is to do that with the support of people such as the member for Kilsyth, so tonight I accept the member’s invitation, and I will visit his electorate in the very near future. Mr DIXON (Minister for Education) — I am responding to a matter raised by the member for Forest Hill, who has asked me to come out to his electorate and address some of the issues in schools in his electorate. 22:45 I must say that the member for Forest Hill is doing a wonderful job. He has made strong connections with his local schools, and I know the schools appreciate the interest he is showing in them, because it is a bit of a novelty for them. He certainly already knows his schools. It was pointed out yesterday by the union that the biggest issue facing many of our schools is the condition of and the lack of maintenance done in the schools over the last 11 years. I will be pleased to come out to the member’s electorate, visit those schools and tell them that we are going to address the maintenance backlog in three ways. One will be through the usual maintenance that would be part of a school’s student resource package, which every school receives. We will also carry out a full, one-off audit of all the maintenance needs of all schools. The former government had a series of rolling audits, so one could not get a snapshot of the total picture of maintenance required in government schools. It made it very hard to pin down a number, and it hid the degree of maintenance that was needed. We are having a once-off maintenance audit so we can get an idea and establish a benchmark from which we can improve. As the member is probably aware, we have also announced extra maintenance funding as part of our policy, and the details of that will be released in this year’s budget. Mr KOTSIRAS (Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship) — I will refer all other matters to the appropriate ministers for their direct response. The SPEAKER — Order! I congratulate all the ministers who came into the house tonight. It was good Wednesday, 6 April 2011 to have a good round of answers, and I thank them for that. The house is now adjourned. House adjourned 10.47 p.m.
© Copyright 2024