PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) · residence between 10.00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. Monday to Sunday. The...

PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-SIXTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

Thursday, 2 April 2009

(Extract from book 5)

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

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

The Governor Professor DAVID de KRETSER, AC

The Lieutenant-Governor The Honourable Justice MARILYN WARREN, AC

The ministry

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

The Hon. J. M. Brumby, MP

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

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

The Hon. J. Lenders, MLC

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

The Hon. J. M. Allan, MP

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

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

The Hon. P. Batchelor, MP

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

The Hon. R. G. Cameron, MP

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

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

The Hon. T. J. Holding, MP

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

The Hon. G. W. Jennings, MLC

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

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

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

The Hon. J. A. Merlino, MP

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

The Hon. M. V. Morand, MP

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

The Hon. L. M. Neville, MP

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

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

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

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

The Hon. A. G. Robinson, MP

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

The Hon. R. W. Wynne, MP

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

Legislative Council committees

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

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

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

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

Joint committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heads of parliamentary departments

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

Parliamentary Services — Secretary: Dr S. O’Kane

MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-SIXTH PARLIAMENT — FIRST SESSION

President: The Hon. R. F. SMITH

Deputy President: Mr BRUCE ATKINSON

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

Leader of the Government: Mr JOHN LENDERS

Deputy Leader of the Government: Mr GAVIN JENNINGS

Leader of the Opposition: Mr DAVID DAVIS

Deputy Leader of the Opposition: Ms WENDY LOVELL

Leader of The Nationals: Mr PETER HALL

Deputy Leader of The Nationals: Mr DAMIAN DRUM

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

CONTENTS

THURSDAY, 2 APRIL 2009

VICTORIAN COMPETITION AND EFFICIENCY COMMISSION A State of Liveability — An Inquiry into

Enhancing Victoria’s Liveability..........................1771 PAPERS..........................................................................1771 MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Water: north–south pipeline .....................................1771 VicForests: Brown Mountain old-growth forest ......1771 Gas: Korumburra supply ..........................................1771 Government: borrowing guarantee..........................1772 Peninsula Link: construction ....................................1772 State Trustees: relocation .........................................1772 Education: government performance .......................1772 Ambulance services: Wodonga station.....................1773 39th Australian Infantry Battalion Association........1773 City of Moreland: Youth Beatz Festival ...................1773 Iran: human rights ....................................................1774 Afghanistan: human rights........................................1774 Omar al-Bashir .........................................................1774

FAMILY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Provision of supported accommodation for

Victorians with a disability and/or mental illness.....................................................................1774

STATEMENTS ON REPORTS AND PAPERS Auditor-General: Access to Public Hospitals —

Measuring Performance1774, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1779, 1781 Alexandra District Hospital: report 2007–08 ..........1775 Ombudsman: crime statistics and police

numbers.................................................................1778 Victorian Skills Commission: report 2007–08 .........1780 Film Victoria: report 2007–08 .................................1782 Ombudsman: report 2007–08...................................1782

DUTIES AMENDMENT BILL Second reading..........................................................1783 Committee..................................................................1783

GAMBLING REGULATION AMENDMENT (LICENSING) BILL Second reading......................................1785, 1802, 1804

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Hospitals: data reporting..........................................1793 Bushfires: tourism .....................................................1794 Australian Loan Council: allocation ........................1795 Planning: legislative review......................................1795 Dairy industry: government assistance ..........1796, 1797 Bushfires: timber industry.........................................1797 Planning: growth areas infrastructure

contribution .................................................1798, 1799 Etihad Airways: services...........................................1799 Environment: western coast......................................1800 Manufacturing: government initiatives ....................1801

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR............................................1804 ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT (PREMIUM

SOLAR FEED-IN TARIFF) BILL Introduction and first reading...................................1822

Statement of compatibility ........................................ 1823 Second reading ......................................................... 1824

BUSHFIRES ROYAL COMMISSION (REPORT) BILL Statement of compatibility ........................................ 1822 Second reading ......................................................... 1822

MELBOURNE CRICKET GROUND BILL Second reading ......................................................... 1825 Third reading ............................................................ 1826

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Adjournment.............................................................. 1826

FAIR TRADING AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL Introduction and first reading .................................. 1827 Statement of compatibility ........................................ 1827 Second reading ......................................................... 1829

HUMAN SERVICES (COMPLEX NEEDS) BILL Introduction and first reading .................................. 1830 Statement of compatibility ........................................ 1830 Second reading ......................................................... 1832

MAJOR SPORTING EVENTS BILL Introduction and first reading .................................. 1833 Statement of compatibility ........................................ 1833 Second reading ......................................................... 1847

TRANSPORT LEGISLATION GENERAL AMENDMENTS BILL Introduction and first reading .................................. 1848 Statement of compatibility ........................................ 1848 Second reading ......................................................... 1849

ADJOURNMENT Bendigo Hospital: redevelopment............................ 1851 Pensioners: concessions ........................................... 1851 Wangaratta: skate park ............................................ 1851 Insurance: fire services levy ..................................... 1852 Devilbend Natural Features Reserve:

management plan ................................................. 1852 Northern Victoria Region: health services............... 1853 South Gippsland Highway: floodproofing ............... 1853 VicForests: Brown Mountain old-growth forest...... 1854 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne: Hellenic precinct ....... 1854 Drought: Southern Metropolitan Region

sporting clubs........................................................ 1855 Small business: retail lease guidelines..................... 1855 Police: western suburbs............................................ 1856 Shire of Pyrenees: drought coordinator................... 1856 Hallam Road, Hampton Park: upgrade................... 1857 Bushfires: clean-up program.................................... 1857 Lake Connewarre: management plan ...................... 1857 Responses .................................................................. 1858

VICTORIAN COMPETITION AND EFFICIENCY COMMISSION

Thursday, 2 April 2009 COUNCIL 1771

Thursday, 2 April 2009

The PRESIDENT (Hon. R. F Smith) took the chair at 9.36 a.m. and read the prayer.

VICTORIAN COMPETITION AND EFFICIENCY COMMISSION

A State of Liveability — An Inquiry into Enhancing Victoria’s Liveability

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer), by leave, presented report and government response.

Laid on table.

PAPERS

Laid on table by Clerk:

Ombudsman — Report on the Investigation into Corporate Governance at Moorabool Shire Council, April 2009.

Safe Drinking Water Act 2003 — Report on Drinking Water Quality in Victoria, 2007–08.

Statutory Rule under the Supreme Court Act 1986 — No. 30.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Water: north–south pipeline

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) — The Brumby government is in such a rush to build its north–south pipeline that it is allowing members of the community who live near the Killingworth pumping station construction site to be subjected to construction noise levels that are soul destroying.

The project impact assessment (PIA) outlines that noise should be inaudible within a habitable room of any residence between 10.00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. Monday to Sunday. The PIA also specifies that normal working hours for construction are 7.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. Monday to Friday and 7.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on Saturdays. Unfortunately residents near the site are being subjected to reversing beepers, truck horns, noisy machinery and high-volume vehicular movements during and outside normal working hours. This noise continues six days per week, from 6.00 a.m. to 6.30 p.m.

Despite residents writing and emailing the Minister for Planning, Justin Madden, and lodging a formal complaint with the Environment Protection Authority, nothing has changed. Minister Madden recommended

that a Sugarloaf Pipeline Alliance project consultative group be established to provide a complaints management and reporting procedure as part of the environmental management framework. Unfortunately it seems that, apart from a chairman being appointed, this consultative group has not eventuated, leaving no means of independent complaints management. Therefore it seems those who are subjected to the unbearable noise levels will have to suffer — but definitely not in silence!

The Brumby government should immediately reveal what has become of the consultative group and take immediate action to ensure that the planning minister’s own recommendations are met.

VicForests: Brown Mountain old-growth forest

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — The Waikato Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory at the University of Waikato in New Zealand has confirmed that a tree cut down by VicForests in the Brown Mountain old-growth forest was between 550 and 600 years old. Until now foresters have claimed that these large trees were between 200 and 250 years old. Others have assumed that between 300 and 400 years would be the age limit before the trees succumb to rot. The tree was young when Joan of Arc lived and Christopher Columbus discovered America. It measured 11 metres around the stump close to the ground. Other trees on Brown Mountain have girths of 12 metres or more and could be between 700 and 800 years old. They would have been mature when Marco Polo travelled the world. These trees are ancient relics and part of our precious national heritage.

VicForests and the Brumby government cannot replace these trees once they are cut down. They are logged on a 50-to-80-year rotation. It would take until 2600 AD for a tree to grow to the same size. In 2006 Premier Brumby promised to protect the last significant stands of old-growth forests. Since then hundreds of hectares of these ancient forests have been cut down. It is not good enough for the government to claim that VicForests is independent and that the government can do nothing to save Brown Mountain. The government must act now to protect all remaining old-growth forests in East Gippsland.

Gas: Korumburra supply

Mr SCHEFFER (Eastern Victoria) — A South Gippsland Sentinel-Times headline described Thursday, 26 March, as a red letter day for Korumburra celebrating the natural gas connection to Burra Foods, one of South Gippsland’s biggest employers. It was a

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

1772 COUNCIL Thursday, 2 April 2009

pleasure to join ministers Jacinta Allan and Peter Batchelor, together with South Gippsland Shire mayor, Jim Fawcett, Burra Foods chief executive officer, Grant Crothers, Hugh Gleeson from Multinet Gas and Red Energy’s Ian Graham at the launch at Burra Foods. Over the last month it has become possible for natural gas to flow to homes and businesses in Korumburra, Lang Lang and Leongatha. This is possible because of the commercial work undertaken between Multinet and Red Energy with the assistance of the government.

Korumburra is the 31st town to be connected to natural gas under the Brumby government’s $70 million natural gas project. The gas connection to Burra Foods will result in savings of up to half a million dollars, a real economic benefit to the company itself and also to the Korumburra and South Gippsland community. There are cost savings for all natural gas customers, and I understand that South Gippsland households stand to save something like $12 000 and local businesses up to $30 000. The benefit that has now come to Korumburra is possible because of the work the Brumby government has done in establishing the $70 million natural gas extension program and through its support and encouragement of investors to bring on stream new gas supplies across the state. I congratulate Burra Foods and wish it well into the future. I commend ministers Batchelor and Allan on their leadership in this important area of infrastructure development.

Government: borrowing guarantee

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — Victorians deserve an explanation as to the role played and the position taken by the Victorian Treasurer at last week’s ministerial council and loan council meetings. The resulting commonwealth guarantee of state debt is not in Victoria’s comparative interest. While the Queensland Treasurer declared that the guarantee was supported unanimously by the states, the Victorian Treasurer will only say that Victoria did not seek the guarantee. The debt guarantee is the latest bandaid for the latest unintended consequence arising from Wayne Swan’s ill-considered universal bank deposit guarantee of last October.

The treasurers have agreed to price the guarantee in a way which makes only a 5-basis-point distinction between AA-rated states, like Queensland, and AAA-rated states, like Victoria. While this might reflect a 10-year average, the current financial environment certainly does not. As a consequence the weaker states gain an advantage at the expense of Victoria. Victoria will now have little choice other than to take up the guarantee to maintain its position relative

to the other states. This will mean substantial costs for a guarantee Victoria essentially did not need.

Victorians may wonder whether a cabal of Labor treasurers was more interested in propping up Wayne Swan than acting in this state’s interest. Victorians are entitled to know what position the Victorian Treasurer advocated at the council meeting, whether he will take up the debt guarantee for Victoria’s existing debt portfolio and how much it is going to cost Victorian taxpayers.

Peninsula Link: construction

Mr SOMYUREK (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I rise to congratulate the Victorian government on taking a concrete step in the construction of Peninsula Link by calling for expressions of interest to ensure that the project starts by the end of the year. The Peninsula Link project will deliver a vital new transport link for Melbourne’s south-eastern suburbs and provide 4000 direct jobs and significant economic stimulus for the state and national economies. Once completed Peninsula Link will slash travel times between Carrum Downs and Mount Martha to around 17 minutes, a saving of up to 40 minutes.

The Peninsula Link will also significantly reduce congestion on busy roads such as the Frankston Freeway and Moorooduc Highway by removing the bottleneck at Frankston and avoiding eight signalised intersections and five roundabouts on the current route. Pedestrians and cyclists are also big winners, as a cycling and walking path is to be built along the freeway, providing new recreational opportunities for residents and visitors to the region.

State Trustees: relocation

Mr SOMYUREK — On another matter, I congratulate the Treasurer, John Lenders, and the Minister for Regional and Rural Development, Jacinta Allan, on their announcement yesterday that State Trustees will move out of the central business district and into suburban and regional Victoria to ensure that ongoing support is provided to its customers. The ministers announced — —

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

Education: government performance

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) — Access to quality education and the provision of decent facilities are crucial to an effective education system. Unfortunately under the Bracks and Brumby Labor

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


governments access to education has declined. The Australian Bureau of Statistics Schools, Australia, 2008 report dated 17 March clearly shows that there are now 46 fewer government schools than there were in 1999.

Access to technical and vocational education continues to decline. Access to TAFE education is eroding, with higher education contribution scheme-style fees being imposed on school leavers and those seeking to change their qualifications. This has led to increases of up to 300 per cent in the cost of some diploma courses. The Auditor-General’s report on literacy and numeracy achievement dated February 2008 found that no improvement had been achieved in literacy at the Victorian certificate of education level and that numeracy had declined since 1997.

Following a report by the Victorian Auditor-General in 2003 which exposed problems in early education there has been a failure to provide funding. There is a huge backlog in maintenance of facilities, and school mergers have been used to force reluctant communities to close sites to access decent facilities. Education has certainly not been the no. 1 priority of the Bracks and Brumby Labor governments. These facts should prove the lie — —


Ambulance services: Wodonga station

Ms BROAD (Northern Victoria) — Last Friday I made a return visit to the Wodonga ambulance station to announce on behalf of the Minister for Health that Wodonga will receive $2.8 million from the Brumby Labor government and Ambulance Victoria to construct a brand-new, 24-hour ambulance station in a new location to suit the changing geography of a growing community. On an earlier visit I was able to hear firsthand about the challenges faced by local paramedics working from the Wodonga branch, and I was very pleased to return with good news. In consultation with staff and with the assistance of the Wodonga City Council, it is expected that land will be purchased in the coming months, with work to commence in the new year.

The development will generate local jobs, and the new branch will have the capacity to accommodate some of the more than 20 extra paramedics that Ambulance Victoria is recruiting to meet the needs of families and communities in the region. The Brumby Labor government has acted to deliver high-quality ambulance services and facilities across regional Victoria by more than doubling funding for ambulance

services since 1999, and thanks to the outstanding work of our paramedics.

39th Australian Infantry Battalion Association

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) — I wish to bring to the attention of the house this morning the work of the 39th Australian Infantry Battalion Association. The 39th Australian Infantry Battalion fought in Kokoda during the Second World War. Its members are very active in telling the story of the Kokoda campaign so that younger generations understand the sacrifices that were made for Australia’s defence by Australians in Papua New Guinea and in particular in Kokoda.

My colleague and friend the member for Narracan in the other place has been working with the 39th Australian Infantry Battalion Association in running a scholarship program for students to walk the Kokoda Track. I am pleased to be working with Alan Jameson, the president of the 39th Australian Infantry Battalion Association, hopefully to replicate that program in the Shire of Cardinia. We should always remember and be very grateful for the sacrifices made by members of the Australian community who fought at Kokoda.

Mr Harold Bould was a resident of the township of Cardinia and passed away on the Kokoda Track, fighting to defend Australia. The scholarship is named after Mr Bould, and is something that I would urge all members of the house and indeed all members of the shire of Cardinia to get behind so that we never forget the sacrifices made in our defence.

City of Moreland: Youth Beatz Festival

Mr ELASMAR (Northern Metropolitan) — I rise to speak in this house about an event I attended last Saturday in Coburg. The mayor of Moreland and his fellow councillors hosted the youth Beatz multicultural festival in honour of National Youth Week. We were all warmly welcomed as invited guests, and the Honourable Christine Campbell, the member for Pascoe Vale in the Assembly, addressed the assembled parents and youth participants on the importance of multiculturalism in Victoria.

I congratulate the City of Moreland and its officers on a very well attended and well organised festival. There were stalls with arts and crafts and many different foods from all nations. Later there were young people folk dancing, and the colour, energy and professionalism was clearly enjoyed by everyone, especially the proud parents in attendance. I can say truthfully it was a great

FAMILY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE


family occasion, and my thanks and appreciation go to all the young people who put so much effort into the festival.

Iran: human rights

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — I rise to express my concern at human rights violations that persist in Iran. Punitive laws, torture and other ill treatment, as well as the use of the death penalty remain prevalent in a government which Amnesty International has regarded as corrupt and responsible for egregious human rights violations. I also wish to draw attention to more recent reports that seven women are at imminent risk of being stoned to death for adultery in Iran. Under Iran’s Islamic penal code adultery by a married woman is punishable by stoning. She is required to be buried up to her breasts, and article 104 states that the stones used must not be large enough to kill the person by one or two strikes, nor should they be so small that they could not be defined as stones. It is a practice that is specifically designed to increase the suffering of the victim, and it is horrific and inhumane. I call on the Iranian authorities to cease all punishment of death by stoning, and stop all remaining executions of those people sentenced to death.

Afghanistan: human rights

Ms MIKAKOS — This morning on Radio National I was horrified to hear that the Afghan government has introduced a new family law that will allow husbands to rape their wives. In view of Australia’s continued military assistance to the Afghan government, I call on the Rudd government to make representations to the government of Afghanistan to respect the human rights of Afghan women.

Omar al-Bashir

Ms MIKAKOS — Finally I take this opportunity to congratulate the International Criminal Court’s decision to issue an unprecedented arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes. This is a positive development for the international community and for human rights advocates around the world, and it illustrates that people who commit such crimes against humanity will not go unpunished.

FAMILY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Provision of supported accommodation for Victorians with a disability and/or mental

illness

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

That the resolution of the Council of 26 February 2008 requiring the Family and Community Development Committee to inquire into and report by 30 June 2009 on the state government’s provision of supported accommodation for Victorians with a disability and/or mental illness be amended so as to now require the committee to present its report by 15 December 2009.

Motion agreed to.

STATEMENTS ON REPORTS AND PAPERS

Auditor-General: Access to Public Hospitals — Measuring Performance

Mrs PETROVICH (Northern Victoria) — My statement is on the Auditor-General’s Access to Public Hospitals — Measuring Performance report. I attended the briefing yesterday, and after reading the report it is clear that after 10 years this Labor government has allowed our hospital system to degenerate into an absolute shambles and has failed our communities in the most miserable way. Waiting lists behind waiting lists is an issue that the opposition has raised for over 12 months, yet it has been vehemently denied by the government. But now the cat is clearly out of the bag.

The issue highlighted by the shadow Minister for Health, Mrs Shardey, relates to a culture which has developed within hospitals to hide real waiting lists and to manipulate waiting list and emergency department data. The Auditor-General’s report reveals data manipulation, flaws in both data accuracy and the capture of that data, inaccuracies in reported emergency access data and inappropriate recording of patients as not ready for care.

The unfortunate part of this is that now the government has gone into denial and is in public relations and spin mode, which does nothing to fix our failing — —

Mr Finn interjected.

Mrs PETROVICH — Absolutely right, Mr Finn. That does nothing to fix our failing health system which is so badly affecting Victorians.

Mr Viney interjected.



Mrs PETROVICH — What we need to remember, Mr Viney, is that the Victorians on those false lists are people. They are not just voters or constituents or members of the Liberal Party support base or the Labor Party support base, they are people with health issues that need to be rectified and resolved. Hiding the reality will not make them any better. It is a cruel, unfeeling and disgraceful state of affairs.

The Auditor-General’s report reveals that the reporting systems currently used in hospitals are not efficient and do not give us a clear and timely picture of what is occurring in our emergency departments and operating theatres. The report confirms the concern of opposition members that manipulation of waiting lists and emergency department data is rife.

The Auditor-General’s report states that it is much more worrying that there were instances of admitted data manipulation to meet indicator targets and that that is highly improper. It also states that fundamental flaws were found with both data accuracy and the rigour of data capture processes. Further, the report states that these conditions have opened the way for inappropriate practices such as data manipulation, which undermine the integrity of hospital performance monitoring. Three of the audited hospitals were at times inappropriately recording patients as not ready for care. Errors also occurred where within the patient administration system ward clerks ‘admitted’ emergency patients to an inpatient bed 2 or 3 hours before transfer.

We have previously had Auditor-General’s reports detailing the failures of HealthSMART. This is an intrinsic issue for the health system in Victoria. This system is not assisting our hospitals to record data. It does not link in; it is not working. It is putting people in our health system in the position of not being able to measure things, so they cannot be fixed. The Department of Human Services has responsibilities in this. It has failed our Victorian public, as have the Minister for Health and the Brumby Labor government.

This damning audit has found that the Royal Women’s Hospital in Melbourne periodically suspended patients from its waiting list to meet government-imposed targets for elective surgery. The auditors, Paxton Partners, were finally called in by the minister after years of requests by opposition members. The Auditor-General’s report tabled yesterday highlights that it was as a result of our work that this system of rorts of patient data was finally looked at. The auditors found that as many as 10 per cent of the patients on the hospital’s waiting list at any time had been illegitimately suspended to reduce the size of the list. Health insiders have been alleging manipulation of

patient data for years, and we have led the way in highlighting that.

What a state of affairs we have come to, when it is accepted in the health profession that to achieve additional funding people running hospitals feel they have to falsify documents and statistics and hide the inadequacies of a crumbling health system in Victoria.

Alexandra District Hospital: report 2007–08

Ms BROAD (Northern Victoria) — I refer to the Alexandra District Hospital annual report for the year ended 30 June 2008. At the outset I congratulate and thank the president, Ms Margaret Rae, and members of the board for their contributions, service and hard work, together with the chief executive officer, Ms Heather Byrne, staff and volunteers who also make such an outstanding contribution to this small rural health service.

I am pleased to indicate in speaking to this report that the Alexandra District Hospital was recognised for its outstanding work when it was the recipient of a major health-care award in 2008. It was named the rural health service of the year at the 2008 Victorian public health-care awards in Melbourne by the Premier, John Brumby. This was a richly deserved award because the hospital was a finalist in the category for two years prior to receiving the award in 2008, so it has been consistently outstanding.

This award to a health service which has been consistently providing health care to its community for 137 years is proof that a health service does not have to be large to have a profound impact on its community. The health service’s expansion of the number of services it offers to reduce the long distances that many of its patients were previously travelling to receive treatment illustrates the special relationship between small rural hospitals and the members of the community that they treat.

With 30 acute beds in Alexandra, as well as community health services in Alexandra, Eildon and Marysville, the Alexandra District Hospital is the only provider of surgical services for the 14 300 residents of the Murrindindi shire. It treats around 1500 inpatients, including performing over 800 surgical procedures, and around 2000 emergency attendances each year by visiting medical officers and a staff of over 100.

I am pleased to say the Brumby Labor government has provided a major funding boost to Alexandra District Hospital. The vital health service is to receive $4.69 million in this current financial year. That



represents a funding increase of almost 65 per cent since 1999 and is in line with the Brumby Labor government’s investment in health services across rural and regional Victoria. In fact we have seen a 112 per cent increase in hospital funding across these areas since 1999.

I am pleased to say Alexandra also recently received a $100 000 grant from the Brumby government for ambulance services. Following the destruction of community health facilities in Marysville earlier this year due to the bushfires, temporary facilities are being provided by the Alexandra District Hospital in Buxton to ensure that families have access to community health services. These temporary health facilities were opened by the Minister for Health in March. Again this demonstrates the Brumby Labor government’s commitment to delivering the very best health services for Victorians in rural and regional areas. Because of the strain as a result of the recent bushfires, that support has been increased to make sure that families are being supported.


Mrs KRONBERG (Eastern Metropolitan) — I rise to speak on the Auditor-General’s report Access to Public Hospitals — Measuring Performance. From the outset I want to congratulate the Victorian Auditor-General on the value for money he has provided the taxpayers of Victoria and the lives he has saved because of this report. I would be happy to be a part of the design group to design a medal to celebrate his efforts with this report and his service to Victorians.

The $335 000 expended on this audit and its findings is one of the best allocations of resources ever made in this state. Now and for all time we can see the depth of poor practices endemic in the health system in Victoria that has been presided over by a hapless and thoroughly incompetent health minister. In his introduction, the Auditor-General says:

Timely access to hospital care is important. For patients requiring emergency care or elective surgery, the time taken to receive services can significantly affect clinical outcomes.

Let me give some dimension to what clinical outcomes have been recorded. I will draw upon an article in the Herald Sun today on page 9 which states this dimension under the headline ‘2356 died waiting’ — that is, 2356 people have died while they have been suspended in a purgatory on waiting lists before being able to access care and alleviate their suffering. The Herald Sun, through its endeavours, has found that

405 people died while on waiting lists in the last financial year. The article also says:

… almost 2000 patient records were manipulated to improve the Royal Women’s Hospital’s performance statistics…

… 80 Victorians who died on waiting lists last year were below retirement age.

They were not ready to shuffle off this mortal coil; they were people who still had decades to contribute to society. But they landed on the wrong square; they waited on the waiting list for elective surgery in this state. The article also says:

… 34 patients died awaiting urgent elective surgery, for which hospital admission is desired within 30 days.

Honourable members interjecting.

Mrs KRONBERG — I say to members of the government that I am sorry this is an ugly picture. I am sorry they are staring down the barrel of their greatest nightmare, their culpability and their accountability to the people of this state. I am sorry that members of the government are uncomfortable with that, but they deserve every bit of it.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I remind Mrs Kronberg that this is not a debate. It is a statement on a report.

Mrs KRONBERG — When we combine the conclusions and recommendations of the Auditor-General’s report with those of the Elective Surgery Waiting List Audit — Royal Women’s Hospital by Paxton Partners, which was commissioned by the Department of Human Services and delivered just a few days ago on 29 March, we find that it is not a splendid vision — it is sheer horror. You do not know where to start. The report says there has been:

… the systematic practice of data manipulation of some patients’ waiting list status —

right through; it has gone on for a decade. If you look at the recommendations of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine, you can see that its triage policy — for instance, you may be rushed off there after you have cut yourself half open with a chainsaw and hope to be admitted — has not been reviewed. The triage policy needs to be subjected to regular review; it has not been reviewed since 2002. The Auditor-General admonishes the government with the statement that the results reported must be accurate so that they fairly represent hospital performance.

We know that performance bonuses for these underfunded hospitals are skewed because the hospitals



are starved of funding in the first place. It encourages this kind of manipulation. One can conclude there have been long and embedded corrupt practices — —


Mr Finn — On a point of order, President, or perhaps it is more a point of clarification on your last intervention in Mrs Kronberg’s statement — and I do not wish you in any way to see this as a reflection upon you or your ruling — I seek clarification in that Mr Viney was out of his seat and interjecting quite vigorously but it was Mrs Kronberg who was admonished by you concerning her involving herself in a debate. I am wondering if you could clarify for my benefit and for the benefit of the house what you based that upon.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I am more than happy to help Mr Finn. He is correct in saying that Mr Viney was out of his place, and I think it is fair to say he could be accused of provoking the obvious debate that then took place. I simply reminded the member on her feet that it was not a debate we were engaging in, she had only the ability to make a statement on a report. My intent was merely to stop the repartee across the chamber. If Mr Finn is of the view that she was being admonished for that, he is wrong.


Mr HALL (Eastern Victoria) — I take this opportunity to add some comments to the Auditor-General’s report Access to Public Hospitals — Measuring Performance tabled in Parliament yesterday. I want to compliment the Auditor-General on the work he has done and the production of this timely report, given that the issues it covers have been the subject of much public debate over recent times. I think this report will add to that debate and give people some credible basis for continuing with it.

The Auditor-General starts with the basic comment that ‘Timely access to hospital care is important’. There could be nothing truer. I think the people of Victoria fully understand the importance and the necessity for them to achieve timely access to hospitals when required. The report then talks about access to emergency departments in hospitals and access to elective surgery waiting lists. The latter has probably attracted more comment than the former. Today I want to comment on the former — that is, access to emergency departments. In particular I want to talk about mental health in respect of that, because part of

the acute services provided by a number of hospitals in Victoria relates to the provision of mental health services.

I know one of the hospitals in my electorate, Latrobe Regional Health, has a very fine facility that provides 20 acute beds for mental health patients. Access to those beds via emergency is the same as access by other emergency patients to other areas of the hospital. Over the years there have been some criticism and some complaints about undue waits in the emergency department before patients can access beds, whether they be medical beds or mental health beds. I have to say I am pleased that the hospital, working with the government, has to a large extent improved that access through the emergency department, and I thank it for that.

However, the issue of mental health is related to this report, given that emergency access to mental health services is via the hospital’s emergency department. To this end I bring the house’s attention to a document produced by the government in recent times and entitled Because Mental Health Matters. It sets the Victorian mental health reform strategy from 2009 to 2019. I have discussed this report with one of my local community groups called Barrier Breakers. It is a self-formed community group which has become a strong advocate for mental health services in the Gippsland region. I had some discussions with this group about the strategy produced by the government. While one could not argue about the sentiment expressed in this document, I feel it leaves unanswered many questions in relation to how the various reform areas are going to be implemented. The report lists eight reform areas. As I said, they are all fine in the way in which they have been expressed, but the document leaves very much in doubt how these reforms are going to be implemented. In each of those reform areas the list of actions starts with the premise that the actions may be pursued. What we are looking to see, certainly in my electorate, is a more definitive commitment by the government that some of these areas will be pursued, and pursued vigorously in a timely fashion.

One of the things missing from this report is funding for regional-based advocacy groups, and in many areas of health that is an omission which needs to be addressed. Also, there are no clear guidelines given in this report as to who is going to be involved in the formation and development of implementation plans. There is an important role there for community-based advocacy groups to work with the government in the development of those implementation plans.



The report also canvasses the possibility of the establishment of regional mental health boards. They could be a useful apparatus to help develop this strategy and implement many of the proposed programs within it.

As I said, this Auditor-General’s report today is timely and relates to the areas I have spoken about insofar as the access to emergency services in hospitals applies to both medical services and mental health services. I encourage the government to continue to improve the areas that will benefit people in our communities who have mental health problems.


Mr TEE (Eastern Metropolitan) — This morning I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the Victorian Auditor-General’s report on Access to Public Hospitals — Measuring Performance. I welcome this report, and I welcome the openness, accountability and transparency that this government has brought to public administration. It is refreshing, healthy and in stark contrast to the approach of previous governments. It is in stark contrast to the approach we have got used to of previous governments to public health and public hospitals. The report reinforces the maxim that knowledge is power, and it highlights the benefits of providing a mechanism for access to information for the electorate.

One of the most impressive aspects of this report has been the swift and effective response from the Minister for Health. The very day this report was released we had a comprehensive response from the minister going to the very heart of and addressing the issues raised by the report.

The report, and indeed the minister, have put hospitals on notice that inappropriate behaviour will be exposed and will not be tolerated. The minister, in his response to the report, has established the director of data integrity to make sure that there is no repeat of the issues and the concerns that have been raised by the Auditor-General. The director of data integrity will oversee a system-wide audit of elective and emergency surgery data and coordinate six annual spot audits of random health services.

When you read the report you see information that makes it clear that if you are unwell and had to attend one of our hospitals, you are much better doing that under the current government than under the previous government. Rightly, the report refers to the magnitude of the investment in our hospital system, and there is no

doubt that this government has prioritised health with a 100 per cent increase in investment, again in stark contrast to the cuts we saw under the previous government.

This report is about ensuring that we have a robust monitoring and accountability framework, and I am pleased we have a health minister who is implementing and delivering that robust framework.

The report finds that the majority of access indicators used are relevant because they relate to the timeliness of access to hospital care and to hospitals being properly accountable for their performance. The difficulty those opposite have in their deliberations on the report is that they have nowhere to go, because we have a system and a government that identifies problems and goes ahead and fixes those problems, making members of the opposition bystanders who do not have a role, who do not have any involvement, who do not have a policy, who do not have a vision and who do not have any response. In the meantime, while they are standing by — —


Mrs Peulich — On a point of order, President, are we taking turns?

The PRESIDENT — Order! On the point of order, normally we would certainly alternate. On this occasion I made a bad call and gave Mr Tee the call instead of Mr Elasmar, who has a meeting in 5 minutes. I have now given the call to Mr Elasmar.

Ombudsman: crime statistics and police numbers

Mr ELASMAR (Northern Metropolitan) — Thank you, President. I hope I did not cause any problem. Firstly, in speaking to the Victorian Ombudsman’s report Crime Statistics and Police Numbers dated March 2009 I want to say that the Brumby Labor government has continued to demonstrate its strong commitment to providing a safe environment for our citizens by continuing to provide a police force comprised of men and women who are deeply committed to ensuring speedy responses to reports of crime by our citizens.

It is not fair or true to say, as Ted Baillieu, the Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly, has said, that crime statistics and police numbers have been subject to manipulation. After reading the Ombudsman’s report, I can see there is scope for improvement in the area of



reporting mechanisms, and this is already being addressed by Victoria Police.

I understand from the report there are currently 11 090 police personnel employed in Victoria, 8168 of whom are full-time operational members deployed across metropolitan Melbourne and country Victoria. There are three categories of staff within the police department. The first is that of sworn personnel, appointed by the police commissioner after their graduation from the police academy. The next category is police cadets or new recruits appointed under the Police Regulation Act and also protective service officers and reservists. The third category is unsworn personnel, who carry out mainly administrative and support functions and are classed as public servants.

On reading this report I was impressed by the fact that, going by the raw statistical data collected in previous years and using pretty much the same methodology, the figures show that crime has been reduced in Victoria. This does not mean there is not scope for improvement in the systems currently being utilised. In today’s world of constantly changing technology, it is not safe to presume that if we simply buy a more up-to-date system of capturing information — information about who, what, why and when — it will make our police force more responsive or effective. It is important to the public that we are able to quantify our successes and address our shortcomings.

I believe this is being done in collaboration with the information technology industry and with the manual system of reporting via the ordinary, non-tech, physical writing down of information by the officers themselves after each shift or reported incident. Our police personnel give their best, and in some cases their lives, in order to protect the citizens of Victoria, and I am sure they will continue to do so.

Increasing population and the onset of a global recession do not bode well for our law enforcers. They need all the support and assistance we can give them. As a Labor government we are deeply committed to providing a safe environment for all of us to live in, which members of any civilised society would expect. The Brumby Labor government also recognises that adequate resources for this important reporting function need to be ongoing. Victoria Police is to be congratulated for its dedication and commitment to bringing law and order to the streets of Victoria 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.


Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I also wish to make a statement on Access to Public Hospitals — Measuring Performance, the Victorian Auditor-General’s report of April 2009. I regret not being able to follow Mr Tee’s contribution, given that he quite clearly and blatantly misrepresented the supposed openness and transparency of this government’s management of health and the hospital system and its failure of accountability. He said it was a stark contrast to — —

Mr Tee interjected.

Mrs PEULICH — You’ve had your shot, Mr Tee, so just pipe down and be quiet. It is not a debate. Mr Tee said it was a stark contrast to the performance of previous governments. I note that it is April 2009, and the last time the Your Hospitals report was released was in July 2008. That was the last time the Your Hospitals report, providing some capacity for the community to subject the government’s performance to scrutiny, was released. Under the Kennett government we reported four times per year. We instituted the system of reporting. The government has collapsed the criteria on which performance is to be reported, reduced dramatically the number of reports that are issued and diminished accountability by focusing on the health network rather than the performance of individual hospitals, thereby clouding the capacity of even this sort of mechanism to report effectively on the performance of our hospitals.

The government has failed, and it has established a track record of concealing, hiding, cooking the books and manipulating the processes. I commend the whistleblower who most recently drew the attention of the community to the government’s cooking of the books and the Auditor-General for exposing some other ways in which the system has been manipulated and which this government and this minister have failed to address.

I would like to comment on a couple of those. I turn firstly to the creation of a bypass cycle: we hear about people being moved around from hospital to hospital in an ambulance in an attempt to gain access for them to an emergency department. Mr Viney said earlier that people on the urgent category waiting list never died; well, people may well die if they cannot get into an emergency department. I would like to quote from page 4 of the report, which says:

Bypass occurs when an emergency department is full and the hospital calls for a period where ambulance patients are



diverted elsewhere. When one hospital commences bypass the remaining hospitals experience increased ambulance arrivals. The increase can cause subsequent hospitals to call for bypass, creating a bypass cycle.

So you have people who are not even able to get a foot into a hospital, and we have the audacity to query the horrendous number of people who have died in Victoria. In the past five years 2300 Victorians died while on a surgery waiting list, and who knows how many died because they could not get a foot in an emergency department?

The method of reporting also fails to report on a number of other access indicators, including, for example, the timeliness with which the hospital emergency departments accept patients who have arrived by ambulance and the access to emergency department care and triage for category 4 and 5 patients. The other day I heard of a little girl, Madeline Clissold, who had an accident and waited a significant length of time to access even basic care. Naturally, her parents were frantic. That should not be the experience of Victorians in our public hospital system.

Secondly, we have had an exposition of the ‘not-ready-for-care’ concept that has frequently been used by hospitals to manipulate elective surgery waiting list figures. Recently I heard of one person, Mario Panopoulos, who had fronted up at a local hospital where he was on the waiting list to be admitted for surgery for a very important health issue. He was told that unless he lost weight, he was not ready for care. I do not consider him to be morbidly obese. He should have had access to this crucial health procedure rather than being fobbed off by a hospital that clearly was not able to meet the demands of the community.

The recent report of the Royal Women’s Hospital system audit shows that data is routinely being manipulated. It should not require an audit for us to know how our hospitals — —

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Leane) — Order! Time!

Victorian Skills Commission: report 2007–08

Mr EIDEH (Western Metropolitan) — I rise to speak on the Victorian Skills Commission’s annual report for 2007–08. The Brumby Labor government believes very strongly in ensuring the future skills capability of our state by making sure that industry has the skilled people essential to the future prosperity of our state and that young people and older people alike see the many benefits of learning skills, acquiring trade qualifications and pursuing solid careers in areas that

our state needs. This creates a strong base of qualified personnel for our future needs.

The government has proven this commitment through a number of dynamic policies announced last year: Securing Jobs for Your Future, Global Skills for Victoria and the Rural Skills Cadetship Program. We have also proven it through our commitment to establish 13 skills stores across Victoria — 9 in the regions and 4 in Melbourne. The commission’s report refers to some of these initiatives along with other exciting moves that show our commitment to ensuring a skilled state for the future.

In 2007 over 509 000 students of varying ages received some level of TAFE, adult community education or private adult education, and some 67 per cent of these programs were funded by this government. At 30 June 2008 over 98 000 people were enrolled in government-funded traineeships or apprenticeships. The financial commitment of the government speaks for itself. The report clearly shows that the government values skills education extremely highly and has acted to ensure the very best in such programs for both industry and participant needs. That is one of the reasons why this report states very clearly, and I quote from page 12 of the report, that:

Victoria continues to take the lead in setting the national reform agenda in the vocational education and training system.

The Brumby Labor government has a solid strategic plan for the future of skills training in Victoria. The commission is actively working to ensure that this plan proceeds in the right direction. Its report proves that the directors and staff of the Victorian Skills Commission are well aware of what Victoria needs and how to achieve it. They are quality personnel, and our state is lucky to have them on board.

The Victorian Skills Commission has set a number of strong strategic objectives to fulfil its role, strategies which are clearly set out in the report and which show the professionalism and forward thinking of the directors and staff of the commission. I will not list all of the many positives for the government in the skills area, as they are clearly listed on pages 16 and 17 of the report.

The Brumby Labor government also takes secondary and vocational education very seriously and has acted strongly to increase retention rates. The vocational education and training program and the Victorian certificate of applied learning have both been strengthened to ensure greater opportunities and more solid career prospects for young people. These



programs saw considerable increases in student numbers, including school-based apprentices and trainees. I could go on, as there are so many positive outcomes and so many benefits for our state from the Brumby Labor government’s commitment to the skills sector.

The independent Auditor-General has declared that the report, including its key financial aspects, is accurate. This again proves that entities under the control or direction of the Brumby Labor government are good financial and administrative operators. The report makes various statements regarding its statutory reporting requirements; assets maintained, added to or disposed of; and other relevant matters. It is my belief that the report is a true statement of the current state of skills development in our state and that the next report will bring even more positive news. I commend the report to the house.


Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) — I rise to speak on the Auditor-General’s report of April 2009, Access to Public Hospitals — Measuring Performance, which was released yesterday. This report is a sad indictment on the Brumby government’s ability to manage the public health system in Victoria. The Auditor-General audited four Victorian public hospitals — three metropolitan hospitals and one country hospital.

The report’s key findings included the following issues: one regional hospital falsified emergency department waiting times to meet performance targets; the three major metropolitan hospitals had inappropriately shifted patients off waiting lists onto not-ready-for-care lists; data collection practices in public hospitals are fundamentally flawed and open to abuse, and these problems are widespread; and data cannot be relied upon as an accurate measure of hospital performance.

The release of the Auditor-General’s report came on top of revelations earlier this week that the Royal Women’s Hospital has also manipulated data. Yesterday we also heard that the Austin Hospital had been implicated. A whistleblower described to the Age her firsthand experience of waiting list manipulation. It was reported that more than a third of patients were transferred from a secret, not-ready-for-care waiting list and onto the official waiting list only a couple of days before their operations. It is most concerning that the health minister had access to this report for a full month before it was released, and yet he only moved to put in place an audit of Victoria’s hospitals after the revelations earlier this week that people at the women’s

hospital were manipulating data. His department had known for a full month that waiting list manipulation was standard practice throughout Victoria.

Some of the hospitals that have been audited are large hospitals that are able to raise significant funds through fundraising, and yet they still feel the need to manipulate data in order to increase their payments from the state government. It is sad that their practices will reflect on all public hospitals. We know that there are many well-managed and very good public hospitals in our system and that the management of those hospitals would be absolutely appalled at what has gone on.

The opposition, the Australian Medical Association and some hospital staff have been raising concerns about manipulation of data for some time, but the minister has chosen to totally disregard those concerns, which shows that he did not care that hospitals were possibly rorting the system. Even more importantly, his disregard of those concerns shows that he did not care about the thousands of Victorians who not only are languishing on the official waiting lists but also the thousands more who were languishing on the hidden waiting lists.

Today’s Herald Sun reveals that in the past five years more than 2300 Victorians have died while waiting for surgery — and of course that is on the official waiting list. How many have been on the hidden waiting list? Have they also died, or have they continued to suffer their pain? Neil Mitchell opens his column with some interesting statements. He says:

The scandal in Victoria’s hospitals is not about Daniel Andrews looking like a rabbit in the crosshairs, it is about real people suffering real pain.

It’s about the credibility of institutions we need to trust.

It’s about old ladies who can barely walk waiting years for hip operations, and middle-aged men with crumbling knees hobbling through life while their names are shuffled around lists by bureaucrats trying to impress the boss.

And, yes, ultimately, this could be about people dying who need not die.

There is now unavoidable evidence that the sweaty palms of our health minister should not be allowed anywhere near these people and these problems. He should be dumped, and quickly.

The Auditor-General’s report confirms the opposition’s concerns that manipulation of waiting lists and emergency departments has been rife in Victoria’s public hospitals for some time. This government and this health minister, Daniel Andrews, are clearly not capable of managing the health system. The minister



should take full responsibility for his failure and resign immediately.

Film Victoria: report 2007–08

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria) — I rise to make a statement on Film Victoria’s annual report for 2007–08. It is obvious that film is an important medium, a medium that is accessible to all, regardless of one’s socioeconomic background. Film provides entertainment, information and pushes the boundaries of our imagination. It is a great vehicle for phenomenal acting, but it requires a whole range of skills which lead to filmmaking. I would argue that film and the telephone were two of the forerunners in terms of international connectivity. Film widens our understanding of the world as well as deepens our sense of ourselves. The film industry has an extraordinary workforce and talented people have space to nurture their talents and interact with others in the industry. Film Victoria is part and parcel of that very space.

The role of Film Victoria in the Victorian film and television multimedia industry is to encourage innovation, to create new projects of high quality that are of economic and cultural benefit to this state and to play a role of strategic leadership and assistance to the industry. This role is fulfilled in a number of ways, including providing financial assistance to the industry, developing strategic plans for the development of the industry, promoting the use of locations or services in Victoria for any industry production — and I will come back to that a bit later — and advising the state government on matters relating to the industry in Victoria.

Having read the very thorough and comprehensive report for 2007–08, it is clear to me that Film Victoria is achieving this role, which is set out in the Film Act 2001. During the reporting period the film and television multimedia industry spent $262 million on productions, which is an 80 per cent increase on the previous year’s reporting period. What a fantastic outcome! It has resulted in 7862 full-time employment opportunities which have been created in the industry, with 78 per cent of this employment leveraged from Film Victoria’s funding support.

A specific example of this support is the miniseries entitled The Pacific, which was released in the United States and Australia. It was filmed right here in Victoria. In fact parts of that series were filmed in my electorate of Western Victoria Region — at Sandy Creek Road just outside Geelong and in the You Yangs near Lara. The Pacific is the largest miniseries ever

made and has generated approximately $180 million for the Victorian economy.

This type of production is an incredible opportunity for the rest of the world to see Victoria’s talent, beauty and state-of-the-art facilities. It is productions such as The Pacific and international movies such as Knowing, which stars Nicholas Cage and part of which was filmed in the You Yangs and on the new Geelong Ring Road, which have resulted in a record reporting period for the industry.

It is also important to note that in 2005 Film Victoria launched what is known as Location Victoria, our provincial film strategy. The strategy was developed to assist local councils in provincial Victoria in attracting film and television productions to their cities and towns. Seven websites have been created under this strategy, with the final four being launched in the 2007–08 reporting period. Since this strategy has commenced local council’s have reported a healthy increase in the numbers of local and international visitors to the websites and an increase in film inquiries. To complement this, the Regional Victoria Film Location Assistance Fund will provide for filming projects to offset such costs as accommodation, living overheads and travel. In the 2007–08 reporting period production supported by the RLAF spent $3.9 million in provincial Victoria, which generated a $7 million economic benefit to the state.

Apart from the excellent results achieved during this reporting period, it also marked the first year of the new three-year corporate plan, which outlines how Film Victoria will strategically support Victoria’s film, television and digital media industry. The Brumby Labor government is committed to the industry, which is shown by an $11 million funding commitment over three years to stimulate the industry’s production and development.

I congratulate everyone involved in Film Victoria. It was a pleasure to read this report.

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

Ombudsman: report 2007–08

Mr P. DAVIS (Eastern Victoria) — I seek to make some comments in relation to the Victorian Ombudsman’s report for 2007–08. In so doing I note that the role of the Ombudsman is to provide an independent, impartial and free service to resolve complaints concerning administrative actions taken in Victorian government departments. This service should

DUTIES AMENDMENT BILL


be providing access for all members of the public to an independent means of complaint resolution, including people in rural and regional Victoria. In that context I wish to raise a particular matter which the house has heard of on previous occasions. Thanks to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, who is in the chamber, the matter was partially progressed to resolution. It relates to a dispute concerning contractors from East Gippsland in regard to the Great Dividing Range bushfires of 2007.

The issue is this: there is a dispute about the amount outstanding on contractor bills instigated by the Department of Sustainability and Environment in regard to contracting and resources. Given that the Ombudsman’s charter provides a dispute resolution procedure, I referred the matter that was unresolved — that is, an outstanding amount of $27 000 owed to a Bairnsdale firm, Strickland Ridder Pty Ltd, for providing machinery and crews on stand-by during the Gippsland bushfires over the 2006–07 summer — to the Ombudsman and asked that he deal with the matter. The matter was unresolved following an investigation by the minister and a part-resolution.

The Ombudsman’s office agreed to investigate the claim, but unfortunately I have to report severe shortcomings in the conduct of the investigation. As a result the matter remains substantially unresolved. Several times the Ombudsman’s office arranged meetings to be attended by officials of the department and Ms Nicole Ridder for the company. The meetings were called at short notice, making it impossible for Ms Ridder to appear with representation, and all were cancelled by the department — that is, by the Ombudsman’s office at the request of the department — at short notice.

Finally, a meeting scheduled for last month was preceded four days earlier by a phone call from the Ombudsman’s office notifying Ms Ridder there would be no meeting at all. The office advised that it was not prepared to devote any more time and resources to the case on the basis that its role is to reach an outcome that is in the public interest. On 20 March Ms Ridder and her partner, Phillip Strickland, received a letter formally advising them that the inquiry had been concluded. The letter advised that the department was prepared to make what was described as a ‘reasonable’ offer of $10 797 — I remind members that this is in lieu of the $27 000 that is outstanding — even though it was accepted that the case had highlighted deficiencies in the department’s record-keeping procedures. During the investigation the Ombudsman’s office met the department but rejected an offer by Ms Ridder to travel

to Melbourne for a meeting to work through the documentation supporting the company’s case.

Mr Strickland and Ms Ridder regard the outcome as unacceptable. My knowledge of it leads me to conclude the investigation demonstrates a disappointing and extraordinary shortcoming in process and equity on the part of the Ombudsman’s office. I raise this matter in the Parliament for one reason in particular. I should note that the Ombudsman’s inquiry was instigated by my referral of the matter to the Ombudsman’s office subsequent to the minister having had his department review it and the matter being left unconcluded at that point. I thought it was reasonable that the Ombudsman investigate the matter and come to a conclusion based on an equity position — that is, hearing the concerns about the way the department had responded from the complainant. The Ombudsman’s office has declined that opportunity. The Ombudsman’s office has determined that it will not hear the case put by the contractor in this case. I find that disappointing, and I would ask that the Ombudsman consider this matter further. I am sure there will be a formal request in that regard.


Second reading

Debate resumed from 10 March; motion of Mr LENDERS (Treasurer).

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — In speaking to clause 1, I will foreshadow and formally move a government amendment to the definition of ‘rent reserved’. I anticipate that Mr Kavanagh will seek leave to move an amendment to clause 15 regarding the time in which duty needs to be paid.

I will not argue the merit of this amendment. I will just speak briefly on process on clause 1. As the committee knows, the Duties Amendment Bill has been the subject of some debate. There was a reasoned amendment and this issue was referred for consultation. The house restored the bill to the notice paper on Tuesday and, as I flagged on Tuesday, the government has sought to have



the second-reading stage passed — I thank the house for its support on that — so that on clause 1 I can move a government amendment and Mr Kavanagh can move his amendment. From here I would seek that we report progress and the committee consider these amendments and formally debate them when we resume in budget week. The purpose of doing this is to make it clear to stakeholders what the amendments are, because there has been debate before about uncertainty and speed. We will simply formally move the amendments. When that is done, I will seek to have the committee report progress and we will come back and debate the merits or otherwise of these amendments in five weeks time. On that basis I will formally move the government amendments. If Mr Kavanagh seeks leave to move his amendments, from the government perspective we will give leave. Once all the amendments have been moved, I will seek to report progress and come back in five weeks.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Pennicuik) — Order! I call the Treasurer to formally move his amendments 1 to 3.

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I move:

1. Clause 3, line 5, omit “definition” and insert “definitions”.

2. Clause 3, line 7, omit ‘Victoria;”.’ and insert “Victoria;”.

3. Clause 3, after line 7 insert —

“rent reserved in relation to a lease, means the rent paid or payable during the term of the lease and any amount paid or payable for the right to use the land under the lease;

Example

Amounts paid under the lease for rates, charges, taxes, maintenance costs or utilities are payments for the right to use the land under the lease.”.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Pennicuik) — Order! I call on Mr Kavanagh to move his amendments.

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) — By leave, I move:

1. Clause 15, line 6, omit “14 days” and insert “30 days (or if the dutiable transaction is a transfer of an estate or interest in land and the land or part of the land is outside a 150 kilometre radius of the intersection of Elizabeth and Bourke Streets in Melbourne, within 40 days)”.







8. Clause 16, line 23, omit “14 days” and insert “30 days”.



11. Clause 16, page 13, line 3, omit “14 days” and insert “30 days”.










21. Clause 18, line 27, omit “14 days” and insert “30 days (or if the dutiable transaction is a transfer of an estate or interest in land and the land or part of the land is outside

GAMBLING REGULATION AMENDMENT (LICENSING) BILL


a 150 kilometre radius of the intersection of Elizabeth and Bourke Streets in Melbourne, within 40 days)”.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — The opposition parties recognise that there are a number of issues that remain to be resolved with respect to the Duties Amendment Bill. We believe having these amendments on the public record will facilitate that process, and we will not oppose a further adjournment for these matters to be considered.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — The Greens are also supportive of facilitating this course of action. Without straying too much into the merits of the bill, because the minister has expressed his wish not to do that and I do not want to force him to do so, we are happy to consider the amendments that have been put forward by the government and to see what impact they have on the primary part of the bill.

As we have stated a number of times now, we are still concerned about the impact of the latter part of the bill and the knock-on effect of changes to the legal services board and its grants program. Mr Kavanagh’s amendment relates to that in some way, so we are starting to address that issue, but that will be the other part of the debate we will be pursuing, both outside the chamber and when we return.

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I thank the committee.

Progress reported.


Second reading

Debate resumed from 12 March; motion of Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change).

Mr GUY (Northern Metropolitan) — It is a pleasure to speak on the bill, and from the outset I acknowledge it is a considerable bill. It is 160 pages of an 810-page act, and it has no doubt taken up much time of members in terms of briefings and getting their heads around the many amendments I understand the government has talked about moving this morning — although I point out that I am yet to see them even though we are starting the debate on the bill.

That aside, it is a considerable bill. In my view, as it currently stands it is a terrible bill for such a serious matter as gambling in the state of Victoria. Revenues

have risen from $1 billion a year to around $2.5 billion a year in the life of this government. The bill is poorly drafted and sloppy and lacks any consideration for the future of the clubs or small pubs across the state of Victoria, particularly those in suburban Melbourne and country and regional Victoria. It is a bill that the Liberal and National parties will be opposing.

Basically the bill has a number of issues, and there are about six that I want to talk about. I see it pretty clearly as reflecting a desire by the government to have a fire sale of gaming licences and gaming machines across the state of Victoria — a fire sale in which the government is keen to draw the highest price possible, despite the risks to the future of small clubs and pubs in this state.

As it struggles for revenue the government is seeking the highest price. We have seen this with a number of issues in the last week with the infrastructure contribution to growth areas — another situation where the government is scrambling for revenue at all costs, irrespective of the impact it has on the community — and in the gaming portfolio, where again the government will sacrifice the livelihoods of the operators of many small clubs across Victoria simply to obtain the greatest price as it struggles for its revenue base. It has its edict from the Premier, ‘You cannot fall under $100 million surplus at any cost’ — I do not believe that is going to be met regardless — and the government is scrambling around to find revenue, despite the impact that will have on these pubs and clubs. It certainly could be done, in our view, in a better way.

The government has little concern for problem gambling, and this bill again reiterates that — —

Mrs Peulich interjected.

Mr GUY — It has little concern for probity; you are absolutely right, Mrs Peulich. Problem gambling has a devastating impact on the community. It is something I have seen through a number of acquaintances, and those issues are not properly reflected in this bill.

The coalition has a reasoned amendment it intends to move. While I am waiting for that to be circulated, I will say that the background behind the amendment is that we believe the bill as it is written is flawed. It is a terrible bill. The government has an opportunity now to go away, re-write it, get right the mistakes in the bill, come back with protection for small pubs and clubs and allow them to not be outbid by corporates, allow problem gambling to be properly addressed, and indeed



go away and draft the bill properly. Therefore I move the following amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with the view of inserting in their place ‘this bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for —

(1) measures designed to limit the concentration of ownership, operation and location of electronic gaming machines;

(2) the establishment of the government’s promised systems and mechanisms for implementing responsible gambling measures for the conduct of gaming; and

(3) the process of allocation of gaming machine entitlements to not unfairly disadvantage smaller, community-based clubs and small businesses in the pub sector.’.

I mention particularly that last point, which I find exceptionally important — that we must not disadvantage small, community-based clubs and small businesses in the pub sector across the state of Victoria.

I understand there are many people who want to speak on the bill and we have a committee stage ahead of us, so I will not speak for a long period, but I will go through a number of points. The first one is what I see in this whole issue, and that is the government’s hatred of the duopoly. The purpose of the bill is to restructure the gaming industry, awarding a new licence for monitoring and providing for the creation and allocation of gaming machine entitlements. Labor has decided to end the operator system, but it is also taking, as was mentioned in the other place in this debate, a punt of its own, and it is a very big punt. In ending the duopoly it may cost Victorian taxpayers around $1.2 billion; that, as we all know, is the amount of compensation that under the legislation Tattersall’s and Tabcorp may be entitled to have paid to them for the breach of contract that may occur in doing so.

It has been a fascination of the Premier and the Deputy Premier for some time — this hatred of Tattersall’s and Tabcorp — and the opposition has observed it and sees it manifesting today in the bill before the house. It is not necessarily motivated by good policy in relation to the government’s desired outcome; I think it is motivated simply by hatred first, and I do not believe that will produce the best policy outcome. I will leave it to others to judge the specifics of it.

As I said at the outset, the bill will devastate small clubs across Victoria. Like many members, I am sure, I have been written to or contacted by small clubs whose members are terrified at the prospect of this bill passing, because under this bill small suburban and country clubs and pubs will have to compete with large

corporates in bidding for gaming licences. As an aside, I think we all know that most of those suburban and country clubs are not-for-profit organisations. Most are on Crown land, and they do not have access to a large amount of capital. I thought that it would have been obvious that small clubs do not have the capital base necessary to compete with large corporates and that if they are on Crown land they will not be able to mortgage against the land. The reality is that they will be in deep financial disadvantage compared to large corporate entities. As opposition members have said from the start, the government is interested in raising money first and is not interested in helping out small clubs or looking after the pub or club culture across the state.

In the other chamber some Labor members made some terrible comments about small clubs. I will not repeat them, but I note that the member for Bentleigh made some comments about the inability of small clubs to manage finances and the rest. I thought his comments were grossly out of touch. We have small clubs, not-for-profit entities, that are struggling to survive. Now, simply to attain gaming licences, they will be in a market in which they will find it exceptionally difficult to compete with corporates. They did have to compete with corporates before, and now they certainly will have to do so. At a time of capital shortage across Australia, the small clubs will be asked to bid against corporates for their gaming licence entitlements. That is something that has not been thought out properly by the government. That is one point I will come to a little later.

The community benefit or infrastructure that exists in those small clubs is something that the government clearly does not care about. The government has said that 10 per cent of entitlements must be paid at the auction. That will come in in early 2010 — two years before they can be used in 2012. Then another 10 per cent has to be paid. Thus before the machines are even activated at least 20 per cent of the cost of the entitlements will have to be paid — that is, before any revenue from the machines is obtained by those clubs.

The line that is taken by the government is that only a certain amount has to be paid and that clubs do not have to pay the full cost up-front. The reality is that small clubs will find it exceptionally difficult to raise the capital needed to pay even that small amount. This is what the government will expect from not-for-profit clubs. Clubs spend their money on their members. I do not know how many times the government needs to be told that. The government obviously does not care about the service clubs to the extent that government



members think those small organisations have a huge financial war chest. Clearly they do not.

There must be no disadvantage to small community clubs across Victoria. There is no doubt that the situation of vulnerable small clubs and pubs outside Melbourne must be taken into account. As I said, I am sure that a number of members in this chamber have been contacted, whether by Clubs Victoria or members of small clubs in their electorates.

Mr Hall — In great numbers they have contacted us.

Mr GUY — Indeed a great number of those clubs are concerned about this bill and what it will mean for them and what it may in fact do particularly, as you say, Mr Hall, in country and regional Victoria. It will devastate the ability of those clubs to operate and in fact to be financially viable. They are the heart of many of those small towns. Members will remember that recently members of this chamber sat in Lakes Entrance. A few of us congregated at the club there. Labor members opposite congregated there, and the rest of us congregated on the other side of the room. That club will be one of all the clubs that will be pitted against corporates to bid for their current gaming licences and entitlements. That club will find it very difficult to participate in that bidding.

When we were in Lakes Entrance we all found that there was a part of the town that was the centre, and that was the local club. That club will be devastated under this legislation — that is, the same club we were at less than a year ago at the Lakes Entrance sitting, which government members were happy to patronise, will be devastated under this legislation. As we all know, it was the first port of call, the place that we gravitated towards. It may not be there if its members do not have the financial capacity to continue.

I have received some correspondence from a number of clubs, and I will make reference to some comments made by them. The key point on this is that in writing to me these clubs all state that this bill, despite its being amended, is still flawed. I refer to a letter from the Broadmeadows Sporting Club which says that by deferring debate on the bill and making changes to the proposed legislation the Victorian government has acknowledged that the bill is flawed and that the government has not consulted properly during the bill’s formulation. The club says the bill is still flawed, that there is still no protection for grassroots clubs and that the 50-50 rule is not in the legislation. I will come to that later.

The letter also points out that clubs will still have to compete against hotels on price for gaming entitlements in any particular area and that there are no concentration limits on the ownership of club entitlements. It says the taxation regime continues to lock out smaller clubs and penalises those clubs that are able to hold onto their entitlements.

The Broadmeadows Sporting Club is in my electorate and also in the Premier’s electorate, and its members say that they will be devastated if this bill is passed.

I have a similar letter from the Abruzzo Club, also located in my electorate.


Mr GUY — Mrs Peulich, you are exactly right. It will also cost jobs, local jobs, in these clubs, particularly those in outer suburban and regional Victoria.

I have a letter from the Reggio Calabria Club, located in Parkville in my electorate. I have one also from the Furlan Club. I know the Furlan Club. I think that is where this Parliament held its bocce tournament some time ago. I think Mrs Petrovich did very well in that bocce tournament. That is another club writing to members of this parliament and stating categorically that the bill is still flawed. That is why on behalf of the coalition I have moved a reasoned amendment that seeks to have the bill withdrawn. Again I state that that is a club which members of this Parliament are happy to take advantage of by going there to enjoy the patronage and hospitality, and it will be devastated under this legislation.

I have a letter from the Lalor Bowling Club, which is in the northern suburbs of my electorate. I have one also from Reservoir RSL Sub-branch, the Casa D’Abruzzo Club and the Whittlesea Bowling Club. The Whittlesea Bowling Club is in a quiet outer suburban-cum-interface-cum-small country town, and it will not survive because it will not be able to compete with the large corporates that it will have to compete with if this bill is passed.

Many people have a number of huge concerns with this bill. As is stated in the letter to me, the 50-50 rule, which is that half the entitlements will go to pubs and half to clubs, is not included in the legislation, nor is the 80-20 rule, which is the percentage distribution of machines between Melbourne and the rest of Victoria, and nor is the 105-machine limit per venue.

Mr Koch interjected.



Mr GUY — Mr Koch raises a very interesting point with me. At this time, when we are talking about the future of clubs in Victoria, the sustainability and viability of clubs in Victoria — —

Mr Jennings interjected.

Mr GUY — No, I note that Minister Jennings is in the house.

Mr Jennings — That’s it. That’s all there is.

Mr GUY — Out of obligation. There is always a minister in the house. I thank Minister Jennings for his presence.


Mr GUY — I acknowledged the minister’s presence in this chamber, through the Chair, of course. I acknowledge that the minister is here, but it is a shame that not a single one of his colleagues, particularly the six Labor members of Parliament representing country Victoria in the upper house, is in this chamber to listen to this debate. I guess that says it all.

As I was saying, the 80-20 rule, which is the percentage distribution of machines between Melbourne and the rest of Victoria, and the 105-machine limit per venue are not provided for in the legislation. Again we have before the chamber a bill that greatly increases the minister’s power in the area of gaming and yet we are being told, ‘Trust us’.

Mrs Peulich — ‘Trust me’!

Mr GUY — The minister says, ‘Trust me; we will make sure that 80-20 is the case. Trust us; we will make sure that the 50-50 rule, with half each going to the pubs and clubs, is the case. Trust us that the 105-machine limit per venue will be the case. Trust us; we won’t put tolls on the Scoresby freeway’.

Mrs Peulich — ‘Trust us; we won’t put tolls on the Frankston bypass’.

Mr GUY — Mrs Peulich is spot-on again: ‘Trust us; we won’t toll it’, says the government. This is a serious point; this is not in the legislation. If the government felt so serious about these points, as the opposition does, it would be in legislation. It would not give free rein to the minister to simply write in or write out whenever he decides that is the case. There is no oversight, probity issues are again up for question and it is all at ministerial discretion. Although those measures in principle are supported by the Liberal Party and The Nationals, we believe we cannot allow a situation to

exist in which the minister feels free to make changes at his whim, and that is what this bill will allow.

I will skip through a few points I was going to raise simply because I do not want to take too much of the house’s time, but I will touch on one issue before I conclude — that is, probity. This is another gambling bill, another gaming-issue bill that we are debating, and again we look back to this government and say, ‘Has it got the probity issues right?’. The answer yet again is no.

We support the proposal that in a market with more than two operators running the 27 500 electronic gaming machines in Victoria there is a common monitor. That information is made available to the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation and to the government. We support that. We believe there must be an independent monitor — we have stated that — and the monitor must be able to examine transactions occurring with machines. The monitor must have a responsibility in relation to problem gambling and must be able to look at technology to implement solutions to problem gambling. But once again there is a situation in this bill, in clause 23, where there is no provision for a ban on lobbying in attempts to get licences.

How many times have we come into this chamber and talked over and over again about lobbying in relation to gaming activities and particularly in relation to the issue of gaming licences? No doubt people like David White and others at Hawker Britton will be running around spruiking their wares to all kinds of people, maybe at cost price, maybe not at cost price, or maybe at full price.

Mr Koch interjected.

Mr GUY — Mr Koch, it will be again a highest bidder exercise when the government has opened it up to its own mates to lobby the government with no probity whatsoever, because you cannot ban lobbying according to this government. The government has said it will outlaw improper influence. I would like to know what proper influence is? Maybe it is proper influence as opposed to improper influence. Proper influence is Hawker Britton, CPR and Shannon’s Way; improper influence is anyone else who gets in on the scene.

Once again this is a situation where a gaming bill is presented to the Parliament with no ban on lobbying and lobbyists in this kind of activity. That is exceptionally concerning for the Liberal Party and The Nationals, and it is one of the reasons we have moved a reasoned amendment seeking that the bill be withdrawn



and that the government take the opportunity to look at the problems it has not addressed in this bill and has not written into the legislation but has left to ministerial discretion.

With those comments I leave it to a number of my colleagues to make known some other concerns about the bill. I again state that the Liberal Party and The Nationals will be voting for the reasoned amendment. Should that reasoned amendment be successful, then no doubt we will be very pleased; but should it fail, we will not be voting for this bill.

Mr DRUM (Northern Victoria) — I rise to speak on the Gambling Regulation Amendment (Licensing) Bill 2009 and on the reasoned amendment moved by Mr Guy. I make the point that we will be opposing this bill and we will be supporting the reasoned amendment put forward by Mr Guy. I have looked briefly at the government’s amendments in this bill, which were kindly given to us during our briefing with the department two days ago. I am incredulous that we are having this debate. It is absolutely beyond belief to be debating how we will give the government the go-ahead to complete this multibillion-dollar change within the industry. It is a multibillion-dollar change which will mean literally hundreds of billions of dollars within the industry will change hands as a consequence of what we are debating today.

We are expected to give the government the green light to go ahead and make these changes within the industry, which goes to the very core of our community assets. We are expected to give the government the green light to go ahead and make these changes when we do not know any of the details surrounding these changes.

As Mr Guy stated succinctly, we are being told by the minister, ‘Give me all these sweeping powers. Sit back and trust me; I will do it right’. We know that the government is under extreme financial pressure and everybody in Victoria knows that. The government’s spending is out of control and we know that its revenue has been extremely hard hit by the global financial crisis. We know the government is on the lookout for every available cent it can get, let alone a couple of billion dollars that is going to come its way. We know that the government gets well over a billion dollars every year just from electronic gaming machines (EGMs) around the state. This is a government that came in lambasting the previous government for being addicted to EGMs. If ever there was the pot calling the kettle black, it is this government and the way it has acted once in government in relation to its addiction and its absolute reliance on gaming machine revenue.

That aside, irrespective of the philosophies, the ideologies and the hypocrisy, today this government is asking members to give it the green light — to go ahead and vote for this bill — when they do not know anything about the actual detail of the bill for which it is asking them to vote.

This bill goes to the absolute core of our local community assets. By that I mean that right around the state of Victoria, in every town we have community assets that are absolutely reliant on a local club somewhere. That club is in a sense reliant on its gaming revenue. The government acknowledges this in its own grant scheme. When the government hands out grant money it excludes any community facility that is receiving EGM money. If your local hockey club is a part of a sports club that receives funding from EGMs, then you are ineligible to receive all of the sporting grants that other clubs, which are not receiving EGM revenue, are eligible to receive. When the government hands out money around the state as a part of its own grant scheme, it acknowledges that these EGMs in clubs support many of our community clubs and community assets. The government has come up with a bill which absolutely offers no security and no comfort for any of these community clubs or assets in the future.

We have not found out anything about this bidding process. How do clubs bid to maintain the status quo and to maintain the revenue streams they currently have? How do they bid? Are they going to have to outbid the pub sector? I know the government has said that clubs will only be able to bid for club entitlements and pubs will not be able to bid for club entitlements, but the government has not shown us how it is going to do that. It has not shown in any practical way how it is going to be able to differentiate in this bidding process and where it will be able to draw the line as to how many hotels in a certain area are going to be successful in gaining entitlements. How is the government going to somehow draw the line and say, ‘Righto, that particular area has enough. We now need to leave some room for clubs’. That does not exist.

I will go back to what Mr Guy said about the 50-50 rule. Currently we have 30 000 machines in the state. There are 2500 machines in the casino, which leaves 27 500 for the rest of the state. That 27 500 is divided, with 50 per cent going to existing clubs and 50 per cent going to existing hotels. Up to this stage that has been controlled by the duopoly of Tattersall’s and Tabcorp. They have been the ones who have regulated that 50-50 split. They will be taken out of the equation in the future and this 50-50 split will fall back to the minister. He had the opportunity to put this 50-50 split in the legislation. Simply putting it in the



legislation would have given the whole industry sector a lot of comfort.

We also need to have some mechanism in the system to work out how to safeguard each area. In the 50-50 split between pubs and clubs we have to be mindful of the real fact that hotels make double the money from each machine that clubs make. Hotels will be able to pay this government the licensing fee. They will be able to pay double what clubs pay for the same machine. How is the government going to differentiate in the bidding process? It might say, ‘We have to leave gaps right around the state for the club sector, which is only going to be earning half as much. How are we going to leave gaps around Victoria to ensure that the club sector gets an opportunity to bid at a lower level?’. Information on that issue has not been furnished to the opposition.

Again we have this stark pall of smoke hanging over the whole process. We cannot see our way through it. We keep asking for the answers; the responses keep coming back to us. The government says, ‘We cannot tell you that because we have not finalised the bidding process. We cannot tell you because we do not know. We cannot tell you because if we do know, we still cannot tell you’. How are we supposed to support something that is this important — a decision which has so much money riding on it — to the state of Victoria and to all our local communities? How can we give the government the go-ahead to do this when we do not know any of the details?

The government has shown us examples concerning the taxation regime. You can have a small club which has only 38 machines making $3.5 million effectively paying more than double the tax of a venue which has 100 machines and makes $4.6 million. We have a taxation system which penalises efficiency; we have a taxation system which rewards organisations that have a huge amount of machines; we have a taxation system that rewards inefficiency in the system; and we have a taxation system that penalises people who know how to run this system and generate revenue for the community. I cannot understand why we would have a taxation system that is based on individual machines versus individual venues. I do not know of any other sector where you are charged like that. You do not charge a pub for the amount of taps it has in a bar as opposed to the amount of profit it makes at the end of the night. Does the government charge a motel based on the number of beds and bedrooms the motel has or does it charge tax on the amount of profit the motel makes in a given year? Here we have a situation where the government has delved into a business and said, ‘We are going to tax you on the number of units you

have; we are not going to tax you on how much profit you make’.

I do not know whether the government is going to make more money out of this, but the taxation system the government is promoting seems to be a totally unjust system. I will go through those figures again: a small club with 38 machines generates $3.5 million profit and pays more than double the tax of a club which can have 100 machines and makes $4.6 million. More machines, more profit and half the tax of a small club making less profit — if someone can sit me down and tell me how that makes sense, I will be very interested.

As I said, we have no idea how the bidding process is going to work. We do not know anything about the saturation of machines. The very real position we have put to the government is that in high-turnover, high-profit areas, the bids are going to come in. Whose job is it going to be to say, ‘Yes, the most successful, highest bidder is going to be the first cab off the rank, so off go 100 machines’, or whatever the bidding process entails? The second bid comes in, and that will also be a high-bidding hotel licence, you would imagine, because hotels make double the amount that clubs do. The third bid is likely be a hotel, and the fourth bid is likely to be a hotel. Before we know it the local government area caps have been reached. How are we going to leave room for the club sector to get its drink out of the whole system? We just do not know how this system is going to work.

Is the government going to say, for instance, that the first allocation in the bidding process is a pub, and it happens to have been won by bid A, so it gets that. Is it then going to auction off a club entitlement and see what the best club bid is, and then go through it one by one? That would be one way you could achieve some sense of security for our club sector, because the clubs will receive their entitlements at the same time as the hotels are receiving their entitlements. But we have no idea whether it will be worked along those lines. Our clubs are just sitting there — and have been sitting there since this announcement was made over 12 months ago — thinking, ‘What is going to happen?’.

There are people in Bendigo, which is my home town, who have paid over the odds for hotel venues. I know the government will say, ‘If they have been speculating that the status quo is going to be maintained for the next 5, 10 or 15 years, then that is their bad luck. They have made those decisions’. Maybe it is their bad luck, but the government needs to have thought about this and delivered some sense of comfort and security to the sector. It just cannot come out and make a grandiose



statement such as, ‘We are going to take Tattersall’s and Tabcorp out of it, and we will work the rest out as we go along’. We are approaching 2010; we keep getting closer and closer to the time when there is supposed to be a bid or an auction, or whatever it is we are supposed to be having. The government is now using terms such as ‘competitive bidding process’. I think it uses that so that no-one will talk about it being an auction.

What about all the people in the industry? What about the people who are employed in the industry, in the club sector? They have been given no security and no comfort. What will happen if in the high-turnover, highly profitable areas the licences are awarded to the highest bidder? The government is going to stand up on its pedestal, like it did in the lower house, and say, ‘Why do you want us to look after the bleeding-heart clubs?’, and start calling them basket cases.

There needs to be a bit of general awareness about how the system actually works. In my electorate in regional Victoria there are many clubs that do not make a lot of money, but they are incredibly important to that community. The St Arnaud sports club has in the vicinity of 35 to 40 machines. It has been put together by donations from local farmers. The local businesspeople got together and all put up personal guarantees. They built the best special venue in St Arnaud and put machines there. About 35 people are employed by those machines, some full time many part time. It offers that town the most sophisticated meeting rooms and conference area, but it also offers sporting facilities for netball, hockey, soccer and football. Harness racing was held there as was the agricultural show. That whole region is reliant upon this little club, where you can go and have a fantastic meal and a good night out in a town that would otherwise not have those facilities. Under this system that club will be threatened with not having those machines in the area.

We have no idea what the provisions will be. The government could have and should have made provisions within the legislation for these small clubs. We would then simply read the legislation and be able to say that we understand what the government is doing. It has taken Tabcorp and Tattersall’s out of it. There is in effect $1 billion gross — nowhere near $1 billion net — that is now going to have to be divided up between the health system, taxation, the venue operators, the purchaser of the machines, the payback on the licence bidding and so forth. But the government did not do that. It has simply left it up in the air.

The government had an opportunity to be stronger in the way that it looks after a bona fide club. In effect it is

saying that any organisation, provided it meets normal club laws, can bid for these machines. But as we know, individuals within the club sector have been profiting and will continue to profit from being the backers of various clubs around the state. There is nothing in this legislation to stop individuals receiving exorbitant lease arrangements and exorbitant management fees as they help so-called legitimate clubs attain EGM entitlements through these competitive bidding processes. Who is going to be the watchdog to determine what is a legitimate lease arrangement and what is a legitimate fee? We have again been unable to work out who is going to play that role of the watchdog in those areas.

Again, whether it be the bidding process, which we have no idea about, or whether it be what constitutes a bona fide club, what is going to stop the continuing trend of AFL clubs having the ability to have these monstrosities within their own sporting arrangements? Not only that, we now have the trend where AFL clubs are moving out into various other communities in Victoria and have the ability to take up entitlements in other local government areas.

In my home town of Bendigo we now have the Bendigo Stadium-Schweppes Centre, which has over 100 machines. It looks after all the basketball and volleyball facilities in that city and in effect looks after three elite basketball teams which compete on a statewide and national basis. This means that ratepayers in Bendigo do not have to pay a cent to have that fantastic facility and those elite teams well supported in our city.

If those facilities are taken away, who is going to look after that community infrastructure? It will have to be the ratepayers. Who is going to stop the Collingwood, Richmond or Hawthorn clubs from coming into the market, purchasing those entitlements in Bendigo and taking the profits back to Hawthorn or Richmond, back into an elite AFL club? What is to stop Racing Victoria, as a not-for-profit organisation, from getting involved in the club market and in effect going out into the Victorian communities we live in and starting to bid for machines in those clubs? They can leave the clubs in those areas, pay a management fee and pay for the lease on the premises they exist within, but they have the ability under this legislation to take all the profits away from those communities and put them back into these elite clubs that are clubs in name only. Sure, our AFL clubs are not-for-profit organisations, but we all know they are extremely elite businesses that provide pre-season holidays and run pre-season training camps in Arizona.

Mrs Peulich — Is this the Demetriou bill?



Mr DRUM — I have written to Andrew Demetriou about the trend of AFL clubs effectively taking the resources out of various communities around the state, but I got a total non-answer. Mr Demetriou does not believe it is in his domain to be concerned about what his clubs are doing.


Mr DRUM — It is to the Bulldogs’ credit that they have been able to get themselves out of the financial toilet by investing in gaming machines — and good on them if that is what they are doing — but that does not make it right. A club can take advantage of a situation that currently exists, and the Bulldogs have been able to get their bottom line to a situation where they are now a very viable AFL football club — but that does not make it right.

Somewhere we have a community that has all the ills and the evils that these EGMs create, and we have that same community left with all the problems but none of the benefits that are so evident when you go for a drive along the Murray River. You can see these dynamic towns along the Murray River that have the evils and the ills associated with problem gambling, but if you look out the other side of the car you can see the sporting fields, the indoor basketball centres, the beautiful parks and gardens and the swings and kindergartens. You can see that all these gaming venues have contributed real dollars back into the community. At least you can see that some sort of balance exists within some of the communities along the Murray River. You will not see the same balance with the situation that this bill is going to create in Victoria.

It is absolutely negligent, careless, sloppy and lazy of this government to bring this rubbish into the house and expect people, in good conscience, to vote for it.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I have been sitting here without any prepared speech notes, wondering where to start in addressing this bill. Do I start specifically with the provisions of the bill: what it does and does not do? Do I go back to the government’s policy announcement last year about the restructuring of the industry and a number of other problem gambling measures it proposes to introduce over coming years? Do I go back to the findings and the process of the Select Committee on Gaming Licensing, which consisted of two parts: firstly, an inquiry into the issue of lottery licences, and, secondly, as the result of a Greens push, an inquiry into the issue of problems associated with gambling in Victoria? Do I go back to what was an extremely hot public debate on the problems associated with pokies that was running well

before that committee was established, or do I go right back to where I first got involved, which was as a candidate prior to the 2006 election?

It should be obvious to anyone watching objectively that since before the election the Greens view of poker machines has been that they do more harm than good. Through that debate, and with a very active community involved in lobbying for improvements — often the same people assisting problem gamblers on a day-to-day basis — there have been any number of discussions about the sorts of measures that might need to be brought to bear to make these into safe products. For a while they were being debated alongside tobacco as a product that, when used as intended, causes harm. I know there are people out there who disagree with that view. There are others who see pluses and minuses to the industry. But the research now suggests that the majority of those who use poker machines regularly and for considerable periods will experience a loss of control while sitting in front of a machine. Some even say it is the sense of that loss of control, that sense of zoning out for a while and forgetting all your problems, that is the nicotine-like feature these machines are programmed to administer to a person.

Interestingly also, research shows that people who use machines report they do not really enjoy doing so. They do not enjoy it, I guess, in the way we enjoy other activities such as going for a walk or having dinner with friends. Maybe they get some relief from it, but people who use the machines do not say they enjoy using them, so something else is going on.

In the hearings of the upper house Select Committee on Gaming Licensing I put it to various people that this was the current thinking of the research, and I asked them what it meant for how we should be approaching these issues. The representatives of Tattersall’s and Tabcorp, in the style of those famous US tobacco company executives at the congressional hearings, put their hands on their hearts and said, ‘It is not an addictive product’. They of course would have to say that, because if the focus came to be on the product rather than on the problem gamblers, we would be moving into what would be for them a murky legal world of product liability.

The experience we have of poker machines in Victoria over 20 years is that a considerable proportion of Victoria’s population — it is argued 1 or 2 per cent — will experience moderate to high levels of harm as a result of using this product. If this was a different product, moderate to high levels of harm might mean, for example, people breaking their leg. If there was a product out there causing 1 or 2 per cent of the

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE


population — and a much higher percentage of the using population — to break their leg as a result of using it, we would force the manufacturer to take it off the market. But that just does not apply here, and we know the reasons why.

Government is as addicted to the gambling revenue as are the existing duopoly and the clubs and pubs that hold the machines, with their one-third, one-third, one-third shares. I disagree with Mr Drum, however, that the government is hopelessly dependent on gambling revenue. In fact the poker machine component of the gambling revenue as a proportion of our whole state budget is actually pretty small. To boil it down, it is $1 billion out of $45 billion. In an economy where there are other growth taxes — state-controlled and federal — poker machine revenue has been falling as a proportion of our revenue. If, as many say, 40 per cent or even one-half of that revenue comes out of the pockets of people who either are problem gamblers or are experiencing considerable harm, then that is the proportion we need to look at eliminating from our capital and operating budget.

That is the situation the Greens see in front of us. The anecdotal stories that seem to come in little bursts of media coverage are of course devastating — way beyond the statistics. People on small and inadequate incomes are shown having put huge proportions of their dollars through the machines, at the expense of spending on their own or their families’ health, education or rent. They are also shown sliding right over into criminal activity to support their habit. Then there are the knock-on costs of fraud and fraud insurance to firms, insurers, individual clubs, not-for-profit organisations and councils such as the one I was at, the City of Yarra. If we added all those up, we would wonder whether it was even worth collecting that money for the state budget, because clearly the costs are on someone else’s balance sheet and are not being measured. The revenues in contrast are easy to read. You just look them up in the budget paper.

The announcement by the government last year that there would be a major change to industry structure was an opportunity to make major changes to the policy settings. The one did not need to be linked to the other, but once Tattersall’s and Tabcorp had been shown the door, politically, certainly many other opportunities appeared. Those opportunities have not been taken up in this bill.

We argue it is the cart before the horse. We could have brought in, legislated for or even simply articulated a whole new range of problem gambling policy settings. Instead we have the bit that first sets up the auction and

the new structure — setting up those billion-dollar line items that will appear in the state government budget over a cycle or two, with a big push, seemingly, for that to be prior to the November 2010 election — with problem gambling measures starting to come in now as an afterthought.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.


Hospitals: data reporting

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to his, in my view, unsatisfactory answers over the last two sitting days to questions about the implications of Victoria’s practice of supplying incorrect health performance data to the commonwealth for the purpose of obtaining funding under the Australian health-care agreements, and I therefore ask the Treasurer: what is the potential cost to the budget of Victoria of supplying this tainted data to the federal government, including the possible reimbursement of health funding granted to Victoria on the basis of incorrect hospital data?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. What he is clearly seeking from me is an opinion — —

Mr D. Davis interjected.

Mr LENDERS — I am very capable, I hope, of answering the question myself, and if Mr David Davis wishes to amend the sessional orders so that he can ask and answer the question, he is perfectly at liberty to do so any Wednesday, provided he gives seven days notice.

Mr Davis asked me for a figure. He has asked me for an opinion on a range of variables, most of which are obviously hypothetical. That is my specific response to his question. However, in general terms the answers I gave on Tuesday and Wednesday in this house and the Premier and the Minister for Health gave on Tuesday and Wednesday in the Assembly cover off the main issue he has raised.

Supplementary question

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — The Treasurer may wish to dismiss these matters, but they are very important. Given that the data for the Latrobe hospital is, according to the Auditor-General, in error on one in five occasions, I ask: has the minister initiated any briefings from the department on this serious issue,



and has he bothered to officially contact either the federal Treasurer or the federal health minister to clarify Victoria’s exposure?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — The implication of Mr Davis’s question, with his use of the term ‘bothered’ and the like, is clearly that he has a press release ready one way or the other, as he does with question time — either you are doing one thing or the other.


Mr LENDERS — Mr Davis is clearly quite agitated. He is quite excitable, and good on him for it — this is his opportunity to be so. Mr Davis obviously understands accountabilities. The detailed areas are primarily things that the health minister is responsible for, although he works with other departments. If Mr Davis had listened to my reply, the Premier’s reply or the health minister’s reply, read the Auditor-General’s report or followed the public commentary on the issue, he would have noticed that the health minister is conducting extensive audits to get information, to which obviously the government will respond. Between that answer and the answers that I, the Premier and the health minister have given over the last two days, I think we have sufficiently answered his question.

Bushfires: tourism

Mr VINEY (Eastern Victoria) — My question is to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Gavin Jennings. Can the minister inform the house of how the Brumby Labor government is taking action to support local tourism operators in the South Gippsland region and the steps being taken to preserve one of its most precious natural assets?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I thank Mr Viney for his question and the opportunity to talk about my recent visit to Wilsons Promontory to see the nature and circumstances of the fires that burnt for the best part of February and into March and to meet with members of the local community to discuss the implications for the local economy and tourism industry and ways that we can collectively go forward to try to make sure that there is a more vibrant economy, particularly in the South Gippsland region but also beyond it.

In the days leading up to 21 March, which is the date on which Wilsons Promontory was reopened to the public, I travelled in the company of Bruce Esplin, the emergency services commissioner, and Mark Stone

from Parks Victoria to Tidal River and met with representatives — —

Mrs Coote interjected.

Mr JENNINGS — I was listening for that interjection. I met with representatives of the Shire of South Gippsland; with Sue Deacon, the chair of Prom Country Regional Tourism; with Terry Robinson, the chief executive officer of Destination Gippsland; and with local tourism operators from Yanakie, Andrew and Bronwen Austen and Sean Taylor. I also met with important stakeholders who do a great job in relation to the wellbeing of the park, represented by Deb Bray, chair of the Wilsons Promontory Advisory Group. I also had the good fortune to meet up with a local representative of the Country Fire Authority, Simon Bloink, who played a very important role in supporting the firefighting effort through the Department of Sustainability and Environment and Parks Victoria to keep the fire under control — to contain it — and, at all times during the course of February and into March, keep the township of Yanakie safe.

I was very interested to know, as was the emergency services commissioner, about the degree of community engagement and support that was provided by firefighters during that time and to see whether they allayed community concerns. I am very pleased to say that it was clearly confirmed by community representatives that there was a high degree of community engagement and a great degree of knowledge transfer to the local community and that the people felt safe during that period of time.

Beyond that, we discussed the implications of the fires for the tourism industry. I am sorry to say South Gippsland is not alone in the regional landscape of Victoria in that tourism activity dropped away during the course of the fires in February, and local tourism operators are very concerned about that loss of economic activity. We collectively talked about marketing campaigns and ways we could bring tourism back into the South Gippsland region and rebuild confidence within those communities. I am pleased to say to the house that we estimate that since Wilsons Promontory reopened on 21 March — and free entry was available to encourage people to come back to the park — thousands of people have come back to the community. In fact as many as 3000 person bed hours, in terms of accommodation, have been booked and secured since 21 March. The promontory has been open to bookings since 28 March, and there are now significant bookings at the accommodation in Tidal River. Thousands of people are returning to this beautiful part of the world.



Very significantly in terms of the vegetation that we will see through the rehabilitation work that is being undertaken in this park, tourists in future will have the potential to see aspects of cultural heritage that may have been hidden by the vegetation for many decades. Ricky Mullet, who was representing the local indigenous communities, was a participant in this meeting, and the tourism operators were extremely excited about the potential for a whole new range of visitors to come to the region to immerse themselves — —

Mrs Petrovich interjected.

Mr JENNINGS — Mrs Petrovich has indicated that this has been a feature in other parts of the landscape, where important cultural heritage has been uncovered because of the removal of vegetation. In some small ways we also have some cultural heritage blessings from what has been exposed in the landscape. We will be looking to provide for the appropriate tourism opportunities to come through the cultural heritage and the natural splendour of this beautiful part of the world. I thank those who have been involved in this effort, including Chris Rose from Parks Victoria and Craig Stubbings and his team at Wilsons Promontory, because they did a great job. It was a great collaboration with the Country Fire Authority and there was great community engagement and great optimism about the number of people who are flocking back to this beautiful part of the world.

Australian Loan Council: allocation

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Treasurer. What is the revised Australian Loan Council allocation for Victoria for 2008–09 and the allocation for 2009–10?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I thank Mr Rich-Phillips for his question. I will take the specifics on notice, because it is an exact figure and I would not want to be out in my advice to the house. Obviously the Australian Loan Council allocation is from the budget update. If Mr Rich-Phillips pauses before his supplementary question, I will get him the exact figure. The loan council allocation is actually our borrowings. That figure is a public figure in a budget update. It is publicly available. I will take it on notice and get him the exact figure.


Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — As the Treasurer well knows, the figure I was referring to is the one agreed to last week at the Australian Loan Council for 2009–10. Can the

Treasurer inform the house whether the 2009–10 allocation includes any allowance for the Wonthaggi desalination plant or the Frankston bypass?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — The Australian Loan Council borrowings are what the state of Victoria seeks on its most recent information. We have the midyear budget update from which we go to the loan council to say what the state’s borrowing requirements are. The borrowing requirements of Victoria are exactly what I said they are. If we as a state had a budget deficit, they would be to borrow for the deficit, but we do not have a deficit. The state of Victoria has a borrowing requirement for infrastructure going forward, so that is technically not part of an operating statement — our borrowings — which is a figure that we provide on the most recent information to the commonwealth.

We also have a borrowing request, which is reported in our papers. That is for our public non-financial corporations — bodies like the water authorities and the Port of Melbourne Corporation. All those figures that are publicly reported are in our request to the loan council. They are all in there. There is nothing secret, nothing unusual and nothing surprising. Any project we have, whether it be the desalination — —

Mr Rich-Phillips interjected.

Mr LENDERS — Mr Rich-Phillips is trying to help me.

Mr Rich-Phillips interjected.

Mr LENDERS — I can string a sentence together, thank you, Mr Rich-Phillips. What the government does with its loan council allocation is simply add together the loan requirements that come from Melbourne Water and the Port of Melbourne Corporation. Melbourne Water is clearly the body Mr Rich-Phillips is referring to for the desalination project, so Melbourne Water has a borrowing requirement. That borrowing requirement is transparent. It has been estimated — the figure is out there, what it thinks the requirement is for the desalination plant — and that is included in the state of Victoria’s request to the loan council for borrowing approval. That is the figure. I will take it on notice to get the exact figure back to Mr Rich-Phillips. That is the figure that the loan council gave approval for a week ago, 10 days ago or whenever it was, when the loan council met in Canberra.

Planning: legislative review

Mr ELASMAR (Northern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Planning, Justin Madden.



Can the minister update the house on how the Brumby Labor government is making the planning system simpler, easier and more effective for local councils, the planning community and all Victorians?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — I welcome Mr Elasmar’s interest in this area. I know that in his local area planning is a matter of interest for him and his local community, so I welcome his question today.

We are committed as a government to continuous improvement of the planning system. Whilst it is a complex system, it has served us well for many, many years. However, there is acknowledgement that in some instances we need to continue to renew the system and improve its performance, particularly when it comes to certainty and clarity around the system and the mechanics of the system. I take great delight in informing the house that I recently released a discussion paper inviting the community to have its say about how the Planning and Environment Act can be improved. The act has served us well over many years, but there are some challenges ahead that we need to not underestimate. We need to improve the system and improve certainty for everybody in the industry. Whether it is the planning profession, local government, residents or resident groups, we need to give them all more certainty and clarity. There are a number of challenges, whether it be population growth or climate change, as well as the need for certainty around what can be done. We want to hear from the community how it believes the act can be improved. It is not about throwing out the old act but about finetuning and improving that act.

I think there is a comparison even in the discussion paper that shows that this has served us very well. It is not that we necessarily need a new car — if we want to make comparisons — but we want to improve the operation of the existing car, which perhaps needs some finetuning and a service. I welcome anybody in this chamber to make submissions on behalf of their community. I would even welcome the opposition having input or making submissions as to how we could improve the act.

I note that where we have had a number of other reviews we have not heard from opposition members. They have not made any submissions. When they do want to make a criticism or make a statement about these things, what always astounds me is where they were at the beginning of the proceedings. They seem to jump on board at the end without any clarity about what it is they are saying.


Hon. J. M. MADDEN — I welcome input from Mr David Davis, as a local member or as the Leader of the Opposition in this house. I am sure members from other parties or local members will make submissions themselves.


Hon. J. M. MADDEN — I am sure Mr Hall and Mr Drum could make submissions, and I would welcome them. The most important thing is that they do make submissions.


Hon. J. M. MADDEN — If Mr Davis has a strong belief, he should make a submission. I notice that he did not made a submission when it came to residential zones. He did not make a submission on the discussion paper around residential zones. I am not even sure what the position of the opposition or Mr David Davis is when it comes to growth area infrastructure charges or urban growth boundary reviews. I would welcome his input and I want his submission. I am sure that there will be members of the chamber who will comment and make submissions, but they should make them early; they should not make them late. If they make them too late, as always they will be left behind.

This is an opportunity to improve something that has worked very well and to give people more surety, more certainty and even input. I would welcome feedback and constructive views on ways to improve the Planning and Environment Act so we can make sure that Victoria is the best place to live, work and raise a family.

Dairy industry: government assistance

Mr VOGELS (Western Victoria) — My question is to the Minister for Industry and Trade, Mr Pakula. Yesterday Warrnambool Cheese and Butter Factory announced a milk price reduction to its suppliers, an overall milk price cut of approximately 60 per cent on the price promised at the start of the season. Nobody knows if there are any further cuts in the pipeline, and I ask: what action or plans is the minister implementing to support our manufacturers associated with the dairy industry to ensure that this industry remains viable into the future?

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade) — I thank Mr Vogels for his question. I am sure that he knows — and if he does not know, he should know — that all elements of the food industry come



within the purview of Regional Development Victoria and are, as a consequence, matters for the Minister for Regional and Rural Development. I will take the details of that question on notice and provide them to Minister Allan so she can provide the member with a more fulsome response. Can I say — —

Mr D. Davis — On a point of order, President, the member has asked a question about support for manufacturers associated with the dairy industry. As I understand it, that is clearly within the purview of the minister’s portfolio.

Mr Viney — On the point of order, President, I find it interesting that Mr Davis has a copy of the question in front of him. I note that Mr Pakula was trying to proceed to answer the question, and I assume he was going to do so relevant to its implications for his portfolio. I cannot see that there is any point of order.

The PRESIDENT — Order! As the house well knows, the minister can answer the question in any way he sees fit or not answer it at all. However, if he chooses to answer, then his answer must be relevant to the question. I think the minister is in order, and I rule both members’ points out of order.

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — As I started to say, there is a sad but growing trend in this place for members opposite to not seem to understand which minister has responsibility for which portfolio. I am responsible for manufacturing, but the dairy industry and the balance of the food industry fall within the responsibility of Minister Allan, as Mr Vogels should well know.

Having said that, the government has made enormous progress in its support for the manufacturing industry. In fact there will be some announcements made about that today. In relation to manufacturing in regional Victoria more generally, this government has done a range of things. This house does not need to be reminded that the Regional Infrastructure Development Fund, which has supported manufacturing industries across regional Victoria for years and years, was opposed by members opposite.

As I have indicated, I will pass the member’s question on to the relevant minister for her response. I will happily take a supplementary if it is relevant to my portfolio.


Mr VOGELS (Western Victoria) — I asked the minister about support for manufacturers associated with the dairy industry; obviously he did not understand the question. As we know, the largest exporter out of

the port of Melbourne is the dairy industry. The largest employer in rural Victoria is the dairy industry. The biggest value-adding business in rural Victoria is the dairy industry. With a 60 per cent cut to farm-gate milk prices, thousands of jobs will be lost in country Victoria, not to mention the huge flow-on impacts that will be endured by our communities, particularly small businesses. I ask: why was the dairy industry left out of the Victorian manufacturing strategy?

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade) — The Victorian manufacturing strategy was brought to the Parliament and brought into effect by the previous Minister for Industry and Trade. As I understand it, the dairy industry was not included because it did not fall within his portfolio responsibilities. There was a separate food industry strategy, and it was included in that.

Bushfires: timber industry

Ms BROAD (Northern Victoria) — My question is to the Treasurer, John Lenders. I refer the Treasurer to the recent devastating bushfires, especially those in Northern Victoria Region. Can the Treasurer update the house on the Brumby Labor government’s response on getting the timber industry back to work in bushfire-affected communities?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I thank Ms Broad for her question and her interest in this matter. I note that Ms Broad does not own a timber mill and is not asking a question about her own business without putting that qualification on it up-front.

Mr Finn — You are getting more pathetic every day.

Mr LENDERS — It is a serious point. Ms Broad asked a question about the timber industry post the bushfires and particularly about what the Victorian government is doing to assist that important industry to get back on its feet following the trauma of the fires — not just in a community sense but also in an economic sense, given what the fires have done to that industry.

Ten years supply of sawlog has been burnt in the Central Highlands area. That is a significant issue for an industry that requires a reliable supply of wood to go forward and create jobs. That is a big issue.


Mr LENDERS — Some members opposite think this is a funny matter and are coming up with puns about it.



Mrs Petrovich — We think it is very serious.

Mr LENDERS — Then I would suggest Mrs Petrovich treat it seriously.

Ms Broad asked a question about where we are going forward on that. The first thing we need to do is engage the industry and find out about the issues and solutions it sees going forward. I have on two occasions since the fires, and I went once during the fires, gone to Toolangi with some VicForests officials. We met with a lot of Department of Sustainability and Environment officials and also a lot of participants in the industry. At that stage they were distracted as they were using heavy equipment to assist DSE in fighting the fires, clearing paths and doing a range of things.

Secondly, at the suggestion of Ben Hardman, the member for Seymour in the Assembly, the community cabinet convened a round table at which a range of industry stakeholders showed much interest in and concern about where things were going. I am delighted to say that my colleague Mr Jennings joined me at the round table, as did our colleague Mr Helper, the Minister for Agriculture. We sat and listened to the concerns of the industry about how to go forward.

A lot of complex issues come in at this particular time. To cut to the chase, the government wants the timber industry to be able to continue. We want timber millers to be able to go back into the forests, when it is safe, to harvest timber. Then we have the policy dilemma that comes forward instantly — that is, a lot of trees have been burnt and can be utilised within the next couple of years, but if we do not act quickly, people will harvest live trees. If you have a choice between harvesting dead trees and live trees, quite clearly you want to use the resources most effectively for the myriad reasons of which we are all aware.

I am happy to say that collectively we — that is, DSE, VicForests and the government generally, particularly under the guidance of a very active local member — have sought to find a prompt way forward to expedite getting the work started again. I commend DSE and VicForests for their assistance and support in that. I also commend the industry for its forward thinking. Its practitioners are being pragmatic and realistic in working on this.

We have an industry that is sustainable despite the challenges in front of it after the fires. The one good thing that has come out of the sad circumstances of these fires is that all the agencies and practitioners are getting far better at responding quickly to the issues that come before them. I thank Ms Broad for her question. I

can let her know that there is a lot of cooperation around government and a lot of cooperation in the industry in moving forward so that we can harvest the dead wood and get that going quickly, rather than relying on green wood when other wood is available.

Planning: growth areas infrastructure contribution

Mr GUY (Northern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Planning. I refer to the minister’s new retrospective and up-front growth areas infrastructure contribution, and I ask: can the minister inform the house if he intends this new tax to apply to family land transfers or land transfers unrelated to development?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — I welcome Mr Guy’s interest in these matters. As I have said before, we are currently in discussions with the development industry on many of these issues. What is important is that we are also undertaking an investigation into areas that are currently located outside the urban growth boundary. I am sure the opposition is very mindful of the fact that if we were to adjust the urban growth boundary overnight, without any analysis or investigation, we would be highly criticised by it for giving landowners a significant financial advantage.

The investigation into areas currently being undertaken will ensure that when the urban growth boundary is adjusted the infrastructure charge that comes from that uplift at the sale of land and the technical arrangements about transfers of land will be worked out with the development industry. They are still under discussion, but if Mr Guy were a landowner outside the urban growth boundary and we adjusted the urban growth boundary, he would, by virtue of that adjustment, suddenly find himself in a significant position of financial uplift. His land value would increase substantially. But if the government were expected to stump up the infrastructure without any contribution from that uplift from the landowner, that would not be a palatable position for anybody, particularly taxpayers, landowners and potential new residents in these potential subdivisions.

There will be a charge where the uplift occurs because of the change in the urban growth boundary — and the finetuning of the technical elements about that are being worked through with the development industry. That charge will be the growth areas infrastructure contribution. That will contribute to infrastructure, and that infrastructure will provide for those communities for generations to come.



I make the point that if Mr Guy is wanting to see a windfall gain or a significant commercial uplift in the value of the land but does not seek to have anybody provide a contribution to the infrastructure, then I would ask Mr Guy where he expects the infrastructure to come from, where he expects the funding to come from and how he would justify the windfall for those land-holders.

Regardless of who might own the land, where the transaction occurs and where there is a significant financial uplift there will be a charge for the growth areas infrastructure contribution.


Mr GUY (Northern Metropolitan) — I take it the minister means yes. Can the minister now advise the house if his new, up-front growth areas tax will apply to land that is to be set aside for public open space, reserved for cultural heritage or lost through native vegetation reserves? And further, how will the government assess these requirements in the absence of a structure plan?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — I welcome Mr Guy’s interest in these matters. There is an array of ways in which the technical elements of the growth areas infrastructure charge will be worked through. We are currently in discussions with the development industry. I would be interested to know if Mr Guy is trying to translate this into a significant capital uplift to the developers without actually asking them to contribute to infrastructure. If that is his position, he should put that on the table.

We have a plan for accommodating growth in Melbourne. The exact technical details are being worked through in collaboration with the development industry. I am confident that we will work through those issues. Again we have a plan for Melbourne’s growth, the Melbourne @ 5 Million plan. It involves an adjustment to the urban growth boundary where areas are investigated and the adjustment it is justified.

There will also be treatments for native vegetation, and I am working in collaboration with my colleagues around where that might be and how that might be dealt with. But of course there will be landowners and developers who seek the greatest commercial advantage within any location over and above their own — —

Mr Guy interjected.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — No, this is just commercial business, Mr Guy.

Mr Guy — So what are the details of it?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — If Mr Guy is saying that we should not have the infrastructure charge and if he has an alternative plan, I suggest he put it on the table. As we work with the development community through the technical arrangements of how we charge for land at this rate, of course every developer in a particular corridor will seek to gain greater commercial advantage over any other developer — and we are happy to work with them jointly. But if Mr Guy is advocating on behalf of one specific developer over another developer, then he should tell us who the developer is and we can deal with them directly rather than through using him as a mouthpiece.

I welcome Mr Guy’s question, but I assure him that after we work with the development community over the detail — and I know we will have some rigorous discussions with its members, and we are currently having those rigorous discussions — we are confident that when the bill comes to this place it will be supported by the industry. I just hope that when the bill comes to this place it is supported also by the opposition and the opposition parties.

Etihad Airways: services

Mr EIDEH (Western Metropolitan) — My question is for the Minister for Industry and Trade, Martin Pakula. Is the minister aware of any recent announcements by international airlines that provide a further boost to Victoria’s trade and local job opportunities?

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade) — I thank the member for asking me a question in relation to my portfolio. Last Thursday night when the Australian Football League season opened I was not at the MCG where I would have liked to have been; I was instead at Etihad Stadium.


Hon. M. P. PAKULA — I was not there by accident. As much as I would have liked to have been with Mr Finn, I did not mind being there because I was there for the launch of Etihad Airways new daily, non-stop flights from Melbourne to Abu Dhabi. They were launched on Monday, and that launch has again confirmed Victoria’s international reputation as Australia’s premier tourism and business destination. This is a service that will provide an extra 200 000 seats a year into Melbourne. It is an investment that provides a significant boost to our international airline services,



and one that makes it even easier to do business here in Victoria.

As members would know, the Middle East is a growing market for trade and investment opportunities. I was speaking to John Butler, our new commissioner for Dubai over the weekend, and he was effusive about the expatriate population in the United Arab Emirates and the opportunities for trade it provides. But it does not only provide an opportunity for travel to and from the UAE. Etihad Airways will be providing a one-stop connection to cities like Athens, Milan, Istanbul, Larnaca and Chicago as a result of the new Etihad daily flight from Melbourne to Abu Dhabi.

The government is ensuring that Victoria keeps up with demand by facilitating more direct flights in and out of Melbourne. The new service will also provide an extra 125 tonnes of freight capacity every week, which is a win for Victoria and for Australian exporters to the Middle East.

The new service will also provide 40 new jobs at Etihad’s Melbourne head office, and those daily flights, as members would appreciate, will also generate flow-on jobs in a range of related areas like maintenance, airport ground handling, the hotel industry and catering. In these difficult economic times every job held and every job created by an announcement such as this is more vital for this state than it has ever been. By investing in this new service Etihad Airways is expressing another vote of confidence in Victoria as a strong business and tourism destination.

This announcement builds on the previous announcements and the previous wins in direct flight attraction by this government, such as the announcement from Qatar Airways only a few weeks ago, the announcement by V Australia about the new daily flights from Melbourne to Los Angeles, the Pacific Blue flights, the AirAsia X service through Kuala Lumpur, the increased services by Emirates and Philippine Airlines and the decision by Tiger Airways to base its Australian operations here.

The Brumby Labor government will continue to take action to ensure that Victoria remains the easiest and the best place in the nation to live, work, invest and raise a family.

Environment: western coast

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) — My question is for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Mr Jennings. Constituents have

recently expressed concerns to me about government plans and policies for the western coast. In particular, some are concerned about the kiosk at Port Campbell, the development of trail bike tracks in the area and state commercialisation of some assets by, for example, excluding non-paying members of the public, as they are described, from areas such as Rainbow Beach. What are the government’s plans and policies for Victoria’s western coast?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I thank Mr Kavanagh for his question and the concerns expressed within the question that may have been generated by local citizens, who I think, from the tone of the question, have as a primary concern the recurring theme of protecting environmental values. That is a very appropriate concern. It is a concern that the government shares and a concern that land managers such as the Department of Sustainability and Environment and Parks Victoria share. It is certainly a concern that is shown by great community effort through bodies such as the coastal councils that exist along the Victorian coastline and indeed the coastal council along the western coast.

I think there is a great degree of resolve and engagement and a great deal of perspective in trying to ensure that there are environmental protections. That is not to live in denial of a whole variety of pressures. Some of those pressures range from climate change scenarios in terms of sea level variation and the planning pressures that may come from that. There are planning pressures in relation to how popular that coast is, because people want to live along that coast. There are certainly pressures, obviously because of its beauty and the recreational engagement that people can obtain there, because people want to go there in their thousands. Our challenge is to try to get the appropriate alignment of those issues, to allow for people to increasingly immerse themselves in that beautiful landscape along those coastal areas, but to do it in a way that means the environmental values are protected.

Interestingly enough today in the chamber I was having a conversation about a very narrow-cast range of these issues with a person not far down from Mr Kavanagh in the seating arrangements. We were discussing the kiosk proposal at the Twelve Apostles. I understand some people are anxious about that proposal because they think it may erode business opportunities along the coast and it may be that the outcome will be a disadvantage to businesses in Port Campbell, as one example. My response is to say a couple of things. One is that there is a facility there — there is a car park there, and the location is very highly used in terms of intensity of use. I think in that context a coffee shop or



kiosk is probably not going overboard in terms of development, because there will be no external redevelopment and no external demand will be created at the location. In fact it will create a centre for people and encourage them to actually stay a little bit longer.

I want to emphasise the theme of staying a little bit longer. One of the things that happens at the moment is that tens of thousands of people go along to that beautiful part of the world in buses. They get to the Twelve Apostles, they get out of the bus at that location, they have a look, they take a photo, they get back in the bus, the bus turns around and they come back to Melbourne. That is hopeless in relation to the local economy, and it is hopeless in relation to keeping people in the region. Ultimately the resolution of this matter is to be alive to the environmental pressures and to account for them and to try to create ways in which there will be greater attractions — a basket of integrated attractions — that will encourage people to stay longer in the region and ultimately grow the entire economy. That is what we are trying to achieve, and I am very happy to work with the local community on those matters into the future.

Manufacturing: government initiatives

Mr SCHEFFER (Eastern Victoria) — My question is for the Minister for Industry and Trade, Martin Pakula. Can the minister outline to the house how the Brumby government is taking action to work with small and large manufacturing businesses and relevant unions to meet the challenges of the global financial crisis?

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade) — I thank the member for his question. As members would know, late last year under Minister Lenders the government issued Building Our Industries for the Future, which was our $245 million industry statement. That plan was designed to give Victorian industries the tools they need to prepare for the future, to create new jobs and to provide more export dollars for the state.

The government has been taking action to ensure that manufacturing industry can turn this rapidly changing global environment into opportunities, to build future growth, to secure and create new jobs and to develop more innovative industries. The government recognises how vital those industries are for the state. If you take the automotive industry as an example, it is a $15 billion industry that employs 35 000 people in this country. Our plan is a plan that will assist industries. It is a plan that looks to the future and will improve

exports and provide programs to assist those industries through the current global financial crisis.

One of the initiatives in the manufacturing statement was that the government intended to reconstitute the Victorian Industry Manufacturing Council, the old Manufacturing Industry Consultative Council (MICC). That council in its previous manifestation was designed and in its new manifestation is designed to deliver a stronger voice for modern manufacturing. It is a council designed to be a valuable source of advice for ministers and for government more generally — —


Hon. M. P. PAKULA — Mr Davis, I will come to that. It is a council designed to provide valuable advice to ministers and to government more generally and to make a direct contribution to future policy development.

Today I am delighted to be able to announce the composition of the new Victorian Industry Manufacturing Council (VIMC). There is a strong focus in the new council on direct membership of companies, as opposed to peak bodies. The peak bodies are represented, but the overwhelming complementation of the council will be companies, with a wide cross-section of manufacturing industries represented. I will chair the council, and as chair of the council I will be provided with direct contact with the members of that council.


Hon. M. P. PAKULA — Mr Davis, I look forward to the enhanced opportunity that will give me and, through me, the government more generally to learn firsthand about the challenges being faced by industry. The VIMC will consist of 19 members, including a departmental officer and me.

Mr Vogels interjected.

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — You should just wait, Mr Vogels. Mr Vogels should know there is a separate food industry council, where that representation is. If Mr Vogels were across his brief, he would know that food industry companies have always been represented on food industry councils, not the MICC. He ought to know that.


Hon. M. P. PAKULA — Opposition members are so out of touch that they are not across that basic fact: dairy companies and other food companies are



represented on food industry councils. Let us go through who will be on the council. It will consist of 19 members, representing both large and small companies, as well as unions — —


Hon. M. P. PAKULA — As they ought to be, as representatives of an enormous number of working people in manufacturing. The members will also have the opportunity to form working groups to undertake specific projects.

The membership of the Victorian Industry Manufacturing Council, apart from a departmental representative and me, is Tim Piper from the Australian Industry Group (Ai Group), Wayne Kayler-Thomson from the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VECCI); Brian Boyd from the Victorian Trades Hall Council; Steve Dargavel from the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union; Cesar Melham from the Australian Workers Union; Michele O’Neil from the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union; and Antony Thow from the National Union of Workers; along with Mark Reuss from General Motors Holden; Marin Burela from Ford Australia; Ross McCann from Qenos; Elmo de Alwis from Sigma Pharmaceuticals; Michael Grogan from Sutton Tools; Peter Nicholls from Production Parts; Andrew Stobart from Olex Cables; Mark Dwyer from OzPress; Rohan Stocker from Marand Precision Engineering; and Philip Binns from Varian Australia.

The VIMC will have its initial meeting later this month, and that newly formed group will build on the work of the Manufacturing Industry Consultative Council, which contributed very strongly to the development of the government’s agenda for new manufacturing and undertook a wide variety of issue-based projects. Not only does this demonstrate the Brumby government’s commitment to and vision for our manufacturing sector but it demonstrates the government’s preparedness and willingness to consult with all the players in the manufacturing sector: peak bodies, the Ai Group, VECCI, the union movement, and large and small manufacturers. We are an inclusive government. We want the views of all stakeholders. We want all their views, and we want all that fed into the manufacturing agenda. We are very proud of the establishment of the new VIMC.


Second reading

Debate resumed.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — In the last two weeks and, I stress, since this bill has been tabled, I have had some ongoing conversations with the Minister for Gaming about his government’s directions and my concerns about the types of measures to address problem gambling that need to be introduced in Victoria. I will talk about that for a moment so that the overall interest of the Greens is clear.

As I go through these measures I note that the coalition’s reasoned amendment talks about measures to address problem gambling being introduced as a precondition of this bill being re-presented, but I am not completely across the position of the coalition on the subject of problem gambling. It is not that the coalition has been active in this area, and it is not that the coalition has been inactive in this area. It is not that the coalition has not made statements on it. It is not that the coalition has never had a policy on the issue; it is just that the policy has emerged from various sources and has not always appeared to be comprehensive. Various coalition members have indicated to me at various times that the policies from the last election do not necessarily survive that election.

Precommitment for people playing gambling machines is absolutely essential. It relates to the new research — which is contested by the industry but not so much contested by the Department of Justice, from the evidence I have — that people experience a loss of control when they are in front of a poker machine for an ongoing period. Precommitment provides the opportunity for individuals, before they sit down in front of the machine, to decide how much they want to gamble and how much they are prepared to lose, and to have themselves locked out of gambling once they have reached their limit. That is a step up from the sorts of measures we have seen in the past.

Initially the focus was on education. The focus was on the problem gambler and profiling that person to try to find out what was wrong with them. It was the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff rather than the fence at the top of it, if I can use that analogy. Precommitment relies on the latest research, which says that this is the only way to make this product safe. Precommitment, to my mind, is not simply some sort of message flashing up on the screen saying, ‘You have reached your chosen limit’. It is certainly not the sort of



scheme we have got going even now at Crown Casino, which is basically a loyalty card for someone who is sitting in front of a machine to accrue loyalty points as they lose their money. Those technologies have been around, but it is the features of the system that are important.

We are going to have a statewide electronic monitoring system that is connected to every machine. That is a feature of this bill, and if just that provision were being brought forward, the Greens would vote for it. It is that statewide monitoring licence that allows for the features that would make a statewide precommitment system work. That would involve, most likely, the individual having some sort of device or interface with the machine where they will effectively do what we all do many times a day: log in. They can then set their limits. Their limit will be unique and identified to them so that a person cannot simply move to the next machine and keep gambling or use someone else’s access.

Yes, it would be a total drag for every single gambler in Victoria to have to use such a device, but my belief is that there is no way to work out who might become a problem gambler or the point at which they could become a problem gambler, or I should say experience gambling-related harm, because in my view there is no definable type that is a problem gambler.

We are confident that that system is deliverable. What we have not had from the government is its own commitment prior to bringing this bill forward that it will introduce a precommitment system. It has been talked about; it has been floated; it has been studied. The Responsible Gambling Ministerial Advisory Committee has looked at it, although that is a secret committee so we cannot officially find out about the progress of its activities. But after discussions with the minister in the last two weeks, the minister has clearly said to me that there is no way he can legislate for it in this bill. While we continue to discuss it, it is pretty obvious it is not going to happen in the next month either. Yet from the Greens point of view that is an essential measure to take so that we would accept it would be safe to go on the market.

I say all of that in the context of the large and demonstrated downsides of gambling-related harm in our community. Earlier on I used the example of a large number of people breaking their legs after using a certain product. That might represent a moderate level of gambling-related harm, but I did not try to underplay the harm that can occur to particular individuals. These are people who have been caught up in poker machine gambling who have not only harmed themselves but who have also harmed their families, their employers

and the web of trust that goes with that. There have been suicides and murders associated with people who have become addicted to poker machines. That is how seriously this issue has to be taken. It is why, in my view, the inconvenience of making anybody who wants to play a poker machine first sign up to a precommitment system is an acceptable balancing of the public interest.

The Greens have also promoted a whole range of other interlocking policies — seatbelts and airbags if you like — to make this product safe. Some of those are in no way being supported or seriously examined by the government at the moment. Obviously venue locations, the concentration of those venues and how they are situated in relation to other sorts of activities are an issue. Do we really need a poker machine venue in every major district, every major activity centre or even in every suburb or every postcode? Would it not be better to have smaller numbers of larger venues centralised in some way so that at least you would not be tripping over one on the way down the road to do the shopping?

The issue of regional caps has been a belated response. Every local council in a capped area has made submissions to the extent that they do not believe the caps have been effective because they were too little, too late. We need sinking caps, which is the situation in New Zealand.

The evidence that makes this particular issue regarding location concerns even more important is recently released data showing gaming machine losses by venue. We have had it by municipality before, but there are often multiple venues within those municipalities. We have never had the data of individual venues. A couple of weeks ago data of every venue in Victoria was abruptly released. Did the government have a sudden rush of interest in being more transparent about whether losses were occurring? No. In my view — and you do not have to be too cynical — it simply wanted to inform the market in advance of an auction. The information is interesting.

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

Mr BARBER — Before the lunch break I was discussing a precommitment system and indicating why it was essential. The government is talking about moving towards a precommitment system possibly in two phases, one being some kind of bolt-on box that could go onto the existing population of machines, which sounds like an expensive option. What I am particularly interested in is a precommitment system for the new licences and the new machines. So far I have



not been able to obtain, and the minister says he is not able to give us, enough detail about what the government’s intention is in that area to give our support for the bill.

I should point out there is a thing called the Responsible Gambling Ministerial Advisory Council, which meets in secret. My understanding is the reason it meets in secret is it is meant to be an industry stakeholder round table. Chatham House rules! That is where the details of these sorts of issues could be pounded out. But to the extent that I know about what that group is doing, it has certainly not been moving rapidly to establish the principles, the standards or the functions or the features let alone the technical requirements for the system I am describing.

Clearly some sort of plug-in card that just allows you to move to a new machine or a new venue is not going to do the job, because we know when people are in a severe state of gambling addiction they will do almost anything and travel from place to place in order to have another go at the poker machines. During the hearings we had a story from a woman who was a registered nurse, who was working the night shift in the evenings, coming home in time to get her kids to school and see her husband off to work. What she normally would have been doing was then sleeping during the day, but she actually went out and gambled and somehow managed to pretty much not sleep while working as, I think, an intensive care nurse. She maintained the facade for her children and husband in the evenings and the mornings that she was having a normal home life, and she did not actually sleep during the day but went out and played the pokies. So we are talking about a serious, heavyweight system that is required here.

It also concerns me that in the principal act there is no definition of gambling-related harm. There is plenty of talk about problem gamblers — it is easy enough to see who they are — but there is no definition that starts from the focus on what is ‘harm’. The New Zealand legislation actually defines what harm is, and it puts requirements on those running the industry to reduce harm. That even works down to requirements for the way they operate their venue, certain types of behaviour — for example, it may be a requirement for a guy running a club in New Zealand, if he sees someone who has been playing machines for hours and hours and has been in there all day — —

Debate interrupted.

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

The PRESIDENT — Order! I am sorry to interrupt Mr Barber, but I want to alert the house to the fact that we have in the gallery an ex-member of the Legislative Council, Ms Jean McLean.


Second reading

Debate resumed.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — That club operator may have to approach the person and say, ‘Look, Fred, you have been playing the machines here for 6 hours. Your mate Jack is over there playing darts. Why don’t you go over and play for a while?’.

It is my understanding that very recently in Victoria we have started to have compulsory codes of practice for the operation of venues, which need to be approved by the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation. As that regime flows through the community, the VCGR will be in a position to become more and more enforcement-like in its approach, and I think that is a good thing. I have not had time to find out more, apart from the basics, but I think it is a good thing. However, I would still argue that high-level support for the idea of what is harm and what is the requirement for a responsible industry to reduce that harm should be set down in legislation. One other reason why I think that should be the case is that if a private legal action is taken against the gambling industry by an individual who has been harmed, then that legislative support for the view that the venue operator has been derelict in its duty could help the case, above and beyond the powers that it gives the government to enforce that.

The government also informed me very recently via a few handwritten notes on a piece of paper that the position of community advocate on gambling is to be continued and funded with $500 000 per annum for the next three years. This role, as I understand it, originally existed to support local councils and others in their approach to the industry, but there were some staffing changes which caused it to be temporarily vacated. The whole issue has now been reviewed by Professor Bill Russell, an experienced public administrator, who recommended that it be established. The minister has referred Professor Russell’s report to the Responsible Gambling Ministerial Advisory Committee, and the government is determined to fund it, allowing for about three full-time-equivalent staff. They will be given a



charter for their adequacy and advisory role. That is a good thing.

Local governments and a whole range of other groups that have an important and sometimes even a statutory role in approving and dealing with venues and venue applications have been totally outgunned, because competing with them on an application or issue you have Tattersall’s and Tabcorp, with all their expertise and resources, backing up the other side. If members ever read the transcripts of various Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal cases they will see how difficult it has been for local councils to effectively argue their case. Notwithstanding that, there have been some wins.

That is my overall general position on the principles of this bill as they relate to the issues of problem gambling, which, as I said, is the pre-eminent concern of the Greens. We have also received, as have all members now, many representations on behalf of clubs, both through Clubs Victoria and through individual clubs talking about their situation. That has given me the opportunity to think through how this new competitive bidding, auction or assignment process will impact on those clubs. Most clubs have not had to be particularly business focused about these decisions, because when Tatts and Tabcorp are supplying you with the machines and a whole range of other advice and additional support it is reasonably easy to go on managing your venue and receiving cheques.

Some clubs have, I suppose, now had their machines for as long as there have been machines — 20 years or more — so this development represents a major change in their experience. I have discussed with some clubs, not just through Clubs Victoria but directly with clubs whose managers spontaneously phoned me, the circumstances they believe they will be in when they have to enter into this competitive process. Sometimes you have clubs that are located on Crown land reserves; they do not own their own assets. They do not have any capital against which a loan could be secured; they may never have taken a loan or an overdraft or they may have a loan and an overdraft which already has them fairly indebted. They may be a small operation made up of individuals who are voluntarily on a board, perhaps with a paid manager, and high-level financial analysis, business planning and working out how you would even go about putting together a bid for poker machines would be well beyond them. I have an MBA (master of business administration) in finance, and when I think about some of the issues around pricing a poker machine entitlement as a future stream of revenue, the costs that are associated with that and variables such as the economy and new measures the government might

bring in to reduce gambling-related harm, I understand how complicated it could be.

I am still getting more representations from clubs about this issue. I am asking whether there will be a possibility for clubs that are simply unable to put together a bid to enter into a secondary market or whether such a club could merge with another club. I want to know what their situation really would be if they missed out. It will vary greatly across the wide diversity of clubs that are out there; I think that is fair to say. Frequently the answer to any question I put to Clubs Victoria is, ‘There is such a diversity we cannot answer definitively for all clubs. It will affect different clubs in different ways’. There is a difficulty here, in that the government is saying that due to probity concerns in the lead-up to any competitive process it cannot engage directly with the highest level of clubs at the highest level of government. That is causing frustration and uncertainty. I imagine that sooner or later we will get more clarity, but I do not think it will be enough for clubs as soon as they would like it. Inevitably if there is a competitive process involved in the assigning of these entitlements, many people will be waiting to find out exactly what the process is and what their opportunities are.

I am not completely au fait with the original decisions around the issue of poker machines and their introduction into Victoria, but it is clear that for the most part it is sporting, social, RSL and, in some cases, even purely charitable clubs that hold these machine licences. They have access to a more or less stable income stream that has allowed them to build up their activities to what is generally a fairly high quality level. Mr Drum spoke eloquently about that in relation to a whole range of local clubs and venues in his electorate and demonstrated their benefits to the community. I do not deny any of that or try to take any of it away, but it concerns me that it is that particular set of groups that receive this regular income stream which for most of the last 20 years has been safe as houses. The government likes the situation for the same reason.

I note that the Australian Financial Review referred to poker machines as a form of non-discretionary spending, which I found amazing. This was an admission that people will keep gambling no matter what their circumstances are. I would have thought spending on gambling would have been discretionary, but here is a bit of realism as usual from the Australian Financial Review. You will not get major fluctuations in poker machine gambling in the way you might with some other, more luxury items. I do not blame any of the clubs for wanting to keep the good thing they are on. I simply point out there are many, many other



essential causes out there that rely on the uncertainty of government funding to achieve their objectives. Sporting, social and RSL clubs are the community glue for people who participate in their activities, and very often those people are from the mainstream of the community. I have partaken in those activities myself many times. What concerns me is that those at the fringes of our community, the most needy, are inevitably the first out when state government spending starts to decline.

That is the reason the Greens have been critical of the community benefit statement aspect of clubs’ activities and why we think those community benefit statements seem to relate more to the community of the club than to a broader community. Those community benefit statements have been tightened up. Nevertheless our concerns stand. I know there are local councils which believe they are dealing locally with much of the community harm and which would like to attract for themselves a greater share of these billions of dollars flowing through clubs and pubs and the state government.

I move on to the reasoned amendment proposed by the coalition and a number of other amendments that have been now circulated, and this will take me to the end of my contribution. The coalition’s reasoned amendment consists of three parts: concerns about concentration of ownership, the proposed establishment of the government’s promised systems for implementing responsible gambling measures and provisions that enable the allocation of gaming machine entitlements to not unfairly disadvantage small, community-based clubs.

The Greens have some sympathy for all parts of that amendment, and I have been very clear about our particular commitment to its second part. Through legislative or other mechanisms the government should be locking in a clear intent around the reduction of gambling-related harm before it moves forward with the allocation of machines and another 10 years of poker machines in Victoria.

Also, just this morning I was handed a whole swathe of amendments that the government wants to introduce to this bill. It is unfortunate that I got them so late. There may have been some miscommunication there. As I understand it, the coalition has had them since Tuesday. In line with some other bills we have dealt with this week, we would normally be kicking up quite a stink about dealing with a bill when new amendments, which relate to novel material not even contemplated in the original bill, have been received only a few hours earlier. However, in consultation with both the

government and the coalition it appeared that both of them were keen to see the bill go forward.

I have now had time, having had lunch and while juggling the amendments and three pieces of principal legislation, to walk step by step through the amendments and see how they impact. Of course I have not had any opportunity to consult with those who may be affected. These amendments relate to a legislated ban on automatic teller machines (ATMs) in venues. This is an appropriate measure, although I have some questions about how it will operate. I do not think it will be a panacea, but it may have some effect.

We know banning smoking in venues has had a quite noticeable effect, at least for a while. Clearly that was because if you cannot sit at a poker machine and smoke at the same time, after a while one addictive mechanism will start to outweigh the other. When you go outside for a smoke, have a look around, start to come back to your senses and start to think about what else in your life you value above and beyond poker machines, that break in play allows you to regain control. I believe — and I think most people agree — that is why the smoking ban had a big impact on gambling revenue, at least temporarily until the venues and the duopoly worked out how to squeeze more juice out of the existing number of machines. Anything that causes people to break play, even if it is simply having to run across the road to a service station to grab some more money out of an ATM before coming back to gamble, can have a slight beneficial effect. EFTPOS will still be available in venues, but codes of practice for operating venues will have to cover the use of EFTPOS; they cannot allow people to simply come back every 5 minutes and get more money through EFTPOS.

As far as I have been able to examine this set of amendments, they appear to do what the minister tells me they will, but I have not had what I consider adequate time to think about them, much less to consult with my usual sources of expertise upon which I am very reliant because I do not have an army of professional advisers covering my 11 shadow portfolios.

Some other proposed amendments relate to creating more certainty in relation to the issue of who will be able to bid for entitlements, particularly for venue operator licences. Those amendments arise from some of the concerns that clubs have been raising — and good on them for raising these concerns. They are starting, step by step, to get action from the government in terms of legislation. I do not know whether they are satisfied; I simply note that the government is starting



to legislate in response to issues that have been raised, which is better than nothing.

I have also been handed an amendment in draft form — I think it will be moved either by the government or by Mr Kavanagh — that relates to the gaming machine entitlements that allow entities to bid. I am not fully au fait with it, so I will let Mr Kavanagh speak about it when the time comes. It relates to entitlement holders not holding more than 420 club gaming machine entitlements. I guess that relates to the limit of 105 machines per venue, so it would mean there would be no more than four clubs under one entity.

In summary the Greens will support the coalition’s reasoned amendment. If that fails, we will by necessity go into committee and start to deal with individual amendments. The amendments I have seen do not satisfy our major concern about whether the poker machines that will operate in Victoria in the post-2012 period will be safe and socially responsible, nor do they satisfy our secondary concern about the fairness of the details of the competitive process.

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria) — I am pleased to rise and speak in support of the Gambling Regulation Amendment (Licensing) Bill 2009. I start my contribution by saying I do not like poker machines much. That they are a popular form of entertainment mystifies me. On the couple of occasions a year I find myself in front of a poker machine, giving away my 10 bucks, I tend to walk away wondering what the attraction is. That said, my preferred forms of entertainment are no doubt equally mysterious to many others.

Some of the issues that Mr Barber canvassed during his contribution are very important. For some people the risks associated with gambling are profound. For those who are trapped in a cycle of problem gambling the impacts are far greater than the loss of the money in their pockets. Their family members, workmates, and in some instances employers and other innocent bystanders in the community can be consequential victims of someone in the irrational state of being addicted to poker machines.

That said, I understand and accept that gaming machines are a reality of modern life in Victoria. Many gaming operators are non-profit clubs that are very involved with the community — for example, ethnic community groups, RSL clubs and, in the case of my electorate, sporting clubs. Like many members, I have met numerous representatives from these clubs who have talked about some of the concerns they have about the changes in gaming regulation in this state.

The government is absolutely committed to providing people with safe gaming opportunities and an environment which supports responsible gaming practices and, importantly, provides assistance for the small percentage of people for whom the use of electronic gaming machines poses a risk of their becoming problem gamblers. We are proud of our record in this area. In providing protection for problem gamblers we have imposed maximum density limits on a number of gaming machines in areas that are considered to be at risk and by eliminating 24-hour gaming venues, other than Crown Casino.

I visited a not-for-profit gaming venue recently. It opened at 9.30 a.m., which happened to be the time I had my meeting. The car park was pretty quiet at that hour, but people were waiting at the door as the venue opened and they went into the gaming room to use the machines.


Ms PULFORD — Ms Peulich’s concern is one that I certainly felt. I waited for a few moments outside the gaming venue, and it struck me that at that time of day that venue was perhaps not the time and place for entertainment and the disposal of discretionary income. I would not presume to know the circumstances of the people who were there, but my view is that it seemed pretty early in the day to be hitting the machines.

The government has also restricted gaming venue signage and banned gaming machine advertising. Members will be aware of the government’s commitment to removing ATMs (automatic teller machines) from gaming venues by 2012 and using the best technology that we can access to introduce a precommitment mechanism to Victoria. These measures are important in creating a break in play. For those who are trapped in a cycle of problem gaming a break in play can be an important opportunity to stop and think about the consequences of their actions and a time to make a decision to walk away. The introduction of a precommitment mechanism is an important change to the industry.

The government has also provided support and assistance for problem gamblers and for those at risk, including a $132 million, five-year initiative called Taking Action on Problem Gambling, which seeks to implement measures of harm minimisation. We have also been leading the development of the national phone line, Gamblers Help, and we are playing a role in this service. Members will have noticed an increase in signage and awareness messages and advertisements in venues and at tram stops in recent years. They are part



of these campaigns and are measures taken to raise community awareness about the risks of problem gambling. We have also initiated the three-year Take the Problem Out of Gambling advertising campaign, which is enabling more problem gamblers to seek assistance.

About a year ago the government announced that in 2012 — that is, at the end of the current 20-year licensing arrangements — Victoria’s gaming machine industry would undergo a significant transformation: from a gaming operator structure to a venue operator structure. This will bring about an end to the gaming operator duopoly and enable venues to run their own gaming businesses. Again we have been mindful of not-for-profit organisations, in particular sporting clubs, and the role they play in a range of activities that enrich the lives of those in the community who are involved with their sporting or cultural activities.

The gaming industry employs more than 15 000 people. In his contribution to the debate Mr Guy talked about the need for those people to have some certainty in their employment. I think all Victorians need to have certainty in their employment, and more so now than usually. The new structure will return a greater proportion of gaming revenue to the community, and it is certainly our expectation that that in turn will create more jobs in the industry.

This increased proportion of revenue will be available to the clubs where the machines are operated and will give them the opportunity to reinvest in infrastructure and services for their communities. The revenue will also enable the government to channel money into the Hospital and Charities Fund and the Mental Health Fund. The new structure will give venues more direct control over their gaming operations and enable them to be more responsible and accountable to the communities in which they operate.

The government has consulted widely on the new structure. Discussion papers have been released and an exposure draft of this legislation has been distributed. Extensive feedback has been provided by stakeholders on these documents. I expect it was at about the time the exposure draft of the bill was released that members started to receive submissions and input from clubs in their electorates. That is certainly when I started to receive a number of letters and emails about this issue. The consultation processes that have resulted in the development of the bill provide for the regulatory framework under this new venue-operated structure, the issuing of a single, independent, 10-year monitoring licence that will be awarded through a competitive process, further development of the regulatory

framework for wagering, betting and keno licences and two additional responsible gaming measures.

The main feature of the venue-operator structure is that from next year hotels, pubs and clubs that are interested in operating a gaming venue — and we know that most of those who currently operate gaming venues are very keen to keep doing so — will need to bid for 10-year gaming machine entitlements in a competitive process. To operate as a gaming venue after 2012 an operator will need to hold a current venue operators licence, to hold machine entitlements, to have access to approved premises, to obtain gaming machines and gaming equipment and to arrange for the gaming machines to be linked to a monitoring system. Venue operators licences will be granted by the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation following an assessment of the applicant’s suitability to participate in the gaming industry. Current operators licences will be extended from 5 to 10 years to bring these two sets of dates into line, so that they line up with the 10 years for new gaming machine entitlements. The entitlements will provide an authority to operate a gaming machine in an approved premises within a designated region and at a designated venue type. Entitlements will be able to be transferred, but only to another licensed venue operator and through the transfer scheme.

Payment for entitlements will be determined by the minister but will involve a deferred payment on a schedule of 10 per cent within seven days of successful allocation of entitlement following successful bidding and 10 per cent in 2012 prior to the commencement of the structure. The remaining payments are to be made in equal instalments over 4 of the 10 years.

Bidders will be required to pay a default bond to participate in the allocation process. This bond will be forfeited if payments for entitlements are not made. The bill discourages speculation, which has been an area of concern for some of the existing gaming operators, by requiring bidders to pay 50 per cent of any profit made on selling an entitlement to the state for the first six months of the new structure.

This legislation will ensure a wide distribution of revenue from gaming. We should not forget that very large sums of money will be raised over the course of this 10-year period. However, no single entity will be able to own over 35 per cent of hotel entitlements. Agreements to provide services to venues in return for a share of gaming revenue will be prohibited.

The taxation regime for gaming machines will involve a progressive system of taxation. There will be a tax-free threshold for club venues, and the tax



arrangements will result in a return to government that is similar to the current levels. The progressive tax scheme will take into account concerns about the equity of different types of operators and make that distinction between clubs and pubs. Other fees payable by venue operators — successful bidders — will include a supervision charge that will contribute to the cost of regulating the industry and payments to the independent monitor for its services. The independent monitor will be appointed through the issuing of a single 10-year monitoring licence through a competitive process. The role of the monitor will be to ensure the integrity of gaming machine transactions and to provide data on gaming machines for ongoing research purposes and as part of the ongoing regulation of the industry.

The integrity of the industry will be maintained by ensuring the independence of the operators, the monitor and other players. There will be a process by which bidders and existing operators will be provided with information about how they need to go about participating in this transition as we go about reforming the industry and ending the duopoly.

I will speak briefly to the additional features in the bill. The bill contains provisions to enable the establishment of a betting exchange by the wagering and betting licensee. The bill also allows approved simulated racing products to be provided by both the wagering and betting licensee and the keno licensee. This is to ensure the ongoing viability of the very successful and popular racing industry in this state.

The two additional responsible gaming measures included in the bill are a further tightening of the prohibition of gaming machine advertising, and a new prohibition on venue operators from conducting trade promotion lotteries.

This is a large and detailed piece of legislation that deals with appropriate regulation of an industry that moves large amounts of money from one place to another across Victoria. There seems to me to be strong support for an end to the duopoly from the clubs I have met with and spoken to about this issue. As is to be expected in any major transition in an industry, there are concerns that participants will need to have satisfied and processes that need to be understood.

Clubs Victoria is a body which represents a lot of the clubs that have been corresponding with members. Its website states it is:

… the voice of Victoria’s network of not-for-profit licensed clubs which provide the community with its social, sporting and cultural infrastructure. ClubsVIC works exclusively for

clubs and our sole charter is the promotion and protection of our members.

Clubs Victoria has well represented the interests of its members through a vigorous campaign. However, it is important to be mindful that the contacts we are having and the correspondence we are receiving represent the voice of the existing players in the industry. In our dealings with all sorts of industries and community organisations on many issues, from time to time there will be vocal representations made by organisations that seek to express a view about protecting their interests. It is the government’s objective to introduce a competitive process to the industry and to the process by which machines are allocated. This is where we start to find the points of difference.

It appears to me that existing operators — the clubs we as members of Parliament have been speaking to and meeting with — have a certain advantage in this process. They have the machines already in place, they have the premises and they understand how their part of the industry works. They understand the kinds of returns they get on their machines. If you applied that knowledge and information to any other industry, I fail to see how that would not provide just a bit of an advantage over some other mob down the road that does not have the room, does not have the equipment, does not have the trained staff, does not have the machines and does not have the knowledge about the returns and the real value to the club or organisation of those machines.

The letters we received yesterday afternoon are the same to a word. I received them from clubs which have not made contact previously and from clubs that I have met with and spoken to recently. I would like to respond to a few of the comments made in that correspondence.

Firstly, to suggest that the government deferring debate on this lengthy and complex legislation is inherently an acknowledgement that the legislation is flawed is simply not accurate. Members of this place are well aware that the order in which matters are considered in this house is frequently subject to change. As Mr Barber indicated, there have been discussions outside the chamber about various issues, so I think that assertion is just inaccurate. Earlier today we had a discussion on another piece of legislation that has been deferred. There are frequently changes to the order of items for discussion on Wednesdays when we discuss general business. To suggest that this delay means there is an inherent flaw in the bill is just not accurate, so I reject that assertion.



This is important legislation. It will implement a 12-month-old decision to move from operator licences to venue licences. Clubs Victoria applauded this decision at the time it was made. It said it was a courageous decision, a fantastic decision for all Victorians. The letters suggest there is no protection for grassroots clubs, but the government has decided to introduce a competitive process. There is an inherent conflict between that and some of the assertions made by Clubs Victoria members. In the briefing paper that ClubsVIC sent to members of Parliament through its members early this year, it submits that there ought to be a transition period of some 10 years, which seems to be a very long transition period. That position is just not consistent with the government’s objective to introduce a competitive system.

There has been some discussion in the correspondence and in the house about a 50-50 share between clubs and pubs and an 80-20 share between metropolitan and country Victoria. So on the one hand in this debate we have people saying, ‘We don’t want too many of these clubs; we don’t want them here, we don’t want them there and we don’t want them to be open too many hours of the day’ and all of those very real concerns about the risks associated for problem gamblers. But on the other hand we have people saying, ‘Hang on, we need to make sure that everybody gets their bit of the action’. I think they are both valid views. Both of those existing arrangements — the 50-50 share and the 80-20 share — are there as a result of ministerial directive, and that ministerial directive has been in place since 1992, and there is no intention of changing that. So there is a bit of jumping at shadows on that particular point.

Again the letters suggest that pubs will still have to compete; but again this is where we differ because the competition in the industry is an inherent and important part of the reforms that we hope to bring about as a consequence of ending the duopoly. The correspondence talks about no concentration limits on ownership of club entitlements. I understand that my colleague Mr Kavanagh may be presenting an amendment shortly that will assist in alleviating some of those concerns, but I will leave it to him to speak to that in more detail. Mr Barber mentioned it in his contribution earlier as well.

Having a tax regime that locks out smaller clubs is one of the points in the letter, and again it is a progressive tax regime. There is a tax-free threshold as part of that. Another point raised was in relation to clubs seeking compensation in the lead-up to the auction. In that regard it is important to recognise that the licences that are expiring in 2012 were 20-year licences, so this ought

not be a bolt out of the blue. This is a measure that was announced by government 12 months ago. They were 20-year licences; they were not for-the-rest-of-all-our-lives licences. Any operator must have known that their licence would come to an end and need to be reapplied for. So I am not sure how appropriate compensation is in a situation where operators have had 18 years’ notice.

Clubs, in their letters, talk about the difficulties that they perceive in raising deposits without any collateral security, but to that I would say that that is obviously a matter for each club, and each club’s circumstances will differ. Deposits are only required for those operators that are successful in the process. Clubs will not be required to provide money for no asset. If they have the asset, they can use it as security. If they do not have the asset, they do not need to raise the money. If they are successful through the process, they have guaranteed income for 10 years.

The question about members of Parliament providing personal guarantees for organisations that want to take out loans is an unusual question, but I think for any organisation or individual seeking to take out a loan, that is a matter for that individual, and again I would say that these funds are required only by successful bidders. An unsuccessful bidder is not required to put up the 10 per cent a week later, so I question the point of members of Parliament making personal guarantees. I think that that argument is a little academic at best.

The letters refer to open negotiations with ClubsVIC, but of course given the industry and the probity requirements, like any other stakeholder in this, the most appropriate way for clubs to communicate with their members of Parliament is as they have been — individually contacting their local clubs. I am sure many of my colleagues have met with clubs, but a negotiation as such is not appropriate, given the probity requirements.

In terms of the clubs that I have spoken to and met with, the issues that have been raised in the letters and the correspondence that we received yesterday were quite different to the issues that were raised with me in the first instance. The issue that gets referred to as the ‘Collingwood Football Club issue’ — and it is always nice to get stuck into the Collingwood Football Club when you are an Essendon supporter or, I suppose, any other big Australian Football League club — certainly was raised with me, as was the lack of ability to take out loans when income is not guaranteed for a long time, obviously as the existing licences come to an end.



There were also concerns raised with me about bogus clubs being set up to outbid real clubs and a desire to pre-buy machines at a fixed price, but again this is inherently contrary to the government’s objective about creating a competitive environment for these machines. I do appreciate the opportunity to have met with a number of clubs locally, and I thank those that have corresponded with us all again yesterday with their letters. It is an important issue and an important transition period for the industry. It is important that clubs in regional areas are able to successfully bid. There are some wonderful things being done by some of the clubs in my electorate in terms of the development of sporting facilities and the social aspects of their sport and in putting significant contributions through money raised through gaming back into the community.

With those comments and responses to the correspondence that I have just made — and to those who wrote to me, I will be writing back as well — I wanted to respond because they are new issues that were not raised in the earlier meetings. They were different to the issues that were important two weeks ago. As we go through this transition, it is an important debate and it is important legislation. This industry does provide a lot to the community, but the industry has some pretty significant risks attached to its proliferation, and we need to of course be ever mindful of minimising the risks to those people who may be vulnerable to problem gambling and all its profound consequences for our community. I urge the house to support the bill.

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) — I am pleased to rise to make a few brief remarks about the Gambling Regulation Amendment (Licensing) Bill 2009. At the outset I would like to acknowledge the representations made to me by clubs in my electorate, including the Rosebud Country Club, the Bairnsdale Club, the Foster Golf Club, the Yarram Country Club, the Yallourn Bowling Club, the Wonthaggi Club, the Monbulk Bowling Club, the Lakes Entrance Bowls Club, the Morwell Bowling Club, the Morwell Club and the Cardinia Club at Pakenham.

The issue of gaming is one that divides the community, and there are many different views within the community about the benefits or otherwise of gaming. Recently I had cause to campaign against the introduction of electronic gaming machines in the township of Officer. One thing I do not like is the way the allocation of gaming machines is associated with the development of community infrastructure in growing communities. The argument that ran in the township of Officer was that if gaming machines were

not introduced, the footy club could not be upgraded, a tavern would not be built and other community infrastructure that really should be built would not be built. That acceptance of gaming as part of the normal or everyday activities associated with families is something that concerns me.

Dealing with this bill, if we are to have gaming in Victoria, which we do and will continue to have, those clubs that provide a community benefit and the organisations that gain that benefit must be protected, as must their interests. It is clear that the bill provides inadequate protections for existing clubs that have gaming machines and provide a community benefit. There are question marks over their ability to survive in the marketplace as it is proposed to be constructed by the government through this bill. Leaving the discretion with the minister is of concern. The Parliament should set the parameters for such a significant issue; it should not be left to the minister’s discretion.

The interests of country clubs must also be protected. By ‘country clubs’ I mean clubs in country Victoria, not country clubs in the sense that we might understand that term from watching American TV shows. Often the clubs in my electorate of Eastern Victoria Region are a focal point for community activity and for the community coming together. They provide support to footy clubs and a range of other community organisations. I do not think the interests of those clubs are adequately protected by the bill.

Therefore I support the reasoned amendment moved by Mr Guy. I again thank those clubs that have contacted me in recent days and those that for several months now have had a dialogue with me on this issue more generally. I urge all members to support the reasoned amendment moved by Mr Guy, as it addresses the concerns Mr Guy and I have outlined and that other members will also no doubt outline.

Ms DARVENIZA (Northern Victoria) — I am pleased to rise and make a short contribution in support of the Gambling Regulation Amendment (Licensing) Bill 2009. I support the bill, and I indicate that the government will not support Mr Guy’s reasoned amendment.

I start by pointing out that since coming to office in 1999 the Labor government has introduced not only legislative measures to improve gaming in Victoria but also a whole raft of initiatives to make the gaming industry more accountable. It has introduced a whole range of measures designed not just to reduce the risk to individuals who have problems related to gaming but also to protect both those individuals who are becoming



involved in gaming for the first time and those who are regularly involved with gaming and to help people understand some of the dangers associated with gaming for some individuals.

The government has also reduced the risks to the broader community. We all know the impact that problem gambling has on not only the individual who has the problem with gambling but also their immediate and extended family. With this bill again we see the government introducing legislation that is all about improving the gaming industry and making it more accountable.

I will quickly run through some of the main aspects of the bill. The bill provides a new industry structure for the gaming machine industry. In 2012, the current duopoly that exists with the gaming operator system will terminate, and a new venue operator regime will come into operation. After 2012, to conduct gaming in the state of Victoria a person will have to hold a venue operator licence and purchase a gaming machine entitlement. The act will specifically provide that there will be no further gaming operator licences issued.

The bill also establishes an independent monitoring licence. It makes way for the establishment of a single independent monitor who will be able to operate electronic monitoring services for the continuous recording, monitoring and controlling of significant game play transactions as well as jackpot services related to operating gaming machines in Victoria.

The bill imposes ownership restrictions to protect the integrity of the new industry structure. It does that by providing for the minister to issue gaming machine entitlements. Each entitlement will authorise the gaming on one gaming machine, will be tradable and will at all times be subject to the right of the state to take back the entitlement on the occurrence of certain legislated events. Only persons with a venue operator licence will able to purchase entitlements and to enter into an agreement with the minister.

The bill also provides vertical and horizontal ownership restrictions to protect the integrity of the new industry structure. A venue operator, either independently or with a connected person, cannot hold more than 35 per cent of gaming machine entitlements that may be used in a hotel, and a venue operator cannot be the monitor. The bill provides a tax scheme for post-2012 wagering, simulated racing games and betting exchange. It prohibits certain forms of gaming machine advertising.

Before it came to the house the bill went through a very extensive consultative process. That is the case with all

bills the government brings before the Parliament. In the preparation of each bill a very comprehensive and extensive consultative process is undertaken, and the lead-up to this bill, which had a very lengthy preparation process, was no different.

In July 2004, the Minister for Gaming announced the broad scope, approach and timetable for the review of Victoria’s electronic gaming machine licences. In April 2008, the government announced the financial and regulatory arrangements for the post-2012 gaming machines regulatory arrangement. Today we have before us a bill that will implement the government’s decisions for gaming machines and put in place a framework for related governance arrangements.

These new measures will protect the clubs sector from commercial exploitation and will ensure that only true and genuine bidders interested in running gaming venues in a responsible way will be able to bid for an entitlement.

This bill clearly demonstrates that the government, once again, is taking action to create not only a very progressive but also an accountable gambling industry in which the risks, as I said earlier, to individuals as well as to the broader community are addressed and people are empowered to take control of their own gambling.

I see no problem if people want to enjoy a flutter, whether that be at a casino or whether that be at one of the other many gaming venues that operate around the state, but we have to recognise and acknowledge that there are people who have gaming problems and are problem gamblers. The government has put in a range of initiatives to protect and assist not only those individuals but also family members and friends who are associated with people with a gambling problem. Previous speakers have spoken at length about some of the issues to do with problem gambling.

In conclusion, the Victorian government is showing with this legislation that it continues to lead the way in creating an innovative and responsive gaming industry, balancing the need to minimise the gaming-related harm that we have heard many people talk about today while still allowing those who are able to gamble safely for leisure and for pleasure to be able to do so.

This is a good bill, it deserves the support of all members of this chamber and I commend it to the house.

Mr HALL (Eastern Victoria) — I was in this chamber back in the early 1990s when gaming legislation was introduced — by a Labor government



actually — in Victoria. At that point in time I was not a strong fan of the introduction of gaming machines, and I do not consider myself a strong advocate for them today. But I do recognise that over that period of time they have become part of our society and part of our communities here in Victoria and they have served a worthwhile purpose by giving people the opportunity to pursue gaming as a recreation. The proceeds gained from machines in clubs and hotels have also enabled the development of a number of community facilities throughout Victoria. We should not suggest that all property is kept by hotel owners; in turn, they return some of those funds back to the community.

I acknowledge the fact that we have now had gaming machines in Victoria for some period of time. On reflection over that period of time, the current system has worked pretty well. I see no reason for the government to bring about a major overhaul with respect to the way in which machines are owned and operated here in Victoria, and I search for a reason why the government has deemed it so necessary to bring about the major changes that this bill proposes.

While listening to Ms Pulford’s comments I noted that it was suggested one of the reasons was that it will facilitate a greater proportion of revenue flowing through communities. I do not understand how that will be brought about by these changes. In fact I very much doubt that this new system of the allocation of machines would generate more income for local communities. As it is, I think what will happen is that clubs and hotels are going to have to offer some very significant prices to get these machines, and consequently their ability to generate revenue to put back into the community is going to be limited. I see this very much as a cash grab by the current government, and I do not think there are any guarantees that additional cash generated and collected by the government will mean a return of that cash in greater proportions to the community than occurs now.

Ms Pulford also made mention that this will bring about greater certainty to the clubs and hotels with machines. I would say exactly the opposite is the truth. It has created great uncertainty out there in our communities, and at this point in time many operators of clubs and hotels have no idea how they are going to fare in the future. They have no idea whether the jobs at their venues are going to be preserved or not. They are unable to invest further in their facilities, given the fact that because of the uncertainty they are not prepared to borrow nor are banks prepared to lend them money to improve the facilities at their clubs and hotels. I know for a fact that there are many clubs in my electorate that have stalled their capital works development programs

at the moment. In some cases they were looking to invest some millions of dollars, but given the uncertainty of the revenue stream ahead for them they have put all those investments on hold. Certainty has not been created; uncertainty has been created in leaps and bounds.

As stated in this legislation, one of the purposes of the bill is:

… providing for the creation and allocation of gaming machine entitlements under which gaming by means of gaming machines will be authorised …

I note that particular provision is contained in clause 25, which proposes to insert a new part 4A into the principal act, entitled ‘Gaming machine entitlements’. Looking at proposed new clause 3.4A.5, headed ‘Minister may create and allocate gaming machine entitlements’, in subparagraph (2) it states in part:

… the Minister must impose on a gaming machine entitlement he or she allocates —

(a) a condition that specifies the region or municipal district in which gaming may be conducted under that entitlement (a geographic area condition) …

If the government is saying that the minister must impose a geographic area condition, why not come out clearly in the legislation and insert the 80-20 split that has traditionally been the case in the past — that is, 80 per cent in the metropolitan area and 20 per cent outside the Melbourne area? The government argues that this is done by way of regulation. Yes, it is, and it has always been done by regulation, but if you are looking to give clubs, hotels and communities in Victoria certainty, then you would put it in the legislation. It can be done; the legislation clearly says there must be a geographic area condition applied to any allocation of a gaming machine entitlement. It would be so simple to put that 80-20 split in the legislation.

Proposed section 3.4A.5(2)(b) says:

a condition that specifies the type of approved venue in which gaming may be conducted under that entitlement (a venue condition).

Again, by regulation traditionally there has been a 50-50 split between clubs and hotels. That is the venue condition by regulation. If you want to give us certainty, then you put the 50-50 split in the legislation.

I now refer to proposed section 3.4A.5(5), which says:

The Minister may determine —

(a) the process for allocating gaming machine entitlements;



This has caused us some concern, because there is no specification and no detail about how the minister is going to allocate gaming machine entitlements. We are told it is going to be done by way of an auction, and that is all. It is reprehensible of the government to refuse to give the people of Victoria any detail whatsoever of exactly how that process is going to operate. Existing operators, clubs and hotels have invested millions of dollars to establish venues appropriate for gaming machines, and now they have no idea if they will be in the race next time around. It has created great uncertainty.

I thought representatives of Clubs Victoria, on behalf of their many members, put a reasonable request to the government late last year. Clubs Victoria spoke about clubs being prepared to accept a minimum entitlement, in exchange, might I add, for bringing forward some of the time lines for precommitments by machine operators. I thought it was more than generous of it to suggest that if its members had a certain number of machines now, they would expect the minimum entitlement of somewhere in the order of 50 or 60 per cent of those machines. I thought that was most generous of Clubs Victoria. Yet the government seems to have thumbed its nose at that particular suggestion for the future allocation of gaming machines.

This legislation before us this afternoon is strongly rejected by clubs right across our electorates. Like other members, I indicated I had received some correspondence by way of emails from the many clubs throughout my electorate. I stand by them this afternoon and support them in their endeavours, because I think this legislation, as it stands, produces great uncertainty and gives no guarantee of the ongoing viability of the many clubs throughout Victoria who have invested heavily to fund some excellent facilities enjoyed by the general communities.

The coalition parties, led this afternoon by our spokesman, Mr Guy, have moved a reasoned amendment which I wholeheartedly support and which in part suggests that this bill not be debated but be withdrawn and redrafted, particularly to include some details of the allocation process of gaming machine entitlements so as to not unfairly disadvantage smaller community-based clubs and small businesses in the pub sector.

I say again in conclusion that it is not only clubs but it is pubs, clubs and those who have invested in the industry who want some certainty and, moreover, some knowledge of how they are going to go forward under this new regime proposed by the government. It is foolhardy; it is reckless; it is a cash grab by the

government with no guarantees to the community. That is why I will be strongly supporting the reasoned amendment and voting just as strongly against the legislation.

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) — The bill before us contains two particularly controversial aspects. The first is in relation to measures against problem gambling, and the second is providing for clubs, particularly smaller clubs in Victoria.

The Democratic Labor Party and I have long been deeply concerned about problem gambling in Victoria and its impact on individuals and communities. Many representations have been made to me by individual clubs, the club sector and umbrella organisations.

I have been in frequent negotiations with the minister over recent weeks. I have put to the minister firstly, that effective action against problem gambling was needed, and secondly, that there should be provisions made for smaller local clubs to retain licences in preference to large commercial enterprises. Small local clubs are preferable because of the community facilities to which they contribute and because of their greater potential to effectively prevent and deal with problem gambling.

The minister made several significant concessions as a result of the concerns I put to him. Firstly, the minister agreed to mandate warning signs at the entrance to gaming venues. Secondly, the minister has amended the bill to quarantine 50 per cent of licences for clubs only.

Thirdly, the government has agreed to support the amendments which I propose to circulate and which will limit the number of EGMs (electronic gaming machines) any single club can hold to a total of 420, spread across a minimum of four venues. During his contribution to the debate Mr Drum asked, ‘What is to stop large clubs taking over and gaining all the licences?’. It is these proposed amendments to the legislation which would do that.

Fourthly, the government will prevent non-clubs from managing the EGMs of clubs. Fifthly, the government will increase the tax on transferring licences to EGMs to restrict and deter trade in EGMs and prevent large clubs from attempting to buy the entitlements of smaller clubs. Sixthly, the government has agreed to bring forward automatic teller machine bans in venues.

Democratic Labor Party amendments circulated by Mr Kavanagh (Western Victoria) pursuant to standing orders.

Mr KAVANAGH — The government’s concessions do not satisfy all of my concerns about



problem gambling or about protecting smaller clubs. Important anti-problem gaming measures are left floating in this legislation; they are not detailed to anywhere near a desirable level. The minister has assured me, however, that this deficiency is necessary at the present time because of the time required to develop effective precommitment systems and the difficulties of incorporating into legislation technology that is changing by the day.

It would also be more desirable if the protections for clubs were legislatively mandated rather than subject to ministerial discretion. However, through my dealings with the minister my opinion is he is an honourable man, and I accept his stated intentions to be genuine. There should be a lot more protection against problem gaming. Mr Barber talked about the Select Committee on Gaming Licensing. We heard a lot of evidence in the course of the committee’s hearings. Of course you do not have to have attended committee hearings. Most people know through word of mouth about the problems people are having with gaming. If not by word of mouth, people know through the newspapers. In the committee we heard about suicides resulting from problem gaming. These are well known to members of the community at large.

One story, however, that brought it home for me more than any other was the story of a young family in a rural town in Victoria who went to do their shopping. They bought the groceries and went off, but after about 90 minutes or 2 hours they came back to the manager of the supermarket and said, ‘We would like to get a refund on our groceries. We have been off to the pokies and spent all our money. We can’t afford our groceries for the week any longer’. As I have suggested previously in this house, in my opinion we should limit the profits that the government seeks to obtain from gambling to only the proceeds of people who have soberly, and in the understanding that the odds are against them, gambled money they can afford to lose.

In short, I have put concerns to the government in good faith. I believe it has made significant concessions in response to those concerns. I hope these concessions against problem gaming and maybe protection for clubs will be built on. But I feel bound, obligated, to support the bill. Today I will vote for the second reading of the bill, but I will reserve my vote on the third reading until the next week of the sittings, which will allow time to negotiate parts of the bill and hopefully further improve it.

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I would also like to make a few brief comments in relation to this bill. I preface my comments by

expressing some disappointment. I have the utmost regard for Mr Kavanagh. He has been a friend, and I have enjoyed his intelligent conversation. Mr Kavanagh comes to this place with honourable motives, but I am disappointed that a person who has travelled as extensively as he has and who is a player in this political environment can believe that a single person such as, say, the minister responsible at the moment, who may be an honourable man, would somehow be the driver behind changes to a gambling industry that generates $1 billion of revenue for this government every year, an industry that indeed would drive the machinery of party politics hungry for money. It is a very disappointing, rose-coloured, tepid — dare I say, naive — assessment.

I know how much Mr Kavanagh is moved by and how deeply he feels the scourge of compulsive gambling. I prefer to use the term ‘compulsive gambling’. That is the term that we ought to be using in public policy, because compulsive gambling is based on an addiction that is uncontrollable. Problem gambling is a much more amorphous term. One could compare a person who loses $20 and thinks they have a problem with a person who could be suicidal, whose marriage and family could break down or who may not be able to put food on the table. The dilemma in not having a clear understanding of the depth or the nature of the problems that this industry causes for individuals is that we then do not provide the services for those who are the most vulnerable, or those with the most addicted need.

The problem is that funding for our gambling services has unfortunately been cut by this government by 35 per cent — that is, a 35 per cent cut to services for people who are problem gamblers. It means when a person in that moment of vulnerability phones the community health centre, which may have a program, and says they need help, because its waiting list is flooded by people who are problem gamblers — this more amorphous group — they are told, ‘No, we are sorry. We have a waiting list of eight weeks or three months’, by which time that person may well have topped themselves, their marriage might have broken up or their kids might not have had anything to eat.

This industry is a hard core industry. It requires a regime that has probity, that has a clear structure, that has a transparency and that cannot be passed through this Parliament by virtue of a one-vote majority based on an assessment that the whole thing is going to be okay because the minister of the day is an honourable man.



In Mr Kavanagh’s electorate of Western Victoria Region there are 45 different clubs and pubs. I could not speculate how many employees there are in those 45 pubs and clubs, how many problem gamblers there are in those pubs and clubs and of course how many businesses and jobs will be lost as a result of what I see as a dismantling of the industry.

I am not a great advocate of a duopoly, but this is the dismantling of an industry. Valuable time has been lost. There has been a lazy policy development process. In her contribution Ms Darveniza said that the consultation has been extensive. If it had been extensive then the pubs and clubs would not be bitterly complaining right up to this very minute. We are being constantly flooded with letters. Clearly the government has gone through a process, but it has not been adequate.

Like Mr Kavanagh, I have pubs and clubs that are gaming venues — 60 in fact — in my electorate of South Eastern Metropolitan Region, so let us not underestimate the amount of revenue that is generated by these venues, the impact that will have on communities, particularly rural and small communities where, as Mr Drum pointed out, much of the community’s infrastructure is generated by the profits that have been able to stay in the community, as opposed to this new regime, much of which depends on new regulations we have not seen and ministerial discretion, and we do not yet know how that will shape the industry. The 80-20 rule, the 50-50 rule and many of the other rules ought to be, with some degree of flexibility, enshrined in legislation, especially if the reform is one that fragments an industry and therefore allows a much greater degree of susceptibility to corruption. Clearly this has not been provided for, and that is why I support Mr Guy’s reasoned amendment. I am also anxious to see that these details are not left to the whim of a single person who is at the behest of a cabinet, a party machine and a gambling dollar. We know the power of the lobbyist who generates thousands of dollars for the party machine in securing these beneficial deals. I want to minimise that, whether it is in relation to gambling or to the release of land for housing and so forth.

The prospect of venue operators being locked in a Victorian room over a period and playing eBay auction bidding against each other is, to me, amazing. We have the Premier announcing changes to gambling legislation with much fanfare, but we still do not know what rules are going to apply or how it is all going to fare. As I said, the fragmentation of the controls of the industry are disturbing, to say the least. To go along with this is to have blind faith in a minister who has

been shown to be lazy. I am not prepared to take a risk with human lives, I am not prepared to take a risk on behalf of those who have invested in these businesses, and I am not prepared to take a risk in terms of jobs that might be — and have already been — lost because of uncertainty in the industry. As Mr Drum said, the ratepayers will pick up the tab. The only thing that is certain is that either Tattersall’s or Tabcorp will probably re-enter the Victorian gaming industry by bidding for the job of independent monitor.

I do not believe the initiatives that have been announced via media release address many of the concerns. There are lots of other things that have not really been worked out, such as the details of the competitive bidding process. There are some concerns about the effect of removing ATMs and placing them on darkened streets in suburban shopping strips where there will be a procession of people going to withdraw money and becoming the soft targets of criminals. With those few words I will conclude by saying there are too many unknowns, and it is naive to say the least to vote for legislation in relation to this incredibly difficult industry on the basis of blind faith in the honour of a single person.

Mrs PETROVICH (Northern Victoria) — I rise to speak on the Gambling Regulation Amendment (Licensing) Bill. This bill foreshadows dramatic changes to gaming in Victoria. It is an appallingly drafted bill which does not help the Victorian community and does not assist pubs or clubs. It will give the Minister for Gaming authority to hand out 27 500 gaming machine entitlements at will with no clearly defined process. There will be a bidding process similar to process used in the timber auctions by VicForests, which caused great hardship in the timber industry. The key criteria for success is ‘big is better’ and ‘cash is king’. We have seen a vibrant timber industry wrecked and reduced to a duopoly.

Mr Koch — Cash is king!

Mrs PETROVICH — Cash is king; Mr Koch is right. This system has decimated the timber industry and large numbers of jobs have been lost. That is what clubs and pubs are facing under this new system. Under this type of system the contribution of pubs and clubs to their local community as activity centres counts for nothing. A venue’s capacity to support community contribution and the encouragement of responsible gaming is also of no consequence under this process. Revenue gained through selling off these licences is a prize for the government, and other considerations are secondary.



This bill, if successful, will allow the minister to issue pokie licences, but without the proper mechanisms for their allocation. How are they going to be paid for? It allows for their transfer, it authorises the minister to set limits on the location of pokies in pubs and clubs, but it enables the minister to change his mind, offering no security for those clubs and pubs.

This government has decided to get rid of the operating system which has been used since 1992 and set about restructuring the gaming industry through the monitoring of gaming and the allocation of gaming machine entitlements. The government is hungry for the gambling dollar and the revenue it delivers to the state coffers. We should never lose sight of that. One potential downside for the government is the $1.2 billion which is the amount of taxpayer money that Tabcorp and Tattersall’s say they are entitled to; that is quite a gamble the government is taking with taxpayers money.

I have spoken many times in this place about the lack of transparency and the issues around problem gambling, and I would like to highlight the issues around the product safety aspect of poker machines and regulations which affect this, not just around problem gambling, as it is now. It needs to be made clear and articulated that there should be disclosure in relation to the research programs of electronic gaming machines makers. Aristocrat’s budget for research on poker machine products is reputed to be in excess of $60 million per year. Presumably machines and the environment in which the product is delivered are being designed to take more money and hold players for longer periods. With the increasingly addictive qualities of the machines, why is the expenditure on poker machines rising rapidly, despite their continued use?

The gaming industry should not be allowed to own and control gaming machine data, as it can in Victoria, because the industry can use sophisticated network analysis to design more addictive machines. Rapid technological advances — digital networking or analysis and brain function or human behaviour technology — combined with huge research and development budgets all facilitates this. Government or other agency monitoring is not possible, and data is not accessible for research. This means the product safety of the various machine types and the relationship between machine characteristics and problem gambling cannot be assessed.

Some interesting work is being done on the types of machines that appeal to some of the most vulnerable members of our community. The poker machines regularly being identified as the most addictive and the

most likely to be played by problem gamblers include the Dolphin Treasure. The dolphin is a healing motif and is used by agencies designed to help victims of abuse, especially sexual abuse. The design of the Sweethearts machine is also addictive, as is Unicorn Dreaming, which is also a healing motif used for victims of abuse. Geisha, which has a more violent and abusive undertone, features an image of a cowed, innocent-looking child who appears to be enduring the victimisation of a serpent dragon. Adonis features a hunky bloke who has power and is easy on the eye — it is easy to see why people might play that.

We need to acknowledge that these machines are affecting the most vulnerable members of our community. I make three brief observations about that. When a person is being abused, their method of coping is usually to distance their mind and think of other things — to use disassociation, which alleviates pain and distress and helps them cope with some of the things occurring in their life. Secondly, sacrifice and abasement are considered by many religions and some social systems to be the spiritual way to heaven, so viewing abuse and other unpleasant tasks as a form of continual self-sacrifice can actually provide comfort to some individuals. Thirdly, it is often the case that the unconscious mind overrides logic and moral values. We need to have full cognizance of the effects of the use of these motifs and the methods used to entice people to play poker machines.

I have spoken in this house on many occasions about the issues relating to problem gambling and about poker machines in communities that do not accept or want them. Many people have expressed the view that electronic gaming use is a choice, but the industry is a high-tech one with very little transparency and even less disclosure. None of this is accidental, and I call on the government to be honest and to admit that its greed impacts upon Victorian families in the very worst way. That is why I will be supporting my community by supporting the amendment moved by Mr Guy in an endeavour to put some common sense into this bill. Unfortunately, in spite of our best attempts, the bill is still flawed, as clearly articulated by members of clubs and owners of pubs who have sent me letters of disgust about the bill. On that basis I commend the reasoned amendment.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) — As I stand in this house this afternoon, I am happy to give credit where it is due; I am always the first to do that. I will give the government a great deal of credit. When government members set out to botch something, they do it properly; you have to give them credit for that. What they have done with this bill and with the



gambling industry over the past couple of years is nothing short of a complete and utter — if I can use the colloquial term — stuff-up. I have to laugh when I hear members of this government talking about how they have consulted with the community and have been out to clubs and spoken to a whole range of people, when in fact their policy is not about consultation, it is not about transparency and it is not about openness. It is: take the money and run.

For the next few minutes as I stand in the house I will have one thought at the forefront of my mind. It is the thought of the future of those community clubs, whether they be golf, bowling or soccer clubs — any number of clubs — throughout my electorate that will go broke if this legislation is passed. These clubs will cease to exist if this bill is passed. I ask members to take into consideration just how much damage this legislation will do to community-based clubs that need poker machines to pay off the investments they have already made in their clubs.

I ask members to take into consideration the people who volunteer their time to sit on boards of directors and committees and who voluntarily devote many hundreds of hours every year to keep these clubs running. This legislation gives them a kick in the head. The clubs I am talking about are not making a fortune, and the money they are making goes straight back into the clubs and into the communities they serve. Why would any government, let alone a government that claims to fight for battlers, want to do what this legislation will do to community clubs?

I think it was a couple of months ago that I visited the Altona Bowling Club. I had had a letter from the club, and I made a phone call — —

Hon. M. P. Pakula interjected.

Mr FINN — I’ll get to you in a moment, Mr Pakula, don’t worry about that! I had had a letter from the club expressing its opposition to this legislation and its various, very genuine concerns. I visited the club, sat down with the secretary and had a discussion. He said, ‘We sent out letters to all our local members’. He was referring to the five members of Western Metropolitan Region in the Council as well as the local Assembly member and Minister for Public Transport, Lynne Kosky. He asked me if I knew how many members had picked up the phone or sent letters in response to their concerns.

An honourable member — One.

Mr FINN — Exactly. He said, ‘One — and you are sitting here talking to me now, so I thank you for that alone’.

What he told me concerned me enormously. He told me that the government was intent on destroying the community clubs I am talking about. Putting 20 people out of work here or 30 people out of work there adds up, to begin with. He told me that the Altona Bowling Club doubles as a senior citizens club. The senior citizens are not playing the pokies. I saw them sitting around a table having cups of tea and coffee. This is a genuine community club that needs our protection — protection from a government that wishes to destroy it.

This is despicable. The bill must be defeated. I support Mr Guy’s reasoned amendment because the bill is diabolical in every way. It should be ripped to pieces. It should be reconsidered from every angle. I hope all members of the house give the words I have uttered this afternoon some consideration, because the bill is a shocker and will have a devastating effect on many people throughout the community.

Mr P. DAVIS (Eastern Victoria) — I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Gambling Regulation Amendment (Licensing) Bill 2009, and in so doing I indicate that while most of the arguments have been well put by previous speakers from the opposition parties, the Liberal Party and The Nationals, I will add some brief comments and digress slightly in regard to my general view about gaming.

Turning the clock back, by coincidence I saw former Premier Joan Kirner wandering through the corridors of Parliament House today, and she had a great deal to say about the introduction of gaming machines in the state. In a panic to find some revenue in the dying days of the discredited Labor government in the early 1990s, the Kirner government introduced legislation to bring gaming machines into Victoria. This may have been good and prudent financial policy in terms of providing revenue to the state, but history shows that it was an appalling social policy, and I will dwell on that point for a moment.

I am by no means a wowser. I enjoy the company of my fellow human beings — not everyone, of course, but selected people — —

An honourable member — Name them!

Mr P. DAVIS — I particularly enjoy the company of the people who for the time being sit on the left of the President’s chair. I enjoy having a quiet ale in a social environment. I have often been in places where



there are gaming machines, and I have therefore observed my fellow man using them.

I am not a gambler. It is not that I have any particular prejudice against people who gamble or the act of gambling itself; I just happen not to be moved by the need to give somebody else my money. I would rather have control of my money and invest it wisely than spend it on what is in my opinion a losing activity. That is my personal view of gambling. However, some people really enjoy gambling in its various forms — and good luck to them. If that is how they want to invest their funds, that is fine. I believe in freedom of choice.

However, we did not have gaming machines in the state two decades ago; now we have them and they are connected to a whole range of social problems. The regulatory regime we have in Victoria is important not only to deal with the social problems we clearly have but also — and we need to accept this — to provide certainty to those who have invested in the gaming industry. In particular that includes community clubs as well as small hotels around the state, whose life support system is the gaming machines in their venues.

Community clubs are community assets. By and large they are run by volunteer committees of management made up of people who give of their time on an honorary basis for the benefit of their local community. In such cases the communities have invested significantly in the development of their club facilities.

When the government first mooted its proposed regulatory regime for the next licensing period there was much alarm. Clubs that contacted me immediately include the Orbost Club, Bairnsdale Bowls Club, Foster Golf Club, Lakes Entrance Bowls Club, Maffra Community Sports Club, Monbulk Bowling Club, Pakenham Racing Club, Sale Community Sports Club and Yarram Country Club. They are just some of the organisations that contacted me, but they made particularly strong representations that I took close note of, and I met with representatives of most of those clubs personally — and when I could not do so because of the tyranny of the distance I had other communications with them. Their concern has not been assuaged at all by the government’s proposed legislation that is before the house. Indeed they see it as a genuine threat to their future and existence. The viability of these community clubs is important within their communities. I have visited many of those clubs from time to time, some of them more regularly. Without prejudicing any of those clubs, I can say that I have held regular Liberal Party meetings in some of them, so they obviously have great forbearance for the business in which we are engaged, which is political discourse.

Interestingly to me, the alarm about this threat is so significant that these clubs which have made reasonable representations to me — and, I understand, to all other members representing Eastern Victoria Region — have not just said, ‘We hope it will all turn out for the best in the end’. On the last day I received representations again, from the Bairnsdale Club, the Cardinia Club, the Foster Golf Club, the Lakes Entrance Bowling Club, Monbulk Bowling, the Morwell Club, the Morwell Bowling Club, the Pakenham Sports Club, the Yallourn Bowling Club and the Yarram Country Club. All of these clubs have contacted me on the last day as well as others I have not mentioned. The ones I have named have made particularly strong representations.

For the benefit of the Parliament I want to reflect that, quite reasonably, the clubs are concerned about their economic viability as a result of this regulatory regime. I am particularly concerned about the impact of this legislation on the viability of our local communities. I do not believe the government’s measures are appropriate. I do not believe we will see a sustainable community club structure with this legislation. For that reason I intend to support the reasoned amendment moved by Mr Guy. I do not need to speak further about that, because it has already been satisfactorily dealt with.

However, I do want to say that in a community where we have now established as a matter of public policy, in my view with some regret, the notion that we must have gaming machines in this state — and that it is history; the egg cannot be unscrambled — you need a proper regime to regulate it. That regime needs to take into account the needs of our rural communities in particular, which have small populations and a very narrow economic base. To sustain a toehold in the community club gaming machine marketplace they have a particular challenge, and I do not believe the government has had adequate regard for that threat to those clubs. In all conscience I could not support legislation which put those clubs at risk, and I intend to vigorously support the proposal by the opposition.

I understand that amendments will be coming forward during the committee stage, and we need to see if any of those amendments can improve the situation. However, I am sceptical, and I think that at the end of the day this bill is probably for the high jump.

Mr VOGELS (Western Victoria) — I want to make a few comments to show my support for clubs and pubs in Western Victoria Region. This legislation is a dog and should be rejected by this house in its present form. I say that with confidence, because it is very rare that my whole community is up in arms over a bill. Like every other member I have been inundated with pleas



from all sorts of clubs across Western Victoria Region, and I want to put some of those on the record.

The closest club to me is the Cobden Golf Club. It is a fantastic facility which is used regularly. As someone mentioned earlier in the debate, these clubs are not just for playing pokies. I do not think that many people play the pokies at the Cobden Golf Club, but it is a great facility and it is where people go to have their 50th or 60th or 21st birthday parties, or any other celebration they want to have. It is a great facility, and one of the reasons it is able to survive is because it also has some poker machines.

I will read a list of the other clubs in my electorate that want this bill adjourned and have contacted me about this. I am sure that if I went to my laptop upstairs I would find even more, but I will read the list I made at lunchtime, which was the time I last looked at my laptop. The clubs include the Ballarat Basketball Association’s Minerdome Sports Club, the Kyneton Bowling Club, the Clifton Springs Golf Club, the Leopold Sportsmans Club, the Anglesea Golf Club, the Ballarat Leagues Club, the Stawell Harness Racing Club, the Maryborough Golf Club, the Maryborough Highland Society, the North Ballarat Football Club, the Buninyong Golf Club, the Colac Bowling Club, the Daylesford Bowling Club and Tabaret, the Ballarat and District Trotting Club, the Queenscliff Bowling Club, the Warrnambool Football Club Social Club, the Lara Sporting Club, Buckley’s Entertainment Centre at Breakwater, the Horsham Sports and Community Club, the Warrnambool Bowls Club, the Bell Park Sports and Recreation Club and the Warrnambool Bowls Club. They cannot all be wrong. I fully support the reasoned amendment moved by Mr Guy.

Some mention has been made of problem gambling. On 20 March an article appeared in the Beaufort and Pyrenees Advocate. The article states:

More problem gamblers are apparently seeking help because of the Victorian government’s Take the Problem Out of Gambling advertising campaign, according to Gaming Minister Tony Robinson. However, the Victorian government is clearly not interested if problem gambling exists in country areas. Despite launching the campaign in October 2008, it has only run in suburban and provincial areas. The government has excluded dozens of country newspapers … from its campaign, despite their catchcry ‘Governing for all Victorians’. Mr Robinson said the campaign has been successful in raising awareness of support services and encouraged problem gamblers and their families to seek the help they need. But of course, our readers wouldn’t know much about that Mr Robinson, because you haven’t bothered to tell them!

This is another example of the government saying one thing — ‘We are here for all Victorians’ — and doing

another. Once again the government is excluding country and regional Victoria. It seems to have plenty of money to spend on spin and rhetoric in country newspapers, but it does not seem to be able to find the money to support people who have problems with gambling and to tell them where they can go for help. For example, between July last year and February this year in the city of Ballarat gaming expenditure increased from $36.96 million to $38.64 million. In the shire of Northern Grampians it increased from $3.83 million to $4 million. In the rural city of Ararat and the shire of Southern Grampians it increased from $7.51 million to $7.96 million, and in the shire of Central Goldfields and the shire of Hepburn it increased from $6.85 million to $7.44 million. In all of these regions gaming expenditure is increasing.

I want to finish on that note and say that I fully support the reasoned amendment moved by Mr Guy.

Mr KOCH (Western Victoria) — Like other speakers I will be making only a short contribution in relation to the Gambling Regulation Amendment (Licensing) Bill. In particular I will speak about provincial Victoria and about regional and rural areas and small services clubs and sports clubs that are the lifeblood of many of these communities. In many ways they are the social glue of these smaller communities; whether they are meeting places for purposes of entertainment or clubs for whatever other purpose, they have made contributions to those communities over the last 20 years. As has been said by many speakers, many of these clubs are run on a volunteer basis. They are run very astutely. If one goes into regional Victoria, one can see that the people in charge of these venues are very astute in what they have done in their communities. Sometimes their activities focus on the sporting arena, but many exist as services clubs or RSL clubs.

It is important to note that these smaller clubs do not have the capacity or capital basis to compete on an even playing field with the larger corporates. Most of these smaller clubs are on Crown land or land that is managed by local government. Many are not-for-profit clubs and return all their profits back into the betterment of their own communities. The capacity of these clubs to continue to offer these services and rewards to their local communities, which come from community funds in the first place, is something to be congratulated and respected. These people should be given a small amount of protection to stay within this arena with the larger corporates.

We all know we are moving away from a duopoly and that there will be five or six players that will well and truly consume the majority of these 27 000 licences that



have been put on the market. My concern is that there is no protection for these smaller clubs. Certainly the 50-50 rule is not in legislation. The government says we should believe it and trust it, and it will accommodate us. I felt Mr Guy put up a very good argument this morning in relation to probity matters, and none of that is in legislation either. Again the government is saying, ‘Trust us’. I can assure members that the Victorian community is running out of trust for this government. We have seen what it has done in recent times. What it has said it is going to do and what it ultimately does are two completely different vehicles. The community has been let down on many occasions. Unfortunately, until we see a change of government it will continue to be let down.

I do not think there is any doubt at all that there will be a cost to local jobs. That causes me serious concern in regional Victoria. At the minute the government is not in any way protecting jobs in regional Victoria, and we are losing hundreds of jobs across regional Victoria on a monthly basis. This will only add to that situation.

I would like to thank all the clubs that have brought their concerns to my office and the people who have personally raised with me what I would say are very valid concerns. Those concerns continue to confront their clubs in relation to this legislation.

I do not think there is any doubt that the reasoned amendment moved by Mr Guy is valid. It should be given serious consideration, and it should be supported. In closing, I think it is important to note the clubs that have been in touch with me. Twenty-seven clubs have contacted my office or me personally, and they are: the Bell Park Sports and Recreation Club, the Horsham Sports and Community Club, Buckley’s Entertainment Centre down at Breakwater in Geelong, the Lara Sports Club, the Warrnambool Football Club, the Queenscliff Bowling Club, the Ballarat and District Trotting Club, the Daylesford Bowling Club, the Colac Bowling Club, the Buninyong Golf Club, the Cobden Golf Club, the North Ballarat Football Club, the Maryborough Highland Society, the Maryborough Golf Club, Ballarat basketball’s Minerdome Sports Club, the Kyneton Bowling Club, the Ballarat Football League and Ballarat Leagues Club, the Stawell Harness Racing Club, the Anglesea Golf Club, the Leopold Sportsmans Club, the Shell sporting and social club in Geelong, the Clifton Springs Golf Club, the Ballarat Golf Club, the Merbein Citizens Club, the Australian Croatian Association, Westside Tabaret and of course Clubs Victoria, which has put a lot of effort into assisting its associate members and making sure a very strong argument has been put forward in relation to this matter. In closing, I encourage everyone to support the reasoned amendment moved by Mr Guy.

House divided on amendment:

Ayes, 18 Barber, Mr Koch, Mr Coote, Mrs (Teller) Kronberg, Mrs Dalla-Riva, Mr Lovell, Ms Davis, Mr D. O’Donohue, Mr Davis, Mr P. Pennicuik, Ms Drum, Mr Petrovich, Mrs Finn, Mr Peulich, Mrs Guy, Mr (Teller) Rich-Phillips, Mr Hartland, Ms Vogels, Mr

Noes, 18 Broad, Ms Madden, Mr Darveniza, Ms Mikakos, Ms Eideh, Mr Pulford, Ms Elasmar, Mr Scheffer, Mr Huppert, Ms (Teller) Smith, Mr Jennings, Mr Somyurek, Mr Kavanagh, Mr (Teller) Tee, Mr Leane, Mr Tierney, Ms Lenders, Mr Viney, Mr

Pairs Atkinson, Mr Pakula, Mr Hall, Mr Theophanous, Mr Amendment negatived.

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 21 Barber, Mr (Teller) Mikakos, Ms Broad, Ms Pakula, Mr Darveniza, Ms (Teller) Pennicuik, Ms Elasmar, Mr Pulford, Ms Hartland, Ms Scheffer, Mr Huppert, Ms Smith, Mr Jennings, Mr Somyurek, Mr Kavanagh, Mr Tee, Mr Leane, Mr Tierney, Ms Lenders, Mr Viney, Mr Madden, Mr

Noes, 15 Coote, Mrs Kronberg, Mrs (Teller) Dalla-Riva, Mr Lovell, Ms Davis, Mr D. O’Donohue, Mr Davis, Mr P. Petrovich, Mrs Drum, Mr Peulich, Mrs Finn, Mr Rich-Phillips, Mr (Teller) Guy, Mr Vogels, Mr Koch, Mr

Pairs Eideh, Mr Atkinson, Mr Theophanous, Mr Hall, Mr Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Ordered to be committed next day.

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT (PREMIUM SOLAR FEED-IN TARIFF) BILL


ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT (PREMIUM SOLAR FEED-IN TARIFF)

BILL

Introduction and first reading

Received from Assembly.

Read first time on motion of Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade).

BUSHFIRES ROYAL COMMISSION (REPORT) BILL

Statement of compatibility

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) 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 Bushfires Royal Commission (Report) Bill 2009.

In my opinion, the Bushfires Royal Commission (Report) Bill 2009, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with the human rights protected by the charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of bill

The object of the bill is to commit the government to publishing the reports of the 2009 bushfires royal commission, and to provide a process for publishing and attaching privilege to those reports when Parliament is not sitting.

Human rights issues

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

The only right engaged by the bill is the right to privacy. Section 13 of the charter provides that a person has the right —

(a) not to have his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with; and

(b) not to have his or her reputation unlawfully attacked.

The bill, which commits the government to publishing a report of the commission, may affect the right to privacy and reputation if the commission includes material of a private nature or material that is critical of individuals in its reports. The bill grants absolute privilege to the publication of the reports, so those affected would not be able to sue for defamation.

However, the publication of a report is neither unlawful nor arbitrary. The purposes of the commission are to consider the causes, management and responses to the 2009 bushfires, and to provide recommendations to improve all aspects of

preparation and planning for any future bushfire threats. The publication of the commission’s reports is necessary to ensure that its findings are available to be considered by the community and adequately responded to by government and other affected organisations.

In addition, there is no pre-existing right to keep the reports of the commission private. The government could publish the reports even without this bill and, if published during sitting days, privilege would be attached to the reports. This legislation simply commits the government to publishing the reports, and allows that publication to occur in a timely manner if the reports are completed in a period when Parliament is not sitting.

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

Any limitation the bill imposes on the right to privacy is reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society. As mentioned above, the publication of a report with privilege could occur during parliamentary sitting periods even without this bill. The impact on privacy is therefore limited, and is justified for the reasons discussed above.

Conclusion

I consider that the bill is compatible with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities because the effect it may have on a person’s right to privacy is neither unlawful nor arbitrary.

John Lenders, MLC Treasurer

Second reading

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — Before moving that the second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard, I advise the house that this legislation was amended in the Legislative Assembly. There was a minor amendment dealing with the time frame upon which a royal commissioner’s report would need to be tabled in the Parliament. There was an amendment that a royal commissioner’s report be tabled in the Parliament forthwith. The original proposal was that there be up to 10 days for that to be done, so there was an amendment in the Legislative Assembly.

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


That the bill be now read a second time.

Incorporated speech as follows:

On 16 February this year, a commission of inquiry into the Victorian bushfires of late January and February 2009 was established in response to the tragic bushfires that recently ravaged our state. The findings of the commission will be of interest to many members of our community, and this bill is designed to ensure that those findings are available for public scrutiny and discussion.



The bill commits the government to publishing both the interim and final reports of the commission.

As members may be aware, the ordinary practice is for such reports to be tabled in each house at the command of the Governor, and then ordered to be printed by Parliament. This process causes the reports to attract parliamentary privilege pursuant to sections 73 and 74 of the Constitution Act 1975, which protects the commission, any witnesses, and the publishers of the report from legal action arising from its publication. This privilege is essential to ensure the commission and witnesses before it can comment frankly on any aspect of its inquiry without fear of litigation.

However, it is possible that the commission may complete a report during a period when Parliament is not sitting, meaning that the usual process for publication and attachment of privilege would be unavailable. To avoid delaying publication of such a report, an alternative means of publication is required.

This bill, which is similar to the Longford Royal Commission (Report) Act 1999 and the Constitution (Metropolitan Ambulance Service Royal Commission Report) Act 2001, provides a process whereby the bushfires royal commission reports may be published and attract parliamentary privilege on non-sitting days. The bill departs from the earlier acts by requiring that all members of Parliament have access to the reports as soon as they are published. This allows all members to be kept informed.

I am sure that all members will support this bill as it commits government to publishing the commission’s reports, provides for public access to and scrutiny of those reports, and will ensure that the published reports will attract absolute privilege.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan).

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 9 April.

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT (PREMIUM SOLAR FEED-IN TARIFF)

BILL


For Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade), Mr Lenders tabled following statement in accordance with Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Electricity Industry Amendment (Premium Solar Feed-in Tariff) Bill 2009 (the amendment bill).

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

Overview of the bill

This amendment bill will promote the installation and use by Victorians of small solar energy generation facilities by encouraging Victorians to install solar facilities and to promote renewable energy electricity generation through a feed-in credit system. It also ensures Victorian households are offered a reasonable amount for the electricity they supply to the grid from their solar energy systems, credited against charges payable by the households. The scheme will apply to new and existing small-scale solar energy systems that are installed in households, which have the required metering and are connected to the electricity grid. The scheme will operate for 15 years, from the commencement of the amendment bill until the end of the 15th anniversary of the commencement or upon the declared scheme capacity day.

The bill will insert new provisions into division 5A of part 2 of the Electricity Industry Act 2000, which is the division providing terms and conditions for the purchase of small renewable energy generation electricity. The amendment bill also makes a minor statutory amendment to the National Electricity (Victoria) Act 2005, deeming the solar feed-in credit obligation to be a regulatory obligation.

The amendment bill inserts three principal obligations, and terms and conditions relevant to them, into the Electricity Industry Act 2000:

(a) purchasing retailers’ obligation — to credit the relevant customer premium feed-in tariff;

(b) distributors’ obligation — to provide relevant retailers with credit equal to the customer premium feed-in tariff credit; and

(c) selling retailers’ obligation — where retailers selling electricity to customers in the distributor’s area cover the cost of that distributor’s obligation, by passing the charge on to their customers.

Human rights issues

Human rights protected by the charter are unlikely to be affected by the amendment bill, as the bill affects licensees that are corporations rather than individuals. The charter provides that only persons have human rights.

However, in the event that licensees are individuals, the amendment bill technically engages the right not to be deprived of property in section 20 of the charter. Section 20 of the charter provides that a person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law. ‘Property’ includes statutory rights such as licences.

While the amendment bill potentially affects such property by imposing new licence conditions, the right is not limited as the licensee is not ‘deprived’ of the use or enjoyment of the licence. For example, clause 5 of the amendment bill provides that small retailers and retailers with a licence to sell electricity may offer to purchase solar energy at a premium solar feed-in tariff. It also places a solar feed-in credit obligation on distributors, whereby distribution licences are deemed to have a condition that credits the retailer for the amount for excess solar electricity conveyed along a distribution system operated by that distribution company. Clauses 5 and 6 also place conditions on the licences of distribution companies and retailers to distribute and sell electricity. These licence conditions include the requirement



to publish the prices, terms and conditions from which a licensee will purchase solar electricity from the customers providing their excess solar energy back into the grid. The amendment bill also fixes solar feed-in credit at not less than $0.60 per kilowatt hour. The terms and conditions introduced in relation to licences are adequately accessible and formulated with sufficient precision so as to be ‘lawful’ and to ensure that additional restrictions on licences required by the scheme are not enforced arbitrarily or selectively and are in accordance with the law.

Pursuant to the amendment bill, the purchasing retailer provides a credit to the relevant customer. The credit is against the charges payable by the relevant customer to the retailer for electricity. Any excess premium solar feed-in credit can be carried forward within a 12-month period but after that it is extinguished. The premium solar feed-in credit can be used at any stage during that 12-month period. To the extent that the extinguishment of the credit may be deprivation of property, it is required by the scheme and it is not arbitrary and is in accordance with the law.

Conclusion

I consider that the bill is compatible with the charter because it does not raise any human rights issues.

Martin Pakula, MLC Minister for Industry and Trade

Second reading





The Brumby government is committed to tackling climate change and to establishing practical measures that assist Victorian households to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. This bill will introduce a premium solar feed-in tariff scheme to support Victorian households who choose to invest in solar photovoltaic systems.

Feed-in tariffs apply to power generated by customers and supplied to the electricity network. The bill provides for Victorian households with small-scale solar power systems to be credited a premium rate of no less than 60 cents for every unused kilowatt hour of power fed back into the grid. The credit will apply to all systems of up to 3.2 kilowatts capacity installed at a customer’s principal place of residence. The scheme will run for 15 years and have a cap of 100 megawatts of generating capacity.

The premium feed-in tariff will support the solar industry and make it more affordable for individuals to play their part in tackling climate change. It will also encourage energy efficiency by rewarding those who are able to supply excess power to the energy grid.

The bill builds on earlier measures to establish a feed-in tariff scheme. In 2004, the Electricity Industry Act 2000 was amended to require retailers to publish buy-back rates for

power from small wind generators. In 2007 that obligation was extended to other forms of renewable generation, including hydro, biomass and solar. As well, the act was amended to require the published prices, terms and conditions to be fair and reasonable.

The bill amends the Electricity Industry Act 2000 to provide for the premium solar feed-in tariff scheme to operate alongside the existing scheme, now to be known as the general feed-in tariff scheme. Clause 4 introduces new and modified definitions accordingly.

Clauses 5 to 13 make consequential amendments to the existing provisions and insert new sections that set out the various elements of the premium solar feed-in tariff scheme. These new sections largely mirror the existing provisions. Retailers with 5000 or more residential customers will be required to publish premium solar feed-in terms and conditions, in the same way they publish general feed-in terms and conditions. The published premium solar feed-in terms and conditions will have to be fair and reasonable and will be subject to assessment by the minister and the Essential Services Commission.

There are some new elements. Retailers with 5000 or fewer residential customers will be able to choose whether or not to participate in the premium solar feed-in tariff scheme. If they opt in, they will have the same obligations as larger retailers. This will enable small retailers to compete with other retailers should they choose to do so, and ensure that their customers receive terms and conditions which are assessed as fair and reasonable.

Distributors will also have a role in the premium solar feed-in tariff scheme. They will credit to retailers 60 cents for every unused kilowatt hour of power fed back into the grid. Distributors will be able to recover their costs by way of the pass-through provisions of the current electricity distribution pricing determination.

Lastly, new section 40NB provides for an independent review of the premium solar feed-in tariff scheme to be carried out by 30 June 2012. This will assist in an assessment of whether the premium feed-in tariff scheme is achieving its stated purposes.

The premium solar feed-in tariff scheme introduced in this bill delivers on a 2006 election promise and will ensure Victoria continues to lead Australia on renewable energy initiatives. It is part of a strategic approach by the Brumby government to provide affordable, sustainable energy for Victoria’s future. Premium solar feed-in tariffs, together with the Victorian energy efficiency target scheme, which began on 1 January 2009, will empower Victorian households to take action on climate change.

The scheme also complements Victoria’s mandated renewable energy target and technology innovation grants for renewable technologies that will deliver large-scale renewable energy generation.


Debate adjourned for Mr HALL (Eastern Victoria) on motion of Mr Koch.


MELBOURNE CRICKET GROUND BILL


MELBOURNE CRICKET GROUND BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 1 April; motion of Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change).

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria) — It is a pleasure to rise and speak in favour of the Melbourne Cricket Ground Bill 2008. Many say the Melbourne Cricket Ground is the heart of Melbourne. Whether they are sporting fans, music fans or interested in the history of this great city, for many people the MCG holds a special place in their heart for different and diverse reasons. In a sense the MCG typifies Melbourne’s diverse culture. The stadium has the ability to hold world-class sporting events, musical events, religious events, charity events and political events. It is in these events that we see Melbourne come to the fore, and indeed, we see Victoria at its finest. Just a few weeks ago, on a rainy Saturday, we saw 80 000 people pack the G to raise money for the Victorian Bushfire Appeal Fund. The Sound Relief concert brought together some of this country’s major musical talent, including, of course, the former Midnight Oil frontperson and current federal Labor Party Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett. There would be no other place to hold such a wonderful and significant event than the place known as ‘the people’s ground’.

In November 2006, the people of Victoria spoke out against the then Howard government’s unjust WorkChoices legislation in a protest that saw over 40 000 people at the MCG at 7 o’clock one morning to fight for their rights at work. I am delighted to be standing here in the house today and to be able to say that the last sitting day of the federal Parliament saw the abolition of that legislation. The last stake was driven through the heart of what will always be known as a very dark time for workers in this country.

It is the events held there that shape the MCG and the people of Melbourne and Victoria. They include events such as Australia’s first Olympic Games in 1956, the 2006 Commonwealth Games, World Cup soccer matches, world-class cricket, and even a mass, which was said by Pope John Paul II when he visited in 1986. A number of religious events have taken place at the MCG. They also exemplify the diversity of religious beliefs in Melbourne and demonstrate how highly we regard those religious beliefs and the tolerance we display for each other’s belief systems. These are all events that Melburnians and Victorians will always remember, whether they attended one or many of these events, saw them on television in their own lounge

room or watched a grand final at 3.00 a.m. in a bar in New York. You just remember the excitement of the game and the lead-up to that major event in Melbourne.

The MCG is associated also with a whole range of personal memories and with feelings in people’s hearts. Every young girl and boy who has had the opportunity to run out onto the G at half-time to play in an Auskick game during the footy season or in a Milo cricket match in the summer never forgets the experience. In fact I have heard from parents and children alike that sometimes they take the opportunity to store the mud from the soles of their boots or shoes in a jar, never to be touched again. Such is the response to running on the hallowed ground of the MCG.

I also have a family story that was part of our folklore. At family gatherings, when asked about how he lost his front tooth, my father tells a story. He tries to playfully scare younger members of the family and drops the plate that his front tooth is on. He tells people that his front tooth was lost — —

Mr Rich-Phillips — On a point of order, President, there is no minister present in the house.

An honourable member — Yes, there is.

Ms TIERNEY — As my father tells the story, his lost tooth is actually still in a picket of the fence on the northern side of the MCG. He says that that was a result of playing for South Australia against Tasmania during the 1958 national football carnival, which was held over approximately a week. I doubt very much that that tooth is still embedded in that fence post. I am sure that 50 years on his grandchildren do not believe the story that was, as I said, part of the folklore of the family for some 25 years.

Moving forward, on 23 September, the Melbourne Cricket Ground will celebrate its 156th birthday. Over those 156 years seven pieces of legislation have been created relating to the MCG. They are the Melbourne Cricket Ground Act 1933, the Melbourne Cricket Ground Act 1951, the Melbourne Cricket Ground (Trustees) Act 1957, the Melbourne Cricket Ground Act 1983, the Melbourne Cricket Ground Act 1984, the Melbourne Cricket Ground (Guarantees) Act 1957 and the Melbourne Cricket Ground Trust Act 1989. Many of those acts now contain redundant provisions, and clearly having seven pieces of legislation for the Melbourne Cricket Ground is inefficient and confusing, to say the least. The Melbourne Cricket Ground Bill essentially consolidates all appropriate active provisions into a single act, while not removing any existing rights. However, the bill includes three key areas of

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


change to existing provisions which are essential to the continued prosperity of the Melbourne Cricket Ground.

Firstly, under the new legislation the MCG Trust will be given the additional function to, on request, provide the minister of the state government with advice on matters relating to the construction and management of major sports facilities and the management of major events. Secondly, currently the Melbourne Cricket Ground Act 1933 prohibits a person, trade or business from using the name ‘Melbourne Cricket Ground’ or ‘MCG’ to describe a place that is not the MCG. However, it does not include a penalty for a breach of this provision. The bill before us today addresses this inadequacy. The third area of change relates to the floodlight towers and floodlights at the ground. The Melbourne Cricket Ground Act 1984 provides for the construction of the floodlight towers. As the provision of authorisation to build the towers is no longer necessary, the bill before us provides for the replacement, removal, refurbishment or upgrade of the floodlight towers. As well as these three key areas of change, the bill also makes minor changes to refine and update the legislation.

As I stated earlier, the MCG is a landmark for this great city and this great state. It is extremely important that we protect our state’s landmarks and ensure that there is every opportunity for their continued success and prosperity. It is a pleasure to be a member of a government which so clearly demonstrates its commitment to the history, heritage, sport, major events and the future prosperity of the state’s landmarks. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I rise to make brief comments on the Melbourne Cricket Ground Bill 2008 which, as many speakers have outlined, basically does three things. One is that it gives the MCG Trust the additional function of providing advice to the minister on the development and management of major sporting venues. I wonder what is contemplated here and why it requires a formal legislative framework for a minister to seek such advice. I would have thought the minister could seek advice from the trust without it having to be in the legislation.

The bill provides penalties for other persons or entities using the name of the Melbourne Cricket Ground or the MCG, and authorises the trust to replace, remove, refurbish or upgrade the floodlight towers. I query what is planned in that regard and whether there are any upgrades planned for the floodlight towers that we do not know about. The bill also provides that the MCG Trust is exempt from anything to the contrary in the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the City of

Melbourne planning scheme or the Land Act 1958. I also wonder what is the justification for such significant exemptions on an ongoing basis.

Apart from those queries, I raise the issue made known to me by the Melbourne City Council (MCC) which is the increasing damage to Melbourne Park caused by car parking when there are events, particularly the football or cricket, at the MCG. Given the dry conditions and changing climate, the park is less and less resilient, and the council is of the view that alternative car parking arrangements should be considered when the matter comes up for renewal in October 2010. The Greens certainly agree with that, and our City of Melbourne councillor, Cathy Oke, has spoken about that issue many times, as have other councillors, members of the Yarra Park Association and other people in the community because they have concerns regarding the ongoing damage to Yarra Park from car parking in that area. Given that the majority of people travel to the MCG for sporting events by public transport rather than by car, which is a good thing and is to be encouraged, the loss of car parking in that area would not be a serious matter in terms of attendances at those events.

During the debate on this bill in the lower house much time was spent by members telling us about their expeditions to the MCG. I therefore could not end my contribution without saying that I, too, have spent a lot of time at the MCG — not as a football lover, I have to admit, although I did go to one or two grand finals there — but I have often attended the Boxing Day cricket and other cricket matches. The high point of my experiences at the MCG was when I saw the Rolling Stones in 1995.

Motion agreed to.

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

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Adjournment


That the Council, at its rising, adjourn until Wednesday, 6 May.

Motion agreed to.

FAIR TRADING AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL





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


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

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Fair Trading and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2008.

In my opinion, the Fair Trading and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2008, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with the human rights protected by the charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of bill

The bill furthers the government’s commitment to improve the operation of markets by ensuring that Victorian consumers are well informed and protected through —

(a) amendments to strengthen enforcement capacity under, and amend certain definitions in, the Fair Trading Act 1999 and to apply part 2B of the Fair Trading Act to credit contracts; and

(b) amendments to strengthen the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 to ensure that prior to entering into an agreement to formally affiliate a residential premises under section 21 of the act (thereby exempting that premises from the operation of the act) a school or educational institution must consider prescribed criteria; to provide that a notice of exemption be prominently displayed in a public or common area; and to establish offences relating to false representations or engaging in misleading conduct relating to formal affiliation.

The bill also amends the Consumer Credit (Victoria) and Other Acts Amendment Act 2008 to halt the default commencement of provisions introducing an enhanced credit provider registration scheme, while ensuring that related amendments introducing EDR (external dispute resolution) requirements can proceed.

Human rights issues


The relevant rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (the charter) which the bill may engage are:

Section 13: privacy and reputation

Section 13 of the charter provides that a person has the right not to have his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with and the right not to have his or her reputation unlawfully attacked.

Clauses 11 and 12 of the bill may engage section 13 of the charter by amending existing section 153 of the Fair Trading Act to refer only to (non-punitive) corrective advertising orders and inserting new section 153A to deal with (punitive) adverse publicity orders.

The power to make a corrective advertising order is available on the application of the director, and requires a person to disclose, in the way and to the persons specified in the order, such information as is so specified, being information that the person has possession of or access to. The order may alternatively require the person to publish, at the person’s expense and in the way specified in the order, an advertisement in the terms specified in, or determined in accordance with, the order. The power to make an adverse publicity order is couched in the same terms.

Clauses 11 and 12 may engage section 13 of the charter by enabling a court to require that certain information be disclosed. However, these clauses do not limit section 13 as orders under the clauses may only be made in specific, defined circumstances (that is, on the application of the director and where a court is satisfied that there has been a contravention of particular parts of the act). The power would therefore be exercised on a non-arbitrary basis by a court, according to law.

Accordingly, clauses 11 and 12 of the bill are compatible with section 13 of the charter.

Section 15: freedom of expression

Section 15 of the charter protects a person’s freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas. Section 15(3) of the charter qualifies the right of freedom of expression and provides that special duties and responsibilities attach to this right. The right may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputation of other persons or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.

Clause 20 of the bill may engage section 15 of the charter as it compels owners or operators of residential premises that are exempt from the operation of the Residential Tenancies Act by reason of formal affiliation under section 21(1) of the act to display a notice of that exemption, in the prescribed form, in a public or common area. A failure to comply with this requirement attracts a maximum penalty of 10 penalty units.

Although clause 20 requires the display of certain information in the prescribed form, it does not limit the right of freedom of expression. The requirement simply ensures that persons are aware of the legitimate exemption of the residential premises to which it applies from the operation of the Residential Tenancies Act.

Clause 19 of the bill may also engage section 15 of the charter by establishing certain offences relating to false representations or misleading conduct. Clause 19 provides that the owner or operator of a residential premises, or a person acting on their behalf, must not represent that the



residential premises has formal affiliation with a school or institution if it does not have that affiliation. Clause 19 also prohibits an owner or operator of a residential premises, or someone acting on their behalf, from engaging in conduct that is liable to mislead the public about the formal affiliation status of the premises.

Although clause 19 prohibits a person from making representations or engaging in certain conduct, the prohibitions are limited to false representations and engaging in misleading conduct.

In practice, the offences introduced by clause 19 are most likely to affect commercial student accommodation providers who falsely represent that they are exempt from the operation of the Residential Tenancies Act by virtue of section 21 of that act, or who engage in misleading conduct to this effect. The offences therefore only adversely impact people who abuse the right of freedom of expression. Therefore, clause 19 would arguably qualify as a specific limitation under section 15(3) of the charter.

Therefore, clause 19 does not limit the right to freedom of expression provided for in the charter.

Section 20: property rights

Section 20 of the charter provides that a person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law. Clauses 4 and 16 of the bill may engage this section of the charter.

Clause 4 substitutes existing section 32V of the Fair Trading Act and in doing so removes an existing exemption for credit contracts from the operation of part 2B of that act, thereby applying the unfair contract terms scheme set out in part 2B to consumer credit contracts. New clause 14(1) in schedule 3 to the Fair Trading Act, inserted by clause 16 of the bill, limits the operation of clause 4 by providing that contractual terms contained in credit contracts entered into prior to the commencement of clause 4 are not subject to part 2B, unless a term of the contract is varied after the commencement of clause 4, at which point the varied term will become subject to part 2B.

Clauses 4 and 16 do not limit section 20 of the charter. Contractual terms in credit contracts entered into prior to the commencement of clause 4 will not be subject to part 2B of the act. Therefore, the contractual rights and obligations of the parties to these contracts will be unaffected by the application of part 2B to credit contracts. The only exception will be where the terms of credit contracts entered into prior to the commencement of clause 4 are varied after the commencement of clause 4: clause 16 provides that these varied terms will be subject to part 2B. Applying part 2B to these terms will offer parties to contracts entered into prior to the commencement of clause 4 protection from variations that may potentially create an unfair contract term.

Clause 9 of the bill will insert a new subsection (4) into section 32ZC of the Fair Trading Act and this may engage the property rights protected by section 20 of the charter. Section 32ZC(4) will enable the County or Supreme courts, or the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, to make various remedial orders after having declared a term in a consumer contract to be an unfair term or a term in a standard form contract to be a prescribed unfair term. In particular, the

remedial orders available include orders for a refund or the transfer of property.

It should be noted that, in the vast majority of cases, an order that a refund be paid or that property be transferred would be made against a corporation, to which the charter does not apply. Furthermore, in the unlikely event that a remedial order was made against a natural person, the order would be in the nature of restitution and only available where there has been a prior declaration that either a term is unfair, or that a term is a prescribed unfair term. In any event, the order would be made by a judicial entity and in accordance with law. For these reasons, clause 9 does not limit the rights under section 20 of the charter.

Finally, clause 13 of the bill may engage section 20 of the charter. Clause 13 inserts new subsection 154(1)(ab) into the Fair Trading Act, to provide that a court may make an order prohibiting a person subject to litigation under the act from divesting their money or other assets. In enabling the court to make such an order, clause 13 may operate to restrict the way in which a person deals with their property.

Clause 13 does not, however, unlawfully or arbitrarily interfere with the property rights protected by section 20 of the charter. Clause 13 is lawful, being provided for under the act. Further, the order can only be made by the court in defined and specific proceedings, and would be used by the court to preserve the assets of a person against whom certain proceedings have been taken, in order to ensure that the court’s judgement is not frustrated by the dissipation of those assets.

Section 24: fair hearing

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

Clause 7 and clause 9, subsections (1) to (3) may engage this right, as they amend sections 32ZA and 32ZC of the Fair Trading Act to give the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria the ability to apply to either the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal or the County or Supreme courts for an injunction under section 32ZA or a declaration under section 32ZC. In making these amendments, clauses 7 and 9 give the County and Supreme courts jurisdiction under part 2B of the act which was formerly restricted to the tribunal.

These clauses are not considered to restrict section 24, as they simply give the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria access to apply for a declaration or injunction under part 2B in an alternative forum.

Section 24 may also be engaged by clause 14 of the bill, which amends section 157 of the act to provide that a finding of fact by a court under sections 153 and 153A (that is, in non-punitive corrective advertising orders or punitive adverse publicity orders) is evidence of the same fact in proceedings under sections 158 or 159 (that is, for remedies such as court orders or damages).

Section 157 is essentially a means of avoiding procedural duplication. The right to a fair hearing is not affected by an arbitrary or unlawful presumption because the conclusion being made in relation to a particular fact will already have



been proven in previous court proceedings. The conduct or contravention assumed is the same in both proceedings — only the remedies sought will differ. Further, a person may avoid a presumption of fact under section 157 by appealing the earlier finding. Therefore, clause 14 does not limit the charter.

Section 25: rights in criminal proceedings

Section 25(1) of the charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Section 25(2) of the charter provides for minimum guarantees in criminal proceedings.

Section 25 of the charter may be engaged by clause 10 of the bill, which inserts new section 32ZDA into the Fair Trading Act. New section 32ZDA(1) introduces a presumption that, if it is alleged in any proceeding under part 2B or in any other proceeding in respect of a matter arising under that part that a contract is a consumer contract or a standard form contract to which the part applies, it is to be presumed, unless the contrary is established, that the part applies to the contract. New section 32ZDA(2) limits the application of this presumption by providing that the presumption under subsection (1) does not apply in respect of criminal proceedings against a natural person.

Although clause 10 does impose a legal burden of proof on a person against whom proceedings may be taken under part 2B, the clause does not limit section 25 of the charter because it does not apply in respect of criminal proceedings against a natural person. The presumption in clause 10 may, however, operate to place a legal burden of proof in criminal proceedings against a corporation. As the charter does not apply to corporations, section 25 of the charter is not limited by the operation of this clause.

Section 27: retrospective criminal laws

Section 27(2) of the charter provides that a penalty must not be imposed on any person for a criminal offence that is greater than the penalty that applied to the offence when it was committed.

Clause 15 of the bill engages this right by amending section 160 of the Fair Trading Act to increase the compensation a court can make an order for under section 160 of the act from $1000 to $10 000.

However, section 27(2) of the charter is not limited by clause 15, because clause 16 of the bill, which inserts new transitional clauses 14(5) and 14(6) into schedule 3 to the Fair Trading Act, provides that the increased compensation available under section 160 as a result of clause 15 will only apply in relation to an offence committed on or after the commencement of the clause. Clause 16 further provides that if an offence is alleged to have been committed between two dates and clause 15 commences on a date between those two dates, the offence will be taken to have been committed before the commencement of that clause.


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

Conclusion

I consider that the bill is compatible with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities because although it raises human rights issues it does not limit human rights.

Justin Madden, MLC Minister for Planning

Second reading





Improving the operation of markets by ensuring that Victorian consumers are well informed and protected is a key priority of the Brumby government.

This bill acts on that priority through amendments to three acts: the Fair Trading Act 1999, the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 and the Consumer Credit (Victoria) and Other Acts Amendment Act 2008.

The Fair Trading Act is Victoria’s primary consumer protection legislation. It is important that it contains appropriate tools to enable regulators and courts to effectively administer and enforce the act. This bill strengthens enforcement capacity under the act by increasing the suite of tools available to Consumer Affairs Victoria and the courts.

For example, the bill provides Victorian courts with the same capacity as courts under the Trade Practices Act 1974 to make non-punitive orders requiring corrective advertising to be undertaken.

The bill also enables a court to make an order prohibiting a person subject to litigation under the Fair Trading Act from divesting their assets in an attempt to defeat a potential judgement of the court, and increases the current limit on compensation for humiliation or distress under section 160 of the act from $1000 to $10 000, to better reflect the gravity of such conduct, and its potential consequences, particularly for vulnerable consumers.

Minor amendments will be made to the definitions of ‘officer’ and ‘trade and commerce’ in the act, to bring them into line with other jurisdictions.

The bill also amends part 2B of the Fair Trading Act, which establishes Victoria’s unfair contract terms scheme, to improve and strengthen its operation. The bill ensures that the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria can choose between applying for a declaration or injunction from either the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal or the County or Supreme courts.

The tribunal and the courts will be provided with the capacity to make remedial orders under part 2B — for example, an order that a refund be given. The bill also amends the definition of ‘unfair contract term’ by removing the element of ‘good faith’ following the comments of then Justice

HUMAN SERVICES (COMPLEX NEEDS) BILL


Morris, in his capacity as president of VCAT, in Director of Consumer Affairs v. AAPT Ltd, that this requirement is adjectival and not an element that needs to be proved separately to show that a term is unfair. In October 2008, the Council of Australian Governments agreed to a single national consumer law, including a provision regulating unfair contract terms, which is being developed, and the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs has recommended a definition of unfair contract term that does not include a ‘good faith’ requirement.

A new presumptive provision provides that if it is alleged in any proceeding under part 2B that a contract is a consumer contract or standard form contract to which part 2B applies, it is to be presumed (unless the contrary is established) that part 2B applies to the contract.

The bill also extends the operation of part 2B of the Fair Trading Act to credit contracts. These contracts are currently the only consumer contracts not subject to unfair contract terms provisions in part 2B. The bill will rectify this by ensuring that parties to credit contracts entered into after the commencement of the bill will enjoy protection from unfair contract terms. This amendment implements a recommendation of the report of the consumer credit review. However, it should be noted that part 2B will not apply to contractual terms contained in a credit contract that was entered into before the commencement of the amendments, unless the terms of those contracts are lawfully varied. In these situations, part 2B will apply to the varied term or terms.

In the 2008 annual statement of government intentions, the government flagged its intention to enhance protection for students living in commercial student housing accommodation. This bill implements that intention by strengthening section 21 of the Residential Tenancies Act, under which residential premises can be formally affiliated with a school or educational institution and thereby exempt from the operation of the act. The bill introduces new requirements that prescribed criteria be considered by a school or educational institution prior to entering into an agreement to formally affiliate a residential premises, and that where a residential premises is exempt from the operation of the Residential Tenancies Act by virtue of formal affiliation, notice of that exemption be prominently displayed in a public or common area. Offences relating to misrepresentations or engaging in misleading conduct in relation to formal affiliation have been introduced, attracting a maximum penalty of 300 penalty units.

Finally, the bill amends several unproclaimed provisions of the Consumer Credit (Victoria) and Other Acts Amendment Act. The bill ensures that provisions in the act that introduce an enhanced credit provider registration scheme do not commence by default on 1 July 2009. The commencement of these provisions is no longer necessary, as a comprehensive national credit provider and finance broker licensing scheme announced earlier this year by the Council of Australian Governments is being developed by the commonwealth government for introduction in mid-2009. The bill also makes technical amendments to ensure that related provisions introducing external dispute resolution requirements can come into operation on 1 July 2009, if not proclaimed to come into operation earlier.

The 2008 annual statement of government intentions noted that the Fair Trading Act would be amended to introduce a

lemon law to cover motor vehicle purchases in Victoria, and during late 2007, Ms Janice Munt, MP, member for Mordialloc, led a consultation process to this end. Since then, there have been significant national developments in the consumer protection area. As noted previously, the Council of Australian Governments has agreed to a single national consumer law.

This significant national initiative impacts on the development of a Victorian motor vehicle lemon law. Given the timing of the new law, any state-based stand-alone initiative would be quickly superseded unless it received substantial support from all jurisdictions.

Additionally, in August 2008, the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs agreed that the implied terms regime in various state fair trading laws requires review. This review will be led by the commonwealth government and will include consideration of lemon laws. Consequently, the bill does not address the issue of motor vehicle lemon laws. The government will use Ms Munt’s report on the motor vehicle lemon law consultations to assist in developing enhanced protection for consumers through the implied terms review and the new national law.


Debate adjourned for Mr GUY (Northern Metropolitan) on motion of Ms Lovell.





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


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

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Human Services (Complex Needs) Bill 2009.

In my opinion, the Human Services (Complex Needs) Bill 2009, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with the human rights protected by the charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of bill

The bill provides the framework to enable the continuation of the Department of Human Services multiple and complex



needs initiative (MACNI) after the sunset of the Human Services (Complex Needs) Act 2003 on 31 May 2009.

The bill allows the Department of Human Services to respond to multiple and complex needs clients in a flexible and coordinated way, through assessment and care planning for eligible persons. Services will be provided on a voluntary basis, as clients are able to refuse to be considered for eligibility and to refuse to be the subject of a care plan.

Human rights issues


Section 13 — privacy and reputation

The right to privacy of persons receiving services under the legislation may be interfered with by the information-sharing provisions, including sections 14, 16, and 17 of the bill. However, this right is not limited as the interference is neither unlawful nor arbitrary. The powers to collect, use and disclose personal and health information are properly prescribed, and no less restrictive means exist to achieve the bill’s aim of providing coordinated services based on a comprehensive assessment of a person’s needs.

It is noted that:

(a) disclosure of information is required for the purpose of determining a person’s eligibility or developing and implementing a care plan, and must be in the best interests of the person;

(b) the person will be notified that their personal and health information will be shared in this way, and has the option of refusing to participate in the program;

(c) there is a confidentiality provision which prohibits the use or disclosure of information gained under the legislation for improper purpose.

Section 8 — recognition and equality before the law

This right is engaged and limited by section 7 of the bill, which sets out the eligibility criteria. Only people who meet the eligibility criteria will receive services under the legislation. However, as this limitation is reasonable (as set out below), the legislation is compatible with this right.


(a) the nature of the right being limited

The right to recognition and equality before the law means that every person should be equal before the law and has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination.

(b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation

Purpose of the limitation imposed by the eligibility criteria is to ensure that services are directed to the target group, people with multiple and complex needs. The legislation specifically targets people who are often unable, because of their multiple and complex needs, to access services appropriate to the nature and degree of their impairments. It is not targeted at people

under 16 years of age, whose needs are more appropriately met by child-focused services.

(c) the nature and extent of the limitation

Only people who meet the eligibility criteria can receive services under the legislation. An eligible person is a person who:

(a) has attained 16 years of age; and

(b) appears to satisfy two or more of the following criteria —

has a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1986;

has an acquired brain injury;

has an intellectual impairment;

is an alcoholic or drug-dependent person within the meaning of the Alcoholics and Drug-dependent Persons Act 1968; and

(c) has exhibited violent or dangerous behaviour that caused serious harm to himself or herself or some other person or is exhibiting behaviour which is reasonable likely to place himself or herself or some other person at risk of serious harm; and

(d) is in need of intensive supervision and support and would derive benefit from receiving coordinated services in accordance with a care plan under the act that may include welfare services, health services, mental health services, disability services, drug and alcohol treatment services or housing and support services.

(d) the relationship between the limitation and its purpose

The limitation imposed by the eligibility criteria is directly related to the purpose of the legislation, which is to facilitate coordinated service delivery to the target group of the people who most need it due to their multiple and complex needs. The age criteria is rational and proportionate as the needs of children under 16 are more appropriately met by child-focused services.

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

None.

(f) any other relevant factors

The legislation aims to assist people with multiple and complex needs, who often suffer disadvantage due to discrimination based on a mental disorder, acquired brain injury, intellectual impairment, alcoholism or drug dependency.

Conclusion

The limitation is reasonable.

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



Second reading





Victoria took the lead in 2003 in establishing the multiple and complex needs initiative, with the proclamation of the Human Services (Complex Needs) Act 2003. We can all take pride in this. Many jurisdictions, both nationally and internationally, have shown great interest in both the multiple and complex needs initiative service model and the supporting legislation. After four years of operation, it is now time to bring into effect new legislation to support an improved model of care.

The multiple and complex needs initiative ensures a coordinated and flexible client-centred response to the small number of individuals who traditionally challenge service boundaries and capacities. It also leads to better and more flexible service provision for many others, through flow-on benefits to the service system as a whole. Its implementation has begun a substantial reform process, involving a real shift in the way we provide tailored care to these clients.

The current legislation — Human Services (Complex Needs) Act 2003 — has a sunset clause that comes into effect in May this year. We are now introducing the Human Services (Complex Needs) Bill 2009 to continue to support the 200 to 300 Victorians with the dedicated and targeted response necessary to improve their quality of life.

The clients of the multiple and complex needs initiative are those who run the risk of ‘falling through the gaps’ in the system. They characteristically have substantial difficulties and high-care needs because of the number of co-morbidities and, often, histories of exclusion. They suffer mental health problems, have other cognitive difficulties, and often have substance abuse issues and histories of involvement with the criminal justice system. They are some of our most marginalised and disadvantaged community members.

Since 2003, the multiple and complex needs initiative service response has enabled us to obtain better, more coordinated care and support for these high-needs, vulnerable individuals. This bill supports the service system, through the multiple and complex needs initiative, to continue to respond in a more flexible and coordinated way, while incorporating a number of improvements identified through practice experience and evaluation.

The bill will continue to provide the powers for determining eligibility, for prescribing assessment and care planning, and for the disclosure between services of health and personal information regarding multiple and complex needs initiative clients.

The multiple and complex needs initiative is, and will continue to be, an opt-in model. Participation is entirely voluntary. Early concern that people would be reluctant to engage has, overall, proved unfounded. In practice, we have found that clients themselves do want more effective care

planning and support, when it can be delivered flexibly and intensively.

While the past four years has shown us the value of legislative authority, we have also learnt that some of the statutory processes in the 2003 act can be improved. In particular, a speedy response to meet people’s needs, once they are eligible, has been hampered by a linear approach to assessment and planning.

This bill supports a new model of service to deliver quality assessment and planning in a way that engages and gains commitment from services earlier.

The new service model for the multiple and complex needs initiative includes:

maintenance of a central gateway for eligibility to ensure a focus on those in greatest need;

an improved service response for the target group through greater local (regional) decision making; and

streamlined administrative arrangements.

This bill provides the framework for the new service model, including:

defined eligibility criteria and eligibility processes;

the parameters for the provision of assessment and care planning services to eligible clients;

provisions for disclosure of personal and health information; and

general provisions on voluntary participation, transitional arrangements, confidentiality and forms of notifications.

In order to incorporate improvements learnt through practice and evaluation, and to reduce delay and barriers to service, the bill does not include:

a sunset clause;

a statutory panel; or

prescriptive time lines for assessment and care planning.

We no longer need a sunset clause, as practice experience and program evaluation conducted over the past four years have shown the value of the multiple and complex needs initiative. This means we are now well placed to continuously improve the service model with the support and authority of ongoing legislation.

An intended benefit of the multiple and complex needs initiative model is increased capacity for collaboration amongst service providers at the local level. Over nearly four years of the initiative’s operation to June 2008, there have been 559 client-related consultations at the regional level, most of which have been resolved locally.

For multiple and complex needs initiative clients with a care plan there has been a reduction in presentations to emergency departments of 76 per cent, a reduction in the number of admissions to hospital of 34 per cent, and a reduction in hospital admission bed days of 57 per cent.

MAJOR SPORTING EVENTS BILL


This legislation will support the multiple and complex needs initiative service and its benefits for some of our most vulnerable citizens in the years to come.

A statutory multiple and complex needs panel is not reintroduced under the proposed bill. A key reason for the creation of the panel was that it was initially intended that the 2003 act contain the power to detain people as needed, for the purposes of assessment. However, this circumstance did not eventuate, and has not been shown to be necessary. Instead, the new service model provides for the establishment of a non-statutory central eligibility and review group, comprising senior departmental executives and expert practitioners from the Department of Human Services and the Department of Justice, and independent community experts subject to a selection process. Members of the current multiple and complex needs panel may also choose to express interest in continuing their involvement.

Under the 2003 act, the rigid separation of assessment and planning, along with separate time frames, has led to slower than anticipated commitment of services, and consequently undue delays in service delivery. The time frames in this bill enable earlier commitment of services, with regular reviews. The service response time frame will be a minimum of one year, and can be extended to a maximum of three years.

Supported by new legislation, strong program guidelines, and clear non-statutory governance and administrative arrangements, the multiple and complex needs initiative will continue to ensure coordinated, flexible and responsive services to Victorians with multiple and complex needs.

This legislation and the associated multiple and complex needs initiative service model exemplify the government’s commitment to addressing disadvantage and social inclusion, that is, concentrating effort on enabling vulnerable Victorians to fully participate in our community.


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





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


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

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Major Sporting Events Bill 2009.

In my opinion, the Major Sporting Events Bill 2009, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with the human rights protected by the charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of bill

The objectives of the Major Sporting Events Bill 2009 are to support the acquisition, retention, staging and management of major sporting events in Victoria by including the provisions that may be required to control and protect an event within a single act.

The bill will consolidate existing generic legislation relating to major events — the Major Events (Aerial Advertising) Act 2007, the Major Events (Crowd Management) Act 2003 and the Sports Event Ticketing (Fair Access) Act 2002 — into one act.

The bill also includes provisions relating to the control and management of major sporting events to which the bill applies, to provide a safe environment for spectators and participants and comprehensive assistance for the facilitation of major sporting events. Provisions to manage unauthorised broadcasting; protect against misuse of protected event logos, images and references; modify the application of other laws in order to facilitate an event; facilitate general operational requirements; protect against non-aerial ambush advertising; and protect against claims for economic loss are included in the bill and may be activated by a major sporting event order in relation to a particular event.

This single comprehensive bill will facilitate a more coordinated and consistent approach to attracting, retaining, managing and staging major sporting events, and will create greater efficiencies for government and key stakeholders. It will send clear and positive signals about the priority Victoria attaches to major sporting events, demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of the issues inherent in contemporary major event organisation and keep Victoria ahead of its competitors, increasing its attractiveness to event organisers.

A careful balance must be struck to ensure that events can be staged safely, equitably and successfully and yet present minimal interference with charter rights. This balance has been achieved in the bill.

Human rights issues


The rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 engaged by the bill are:

section 12: freedom of movement;

section 13: privacy;

section 15: freedom of expression;

section 16: peaceful assembly and freedom of association;

section 20: property; and



section 21: liberty and security of person.

The impact of the bill upon these charter rights is discussed below.

Section 12 of the charter: freedom of movement

Every person lawfully within Victoria has the right to move freely within Victoria and to enter and leave it and has the freedom to choose where to live.

This right is limited by a number of provisions in the bill which can be grouped as follows:

provisions related to crowd behaviour and management;

provisions related to access to event venues and areas;

provisions related to closure or modification of roads; and

regulation-making power.

Crowd management

Crowd management is an important objective of the bill and a number of provisions of the bill limit freedom of movement for this purpose. Similar provisions currently exist in the Major Events (Crowd Management) Act 2003, which will be repealed by the bill:

Clause 67 engages the right to freedom of movement because it provides an offence for entry of a person into a sporting competition space within an event venue. This clause is necessary to prevent individuals from invading competition areas such as pitches and tracks and disrupting major sporting events. The offence does not apply where the person is participating in the sporting event with the permission of the venue manager or event organiser, where the person is engaged in the control or management of the event, where the person has permission or is a member of a class of person that has been given permission to enter the space by the venue manager or the event organiser, such as officials, or where the person is or is a member of a class of person that is otherwise authorised to enter and remain in the sporting competition space, such as emergency services personnel.

Clauses 71, 72, 73 and 74 establish restrictions on, respectively: blocking stairs, exits and entries; climbing on fences, barriers or barricades; obstructing the view of a seated person; and climbing on the roof or a parapet of a building within an event venue or event area without authorisation. In clauses 71, 72 and 73 these actions only constitute an offence if they are carried out ‘without reasonable excuse’. Each of these provisions involves some restriction on movement for the purpose of promoting the safety and enjoyment of an event by all patrons. Each of these provisions arguably also engages the right to freedom of expression and this is discussed below.

Clause 80(2) enables an authorised officer to direct a person who has refused to comply with a request to surrender a prohibited item to not enter the venue for 24 hours or to leave the venue and not re-enter.

Clause 83 provides that an authorised officer may direct a person to leave and not re-enter or not to enter an event venue or event area if the authorised officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person has committed a crowd management offence under the act, has informed the person of that belief, has asked the person to leave or not enter the event venue or event area and the person has refused to comply with that request.

Clause 84 provides for an authorised officer to direct a person to leave an event venue or event area and not return for 24 hours if the authorised officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person is disrupting or interrupting an event, engaging in conduct which is a safety risk or causing unreasonable disruption or unreasonable interference to spectators or to people organising the event or managing the venue. This provision is discussed further in relation to freedom of expression below.

Clause 85 provides penalties for persons who: enter an event venue or event area, or attempt to do so, contrary to a direction; fail to leave immediately after being directed to do so; or enter, re-enter or attempt to do so having previously left under direction. This clause also provides for a member of the police force, using no more force than is reasonably necessary, to prevent a person from entering, re-entering or attempting to enter or re-enter, or to remove a person who refuses to comply with a direction from an event venue or area. The clause reinforces directions given under clauses 80, 83, 84 and 90 and the limitations on a person’s right to remain in the event venue or event area established by those clauses. The capacity to prevent a person from entering or to remove them using force is also discussed in relation to the right to liberty and security of person (see below).

Clause 86 allows the police to apply to the Magistrates Court to prohibit repeat offenders under the bill from entering specified event venues or areas for a specific event or series of events. The clause includes a number of preconditions that need to be satisfied before an order prohibiting the person can be made. In the first instance a member of the police force must suspect on reasonable grounds that a person who has been convicted or found guilty on two or more occasions of specified offences (such as throwing a lit distress signal or firework) is likely to disrupt an event or series of events that are protected under the bill. The clause requires the Magistrates Court to quash an order on application by the person subject to the order if the person has successfully appealed against a conviction that was the basis of the prohibition order.

Clause 87 allows a court to make a ban order against a person who the court has found guilty of one of the more serious crowd management offences in the bill (such as possession of a prohibited or controlled weapon or a firearm in an event venue or event area) or an offence against certain sections of the Crimes Act 1958 or the Summary Offences Act 1966 in an event venue or event area during an event protected under the bill. An order imposed under this clause may prohibit a person from entering the event venue or area where the person committed an offence, or can apply to a specified event where the offence was committed, two or more specified events where the offence was committed or attendance



by the offender at a specified category of event at any venue where those events take place. A ban order may be imposed for up to five years. A penalty applies to contravention of a ban order imposed under this clause.

Clause 90 allows an authorised officer to direct a person not to enter an event venue or event area for a period of 24 hours if they refuse to comply with a request for an inspection. An authorised officer may also direct a person to leave an event venue or area and not re-enter if they refuse to comply with such a request.

Clause 103 also engages the right to freedom of movement because it provides a capacity for police to remove a person or persons involved in an assembly from an event venue or event area in certain circumstances when the assembly involves unlawful violence and damage. It therefore restricts such persons’ right to remain in the event venue or event area. The clause makes clear, however, that this power may only be exercised when a member of the police believes on reasonable grounds that the assembly involves unlawful physical violence and damage to property and that it is not practicable, because of the number of persons involved, to preserve or restore order by arresting any of the offenders. This provision is discussed further in relation to the right to freedom of assembly below. A provision similar to this exists in section 50O of the World Swimming Championships Act 2004.

In addition to penalties associated with some of the crowd management offences discussed, clause 91 authorises a police officer to issue an infringement notice in relation to an offence against clause 67(1) — entry into a sporting competition space, clause 85(1), clause 85(2) or clause 85(3) relating to refusals to leave an event venue or area or re-entry against a direction to leave, each of which involves a restriction on the freedom of movement.

Access to event venues and areas

A key objective of the bill is to facilitate effective, efficient and safe management of major sporting events. A number of provisions relating to access to event venues and event areas limit freedom of movement in support of this wider purpose:

Clause 10(2) provides that if a major sporting event order specifies an area of land to be an event area, the event organiser, venue manager or event area manager may demarcate the event area using fencing, barriers or other permanent or temporary means of physical demarcation. This may affect a person’s ability to access the land but is required to enable an event organiser to take effective control of an event area for purposes of establishing an event venue or conducting and managing an event. An event order can only specify an event area if the minister is satisfied that certain criteria relating to the necessity of the event area are met.

Clause 97 allows a range of activities to be undertaken on land that is an event venue or an event area during a specified period despite anything to the contrary in the Land Act 1958, any Crown grant, the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, any reservation under that act and any regulations made under these acts. Such activities and any associated demarcation of land may affect movement on and through such areas of land.

Clause 102 provides for an event organiser to be responsible for and have all powers necessary to control access to an event venue or event area during the period of a relevant event. This is a fundamental requirement to enable an event organiser to establish an event venue or event area and conduct an event effectively and safely and to be able to, among other things, charge spectators a fee to enter the venue to watch the sporting event. It does, however, affect a person’s ability to access the land.

Closure or modification of roads

Similarly there are two provisions relating to closure or modification of roads that may limit freedom of movement for the purpose of facilitating major sporting events:

Clause 109 provides for the minister to temporarily close a road to traffic to enable works to be carried out at an event venue or event area, if the minister considers it necessary to do so to enable those works to be carried out, or for purposes of conducting an event. The clause requires the minister not to do this unless the minister has consulted with the relevant road authority (for example, the minister must consult with the minister responsible for the Local Government Act 1989 and the relevant local council in relation to closure of a local road).

Clause 110 allows the minister to modify a road for the same reasons and with similar consultation requirements to those that apply in relation to clause 109. Modifications include, but are not limited to, establishing tow-away zones, altering line markings on a road and converting a road to a one-way road.

Regulations

The bill also limits the right to freedom of movement indirectly through the provision of a regulation-making power. Clause 194 provides the power to make regulations in relation to a range of matters including prohibiting or regulating the entry or admission of persons to an event venue. Regulations may be required to facilitate effective and safe management of an event venue, event area or event for similar reasons to those outlined above. Importantly, the scope and detail of any such regulations would be limited by the scope of the regulation-making power and of the bill. It is likely that any such regulations would limit freedom of movement in similar ways and for similar reasons to those outlined above.

Consideration of reasonable limitations on the right to freedom of movement — section 7(2) of the charter

(a) the nature of the right being limited

The right to freedom of movement is a key right in international human rights law. The right to move freely in Victoria includes a right not to be forced to move to, or from, a particular location.

(b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation on the right to freedom of movement

The main purpose of the limitations listed above is to require appropriate standards of safety for participants and spectators at major sporting events where large numbers of people are in



attendance in a confined space. In this type of environment, dangers would be posed by behaviour which is recklessly or deliberately harmful to the instigators or others, or by the entry of persons into operational event areas seeking to disrupt the event or harm participants and spectators. It is also unsafe for unauthorised and untrained individuals to enter construction or logistic sites where they are unaware of potential hazards. The limitations aim to control these risks, including preventing injury, and in seeking to provide a safe environment in which these events may occur, the limitations are intended to protect life.

The limitations also promote efficiency in conducting major sporting events, which is an essential prerequisite for successful events. This is a very significant purpose because of the strategic importance of major sporting events in Victoria.

(c) the nature and extent of the limitation on the right to freedom of movement

The nature of the limitation is to:

prohibit certain types of antisocial, dangerous and disruptive behaviour at major sporting events and remove or deny entry to persons based on their past, present or likely future behaviour;

control access to event venues and event areas to enable them to be established, and an event to be conducted effectively and safely. This also allows the organiser to charge spectators for entry;

enable necessary roadworks in or near an event venue or event area to be undertaken; and

enable regulations to be made that would control the entry or admission of persons to an event venue or event area.

The extent of the limitation is confined to the minimum required to achieve each objective. The limitations also represent lesser restrictions than may be imposed by land and venue managers, who may exercise such powers regardless of the bill. In relation to crowd management, the limitations are restricted to a number of clearly defined behaviours that are antisocial, disruptive or unsafe, only when they are undertaken without authorisation and/or without reasonable excuse. The consequences of the most common contraventions are generally confined to non-entry, or direction to leave, for 24 hours; a fine; or a lower level penalty. The administration of more substantial consequences, such as orders regarding repeat offenders and ban orders, require objective standards and criteria to be met and are subject to a court’s jurisdiction. Limits apply to measures that can be taken by courts such as the maximum duration of five years for a ban order.

The nature of the limitation imposed by granting an event organiser the power to control access to an event venue or event area during an event period will vary based on the nature of each event but will be substantially the same as the limitations on freedom of movement associated with other more complex events held in the community that are not protected under the act. These limitations will, by definition, be limited to the period specified in an order relating to an event.

The extent of the limitation on freedom of movement imposed by road closures or modifications will vary according to the minister’s assessment of what is necessary in relation to each event but is likely to be similar to limitations caused by closures and modifications for other purposes from time to time. It may not be necessary for roads to be closed or modified for every event. The minister’s assessment of what is necessary will be informed by the required consultation with the relevant road authority. Any interference with freedom of movement will be tailored to the circumstances in each case.

The extent of the limitations imposed by any regulations made under the bill would be relatively minor. They could not exceed the limitations contained in the bill itself. Clause 195 provides for a maximum penalty unit of only 20 penalty units for breach of a regulation and does not provide for regulations regarding, for example, direction to leave or the more serious consequences specified on the face of the bill such as bans.

(d) the relationship between the limitation on the right to freedom of movement and its purpose

The relationship between the limitations and the important purposes they serve is direct and proportionate.

In relation to crowd management, most of the provisions that limit the freedom of movement have the purpose of promoting safety, preventing injury and protecting the right to life. These provisions prohibit a limited range of activities that are clearly dangerous in a crowd situation and which, if permitted, would pose immediate, obvious and serious threats to safety. The crowd management provisions also prohibit a limited range of actions that are inherently disorderly and disruptive that would compromise the efficient and effective running of a major sporting event. The close relationship between the limitations and purposes is reinforced by the fact that they only apply in certain places and at certain times, when there is a risk.

The crowd management limitations apply to specific venues, within clearly defined boundaries, where crowds gather for events, and to both key regular events and events that are the subject of a specific major sporting event order. The provisions continue to apply to certain venues on a permanent basis as they do under the Major Events (Crowd Management) Act 2003 because key events conducted at those venues on a recurring basis require the application of the provisions. While these provisions apply permanently to these venues, the nature of the restrictions relate to inherently unsafe or antisocial behaviour or conduct that is only enlivened in the context of a major sporting event and the restrictions provided are less restrictive than the existing powers of venue managers to control access to and conduct within venues.

Within event venues and areas that are identified in a major sporting event order, provisions only apply within the defined boundaries and for the time specified in the order.

There is, therefore, a very close relationship between the limitations and their purposes which is focused on particular behaviours, clearly defined locations and, in relation to major sporting event orders, specific times when the safety and other risks apply. The bill strikes a balance between the need for safety and efficient running of events and the right to freedom of movement of those who attend.



Similarly, major sporting events could not occur without the restrictions related to control of access to event venues and event areas and closure and modification of roads. They are designed to facilitate operational arrangements and to promote safety. They are limited to what is considered appropriate and necessary for the conduct of each event and only apply to the specific time of the event and to the specific event venues and event areas specified in a major sporting event order. In the case of road closures and modifications the minister is required to consult with the relevant road authority and this would assist in striking an appropriate balance between operational needs and safety imperatives, and freedom of movement.

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

There are no less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purposes of the limitations. In relation to crowd management issues, there is no practical way to maintain safety and order in big crowds at major sporting events if there is no prohibition on the behaviours that are banned or controlled by the bill. Similarly, it is not possible to deliver the operational arrangements, security and safety required for an event and to run it on a commercial basis without the capacity to control access to the event venue and event area. Where, after consultation, it is established that road and traffic arrangements need to be altered in a specific way for a major event, some degree of interference with the right to freedom of movement is unavoidable. Overall, the confinement of interferences with the right to particular events, places and times based on the circumstances of each event ensures that they constitute the least restrictive means available to achieve the purpose.

(f) any other relevant factors

Most of the provisions discussed in this section are identical or substantially similar to provisions in the Major Events (Crowd Management) Act 2003 that are widely accepted in the community.

Conclusion in relation to the right to freedom of movement

The bill does limit the right to freedom of movement but the limitations are justified by the important objectives they serve, which support the right to life by protecting the safety of participants and spectators in large crowds at these events and provide for orderly conduct and efficient and comprehensive management of major sporting events. The limitations strike the correct balance between the right to freedom of movement and the need for safety, orderly conduct and operational efficiency.

Section 13: privacy and reputation

Section 13 of the charter provides that a person has the right —

(a) not to have his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with; and

(b) not to have his or her reputation unlawfully attacked.

A law which authorises interference with privacy will only be lawful when it is precise and circumscribed, and details the circumstances in which interferences may be permitted.

This right is engaged by a number of provisions in the bill which can be grouped as follows:

provisions related to commercial arrangements;

provisions related to crowd behaviour and management; and

provisions related to inspection, entry and search powers pursuant to the aerial advertising and sports event ticketing provisions.

Commercial arrangements

Provisions that engage the right to privacy for purposes relating to commercial arrangements are as follows:

Clause 49 enables an event organiser who is authorised to use protected event logos, images or references to seek an account of profits in relation to unauthorised use of event logos, images or references. A court may make an order in this respect requiring disclosure of an account of profits. This may engage the right to privacy but does not limit it because the order is required to effect appropriate restitution and is reasonable in the particular circumstances. It is therefore both lawful and not arbitrary.

Crowd behaviour and management

Provisions that engage the right to privacy for purposes relating to crowd behaviour and management are as follows:

Clause 88 provides an authorised officer with the power to require a person to give his or her name and address, where the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person has committed an offence against clauses 62 to 74. These offences include possession of a prohibited item, entering a sporting competition space, damaging flora or infrastructure and obstructing the view of a seated person. Clause 88 engages the right because it requires a person to provide personal information about himself or herself. The clause is subject to reasonable limitations: it can only be exercised when an officer has formed the belief referred to above on reasonable grounds and includes a requirement for the officer to demonstrate that he or she has the authority to require the information (by showing his or her identity card) and informing the individual that it is an offence to fail or refuse to provide his or her name or to provide false information. The power is necessary to enforce the provisions referred to in the clause — that is, it is not possible for an authorised officer to prosecute these offences without the power to ascertain who is being prosecuted and how they may be served. As such, the interference is reasonable in the circumstances and is neither arbitrary nor unlawful, and therefore does not limit the right.

Clause 89 is related to the clause 88 limitation in that it imposes a penalty for a refusal to provide name and address, or the provision of a false name or address, to an authorised officer, when required to do so.

Clause 90 provides an authorised officer with significant powers of inspection in relation to searching the contents



of a person’s bags or pockets or to requesting a person to walk through screening equipment passed around the person or the person’s belongings. The clause is intended to protect the safety of spectators and participants by reducing the capacity of individuals to disrupt events, or cause physical damage to persons or structures through the use of prohibited items. The criteria upon which a search can be made are clearly communicated at entry to an event venue. The clause represents a balance between the need for public safety where a large number of people may gather, and the individual’s right to privacy. It seeks to incorporate the least restrictive means necessary to achieve its objectives, by providing that a person requested to submit to an inspection may request that it is conducted in private, and that the inspection will occur in a private area set aside by the venue manager or event organiser for that purpose. The restriction is limited by the fact that upon refusal, a person is only denied entry for a maximum of 24 hours. The interference is lawful and not arbitrary because it is reasonable in the particular circumstances. It does not, therefore, limit the right to privacy.

Aerial advertising and sports event ticketing

Provisions that engage the right to privacy for purposes relating to inspection, entry and search powers pursuant to the aerial advertising and sports event ticketing provisions are as follows:

Clause 134 engages the right because it provides for a search warrant to be issued where an authorised officer believes that it will allow discovery of a thing that may provide evidence of the commission of an aerial advertising offence. It engages the right because it provides that a person’s personal space and belongings may be searched where a magistrate is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe a relevant discovery will be made. The provision allows an authorised officer to search, seize, or secure against interference any thing or things described in the warrant which the officer reasonably believes are connected to the alleged contravention. Clause 137 allows things not mentioned in the warrant to be seized if certain conditions are met.

The right is not limited by clause 134 because the process is lawful and not arbitrary. The circumstances in which someone’s privacy may be interfered with are circumscribed in significant ways: the secretary must provide written approval for an application for a search warrant to be made and a magistrate must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the particular thing will be on the premises over the next 72 hours. Additionally, the warrant must specify a range of parameters, including the alleged offence requiring the search, the premises to be searched, description of the subject of the search, conditions, hours of entry and the date of expiration of the warrant, which cannot be longer than seven days after it was issued. Unlike other warrants issued under the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989, a warrant issued pursuant to clause 134 may not authorise an authorised officer to arrest a person and does not, therefore, limit the right to liberty and security of person.

Additional related limitations include the requirement to announce the entry of an authorised officer (clause 135), provision of the warrant to the occupier (clause 136) and the requirement to provide a receipt for anything seized under the warrant and copies of any documents seized (clauses 138, 139). Clause 134 and these related clauses are carefully crafted to ensure that the purpose of the provision is achieved with the least possible interference with the right to privacy.

Clause 141 provides for an authorised officer in the course of exercising inspection powers to make and seize documents or seize information storage devices if the authorised officer finds an information storage device that he or she believes on reasonable grounds may contain information relevant to determining whether the aerial advertising provisions of the bill have been contravened.

Clause 144 enables an authorised officer to require a person, to the extent that it is reasonably necessary, to give information, documents and assistance to the authorised officer in order to determine if the aerial advertising provisions of the bill have been contravened. Clause 146 qualifies this by providing that it is a reasonable excuse for a person not to give information or do anything else the person is required to do under the bill if such actions would tend to incriminate the person. Despite this, however, clause 146 also provides that it is not a reasonable excuse to fail or refuse to produce a document if required to do so under this bill if it would tend to incriminate the person.

Clause 170 facilitates entry or search of premises in relation to the ticketing provisions of the bill and is similar to clause 134. It allows an authorised officer to obtain a warrant, subject to a magistrate being satisfied that specified conditions are met. A warrant issued under this clause may authorise search for, and seizure of, relevant things. As with clause 134, such a warrant may not authorise an authorised officer to arrest a person.

Clause 172 enables an authorised officer, with the secretary’s approval, to apply to the Magistrates Court for an order requiring a person to provide specific answers, information and documents to an authorised officer concerning compliance with an approved ticket scheme or alleged contravention of the bill. A magistrate may make such an order if the magistrate is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to warrant such an interference.

Clause 173 provides for documents to be seized pursuant to an order under clause 172 and requires the authorised officer to report back to the Magistrates Court.

Clause 176 provides balance in relation to clause 172 by providing that it is a reasonable excuse for a person not to give information or do anything else the person is required to do under the bill (other than produce a document) if such actions would tend to incriminate the person.

Clause 181 prohibits an authorised officer from sharing confidential information acquired in exercising the officer’s powers under the bill, except to the extent necessary to exercise his or her powers. Such



information may be given in court or for similar purposes.

Conclusion in relation to the right to privacy

All provisions in the bill that engage the right to privacy are lawful, in that they are precise and circumscribed. The bill carefully defines the circumstances in which relevant powers can be exercised to ensure that all interferences with privacy under the bill are reasonable in the particular circumstances and therefore not arbitrary. There is therefore no limitation of the right.

Section 15: freedom of expression

Section 15(2) of the charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, whether within or outside Victoria and whether —

(a) orally; or

(b) in writing; or

(c) in print; or

(d) by way of art; or

(e) in another medium chosen by him or her.

Section 15(3) provides that special duties and responsibilities are attached to the right to freedom of expression and the right may be subject to lawful restrictions necessary —

(a) to respect the rights and reputation of other persons; or

(b) for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.

This right is limited by a number of provisions in the bill which can be grouped as follows:


provisions related to advertising including aerial advertising; and

provisions related to crowd management, operational arrangements and regulations.


There are a number of provisions that limit freedom of expression in relation to commercial arrangements for the purpose of protecting the viability of major sporting events.

Clause 36(3) provides that a person who has not been authorised in writing by the minister to use protected logos and images or event references may not do so if the use is for promotional, marketing or commercial purposes or suggests a sponsorship-like arrangement.

Clause 37 provides offences for engaging in conduct which would suggest to a reasonable person that goods or services, or any person, have a sponsorship, approval or affiliation that they do not have with a declared event,

the event organiser or any event or activity associated with an event.

In addition, clause 38 interferes with this right by providing an offence for unauthorised use of a protected event logo, image or reference or any thing substantially identical to a protected event logo, image or reference where it is used for commercial purposes or for promotional, advertising or marketing purposes, whether or not for commercial gain, or would suggest a sponsorship-like arrangement to a reasonable person.

Clause 43 interferes with the right to freedom of expression by providing an offence for broadcasting, telecasting or transmitting by any means whatever any sound or image of an event protected by the bill or any part of that event at or from a place within or outside an event venue or an event area unless that person has a broadcasting authorisation. In addition, clause 44 interferes with the right by providing an offence for making a sound recording or any film, television, video or digital recording of moving images of an event protected by the bill or any part of that event for profit or gain or for a purpose that includes profit or gain at or from a place within or outside an event venue or an event area unless the person has a broadcasting authorisation.

The offences are only designed to capture behaviour which undermines the ability of an event organiser to profit from their labours, with respect to the value of broadcasting a sporting event. Consequently clause 43 does not capture actions which are not for profit or gain, or for a purpose that includes profit or gain provided the broadcast is not of a substantial part of an event; or, provided it is for the purpose of criticism or review, parody or satire, the reporting of news, a judicial proceeding, giving or receiving legal advice, providing official library services for a member of Parliament or private and domestic use. This represents an appropriate balance between the restriction on expression and the rights of event organisers. As a result the clauses create reasonable and proportionate restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.

Clause 45 interferes with the right to freedom of expression by providing an authorised applicant with the ability to apply to the Supreme Court, County Court or Magistrates Court for an injunction restraining a person from engaging in conduct prohibited in clauses 37, 38, 43 or 44. The conduct may be a contravention, attempting to contravene, aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring a person to contravene, inducing or attempting to induce a person whether by threats, promises or otherwise, to contravene the clauses or being in any way, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, the contravention by a person of clause 37, 38, 43 or 44.

Further, clause 47 may limit the right to freedom of expression by providing that the court, where satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a contravention of section 37, 38, 43 or 44 has occurred, may make orders requiring corrective advertising by any person involved in the contravention. This limits the right to freedom of expression by obliging expression to occur in a certain way. It is reasonable and proportionate, however, to require the correction of advertising to occur where an



offence has been committed under the bill. In deciding whether to make a corrective advertising order, the court would be bound by section 32 of the charter to interpret its power consistently with the right to freedom of expression.

These provisions are required to protect the commercial and intellectual property rights of event organisers which may be derived from an event. Unauthorised use of intellectual property associated with an event and broadcasting footage of an event is sometimes intended to enable a person not associated with the event to make a profit out of the labours of the event organiser. Where such use is not for profit, for example, unauthorised broadcasting for the purposes of reporting the news, this use is not an offence for the purposes of the act.

Advertising including aerial advertising

Provisions that limit freedom of expression in relation to advertising, including aerial advertising, are as follows:

Clause 116 prohibits a person responsible for a building or structure within an event venue or event area from causing or permitting advertising material to be displayed on the building or structure except as permitted by the event organiser and subject to the terms of any agreement to use the facility.

Clause 117 creates an offence to display unauthorised commercial advertising on a vessel that is within sight of an event venue or an event area. Clause 125 is a similar provision that establishes an offence for displaying unauthorised commercial aerial advertising within sight of an event venue or event area. The offence does not apply, however, to flights undertaken in an emergency, for provision of emergency services or for gathering information for news and current affairs.

Clauses 121 and 131 are similar provisions that provide for a court to grant an injunction or interim injunction to restrain a person from displaying unauthorised commercial advertising on a vessel or unauthorised commercial aerial advertising respectively.

These provisions restrict freedom of expression, but are required to prohibit and deter ambush advertising, in order to protect the commercial advertising rights of official sponsors and suppliers. They do not prohibit advertising altogether. Advertising on buildings within an event venue may be authorised by an event organiser. A person may seek authorisation to conduct advertising on vessels and aerial advertising and such activities can be approved if criteria relating to the impact on the event are satisfied. Advertising on vessels can be authorised by the event organiser under clause 118 and aerial advertising can be authorised by the secretary under clause 127.

Crowd management, operational arrangements and regulations

Provisions that limit freedom of expression in relation to crowd management, operational arrangements and regulations are as follows:

Clause 62 makes it an offence to possess a prohibited item without authorisation and this may limit a person’s scope to express him or herself in particular ways. Prohibited items include animals, distress signals,

dangerous goods, a whistle or a loudhailer, laser pointers, firearms, weapons, bicycles, fireworks, horns or bugles, flags or banners of a certain size, items of a commercial quantity, public address systems, electronic equipment, broadcast equipment and any such equipment which may interfere with broadcasting or similar equipment used by the event organiser.

Clauses 63 and 65 prohibit possession without authorisation of a lit or unlit distress signal or fireworks respectively and this may limit freedom of expression. The limitation is required for compelling safety reasons.

Clause 64 creates an offence to throw a lit distress signal or firework without authorisation, again for safety reasons.

Clause 67 engages the right by providing a penalty for entering the competition space without a legitimate role or authorisation. The clause also establishes a substantial penalty for unauthorised individuals who disrupt a match, game, sport or event without reasonable excuse while in the sporting competition space. This provision, while restricting some forms of expression, is essential to ensure that sporting events may occur without undue interference and to protect participants and spectators from risk of injury. The offence will not capture legitimate entries into the competition space or legitimate disruptions such as the provision of medical attention for competitors.

Clause 68 makes it an offence to throw or kick projectiles other than in specified circumstances or with approval of the event organiser.

Clause 69 makes it an offence to damage or deface specified infrastructure within an event area except with authorisation of the venue manager or event organiser. This clause restricts freedom of expression to the extent that a person may not deface any building or structure in an event venue or area, by writing or drawing on it or disfiguring it. This restriction is necessary to protect the property rights of the owners of infrastructure within a venue or area. The right of an individual to communicate information and opinions needs to be balanced against the need to protect the property and amenity of a venue and the comfort, enjoyment and safety of patrons.

Clause 70 creates an offence to damage flora except with authorisation.

Clause 71 provides for an offence to block stairs, exits or entries without reasonable excuse, except with authorisation.

Clause 72 creates an offence to climb on a fence, barrier or barricade without reasonable excuse, except with authorisation.

Clause 73 makes it an offence to obstruct the view of a seated person without reasonable excuse, except with authorisation.

Clause 74 establishes an offence to climb the roof or parapet of a building without authorisation.

Clause 84 effectively prohibits conduct that is disrupting or interrupting an event, which is a safety risk or causing



unreasonable disruption or unreasonable interference to spectators or people organising the event or managing the venue. It does this by providing for an authorised officer to direct a person to leave an event venue or event area and not return for 24 hours if the authorised officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person is engaging in such conduct. This provision establishes a more objective test than the existing equivalent provision in section 15 of the Major Events (Crowd Management) Act 2003. It focuses more clearly on disruption of the event and introduces a trigger related to safety. Whereas a person may be asked to leave for ‘causing annoyance to spectators’ under section 15, clause 84 requires an authorised officer to believe a person is causing ‘unreasonable disruption or unreasonable interference to spectators of the event or persons engaged in the conduct or management of the event’. This is important not only to minimise the limitation of the right under this provision but because more significant consequences may result if a person who is directed to leave under this clause fails to do so immediately or re-enters or attempts to re-enter.

Clause 103 engages freedom of expression by authorising police to remove a person from an event venue or event area if an assembly is being carried on with unlawful violence or damage and it is not practicable to restore order by arresting any of the offenders. This could limit some forms of expression.

Clause 104 makes it an offence to interfere with or hinder, or cause anyone else to interfere with or hinder, the carrying out of works at an event venue or event area. This is necessary for the safety of staff carrying out the works, efficient event management and public safety.

It should be noted that a number of the crowd management provisions above also engage the rights to freedom of movement and property rights.

In relation to authorised officers, clause 185 creates an offence to hinder or obstruct an authorised officer. This may restrict some extreme forms of expression, as would clause 186 which proscribes impersonation of an authorised officer.

As noted above, clause 195 provides for regulations to be made covering a range of matters including the care, control, management and use of an event venue or event area; prohibiting or regulating any activity; and regulating the behaviour of persons to ensure public safety, good order and decency. It is likely that any such regulations would limit freedom of expression in similar ways and for similar reasons to those outlined above in relation to the substantive provisions related to crowd management that are on the face of the bill.

Consideration of reasonable limitations on the right to freedom of expression — section 7(2) of the charter

The right to freedom of expression is often described as essential to the operation of a democratic society. In particular, the right to freedom of expression enables people to participate in political debate, to share information and ideas which inform that debate and to expose errors in governance and the administration of justice. It is an important right in international law.

The right is considered to apply to commercial advertising. It is significant for the discussion in this statement, however, that the courts have historically afforded less protection to freedom of commercial expression than either political or artistic expression.

As stated in the charter the right may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputation of other persons or to protect national security, public order, public health or public morality.

Rights of others is a concept that includes not only legal rights, but embraces a standard of universal respect for other people.

There are different views about the types of expression that are protected by the right. Courts have generally provided that the purpose of the expression is relevant to determining the weight that should be attached to it, when considering an interference with the right. Political expression will attract more weight than social expression or expression with no intellectual content, and a reasoned restriction of the latter will be easier to justify.

(a) The importance of the purpose of the limitation on the right to freedom of expression

The bill contains a range of limitations of the right for several purposes:

The purpose of the limitations which prohibit unauthorised commercial activities, including use of protected event logos, images and references and broadcasting of an event, is to protect the legitimate commercial interests of event organisers. The exclusivity of these items is intrinsic to their value and their unauthorised use by entities that have made no contribution to the staging of an event or creation of the intellectual property misappropriates significant commercial gains. Broadcast and other rights need to be protected to ensure major sporting events remain commercially viable. This is considered to be an appropriate and important objective to be protected by legislation in a modern, commercially competitive environment.

The purpose of the limitations in relation to advertising is to protect the commercial interests of legitimate sponsors from the unauthorised ambush advertising of their competitors. This is to protect the rights of sponsors and ensure that Victoria’s major sporting events continue to attract financial support and is also considered to be an appropriate and important purpose.

The purpose of the limitations arising from the provisions related to crowd management, operational arrangements and regulations are to ensure a safe environment for participants and spectators at major sporting events, and consequently to prevent injury and protect the right to life. Additional purposes include facilitating effective and efficient management of events, the protection of property and upholding the public’s right not to be subjected to disorderly behaviour.

The nature and extent of the limitation on the right to freedom of expression

The limitation in relation to commercial practices is a prohibition on using protected property such as a logo or event footage without authorisation. Authorisation may be sought for the activities that are the subject of the provisions.



The limitations are confined to those necessary to prevent, or provide redress in relation to, commercial harm. For example, the prohibition on broadcasting does not apply to a broadcast, telecast or transmission that is not made primarily for profit or gain and which is not a substantial part of the event or is supported by a legitimate purpose, including criticism, review or the reporting of news (clause 43).

The bill limits the ability of individuals to impart, seek and receive advertising information, including in airspace and on vessels within sight of the venues of specified major events. However, the bill only prohibits deliberate ambush advertising of a commercial nature and does not seek to limit the rights of individuals making statements of a non-commercial nature. The restrictions apply only to advertising within sight of specified major events on each day of the event. Further, they only apply within prescribed times, which are intended to minimise the duration of the restriction and provide reasonable and appropriate advertising opportunities for authorised advertisers and sponsors.

Any individual wishing to engage in advertising may negotiate legitimate advertising opportunities within sight of the venue of the major event. That is, the bill only limits unauthorised advertising and does not prevent an individual from pursuing other advertising opportunities.

The bill restricts individuals from engaging in a range of behaviours that may constitute forms of expression. These include taking various inappropriate or unsafe items to a sporting event, lighting and throwing flares, throwing or kicking projectiles, entering the competition area without authorisation and disrupting the event, damaging or defacing property, climbing in inappropriate places, deliberately obstructing the view of others and behaving in a way that is a safety risk and causing unreasonable disruption or unreasonable interference with spectators or management of an event. It should be noted that these restrictions are not as great as the restrictions that may be imposed by land and venue managers, without the bill.

Under clause 75 of the bill an individual may seek authorisation for some of these behaviours and in some cases the behaviours only constitute an offence where they are undertaken without reasonable excuse.

The extent of the limitation is that a person may be directed to leave or not enter or re-enter the event venue or event area for 24 hours if they contravene these provisions of the bill, or they may be fined or charged with an offence in more serious cases.

(b) The relationship between the limitation on the right to freedom of expression and its purpose

It is considered that there is a rational and proportionate relationship between the limitations imposed by the bill and the purposes of the limitations.

In relation to commercial arrangements, this is because the provisions only seek to protect the legitimate commercial interests of event organisers from opportunistic exploitation by third parties. Balanced against the important purpose of respecting the rights of event organisers and supporting the commercial viability of major sporting events, the limits are proportionate and rational.

In relation to advertising, the limitation is minimal because ambush advertising is generally undertaken by corporations,

which do not have human rights. Further, the period during which advertising is prohibited in relation to each major sporting event is limited. In practical terms, this means that the limit on an individual’s rights posed by these clauses is largely a limit on their right to seek and receive alternative advertising information. Balanced against the important purpose of securing sponsorship at major events, these limits are rational and proportionate, particularly as individuals attending major events can readily access these alternative advertising messages in other forums.

The limitations that apply to crowd management and behaviour are targeted at dangerous and disruptive behaviours in a social and recreational context. The limitations do not curtail expression of a political nature. The most common consequence for contravention of these clauses is only a direction to leave and not re-enter an event venue for 24 hours. This can be exercised for the safety of the person ejected, as well as to protect the safety and enjoyment of others at the event. Balanced against the purpose of protecting the rights of spectators and participants to attend a safe and orderly event, these limits are rational and proportionate.

The crowd management limitations apply to both key regular events and events that are the subject of a specific major sporting event order. The provisions continue to apply to certain venues on a permanent basis as they do under the Major Events (Crowd Management) Act 2003 because key events conducted at those venues on a recurring basis require the application of the provisions. While these provisions apply permanently to these venues, the nature of the restrictions relate to inherently unsafe or antisocial behaviour, or conduct that is enlivened in the context of a major sporting event, and the restrictions provided are less restrictive than the existing powers of venue managers to control conduct within venues.

The crowd management limits are consistent with the lawful restrictions referred to in section 15(3)(a) of the charter in that they respect the rights of other persons. In addition to legal rights this provision has relevance and application to a more general respect for others.

(c) Any less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve its purpose

There are no less restrictive measures available that would adequately protect the rights and reputation of event organisers. In particular, as stated above, the provisions prohibiting unauthorised broadcasts or similar are very important because copyright law does not provide a remedy for an event organiser whose sporting event is broadcast by another party, thereby undermining the value of official broadcast rights. In relation to opportunistic exploitation of protected logos, images and references and conduct that suggests sponsorship or a sponsorship-like arrangement, the bill provides effective and timely solutions, where general legal remedies are inadequate. Timeliness is of the essence in responding to opportunistic behaviour of the type envisaged, in order to avoid or minimise losses by the event organiser.

As previously stated, the nature and scope of the limits on advertising in the bill are designed to ensure that only commercial advertising is restricted, and that the restriction only applies to advertising within sight of the venues of major events. Further, the limits only apply for a defined period of time which is designed to minimise the restrictions while still meeting the purpose of the legislation.



The bill makes unauthorised aerial advertising and advertising on vessels an offence subject to significant penalties. The penalties are 400 penalty units for an individual and 2400 penalty units for a body corporate. It is considered that substantial penalties are required to deter ambush advertisers who stand to make significant gains by offending, and that the penalties are proportionate when set against the potential damage to the commercial agreements, image and reputation of an event. Further, the penalty for an individual (as for a body corporate) is a maximum penalty and it would be open to the court to impose a lesser penalty depending on the circumstances of the case.

In order to encourage and protect commercial sponsorship at major events in Victoria, a legislative response is considered to be a practical and reasonable response to ambush advertising.

In relation to crowd management provisions, there are no less restrictive means available to achieve a safe and orderly environment at major sporting events. The behaviours that are proscribed are all unacceptable to event organisers, venue managers and the community for various reasons including the need for public order and safety. The minimum consequence of these behaviours — a direction to leave for 24 hours — is the least restrictive response that would achieve the purpose.

(d) Any other relevant factors

Ambush advertising has the potential to undermine legitimate commercial sponsorship of major events and there are no other effective legal avenues available to prevent it occurring at specific major sporting events in Victoria. There are also no legal avenues to prevent unauthorised broadcasts of major sporting events. Similar legislative responses to commercial and advertising issues have been adopted previously in Victoria: for the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games, the 12th FINA World Championships in 2007 and the Australian grand prix.

Most of the provisions relating to aerial advertising that are considered in this statement are identical or similar to provisions which currently exist in the Major Events (Aerial Advertising) Act 2007, which will be repealed by the bill.

Most of the crowd management provisions discussed in this section are identical or substantially similar to provisions in the Major Events (Crowd Management) Act 2003 that are already widely accepted in the community.

Conclusion in relation to the right to freedom of expression

I consider that the Major Sporting Events Bill 2009 is compatible with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities in relation to the right to freedom of expression under section 15 of the charter because it does limit, restrict or interfere with the human right, but that limitation is reasonable and proportionate. This is in view of the important objectives of the legislation, which include protecting the rights of event organisers, intellectual property owners, spectators and participants, who require a safe environment, encouraging sponsorship at major events in Victoria and promoting safe and orderly event environments, and with regard to the measures in the bill to minimise the nature and scope of the restrictions, as detailed in this statement.

Section 16: peaceful assembly and freedom of association

The right to peaceful assembly protects the rights of individuals and groups to meet in order to exchange ideas and information, to express their views publicly and to hold a peaceful protest.

Clause 103 may appear to engage this right because it provides a capacity for police to remove a person or persons involved in an assembly from an event venue or event area. The clause makes clear, however, that this power may only be exercised when a member of the police force believes on reasonable grounds that the assembly involves unlawful physical violence and damage to property and that it is not practicable, because of the number of persons involved, to preserve or restore order by arresting any of the offenders.

Conclusion in relation to the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association

The right is not engaged when those who organise or participate in a demonstration have violent intentions that result in public disorder. For this reason the bill will not limit the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

Section 20: right to property

Section 20 of the charter provides that a person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law.

This right is engaged by a number of provisions in the bill which can be grouped as follows:


provisions related to crowd behaviour and management;

provisions related to access to operational arrangements; and

provisions related to advertising and ticketing.

While these provisions provide for a person to be deprived of property, such deprivation is lawful and not arbitrary. Specific and non-discriminatory criteria have to be met before property can be seized or forfeited. Accordingly these provisions do not limit the right.

Many of the provisions of the bill protect property rights — primarily those of event organisers — by circumscribing how event products and designs may be used by other parties.


A number of provisions related to commercial arrangements engage property rights.

Clause 51 of the bill engages this right because it provides for a member of the police force to seize goods or advertising material if they are marked with or use protected event logos, images or references (or any thing substantially similar) and the member believes on reasonable grounds that this has not been authorised under the act or under any other law. The goods or material may only be seized if they have been found in an event venue or area during the goods seizure period, which is defined as the period commencing three



months before and ending one month after the event period.

While the clause provides for a person to be deprived of their property, the seizure of this property may be required to prevent unlawful activities from occurring or continuing to occur. Additionally, where proceedings are not instituted in relation to the goods, or proceedings are instituted but the defendant is found not guilty, the person from whom the goods are seized is entitled to recover the goods or their equivalent value, if destroyed, and compensation for any loss suffered by reason of the seizure of the goods or advertising material. In this way, the formulation of the clause represents an appropriate balance between property rights and the commercial rights of design owners and event organisers.

The power to seize property is consequently clearly structured, confined and readily understandable by members of the public. Further, the power to deprive someone of their property occurs under powers conferred by legislation. Consequently the deprivation is in accordance with law and there is no limitation of the right provided at section 20 of the charter.

Clause 52 allows seized goods to be forfeited to the Crown after 12 months in certain circumstances.

Clause 53 engages the right by providing for the voluntary forfeiture of goods or advertising material before proceedings are instituted for offences under clauses 37 or 38. If the goods or materials are sold the proceeds will go to consolidated revenue.

Clause 54 also engages this right because it provides for the seizure of broadcasting equipment. Where a member of the police force believes on reasonable grounds that a person has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offence against clause 43 or 44, the member may seize any broadcasting equipment being used by the person, if he or she has requested that they cease the activity which may cause the offence and the person does not comply.

This clause is necessary to protect event organisers from the harmful effects of unauthorised broadcasting, and represents a reasoned balance between protecting their interests and investments and the property rights of broadcasters. The clause is restricted by the requirement that seizure may only occur during the event period and only after a person refuses to cease the activity that may give rise to the offence, after having been requested to do so.

Additionally, broadcasting equipment is required to be returned within 28 days after the date on which it was seized, with the exception of equipment which is film, digitally recorded images or a sound recording (which may be retained by an event organiser for up to six months). Further, where proceedings are not instituted in relation to an offence under clause 43 or 44 or proceedings are instituted but the defendant is found not guilty, the person from whom the broadcasting equipment is seized is entitled to recover the equipment or its equivalent value, if destroyed, and compensation for any loss suffered by reason of the seizure of the broadcasting equipment. The power to deprive someone of their property in this instance occurs under powers

conferred by legislation and includes a number of safeguards for the owner of the property. Consequently the deprivation is in accordance with law and there is no limitation of the right provided at section 20 of the charter.

Clause 58 provides for an event organiser to retain a film, images or a sound recording seized under clause 54 for up to six months. This is necessary to ensure these items are not publicly released around the time of the event (when they will cause the most harm) and to allow legal proceedings to be brought.

Clause 60 allows a court to order, where it has found a person guilty of an offence, that goods or advertising material or broadcasting equipment used in relation to an offence be forfeited to the Crown.

Crowd management

Clause 62 engages the right to property by providing an offence to possess prohibited items within an event venue or area, without the authorisation of the venue manager or event organiser. Prohibited items include animals, distress signals, dangerous goods, a whistle or a loudhailer, laser pointers, firearms, weapons, bicycles, fireworks, horns or bugles, flags or banners of a certain size, items of a commercial quantity, public address systems, electronic equipment, broadcast equipment and any such equipment which may interfere with broadcasting or similar equipment used by the event organiser.

Similarly, clause 63 provides an offence to possess lit distress signals or fireworks and clause 65 provides an offence to possess unlit distress signals or fireworks within an event venue or area. Possessing lit distress signals or fireworks attracts a higher penalty than the other offences, because of the increase in danger posed by this behaviour. In addition, clause 66 provides an offence where a person has unauthorised alcohol in his or her possession that has not been purchased at the event venue or area in accordance with the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998.

The right to property is engaged by these offences because individuals in possession of these items may not enter a venue or area unless they surrender or abandon such items, and these items may be seized if they are discovered within an event venue or area. This limitation is, however, reasonable and necessary to ensure that patrons attending major sporting events, where large numbers of people may be located in a confined area, are provided with the safest conditions possible in which to enjoy watching the event.

Clause 80 provides the power for prohibited items to be surrendered to an authorised officer, including items prohibited by a venue manager under clause 79(2), and for an authorised officer who is a police officer to confiscate an item where a person refuses to comply with a request to surrender an item. This provision also engages the right to freedom of movement by providing that an authorised officer may direct a person not to enter or to leave the event venue or event area, and not re-enter, for 24 hours if the person refuses a request to surrender a prohibited item. The provision is designed to ensure the safety and comfort of spectators and event



organisers. It is a fair and reasoned provision because surrendered items are required to be stored and returned upon request when the person leaves the event venue or area or within 28 days, with some exceptions, such as prohibited weapons within the meaning of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 or controlled weapons the possession of which would be an offence under the Control of Weapons Act 1990. The requirement to store surrendered items has been developed to reasonably balance the right to property with the comfort and safety of spectators.

A venue manager may also prohibit an item not referred to in the definition of ‘prohibited item’ from being brought into an event venue or area, under clause 79(2). A breach of this clause does not constitute an offence, however, and is necessary to enable venue managers to regulate the nature of items brought into an event venue or event area based on the features of that particular venue, area or event.

Any potential deprivation of property resulting from the provisions detailed above occurs in accordance with legislative provisions and is not arbitrary since all persons attending an event may be asked to display items in their possession for inspection and ultimately be asked to surrender prohibited objects. In the case of some objects they are able to be returned. Consequently there is no limitation of the right provided at section 20 of the charter.

Clause 81 enables an authorised officer who is a member of the police force to retain a surrendered or confiscated item for the purposes of proceedings for an offence against the bill. The clause also specifies the circumstances in which certain types of prohibited items may be photographed and returned to their owner.

Clause 82 provides that certain types of items surrendered or confiscated under the crowd management provisions may be sold by the venue manager if not collected within 28 days.

Operational arrangements

Clause 107 provides, subject to the presence of certain conditions, for removal of a vehicle or vessel that is obstructing an event venue or event area, without authorisation. The clause provides for a member of the police force to enter a vehicle or vessel using reasonable force if necessary and move it to the nearest convenient place.

Advertising and ticketing

Clause 116 provides for an event organiser to obliterate or remove advertising that is not authorised or permitted from a building or structure in an event venue or event area.

Clause 134 engages the right because it provides that items may be seized by an authorised officer under a search warrant issued by a court where the authorised officer believes the items are related to the commission of an offence under part 8 of the bill (aerial advertising). Clause 137 provides for things not mentioned in a warrant to be seized if the authorised officer believes on reasonable grounds that the thing is of a kind that could have been included in a search warrant and is likely to

afford evidence, to prevent its concealment, loss or destruction and to prevent it being used in contravention of the act.

Clause 134 is necessary to allow the collection of evidence so that the relevant offences can be enforced through prosecutions. It is, however, the least restrictive approach necessary to achieve the objective, in that it provides for property to be seized but requires that reasonable steps be taken to return the item and that it be returned within three months after seizure, unless proceedings have commenced and are not yet completed. The right is not limited by clause 134 because the process is lawful and not arbitrary. Balanced against the power to investigate and prosecute offences, as outlined in the discussion about the right to privacy, the interference is strictly controlled and limited under the supervision of the court. The authorised officer executing the warrant is obliged to provide a receipt for anything seized under the warrant and copies of any documents seized (clauses 138, 139). Clause 134 and these related clauses are carefully crafted to ensure that the purpose of the provision is achieved with the least restriction of the right to privacy.

Clause 140 provides for the removal of things found during a search and use of equipment on site to examine things. Removal would appear to engage property rights and the use of equipment at the premises may also engage the right in that it may involve using resources, such as energy.

Clause 141 provides for an authorised officer in the course of exercising inspection powers to seize documents or information storage devices if he or she believes on reasonable grounds that they may contain information related to a contravention of the aerial advertising provisions of the bill.

Clause 143 provides for the Magistrates Court to order an extension of a period during which a seized thing may be retained providing certain conditions are met.

Clause 144 enables an authorised officer to require a person, in certain circumstances, to give information, documents and assistance to the authorised officer. It is an offence to refuse or fail to comply with such a requirement without a reasonable excuse.

Clause 146 qualifies this by providing that it is a reasonable excuse for a person not to give information if this action would tend to incriminate the person. Despite this, however, clause 146 also provides that it is not a reasonable excuse to fail or refuse to produce a document if required to do so under this bill if it would tend to incriminate the person.

Clause 170 makes provision for entry or search of premises with a warrant subject to a magistrate being satisfied that specified conditions are met. A warrant issued under this clause may authorise search for and seizure of relevant things.

Clause 172 enables an authorised officer, with the secretary’s approval, to apply to the Magistrates Court for an order requiring a person to provide specific answers, information and documents to an authorised officer concerning compliance with an approved ticket



scheme or alleged contravention of the bill. A magistrate may make such an order if the magistrate is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to warrant such an interference.

Clause 173 provides for documents to be seized pursuant to an order under clause 172 and requires the authorised officer to report back to the Magistrates Court.

Clause 176 provides balance in relation to clause 172 by providing that it is a reasonable excuse for a person not to give information or do anything else the person is required to do under the bill (other than produce a document) if such actions would tend to incriminate the person.

Clause 182 provides for certain information to be required to be disclosed by a publisher of a publication in the form in which it is kept by the publisher. This may engage property rights, in that it confers on the secretary or an authorised officer, as public authorities, a right of access to private property.

In addition clause 166 creates offences for selling tickets contrary to the ticket conditions established under an approved ticket scheme. As such it may engage property rights by restricting the use of private property.

Conclusion in relation to property rights

Section 20 ensures that the institution of property is recognised and that Victoria is a market economy that depends on the institution of private property. It is well established in international human rights law that a person must not be arbitrarily deprived of his or her property.

The bill is relevant to property rights because, among other things, it enables authorised officers to apply to a magistrate for a search warrant to enter specified premises and to search for and seize items that are reasonably believed to be connected with an offence under the bill. These powers are part of a comprehensive enforcement scheme set out in the bill. Their inclusion in the bill is necessary to ensure that authorised officers have the powers required to investigate and gather evidence relevant to suspected offences under the bill. In any application for a warrant, an authorised officer must demonstrate the need to exercise these powers in specific circumstances and must exercise the powers in accordance with the directions of the Magistrates Court. The requirement for powers of entry, search and seizure to be exercised with a warrant is intended to ensure that these powers are exercised with due process and restraint, and that deprivation of property in these circumstances is not arbitrary and is undertaken in accordance with law.

All provisions in the bill that engage property rights are lawful. The bill carefully defines the circumstances in which relevant powers can be exercised to ensure that all interferences with privacy under the bill are reasonable in the particular circumstances and therefore not arbitrary. It is therefore considered that, while these provisions require consideration in relation to section 20 of the charter, this right is not restricted or interfered with by the bill.

Section 21: right to liberty and security of person

Section 21 of the charter provides that every person has the right to liberty and security, a person must not be subjected to

arbitrary arrest or detention, and that a person must not be deprived of his or her liberty except on grounds, and in accordance with procedures, established by law. The right is concerned with matters related to arrest and detention.

This right is engaged by a number of provisions in the bill which relate to crowd management and operational arrangements. This is because the provision allows for the removal of an individual in prescribed circumstances, and this may be considered detention for a period that is more than transitory.

Crowd management and operational arrangements

Clause 85 provides that a person who has been directed to leave under clauses 80, 83 and 90, who subsequently attempts to enter, re-enter or attempt to re-enter a venue before expiry of the direction, is guilty of an offence, and the police may use reasonable force to prevent a person from re-entering, or to remove a person who has re-entered. This provision is designed to ensure that individuals who have engaged in disruptive or dangerous behaviour are removed or prevented from entering event venues to safeguard the safety and enjoyment of staff and spectators. It is essential that the clauses which identify prohibited behaviour are supported with the power to enforce them, and that this power is rational and proportionate. The power is restricted by the requirement that the exercise is ‘with no more force than is reasonably necessary’ to effect the removal or entry of the person.

Clause 103 may appear to engage this right because it provides a capacity for police to remove a person or persons involved in an assembly from an event venue or event area. The clause makes clear, however, that this power may only be exercised when a member of the police believes on reasonable grounds that the assembly involves unlawful physical violence and damage to property and that it is not practicable, because of the number of persons involved, to preserve or restore order by arresting any of the offenders. A member of the police force may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances.

As noted above, clauses 134 and 170 provide for warrants to be issued but both clauses specifically preclude giving an authorised officer authority to arrest a person and do not, therefore, limit the right to liberty and security of person.

Conclusion in relation to the right to liberty and security of person

The bill does not limit the right because these provisions provide for detention on grounds and in accordance with procedures established by law. It is justifiable to detain persons in the circumstances detailed in each provision, to ensure the safety of participants and spectators. The power is appropriately and proportionately circumscribed, as the behaviour which will warrant removal is clearly identifiable and detailed and police may only use such force as is reasonably necessary. Consequently, each of these provisions provides for lawful measures that are not arbitrary.

Final conclusion and statement

The Major Sporting Events Bill 2009 limits the right to freedom of movement and freedom of expression, but the



limitations are confined to the minimum available to achieve the objectives of the bill in relation to supporting the acquisition, management and conduct of major sporting events. The limitations are reasonable and proportionate. The bill also engages the rights to privacy, property and security and liberty of person but does not limit these rights.

Justin Madden, MLC Minister for Planning

Second reading





Major sporting events are a very important part of Victoria’s history and a highly valued aspect of our lifestyle today. Major sporting events play a key role in maintaining Victoria’s attractiveness, and in particular Melbourne’s drawing power as a place to live, work, do business and visit.

So much so that Melbourne is sometimes referred to as the sporting events capital of the world. This is not only a proud boast by Victorians. An independent study published in the SportBusiness International magazine has recognised Melbourne as the ultimate sports city two years in a row.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that Victoria continues to be successful as a host of great sporting events.

I believe that the bill will, if passed, be the most comprehensive major sporting event-related legislation in the world, which appropriately reflects Victoria’s unparalleled standing as a host of major events and our aspiration and determination to continue to lead the world in this field.

The Victorian Parliament has passed legislation to facilitate the holding of particular events including the Australian Formula One Grand Prix and MotoGP, the Commonwealth Games and the world swimming championships.

In recent years, other legislation has also been passed to address key issues in relation to events: specifically ticketing arrangements, crowd management and aerial advertising. Issues continue to arise around major sporting events, including unauthorised opportunistic attempts to exploit events in various ways, and it is necessary to keep improving our legislation to deal with such challenges.

The bill seeks to establish an improved legislative framework for major sporting events. It does this in two key ways.

First, it incorporates existing general event legislation into a single bill. The Sports Event Ticketing (Fair Access) Act 2002, the Major Events (Crowd Management) Act 2003 and the Major Events (Aerial Advertising) Act 2007 will be repealed and their provisions incorporated into one act. This has the benefit of reducing the number of acts on the statute book, improving the transparency and accessibility of major events legislation and facilitating greater administrative efficiency.

The bill includes some improvements to the existing legislation relating to major events. For example, it adds the AFL finals series to the list of events that are routinely protected by the aerial advertising provisions of the bill in recognition of the importance of those events and the potential for ambush aerial advertising.

The bill also improves the crowd management provision in the act that allows an authorised officer to direct a person to leave a sporting venue because the person has engaged in disruptive behaviour to make it more compatible with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. A key part of the clause now requires that a person cause ‘unreasonable disruption or unreasonable interference’ to spectators or event organisers rather than ‘annoyance to spectators’ as in section 15 of the Major Events (Crowd Management) Act 2003.

Part 10 of the bill sets out a new regime for appointment of authorised officers to carry out relevant functions outlined in various parts of the bill. The new arrangements are a combination of provisions in the existing acts. They provide for the secretary of the department to appoint persons who hold a relevant security licence under the Private Security Act 2004, persons who have the appropriate skills or knowledge, or persons who are a member of an appropriate class of persons as authorised officers. This will allow employees of event organisers to be appointed to administer the crowd management provisions of the bill, if appropriate, on the basis of their role with the event organiser, which is not currently possible under the Major Events (Crowd Management) Act 2003.

Second, the bill seeks to make additional types of protection available to major sporting events as needed. Broadly, the bill will provide protection for various commercial arrangements relating to major sporting events, facilitate the operational arrangements required for events, provide limited protection for events against claims for economic compensation, regulate how other acts apply to the staging and conduct of major sporting events and protect against types of ambush advertising.

For example, the bill includes prohibitions against unauthorised broadcasting of an event. This is a vital addition to Victoria’s major events legislation because revenue from broadcast rights underpins the commercial viability of many major sporting events, but existing law does not provide a remedy for an event organiser whose sporting event is broadcast by an unauthorised party. Unauthorised broadcasting can seriously compromise the value of official broadcast rights and threatens the ability of event organisers to stage major sporting events where they cannot guarantee exclusive rights to the official broadcaster. This protection is needed in part because new technology has made it increasingly easy for a person to make and to broadcast, telecast or transmit a recording of an event.

Similarly, the bill sets out other protections and requirements that can be activated when appropriate. These include:

prohibition of unauthorised use of event logos, images and references and related enforcement provisions;

suspension of the application of other acts to event venues or event areas for limited periods to facilitate the delivery of a major sporting event. The acts that may be suspended are the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Heritage Act 1995, Environment Effects Act 1978,

TRANSPORT LEGISLATION GENERAL AMENDMENTS BILL


Coastal Management Act 1995, Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, Land Act 1958 and Building Act 1993. In addition, the provisions of the Health Act 1958 and the Local Government Act 1989 can be suspended in relation to noise and light emanating from an event venue or event area and the bill provides for councils’ power to make local laws under the Local Government Act 1989 to be suspended in relation to an event venue or event area and activities carried on in those areas in relation to an event;

provision of the power for event organisers to control access to an event venue or event area;

a requirement for vehicles and vessels not to be in an event venue or event area during an event period without authorisation and provision for the removal of such vehicles and vessels;

power for the minister to temporarily close or modify roads for purposes related to event venues or event areas or conducting an event;

a requirement for appropriate restoration of event venues and event areas;

in addition to the existing aerial advertising controls, control of advertising other than aerial advertising including advertising on buildings and structures in an event venue or event area and advertising on vessels; and

where the minister considers it to be necessary and in the public interest, an order may be made that no compensation is payable in relation to a major sporting event, other than for death or personal or bodily injury.

These additional protections largely correspond to provisions in the Commonwealth Games Arrangements Act 2001 and the World Swimming Championships Act 2004. Not all of the provisions of those acts, however, are included in the bill. For example, busking was an offence under section 88W of the World Swimming Championships Act 2004 but an equivalent offence is not included in the bill. Issues such as this can be controlled in other ways at most events.

The effect of including key provisions from event-specific legislation in the bill is that the bill will minimise or eliminate the need for event-specific legislation in future.

The bill provides for the Governor in Council to make orders, on the recommendation of the minister, indicating which parts and provisions of the bill are to apply to a particular event, depending on the requirements for each event. This reflects the Governor in Council’s existing powers under the crowd management and aerial advertising legislation and applies those arrangements to the range of additional provisions described earlier.

The bill includes requirements for consultation prior to making some types of major sporting event orders. For example, if the minister wishes to recommend that another law be suspended for a particular event under part 5 of the bill, the minister must first consult with the minister responsible for the act that is to be temporarily suspended in relation to the event.

The bill also includes, in effect, a sliding scale of requirements for accountability and parliamentary scrutiny depending on the contents of a major sporting event order that

is to be made. All major sporting event orders must be published in the Government Gazette. Major sporting event orders that apply provisions relating to commercial arrangements, advertising other than aerial advertising and aerial advertising to an event, orders that prescribe the non-application of other laws (‘acts non-application orders’) and no compensation orders must be laid before each house of Parliament. Acts non-application orders and no compensation orders may be disallowed in whole or in part by either house of Parliament.

Under the sports event ticketing provisions in part 9 of the bill the minister has the power to make a sports event ticketing declaration directly. This reflects the arrangement under the current legislation.

Not all protections will be required or applied to every event. It is anticipated that only the most significant of major sporting events would require the full range of protections provided by the bill to be activated.

In addition to providing support for major events and event organisers where an event is covered by the bill, the bill enables event organisers to be held to account. It provides for the minister to make guidelines for minimum event planning standards and, if an event organiser fails to comply with such guidelines, to recommend to the Governor in Council that a relevant major sporting event order applying to the particular event be varied or revoked.

The bill includes a range of necessary provisions including clarification of how it interacts with the Australian Grands Prix Act 1994, consequential and related amendments and transitional arrangements.

The bill will further strongly enhance Victoria’s capacity to attract and host major sporting events for the benefit of all Victorians and build on this important aspect of our lifestyle in Victoria.


Debate adjourned for Mr DALLA-RIVA (Eastern Metropolitan) on motion of Ms Lovell.





Read first time on motion of Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade).


Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade) tabled following statement in accordance with Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act:



In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Transport Legislation General Amendments Bill 2008 (the bill).

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

Overview

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Rail Corporations Act 1996 in relation to:

the abolition of the Southern Cross Station Authority;

the pricing principles order; and

the ability of the state to enforce penalties against parties who disrupt rail operations.

The bill also amends the Rail Safety Act 2006 in relation to safe arrangements for the conduct of works on rail land.

Other minor amendments are made to the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 in relation to CAYPINS (children’s and young persons’ infringement notice system), and the Transport Act 1983 in relation to regulations for taxicab equipment, the transfer of commercial passenger vehicle licences and the renewal and cancellation of authorised officers’ authorisations.

Human rights issues

Abolition of Southern Cross Station Authority

The bill effects a change to the Rail Corporations Act 1996 to abolish the Southern Cross Station Authority. The Secretary of the Department of Transport, on behalf of the Crown, will carry out the Southern Cross Station Authority’s remaining functions and succeed to all its property, rights and liabilities. Staff will transfer to the Department of Transport.

I do not consider that this proposal presents any charter incompatibility issues.

Pricing principles order

This bill makes some technical amendments to the Rail Corporations Act 1996 in relation to the pricing principles order. The changes deal with principles for the calculation of prices that access providers may charge for access onto the rail network.

I do not consider that this proposal presents any charter incompatibility issues.

Civil penalty provisions

The bill makes amendments to the Rail Corporations Act 1996 to ensure that the state is able to enforce financial penalties against parties with whom it contracts, where those parties cause disruptions to public transport services. Almost certainly, such contracts would be between the state and corporations. The charter provides that only persons, and not corporations, have human rights.

In any event, I do not consider that this proposal presents any charter issues.

Safe arrangements for the conduct of works on rail land

The bill also amends the Rail Safety Act 2006 to enable the director, public transport safety, to intervene and issue directions where the director considers that access to the rail reserve is being unreasonably withheld for the purposes of roadworks, on the grounds of purported safety concerns.

The arrangements are framed to only apply to road authorities, VicTrack and rail operators. The charter provides that only persons, and not corporations, have human rights. Accordingly, I do not consider that this proposal presents any charter incompatibility issues.

Other amendments

Other proposals within the bill relate to:

a regulation-making power in the Transport Act 1983 for obtaining information derived from equipment installed in taxis;

the circumstances in which commercial passenger vehicle licences may be transferred;

the administration of renewals and cancellations of authorised officers operating in the rail, tram and bus sectors; and

the ability of Children’s Court registrars who deal with unpaid fine offences to refer child offenders to attend an approved program.

I do not consider that any of these proposals present charter incompatibility issues.

Conclusion

I consider that the bill is compatible with the charter.

Martin Pakula, MLC Minister for Industry and Trade Minister for Industrial Relations

Second reading

Ordered that second-reading speech be incorporated on motion of Hon. M. P PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade).

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade) — I move:



This bill makes a number of important amendments to transport legislation. The amendments have a particular focus on public transport operations, and are designed to aid in the safe, smooth and efficient delivery of rail, tram and bus services to Victorians.

Fare Enough

The Transport Act was amended in 2006 to allow a court to order a person charged with a transport ticket or conduct offence to attend an approved education program. The Fare



Enough course was developed by the Department of Transport for this purpose and is operating successfully in the Magistrates Court as an alternative to fines and other sanctions.

Children who commit transport offences are generally dealt with under a special infringement penalty process called CAYPINS (children and young persons’ infringement notice system).

Unpaid fines issued to children are considered by a registrar of the Children’s Court. Unlike magistrates, however, registrars currently do not have power to refer a young person to attend an approved program.

The bill provides this power to registrars so that the course can be used as an alternative sentencing arrangement for child offenders if the court considers it appropriate.

Authorised officer renewals

The bill also amends the Transport Act to improve the administrative process for renewing the authorisation of enforcement officers in the rail, tram and bus sectors.

The amendment requires the director of public transport to consider the probity criteria which apply to initial authorisations when considering whether to renew an authorisation or to carry out an inquiry into an authorisation. The criteria cover issues of competence and character.

Safety direction power

The number of interfaces between road and rail infrastructure often lead to road managers needing access to rail land. A common example is VicRoads needing access to the rail corridor to carry out preventive maintenance on overhead road bridges.

Rail operators are entitled to refuse access for works, or require works to cease, where they consider the works present safety issues. Rightly so, as safety is absolutely paramount.

However, it is also important that rail infrastructure managers do not misuse their powers to improperly limit access to rail land due to mere inconvenience, using safety grounds as an excuse.

Road contract works may be delayed and the agency procuring the works is likely to be exposed to delay claims. In these circumstances, the agency currently has no way of verifying or testing the validity of the safety grounds on which the rail infrastructure manager denies or withdraws access.

The bill amends the Rail Safety Act to enable the director, public transport safety, to intervene and assess the safety environment in these situations and potentially issue directions on safe arrangements. The safety director will essentially be undertaking a deadlock resolution role.

Civil penalty provisions

The government is committed to ensuring that journeys on public transport are as uninterrupted as possible.

In an age of ever-increasing infrastructure development, the reality is that construction works often need to be carried out on and in the vicinity of heavy-rail corridors, tram tracks and

bus lanes. Those who carry out works must be encouraged to do so at times when public transport is not operating or, where that is not feasible, by minimising impacts on services.

Such works include:

projects undertaken adjacent to rail corridors which require access to the corridor to ascertain the location of existing utility infrastructure; and

building structural decks over rail corridors.

Monetary liability for affecting public transport reliability is well accepted in Victorian transport operations. As we all know, rail franchisees and bus operators are levied penalties for late and non-running trains, trams and buses.

Amendments to the Rail Corporations Act will give the government flexibility by enabling state parties to include in contracts with third parties, such as property developers, provisions requiring the third party to pay penalties if their works disrupt rail operations. This sends an important message to those working near public transport operations — interruptions to public transport services are not to be taken lightly.

Southern Cross Station Authority

The bill also provides for the abolition of the Southern Cross Station Authority, which was established to manage the now completed redevelopment of the former Spencer Street station.

The Secretary of the Department of Transport, on behalf of the Crown, will carry out the authority’s remaining functions and succeed to all its property, rights and liabilities. The bill provides for the initial transfer of staff to the Department of Transport. Appropriate arrangements for the location of staff and functions of the authority in the long term will be the subject of continuing discussions between all parties concerned, prior to the provisions coming into effect.

Other amendments

Finally, the bill makes a number of minor, miscellaneous and machinery amendments to the Transport Act and the Rail Corporations Act.

These include:

minor amendments to the Rail Corporations Act to reflect new arrangements flowing from the buyback of the country below-rail network in 2007;

clarification of the circumstances in which commercial passenger vehicle licences may be transferred; and

clarification of a regulation-making power for obtaining information derived from equipment installed in taxis.


Debate adjourned on motion of Mr KOCH (Western Victoria).


ADJOURNMENT


ADJOURNMENT

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade) — I move:

That the house do now adjourn

Bendigo Hospital: redevelopment

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) — The matter I wish to raise is for the attention of the Minister for Health in the other place regarding an announcement of the preferred site for the redevelopment of Bendigo Hospital. My request is for the minister to immediately announce the government’s preferred site for the Bendigo Hospital redevelopment or at least clarify when the Brumby government will be making this announcement, and for the government to stop teasing the Bendigo community about the future of its critical health service

In February the Minister for Regional and Rural Development, who is the member for Bendigo East, Jacinta Allan, met with a group of Bendigo’s community leaders, including Mayor Kevin Gibbins; the city’s chief executive officer, Craig Niemann; and businessmen Mel McGovern and Ron Poyser. At that meeting the minister said she expected the site to be named by the end of March. We are now into April, but still there has been no word from the Brumby government about the site for the Bendigo Hospital redevelopment.

Ms Allan has now become strangely silent and is offering the community very little information about the progress of the government’s site selection process. The community is sick of the delays and does not want to hear the member for Bendigo East say, ‘The process is progressing well for information to be released to the community in the near future’, which is what she told the Bendigo Weekly on 26 March. The community is sick and tired of Ms Allan’s deceptions, the Brumby government’s failure to be transparent and its failure to provide a timely announcement of a site for their health service.

The Bendigo community needs and deserves timely and firm commitments from the Brumby government regarding the future of Bendigo Hospital. The hospital, which is in urgent need of upgrading, is the major health service provider for the entire Loddon Mallee and central Victoria region.

The community has also become increasingly frustrated by the government’s failure to consult, and now believes that community consultation sessions, which have finally been granted, are a mechanism designed to

delay any major announcement until the 2010 election. The community is demanding the project move forward as quickly as possible and wants to start clearing a site and relocating services as soon as possible. They are sick of plans for more plans; they want to see action. The Brumby government must start making concrete commitments regarding the redevelopment of the Bendigo Hospital and stop making deceptive comments about the project.

My request is for the minister to immediately announce the government’s preferred site for the Bendigo Hospital redevelopment or at least clarify when the government will be making the announcement, and for the government to stop teasing the Bendigo community about the future of its critical health service.

Pensioners: concessions

Ms HARTLAND (Western Metropolitan) — My adjournment matter tonight is addressed to the Minister for Water. Council rates and water rate rebates for pensioner homeowners are in urgent need of review. Their rebates have fallen dramatically due to what I would say is government forgetfulness and neglect, or both. In 1980 a $120 ceiling was placed on the rebates. Today the rebate is a mere $189.70. Over the past 30 years the rates have barely changed.

Pensioners and low-income earners are finding it increasingly difficult to keep up with the rising cost of essential commodities. It is the responsibility of the government to see that concessions, once provided, are maintained in line with consumer price index increases. I request that the Minister for Water explain why the rebate is not reflective of the current cost of living.

Wangaratta: skate park

Ms DARVENIZA (Northern Victoria) — I wish to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Youth Affairs. The matter I wish to raise concerns the existing skate park in Wangaratta, which is located at the H. P. Barr Reserve in Wangaratta.

What I am seeking from the minister is some funding for the redevelopment of that skate park. The Wangaratta Rural City Council is very keen to implement a project to redevelop the park so that it would be better able to cater for the participants who use that park, who are board riders, rollerbladers and BMX riders. One of our government’s main policies and initiatives that we have put in place is to Go for Your Life, to get out there and get more active and get involved in activities that keep you moving and keep

ADJOURNMENT


you healthy. We know that childhood obesity is on the increase, and there are a range of initiatives that our government has put in place to counter that.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I remind Ms Darveniza that there is to be no debate on the adjournment.

Ms DARVENIZA — We have put in place a range of initiatives. One of those is the Go for Your Life program that encourages people to become active. This project that the Wangaratta Rural City Council wants to develop is one of those projects. It is about finding activities for young people in a regional town, which of course is very important. Skate parks, as any member who has one in their electorate will know, are a catalyst for bringing young people together and for bringing families together. You often see parents there, watching their children.

Specifically my request is that the minister look very carefully at the project application for $60 000 funding that has been put in by the Wangaratta Rural City Council. I ask him to look closely at it and to seriously consider the many benefits that would come from this redevelopment of the park, and to put his support behind it.

Insurance: fire services levy

Mr KOCH (Western Victoria) — My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. It concerns the unfair manner in which the Brumby government collects its compulsory fire services levy, which contributes to about three-quarters of the cost of funding the Country Fire Authority and Metropolitan Fire Brigade fire service operations in Victoria. It is levied only on those who pay insurance, while fire services are made available to all Victorians.

More and more property owners are contacting my office to convey their annoyance and frustration at the rapidly increasing cost of paying for insurance and the massive component for the fire services levy. One example comes from a relatively small farming concern, where the latest insurance bill was $4078. Of this amount, only $2417 was for insurance; $337.33 was GST; $367.39 was for stamp duty; and a massive $922.50 was for the fire services levy.

Property owners are reaching the point where they are now looking at ways to cut back on insurance premiums, including scrapping insurance cover completely, as the cost of premiums becomes prohibitive. Indications are that over 25 per cent of

property owners affected by the Black Saturday fires were not insured. Is this any wonder?

There is no doubt property owners will again be hit with significant increases in their next insurance bill due to inflated valuations that do not reflect true property values and due to the recent fire claims. As a consequence more Victorians are likely to forgo property insurance. This is an issue the government needs to resolve by abolishing the fire service levy on insurance. The cost of fire services should not be left only to those Victorians who insure their properties. In other states fire service levies are collected through municipal rates, spreading the cost of funding fire services more equitably across all property owners.

It is imperative that alternative funding of fire services is maintained and increased, where necessary, to ensure life and property is protected from the ravages of fire. But surely it is unfair to expect only those who take out insurance to contribute to the funding of Victoria’s fire services when there is a more equitable way to ensure all property owners share the cost. Introducing a fairer system where the fire service levy is collected through municipal rates would result in reduced insurance premiums and encourage more property owners to take out insurance. In addition the levy could be reduced, as more property owners would be contributing to it. My request is for the minister to re-examine the funding of fire services and in particular the impact the fire service levy has on rising insurance premiums and asset protection.

Devilbend Natural Features Reserve: management plan

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. Devilbend Natural Features Reserve is the newest substantial conservation reserve on the Mornington Peninsula. It is part of the traditional lands of the Boon wurrung people and contains important Aboriginal heritage sites. The reserve has been closed to the public for more than 40 years and therefore has retained significant ecological integrity. It contains the largest body of fresh water on the peninsula and supports a rich diversity of indigenous fauna and flora, including the threatened white-bellied sea-eagle and the blue-billed duck. It has the potential, given appropriate ongoing protection, for complete restoration as a vital core of habitat from which to reverse the decline of native wildlife on the peninsula.

In his media release of 20 September 2006 then Minister for Water, Environment and Climate Change, John Thwaites, said that the environmental value of the

ADJOURNMENT


site and the strong community support for an ecologically viable, conservation-focused park, led to the decision to retain all but 40 hectares of the land in public ownership.

In December last year Parks Victoria released its draft management plan for public comment. It proposes only a limited conservation zone and a substantial conservation and recreation zone, which will include high-density activities and the use of trails throughout the reserve. These activities will include horseriding, cycling, orienteering, rogaining, shoreline fishing, as well as a new picnic ground site and two new car parks.

Members of the Devilbend Foundation have contacted me expressing serious concerns regarding the draft plan which they claim ignores the previous minister’s announcement, the legislative requirements for a natural features reserve, the vision of the draft management plan and the summary report of the Devilbend working group 2004, stating that intensive and disturbing recreational use is incompatible with dedicated ecological priorities. The Devilbend Foundation has made a number of recommendations, including zoning the entire area as a conservation zone, with the exception of the existing picnic ground and minimal trails; limiting recreational activities to walking and other activities that do not conflict with the ecological values; and excluding interventions that conflict with the conservation goals such as shoreline access and fishing. These recommendations are supported by the Australian Conservation Foundation, Environment Victoria, the Victorian National Parks Association, Birds Australia, the National Trust and other groups. The recommendations would ensure that Devilbend reserve, one of the last remaining biodiversity islands within the peninsula of sufficient size to offer ecological sustainability, could become a world-class wildlife conservation reserve. My request to the minister is that he delay the release of the final management plan for Devilbend until he meets with representatives of the Devilbend Foundation and the National Trust to hear their views.

Northern Victoria Region: health services

Ms BROAD (Northern Victoria) — My adjournment matter is for the attention of the Minister for Health, Daniel Andrews. I ask the minister to take action to ensure that health services in my electorate of Northern Victoria Region continue to have access to high-quality medical equipment and facilities. Since 1999 the Brumby Labor government has more than doubled the funding made available to Victoria’s health services. Every Victorian hospital has received increased funding every year since 1999. The

government has also invested $4.1 billion across Victoria into the largest capital works program in Victoria’s history. In addition the Brumby government is taking action to revitalise rural health services and deliver the latest specialist equipment for country patients. This is in line with Labor’s commitment to ensuring that all Victorians can access quality health care, no matter who they are or where they live.

In 2008–09 the Brumby government allocated $9 million to rural health services to replace high-priority, high-cost medical equipment that had passed its use-by date. As a result of the continuing support of the Brumby government our hospitals will have the best medical equipment and facilities to provide patient treatment and diagnosis. As part of this commitment I ask the Minister for Health to take action to ensure funding for the upgrade of medical equipment in health services in the Northern Victoria Region, just as the minister did recently in Seymour in my electorate, so they can continue to provide quality health services to residents in my electorate.

South Gippsland Highway: floodproofing

Mr P. DAVIS (Eastern Victoria) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Roads and Ports concerning a planned flood-proof realignment of the South Gippsland Highway between Sale and Longford. Last week VicRoads put on display plans outlining two options for the highway realignment, which would elevate the highway by 1.5 metres for a distance of 2.8 kilometres. The project is estimated to cost around $50 million. This realignment is long overdue, as people in the Sale district will readily attest.

The need for a flood-proof link to the south of Sale has been talked about for decades, and around 1979 the then City of Sale engineer, Allan Lewis, prepared a new highway plan that was incorporated in the city’s planning scheme. The current plans are being developed in the form of amendments to the Shire of Wellington planning scheme and will be open to comment from the local community. I appreciate that this process will take some months. Although it has taken a long time to get to this point, the project is of importance to the Sale region and needs to be considered with some urgency.

At least every four years the highway link between Sale and Longford is cut by flooding and, because it is a low-lying flood plain, the water takes days to subside, obstructing access to important facilities such as the Longford gas plant. A recent study by Mr Lewis, who is now operating as an engineering consultant based in Sale, has put an economic cost on the highway closure

ADJOURNMENT


of $443 550 per day because of the need for passenger and commercial vehicles to detour, the loss of business to Sale and the loss of tourism. Additionally, the closure affects the oil and gas industry and the operation of school buses.

This infrastructure project is of significance and will create jobs and economic benefit to the Sale district. As such, it is in accord with the criteria being applied to projects the state and federal governments are funding as countermeasures to the economic downturn. I therefore ask that the minister act to expedite the approvals process to provide certainty for the community in the Wellington shire.

VicForests: Brown Mountain old-growth forest

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. A New Zealand radiocarbon dating laboratory has confirmed that a tree cut down in the Brown Mountain old-growth forest was about 550 to 600 years old. Local environment group, Environment East Gippsland, took the sample of wood from a stump after VicForests had clear-felled the age-old stand of forest. It was sent to the University of Waikato for radiocarbon dating testing in February. The results show there is a 68 per cent chance the true calendar age lies between 1435 AD and 1490 AD. It is believed that eucalypt trees have never been radiocarbon dated in Victoria before. This was a relatively small tree compared to its neighbours.

This result has turned the understanding of tree ages on its head. Until now foresters have claimed these large trees were about 200 to 250 years old. Others have assumed 300 to 400 would be the age limit before the trees succumbed to rot. The tree is a shining gum and was young when Joan of Ark lived. It could have been a mature tree even before Christopher Columbus discovered America.

VicForests and the Brumby government cannot replace these trees once they are cut down. They are logged on a 50 to 80-year rotation and it would take until 2600 AD to regrow a tree to the same size. These forests cannot be replaced. They are massively effective carbon storage machines that have been working for 800 years, and they are being annihilated down to bare earth in a month. Two hundred years ago we had an excuse; now there is no excuse.

Given that Mr Brumby promised to protect the last significant stands of old-growth forest in 2006 and that the logging of ancient forests has continued, my request to the minister is that he, using this information, ask his

department to re-assess the conservation value and carbon storage potential of all remaining East Gippsland old-growth forests and hence protect them all immediately.

Lonsdale Street, Melbourne: Hellenic precinct

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Northern Metropolitan) — I have a matter I want to raise with the Minister assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs, James Merlino, and through him also with the Premier.

I was pleased to see the announcement by the government recently of $3.5 million towards the revitalisation of the Lonsdale Street Greek precinct. This is a precinct which is part of the history of Melbourne and its development. As many members would know, it has over the last few years seen a period of some decline, both in terms of the shops which are associated with that cultural heritage and which seem to be disappearing, but also in terms of its use over the last few years for Greek cultural events. It was pleasing a few weeks ago to see the Antipodes festival revived again this year and to see the massive crowd who turned up for that event.

The funding of $3.5 million is going to be split: $1.5 million will go towards the road and infrastructure developments in the street itself, which is a good thing and will give the street a much-needed lift; and a couple of the lanes will also be developed with small cafes to try to recreate a sort of Hellenic feel in that area once again. I hope the shopkeepers and the landlords who have control of that property get in on the spirit of maintaining the Greek heritage of the region. Losing the Greek precinct altogether would diminish Melbourne as a multicultural city. We have vibrant Chinese and Italian precincts, but if there were only those two and no Greek precinct, Melbourne would not be the same. I think this is therefore a timely action.

The Greek Orthodox Community of Melbourne and Victoria, led by its president, Bill Papastegiadis, is seeking to develop the site on the corner, and the government is contributing $2 million towards the development of a cultural centre within that site. This is a very good development, although I am told it may not be enough to secure the development of the building, a multistorey development probably worth $40 million which would also deliver quite a few jobs for Melbourne. I am asking the minister to assist the Greek Orthodox Community of Melbourne and Victoria in applications it is planning to make to the federal government seeking that it also contribute some money in relation to the development of the precinct, in particular the building itself, for the Greek community

ADJOURNMENT


so that we have a vibrant Hellenic centre with a vibrant Hellenic building in the future.

Drought: Southern Metropolitan Region sporting clubs

Mrs COOTE (Southern Metropolitan) — My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Water, and — —

Mr Finn — The Minister for No Water.

Mrs COOTE — The Minister for No Water, as you say. It deals with an issue apparent throughout my electorate. I refer to a number of articles that have appeared in newspapers in my electorate over the last little while that explain exactly what is happening in the Southern Metropolitan Region. An article in the Bayside Leader says:

The Moorabbin Kangaroos Football Club will struggle to field two teams this season unless they can restock dwindling player numbers.

Player numbers are down because people cannot play football on the ovals; they believe the ovals are dangerous, making it hard to attract people to play at those sites.

I have another article here referring to Hawthorn, headlined ‘Hawks’ old home turf parched’, from the Progress Leader of 17 March, which says that ‘Glenferrie Oval’s only tenants may have to relocate or start their season later’ because of the lack of water. Another article headed ‘Courting disaster’ from the Bayside Leader of 24 March says:

Beaumaris Community Centre Tennis Club president Andrew Alaouze says dry, windy conditions have damaged court surfaces.

And:

Bayside clay tennis courts are being blown away, costing thousands in maintenance and risking injury to players.

Once more I quote an article from the Bayside Leader of 17 March:

For the second year Bayside sports clubs have been banned from their drought-hit grounds.

Next I quote from an article entitled ‘Footy’s dry spell’ in the Caulfield Glen Eira Leader:

Glen Eira sports clubs may be forced to move training for a second season as parched ovals struggle to recover from the drought and unprecedented heatwave.

This is just a reflection of what is happening right across the Southern Metropolitan Region because of the

drought. I know the government has been looking at how it can support sporting clubs and their grounds, and I encourage that and am pleased to see it. But I have to encourage government members to have a look at an initiative of the City of Glen Eira. The Glen Eira newsletter of April 2009 says:

Commencing in April, three ovals on the south side of Caulfield Park will be converted to a low maintenance, low water usage and drought-tolerant turf to provide a more sustainable surface for both active and passive recreation.

This evening I ask the minister to consider additional funding to assist all sporting activities right across the Southern Metropolitan Region and to help put in drought resistant turf where possible and otherwise synthetic surfaces. I ask him to do this as a matter of urgency.

Small business: retail lease guidelines

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Small Business. It relates to a matter drawn to my attention by a Mr Graham Jackson, a self-funded retired chemical engineer and a man who is very intelligent, very astute and very attentive to detail. As a self-funded retiree and investor who has property he has gone chapter and verse through the problems of the Retail Leases Act, particularly the guidelines to the act put out by the small business commissioner.

I am not asking for a review of the legislation, because that would be against the guidelines of the adjournment, but I am asking for a review by the Minister for Small Business of virtually all the rules that apply to operating a small business. I think it is timely, given the downturn in the economy and the fact that we have jobs disappearing. This is the time when we ought to be making sure that all the policies and frameworks we have in place are conducive to businesses being able to operate effectively and well. This includes legislation such as the Retail Leases Act of course, as well as the guidelines that people rely on in order to make sure that they comply with the requirements and do not fall foul of them.

The specific matter that was raised with me relates to the guidelines, which are ambiguous in terms of the definitions of ‘occupancy’ and ‘cost exception’, and whether leases of premises which involve the payment of more than the amount of occupancy costs prescribed by the regulation will not be retail premises. It is a question of whether this is an anti-avoidance mechanism or a matter that requires some sort of clarification by the guidelines. I think it is probably an anticompliance matter rather than an anti-avoidance

ADJOURNMENT


matter. I am happy to provide the minister with all the relevant information and all the concerns that have been put to me by Mr Jackson in relation to the guidelines that are put out by the small businesses commissioner to make sure that the Retail Leases Act is operating effectively and well and in particular that the guidelines are clear and that investors and those who take up leases are clear about how they need to operate in order to comply with the act as well as the guidelines. Failure to comply with the guidelines can incur financial penalty, and clearly that is something that is to be avoided.

There is a lot of ambiguity and a lack of clarity. This is an opportune time to review all of the legislation and guidelines, and I ask for the Minister for Small Business to do so to make it easier for people to operate comfortably within the act.

Police: western suburbs

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) — I wish to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Members will recall that in the last sitting week on the adjournment I offered an invitation to the minister to join me at a rally in Sunshine the following evening. Unfortunately the minister was clearly too busy to attend on that occasion, but the rally did go ahead and was a raging success, with in excess of 300 people there at 6 o’clock on the Friday night. I thought that was a good showing by the local community.

One of the issues that was raised strongly at that rally was the police shortages we face in the western suburbs. The problems we face in Werribee, for example, are longstanding and have not yet been resolved. The shortages in Footscray are relatively new but are not getting any better. Craigieburn also has a good number of problems in terms of shortages of police. Williamstown, where the police station is actually closed at night, is a classic example of a greater need for police. In Sunshine a constituent of mine went into the police station this week to give a statement and was turned away because the police said, ‘We just do not have anybody to take your statement. We are just too busy’.

We have a situation throughout the western suburbs, particularly around Sunshine but in other parts of the west as well, where crime is completely out of control and the police are underresourced, undermanned and completely run off their feet. They have no chance of coping at all. Now police are telling me that they believe a cut in the police budget and police numbers is imminent and will perhaps happen as soon as the

budget next month. In my view if this were to occur, certainly for the western suburbs, it would be absolutely catastrophic. We are short of police now. We desperately need more police, and I fear to think what a cut in the numbers we have now would do to life for many in the western suburbs.

I ask the Minister for Police and Emergency Services to give a public commitment in writing that there will be no cuts in the police budget or in police numbers, particularly in the western suburbs. Such a commitment would give a great deal of comfort, in particular to those in the west who live in fear every day of their lives.

Shire of Pyrenees: drought coordinator

Mr VOGELS (Western Victoria) — I raise an issue for the Minister for Agriculture. It concerns the need for continued funding for the Pyrenees shire’s drought coordinator.

Pyrenees shire councillor John Quinn attended a public forum on farming in the Pyrenees which was held in Avoca last week and which I hosted along with the shadow Minister for Agriculture and shadow minister for country water resources, Peter Walsh, the member for Swan Hill in the Assembly. Cr Quinn expressed the council’s concern that state government funding for its drought coordinator position will run out on 31 July.

The government has failed to provide any security or make any announcement about the future of this funding. The drought coordinator, who is providing an increasingly valuable service to farmers across the shire, is living with uncertainty. Despite the drought conditions continuing to impact upon farmers across western Victoria, we do not know whether this position will continue to be funded.

Anyone with a history in farming knows that the impacts of drought do not end with the first rain in autumn or winter. Recovery takes a long time, and rural councils will still need to provide support and coordination services to help their farming communities. It is intolerable that the Shire of Pyrenees, whose municipality is within the electorate of the Minister for Agriculture, cannot get a straight answer from the government as to whether this funding will be extended or terminated in July.

My request is for the Minister for Agriculture to advise the Pyrenees Shire Council within the next week as to whether funding for the council’s drought coordinator position will be extended beyond July 2009 or whether the government will terminate that job.

ADJOURNMENT


Hallam Road, Hampton Park: upgrade

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Roads and Ports. It relates to the much-needed upgrade of Hallam Road between Pound and Fordham roads, Hampton Park.

As the Minister for Industry and Trade, who is at the table, would no doubt be aware, given his previous role as Parliamentary Secretary for Transport, Hallam Road is a significant north–south connector in the Hampton Park area. In 1988 it was recognised as a priority road that needed upgrading in the strategic infrastructure planning study jointly carried out by the local council and the previous state government. In the 10 years since that study was prepared, the work still has not been undertaken.

Some work has been done around that section of road, which has actually further exacerbated the traffic congestion. At the Pound Road end a signalised intersection has been completed. It is set up to allow for a dual carriageway off the Hallam Road arms of the intersection. Likewise, at Fordham Road a set of traffic lights has been installed to allow for dual carriageway traffic. The difficulty is that these two dual carriageway intersections funnel into a single carriageway section of road for roughly 400 metres. This means that during morning and evening peak hours there are two lanes from each direction funnelling into a single lane, which has created massive traffic congestion.

The section of road that requires upgrading is only 400 metres long, and the upgrade would largely remove the congestion associated with this problem. VicRoads has identified a possible source of funding — that is, the claimed $1.2 billion outer metropolitan arterial roads program, which was announced or I think reannounced in the latest transport plan at the end of last year.

What I seek from the Minister for Roads and Ports is an undertaking that he will assign priority to this project in the allocations that will be announced in the May budget to ensure that this 400-metre stretch of roadway is upgraded as a dual carriageway, using the funds that were allocated in the transport plan last November.

Bushfires: clean-up program

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) — My adjournment matter is for the attention of the Premier. It follows representations from a farmer in Labertouche and other farmers who have been affected by the bushfires in my electorate of Eastern Victoria Region.

In particular it deals with Grocon, as the government-appointed contractor, and the release from any liability that Grocon, on behalf of the government, requests all landowners to sign before any bushfire-related recovery works can be conducted on private property.

I understand that Grocon and the state government, as the author of the release from liability, clearly want to protect their interests with regard to any potential litigation or recovery proceeding flowing from works done on private land. The concern that the constituent who contacted me has, as do others, is that the release is a complete release from any liability.

This issue revolves around apportionment of responsibility with regard to any potential litigation or any damage that may flow from works that are done on private property. Clearly the contractor wishes to protect itself and the government wishes to protect itself — and that is reasonable. But what is potentially unreasonable is that the release that has been drafted is a total release, regardless of any negligence on behalf of the contractors in question.

Grocon is the head contractor, but it has engaged a number of subcontractors. Whilst no doubt every effort will be made for the works to be done in a fit and proper manner, given the number of subcontractors involved, no-one can guarantee that errors will not be made in works conducted and that some unintended destruction of property will not occur. I do not think it is reasonable for the government, through its contractors, to be absolved from any and all liability for works they conduct on private land.

I would suggest to the Premier that it is reasonable that liability be limited where there has been no negligence, but if a contractor has engaged in actions that are deemed to be negligent, then that contractor, and through it the head contractor, and through it the government, should be held accountable. I seek the Premier’s review of this issue as a matter of urgency.

Lake Connewarre: management plan

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — My matter on the adjournment debate tonight is for the attention of the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. It concerns Lake Connewarre on the Bellarine Peninsula, an important lake and important part of the estuarine complex that runs into that area at Barwon Heads. Lake Connewarre is an important site and a sensitive site. It is a Ramsar-listed site and is part of a larger Ramsar-listed complex of lakes and waterways.

ADJOURNMENT


I was honoured to visit Lake Connewarre last Friday with a member for Western Victoria Region, David Koch, where we met with around 40 of the local residents and supporters of Lake Connewarre. It is a lake that this government has allowed to deteriorate significantly. To be fair to the current government, the deterioration has gone on for many years, but it has begun to accelerate and the community around the lake and on the Bellarine Peninsula is very concerned about the situation there.

I am also aware of the involvement of a number of government agencies which the minister oversees. I note that on 9 June 2006 the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority (CMA) adopted a position statement on the Lake Connewarre complex. That position statement, as given in the board meeting minutes, concludes:

Current actions

Corangamite CMA will continue to work with DSE, Parks Victoria the member for Bellarine, Lisa Neville, and other stakeholders to monitor lake condition and complete the Lake Connewarre values project.

This slow dithering by the minister, Lisa Neville, who is the member for Bellarine in the Assembly and a member of the committee, and by the government agencies has been going on for three years. There has been a complete failure to finish the value study and a related social value study and to make a decision about what will happen with the lake. Meanwhile, the lake is silting up. There is massive weed growth because of the flow of effluent and so forth from higher up. There is also a loss of fish life and a loss and threat to bird life. As I said, this is a Ramsar-listed site and is internationally significant.

At that meeting I undertook to write to the federal minister about the Ramsar implications, but the fundamental responsibility rests with state agencies and with the state minister. Parks Victoria has a management role, as does the catchment management authority. This situation cannot go on. The lake needs to have a rescue plan put in place, and it needs to happen quickly. I ask that the Minister for Environment and Climate Change hurry this process along and put in place a process to save the lake to ensure that this asset is not lost.

Responses

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade) — Ms Lovell raised a matter for the Minister for Health. She specifically asked for the announcement of a site for the Bendigo Hospital redevelopment and consequently asked ministers to stop teasing the

Bendigo community. I will pass that matter on to the Minister for Health.

Ms Darveniza raised a matter for the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Youth Affairs with regard to funding for the redevelopment of a skate park at Barr Reserve, Wangaratta. I will pass that on to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Youth Affairs.

Mr Koch raised a matter for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services regarding what Mr Koch says is the unfair manner in which the fire services levy is collected. He asked the minister to re-examine that funding model, and I will pass that matter on to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services.

Ms Pennicuik raised a matter for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change and requested that he delay the release of the final management plan for the Devilbend Natural Features Reserve. I will pass that on to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change.

Ms Broad raised a matter for the Minister for Health. She asked him to provide additional funding for the upgrade of medical equipment throughout various parts of her electorate, and I will pass that matter on to the Minister for Health.

Mr Philip Davis raised a matter for the Minister for Roads and Ports. He asked for the approval process for the flood proofing of the highway between Sale and Longford to be expedited. I will pass that matter on to the Minister for Roads and Ports.

Mr Barber raised a matter for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. He asked that the minister reassess the conservation and carbon storage value of East Gippsland old-growth forests in the context of the apparently greater age of the trees in that forest.

Mr Theophanous raised a matter for the Minister Assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs. He asked the minister to assist the Greek community in applications for further funding from, amongst others, the federal government regarding the Hellenic Centre in Melbourne.

Mrs Coote raised a matter for the Minister for Water regarding sporting activities in her electorate, and particularly in regard to additional funding for such things as synthetic turf on sporting fields in that electorate. I question whether that should more properly have been put to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Youth Affairs, who I believe is responsible for matters such as the provision of synthetic turf. However, in the spirit of cooperation I will pass the matter on to the

ADJOURNMENT


Minister for Water, although I am not convinced that it is his ministerial responsibility.

Mrs Peulich raised a matter for the Minister for Small Business regarding a query raised by a constituent, Mr Graham Jackson, who has issues with the Retail Leases Act. In effect she has asked for a review of all of the rules that apply to small businesses. She asked for that matter to be expedited in the current economic climate. I will pass that on to the Minister for Small Business.

Mr Finn is now going to seek to take credit for matters in the state budget, and he has asked for a public commitment in writing that there will be no cut in the police budget by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. I should put on the record, as many ministers have done before in adjournment debates, that ministers do not give commitments about matters in the budget prior to the budget being released.


Hon. M. P. PAKULA — I say to Mr Finn that I am sure that will be the response he will get from the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, but I will pass it on to him anyway.

Mr Vogels raised a matter for the Minister for Agriculture, asking that funding be extended beyond July 2009 for the drought coordinator of the Shire of Pyrenees, and I will pass that matter on to the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr Rich-Phillips raised a matter for the Minister for Roads and Ports, asking that priority be assigned under the outer metropolitan arterial roads program for a 400-metre section of Hallam Road between Pound Road and Fordham Road in Hampton Park. I will pass that matter on to the Minister for Roads and Ports.

Mr O’Donohue raised a matter for the Premier, asking for a review of the nature of the legal release from liability that is being provided to landowners who are having their properties cleared by Grocon or its subcontractors under the government’s provision of that land-clearing job. Again I am not certain that that is being directed to the responsible minister, but as requested by Mr O’Donohue I will pass it on to the Premier.

Finally, Mr David Davis raised a matter for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, asking that a rescue plan be put in place by the minister for Lake Connewarre, and I will pass that on to the relevant minister.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The house now stands adjourned.

House adjourned 5.37 p.m. until Wednesday, 6 May.

1860 COUNCIL

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) · residence between 10.00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. Monday to Sunday. The...

Documents

Transcript of PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) · residence between 10.00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. Monday to Sunday. The...