PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)€¦ · Kew Residential Services: site development.....2650 Land...

PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-SIXTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

Wednesday, 3 June 2009

(Extract from book 7)

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

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, 3 JUNE 2009

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT (EMPLOYEE PROTECTION) BILL Introduction and first reading...................................2561

LAW REFORM COMMITTEE Membership...............................................................2561

ROAD SAFETY COMMITTEE Membership...............................................................2561

PETITIONS Gaming: poker machines ..........................................2561 Police: Ashburton......................................................2562 Planning: growth areas infrastructure

contribution ...........................................................2562 Patient transport assistance scheme: rural

access ....................................................................2562 PAPERS..........................................................................2562 MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Students: youth allowance ........................................2562 Victorian College of the Arts and Music:

courses...................................................................2563 Courage to Care exhibition ......................................2563 Sylvia Gelman ...........................................................2563 City of Brimbank: community safety forum..............2563 Darebin: skate park...................................................2564 Cycling: Hurstbridge–Bundoora track.....................2564 Graffiti: removal .......................................................2564 Building One Victoria: public sector comment........2564 Cycling: Murray to Mountain rail trail ....................2564 Flemington: neighbourhood renewal project...........2565 Women’s Planning Network .....................................2565 Horsham: Reconciliation Week ceremony ...............2565 Schools: Eastern Metropolitan Region.....................2565

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA................................................2566 MINISTER FOR PLANNING: CONDUCT ............2570, 2595 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Minister for Planning: conduct.................................2584 Rail: V/Locity program .............................................2585 Crown Casino: gaming expansion .......2586, 2588, 2589 Information and communications technology:

government investment .........................................2587 Drought: government initiatives...............................2589 Economy: government performance...............2590, 2591 Planning: Maribyrnong ............................................2591 Planning: growth areas infrastructure

contribution .................................................2592, 2593 Climate change: government initiatives ...................2594

ALPINE RESORT AREAS REVIEW: PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ............................................................2633

FAIR WORK (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL Introduction and first reading...................................2634

BUDGET PAPERS 2009–10 ............................................2634 PRIMARY INDUSTRIES LEGISLATION

AMENDMENT BILL Council’s amendments ..............................................2649

ADJOURNMENT Local government: elections..................................... 2649 Kew Residential Services: site development ............ 2650 Land Victoria: electronic conveyancing .................. 2650 Western Victoria Region: health services ................ 2651 Buses: Bendigo ......................................................... 2651 City of Greater Geelong: councillors....................... 2651 Road safety: booster seats ........................................ 2652 Crime: Southern Metropolitan Region..................... 2652 Crib Point: bitumen plant......................................... 2653 Responses .................................................................. 2653

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT (EMPLOYEE PROTECTION) BILL

Wednesday, 3 June 2009 COUNCIL 2561

Wednesday, 3 June 2009

The PRESIDENT (Hon. R. F. Smith) took the chair at 9.34 a.m. and read the prayer.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT (EMPLOYEE

PROTECTION) BILL

Introduction and first reading

Received from Assembly.

Read first time on motion of Mr LENDERS (Treasurer).

LAW REFORM COMMITTEE

Membership

The PRESIDENT announced receipt of letter from Mr Edward O’Donohue, MLC, tendering his resignation as a member of the committee.

ROAD SAFETY COMMITTEE

Membership

The PRESIDENT announced receipt of letter from Mr Terry Mulder, MP, tendering his resignation as a member of the committee.

PETITIONS

Following petitions presented to house:

Gaming: poker machines

To the Legislative Council of Victoria:

The petition of certain citizens of the state of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the objection of the members and management of clubs and the communities they serve, to proposed legislative changes controlling the entitlements to gaming machines, which will be detrimental to the community, shifting gaming machines from not-for-profit sporting, RSL and social community clubs, to corporate entities.

The petitioners contend that the proposed legislative changes are likely to lead to a greater concentration of ownership of gaming machines, rather than a more competitive environment to the detriment of the industry and the community, undermining efforts to reduce problem gambling and forcing job losses and a reduction in activities, facilities and community support programs funded by the club sector.

The petitioners therefore request that the legislation be amended to include:

1. minimum 75 per cent entitlements for clubs that currently have machines, with the remaining 25 per cent subject to the proposed auction process;

2. a limit on the concentration of ownership of club entitlements of 420 entitlements and four venues;

3. a tax system based on venue revenue, not revenue per machine;

4. provisions that protect club access in each local government area to ensure that hotels do not take up all available entitlements in any area; and

5. bidding for club entitlements to be restricted to genuine local community clubs.

By Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) (583 signatures).

Laid on table.

Gaming: poker machines


The petition of certain citizens of the state of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the objection of the members and management of clubs and the communities they serve, to proposed legislative changes controlling the entitlements to gaming machines, which will be detrimental to the community, shifting gaming machines from not-for-profit sporting, RSL and social community clubs to corporate entities.

The petitioners contend that the proposed legislative changes are likely to lead to a greater concentration of ownership of gaming machines, rather than a more competitive environment to the detriment of the industry and the community, undermining efforts to reduce problem gambling and forcing job losses and a reduction in activities, facilities and community support programs funded by the club sector.

The petitioners therefore request that the legislation be amended to include:

1. A minimum of 75 per cent entitlements for clubs that currently have machines, with the remaining 25 per cent subject to the proposed auction process.

2. A limit on the concentration of ownership of club entitlements to 420 entitlements and four venues.

3. A tax system based on venue revenue, not revenue per machine.

4. Provisions that protect club access in each local government area to ensure that a ratio of 50 per cent hotels and 50 per cent clubs be enshrined in legislation.

5. Bidding for club entitlements to be restricted to local community clubs.

By Mr KOCH (Western Victoria) (822 signatures).

Laid on table.

PAPERS

2562 COUNCIL Wednesday, 3 June 2009

Police: Ashburton

To the Honourable the President and members of the Legislative Council assembled in Parliament:

The petition of certain citizens of the state of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the Victorian government’s massive cutback in services at the Ashburton police station.

We oppose the massive reduction in service at the Ashburton police station, the removal of police from the local area and call on the Victorian state government to reverse their decision and restore all officers to the Ashburton police station.

By Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (81 signatures).

Laid on table.

Planning: growth areas infrastructure contribution


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

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

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

By Mrs PETROVICH (Northern Victoria) (315 signatures).

Laid on table.

Patient transport assistance scheme: rural access

To the Honourable the President and members of the Legislative Council assembled in Parliament:

The petition of certain citizens of the state of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the issues involved with the Victorian patient transport assistance scheme (VPTAS), through the Department of Human Services and the effort that Alpine Health community and health advisory groups have made to ask for changes in the eligibility requirements.

Many people are disadvantaged rurally under the current scheme. The Alpine shire community does not have a public transport system which provides access to our regional

specialist health providers. Currently, the requirements of the VPTAS state that travel to the nearest medical or dental specialists be more than 100 kilometres (one way). This is unjust.

The financial and emotional costs associated with specific oncology visits and other specialist treatment creates increased hardships for rural patients, and at times it jeopardises the continuation of treatment for rural people with financial difficulties.

Your petitioners therefore request that the government update and revise the Victorian patient transport assistance scheme (VPTAS) regulations from 100 kilometres to 50 kilometres one way and/or to the nearest town centre that offers medical/dental specialist treatment. We also request a better level of support by increasing the current reimbursement rate of 17 cents per kilometre, and increasing the accommodation reimbursement rate from $35 plus GST to a level that is more reflective of the current travel and accommodation costs.

By Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (84 signatures).

Laid on table.

PAPERS

Laid on table by Clerk:

Auditor-General —

Report on Claims Management by the Victorian WorkCover Authority, June 2009.

Report on Governance and Fraud Control within Selected Adult Education Agencies, June 2009.

Report on Withdrawal of Infringement Notices, June 2009.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Students: youth allowance

Mr VOGELS (Western Victoria) — I am very concerned about the recent changes made by the federal government to the youth allowance scheme. These changes will greatly impact students across Australia, especially those from rural and regional Victoria. The changes will force school leavers to take a two-year gap between secondary school and university, in which they will need to work 30 hours per week for 18 months in order to qualify for the independent rate of the youth allowance.

Unlike city students who are able to live at home while they study, most country students have no choice but to reside in Melbourne or regional centres for study. Without the youth allowance many country students will be denied a university education as they and their

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


families will struggle to pay essential living expenses such as rent, food, bills and transport.

The federal Rudd Labor government is also replacing the commonwealth accommodation scholarships — CAS as they are known — with new eligibility criteria. Currently a CAS provides an annual payment of $4324 for up to four years for eligible students living away from home. It will be replaced by a relocation allowance of $4000 in the first year, which is then cut by 75 per cent to $1000 per annum thereafter. The silence from state Labor on this issue is deafening. It proves that now we have a federal Labor government in the form of the Rudd government, the Brumby government is Labor first and Victoria second. These changes will unfairly burden young Victorians, especially those from country Victoria, in undertaking higher education to build their careers.

Victorian College of the Arts and Music: courses

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — On 12 March this year we debated the Melbourne University Amendment Bill. In that debate I raised the fears of students, staff and supporters that the Victorian College of the Arts and its unique programs would not mesh well with the Melbourne University model. The 2005 heads of agreement covering the amalgamation gave assurances that the VCA would retain its status, reputation and its distinct identity and that there would be no changes to its funding without consultation.

However, it is reported that the schools of dance, drama and production will be merged into a single school of performing arts. The school of film and television has been downgraded to ‘a series of programs’ with its future undecided. The school of music has been amalgamated with the university’s music department, as reflected in the recent renaming of the VCA as the VCAM (Victorian College of the Arts and Music), and the schools of music theatre and puppetry have been suspended.

These changes and the loss of at least 12 casual staff seem to be contrary to the earlier assurances. There are real fears that further changes of this sort will see the remaining VCA schools subsumed into a conventional undergraduate fine arts degree rather than the unique, specialist courses that the VCA is known for. I am concerned that recent developments amount to an increasing loss of identity for the VCA, and will be seeking a meeting with the dean of the faculty of the VCA and music, Professor Pretty, in coming weeks to discuss these issues.

Courage to Care exhibition

Ms HUPPERT (Southern Metropolitan) — On 10 May I was privileged to attend and open the Courage to Care exhibition at the Jewish Museum of Australia in Alma Road, St Kilda. Courage to Care is a travelling exhibition and education program which tells the stories of people who, at great risk to themselves, their families and their communities, saved the lives of Jewish people during the Holocaust. The aim of the program is to demonstrate, particularly to school students, the dangers of intolerance and racism and the important role played by those who do not accept intolerance but stand up for the rights of others — to show that each one of us can make a difference.

I particularly want to mention the volunteers who make Courage to Care possible. They play an important role in creating the type of society we want to live in, where the diverse groups which comprise our society can live in harmony, free from the threat of discrimination and vilification.

Sylvia Gelman

Ms HUPPERT — I recently attended a 90th birthday party in honour of Sylvia Gelman, AM, MBE. Sylvia, a maths and science teacher by profession, has worked for many different community causes over the years. She was awarded a medal of the Order of Australia in 2003 for service to the community, particularly through organisations concerned with issues affecting women.

She was president of the Victorian chapter of the National Council of Women of Australia in 1986 and was on the board of the YWCA from 1990 to 1994. Sylvia was also president of the National Council of Jewish Women of Australia from 1973 to 1979, and is an honorary life member of the executive of the International Council of Jewish Women. Despite her years, she continues to work tirelessly for a number of different community causes. She is a great example to all of us.

City of Brimbank: community safety forum

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) — Last week I had the unbounded pleasure of attending the Brimbank City Council for a meeting with a number of community leaders. I am delighted to say that not only was I there but Ms Hartland was there, there were representatives of the police force — two inspectors and a superintendent — there were representatives of Connex and even the Department of Transport, and a number of representatives of a wide range of

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


community groups were there. This is a major issue in Brimbank. Safety has taken off as a major concern as a result of the rising tide of violence on the streets of Brimbank and in particular Sunshine.

Mrs Peulich — And in council chambers!

Mr FINN — And in council chambers from time to time, I have to say. This was a particularly important meeting. It staggered and disgusted me that not one local Labor MP deigned to attend this meeting. Here is something we can actually do to give people proper protection. Where were the Labor MPs? They were probably out the back counting their numbers, but they certainly were not at the meeting. It proves yet again that the Labor Party has total contempt for the people of the western suburbs and for the people of Brimbank. I just ask the question: how can we expect a fair go from government when local Labor MPs will not give us the respect we deserve?

Darebin: skate park

Mr ELASMAR (Northern Metropolitan) — I was briefed recently about a new skateboard and youth recreation park for the city of Darebin. The new park will be constructed in T. W. Blake Park in East Preston. A feasibility study was conducted by Darebin council and, of over 3200 households and local traders of the park who took part in the survey, an astonishing 75 per cent supported the plan. Young people need proper venues for planned activities.

Cycling: Hurstbridge–Bundoora track

Mr ELASMAR — On another matter, the state Labor government and local councils Darebin and Banyule, together with La Trobe University, have jointly funded and opened a new cycling and walking track between the Hurstbridge railway line and the university’s Bundoora campus. At a cost of $490 000 the path provides a transport alternative and will help to protect our fragile environment.

Graffiti: removal

Mr ELASMAR — On another matter, graffiti kits provided by Hume council have saved residents an estimated $36 000 and removed 1600 square metres of graffiti. I was informed by council that a survey of residents found that more than 75 per cent of those who have received the graffiti kits have not had any further damage to their properties. I congratulate Hume council on this wonderful result.

Building One Victoria: public sector comment

Mr DALLA-RIVA (Eastern Metropolitan) — The government, with its usual spin doctors, has put out its Building One Victoria magazine. I always look forward to its release. The latest one, issue 10, asks, ‘Central Melbourne: what does the future hold?’. You would expect people would comment, but in the magazine a variety of people express their views. The article says:

With this in mind Building One Victoria asked five prominent Melburnians what they think of their city, what they like and their dreams for its future.

Who were they? We had Bronwyn Pike, MP, a prominent Melburnian. It got worse. We had Jim Betts, the Secretary of the Department of Transport. Hang on, we have a department secretary, who is employed by the government, giving his view about what he thinks is great about Melbourne. That is fine, but I thought it was important to go to the code of conduct for Victorian public sector employees. The code of conduct makes it very clear when making public comment that ‘such comment is restricted to factual information and avoids the expression of personal opinion’. Reading the document it looks as if the Labor spin doctors have been writing on his behalf. It is an absolute disgrace that a department secretary is doing the bidding of government when he should be out there building and supporting the transport network.

Cycling: Murray to Mountain rail trail

Ms DARVENIZA (Northern Victoria) — I was very pleased several weeks ago on Thursday, 14 May, to turn the sod to mark the construction of the Murray link section of the Murray to Mountain rail trail from Wahgunyah to Rutherglen. The Murray to Mountain rail trail is a very popular project. It is a government-supported project which has also generated great enthusiasm from businesses and community and tourism bodies in that region. Without a doubt the Murray to Mountain rail trail is a success at every level — economically, socially and environmentally.

It will be even more so once we see this section of the Murray to Mountain rail trail completed with the 9 kilometres that make up the Murray link section of the trail. It will provide new opportunities for families to be able to get together and have a lot of fun, whether they are riding their bikes or walking. It is going to be recreational, and it will be a boost to wine-based tourism and to new environmentally friendly transport links for residents.

The Murray links will connect with tourism infrastructure in Corowa, New South Wales, via the

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


John Foord and Federation bridges. It will boost tourism by increasing a range of activities for all visitors.

Flemington: neighbourhood renewal project

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — On 29 May I was pleased to attend a launch by the Minister for Housing, Richard Wynne; and the Minister for Education, the member for Melbourne, Bronwyn Pike, at the Flemington public housing estate as the site of a new neighbourhood renewal project. On behalf of my constituents, I congratulate the Minister for Housing for this important announcement. This year’s budget included a $17.18 million funding boost for neighbourhood renewal projects for the next four years, which includes this new project in Flemington.

Neighbourhood renewal projects bring together a range of resources and ideas to narrow the gap between the most disadvantaged communities in Victoria and the rest of the state. They have proven outcomes in creating more jobs, improving public housing properties and community infrastructure, reducing crime, improving health and wellbeing and community participation.

Women’s Planning Network

Ms MIKAKOS — On 28 May I had the pleasure of launching the Women’s Planning Network report and film entitled From Accidental Planner to Agent Provocateur: 60 Years of Women in Victorian Planning. The report and film highlight and celebrate the great contribution that women have made to planning in Victoria over the past 60 years.

The Women’s Planning Network is celebrating its 15th year and is committed to encouraging women to take up challenges and seize opportunities that arise from our growing state. Many women have cultivated a fine reputation in planning and urban development, with Roz Hansen and Dimity Reed both having been recognised through inclusion in the Victorian Honour Roll of Women in the area of planning and architecture.

The report focuses on the personal stories of a number of prominent women planners: women like Jane Monk, Renate Howe, Lecki Ord, Helen Gibson, Chris Gallagher, Kathy Mitchell and Barbara Norman, among others. These women all serve as an inspiration to young women planners.

Horsham: Reconciliation Week ceremony

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria) — It was a pleasure to be in Horsham on Friday, 29 May to attend the official unveiling of the traditional landowners

plaque and Welcome to Country ceremony at the Wimmera Health Care Group. The plaque acknowledges the Wimmera region as the traditional home of five indigenous peoples: the Wotjobaluk, Wergaia, Jaadwa, Jadawadjali and the Jupagulk people. The artwork on the plaque is that of Wojobaluk elder Aunty Nancy Harrison. Ms Gail Harradine, the co-chair of Delkaia Aboriginal Best Start partnership, described the artwork which depicts two fish and a turtle, and is done in the line style of a form found throughout the Wimmera.

The work is informed by the Wimmera River, bush tucker and the influence of missionaries and life on Antwerp reserve. Wimmera Health Care Group chair, Bonnie Thompson, and chief executive officer, Chris Scott, both spoke at the ceremony, and in doing so acknowledged the traditional owners of the land, the importance of the day to them, to the Wimmera Health Care Group and to the region. They also acknowledged the significant contribution to the region made by the traditional owner groups.

Mr Sandy Hodge of the Barengi Gadjin Land Council indicated during the ceremony that it was Reconciliation Week, and in doing so paid a special tribute to the role of the indigenous community. The event finished fittingly with a smoking ceremony and a traditional dance depicting the creation of the land, animals and people by Bonjoo.

Schools: Eastern Metropolitan Region

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan) — I would like to congratulate two schools in the electorate I represent: Pembroke Secondary School and Kent Park Primary School. Kent Park recently finished a fantastic capital works project including 10 new classrooms with quite innovative and modern education facilities which children need for the future.

Pembroke Secondary College was granted $10.4 million in the state budget to renovate and modernise two of its three campuses. It is fantastic news, following the great work done by the school community, in particular by the principal. I have discussed this issue a number of times, and along with the principal and the rest of the community, I was delighted when the Minister for Education came out to the school recently and announced the $10.4 million grant.

As a member of the Road Safety Committee I am a little sad to hear that the member for Polwarth in the Assembly, Terry Mulder, has had to resign from the committee. I have not always agreed with him, but I

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA


have enjoyed his input. I understand that he needs to free up his time to shore up the numbers to finally roll the defunct Baillieu-David Davis leadership, and I wish him the best in his endeavours.

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA

Debate resumed from 6 May; motion of Mr HALL (Eastern Victoria):

That this house acknowledges the tragic impact of the recent bushfires on many Victorians and Victorian communities and notes the role and responsibilities of the state government and the royal commission in the aftermath of the fires.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — This is a continuation of a previous contribution I was making when we ran out of time last sitting Wednesday. The slight difficulty I have now is that in the interim the royal commission has commenced, and this is a motion to provide an opportunity to suggest which matters the royal commission should examine. A number of the matters that I was going to put forward and explain at length have already been picked up by the royal commission, and I am quite pleased about that. I am not proposing to provide a running commentary on the progress of the commission so far; however, as I have previously said, it is doing a very good job. I have read all the transcripts up until about a week ago, and I will continue to do so and to take great interest in the picture that is emerging.

In my contribution last time I was finishing up discussion of the issue of fuel reduction burning. The Victorian National Parks Association claims that only 1 per cent of fuel reduction burns escape inadvertently, which is a good safety record by the standards of any hazardous activity. Re-lit fuel reduction burns are also a source of ignition, and inevitably that will increase as we run more burns, particularly as, I have argued, these burns need to be for asset protection and closer to towns. In many cases we could be burning all the way up to people’s back fences.

It is my view that it is up to the residents of each town as a community to understand and accept the risks associated with the way fuel reduction burns are being conducted and managed. Clearly most citizens do not get involved in that process despite the Department of Sustainability and Environment having had a three-year role in the process of fire operations plans. You can go to a website, you can download the information, you can understand what areas are planned to be burnt and when, and there are opportunities for public input into that process. But that is a common problem with all sorts of community plans. Whether it be health,

education, community services or urban and built form, the things that people value most about their community are often put down on paper by authorities, but people do not always participate in that process.

Of course in any community there are going to be differences of opinion and perspective. A town like Marysville, for example, lived off the tourist trade with its features of tall trees and wet gullies. Blackened landscapes and smoke from fires over Easter would have been a turnoff for many tourists. In the Yarra Valley winemakers are a big part of the tourism industry, but they are also affected by air pollution. You can read about that in reports by the Australian government’s Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation. It has done a study on the impact of smoke on the process of making wine. In any community there is going to be a diversity of views, and it is our job as politicians to know how to listen and how to build consensus and then to strike the right balance. The blaming that has been going on is probably inevitable, but it makes our job a lot harder, and I believe bumper sticker slogans do not contribute anything.

There is also the issue of fuel reduction on private land, and in certain landscapes this is going to have to be addressed; no-one seems to want to grasp the nettle. This was put to the parliamentary Environment and Natural Resources Committee, which listed it as a recommendation but did not map out a detailed response or a way forward.

I have driven and flown the path of the Kilmore fire from north-west to south-east, to the point where it was at its most intense just before the wind change turned it. This fire started in grassland, burnt through private plantations and jumped what you would have thought was a reasonable fire break: the Hume Highway. It then burnt through many square kilometres of farmland and private bushland; it tragically killed many people and destroyed many homes before it ever reached the Kinglake National Park.

You would not know it, though, from the almost total emphasis on apportioning blame to public land. This blame started while the fires were still burning and came from people who could not possibly have understood the circumstances of the fire. I am talking about the ill-informed comments of Senator Ron Boswell in Queensland, who pronounced what the cause was and what to do about it. It seemed like he was talking about a fire other than the one we in Victoria experienced and suffered from.

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA


When the royal commission proceeds to that part of its investigation we will learn more about the exact timing and actions taken in the first attack on that Kilmore fire, which is quite important. Claims have been made that on Ash Wednesday the vast majority of fires were extinguished very quickly, even under those conditions. The amount and arrangement of fuel held in those plantations on the highway west of Kilmore is absolutely diabolical, but now being private land — they were formerly government-owned plantations — I understand they are the responsibility of the Country Fire Authority at first attack. But the CFA is simply not equipped to attack a fire of that type in these conditions.

You could not imagine a more diabolical arrangement of fuel than that which you see in a pine plantation, with the quantity and arrangement of that fuel vertically providing the worst possible fire conditions. I believe the particular fuel hazards associated with timber plantations on private land warrant special rules and arrangements.

But once we start contemplating a mechanism for managing fuel on private land as part of the district-wide plan that examines the hazards, if you like, blind to the different tenures and looking only at biophysical features, the implications just keep getting bigger. A whole new suite of laws would be required, and they would have to be carefully balanced against the rights of private land-holders. An agency responsible for carrying out those activities would need to have cooperative agreements with land-holders.

There are some powers around this in the existing CFA act, and I hope that yet another inquiry in the form of the royal commission does not simply flag the issue and then turn away, because by focusing solely on public land, at least as far as my electorate is concerned, we miss more than half the picture.

This brings us to the issue of land use controls. We have had high population growth in forested and rural areas, and that has quite simply put more people in harm’s way. Reflecting on Mr Davis’s comments about the royal commission into the 1939 fires, there has probably never been a time since, perhaps, World War II when there have been as many people living right in the forest. In those days it was about timber communities and an industry operating right next to the trees they were cutting. These days it is a combination of the tree change phenomenon and the economic growth that regional areas have experienced which has brought more people into those areas.

In fact, between the 2001 and 2006 censuses, a mere five-year period, the population of Kinglake grew by

400, which was a 35 per cent increase; and Yarra Glen’s grew by 252, which was a 22 per cent increase. Across many of the other smaller hamlets in that broad arc from Kinglake West down to Upper Beaconsfield, a 5 per cent to 10 per cent growth in population in just a five-year period was quite common.

What this fire showed us is that entire regions can be consumed in just a few hours. I think the idea of wildfire management overlays (WMOs) for certain locations in a municipality is now redundant. We are talking about fires that can take out entire landscapes across a number of municipalities in just a few hours. If you go back and read the panel reports associated with past WMO amendments, it is clear they were not contemplating anything like what we have just seen.

That is not the fault of the municipalities. The practice note issued by the state government is what guided them, and they duly complied. The panel set up to look at the amendments checked that they complied with the practice note, and the CFA gave its advice according to the same set of criteria. The combination of that limited approach and the contribution — not that I am downplaying it — of a bit of local knowledge from the CFA is no longer sufficient to deal with a fire that can move so far and so fast.

I note also that a number of shires, including Wellington, Alpine and South Gippsland, do not yet have WMOs, and I believe they are all attracting their fair share of population growth. If the view of the real estate agents are anything to go by, they are becoming desirable places where people can go and live close to the bush.

While I believe the overlays need to be expanded, I do not think creating a few more building requirements or regulations is sufficient. It is the zoning and subdivision controls that ultimately decide or determine what activities are allowed and how many persons are likely to be in harm’s way. The Greens’ long-running criticism concerns the number of possible activities covered under section 2, which deals with ‘permit required’, over many of the zones. Councils are then left with little ability to control accommodation, industry and infrastructure activities, as well as residential homes being built in these areas.

For this first list of activities, the complexities of other issues such as ‘stay or go’ become even greater. Perhaps residents could develop the necessary skills and knowledge over time to make decisions about their own households, but when a fire is bearing down on a winery where 200 guests are attending a wedding or some such similar event, what exactly is the plan?

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA


The regional fire modelling ability I mentioned earlier could become the basic input for land use planning, but as always with the Victorian planning provisions we have state governments, whether they be Labor or Liberal, standing by the almost-anything-goes approach of planning rules which neither say what they mean nor mean what they say. Councils are stuck with a limited, state-determined set of planning tools, and the process of changing the scheme is just torturous.

On building controls, the royal commission should get to the bottom of what went on in the building standards board, with the government’s newly adopted bushfire code and why experts such as the CSIRO are saying it is actually a weakening of the code in some areas. When it comes to standards needed to improve accessibility or sustainability of buildings the building industry usually gets its way, and it seems it has prevailed again. The government has gone from saying that it is the toughest standard possible to — after these revelations from the CSIRO — calling it the toughest standard available.

While it is at it, the royal commission should call the Victorian Association of Forest Industries — which has been bleating about not having been called — to ask it what role it played in watering down the standard, because it was straight out of the gate in applauding it when it first appeared, which suggests it knew the fix was in. Everything we do for sustainability we also do for bushfire protection. For example, there are strategies such as catching rainwater for home and firefighting supply; covering windows for radiant heat, whether from daily sun or from a bushfire; sitting houses on ground-connected slabs, which achieves both ember exclusion and thermal mass; and distributed energy systems to reduce the vulnerability of households to blackouts.

On this subject, let us kill off the furphy of clearing trees to protect homes. Trees around your home make very little difference to fire risk. Ground fuel, undergrowth and other sources of heat load such as woodpiles and outbuildings make a huge difference. That was understood by Dr Andrew Sullivan decades ago when he created the CSIRO bushfire house survival meter. Standing trees, providing they are not leaning over your home, do not make a lot of difference in his tools for calculating the probability of survival of a house. The house survival meter is still on the CSIRO website.

In fact some experts say — Kevin Tolhurst said it in his testimony to the royal commission, and I am not proposing to start quoting testimony before the royal commission in speaking to this motion — that standing

trees could reduce radiant heat, screen flying embers and reduce wind speed Wind speed, we will discover, was a very important factor in the destruction of homes that occurred during the bushfires. These understandings have been there for a long time and form the basis of the exemptions from permit requirements to remove native vegetation. The biophysical calculations that have been made going back to research by Dr Andrew Sullivan are the basis for the reasons we have the exemptions from native vegetation removal in the scheme. It is a pity more people do not understand what those exemptions are. It is a pity that people champion the cause of that individual who illegally cleared trees in the Mitchell shire, because if they chose to investigate the exact circumstances, they would find that he did not do it with an eye to fire protection; he made such a mess that he had served upon him a fuel hazard clean-up notice because of the amount of slash that he left lying around after that vandalism.

The results of scientific research which is currently under way, studying which properties survived in these fires and which did not, will reconfirm all this. The research is not yet available in a published format but probably the first place we will get to read it is when it comes before the royal commission.

I compliment the government on the priority it has given to CFA resourcing in the last budget. However, I echo the call by the United Firefighters Union of Australia for a national inquiry into the adequacy of fire services resourcing. Obviously, with more megafires inevitable, the sharing of resources across states is important. Imagine a scenario where we have multiple megafires in multiple states. This needs to be a long-term investment in people and equipment.

I had quite a bit to say on the issue of evacuation systems and the ‘stay and defend’ policy, but it is of course the first issue the royal commission addressed. On the first day of testimony, put simply, the commission called the CFA and asked, ‘Why did you not give a warning?’. The CFA said, ‘Because it is not our job’. It went straight to the heart of the matter. It is the most important and difficult of all issues — that is, the role that individuals’ decisions played in the events of this tragedy. Most of what I have talked about until now has been about various biophysical phenomena, but the role that humans played in the mix made a huge difference or was a huge variable. How official policy and action might reflect this reality is now, I think, well and truly at the front and centre of what the royal commission is addressing.

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA


If members are interested in this issue, they need to go back and read the review of the evidence for the ‘prepare, stay and defend, or leave early’ policy. This was conducted by RMIT’s Centre for Risk and Community Safety as a project for the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre, and it was done quite some time ago. It says, on my reading, that the evidence base of this idea was never as conclusive as some wanted it to be. Yes, it is self-evident that you do not want to be in the open or in your car in the middle of a firestorm. That is an easy observation to make. But the viability of this sort of binary policy — stay and defend, or go — fails to reflect the great number of variables and the great number of choices that different people will make and that the same people might make at different stages or in different circumstances, and those can change quickly. As has been now exposed in the royal commission, in this group of fires we found a much higher than normal number of people who died whilst sheltering in their homes.

I will not say any more on warning systems. I will just note that some time back the Greens brought a motion into this Parliament in relation to warning systems and how they would have been valuable in the Tottenham chemical fire, and that came out of the learnings from the Coode Island fire. All members supported that motion. As I think we have now discovered, nobody disagrees with the proposition; it has all been about the timing of implementation.

There will be enormous differences across the community about what people intend to do and what they might actually do when the fire is coming. Many of these decisions would be based on age, gender, experience and many other factors. I believe the emphasis has to be much more on ‘leave early’. I want the hero of these fires to be not the person who fought the fires or committed any other act of physical bravery but the guy who simply saw the risk, decided it was not a risk worth taking, never mind the inconvenience, got up that morning, packed his precious family into the car and got the hell out — just to get away from the risk. I say ‘he’ because there is a dramatic gender difference in attitudes to evacuation versus staying and defending, and that plays out in a very complicated way. Forthcoming research by masters student Mae Proudley in relation to the South Australian grassfires from some years ago will illustrate this to members if they choose to read it.

I have no doubt the commission will be strongly engaged with the issue of early warning systems to provide people with the information they need about the bushfire risk, not only on a given day but also in their immediate area. I do not believe anyone is talking

about forced evacuations. But when the claim is made that we do not have enough roads to evacuate people, let us model that and study that and see if that is true or just a presumption. We have fire drills for buildings. What about fire drills for towns? I am not saying everybody will participate, but such exercises could be run to develop the learnings that we might need in order to know what would happen if an evacuation was called.

Remember that what we are talking about is an increasing number of very high and extreme fire-risk days along with a steadily growing number of people living in high-risk areas. These sorts of warnings and evacuations will be an increasing burden on personal lives and local economies. The question that is quite relevant is how far to evacuate. Do I just evacuate out of the bush into a town? Into the next big town? All the way to the city? I think there was one person who spent the entire day in the air-conditioned cinema complex at Northland. How far do I have to go to be safe, and how long will I be gone? These are questions that the authorities need to answer. The answers are quite complex; it is more than just the issue of whether there should be a bunker down the road. What will be down the road for me? People who leave will be worried about when they can come back, based on this recent experience of road blockades that were there for a number of days. Who will care for their animals? Are they going to be worried about looters?

Some studies show that the decision to leave is made less on what officials say and more on what neighbours are doing. When your neighbour packs their car and comes down the street and the last thing they do is pull up in your driveway and say, ‘I’m going’, that appears to be the most effective trigger for other people to pack up and go as well. In fact the literature on evacuations is generally pretty thin. There are manuals out there on how to run an evacuation — some of those relate to floods and cyclones, which are very different phenomena — but the sociological literature on how and when people decide to leave is pretty poor. Some people will not have the capacity to leave — for example, if they do not have cars. Moving frail, elderly people could be a real problem, given that we know more than 300 people died from heatwave effects in the week prior to the fires across the state.

Imagine if this fire had occurred on a school day rather than on a weekend — a five out of seven chance. That has been raised by the royal commission already: who would have been responsible for the evacuation of schools? Official policy and action must support the decision that people are likely to make, not leave them to their own devices or pretend they will conform to

MINISTER FOR PLANNING: CONDUCT


one of two convenient types. This is by far the most complex task for the commission to examine and for the emergency services to implement. For us, as political leaders, it is a question we must answer before the next fire season. I think that puts us all under pressure, and it is the question that disturbs me most.

In conclusion, I have stated why I think the past pillars of bushfire policy should be comprehensively reviewed in light of the changing circumstances. The royal commission could recommend incremental improvements to past policies, or it could connect the dots and see the need for a complete rethink. I am hopeful it will be the latter, but, regardless, Greens members across Victoria will be part of forming that community consensus on the way forward.

Debate adjourned for Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) on motion of Mr Koch.

Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 10 June.


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

That the Minister for Planning no longer possesses the confidence of this house and this house —

(1) notes the report of the Victorian Ombudsman on an Investigation into the Alleged Improper Conduct of Councillors at Brimbank City Council tabled on 7 May 2009 and —

(a) the minister’s failure to fully answer questions put to him in this house on 7 May 2009 relating to that report;

(b) the fact that the minister misled this house in his answers to questions without notice put to him on 7 May 2009;

(c) that the minister knew of the political corruption in his office having been informed of the issues concerning Mr Hakki Suleyman through a series of questions and statements in this house between 2005 and 2008, through correspondence that he has admitted seeing which was sent to his office by the Sunshine Residents and Ratepayers Association and in a series of media reports between 2005 and 2008;

(d) that the minister allowed politically corrupt activities, including improper influence and political standover tactics, in his office to continue despite being warned; and

(2) believes that Victorians, including those in the minister’s constituency of Western Metropolitan Region, hold that it is not acceptable to condone or accept —

(a) a minister who knew about corruption in his office and failed to act;

(b) a minister who knew his staff were intimidating rather than assisting local residents and allowed it to continue unchecked;

(c) a minister whose office influenced a series of planning decisions so that community resources were reallocated in the interests of ALP mates; and

(d) a minister whose office diverted local community resources away from the community and set them up as Australian Labor Party resources, and branch head offices.

Mr Viney — On a point of order, President, I believe there are elements of this motion that are out of order. The basis for this is that having referred to Odgers where motions of lack of confidence in ministers are always in relation to the minister’s ministerial function, I alert you to the fact that paragraph 1(d) and all of paragraph (2) relate specifically to the minister’s electorate officer and the minister’s role as a member of Parliament, and do not relate in any way to the minister’s position of public office, as a holder of an executive public office position of a minister, which the confidence motion addresses. I argue that all of paragraphs (1)(d) and (2) should be removed from the motion.

Mr D. DAVIS — On the point of order, President, clearly the minister, as the Minister for Planning, administers the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The Brimbank planning scheme is administered through the minister’s activities, jointly with the council; many of these activities, including the activities in the minister’s office, relate to the planning act in that respect. People bring, as I will show in this debate, planning questions to the minister’s office on a regular basis; those matters are handled in his office and referred, or in many cases not referred.

The PRESIDENT — Order! Having taken advice and seen the history on these matters, the motion is in order and I allow the motion to continue.

Mr D. DAVIS — I thank you, President, for your ruling, and in doing so I make the point that I suspect this is the first of many points of order that will occur throughout this debate as the government tries to block and prevent exposure of its activities and the activities of its minister, the Minister for Planning, Justin Madden. I note the minister is not in the chamber to answer these questions, respond to this motion, or face the music for his years of inaction.

I start in the first instance with the Ombudsman’s report of May 2009, with which most of Victoria is now



familiar. It is worthwhile at the beginning of this debate to set it in context and to briefly summarise a number of the points made by the Ombudsman in his summary.

The Ombudsman talked about the Brimbank City Council as a dysfunctional council; he talked about the influence of unelected people and he singled out a number of people. I will give some short quotes to the house because they are salient and put this debate in a broad context of what is occurring at Brimbank, what is occurring in local government in this state and what is occurring in areas where Labor Party influence has grown massively. In this case, the subject of the motion today, it needs to be seen in this broader context but also in the specific context of the Minister for Planning’s failure to act to prevent this corruption occurring in and around his office.

The Ombudsman talked about a dysfunctional council. He talked about the influence of unelected people and said:

It became evident early in my investigation that the operation and governance of the council was influenced by individuals who held no elected local government office …

He went on to talk about a number of decisions about Keilor Lodge Reserve. The Sydenham Park Soccer Club was significantly influenced behind the scenes by individuals who had held no elected office. He talked about conflicts of interest:

I identified two instances where a councillor’s duty to a member of Parliament impacted upon the performance of the councillor’s public functions.

The Ombudsman wrote about the improper use of powers and referred to a ‘ruling faction’ at Brimbank. He said:

The ‘ruling faction’ demonstrated that it was willing to place the council at financial risk for a personal vendetta.

He talked about bullying and intimidation, and I want to come to that very specifically in the context of the Cairnlea Park facility in a club that was linked to the minister’s staffer. The Ombudsman talked about the misuse of council funds and equipment, the inappropriate release of information and the improper use of electoral information. He made a number of comments about Local Government Victoria — —

Mr Viney — Get to the motion. The motion’s about the minister.

Mr D. DAVIS — But it is very important, Mr Viney, that this be placed in a context, and it is obvious in the motion that this has been sparked in part by the Ombudsman’s important report. I congratulate

the Ombudsman on his report; this is a very important statement by the Ombudsman.

I want to now talk about Mr Hakki Suleyman, the electorate officer of the Minister for Planning, Justin Madden. Mr Madden has told us and told the people of the Victorian community that he took Mr Hakki Suleyman on when he, the minister, became a member of Parliament in 1999 — that he took him over, as it were, from another member. I want to put on the record at an early point the comments by the Ombudsman about Mr Hakki Suleyman. The Ombudsman wrote at points 145 and 146:

My investigation revealed that he has played a significant role in council business …

According to Dr A. Theophanous, Mr Suleyman is one of ‘two tough characters’ running the factions in Brimbank.

At point 150 he wrote:

In 1989, Mr Suleyman was convicted of intentionally cause injury, found armed with an offensive weapon, and assault with a weapon (three charges). Mr Suleyman was fined $5000. Intentionally cause injury is punishable upon first conviction for a term of imprisonment of up to 10 years. Mr Suleyman’s conviction would therefore have precluded him from being an elected councillor in the past, as per section 29 of the Local Government Act.

We will come to the matters surrounding Mr Suleyman’s appointment as a justice of the peace despite his criminal convictions.

It is worth putting on the record the statements of the independent Ombudsman on Mr Suleyman so we have a basis on which to conduct this debate and we understand precisely the nature of the matters we are talking about. The Ombudsman wrote at point 151:

My investigation identified that Mr Suleyman exerted significant influence in relation to council business, including decisions related to:

I) Keilor Lodge Reserve;

II) Sunshine pool;

III) Cairnlea Park allocation.

We will come to a number of these as we go forward, but again I will just put on record the brief summaries in the Ombudsman’s report. On the Sunshine pool the Ombudsman quoted his source as saying that Mr Suleyman:

‘offered to arrange a meeting between himself ... and his daughter Natalie who was Brimbank’s mayor at the time to quote: “work out a solution to the Sunshine pool problem”’.



The Ombudsman said that according to a Sunshine Residents and Ratepayers Association (SunRRA) member:

‘in the meantime SunRRA exposed the rent-free use of the council-owned Biggs Street property by the Suleyman faction’.

Consequences, as we will hear, flowed from that. On the Cairnlea Park allocation the Ombudsman wrote:

My office also received evidence that Mr Suleyman attempted to influence the council’s decision to allocate Cairnlea Park to the Albion Rovers Soccer Club, now known as the Cairnlea Soccer Club, allegedly affiliated with the Suleyman family.

It is important to get these points on the record and very clear. On these points, we have heard a series of questions in the chamber and a series of questions at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings that many sat through over the recent period. A number of members of this chamber are members of that committee and were asking questions to get to the bottom of the minister’s involvement in these matters in and around the Brimbank council and about the influence and position of his staffer, Mr Hakki Suleyman.

It is very clear from parliamentary contributions, from the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee contributions and from statements in the media over the last period that Mr Madden will not stand up and fully and adequately answer the matters. The reason he will not do so is that he is in effect caught. He is not a person who has chosen or determined to tell the truth. He knew that if he fessed up, if he admitted that he had known about many of these things occurring in and around his office and through the activities of his staffer Mr Hakki Suleyman, that would lead to a series of very difficult questions. He knew it would lead to questions of substance, to questions as to how he knew, what he did and when he did it. Instead of that he has chosen to stonewall — to give a series of excuses on occasions. Indeed on one occasion he has admitted publicly, on ABC television, that he did receive letters from the Sunshine ratepayers association, but that he dismissed those letters.

What I propose to show today is that it is not just the letters from the Sunshine ratepayers association, incredibly important though they are, that were significant; there were a myriad of other points and opportunities the minister had to correct the problems in his office, to deal with the political corruption in his office, to close down the corruption and to not be part of that. But the minister, on every occasion, chose not to do so.

The Ombudsman in effect has blown the whistle on Mr Madden, on Mr Suleyman and on the corrupt activities in and around the Brimbank council. The Ombudsman moved on this. He obviously received comment from Mr Seitz in the lower house. But I note that on 31 July 2008 Jeanette Powell, the shadow Minister for Local Government in the Assembly, wrote to the Ombudsman and made these points. She said these matters needed to be dealt with and that the Ombudsman needed to look at a number of these outstanding issues. The Ombudsman obviously moved forward on that, which is why in part we have these points today.

However, I want to commence my contribution with a very clear demonstration of the scope and scale of the warnings the minister received. I have here, compliments of a senior member of the Save Our Suburbs group, Marilyn Canet, copies of the submissions and correspondence she has exchanged with government bodies, including the minister’s office and department, over the last few years. There are 130 warnings here, but he did not listen to one of them. The minister must be deaf. He knew what was going on, he knew where there was corruption; despite getting the warnings, he covered up every one of those 130 warnings. It is disgraceful. I will read some of them.

Mr Viney — You are going a bit red.

Mr D. DAVIS — I have to say, Mr Viney, I would be red if — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Davis just made a statement that he is about to read — —

Mr D. DAVIS — To quote.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I remind Mr Davis that he is restricted in how much he can read verbatim from others. He is an experienced operator; he knows the deal. I just remind him of that.

Mr D. DAVIS — As you indicate, President, I am quite experienced in these matters, and I thank you for your guidance. I will quote directly from a number of documents. I will start with a document dated 7 March 2007. It was sent to the Minister for Planning at his East Melbourne office. The subject of the letter was ‘Ministerial intervention sought into three-tower proposal — land at 80 Harvester Road, Sunshine’. Marilyn Canet of Taylors Lakes stated:

I confirm that I have contacted your ministerial office on three occasions to request a briefing with yourself as planning minister —



and the dates are outlined. She continued:

I am advised that the request is under due consideration.

The above-mentioned planning issue, I understand, is due to be considered at VCAT later this month. Your attention … is therefore urgent.

That is a matter that went to VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal). I do not necessarily expect the minister to respond in detail on the precise details of every case, but later in the letter she said:

As that development is located in the area of your representation —

which I think directly answers Mr Viney’s earlier point —

you will also be aware of the continuing and vast allegations arising from that process, which have been the subject of 62 submissions to the state government calling on a full investigation into the Brimbank City Council.

She went on to say:

The spiralling web of alleged corruption has included the recent 2005 council election campaign. The ongoing calls for investigation have included suspected funding assistance provided by your electoral office for the purpose of the Suleyman Group councillor campaign.

She went on to point out:

As a Brimbank municipal representative for Save Our Suburbs Inc. I pursued these issues over an extensive period.

…

The urgent audience that I seek with you will also include, subject to your approval, Ms Darlene Reilly, secretary of the Sunshine Residents and Ratepayers Association …

…

Minister, I look forward to that opportunity to again meet with you to discuss these critically important considerations.

Not just the Sunshine Residents and Ratepayers Association but other important groups in the minister’s local area have contacted his office again and again. People have observed these corrupt activities and the minister’s failure to act over a period, and because of the government’s failure to act — the failure of the Premier, former Premier Steve Bracks, the Deputy Premier and Attorney-General — it is important to understand the frustration of local people who have seen and who hate the corruption in their local community. They want the corruption to stop, but these ministers will not stop it — because they are part of the corruption.

Let me give the house some further examples. The Premier was given a submission to community cabinet — —

Mr Viney — On a point of order, President, Mr Davis just alleged that a number of ministers are part of corruption. I believe that is absolutely out of order and that the member can only make such allegations by substantive motion.

Mr D. DAVIS — On the point of order, President, I am making the point that these ministers knew about the corruption. They have covered it up and therefore they are part of it.

Mr Viney — Further on the point of order, President, the ministers that Mr Davis named prior to making the point that he just repeated were the Premier, the Attorney-General and the former Premier, Mr Bracks.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I remind Mr Davis that he cannot accuse those ministers and previous ministers except by way of substantive motion.

Mr D. DAVIS — On 22 March 2004 — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! I also ask the member to withdraw those comments.

Mr D. DAVIS — I withdraw. On 22 March 2004 a community cabinet meeting was held in Sunshine. Marilyn Canet and her group put a submission to that community cabinet that included not just Mr Madden but also others. The Premier at the time was present at the community cabinet meeting, so I presume he too saw the submission.

Mr Guy — Of course he saw it.

Mr D. DAVIS — Of course he saw it. I will go through a number of these. Let us be clear about the sort of people who attended the community cabinet meeting and did know about this. On that occasion a number of people from Save Our Suburbs attempted to speak to the Deputy Premier directly, and indeed they were successful in speaking to him. Minister Hulls, who was not the Deputy Premier at that point but who later became the Deputy Premier, was confronted by a sign that said ‘Bracks ignores corruption’.

He said those people should go through the whistleblowers application, and a number of individuals applied but nothing happened. There was no assistance or support provided, so I say he was given an opportunity. It is important to know that a number of ministers, not just the Minister for Planning as he is



now, were at that community cabinet meeting. I have no doubt that they were provided with some of this key information.

On 23 October 2003 a copy of the Premier’s correspondence on the Bunnings permit was faxed. In July 2002 a formal report was made to Brimbank council on the 61-unit development in Wentworth Drive. On 14 March there was a meeting at Justin Madden’s office to present a statutory declaration about a development in Wentworth Drive.

Let us put our imaginations together here and think about a local community group coming forward with a statutory declaration about corruption in the local area. Who do they encounter at the front desk? Hakki Suleyman. He sits down with them in the front office and they say, ‘Mate, there is corruption here. You are part of it. We have got a statutory declaration — —

Mr Guy — Whose office?

Mr D. DAVIS — In Justin Madden’s office. The local community group sat down with the staff of the minister’s electorate office to talk about planning corruption in the area.

Do you think they got a fair hearing? Do you think they got a decent shake? Do you think they got an opportunity to put forward their case? Was it passed on to Minister Madden? I cannot answer those questions in relation to that occasion. What I can say is that part of the problem when you have a corrupt electorate officer — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! Mr David Davis will address his comments through the Chair.

Mr D. DAVIS — President, if there is a corrupt electorate officer — an electorate officer who is undertaking activities and improperly influencing a council — and there is a local community group going to that office seeking some redress, I think any fair-minded Victorian would say that is pretty tough. Local community groups have been blocked. There has been obfuscation. I am sure there was sometimes a failure to pass information on to Mr Madden. I am not alleging he saw every one of these 130 submissions. I am not even alleging he saw most of them, but I know he saw some of them and I know he knew these matters were going on in his office. I make the point that his failure to deal with electorate officer Mr Hakki Suleyman in his office has led to considerable community detriment.

I do not believe this is a satisfactory way for things to proceed in an electorate office. I do not believe the

minister has handled this properly. He should have dealt with this. I am sure others will talk about the many warnings that have come forward, but I am going to note a couple of them at this point. I think it is of great moment that a number of these are listed, because this is also about the public warnings that were provided to the minister and the public opportunities by which he could have dealt with things.

On 7 May in the Legislative Council four questions, including supplementary questions, were asked of Mr Madden, none of which, in my view, he answered satisfactorily. He said:

… not until that report was publicly released was I conscious of either allegations or the extent of these matters.

He said that in a number of different ways with a few shades and variations, but the essence of it was that he did not know. The reason he said that and misled the house was that he was caught. He knew that the moment he was honest and admitted he knew, a series of difficult questions would follow, one after the other, about when he knew, what he knew and what he did and did not do. The answer is that he was caught and he was covering up.

I want to list a number of points here. There was intimidation at a council meeting. I quote an extract from a letter from Darlene Reilly of the Sunshine Residents and Ratepayers Association to the then Minister for Local Government, Candy Broad, and Minister Madden on 3 June 2005:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Sunshine Residents and Ratepayers Association (SunRRA) …

I and many of our members who attended a Brimbank council meeting on 24/05/05 witnessed a man intimidate and abuse a female attendee. It was a simple misunderstanding — —

Mrs Peulich — Normal business for Labor!

Mr D. DAVIS — Yes. It goes on:

A formal complaint has been lodged with Marilyn Duncan …

Further, it states:

Even more disappointing is the news that Mr Hakki Suleyman is a state government representative and employee who regularly attends council meetings in that capacity with other similarly employed colleagues. SunRRA is unsure in what capacity Mr Suleyman was in attendance at this council meeting on this night.

Very specific firsthand evidence of intimidation at council meetings by Mr Madden’s staffer Mr Hakki Suleyman has been provided to us by reliable sources. We know some of the information from SunRRA has been seen by Mr Madden and dismissed. I am sorry,



but I do not believe you can dismiss a letter of that nature. The minister should have acted.

On 3 June 2005 Darlene Reilly made further written comments to Mr Madden:

SunRRA has included you and your office in this correspondence as the complaint involves one of your staff. Whether Mr Suleyman was at the council meeting representing you and your office or not is not clear.

I make that point advisedly, quoting from Ms Reilly’s letter. One of the questions asked in this chamber the other day which Mr Madden refused, point-blank, to answer, was whether Mr Suleyman was acting alone or whether he was acting on Mr Madden’s direction. I am not sure of the answer to that question. It is up to the minister to explain. Was Mr Suleyman a person acting alone who the minister chose to allow to continue with his improper and corrupt activities, or was the minister actually advising and directing him on some of those matters? That is a key point that the minister needs to respond to today. The letter continues:

Mr Hakki Suleyman’s behaviour was reprehensible and was compounded by the fact he appeared to target a group of women and one woman in particular. The woman in question has lodged a formal complaint — —

And on it goes. My point is that this is precisely the question we raised in the chamber the other day. Was he acting alone, or was he acting on the minister’s direction? The minister needs to explain that, and he should have explained it to the community by now.

The MX newspaper on 10 June 2005 made a number of points. Small business owner Kim Webber had written to the Brimbank council CEO and the Minister for Local Government calling for immediate action against the mayor, Natalie Suleyman, and her father, Hakki Suleyman. If the minister did not see the correspondence that came repeatedly to his office, how could he have missed these media reports?

In an article in the Age of 8 November 2005 Farrah Tomazin and Paul Austin said that a key member of the Commonwealth Games minister’s staff:

… has been accused of assaulting a woman after Labor’s factional war erupted …

It was Mr Suleyman. The minister might not have read all of the correspondence, but it is impossible to believe that he did not see some of it, and it is also impossible to believe that he did not see some of the press coverage.

On 8 November the Sunshine residents wrote to the minister again after reading an article in the Age which

reported that Mr Suleyman had once again attacked another woman in public. This is not an occasional thing, and the minister did nothing. The letter says:

Mr Hakki Suleyman continues to attend Brimbank council meetings, where he has on a previous occasion intimidated a local female resident for no apparent reason.

On 9 November the Age continued with more correspondence and coverage that apparently the minister refused to see; he covered his eyes. Of the three wise monkeys, he must be the monkey that can neither hear nor see. Labor assault claims appeared in the Herald Sun of 28 November:

Hakki Suleyman, who works for games minister Justin Madden, was investigated for allegedly assaulting a woman at a Labor Party meeting this month.

This is unacceptable behaviour, it is behaviour that cannot go on. It is behaviour that the minister should not have condoned — or, in effect, condoned by his silence and acquiescence. On 2 June 2006 Darlene Reilly from the ratepayers association said:

… believe this is deliberate bullying and targeting of a group that is asking questions of the mayor which she doesn’t like.

Again there are issues about Biggs Street and St Albans, and on it goes. On 30 July 2008 the member for Kew in the other place, who is the shadow minister in the lower house, asked a question without notice of the Premier. There is no way the Premier can argue that he did not know about these matters: he knew about these matters. I am sure the Minister for Planning is capable of picking up a Legislative Assembly Hansard. It is incredible to believe — —

Mr Leane — He’s a busy man!

Mr D. DAVIS — That is right, Mr Leane. I know he is terribly busy. He is too busy to be aware that there had been a question to the Premier about his staffer Hakki Suleyman and about violence. I am sorry, this is the underbelly of the Labor Party, it is Brimbank. It is disgraceful, and the minister should have dealt with it.

Mr Viney — That is a bridge too far.

Mr D. DAVIS — That is what the member for Keilor in the other place, Mr Seitz, called it. He called it the underbelly. On 19 August the member for Box Hill, Mr Clark, asked the Attorney-General a question about Mr Hakki Suleyman’s behaviour and about the decision to appoint him as a justice of the peace. These people knew; they covered up and chose not to look. The minister’s defence is the Sergeant Schulz defence: ‘I know nothing!’. But he did know; Marilyn Canet had submitted 130 pieces of correspondence and



submissions. How can the minister claim realistically that he knew nothing?

The corrupt misuse of community resources for ALP purposes — —

Mrs Peulich — That is just normal business.

Mr D. DAVIS — Unfortunately it has become that, Mrs Peulich, but it is not normal business. The community does not believe it is normal. The community does not accept this as normal. There is a letter to the chief executive officer of the City of Brimbank, which was copied to Minister Madden on 26 May 2006, from Darlene Reilly of the Sunshine Residents and Ratepayers Association. She says, and I will quote a number of short paragraphs:

I have also enclosed for your reference a copy of an incorporated association extract for the Australian Turkish Cypriot Cultural and Welfare Association Inc. You will notice the public officer on record is Hakki Suleyman.

…

I have personally visited the property on numerous occasions … and found it locked and not open for business. The phone number on the sign displayed on the building advises the phone number for the association is 9367 3000. If you try and call this number, you will find it is disconnected, and I spoke to neighbours who told me the building is rarely open.

It would appear we have a council owned property not being fully utilised and subsidised by Brimbank ratepayers. SunRRA supports the ideal of subsidising worthy groups such as welfare associations … in their endeavour to improve the welfare of Brimbank residents. But there are many groups worthy of such treatment and the question must be asked what process was used to endow —

this particular association —

with this facility at no costs for the last four years?

Ms Reilly asked:

Can you please tell me if the Biggs Street building was included in this review …

A review was done:

Was Brimbank council negotiating a lease with the tenants for the last four years?

Or did this property just slip through the cracks in your administration?

Is it a coincidence that the tenant’s public officer happens to be the mayor’s father —

and the minister’s staffer. Further she stated:

Given that Mr Hakki Suleyman is the father of mayor Natalie Suleyman and at the time of the conference of the permissive

occupancy Cr Suleyman was mayor of Brimbank, then I think the question of any councillors declaring a pecuniary interest in this matter must be asked.

I am not going to go through all the matters about conflicts of interest and pecuniary interests and what the Ombudsman has said. He made a number of important points, but they are not necessarily immediately central to some of these points. But I make the general comment that he has moved the situation forward a long way, and we would do well to follow many of his recommendations.

‘Mayor’s father enjoys rent-free council building’, the SunRRA people said in a press release that was copied widely throughout the community, mentioning Hakki Suleyman again. On 30 May 2008 the Star ran a story headed ‘Free rent wrangle’. Local newspapers in the minister’s electorate have talked very prominently about free rent and the minister’s staffer, the head honcho of the organisation — and the minister says, ‘I knew nothing’. But nobody believes him. The Star continued on 20 June 2008 to look into the same matters — free rent and a whole set of arrangements — and again the minister chose to say nothing, to do nothing and to allow his staffer to continue on.

‘Council critic in the clear’, the Advocate says. I do not know about that, but Hakki gets mentioned again. On 29 July 2008, under the headline ‘Concern on building use: questions asked on Biggs St’, the Advocate states:

Brimbank council chief executive officer Nick Foa has been asked to investigate claims that ratepayers have been subsidising the use of a building by the ALP.

Hansard shows that Ms Hartland raised key points in this chamber on 30 July 2008:

The council building in Biggs Street, St Albans, that the council leases to a community group at a subsidised rent of $100 per month for the entire building is listed on the ALP’s website as the home of the North Maribyrnong ALP branch. Brimbank residents are subsidising the rent because it is supposed to be used by a community group.

I am sure there are many political party groups that would like to have subsidised access to community facilities, but this is the only one I am aware of that operates in quite this way. On 30 July 2008 Mr Finn raised the same matter in this chamber and made his points very strongly. Minister Madden suggested that Mr Finn write a letter to the Minister for Local Government and raise those matters with him, implying: ‘I will wash my hands of this matter. I am not responsible. I know nothing’. The minister cannot say he knew nothing. Warnings in this and the other chamber, warnings through the media and repeated alerts about the behaviour of his staffer and the corrupt



and improper activities surrounding him were given again and again. I do not believe the minister can realistically claim he did not know.

It is interesting to look at the sorts of excuses the minister has chosen to give. I will quote some of the minister’s excuses for his failure to act and his claim that he knew nothing as they have been put forward publicly — his Sergeant Schultz defence. He said in the Legislative Council:

… not until the Ombudsman’s report was released today was I aware of the extent of any of those matters or investigations in relation to Mr Suleyman. … not until that report was publicly released was I conscious of either allegations or the extent of these matters.

What the minister is asking the chamber and the community to believe is that his staffer was under investigation by the Ombudsman, that the Ombudsman has called his staffer to a series of interviews and questions and that his staffer did not make Minister Madden aware that he had been asked a difficult run of questions by the Ombudsman. It is just not believable. Nobody believes it. Of course he told the minister! Of course he knew the substance of what the Ombudsman was talking about. Of course he knew there were problems. Of course he knew there was corruption in and around the Brimbank council, and of course he knew that Hakki Suleyman was at the absolute epicentre of it. What did the minister do? He tried to cover it up. He tried to make excuses. He tried to employ the Sergeant Schultz defence.

Excuse no. 2 on my list is that he tried to say Hakki Suleyman was just helping his daughter by intimidating people, branch stacking and rorting council assets. He said on Channel 7 that Hakki Suleyman was always going to be very interested in the achievements of his daughter, just as any parent might be in relation to their children’s successes and failures. Spare me. It is not every staffer and not every daughter who is the subject of negative reports by the Ombudsman for improper and corrupt conduct. I am sorry, but the fact that the daughter of the minister’s staffer was mayor and was involved with the council and that he might have tried to help her does not mitigate the corruption and improper activity outlined by the Ombudsman and repeatedly conveyed to the minister through letters, press clippings and questions in this chamber. The fact that he was trying to help his daughter is not an excuse for corrupt activities.

Excuse no. 3 is that ‘politics in the western suburbs is not for the faint-hearted’, which the minister said in a doorstop interview. Spare me. The people of the western suburbs of Melbourne are entitled to the

highest standard of representation. They are entitled to be represented by people who have integrity at council and MP level — people who are prepared to stand up for their interests and to stand up honestly for integrity, scrutiny, fairness and justice. I do not think the people of the western suburbs deserve a lesser standard of arrangement. I do not think corruption is in any way acceptable because it is in the western suburbs. I do not think misconduct is acceptable because it is in the western suburbs. I do not think the abuse of public trust and resources is acceptable because it has occurred in the western suburbs. I ran as a candidate in the western suburbs in 1992.

Mr Leane — How did you go?

Mr D. DAVIS — I did very well actually. I almost won the seat; I was within a small percentage of winning the seat. My point is that I accept there is rough and tumble in politics, but corruption, misconduct and abuse of public trust is just shocking.

Then at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearing the minister said it is all the opposition’s fault, and he said that to a number of media outlets afterwards. No, this is not about the opposition; this is about the minister’s behaviour, it is about the behaviour of his staffer and it is about what the minister did about that behaviour. Did he act when he should have acted? Did he have proper standards? Did he act in the public interest? Did he cover it up, which is what I think occurred? Did he seek to have a proper investigation into these matters? The answer on all these counts is that he failed. He covered up the corruption. In my view he did it knowingly, and I think a reasonable person would be aware that these submissions, letters, questions, press clippings and television interviews would have got through to him. It is just inconceivable that he did not know. Now I want to — —

Mr Viney — Close?

Mr D. DAVIS — No, in fact I have quite a bit to say. In Canberra the ministerial code of Mr Rudd would have seen — —

Mr Lenders interjected.

Mr Guy — Brian Mier did, right over there.

Mr D. DAVIS — Yes, and with a current member of this chamber.

At point 5.2 in the Prime Minister’s standards for ministerial conduct there is a duty to act in the right way in these matters, to uncover corruption and to act



in the public interest. The minister has certainly failed on that.

If we go back to Premier Brumby’s much-discussed Restoring Democracy document from the 1990s, it is pretty clear that the minister would fail on the standards he set out. This document always makes for an interesting trip down memory lane. In it he says MPs should ‘act honestly’ and ‘properly use the benefits of parliamentary office’. He goes on to list, among other points, that:

Members of Parliament must at all times act honestly, strive to maintain the public trust placed in them and advance the common good of the people of Victoria.

Members of Parliament must only exercise the influence gained from their public office to advance the public interest.

That means not sectional interests, not Labor Party interests, not Hakki Suleyman’s interests and not Natalie Suleyman’s interests. The document continues:

Members of Parliament must not use their influence to selectively and improperly advantage others.

That is what John Brumby said in the 1990s, but it is not the standard that John Brumby is applying to you, Minister, now. He should be sacking you; he should have sacked you by now. You should have resigned and headed off with your tail between your legs. If you did not do that the Premier should have had the courage and honesty and integrity to live up to his own standards that were put out in his Restoring Democracy document, a document that he has fallen short of himself and a document that he has failed to enforce with you. The document further states:

Members of Parliament must operate their —

electorate —

offices in a professional and efficient manner and must ensure that their constituents have suitable access to their electorate offices.

Think of those community groups, Minister, that come to your office to complain about corrupt networks in Brimbank and get to meet Hakki Suleyman at the front door or get a meeting with him. What hope do they have? What chance do those groups have? It is disgraceful that you have let these things slip to the standard that you have.

To quote directly from Prime Minister Rudd’s code, he said:

Ministers must not encourage or induce … public officials, including public servants, by their decisions, directions or conduct in office to breach the law, or to fail to comply with the relevant code of ethical conduct … Ministers are …

expected to ensure that reasonable measures are put in place in the areas of their responsibility to discourage or prevent corrupt conduct by officials.

Minister, you might argue that this is your electorate office, but we know that that electorate office is handling planning matters and that planning correspondence is coming to your electorate office on some occasions. We know that Hakki Suleyman is there, the subject of negative reports by the Ombudsman; repeated warnings that you have failed to act on. It is extraordinary — —

Mr Leane — On a point of order, Deputy President, unfortunately, Mr Davis is flouting the President’s earlier ruling to direct his contribution through the Chair.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Davis frequently has eye contact with the Chair and has directed most of his remarks through the Chair, I believe.

Mr Leane — Just on the point of order — —

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Leane, I do not intend to debate it; I have given a ruling.

Mr Leane — On a point of order, Mr Davis has been pointing across the chamber and saying, ‘You, Minister’, ‘You should do this’ and ‘You are going to be doing this’, so I would be saying that he is not directing his contribution through the Chair.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Thank you, Mr Leane, I will keep an eye on it, but as I said, from my point of view most of Mr Davis’s contribution has been directed through the Chair.

Mr D. DAVIS — Mr Madden not only chose to cover up and support his electorate officer, he sought to advance his staffer through an application for appointment as a justice of the peace. Watching the minister squirm when asked questions on this leads one very firmly to the conclusion that he knew that this was the wrong thing to do. He was clearly prepared to sign off on Mr Suleyman becoming a justice of the peace, despite his criminal convictions, and it is pretty clear that there was either a wave through by the Deputy Premier or a failure to properly check. The decision to sign and support the application for Hakki Suleyman to become a justice of the peace shows the minister heading in completely the wrong direction. Instead of chastising, instead of investigating, instead of sacking a corrupt and improper official in his office he is actually rewarding him by making him a justice of the peace.



It is not just Mr Suleyman who is involved; these matters apply to a number of others as well. Mr Suleyman is just the most obvious one. As I said, there is a context for all of this and there is a real question about how Labor Party rules apply on local council. Local council is an issue here. The Ombudsman has made a number of key points, but Labor Party rules — the Labor Party constitution — require prior to every council meeting that each Labor Party councillor accept the decisions of council caucus on policy motions. There are political sanctions for those who do not do so.

Mr Viney interjected.

Mr P. DAVIS — I have read them; they are on the website. It is extraordinary.

Mr Viney — You don’t understand them.

Mr D. DAVIS — They are required to caucus. They elect a president, they elect a secretary, and they are required to come to a conclusion about who will be mayor and when that will be.

Mrs Peulich interjected.

Mr D. DAVIS — I will leave it to Mrs Peulich to lay out the details of these unsatisfactory practices. This is Labor councillors acting in the interests of the Labor Party rather than in the interests of the community. It is simply unacceptable for Labor councillors to be bound to vote against community interests. What we see in the Ombudsman’s report is a series of examples of where councillors have had to pull back from decisions that they believed were in the community interests. In the case of Cr Socratous, he was forced to step back from a motion on gambling when Mr Theophanous, another member of this chamber — as the Ombudsman lays out — intervened and demanded that he not support a particular motion.

It is simply unacceptable for MPs like that to be directing their staff on how to vote at local council. The Labor Party might do this through its machinery and its rules; it might do this through its caucusing; or it might do this through the informal mechanisms that Mr Theophanous and others appear to have used.

I raise this very important point because we still do not have an answer as to whether the minister directed Mr Hakki Suleyman in his improper activities or whether Mr Hakki Suleyman acted alone. The minister’s response in standing aside Mr Suleyman is unacceptable. It is not sufficient for Mr Suleyman to try to find an alternative form of employment in an

electorate office, given the findings of improper conduct against him by the Ombudsman.

I commend this motion to the house. There is no doubt that the minister has failed to fully answer questions in this house; and there is no doubt that the minister misled this house on 7 May. There is no doubt that the minister knew of the political corruption in his office. As I have said again and again, he was informed of it through submissions, letters, press clippings, television reports and questions in this chamber. He must be the monkey that does not see or hear — or, more likely, he has known about it but has chosen to cover it up and to actively and wilfully support the corruption in his office against the community interest.

The minister’s suggestion that there is a lower standard expected of public office in the western suburbs of Melbourne is not only offensive but quite wrong. People in the western suburbs of Melbourne want high standards. They want their local councils and communities to operate properly. They want a good outcome in terms of local governance and state governance.

This minister knew about the corruption in his office and failed to act in the way he should have. He failed to prevent the intimidation occurring. He failed to deal with the series of planning decisions made around Cairnlea and other sites in the area. Bear in mind that in the period since the most recent state election he has been the planning minister responsible for administering the Brimbank planning scheme that controls land use in the Brimbank municipality.

That is where his office is. That is where Hakki Suleyman presides over Mr Madden’s office, blocking the scrutiny attempts of people in the community who are seeking to end this corruption and bring light and transparency to these issues. The minister has allowed the activities of his staffer to divert community resources to the ALP, and I think that is simply unacceptable. In my view the minister should resign or the Premier should sack him.

Today I am seeking the support of the chamber for this motion because I believe it is important that members of the chamber take a stand. The minister and the Premier have failed to live up to proper standards. For that reason, it is critical that the members of this chamber are prepared to stand up and say what we believe about Mr Madden’s behaviour, Mr Suleyman’s behaviour and the cover-up that Mr Madden and the Premier have indulged in.



Mr VINEY (Eastern Victoria) — I assure the house that I do not need 58 minutes and 55 seconds to respond to this motion. However, in saying that, I want to spend a bit of time considering the motion and to say to the house that the government takes any motion of censure or no confidence very seriously. Whilst I will lead the response on this motion, we on this side have decided that all ministers will speak on this motion.

Mr Guy — Don’t go, Mr Madden. Come on, stay!

Mr VINEY — Mr Madden does not need to hear my defence. He has been in the chamber for about 21⁄2 hours, so it is okay for him to have a short break.

We have a motion before the house that is extremely confused. It is an extremely confused motion because on the one hand this motion proposes a censure of a minister, which is a motion — —

Mr Finn — No — no confidence.

Mr VINEY — A no-confidence motion and a censure motion are the same thing, Mr Finn. If you care to look at Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice or Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, you will find that they are the same thing. The motion of no confidence is a motion of no confidence in a minister of the Crown on his ministerial responsibilities in relation to his office; that is what it relates to, but more than half of Mr David Davis’s motion deals with matters relating to the electorate officer of the minister in his capacity as a member for Western Metropolitan Region.

There are elements of this motion that relate to ministerial responsibility and those are perfectly valid in my judgement, but they relate to questions that have been put to the minister in this house. When the minister speaks at the conclusion of this debate, I am sure he will be happy to respond to some of those issues that you have been wanting to put on the record.

What we have just had from Mr Davis is a 58-minute and 55-second rant. All of the evidence that Mr Davis produced in this chamber today is in the Ombudsman’s report, which every member of this house and the media in the gallery has had plenty of opportunities to look at. Not one new piece of evidence or concern or issue has been raised by Mr Davis in this house — and that is because he is a lazy opposition leader.

We know not only from our observations of Mr David Davis, because the opposition would expect us to say that, but from his own party, that he was a lazy opposition spokesperson on health and failed to produce any policies. What we have had is another rant using nothing more than the Ombudsman’s report. The

government accepts the Ombudsman’s report. The government has said it will adopt all the recommendations of the Ombudsman in that report. The government has said quite clearly it believes some of the things that occurred in Brimbank were unacceptable.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr VINEY — I put to the house that not only has the government drawn that conclusion but the people of Brimbank have also drawn that conclusion. I say to the house that, unlike members on the other side, I have a lot of faith in the public, and I have a lot of confidence in the democratic system. I think even on the occasions when the Labor Party has lost office, most of the time the public actually got it right. Sometimes governments need to go, but not this government, because it is a good government. It is this government that made the Ombudsman an independent officer of the Parliament and this government that made the Auditor-General an independent officer of the Parliament, unlike the other side that wanted to nobble him when Mr Davis was a member of the Kennett government.

The Labor government has faith in the people of Brimbank, and that is because 8 of the 11 councillors currently on the Brimbank City Council are newly elected. Clearly the people of Brimbank made their decision. I have faith in the democratic processes of the state and of people in elections. That is the issue. If the people of Western Metropolitan Region have a problem with any individual member of Parliament from any party, they have an opportunity to do something about it at an election.

If we are going down the path of moving notices of motion of no confidence in ministers that have nothing to do with their ministerial responsibilities we will start opening up a few things. It will mean members may move motions of no confidence in any member of the house for their role as a member of Parliament — that is effectively what this motion would do. I do not believe in that. I believe that is a decision the people of Victoria will make at an election. They will determine whether they have confidence in any member of Parliament at an election. That is the proper process. If the house were dealing with a motion of no confidence in a minister in matters relating to his ministerial function, that would be a legitimate motion of no confidence and a legitimate issue for the house to consider.




Mr VINEY — If the opposition is going to move a motion of no confidence in a minister on the grounds that are listed in this notice of motion, the opposition could move a motion of no confidence on the grounds that the Minister for Planning is 6 foot 10 tall or that he played for Carlton and Essendon — and as a Collingwood supporter I would struggle to vote against it! My view is that the motion before the house should be dealing with the minister’s functions as a minister of the Crown, and it does not do that. Mr Davis has put no new evidence before the house other than throwing around some papers that have already been the subject of an Ombudsman’s investigation. Mr Madden has told the house that in relation to some of the other issues Mr Davis’s entire speech was about three monkeys and Sergeant Schultz. Members of the opposition, during debate on a serious matter of no confidence in a minister, were falling over themselves in laughter at Mr Davis’s jokes. Members of the opposition were absolutely beside themselves with glee on this debate and were not taking the matter seriously.

The way Mr Davis approached this is that he thought it was a gig for the Comedy Club. I do not believe it is a warm-up gig for the Comedy Club. This is a serious issue. What needs to be considered is what the government has done. The government has indicated that it accepts the Ombudsman’s report. It has said it will adopt all the recommendations of the Ombudsman in full. Mr Madden has made an explanation to the house about the issues that were brought to his attention regarding some correspondence he received. He advised the house of his view at the time, the fact that he spoke to Mr Suleyman at the time and his conclusions as a result of the conversation.

Mr Guy — So he did know!

Mr VINEY — He has already indicated that in the house. He has already indicated to the house the extent of his knowledge from one letter and that until the Ombudsman’s report was tabled he did not have a knowledge of the extent of these issues, and I am happy to accept it. The reason I continue to be happy to accept it is that Mr Davis has not introduced anything in the debate that would allow the government to draw any other conclusion. Mr Madden will come in here at the conclusion of the debate after the opposition has had its opportunity to have its rant and after members opposite have had the opportunity to fall over themselves in laughter and glee at this debate. After members opposite have had that opportunity, the minister will be happy to respond to the allegations.


The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Members on my left must realise there is a difference between interjections and a barrage. The President has set the tenor for this debate, and we have decided that this is a significant matter that is obviously contesting serious matters, so some leniency is being allowed by the Chair during the morning, but I do not want to have a continual barrage. Interjections are okay, but this is not the outer at the football, so can we keep some sense of decorum?

Mr VINEY — The motion before this house is a motion of no confidence in a minister of the Crown. Therefore, in determining a position of confidence in a minister the house should rely on whether his ministerial responsibility has been breached. There has been no evidence whatsoever that the minister’s ministerial functions and his responsibilities as a minister have been breached.

I put it to the house that the wording of this motion is, in my view, quite consciously deceptive. It constantly talks about the ‘minister’s office’, when in fact it is referring to the minister’s electorate office. The minister has responded to the matters that came up in relation to Mr Suleyman, the fact that Mr Suleyman is no longer working in his office and the fact that the matter is before the President in terms of his employment arrangements. Mr Madden, in his capacity as a member for Western Metropolitan Region, has dealt with that matter. The people of Brimbank have dealt with the matter of their elected representatives at the last council elections. The Premier has dealt with the Brimbank matter in relation to his obligations as the Premier of the state receiving a report from the Ombudsman. The matters in relation to Brimbank have been dealt with in appropriate ways by the Brimbank community, by member for Western Metropolitan Region Mr Madden and by the Premier.

What we have now is opposition members trying to create more easy political hits — because they do not do the hard work. This is not about any great principle held by the opposition, because they did not demonstrate those principles when they were in government. People should not be under the misapprehension that this is about any great principles held by the opposition. This is purely and simply a political attack and an act of political opportunism — and, I would contend, lazy political opportunism — because all we have heard is evidence from the Ombudsman’s report, which we accept. The government has indicated that it accepts there were activities there that were unacceptable, and it has indicated that the Ombudsman’s recommendations will



be adopted in full. This is nothing short of a lazy political attack and rant.

I will add that this is a common pattern: every Wednesday, if not every second Wednesday, we are debating a motion like this to censure a minister. I know the Leader of the Government, who has a penchant for numbers and analysis, has been looking at some of those numbers regarding censure motions that members opposite have moved. But it is a consistent pattern, and it is a tactic they use because they cannot take themselves down the path of doing the policy work that is needed. To prove my point, the Leader of the Opposition in this house is up in the press gallery briefing the media — that is just to prove my point about the politics of this motion. It is not a serious motion on standings of great principle. It is not that; it is about cheap political point-scoring and, as Mr Pakula says, it is about headlines. That is all it is about.

What we say is that motions of no confidence in a minister are very serious matters. We treat them seriously. We say to members of the opposition and to the crossbenchers that there is no substance for the censure of a minister in his position of holding a public office under the Crown. There are no grounds for censuring a minister or expressing no confidence in the minister in that capacity. That is what this house is being asked to do in the first half of the motion, and then the second half of the motion is about nothing more than the electorate office — in my view, consciously misleading the house with the use of the words ‘minister’s office’ instead of ‘minister’s electorate office’. That is an important difference.

Honourable members interjecting.

Mr VINEY — That is a very important difference, and apparently Mr Guy does not even know it. It is a very important difference, because the principles of ministerial accountability are about the role of the minister’s functions as a minister. They are not about the actions of his electorate officer in another jurisdiction. That is not appropriate to ministerial accountability. Ministerial accountability is a very serious matter that needs to be protected and respected. This motion does neither; it neither protects nor respects ministerial accountability, because it consciously misuses the words ‘minister’s office’ and mixes up the minister’s functions in this chamber as an office-holder of executive government with his position as a member for Western Metropolitan Region. We urge the house to reject this motion.

Ms HARTLAND (Western Metropolitan) — I would like to start by saying to Mr Viney that I do not

consider this to be a cheap debate, and I would have expected a higher standard from him. For me it is also about the way the west is treated. I do not consider this to be cheap or tawdry. I think it is a very serious matter, but it goes much further than the motion we have before us.

For those people who do not know about Brimbank, I would like to provide a few facts. It is 12 kilometres from the Melbourne central business district, and it comprises 25 new and established suburbs. Residents there number 168 000, many of whom were born overseas. The region has one of the highest rates of disadvantage across the state, second only to Greater Dandenong. I have lived there for over 20 years. As a politician who actually lives in their electorate, I am a bit novel in the western suburbs!

Mr Finn — I do too.

Ms HARTLAND — I said ‘a bit’ novel, Mr Finn. I would like to talk about the fact that not every councillor in the city of Brimbank is implicated in the Ombudsman’s report. One of those exceptions in this report is Miles Dymott, who was a Greens councillor at the City of Brimbank for four years. The only thing the Ombudsman said about Miles is that he voted against his own financial interests when voting for a heritage overlay. I have high regard for Miles. He was one of those pivotal people who helped save the Brimbank pool. He stood up for local residents when other councillors were spending all their time playing factional games. One of the classic examples of what Miles did in trying to expose the corruption of ALP councillors was to put forward an amendment to a motion before the council on 22 July last year, saying:

That council states that the real issue at hand at the moment is the allocation of community resources based on real community need.

The motion was not carried. The councillors who voted against it were Cr Capar, Cr Abate, Cr Zukalski, Cr Suleyman, Cr Eriksson, and the then mayor, Sam David. You can look up all of these people’s names in the Ombudsman’s report; all of them are implicated. Obviously there are other ALP councillors who were there at the time who did work hard for their community — they are not all tarred with the same brush. Geraldine Brooks is currently on council as a Greens councillor, and in her short time in the position she has proven herself to be a person of integrity.

The chief executive officer of the council is Nick Foa, with whom I had the pleasure of working when I was a councillor at the City of Maribyrnong, where he was finance manager. When I heard he was going to



Brimbank, my first thought was, ‘What kind of a job are you taking on, Nick?’. The reputation of Brimbank as a difficult council had been around for many years. But I thought, ‘Well, Nick could manage it. He is not one to play games’, and he had a complete understanding of the need for good governance and transparency in local government.

I will also say a few words about the staff who work at Brimbank, 60 per cent of whom actually live in the council area. They should not be compared with the councillors and state and federal MPs who have tarnished the standing of the council in the community. For them it must have been an incredibly difficult atmosphere — having to work in such a toxic workplace where they were subjected to bullying and harassment by councillors.

One of the most disturbing facts in this sorry saga, and the one we have to keep foremost in our minds, is that the community, the rate-paying residents of the local government area, have been neglected as a direct result of personal political ambition, conflict of interest and the improper use of powers by Brimbank councillors and local, federal and state MPs.

I have talked to some of the residents; they question why their ward does not have a decent park; why they do not have good facilities; why money was given to a particular soccer club when it had been allocated for something in their ward. And it really is about who controlled the faction at the time as to where money for basic community facilities ended up. I do not think that is the way any council should be working.

No issue shows the intentional neglect of the Brimbank community more than the saga of the Sunshine pool. For over a decade the Sunshine community battled to save its local pool while some of the councillors identified in this report fought to deny the community this basic facility. Even Mr Madden recognised that there was a real problem, and I quote from a media release of 13 July 2006, which says:

…the council’s decision will have an adverse impact on the local community, which has been crying out for a quality aquatic facility to meet its sport and recreation needs ….

…

… it’s incredibly disappointing that, at the point where the builders are ready to commence construction, the council has decided not to proceed with the project …

The rationale as to why some Labor councillors decided not to go ahead with that project was factionally based; it was about the fact that they felt it was not enough reward for the areas where they wanted funding to go.

I have been quite surprised at the performance of a number of ministers over this issue, particularly Minister Madden and former Minister Broad in this house, and Attorney-General Hulls and Minister Wynne in the other place, who have raised their hands and said, ‘We did not actually know what was happening. We were not consulted. Nobody told us’.

The number of groups and residents that have contacted these members over the years is phenomenal, including Sunshine Residents and Ratepayers Association which has been in touch constantly with a number of ministers; Marilyn Canet, who has already been mentioned; Respect the West; other MPs; and me. I have a range of letters, and I find it quite amazing that members say they did not know about it, that they did not know until the report came out.

I have a letter from Sean Spencer of Respect the West in regard to a letter of complaint about Cr Ken Capar. I understand a number of complaints were made about Cr Capar after he attended the 19th Annual Conference of the Australasian Cemeteries and Crematoriums Association in Auckland, and in fact the conference organisers also made a complaint about his behaviour. The quote from the cemeteries and crematoriums association says:

We have received six verbal complaints from ACCA member delegates in relation to Mr Ken Capar, who attended as a delegate from the Keilor Cemetery Trust, and it is therefore the responsibility of the ACCA board to bring this to your attention. These complainants have offered [to] put their complaints in writing if … necessary.

I find a statement in Sean’s letter to be really disturbing:

I have written to Minister Pike, to whom the Keilor Cemetery Trust reports, to the previous Minister for Local Government, Candy Broad, and to the current Minister for Local Government, Richard Wynne, and have not received a reply to date.

Marilyn Canet, who has already been mentioned in this debate, has sent me a list of all her correspondence; she sent 10 letters to the then Premier, Mr Bracks. In terms of various local government offices, she has sent about 12 letters to the planning department; 7 to the planning minister; 8 actual meetings and letters to Mr Madden; 7 letters to the Chief Commissioner of Police in regard to corruption; 2 letters to the then Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Mr Holding; 11 letters to the Victorian Ombudsman; 11 to the Auditor-General; and 3 to the office of the Governor. Ms Canet also sent 19 letters of complaint to the Attorney-General, Mr Hulls, and 17 letters of complaint to the council. I find it somewhat mystifying that anybody could think this problem was not widely known.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE


Basically, the inaction of the government has effectively condoned what I would conceive to be the criminal nature of the behaviour that is now well documented in the Ombudsman’s report. It is hard for me as a member of Parliament to fathom the depths to which Labor councillors and Labor MPs, both state and federal, were prepared to stoop on this issue. I wonder what the average voter in Brimbank actually thinks about this; it would be good if Mr Viney were maybe to go out and talk to those people, seeing that he does not think there is a major problem.

I am actually still waiting to hear, and I hope that in one of their contributions today, a government member may explain why they allowed this to go on for so long. I have lived in the area for 22 years, and it has been going on the whole time that I have lived there. How come nobody noticed? Why has nobody been prepared to do anything about it? I presume that it is quite difficult to apply moral and ethical standards when it is your own colleagues.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.


Minister for Planning: conduct

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Planning. I refer to the fact that over 130 recorded submissions and other correspondence were sent to the minister expressing concern about deep and significant levels of corruption within the Brimbank council and in part relating to planning within the minister’s own electorate office as well, plus the behaviour and corrupt dealings of the minister’s senior staffer, Mr Hakki Suleyman. Will the minister now admit to the house — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! I am taking advice that would seem to suggest that Mr Davis is unable to ask a question on a topic that is currently being debated when it is specifically the same matter and therefore would be covered by the anticipation rule. Has the member finished his question?

Mr D. DAVIS — Not quite.

The PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Davis might start again.

Mr D. DAVIS — Through you, President, to the Minister for Planning, I refer to the fact that over 130 recorded submissions, letters and other correspondence were sent to the minister expressing concern about deep and significant levels of corruption,

including those relating to planning, at the Brimbank City Council and within the minister’s own electorate office, plus the behaviour and corrupt dealings of the minister’s senior staffer, Mr Hakki Suleyman. Will the minister now admit to the house that he has been fully aware for a very long period of time that these corrupt activities have been coming from his office?

The PRESIDENT — Order! I am confident that under standing order 12.18, ‘Anticipating discussion’, the member’s question is out of order. The matter is clearly being debated today or will be on the next day of sitting. I am cognisant of the list of questions of the Liberal Party today, so I will give the member the opportunity to rephrase.

Mr D. DAVIS — I note the preamble that I have there. President, do you want me to re-read the preamble to put it in context?

The PRESIDENT — Order! Not if it is going to be the same question.

Mr D. DAVIS — I note the over 130 recorded submissions and letters, and I ask the Minister for Planning whether he has discussed these matters with the Premier.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I am referring now to previous rulings, particularly on the anticipation rule:

Questions without notice cannot be asked by members in relation to items listed on the notice paper, or they may be ruled out of order under the anticipation rule.

I now turn to the standing order — and the reason I am going to this length is, of course, the importance of this particular debate and question time — on anticipating discussion:

A member may not anticipate the discussion of a subject listed on the notice paper and expected to be debated on the same or next sitting day. In determining whether a discussion is out of order the President should not prevent incidental reference to a subject.

I think the member has gone beyond incidental reference.

Mr D. DAVIS — On a point of order, President, I have been debating — as you are alluding to in your point about anticipation — a motion about the minister no longer possessing the confidence of the house and making a number of points about the Brimbank City Council and matters relating to questions of the minister’s behaviour and his decision to cover up in certain areas there. My reworked question was a specific one that was related but separate in the sense that it was specifically seeking information about



whether the minister had contacted the Premier on this matter.

Mrs Peulich — Further on the point of order, President, I rise in support of the point of order taken by Mr David Davis. Clearly 12.18 — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! It is on the point of order. We are not debating this.

An honourable member — Further — —

Mrs Peulich — I said on a further point of order. In standing order 12.18 the anticipation of debate is clearly phrased in the past tense:

A member may not anticipate the discussion of a subject listed on the notice paper and expected to be debated …

In terms of the debate Mr David Davis has taken part in, he has already concluded his contribution. Therefore his question is actually outside standing order 12.18, and it is also much narrower than the breadth of the motion before the house. It is much narrower and is therefore an incidental reference.

The PRESIDENT — Order! It is my assessment that this debate is in fact still going, so whilst one contribution may be completed, the debate is still on. Therefore the anticipation rule still applies. Incidental reference to that debate is okay, but I believe Mr Davis has gone beyond that, and his question is quite substantive. I am just not comfortable that it is actually in order. I note Mr Davis is on the list for all questions today, so he may have some time to recover. I will go to the next member.

Rail: V/Locity program

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Industry and Trade, Martin Pakula. Can the minister advise the house of any recent progress in the V/Locity rail program and outline measures the Brumby Labor government is undertaking to support Victorian rail manufacturers?

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade) — I thank Mr Leane for his question. I know of his interest in manufacturing in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Last Friday I visited the premises of Cummins South Pacific at the Caribbean Gardens estate in Scoresby. I was there with a number of other people to mark the completion of the 100th propulsion package manufactured by Cummins South Pacific.

These propulsion packages are a vital part of the V/Locity trains that are being manufactured here in Victoria. Thanks to the outstanding work of companies

such as Cummins, local content on the $600 million V/Locity rail program is now up around the 70 per cent mark.

When I was out there I was privileged to witness the signing of an agreement between Cummins South Pacific and Bombardier for an additional 32 propulsion packages to complete the next stage of the V/Locity order under the Victorian transport plan. The propulsion packages assembled at Cummins value-add close to 80 per cent locally. This is testimony to the skills, the expertise and the innovative design of a company like Cummins, and I was able to witness that at its Scoresby operation last week. That innovative design and expertise has been integral in delivering fast, safe and reliable regional rail services for Victoria.

Also present at the ceremony and the celebration was the Victorian director of the Australian Industry Group (AIG), Tim Piper. He was a very interested participant.

Mr Lenders — He cares about jobs.

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — He cares about jobs, and he cares about manufacturing, Treasurer. While Mr Piper was there, he and I were able to discuss the role that AIG will play in facilitating the $1.2 million commitment, announced in the budget in May, to the new transport infrastructure manufacturing scheme (TIMS). That scheme will help to boost the capacity of Victorian manufacturers to manufacture trains and buses and other major transport assets and will create more manufacturing jobs in this state.

The scheme will focus on promoting the use of local content in state and national transport projects, on better connections between local rail and bus component suppliers with these projects, on driving technology transfer and new trade links and on developing technology road maps for infrastructure and rail rolling stock. I look forward to working with Victorian manufacturers and AIG to implement this scheme.

We should not forget that we have a $38 billion transport plan which will see the biggest expansion of our rail system since Federation. It will create over 100 000 jobs. Apart from delivering better transport options for Victorians, the Victorian transport plan will provide a fantastic opportunity for growth in our railway equipment manufacturing industry. That industry already accounts for over 30 per cent of the national sector, which is already worth nearly $3 billion to Victoria. We are committed as a government to ensuring that Victorian rail manufacturers and suppliers capture more opportunities out of these transport infrastructure investments.



The transport infrastructure manufacturing scheme needs to be viewed alongside our strengthened and enhanced Victorian industry participation policy, which was announced by the Treasurer, Mr Lenders, in the manufacturing statement. It will come into effect from 1 July. It is another element of our plan to maximise local content as a result of the transport plan.

I want to congratulate Cummins South Pacific for its fantastic delivery of the 100th propulsion package. It is a great example to other manufacturers in the south-east. I want to congratulate it on the signing of the agreement with Bombardier for even more manufacturing opportunities for Victoria. The transport plan, the manufacturing statement and the TIMS scheme will all enhance the ability of Victorian manufacturers to participate in economic growth in Victoria.

Crown Casino: gaming expansion

Mr DALLA-RIVA (Eastern Metropolitan) — My question without notice is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the secretive, cosy and less-than-transparent deal to expand table gaming at Crown Casino. During the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee budget hearings the Minister for Gaming made it perfectly clear that the Treasurer’s department was responsible for this underhanded deal. Was the Treasurer involved in the negotiations? If not, who brokered the deal, who else was involved and when were the terms of the agreement agreed to?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I thank Mr Dalla-Riva for his question. I congratulate the Liberal Party on its nimbleness in changing its question strategy around today.

I am also quite intrigued that Mr Dalla-Riva is a member of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) but it has taken him this long to ask a question about something he is now quite excited about — he had about eight subsections to his question. However, if I recall, the budget came down on 5 May and I spoke to PAEC on 12 May. If my recollection is right, today is about 3 June, so all I can do is endorse the comment of my colleague and friend Mr Viney that the opposition is a bit slow on issues its members get hyped up about. It has taken four weeks for Mr Dalla-Riva to work up his righteous indignation and ask a question. Despite having 31⁄2 hours in PAEC, when he could have asked about this, he waited a month.

However, having said that, Mr Dalla-Riva has raised the question of the legitimate public policy debate about

contractual arrangements between the state of Victoria and Crown Casino, an employer of 8000 people on Southbank. Mr Dalla-Riva asked whether there was an agreement between the government and Crown, and there was obviously an agreement negotiated between the Department of Treasury and Finance and Crown over a range of issues and a variation to the arrangements in the state of Victoria.

We have an employer of 8000 people, we have a government which is subject to contractual arrangements entered into by the previous government during the 1990s to deal with this and we have issues of sovereign risk and business certainty. It is appropriate for the state of Victoria, through the Department of Treasury and Finance, to initiate negotiations with a company over changes to the taxation regime which will mean the state receives more than $40 million of extra revenue from a taxpayer.

It is appropriate to have commercial negotiations between the Department of Treasury and Finance and this company before the government embarks on a process of legislating in relation to existing agreements signed by the Kennett government. It is standard and appropriate practice when dealing with sovereign risk, where contractual negotiations were entered into by a previous government, for a government to move to change a tax regime and embark on commercial negotiations with an entity.

Yes, I was aware clearly of the commercial negotiations, because I as Treasurer instigated them. We were in the process of seeking to vary the tax rate imposed on that particular taxpayer, so the Department of Treasury and Finance engaged a commercial negotiator to go forth and have the discussions. Once that negotiation came back, I was satisfied with the outcome of the negotiations and signed the heads of agreement with that taxpayer. They are the circumstances it came from. It is appropriate that there were commercial arrangements. It was in the budget papers that the government was engaging in this going forward — there were revenue estimates in the budget papers. The day the heads of agreement were signed, they were published.

Supplementary question

Mr DALLA-RIVA (Eastern Metropolitan) — There is a lot of fishy stuff going on there. The Treasurer indicated that he was unaware. He sits there and says he cannot — —



The PRESIDENT — Order! Members do not get to debate. If Mr Dalla-Riva has a supplementary question, he can ask it. If he does not, I will move on.

Mr DALLA-RIVA — Has the Department of Treasury and Finance undertaken a social and economic assessment of this massive gaming expansion at Crown Casino, given that the same assessment processes are required for other gaming institutions, organisations or clubs — or is the government just looking after its mates?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I note Mr Dalla-Riva is oozing insincerity in his outrage. It has taken a month to even notice this item, let alone ask the question. Let us just go through the aspects of the question, one by one, and the innuendo running through them. On the issue of looking after mates, I thought that the issue of mateship was discussed at considerable length during the 1990s when this contract was arranged and entered into. I recall on which side of the mateship matrix the Labor Party fell and on which side the Liberal Party fell. Let us have a bit of historical perspective on the mateship matrix.

Secondly, Mr Dalla-Riva said there is something fishy here. Let us go through the process that was followed and look at the something that is fishy. The Kennett government entered contractual arrangements with Crown Casino that bound the state of Victoria going forward for 50 years. You would think that, in the interests of sovereign risk and in the interests of basic commercial business practice, any government that is going to vary contractual arrangements and that wants a skerrick of investment in the state of Victoria going forward would actually enter commercial negotiations when it has a commercial agreement. Perhaps members of the Liberal Party believe we should just rip up commercial agreements that have been signed by them. Or perhaps if you think the previous Liberal government negotiated tax arrangements with this particular taxpayer that were lower than for any other pub or club in the state of Victoria and if you think that is appropriate and should never be renegotiated, then you should follow Mr Dalla-Riva’s view of how arrangements work.

This is what the government embarked on: I as Treasurer formed the view that it was appropriate that Crown Casino pay a tax rate more closely aligned to that which other organisations in the state pay on the takings of electronic gaming machines. Secondly, we had contractual arrangements with that organisation, signed by the Kennett government. If you are going to vary contractual arrangements, you get a negotiator to go out and negotiate. What the Department of Treasury

and Finance did was engage a commercial negotiator to go out and negotiate that change. The outcome of that, which Mr Dalla-Riva seems to ignore, has been increased revenue for the state of the order of $40 million to $50 million a year, which will go a long way towards helping to start funding the multiple multibillion-dollar projects that those opposite keep demanding the state fund.

The question is how to vary a commercial negotiation or deal with a commercial arrangement entered into by a previous government — that is, how to vary it to get a fairer rate of return to the state.

Mr Dalla-Riva interjected.

Mr LENDERS — Mr Dalla-Riva wants to talk about stunned mullets. He was remarkably silent in the 3½ hours during which he had the opportunity to ask me questions on this issue at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearing. My point is this: in the budget papers we forecast a line where we expect greater revenue to come from the electronic gaming machine levies at the casino. We entered commercial negotiations, and the day those heads of agreement were signed, we published — without hesitation.

We have a policy outcome. We have greater revenue to the state. The context of this was that we were left with an arrangement from commercial negotiations by the previous government which saw the rate of tax on electronic gaming machines in the casino being 10 per cent less than that in pubs and clubs elsewhere in the state of Victoria. This government has rectified that. It has entered the heads of agreement. That is what has happened. There is nothing fishy about it. There is nothing out of the ordinary about it. It is clear and above board. As you would hope in the 21st century when dealing with commercial arrangements with a taxpayer that employs 8000 people, you have a commercial negotiation, and when the negotiation is concluded you publish what you have done.

Information and communications technology: government investment

Mr SOMYUREK (South Eastern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Information and Communication Technology, Mr Lenders. Can the minister inform the house of how the Brumby Labor government’s investment in information and communications technology (ICT) continues to attract companies to set up and expand here in Victoria?

Mrs Peulich — Paid for by the Brumby bank card!



Mr LENDERS (Minister for Information and Communication Technology) — I thank Mr Somyurek for his question and his interest in growing jobs in ICT. I take up Mrs Peulich’s interjection, ‘Paid for by the Brumby bank card’. If anybody opposite has a problem with facilitating jobs coming to the state or if Mrs Peulich has a problem with creating jobs in Victoria, then she and they should go out to Victorians and say why they have a problem with a government doing what a government is meant to do in creating jobs in this state today.

Mr Somyurek raised the issue of creating in jobs in Victoria. Last week I had the great delight of being with the Premier at the launch of NetApp’s new headquarters in Melbourne. NetApp is an international ICT company that is at the forefront of state-of-the-art data storage. It offers green, efficient data storage, and it is creating jobs in Victoria today. NetApp has opened a new office in the city. It has moved in with its staff and it is creating more jobs. These are high-tech jobs and they are green jobs for the future. It is a very good outcome, and frankly I do not understand why Mrs Peulich has such a problem with Mr Somyurek asking me a question about creating green ICT jobs in the state of Victoria.

Mrs Peulich interjected.

Mr LENDERS — If we talk about the lost opportunities that Mrs Peulich interjects about, I think a lost opportunity would be if a government sat on its hands at a time of global financial crisis and said that it is too hard to create jobs in Victoria. What this government has is an ICT sector that is holding on to employment at a time of global financial crisis. NetApp is a classic example of the creating of jobs.

Mrs Peulich — Just propaganda.

Mr LENDERS — Mrs Peulich says, ‘Just propaganda’. I suggest that she saunter down to NetApp and talk to some of the research and development staff who are working hard in the Asia-Pacific rim to gain contracts for data storage that creates jobs in Melbourne today.

NetApp is a fantastic employer. It was rated no. 2 in BRW’s best places to work in Australia category last year. The reason the company moved into the new building was that it was packed to the gunwales in the old one. It was so successful and it was getting more and more employees — Victorians working in ICT at a time of global slowdown — that it had to find a new building; the old one was not big enough for it. Imagine

if it had already moved into the new building: it would have won the no. 1 position as a good place to work.

The importance of what Mr Somyurek asks is that at a time when ICT companies around the world are shedding staff and the global economy is contracting we have a company that says Victoria is a good place to invest, a good place to create jobs, a place for opportunity and a place where it is good value to do business. This is a place with skills, with a competitive environment of low taxes and low regulation, and with a strong investment in infrastructure, and the result of good work is a good company that creates more jobs in the state of Victoria in an internationally competitive environment. That is what this government is about. That is what this government’s ICT policy is about and what I would hope everybody in this house is about. The no. 1, no. 2 and no. 3 issues in the world today are jobs, jobs and jobs, and we are part of creating jobs for Victorians today.

Crown Casino: gaming expansion

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — My question is also to the Treasurer. I refer to the deal to expand table gaming at Crown Casino and the renegotiated taxation arrangements and to the Treasurer’s response to Mr Dalla-Riva’s question, and I ask: is there any explicit reference in the budget estimates to the renegotiation of the taxation arrangements and expansion of gaming that was being undertaken at Crown, and if so, as the Treasurer suggested, where?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — Mr Rich-Phillips asks a good question: was there a reference? I say this to Mr Rich-Phillips, and I will be happy to give him the exact page reference in the budget papers after question time, but he will find in the budget — —

Mr Dalla-Riva interjected.

Mr LENDERS — Mr Dalla-Riva scoffs. If Mr Dalla-Riva had bothered to read the budget papers before he went into the estimates committee hearings, he would have found that they refer to a casino revenue increase in 2009–10 of $10 million; increase in 2010–11, $20 million; increase in 2011–12, $30 million; increase in 2012–13, $40 million. There is a line in the budget papers forecasting an increase in revenue from the casino of $10 million in the first year, $20 million in the second year, $30 million in the third year and $40 million in the fourth year.

There is a line in the budget papers forecasting the increase in revenue. The reason there was no



announcement beyond the line in the budget papers — as transparent as you can get — is that at that stage we had not signed the heads of agreement with the company. The day the heads of agreement document was signed, which was on the morning of the Tuesday after the budget, it was published.


Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I thank the Treasurer for his answer, and note that seemingly there was no explicit reference to renegotiating or changing the taxation arrangements in that line item. Given that the deal is dependent upon legislation, what contingency has been built into the budget in the event that the legislation is not supported?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — Firstly, Mr Rich-Phillips says, ‘There was nothing in there’. There was: $10 million, $20 million, $30 million and $40 million. If Mr Rich-Phillips had asked me in PAEC (Public Accounts and Estimates Committee) or if I had been asked at any time, I would have explained what it was. No-one asked me.

Mr Drum interjected.

Mr LENDERS — I will pause for a second on that interjection. I cannot think of what is more open, transparent and accountable than putting in the budget papers estimate increases of $10 million, $20 million, $30 million and $40 million. I cannot imagine what is more transparent than that.

Secondly, the day the heads of agreement document was signed, I put out a statement on it. The second part of Mr Rich-Phillips’s question was: what happens if the revenue measures are not passed by the Parliament? If the revenue measures are not passed by the Parliament, then clearly the revenue does not go forward and some program that perhaps Mr Rich-Phillips would like to nominate will either have to be adjusted or the state will not have the revenue it thought it had. It is like any other item in the budget. The state forecasts where it expects the accounts to go and the economy to go. If there are new revenue measures in there, then it is in the hands of the Parliament what happens to them one way or the other. But I totally reject the assumption of these questions that there is something secretive about this. It is in the budget, the same budget papers that Mr Dalla-Riva and Mr Rich-Phillips presumably read from cover to cover before they went into the PAEC hearings.

Drought: government initiatives

Ms DARVENIZA (Northern Victoria) — My question is for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Gavin Jennings. I ask the minister if he can inform the house of how the Brumby Labor government is taking action to assist drought-affected farmers and the long-term unemployed.

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I thank Ms Darveniza for the opportunity to talk about a very important and exciting program. I joined last week with Mission Australia in Bendigo to celebrate the commitment of our government to support job creation in the important area of retrofitting households across Victoria to make sure those households, particularly low-income households, are well prepared in making their dwellings more efficient and reducing their energy costs in years to come, in line with the introduction of emission trading schemes and the price of energy, which is anticipated to increase correspondingly. We think it is very important that the Victorian community be supported by making sure their household budgets are sustainable.

More than $10.5 million has been allocated to support the activities of the energy and water task force model during the life of the Bracks and Brumby governments’ commitment to supporting Victorian households. This is consistent with our approach to providing rebates and other assistance to households to enable them to buy more energy-efficient appliances and install them in their homes, to put insulation in their homes and to turn over light globes. There is a very consistent range of support from our government.

This program, which is operating out of Bendigo and supporting the local communities, will create new jobs and skill development, not necessarily for young people, but in this case they are young people having their first job opportunities in this field. They are being trained and supported to undertake audits of households’ energy efficiency and to retrofit those households. It is very exciting to be in the company of young people who are enthusiastic about new employment opportunities for them and who understand the importance of those jobs in greening the economy and being more sustainable.

This program was designed specifically to support farmers who may be subjected to loss of income due to the consequences of the drought and people who qualify for exceptional circumstances assistance in regions which have been designated for exceptional circumstances. They may have low incomes in their



households. They are the particular farming families that we are targeting through this program. It is a great initiative of our government, working in collaboration with Mission Australia.

We also have collaborations with the Brotherhood of St Laurence in other municipalities. We are going to drive this program in other parts of Victoria. We will support households in becoming more energy efficient, in saving their family budgets and in providing job opportunities in years to come. It will be a measure of our commitment to our communities to support them in this way.

Economy: government performance

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to this morning’s national accounts figures, which show that growth in Victorian state final demand has been zero for the year to March 2009, the second worst of all states and well below the national average. Given the government has previously claimed the Victorian economy is outperforming other states, why has Victoria’s performance been so poor?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I thank Mr Rich-Phillips for his question. I am delighted on any occasion to talk about state final demand figures or GSP (gross state product) figures or GDP (gross domestic product) figures or GNP (gross national product) figures and also to talk about where the state of Victoria — —

Hon. M. P. Pakula — GRP?

Mr LENDERS — GRP figures indeed! We saw today that the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) put out some new state demand figures. It also put out some GDP figures and revised a series of figures. I would reply to Mr Rich-Phillips in two ways: firstly, we can have a long discussion about figures. I guess he, with his mentality of having a glass half empty, will look for anything that is gloomy. He does not refer to the fact that the ABS revised up the estimates from Victoria in the third and fourth quarters last year.

It is interesting that he gets up in the house and says we have a quarterly figure here which is a negative figure. He is correct; there is a state final demand figure that is negative, and Mr Rich-Phillips raises that figure here. But interestingly I am more of a glass half full person. I would rather refer to the fact that in the third and fourth quarters last year the ABS has revised up the figures.

The other aspect is that state final demand essentially strips out, in simple terms, the net result of exports.

When you are comparing Victoria to the rest of the country, what is a single area for those figures has been the renewal of mineral exports from the resource states and the underpinning.

Leaving aside the long debate you can have about whether an economy is in a quarter of decline or two quarters of decline and all your technical definitions, the most significant thing here that matters to people in my electorate, and I am sure every other electorate in the state, is what the government is doing about it. You can sit here and navel gaze after the event and say, ‘My gosh! We had a quarter of negative growth’ or of positive growth. I never could talk about a single quarter’s figures. You always say you have got to look at them in the context of a longer period. But even if you do, even if you want to focus on a single quarter or multiple quarters, it is all about what you are doing about the underpinnings.

We know there is a global financial crisis. We know there is a world recession. We know a consequence of that world recession is that jobs will be shed in every single economy in the world. Our budget on 5 May was a jobs plan that talked about an $8 billion capital works investment that would secure 35 000 jobs in Victoria, with the government acting directly to deal with it.

The opposition, interestingly, called for a $6 billion cut in expenditure over four years by its talk about freezing tax levels — and all the other things it said: freezing, non-indexing and a range of things.

It is fascinating, and I am completely with the opposition, that it would be desirable to do that. But you cannot go out and say in one breath that you are going to slash $6 billion off government revenue over four years and in the next breath come out and say, ‘Gosh! You are borrowing money to build infrastructure jobs’. Every single opposition member comes out and says we have got to do more. I know what the budget speeches are going to be like later this week: every single member will criticise the government for not spending enough, and every single member will say we have borrowed too much.

In response to Mr Rich-Phillips on the economic statistics, I say to him that the economic statistics go up and down. The figures he is selectively referring to today are predominantly figures that strip out the net trade component. He is ignoring completely the fact that the ABS has revised the last two quarters before this to say Victoria performed more strongly than he and his party criticised us for at the time. He has forgotten to say, ‘Mea culpa. We were wrong. We criticised you last time. It is actually better than we



thought it was’. He is very silent on that. Perhaps in his supplementary he will say, ‘Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!’.

The final thing I would say to Mr Rich-Phillips is: it is fine to come into this place and comment, but I want to hear a policy that will create one single job in Victoria. It is fine to have an opinion on everything. We need a policy. We know there is a global financial crisis. We know there is a world recession. For the first time since the Second World War the International Monetary Fund has said there will be negative growth in 2009. We know that; it is not rocket science. What we are looking for and what we have delivered in the budget are solutions that help protect Victoria and Australia from those chill winds. I am sure Mr Rich-Phillips will come up with a great solution, and I look forward to a supplementary question.


Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I thank the Treasurer for his answer. I note his reference to the government’s infrastructure program. Given the government’s claimed commitment to infrastructure investment, why is Victoria’s public sector investment result also the worst of any state?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — Mr Rich-Phillips weaves a very interesting dance when he talks about economic statistics. Perhaps his knowledge of history is not as good as mine, but if I dredge my memory: the figures he is referring to relate to public sector investment, and if I recall, there was a government in the 1990s that sold off all the electricity companies; it also sold off the gas companies in the 1990s. There was a government in the 1990s that flogged off 300 schools. If I recall, his leader was the auctioneer for about 60 of those schools.

If we are looking at figures that talk about investment in government bodies and you match us with New South Wales, where the state owns electricity companies — I admit it was Barry O’Farrell who was the economic racker there who would not let the government sell them — the figures he is referring to include investment in energy companies that are owned by government in New South Wales, but that is not so in Victoria. They refer to gas companies in Queensland that are owned by government in Queensland, but that is not so in Victoria, because his party sold them all.

What I would say to Mr Rich-Phillips is that if he wants to look at more meaningful figures on investment, he will look at this: this state, in cooperation with the commonwealth, is spending, through our general

government sector this year and through the extra money to non-government schools and housing associations, in excess of $8 billion, which will create jobs in every municipality in this state.

The year we came into office we had $1 billion from the Kennett government, an eightfold increase, and that is before you start on the investment in sewerage programs and in water programs, and before you start on the regional rail link on which Mr Drum’s great friend, Mr Truss, does not think we should spend money in Victoria. If you look at what the figures show, you can also see what we are doing to make this state a better place to live, work, invest and raise a family. Our budget of 5 May was a job plan protecting 35 000 jobs, and the opposition has yet, four weeks later, to come up with a proposal to create just one job in Victoria.

Planning: Maribyrnong

Mr EIDEH (Western Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Planning, the Honourable Justin Madden. Can the minister advise the house of the benefits that will result from VicUrban’s involvement in the Maribyrnong defence site redevelopment?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — I welcome the member’s interest in these matters. Earlier this year the Brumby Labor government announced — and we welcomed the announcement — that the federal and state governments would partner to build a new suburb on the former Maribyrnong defence force site. The announcement is fantastic news for all of Melbourne, because it paves the way for a new inner city suburb which is 60 times the size of the MCG; that is how vast the site is. Some members may have driven past the site, but what they may not realise is that it is quite an extensive site; the depth of the site from the road is quite substantial.

We will see 7500 new jobs created in this new suburb, over 3000 new homes and 3 kilometres of new riverfront access for the community. Anybody who has been in that part of Maribyrnong would understand that it is a beautiful location along the river. You cannot get access to that site, but immediately opposite on the other side of the river along the walking and bicycle path you would not know you were in the middle of Melbourne. It is an absolutely magnificent site, but because it has significant contamination it needs to be rehabilitated and have people repatriated there, and this gives us a major opportunity to locate in the order of 6000 people to this site. This development will showcase a parcel of land that has basically been unknown to the residents of Melbourne for many years.



We know that we are going through the worst global financial crisis since the Depression, so creating jobs has never been more important. Protecting jobs has never been more important, and supporting that through major infrastructure projects will help deliver that protection. This is a project that will help generate jobs and support those local economies. It will also help us to deliver housing for the extra 1.8 million people expected to call Melbourne home by 2036. Let us not understate the task of providing housing for those people. This development will allow a new suburb in an existing area that is complemented by public transport and by the retail development alongside it, and it will provide the opportunity to locate jobs in that precinct.

The history of the site is a particularly interesting one. Whilst many would know that it was formerly a defence force site, they may not know that it had its own rich history prior to that. I understand that in the 1830s the site had some indigenous connections; it has been used as grazing country by European settlers, and it has also been used as a horse stud by the Cox brothers of Cox Plate fame, so there is an ability to reintroduce people to the history of that site. Today the site — and this is one of the major challenges — has 400 heritage buildings located on it. That shows the size, the rich history and the vastness of the site.

We look forward to working with the federal government to see VicUrban deliver jobs and housing for Victorians at a time when we need that investment because of the global financial crisis.

Planning: growth areas infrastructure contribution

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) — My question without notice is for the Minister for Planning, the Honourable Justin Madden, and relates to growth areas infrastructure contribution levies of around $95 000 a hectare on land to be brought into the urban growth boundary. This levy, amounting to up to $30 million for some landowners, by reports, is payable before development of the land — or that is the way it is planned — and is even payable retrospectively on some land that has already been sold. On behalf of many angry landowners who are contacting me, I ask if this huge levy really must be imposed at present. Would it not be fairer and more reasonable to charge the levy not now but, as happens in New South Wales, when an application is actually made to develop the land in question?

The PRESIDENT — Order! I am going to allow the question, but I remind the house that a question in that context is very close to asking for an opinion.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — I welcome Mr Kavanagh’s interest in this matter, and I know there is considerable interest out there. As a little bit of background prior to answering this question, one of the important elements of the plan for all of Melbourne — Melbourne @ 5 Million — is that we have what is known as an urban growth boundary. There are varying views on the other side of the chamber as to whether we should or should not have that, but we are committed to having an urban growth boundary, and we have nominated that we will be looking to adjust the boundary to bring areas outside it into the Melbourne metropolitan footprint so those areas can be earmarked for residential development.

The important component in this is that there are a number of areas under investigation as potential areas for housing development that would in a sense be brought into the urban growth boundary, or the urban growth boundary would be shifted. We are well aware that what that does is basically change the entitlement of the land use from something that might be rural or agricultural to suburban development. There is a significant benefit to the current land-holder when that urban growth boundary is adjusted, and that manifests itself in the sale price.

When that person sells the property, there is a significant change in the value of the property, because you can get in the order of 15 dwellings per hectare on it. We are looking to capture some of that value to put into the infrastructure of the new suburb at a rate of about $95 000 per hectare, but I understand that is not without some anxiety in the community.

We are eager to work with the community so that people can understand that if their land is brought into the urban growth boundary — and I say ‘if’ — and their property is sold or subdivided, there is a cost to the land-holder when they exchange on their properties. I want to give a few examples.

History has shown that when the urban growth boundary is expanded, property prices rise by up to 10 times, basically just through the stroke of a pen. For example, in 2008 farmland in the city of Wyndham which was not close to the urban growth boundary was priced at around $15 000 per hectare, while farmland nearby which was within the urban growth boundary was valued at $400 000 per hectare. That is the difference between land immediately outside and land within the urban growth boundary.

An independent market valuation recently commissioned by the Growth Areas Authority found that the typical price of rural land outside the urban



growth boundary in Melton is around $25 000 per hectare, whereas inside the urban growth boundary it is typically $225 000 per hectare — almost a tenfold difference. It is a similar story in the south-east, where a 40-hectare property in Pakenham sold in November 2007 at $474 000 per hectare whereas nearby sales of land outside the urban growth boundary in Clyde North sold at the same time for $36 000 per hectare. There is a significant change in the value of a property when it is brought into the urban growth boundary.

Rezoning land from farming to urban development brings an enormous value uplift. Using today’s market valuation, a farmer who owns 100 hectares in Melton outside the urban growth boundary could expect to walk away with a $15 million profit after paying the growth areas infrastructure charge on their land if it was rezoned for urban development.

Tapping a portion of that value uplift and putting it towards the infrastructure that new communities require is what we need to do to build a sustainable Melbourne. Legislation to implement the growth areas infrastructure charge is currently being drafted and will be introduced into Parliament later this year. Mr Kavanagh, there is currently a lot of misinformation out there that is being peddled — —

Mr Guy — By you!

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — It is being peddled by the opposition.

Mr Guy interjected.

The PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Guy!

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — There is a lot of misinformation being peddled, especially by the opposition, as I mentioned. I understand the opposition has described it as a ‘new death duty’ or even an ‘evil tax’, but it is not true. The growth areas infrastructure charge will not apply to land inheritances or to farmers who want to retire on their land.


The PRESIDENT — Order! If Mr Pakula and Mr Guy want to converse, they should do so — but not in here.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — It will not apply to land inheritances — —

Mr Guy interjected.

The PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Guy is clearly not willing to accept what I am telling him. He is now warned.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — I understand it will not apply to land under an acre in size. We will consider potential cases of hardship and have a safeguard built in to assist individual cases. That is currently being developed in the legislation. Clearly, though, most landowners stand to profit from the rezoning — not only profit but profit substantially. They are entitled to that profit. We also want to make sure that future residents, communities and businesses located on these lands will be able to profit from the rezoning as well.


Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) — I ask the minister: is it not so that the attempt to get the money as soon as possible, rather than waiting until an application for development has been made, is motivated by this government’s desire to get the money now rather than leave the money for future governments which may be of a different political persuasion?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — No doubt when you collect this money would have been discussed at great length in the community. I am sure Mr Kavanagh can associate with my experience. I grew up in Airport West in the 1960s — we are going back a few years now. I was born and lived in the suburb, which basically and predominantly comprised weatherboard houses. The roads were not made, and there was no sewerage. I think I was raised in a home that was held under a war service mortgage. It was probably only under that benefit that my parents were able to get a house in that working-class suburb. We waited 10 years for the roads to be made. We waited at least 8 to 9 years for the sewerage to go in — we still had the night carter there for many years, which was not particularly pleasant when he walked through the yard at the wrong time of day or night.

I want to make the point that that type of suburb and that type of suburban development scenario are no longer accepted as best practice. When we create new suburbs, we do not want the infrastructure being installed after everyone has moved in and developed their commuting or transport habits or is looking for infrastructure. We want the infrastructure to go in at the time of development, so people can have bus services, so they can have transport connections and so they can have the community facilities and sportsgrounds for their children.



This is all part of building communities and not dormitory suburbs. We look forward to working to dispel and allay any fears out in the community.


Hon. J. M. MADDEN — We look forward to making sure that the future suburbs being developed on the fringes of Melbourne are not only sustainable and not only great communities that have best practice in terms of housing but that they reinforce that Victoria — Melbourne in particular — is a great place to live, work and raise a family.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I remind the house of the standards required even during interjections. I heard someone on my left say, ‘You could not trust the minister to tell the truth’. I am not sure who it was, and it is lucky for them I am not sure. I expect a little higher standard.

Climate change: government initiatives

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria) — My question is to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Gavin Jennings. Will the minister update the house on how the Brumby Labor government is taking action to help address the complex issues involved in adapting to the impacts of climate change and demonstrating once again the Brumby Labor government’s role as a leader in climate change policy?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I thank Ms Tierney for the opportunity to talk about an important announcement made by the Premier and me this morning when we attended an international symposium on climate change adaptation which the Victorian government is hosting at this moment.


Mr JENNINGS — It is creating an opportunity for the Victorian community to be well engaged and well immersed in international considerations of climate change adaptation — something that our government is very keen to support.

The government understands that the opposition, which has been silent for decades on this issue, has actually found voice in trying to howl me down in terms of the position the Victorian government is trying to develop in collaboration with the Victorian community and various stakeholders: industry in regional communities across Victoria. We are very determined to make sure Victoria plays a leadership and progressive role in relation to the transformation of our economy, to drive

better results in relation to greenhouse gas abatement and to see that we adopt innovative practices, build the best technology and have the best application in terms of industrial processes in Victoria, which will mean that Victoria will continue to lead the national trajectory in relation to greenhouse gas abatement and to transform our economy.

In the symposium this morning we looked at the ways in which the adaptation strategy where we have already established a momentum — whether it be through land and biodiversity, water management or research and development in terms of supporting better approaches to agricultural production, whether it be through the collaborative approach we have with local government and communities through the sustainability accord, where we have seen a relationship between 69 of the 79 municipalities across Victoria working in collaboration with the Victorian government about a host of climate change strategies and implementation of strategies within local communities — will mean we can be well armed to deal with the climate change challenge.

The government wants to make sure it is well versed both in the global aspects of the science in relation to atmospheric conditions and in climate change scenarios that may impact upon the quality of life of our citizens. It is quite extraordinary that in the comparatively constrained area of Victoria there will be significant regional variations across the landscape in terms of the structural adjustment and the adaptation that is required. Indeed the Victorian government wants to engage our community about the way we can rise to respond to that.

The structure of the green paper will see us inviting our community to participate in a debate about these issues in the months to come. The document being released today will culminate in a white paper process later in the year, which not only coincides with the importance of developing the adaptation strategy and the implementation of it but comes in a very timely way when considering how it relates to the carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS) which is currently before the Australian Parliament and will be the major legislative architecture and market regulator in terms of how the transformation should occur.

Mr Barber interjected.

Mr JENNINGS — I understand there is a degree of ambivalence, if not confusion or resistance, coming from the other side of the chamber. I want members to know that the Victorian government has produced its green paper regardless of the trajectory of the CPRS —



whether it is adopted as it is, whether a pause button is put on or whether it is reconfigured in light of international obligations — and will continue to look at ways in which we complement the integrity of the CPRS to drive the most progressive trajectory of greenhouse gas abatement in our economy and our society in the years to come.

As part of that commitment today we said Victoria would be supportive in the context of an agreement around Copenhagen that Australia adopt an 80 per cent reduction trajectory by 2050. That is a commitment that we have made in the document, and we are inviting our community to comment on that, to comment on the way we can do that and to develop our capability of dealing with that in a way that addresses the environmental challenges but creates a climate of opportunity for our citizens to be employed in new job opportunities that we believe will flow from the commitments of our government.

We are very keen to work collaboratively with all stakeholders in our community, whether they be regional communities, major employers in the community, the mums and dads, aunts and uncles, grandfathers or grandmothers and their children and offspring in relation to working through these issues collaboratively. We want an engaged, informed and enthused community to rise up and meet the challenge of climate change but to see it through the prism of opportunities for the Victorian community and the Victorian economy.

Sitting suspended 1.05 p.m. until 2.07 p.m.


Debate resumed.

Ms HARTLAND (Western Metropolitan) — I know it is often difficult for parties to apply moral and ethical standards when it is their own colleagues who are actually guilty. When their own powerbrokers and mates are the ones rorting the system and undermining democracy, often political parties choose to look away. But denial can sustain you for only so long. To date the only elected representatives that seem to have paid a price are an MP who called for the investigation in the other place and a former councillor and electorate officer who gave frank evidence to the Ombudsman and has since been sacked.

There is no real attempt to doctor the issues that are affecting the lives of the second most disadvantaged community in Melbourne. Significant community assets such as a former child-care centre and

community centres have been denied to Brimbank community as they are gifted to prop up the power bases of ALP representatives and factions.

In 2007, after intervention from the member for Derrimut in the other place, the Albion community centre was licensed exclusively to two South American communities after it was vacated by a women’s domestic violence network. At the same time support groups for new mothers in Sunshine were told there was nowhere available for them to meet. This arrangement remains to this day, as does the Brigg Street property lease used for ALP branch meetings.

This is an interesting point for us, because in July last year I raised the issue of the Biggs Street, St Albans, property, which is listed as the headquarters of the Maribyrnong branch of the ALP. The building was leased by the Brimbank council at a peppercorn rent of $100 per month for the entire building for a supposed community group. When I raised this matter in Parliament I got no response other than an interjection from the Treasurer, saying, ‘So the Greens branches don’t meet at your electorate offices?’. No, they do not; they never have and they never will, because it is our understanding that that is against parliamentary process. If it was seen as such a strange thing that we were saying that, no, we do not use our electorate offices for party meetings, I would really like to know from people in this chamber who do use their offices for branch meetings. We in the Greens only use them for community meetings; we do not use them for branch meetings. I am very well aware of the fact that a number of ALP electorate offices are used for branch meetings.

Mr Hall — It would be too small for our branch meetings.

Ms HARTLAND — Too small, Mr Hall?

Mr Hall — Too many members!

Ms HARTLAND — Thank you for that interjection, Mr Hall.

The Ombudsman’s report of investigation into alleged improper conduct by councillors of the Brimbank City Council is just the tip of the iceberg. It is good to hear that the government intends to carry out all the recommendations of the Ombudsman, but what I do not understand is why it has taken the government so long to recognise there is such a serious problem.

As I said before, I have lived in West Footscray and Footscray for 22 years, and in all of that time I have been very much aware of what has been going on in



Sunshine. It is only 3 kilometres up the road from me. We read about it in the local papers. There has been scandal after scandal. How can the government say it did not know what was going on? It is good to know the government is taking on all the recommendations, but why did it not make any attempt to stop what was going on?

In light of what has been inflicted on the community by greed, ambition and factional infighting, to my mind, the recommendations do not go far enough. None of the Brimbank recommendations will trigger a cultural change. That is what Brimbank needs: a shared understanding of what its role as a council is. Councillors are there to serve the community and place community interest first, not last, as has been the case for so long.

The ALP government needs to restore democracy in the western suburbs. It has to do this by setting the standard of behaviour, especially for elected members — both MPs on a state and federal level, and councillors. Of course, this last statement does not mean that I think there is a problem only at Brimbank. There are a number of other councils that have come and some that still need to come under scrutiny, such as Glen Eira, Geelong and Banyule.

But a brief look in Hansard quickly reveals, as I have said, that the rot at Brimbank has been going on for years. In 2005, the then shadow Minister for Local Government, Mr Vogels, asked a question of the then local government minister, Ms Broad, about the problems. But there was no answer; there was no solution, nothing to remedy what the problem was. The pattern of the head-in-the-sand denial was all through the minister’s responses to Mr Vogels, and I would have thought those questions would start a process to make the government look seriously at the problem.

I think Minister Hulls, in particular, deserves an Academy Award for his mock horror in the media after release of the report. He cannot not have been aware of the corruption that has been going on for years. If I can find it in a brief search through Hansard, if I have been aware of it for all of these years, how come he has not been? And his office is in Keilor Road, Niddrie. Does he not read a local paper?

Through the course of this speech I have established that there has been a trail of evidence dating back to well before 2005, and if I wanted to I could have delved back and back and back. We all need to remember that in fact the old Sunshine council was sacked in the early 1980s for corruption, and obviously that situation has not improved much.

But for me the most important point in all of this is imagining what could have been achieved in a disadvantaged community like Brimbank if all the energy and time squandered on personal political ambition, abuse of power and misuse and mismanagement of public resources had been directed at placing the community interest first — and it just was not. Councillors should be there to represent and serve the community.

The motion before us today is about Mr Madden. While a former member of his staff has been named in the Ombudsman’s report, Mr Madden has not been named; though Mr Theophanous, who has not been in the chamber during any of this debate, has been named; because he is a member of this house, this motion should have included his behaviour as well.

What I find really amazing about Mr Madden, though, is his response to questions in the last sitting week: he said he did not know. He did not know until the Ombudsman’s report came out, so I suppose one could ask whether he ever goes to his electorate office? Has he never read a local paper? Has he never read any of the letters of complaint that have come from local residents to him in his capacity as local member or as Minister for Planning?

The issues with Brimbank go much further than Mr Madden. It is actually about a total disregard that the ALP has for the west. The west has often been used to give ALP candidates a safe seat; what I find really irritating is that often these people have absolutely no connection with the area. They are not prepared to live in their electorate so how can someone actually represent an electorate when they do not actually live there, when they do not have a firm connection to the electorate they represent?

The ALP has to address more than the recommendations that were in the Ombudsman’s report. It has to address what is happening in its own party, and what is occurring in terms of branch stacking. Just this morning, on the Jon Faine program, there was news of another leaked report about the fact that obviously just in the last few weeks there are again major concerns, not just from Brimbank but from other areas, about branch stacking. Until the ALP government actually addresses the issues about branch stacking, about corruption and about its absolute disregard for the west, these problems are simply not going to go away.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) — In speaking in very strong support of this motion, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing wholeheartedly with



Ms Hartland. As a fellow representative of Melbourne’s west, and a fellow resident of Melbourne’s west, I too am deeply angered by the response and the attitude of the Labor Party that this does not matter.

Mr Viney was the one who got up here, and I can say to Mr Viney that he is very fortunate indeed that we have had question time and a little bit of extra time for me to calm down, because I was furious when I heard him dismissing the west in the way that he did.

I invite Mr Viney to come out to the western suburbs of Melbourne and repeat what he said in this house today, and see how long he lasts, because the people of the west are sick to death of the attitude that Mr Viney and his Labor mates are expressing on a daily basis; the contempt that these people have for the western suburbs of Melbourne and the residents of the west. We have had enough, and let me assure you, President, we are not going to put up with it any more.

If Mr Viney doubts me, I invite him to join me. He can come out with me, walk down Hampshire Road in Sunshine, outside my electorate office, any time he likes.


Mr FINN — I will take you to the Braybrook pub — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Finn should return to the motion.

Mr FINN — Indeed, President, but the invitation stands. I am sure we have all heard the expression ‘Better hung for a sheep than a lamb’. We all know that expression and we all know what it means, but it seems that Minister Madden has accepted that expression as his personal motto, because not only is he guilty on one count in this particular scandal in Brimbank but he is guilty on many counts in this particular outrage against the people of Brimbank.

I congratulate the Ombudsman on presenting his report. On reading it I was a little disappointed, but given that it was done over only 10 months, the Ombudsman could not possibly be expected to get the full depth of corruption and rancid filth that goes on within the Brimbank council and surrounding areas. There would be no way that the Ombudsman would be able to do that in just 10 months, but he has done a very good job in exposing at least some of the areas of concern that people have had for quite some time.

It is important that this house be aware, and that the people of Victoria be aware, that this document and the

details outlined in this document, the activities outlined in this Ombudsman’s report, were almost all organised from Minister Madden’s office; they all came from Minister Madden’s office. The minister tells us that he did not know about it.

Hakki Suleyman, I understand, is still Mr Madden’s electorate officer and has been in that position for the entirety of Mr Madden’s tenure as a member of Parliament. I am aware of allegations that Mr Suleyman was placed in that position by now Senator Stephen Conroy when he was a factional warlord — he still is a factional warlord, let us face facts, but now perhaps a lesser factional warlord — but that is beside the point.

The point is that Mr Madden has had Hakki Suleyman working in his office — and I use the word ‘working’ very loosely indeed — for very close to a decade now, and he expects us to believe that he did not know what Mr Suleyman was up to.

The questions that need to be answered are: what did Minister Madden know and when did he know it? Mr Madden will come in here, and he will try to play the big, cheerful dope. He is pretty convincing!

Mrs Petrovich interjected.

Mr FINN — Indeed, Mrs Petrovich is correct: he is very convincing in that role. He is not all that cheerful at the minute, but in terms of the other two aspects, he is doing a very good job.

However, I have to say that it is beyond belief that even the dopiest individual on the face of the earth would not know what is happening around them over a 10-year period in their own office. I cannot believe that any person — a minister, member of Parliament or whatever — would not know what is happening under their very nose. I think all of us would look at that with complete disbelief.

I will not go again into the evidence as outlined earlier today by Mr David Davis and Ms Hartland, but it goes on for quite a considerable number of pages. We are talking about, I think, over 130 letters that had been written about what Mr Suleyman had been up to whilst in the minister’s employ.

We have had letters from the Sunshine Residents and Ratepayers Association. The matter has been raised in Parliament by members of both parties — by both Labor and Liberal members. I should say it has been raised by the Greens as well, so it has in fact been raised by three parties. Yet Mr Madden tells us he did not know. He got up in this house, and I sat here in



stunned amazement as the minister told this house, ‘I didn’t know anything about it until I read the report’.

If that is the case, he is the only person in Victoria who did not know anything about it, because I can put money down that Mr Pakula knew what was going on in Brimbank. I will put money down that the Premier knew what was going on in Brimbank. And the Deputy Premier — what a performance on television! I am looking forward to March next year to see if the Deputy Premier gets a Logie, because the Deputy Premier gave a performance worthy of perhaps even an Academy Award. The shock! The horror! He said, ‘Was this going on in Brimbank?’. This is a bloke who represents Brimbank. This is a bloke who actually has Justin Madden’s office in his own electorate, yet he said, ‘I didn’t know anything about it’.

It just does not wash at all. So we had the Premier and the Deputy Premier — and of course also the Minister for Local Government: he did not know anything about it either!

Mr Barber — Don’t leave him out of it.

Mr FINN — The Minister for Local Government, as I am sure you are aware, Mr Barber, does not know much about anything at all. He will sit on his hands, come what may. Whatever day of the week or whatever month of the year it is, he will sit on his hands. He just refuses to do anything.

Mr Somyurek — He’s listened and acted.

Mr FINN — He has listened? What has he listened to? And I would love to know how he has acted. In my view what we have seen with the Minister for Local Government are acts of gross negligence on his part. He knew what was happening in Brimbank. It is his statutory responsibility to protect people from councils such as the one that was running Brimbank. It is his job, and he did not do it. He should be sacked. In my view he is not fit to hold that particular portfolio — or probably most others.

Then we had the Honourable Theo Theophanous, who gets a good run in the report — and quite justifiably so, because he has been in it up to his neck for years; he and his brother Andrew and Andrew’s wife Kathryn Eriksson, the former deputy mayor of Brimbank — what a little gathering they make! That is one you would keep an eye on from a fair distance.

Mrs Petrovich interjected.

Mr FINN — From afar indeed, Mrs Petrovich. We have this extraordinary situation where people are

sticking their noses into Brimbank from all over the place, and I have to say — —

Hon. M. P. Pakula — You included.

Mr FINN — I am loath to do this, President, as I am sure you would understand, but I have to take up Mr Pakula’s interjection. He said I had been sticking my beak into Brimbank, and I have been doing that; yes, I have. Do you know why? Because the people of Brimbank needed my protection, which is why I have raised this matter.

Hon. M. P. Pakula — You talk about Logie awards!

Mr FINN — Before Mr Pakula goes any further, I should point out to him that I am a member of the Liberal Party of Australia, whereas every individual named in this report is a member of the Australian Labor Party. This is not a report on Brimbank; this is a report on corruption in the Victorian division of the ALP. So before Mr Pakula gets carried away and accuses me — —

Interjection from gallery.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I am extremely reluctant to interrupt Mr Finn’s contribution, which I think we are all engrossed in, but I just remind members of the gallery that it is inappropriate for them to interfere in any way, shape or form — by applauding, cheering, booing or whatever — and if there is any continuance of that, I will remove individuals.

Mr FINN — A bit of applause would not go astray; it would be very good indeed. As I was saying, this report does not involve members of the Liberal party.


Mr FINN — It is exclusively about members of the ALP, Mr Viney — your party. That is the bottom line. I have to say that in the almost 10 years I have been a member of either house of this Parliament, I have never seen a report quite so anticipated by members of the Labor Party as this one. They have been getting very excited about this for a very long time. I can only assume that is because they were a bit worried they might be named in the report. There were great sighs of relief from a number of people when the report came out and they were not named in it. Others thought perhaps they had got a raw deal, and others have just gone to ground all together. I note the absence of Mr Theophanous from the house at this particular time.



The level of anticipation about this report among members of the government gives me an indication that there was not one single member of the Victorian parliamentary Labor Party who did not know what was going on at Brimbank — not one, and that includes the Minister for Planning.

Mr Koch — And the Attorney-General.

Mr FINN — The Attorney-General most certainly knew what was going on at Brimbank, despite what he says. Minister Madden comes in here and tells us that he knew nothing about what happened at Brimbank and that he knows nothing about the Suleyman reign of terror across the City of Brimbank — give me a break. Does anybody believe the minister? I certainly do not.

It has been interesting. In the month we had away from this place I had the opportunity to go out and, in the normal course of my parliamentary duties, visit a lot of places and talk to a lot of people. A lot of people, including some I know to be members of the ALP, have told me in words I cannot repeat in this house what we should do to Minister Madden. They are very angry, and I do not blame them at all. The minister’s credibility in here, outside this place, in the general community and certainly in the western suburbs of Melbourne has been shot to pieces. It does not exist anymore. Nobody believes him. Everybody, including Justin Madden, knew what was going on at Brimbank, and they chose to either ignore it or allow it to happen.

The second thing Mr Madden is guilty of is a gross act of betrayal. He was elected to represent Western Metropolitan Region — the people of the western suburbs of Melbourne. He was elected to represent people in Brimbank. As we know, his office is in the city of Brimbank. Employing Hakki Suleyman and allowing him to do what he has done over the past decade is one of the greatest acts of betrayal of the people he allegedly represents that we have seen by any member of Parliament anywhere. We know Minister Madden will do anything he can to keep his job and we know he will do as he is told, but this is an outrageous breach of the confidence placed in him by the people of the western suburbs of Melbourne to represent them in this place.

While attending a wide variety of functions and gatherings at schools and all sorts of places in the course of my duties over the two and a half years I have represented the residents of the western suburbs of Melbourne, I have yet to see Minister Madden at an electorate function. In two and a half years I have not seen him at one function, so it should not surprise us that he is not particularly interested in the constituents

who put him here. But to betray them in the way he has is truly despicable. To protect and promote shysters, shonks and charlatans as he has condemns him and should make us all, I believe, more enthusiastic about supporting the motion before this house today.

We have been told by the minister, both in this house and outside it, that Hakki Suleyman has been stood down as his electorate officer. The President might know a bit more about that than I do, but my understanding is that while Hakki Suleyman has been stood down by the minister, he has been stood down on full pay. When I was a lad if I was not working and I was on full pay, that was called a holiday. What is going on here? You say to the guy who has caused all the problems — this bloke who has caused so much grief for so many people for so long — ‘Go away, and we will pay you for doing nothing’. If that is what the minister regards as a responsible attitude, it is beyond me.

My view is that the minister has betrayed his constituency in every way possible. The level of anger among so many people in the western suburbs of Melbourne is something I have never seen before. I am talking about rock-solid Labor people who are red-hot angry — in fact white-hot angry — at what has happened with regard to Minister Madden’s performance. Of course the Premier will tell us that it is not his responsibility. He has told us it is up to this house to decide what will happen to Minister Madden. I hope that if this motion is passed today, the minister will follow the direction of the Premier and resign and that if he does not, the Premier will follow his own direction and dismiss the minister.

The other ‘crime’ I think has been committed is the minister’s attitude since all this became public knowledge. Since his performance in question time about a month ago, when he denied everything, the minister’s attitude has been nothing short of disgraceful. He has told us he did not know anything about this until he read the report, yet I raised these matters with him 12 months ago. Others raised them with him time and again, yet he has repeated that he did not know anything about it until he read the report. That is not telling the truth. To say that in this house is misleading in the extreme.

I have to say to the minister that there have been a number of instances in the past when ministers have been sacked for misleading Parliament. I think in this situation we need to take that on board. In 1975 Jim Cairns was sacked from the federal Parliament; in 1975 there was Connor, in 1987 Brown, in 1992 Richardson, in 1997 Prosser, in 1997 McGauran and in 1997



Sharp — 1997 was obviously not a good year for anybody. There have been two instances in New South Wales — in 1983 Jackson, and in 2006 Scully. Just last year the Deputy Premier of Tasmania was sacked for misleading the Parliament. If all those individuals were dismissed for misleading their respective parliaments, why should we be any different? This Parliament is a very important place. In many ways our whole society is based on how we treat our Parliament and on our democratic processes. If we have a minister who comes in here and feels that he can gild the lily, that he can not tell us the truth and get away with it, where do we go from there?

I heard the Premier on the Neil Mitchell program on 3AW saying that Minister Madden would be appearing at a Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearing in the next few days, that he would answer all these questions and that it would not be a problem. With anticipation I attended the PAEC hearing, only — to my absolute consternation — to see the chairman try to close the whole thing down. The minister refused to answer questions, and the whole thing turned into a bit of a circus, to the point where the chairman actually warned the minister that this was not very funny at all.

The attitude of the minister tells us he does not really care that he misled Parliament or that he does not really care that he betrayed the people who put him in here. That is extremely serious and something that we must, as necessity dictates, take on board. The minister told Parliament he did not know what was happening in Brimbank, but he did know. He has known about it for years, and he has allowed it to continue. Not only did he do nothing but he allowed it to continue; he allowed the suffering of the people he was elected to represent to continue.

This motion is about justice for the people of Brimbank as much as it is about anything else. People like Marilyn Canet, Darlene Reilly and Susan Jennison have stood up and fought such evil people who have been running their council for so long. It is interesting that it seems to be women who have stood up to the council, and we must now get justice for them. We must say to them, ‘You are justified in what you have done. You are justified in the fight that you put up for so long’. We have to give them a public pat on the back. We cannot allow this bloke to get away with it. We cannot allow Mr Madden to get away with what he has done, because that would be a total injustice, and that is not what this Parliament should be about.

President, I can assure you that the people in Brimbank and in the western suburbs have no confidence in Mr Madden. Now is the time for this house to make

public and state clearly that it has no confidence in Mr Madden.

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade) — It is always a difficult job following Mr Finn, particularly when he is in high dudgeon, but I just want to reflect on one of his last comments, because it will inform some of what I have to say. He says, ‘We cannot allow Minister Madden to get away with what he has done. It is not what this Parliament should be about’. I will tell you another thing that the Parliament should not be about: it should not be about setting itself up as a kangaroo court.

Mr Finn — The Premier said that, not me!

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — No, Mr Finn, you say, ‘We cannot allow Minister Madden to get away with what he has done; it is not what this Parliament should be about’. I am saying it is also not about setting itself up as a kangaroo court. It is not for this Parliament, Mr Finn or other members of the opposition to simply come in here and make assertions about things that Minister Madden has or has not done, when the report makes no suggestion that Minister Madden has done anything of the sort that they say should be the test for no confidence or dismissal.

Expressing no confidence in a minister is, as I am certain members opposite would concede, a very serious move. It is a move that should be reserved for none other than the most serious misbehaviour by ministers.

Mr Finn — Misleading the Parliament is pretty bad.

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — I will come to that particular allegation, Mr Finn, because to do otherwise — to throw around no-confidence motions, to throw around censure motions, to throw around allegations of corruption and to level those allegations at a minister without proper foundation — absolutely devalues the currency of those allegations. It demeans the status of this place. It demeans the oaths of office that ministers take. It demeans our responsibilities as parliamentarians. I think we are all aware that sullying the reputations of members of Parliament for all manner of things is grist to the mill.

I know from conversations I have had across this chamber with people I consider colleagues and friendly acquaintances that we have all privately lamented to one another the fact that degradation of the reputation of members of Parliament has almost become a sport for many in the community. The question I ask is: how can we properly complain about that when we are



prepared to do it to one another so easily and without proper foundation?

In regard to the motion moved by his leader, I would suggest to Mr Finn that this is one of those examples where these allegations, these suggestions of improper conduct by the minister, these accusations of corruption and no confidence are without proper foundation when it comes to the behaviour of the minister. It is true — and it has been commented on by the Premier, the Deputy Premier and others — that the Ombudsman’s report into the Brimbank City Council is not a pleasant read.

Mr D. Davis interjected.

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — That is absolutely untrue, Mr Davis. If you want to throw allegations around about more people who are not named in the Brimbank report, you are going the right way about it, because what you have just said is absolutely untrue.

It is the case that the Ombudsman’s report makes what I suppose you could broadly define as unfavourable comment about a range of people. It makes unfavourable comment about some councillors, some sitting and former members of Parliament, both state and federal, and other members of the community. But it makes no suggestion whatsoever of any improper conduct by the Minister for Planning. In all the pages, in all the chapters and in all the clauses that the member read out there is not a single suggestion of improper conduct by the Minister for Planning. Yet the member comes in here spewing allegations and throwing them around about no confidence, corruption and bad behaviour.


Hon. M. P. PAKULA — I reckon Mr Finn had a pretty good go. The minister has to come in here and contend with this motion.

Let us just go to some of the specific paragraphs in Mr Davis’s motion. Paragraph (1)(a) refers to:

the minister’s failure to fully answer questions put to him in this house on 7 May …

If people want to cast their minds back, they will remember that the President ruled that the minister did not have to answer any of those questions, but he stood up in here and chose to answer them, even though they did not relate to his portfolio. Even though they were out of order, he did his best to answer those questions because he felt the Parliament deserved that. And yet Mr Davis comes in here with his motion and says that the minister failed to fully answer questions.

The motion goes on to say that the minister misled the house. Mr Finn came in here and tried to compare it to the examples of Rex Connor, Jim Cairns and the Deputy Premier of Tasmania. If he recalls, Rex Connor stated in the Parliament that he was not conducting loan negotiations with Khemlani, and it was later established that he was doing so. The Deputy Premier of Tasmania made some assertion which was then rebutted by the fact that — I think — a Greens member of Parliament had managed to go through that bloke’s bin and put together a shredded document. These are the kinds of examples that Mr Finn was referring to.

What Mr Finn complains about in regard to Minister Madden’s answer is that, as I recall it, the minister was not aware of the full details of the allegations against Mr Suleyman until they were exhibited in all their detail in the Ombudsman’s report. Mr Finn does not like that answer and suggests that the minister ought to have known all the details. It is fair enough for him to say that, but it is a very big leap to go from that point to suggest that the minister misled the house.

But I think the real travesty of this motion lies in paragraph (2), because that paragraph either deliberately or by omission — but I would suggest somewhat mischievously — fails to recognise and to comprehend that there is a vast difference between a minister carrying out his ministerial responsibility and the conduct of his ministerial office on the one hand and what occurs in a minister’s electorate office on the other hand. But more importantly, it fails to recognise that there is a difference between the actions of an electorate officer acting in his capacity as an electorate officer and what that electorate officer might do in his own time and in his private life.

Let us go through where this motion really takes a lend — —


Hon. M. P. PAKULA — This is the problem with Mr Davis’s motion. He simply comes in here and asserts that what the government says is not plausible. Unfortunately his problem is that the Ombudsman’s report does not back up the story that he is trying to weave, because it does not make any suggestion about misconduct by the Minister for Planning either in his capacity as Minister for Planning or as a member for Western Metropolitan Region. It makes comment about the behaviour of certain individuals in their conduct at council, in their homes and in other places. In fact Mr Finn almost made the assertion that there was some kind of racket being run out of the office of a member for Western Metropolitan Region, which is another



assertion which is absolutely not backed up by the Ombudsman’s report.

Mr Finn — Do you deny that?

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — Mr Finn, it is a ridiculous — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! I have just about had enough now of Mr Finn’s constant interjections. The member is warned.

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — Mr Finn, you might as well ask me to deny something about the conduct of a member of your own party. You might as well ask me to deny something David Davis might be alleged to have done.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I ask Mr Pakula to address his remarks through the Chair. While he continues to converse directly with Mr Finn he will do nothing but provoke him, and I am sure then tempt him to interject, which will convince me to remove him.

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — Thank you, President. I consider myself well advised. I am cross for not having figured it out sooner on my own.

Paragraph (2)(b) of the motion refers to:

a minister who knew his staff were intimidating rather than assisting local residents …

That paragraph tries to connote an atmosphere or a suggestion that constituents walking into Justin Madden’s electorate office were somehow being treated improperly. It is an assertion that it is absolutely not supported by the Ombudsman’s report.

Mr D. Davis — I’ve quoted specific evidence: correspondence to the minister’s office.

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — Let me say again, Mr Davis, your motion’s paragraph (2)(b) refers to:

a minister who knew his staff were intimidating rather than assisting local residents …

That conjures up the image that people are coming into his office and being intimidated rather than assisted, and there is no suggestion in the report of anything of that nature.

Paragraph 2(c) says:

a minister whose office influenced a series of planning decisions …

That is trying to conjure up a suggestion of misconduct by the minister in that somehow the planning ministry

was being routinely stood over by an electorate officer. There is absolutely no suggestion of that sort of conduct whatsoever. This motion is really about trying to fit up a minister for the actions of one of his electorate officers that are alleged in the report to have been conducted in various places, whether they be at his home, at the home of his family or at council. There is no suggestion that any of these things were being carried out in his capacity as Mr Madden’s electorate officer but in his private capacity.

Mr Davis seeks to make the electorate officer’s relationship with his family, his relationship with council and all of these matters a reflection of his employer. The suggestions in this motion that his office did this, his office did that and his office had all sorts of influence make about as much sense as accusing his office of robbing a bank or accusing his office of being involved in any other misconduct. His office was involved in nothing of the sort. Someone who was employed at his electorate office has had some adverse comment made about them in an Ombudsman’s report, but there is no adverse comment about the minister.

Without going on indefinitely, I reiterate the point I have already made: the minister has had no adverse findings made against him in this report. He has not even been referred to unfavourably in the report. A person who has worked in his electorate office has had adverse comment made against him for actions he has undertaken in an entirely different capacity.

If that is the standard by which the opposition seeks to condemn a minister in the conduct of his ministerial functions, then I go back to the comment I made at the start: no wonder it is so easy for others to constantly reflect poorly on members of Parliament when all it takes is for someone’s electorate officer to have been involved in activities that are viewed unfavourably by the Ombudsman — when the Ombudsman makes no adverse findings against their employer and makes no suggestion of improper behaviour by the employer, and that employer happens to be a minister — to be the trigger to come into this place and suggest that the minister should be sacked or that this Parliament should have no confidence in the minister.

That is a devaluation of the currency, it is a devaluation of a motion of no confidence, it is a devaluation of the role of members of Parliament and ministers, and it is absolute, utter overkill.

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I rise in support of Mr Davis’s motion and commend him for putting it on the notice paper. I am very pleased that the motion is a broader one, because not only do I agree



that Mr Madden should no longer be the Minister for Planning and that he has failed in his duties as Minister for Planning and as the employer of a person in his office who directly and vicariously can be seen as his representative but I also think there are broader implications of not only this report but also this motion for a number of other ministers and members of the Labor Party.

I agree with Ms Hartland: I do not believe the Ombudsman’s report goes anywhere near far enough, and I will outline my reasons soon. I think the reason why the Minister for Planning is still the Minister for Planning is because the system has been skewed; it has been part of a Labor fix, and it is required and mandated by party rules.

It is a reflection of Labor Party culture. It is how Labor Party business is conducted and how it is done. The Minister for Planning cannot be made a scapegoat, because, at the same time, this has been required of him by the party that he signed up to, by the Labor pledge and by the various constitutions and platforms he adheres to.

Similarly complicit in the exercise of his power is the Minister for Local Government, who has also chosen to turn a blind eye to this councillor misconduct across a whole range of areas. Where I disagree with Ms Hartland is that it is not limited to the west. It is not. It is everywhere, it is endemic and it is the Labor way, and the Premier — —

Hon. M. P. Pakula — You had better watch it!

Mrs PEULICH — I am more than happy to watch it.

Hon. M. P. Pakula — We might start talking about some of the things you’ve done. You don’t come to this debate with clean hands.

The PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Pakula is not helping. He has made his contribution.

Mrs PEULICH — If the Premier had used the standards he used to garner the votes of Victorians for his election as Premier, then the Minister for Planning would no longer be the Minister for Planning, nor would the Minister for Local Government be a minister and probably nor would a number of others. I had cause to quickly revisit some of those documents which said Labor was going to find all the new solutions. One document refers to ‘a better government and integrity in government’. Some of the subheadings are: ‘proper standards in public life’ — it is enough to make you gag — and ‘open government’.

I look at The Victorian Charter — Restoring the Balance, signed off by John Brumby, then Leader of the Opposition, dated March 1996, printed and authorised by one John Lenders of 23 Drummond Street, Carlton South. I would like to take a couple of excerpts out of this document under the subheading ‘Good government’. If it were not so sad and important, it would have been a very good comedy skit in view of what we know about how Labor operates and in view of the latest reforms in the area of planning initiated by this Minister for Planning — the ripping away of democratic process when it comes to the establishment of development assessment committees, the ripping away of the rights of residents to be informed, to object and to exercise their third-party appeal rights on fast-tracked projects funded by the economic stimulus package of the taxpayers of Australia and Victoria, and the shoehorning of public housing into sensitive electorates where Labor needs to crank up the numbers in federal seats, state Legislative Assembly seats and upper house seats. These are the things that ultimately will catch up with Labor, because corruption can never stay hidden forever. The difference between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party is that the Liberal Party believes in democratic solutions. We may not always get everything right, but we believe in democratic solutions. If you have a look at the direction, even since Brimbank, that this minister has espoused, you will see it has been to take away the democratic solutions, to take away — —

Mr Lenders — Didn’t you promote Ken Aldred? Wasn’t he your star candidate? That was a democratic solution, wasn’t it?

Mrs PEULICH — Mr Lenders, you are talking absolutely through the top of your hat.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I say to the minister I have just had three conversations with three contributors to this debate on exactly the same subject — that is, interjections which are provocative and do not help the debate to its conclusion. The member, to continue, through the Chair.

Mrs PEULICH — I find Mr Lenders’s comments offensive, and I place that yet again on the record. This is typical of the Labor way: the bullying, the innuendo, the muckraking and the throwing of dirt without substance. If an issue has any substance, by all means one should put it on the public record.

I would be one of the few people in this Parliament whose mother has been in a children’s concentration camp. I take great offence at Mr Lenders’s attempt to assert that I am an anti-Semite through his fabrication



of some preposterous idea that has been bandied about on a Labor mate’s website — Vexnews, The Other Cheek or whatever it is called. Half of my family were destroyed by the Nazis during the Second World War. I find it extraordinarily offensive that Mr Lenders can so callously, as a way of trying to — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! I advise Mrs Peulich that I am really struggling with the relevance of her comments. If she is offended by Mr Lenders’s comments, she can certainly ask for them to be withdrawn, and I will be more than happy to accommodate her, but we do not need to continue to debate the fact that she is offended.

Mrs PEULICH — I believe this goes to the heart of the hypocrisy of the Labor Party. It goes to the heart of the argument because Mr Lenders was a signatory to this document. Under the heading ‘Good government’ — and I would just like to quote a few lines from the document I referred to earlier — Mr Lenders, in the hierarchy of the Labor Party when the current Premier, Mr Brumby, was the Leader of the Opposition in 1996, duped Victorians into believing that this was what the Labor government was going to provide, when we can see not only by the Ombudsman’s report but also by every other direction the government has taken in recent times that it is constantly eroding democracy. It is attempting to cheat Victorians out of their legitimate right to participate in the democratic process and hold governments to account.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I am struggling to follow what Mrs Peulich is talking about — the government or the Brimbank council, which is the issue at hand. We are all listening intently, and as I said, we are struggling to understand what Mrs Peulich are talking about.

Mrs PEULICH — Could the President give me a little leeway? It goes to the Labor Party’s rules, which I will read out in significant detail, and I am sure it will bring back memories as to how all of these things are brought together by the things that you, President, just like other members of the party, need to subscribe to, pledge and adhere to — so please cut me a little slack. It may be a little close to quarters, but the notice of motion by Mr Davis refers to improper conduct of councillors. Of course this is not particular to Brimbank council, it applies to many Labor councillors across the state of Victoria. It is about giving Labor a political advantage to the detriment of the community. This is what is required by Labor’s municipal code.

Let me go back and again quote from this document. It says:

Good government does not bully. It leads. And it knows the difference.

I am sorry, but this government, the Labor Party, does not know the difference between bullying and leading. The document continues:

Good government accepts criticism as part of our democratic system —

even the reshaping of the adjournment debate, dare I say, is not consistent with this particular platform —

and sees its creative value. It does not seek to intimidate, vilify and silence its critics.

Good government does not seek to bypass the legal system for the sake of expediency.

Nothing we have seen in the conduct of the Minister for Planning is consistent with those pronouncements under The Victorian Charter — Restoring the Balance, signed off by then opposition leader, now Premier Brumby, and signed off by the Treasurer, Mr John Lenders, so is it any wonder that Mr Lenders would like to gag debate and throw a bit of dirt to muddy the waters?

The Labor Party is bound by its rules — certainly in council I see this as very much a part of the problems that have come out of Brimbank and are reflected in the way that many other councils work — set out in this document, the ALP Victorian Branch Rules — May 2008. No doubt it is in a folder somewhere in the President’s system. It shows quite clearly that when people are voting for Labor councillors or Labor-supported councillors — not just endorsed but also supported — they are voting for a political fix, because the objectives of ALP involvement in municipal government are, as quoted from the ALP rules document:

b. To develop and implement local social and economic justice, environmental and other policy initiatives consistent with, or in support of, state and federal ALP policy ...

People are required to vote along the lines of ALP state and federal policy and not necessarily in the interests of their local communities. When you have a look at any council where there is a significant cohort of Labor councillors or Labor-supported councillors and they practise caucusing, which is required by this document, you will see patterns of bloc voting. It happens at Kingston, it happens at Casey and it happens across much of the area I represent, often to the detriment of the communities which those councillors have been elected to represent. It is often contrary to the principles and platforms that they espouse as candidates. For



example, last night at the City of Casey a bloc of five Labor councillors and Labor-supported councillors voted against a motion to give local communities a say on planning, as initiated by the Victorian Local Governance Association and the Municipal Association of Victoria, the peak bodies of local government. The bloc of councillors voted not to support a group of concerned councillors who are trying to force the government to reinstate democracy to the planning process. They voted against the motion because that is required by the Labor Party municipal code.

The same thing happened the other night at the City of Kingston. Voting on a similar motion was deferred, even though time is of the essence. If communities are going to be given the opportunity to express their objections and be informed about developments that may crop up next door to them, those councillors should have been protecting those communities’ rights. They should have been standing up for their communities and not looking at ways to protect local Labor MPs and local Labor warlords.

This is the political fix. The Labor Party has seen local government as its third tier of operation. I was also surprised to read on page 37 of the Labor municipal code — the ALP branch rules — that section 12.3.9 says:

Where it exists the municipal caucus shall be obliged to formally report to the municipal forum —

which is electorate wide —

on its performance in implementing the local municipal policy determined prior to the preceding municipal election.

It is not a question of Mr Madden not knowing; it is not a question of Richard Wynne, the Minister for Local Government, not knowing; it is not a question of Minister Lenders not knowing. The whole Labor Party knows how it operates, what the culture is and what the expectations are. Those who are supported by the Labor Party have got to deliver the goods. If they do not, they are expelled. I will come back to that a little later but I would just like to digress for a moment.

I will make this one reference to the City of Greater Dandenong: I have a very thick folder on things to do with the City of Greater Dandenong, but I will not make that the subject of my contribution today. Cr Maria Sampey contested the council election even though she was not endorsed by the municipal forum to run as a Labor candidate for the City of Greater Dandenong. What happened? She was thrown out of the party. Fortunately, however, Cr Sampey was elected by the people she wants to represent. That is a small

pleasure in what is essentially a very large system fixed to deliver electoral advantage to Labor. I will come back to that.

Another example is the destabilisation of Cr Janet Halsall, the former mayor of the City of Casey, who was employed by Judith Graley, the member for Narre Warren South, and was actually her campaign manager. That destabilisation was due to Cr Bradford. It is not new; I have raised it here and it has been reported extensively in the various newspapers in the area. I believe it was also the subject of numerous complaints to the Office of Local Government — I have received copies from various identities — as well as to the Ombudsman.

I understand that Mr Donnellan, the member for Narre Warren North, is very keen to see the end of Mike Tyler, the chief executive officer, and through his protégé, Cr Kevin Bradford — who is very cosily positioning himself for preselection for the seat of Cranbourne — he has been destabilising and compromising the City of Casey. The two of them were responsible for driving Janet Halsall out of her job.

Mr Lenders — On a point of order, President, I have been listening to Mrs Peulich with great interest. I thought we were discussing a motion about Mr Madden and the City of Brimbank, but Mrs Peulich is now talking about Luke Donnellan, the member for Narre Warren North, and the City of Casey. President, I ask you to bring her back to the debate, which concerns a different member of Parliament and a different municipality.

Mrs PEULICH — On the point of order, President, under the heading ‘The culture of Brimbank’ in the Ombudsman’s report, point 890 says:

Councillors generally lacked awareness of their role. I identified a culture of factional voting, regardless of the issue, and unacceptable behaviour that breached the Local Government Act, the code and common courtesy.

I intend to continue to link this point back — and I believe that I have done so thus far — to the Labor Party’s caucus rules for municipal councillors and candidates, which is the reason for the culture, and it is referred to in the notice of motion, President.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I am prepared to rule now. I think in fact Mrs Peulich is in order; she may continue.

Mrs PEULICH — Thank you very much, President. I will come back to the municipal code because I think people would be horrified if they knew the amount of control that the Labor Party exercises



over Labor councillors and Labor-supported councillors who are elected to local government.

Section 12.5.2 of the ALP Victorian branch rules says:

A non-endorsed supported candidate —

who does not need to be a member of the Labor Party —

elected to office may join an ALP caucus within the municipality but in doing so shall be bound to remain in that caucus and abide by ALP caucus rules for the duration of their term of office.

Of course things fall off the wagon. Things go wrong, and that is why I am in possession of a very substantial amount of information that shows and highlights the misconduct in many instances of Labor-dominated councils and Labor councillors, which has been ignored by the Minister for Local Government and has really not been considered by the Ombudsman. Many of those complaints have gone to the Ombudsman in the past without any acknowledgement. I will be quoting from some of the documents that are in my possession.

I believe that this problem is endemic and statewide. A number of things can help, but there is only one thing that can fix it: the introduction of a broadbased anticorruption commission. This has gone so far, wide and deep that that is the only thing that will root it out at this stage.

First and foremost, the Premier, if he is to have any credibility whatsoever, should initiate reform of the Labor Party to change the culture to which Ms Hartland referred, which dumps the requirement by the caucus rules to caucus on local government issues which affect local communities. Caucusing is in direct contravention of the Local Government Act. How can the Labor Party have these caucus rules requiring compliance and be ruthless dealing with people who actually breach that compliance, such as Janet Halsall, who lost her job?

I understand that Janet Halsall’s termination was subject to some sort of secret deal and was subject to a confidentiality agreement. I certainly hope that the Department of Parliamentary Services has not been privy to that. I want to know how many other similar confidentiality agreements are in place as a result of Labor councillors falling out with their employers. This is what I call corruption.

Corruption is not just gangland stuff. It is turning a blind eye to what is happening. It is the act of omission or the act of commission. It is private individuals wanting personal and political benefit to the detriment of the public and the community, but it is more than

that; it goes further. This is where the Minister for Planning, the Minister for Local Government and the Premier hold an enormous amount of responsibility.

There is even greater corruption stemming from the framework that the government set up. If you set up a framework that is not predicated on democratic processes, that is not predicated on the public having the right to participate, and that is not predicated on decisions being made out in the open, all of that opens the door to corruption. This is what Labor has done to local government.

Every time a council has a councillor-only community impact statement briefing, which is held in private, this is decision making behind closed doors; in my view, that is corruption. There should only be a very narrow range of matters that are considered behind closed doors. They should be matters to do with personnel and human resources, legal exposure and liability, and commercial tenders for contracts — that is pretty much it. I cannot really think of too many other examples. The modus operandi of local government under this government, however, is that all the decisions are made behind closed doors.

What is more — and I come back to it again — Labor Party caucus rules require that every single detail that will be discussed at a council meeting goes through Labor’s municipal caucus. Members who are part of the municipal caucus are required to submit their notices of motions in advance for approval and agreement is required on who moves and seconds motions; if something has not gone through the municipal caucus, it gets shut down. It gets gagged and deferred, all behind closed doors. That is corruption; that is what the Labor Party has presided over.

It has set up a corrupt system and should not be surprised by the Brimbank episode — and it is not limited to Brimbank; it is what the Labor Party is fostering in terms of culture; it is what the Labor Party is fostering in terms of local government ‘reforms’ that the government has established, and it is what the Minister for Planning has been enunciating in the planning changes that he has initiated.

I want to get a couple of caucus rules on the record.

Section 12.6.5 states:

The caucus shall be required to determine only upon matters covered by the municipal candidate’s pledge —

which is a fairly wide-ranging pledge —

and the party platform and policy —



which is all encompassing, from A to Z —

the election or appointment of councillors to official positions and delegations, the annual budget of council, appointments to senior council management positions …

All of those are pretty much in direct contravention of the Local Government Act. On the one hand Minister Wynne says, ‘You must approach decision making with an unbiased mind; you must not have a conflict of interest; you must make a decision in the best interests of your community’; but on the other hand we now know what happens behind closed doors. Whenever you see the Labor Party voting as a block, it is because of the Labor rules or the Labor bible.

Labor stands for corruption, and the Labor Party has allowed that to occur. I think there are some very sad results for our community. Section 12.6.8 of the ALP rules states:

The secretary of caucus shall keep a written record of all decisions of caucus …

I would love to see whether freedom of information applies to that — I suspect not! Obviously there is some information there. Section 12.6.9 states:

Any member of caucus first wishing to introduce an item in council under general business shall first submit that item to caucus for its consideration.

I want to know how many members of the Labor Party sit in on those municipal caucuses. I would bet my bottom dollar it is most of them. It is the long hand of the Labor Party that is using ratepayers funds or resources to give itself a political fix and an electoral advantage. It is not just exclusive to councillors as unfortunately from time to time it relates to council officers. Section 12.6.10 states:

In the case of a notice of motion which must be submitted before the notice paper is published, permission to submit such a motion must be given by the president of caucus.

Is it any wonder that often they say, ‘We don’t like surprises’, because — guess what — they do not have their masters’ marching orders?

Section 12.6.11 of Labor’s municipal caucus rules states:

The caucus shall determine who shall move and second motions to be introduced or coming before council arising from caucus decisions.

I believe the Labor Party must be condemned and the Premier must move to reform the Labor Party and the culture which manifests itself in misbehaviour and misconduct of the nature exposed by the Ombudsman

in relation to Brimbank. The municipal caucus rules further state in section 12.6.14 that:

Meetings of caucus shall be held in camera.

Of course! It continues:

Unless required by these rules, no member of caucus shall divulge any information regarding the proceedings of caucus unless authorised to do so by an absolute majority of eligible caucus members or the administrative committee.

When the local newspaper goes to the local Labor mayor or deputy mayor, as occurred in Casey with Daniel Mulino, a very nice young man who works for Senator Jacinta Collins — I have no doubt he is strategically positioning himself for preselection for the federal seat of Latrobe, using council resources to host the Prime Minister’s launch of the employment and education package — he says, ‘No, we don’t caucus’. Any admission to the contrary would be in breach of the rules.

If this direction is worrying, let me get to the meatier things. However, before doing so we need to understand that corruption is more than just a paper bag, although I am sure there is plenty of that, especially when you take away the democratic scrutiny in areas that generate a lot of money: development, planning, building and construction through the development assessment committees and the bypassing of councils for public housing — —

Mr Leane — Who are you linking paper bags with?

Mrs PEULICH — I understand Progressive Business is very well funded because lobbying and getting the ear of government is very expensive, especially when you are prepared to gut local democracy to expedite an outcome. By contrast the Liberal Party has always been a supporter of more democratic solutions of the type excluded by Labor’s municipal caucus rules, so Mr Leane need not get hoity-toity. He need not get onto his high horse. We know what he and others are about. This is the kernel and the soul of the Labor Party.

If corruption is a disease, I believe openness and transparency are a cure. Democracy is regularly linked to freedom as the basis of good government and as the political means of delivering security and prosperity to ordinary citizens. It is not about making decisions behind closed doors. This is the reform that hopefully the Liberal Party will embrace. We will put the ‘local’ back into local government, in terms of policy, come the 2010 state election.



Democracy is about public participation and accountable government, and the strong sunlight of democratic debate and dialogue is the most potent way of reducing corruption. This is what the Labor Party does not like. This is why it likes all decisions to be made behind closed doors, carefully staged and managed in these uneventful, generally speaking, rubber-stamp, ordinary council meetings.

I do not believe self-interest in itself is evil. But when public interest is subjugated to self-interest, it becomes a problem; and this is what we are talking about. We are talking, as required, about Labor councillors and Labor-supported councillors subjugating public interest in order to give themselves an electoral hit or a political advantage that gives a hit to one side over another.

A very cursory trawling of Google shows all sorts of documents that confirm what I have been saying. A document written by Janet Rice, a political facilitator who works in facilitation and community development, outlines in a fairly naive and optimistic way how the Labor Party really operates in her area, which is in Footscray. I commend her motives, but it reflects poorly on the Labor Party.

Labor in Moreland 2008–2012 is an entire local government Labor policy document — in contravention of the government’s own guidelines. This is a government that says you have to approach every decision with an open mind. How is that possible? We know what happens if people who somehow find themselves travelling with Labor councillors do not toe the line.

This is going to be a bit dicky, President, because I do not wish necessarily to trawl through the mud the names of people who do not have the opportunity to respond, but this document has come into my possession — and I have a lot of documents about all of the local councils and some of the very unsavoury things that happen routinely. I believe this is not even the tip of the iceberg. It is a copy of a document sent to me by email from a former councillor of the City of Monash. I was surprised to see he is a former councillor, though, because indeed — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! In my opinion I have given Mrs Peulich a great deal of latitude in this debate. I will not allow her to extrapolate it out to every council in this state. When I look at the motion, I see that it is specific to Brimbank. Mrs Peulich can argue all she likes, but she has had a fair crack of the whip. She has dragged everything under the sun into this debate, and I am saying to her: enough, get back to the motion, which is on the Brimbank council.

Mrs PEULICH — President, I would like to point out, on a point of order, if I may, that the Ombudsman’s report makes a recommendation that the councillors who work for members of Parliament should no longer be able to do that across the state. It makes a comment on the culture of the Labor Party, and it makes a comment on the ability of the local government department to undertake investigations. Therefore, there are much more broad-ranging impacts than only Brimbank.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The fact is that the house is not debating all of the Ombudsman’s report. Members are debating the issues in the report relating to the minister and his office, and Mrs Peulich goes too far. What I am saying to her is that she should come back to the specifics of this particular motion.

Mrs PEULICH — In relation to the knowledge of political corruption, President, I would have thought my case was already reasonably compelling. I agree with the Ombudsman that the Office of Local Government has not — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! Am I right in assuming that Mrs Peulich is attempting to debate my ruling?

Mrs PEULICH — No, President.

The PRESIDENT — Thank you.

Mrs PEULICH — I am relating my remarks deliberately and directly to the notice of motion. Let me quote one of the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s report, just so that members understand — I have actually read it chapter and verse, every single dot point of it. The report makes some very specific recommendations that I think we need to take heed of. One of those recommendations is a reference to an identification of the culture of factional voting.

I agree with Ms Hartland that the issue of culture in local government is one that this report does not sufficiently address and that we need to go further. Furthermore, the summary of recommendations states at paragraph 2:

That the Local Government Act be amended to disqualify persons employed as electorate officers, ministerial advisers and parliamentary advisers, or employed by federal or state members of Parliament, from becoming or continuing to be a councillor or nominating as a candidate.

All I am saying is that that is one step, but it needs to go much further, and I wanted to explain by means of a concrete example why it needs to go much further.



I have received a copy of an email from Mr Dane Manzie to the Ombudsman of Victoria, dated 27 February 2007. He has not yet received a response to this. He actually outlined what happened when indeed he stopped caucusing as a supported candidate. His email says:

Through the first 12 months I have had considerable pressure from —

an ALP councillor —

to balance council’s decision-making process with his fellow four ALP elected councillors …

It goes on to say:

After the first few months I felt I could not best serve the residents when caught in a core group that is determined to influence council direction in one particular direction. After 12 months and a couple of hostile confrontations on specific council issues in council, I decided to clearly break away from the ALP influence and act as a true Independent.

Later Mr Manzie’s email goes on to actually detail a corrupt act, committed in his presence, of nominating and forging the signature of a candidate for local government. I quote:

November 2005 Monash local government elections

At 3:30 p.m. on the day of nominations closing I met with three other candidates to finalise our nominations, we met at a local coffee shop directly opposite the Oakleigh civic building. These candidates were —

and I will just use X —

candidate X, candidate XX — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! I am absolutely convinced Mrs Peulich has now gone beyond the brief of this motion. I refer her to standing order 12.13, which deals with relevance. This motion is on the Brimbank council, the Ombudsman’s report into it, the use of the minister’s office, and alleged corruption et cetera. This is the last time: Mrs Peulich comes back to that or I will sit her down and move on to the next speaker.

Mrs PEULICH — Thank you, President. I will leave that and will happily furnish it to the media outside.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The member can do as she likes.

Mrs PEULICH — It does not matter. I am more than prepared to say whatever I — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! I do not want Mrs Peulich to debate my ruling. She can continue with the motion.

Mrs PEULICH — President, that is a fair deal of guidance from the Chair. You have given me guidance; I am trying to comply.

The PRESIDENT — Just get on with it.

Mrs PEULICH — It would help if you actually gave me a chance.

In the case of the council there are manifest examples — and I have a very substantial list — of Labor councillors acting in breach of the Local Government Act: there are very clear examples of breaching conflict-of-interest rules, including pecuniary interest, conflicts of duty and misconduct, undue influence and access to information. That has all been the subject of numerous complaints to the local government office.

My problem is this: maybe corruption would not have risen to the level that it has if the local government office had actually investigated those things that were referred to it. If it is a question of resourcing, as the Ombudsman’s report would like us to think, then clearly there is an obligation to resource it adequately. I believe it is actually turning a blind eye to the misconduct of Labor councillors and coming down like a ton of bricks on any councillors who are political foes.

We saw that in the last term with the dismissal of the Glen Eira council on the basis of some transgression by the mayor. But in response the entire council was dismissed — not just one person, but the entire council — because it was seen to be a Liberal council.

There are some very specific examples in relation to these conflicts of interest to do with voting on the Stevensons Road, Cranbourne, methane gas crisis, which this chamber has had the opportunity of debating. Dare I say, the live streaming debate, which was captured by my office and placed on the web page — —

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! I was privy to the previous rulings by the President and Mrs Peulich’s commentary with him. I thought his direction was fairly clear. I am also conversant with the motion before the house today, and it is very specifically about Brimbank. I think Mrs Peulich was given fairly clear direction by the President. She suggested she was doing her best to comply. Can I suggest that at this point her best has not been quite good enough, and I ask her to get back to the motion



specifically as it affects Brimbank and the points that are outlined in the motion, not what is happening in other councils. I think Mrs Peulich has had enough to get on the record.

Mrs PEULICH — I am cognisant of your ruling, Deputy President, but I use the metaphor that Brimbank may have been the primary cancer site but its affliction has spread across the entire state because of a common set of problems that any government of the day must address. This government has failed to address those problems because it does not suit them to do so.

Coming back to this motion, Deputy President, I am sure you would share some of the concerns I have enunciated. The minister as well as all members of the Labor Party knew of the misconduct and the regular breaches of the Local Government Act, because this is what the municipal code requires. It is quite clear that it has happened at Brimbank, just as it occurs at Casey, Monash, Kingston and across the state.

Is it improper conduct of council? You betcha! Significant sections 76 to 78 of the Local Government Act are directly and repeatedly contravened by the requirement to adhere to a caucus. Did the minister know of the corruption? How could he not? And the feeble argument Mr Pakula tried to mount that somehow what stayed in the minister’s office was different to the business that was transgressed in his electorate office is farcical to say the least. I, as a backbencher, get all sorts of requests for assistance in relation to the failure of a range of ministers to fulfil their duties across various portfolios. It is not an impermeable cell, especially when the virus of the ALP caucus rules.

I commend the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, Ted Baillieu, on calling for the establishment of an anticorruption commission. I believe this problem is now so deep that the cancer patient is almost comatose. We need to resurrect local government and we need to make sure we hold the Minister for Planning to account, just as we should make sure we hold the Minister for Local Government and the Premier to account along with all those members of the Labor Party who are prepared not only to turn a blind eye to acts of omission and acts of commission but to actually be part and parcel of the setting up of a system that is clearly designed to foster and cultivate corruption in the state of Victoria.

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — Listening to Mrs Peulich’s contribution, we are having what I would refer to as a kitchen sink debate — everything bar the kitchen sink has been thrown into the

debate so far, and a lot of mud has been thrown around in the hope that some of it sticks. A lot of unsubstantiated claims have been made about a lot of individuals and a lot of different councils. Given its seriousness, members opposite need to come back to the motion they have brought to this house.

The motion refers to the Ombudsman’s report and in particular the Minister for Planning. As has been explained by my colleagues, the government takes this motion seriously, because it is a serious thing to bring a no-confidence motion about a minister to the Parliament — particularly when accusations have been made about the responsibilities of a minister of the Crown. I will go through the motion and dissect the various aspects of the motion in terms of the claims that have been made and the lack of evidence that has been produced in relation to those claims.

I begin by going back to Mr David Davis’s contribution at the start. I was listening carefully to Mr Davis, and members of the Victorian public who were also listening may have been left with the impression that Minister Madden featured very heavily in the Ombudsman’s report into Brimbank council. That was certainly the impression that Mr Davis sought to leave people with. I went away and did an online search in relation to the Ombudsman’s report on Brimbank council. I put in the words ‘Minister Madden’ and ‘Justin Madden’, and I found that in the 217-page report the name of Justin Madden appears just once, on page 36, where it says:

Mr Hakki Suleyman is employed as an electorate officer for the Hon. Justin Madden, MLC, Minister for Planning.

That is the beginning and the end of the reference in this report to Minister Madden, and the finding being made is that Mr Madden has employed one individual as his electorate officer. We see here, in terms of the findings made by the Ombudsman in relation to Brimbank council, an incidental reference to the Minister for Planning turned into an attempt by the opposition to blacken the name of a person of such great integrity as the Minister for Planning through guilt by association.

I admit the Ombudsman’s report makes grim reading. As a former local councillor and as someone who acknowledges the immense public responsibility involved in serving at all levels of government, including at local council level, I am appalled at the findings of the report. Members of the government are appalled at the findings of the report. I am a strong believer in democracy, and it is reassuring that the people of Brimbank cast their judgement accordingly last November and made a significant change to the



composition of that council. However, the government has taken very decisive action in relation to the concerns of and findings expressed by the Ombudsman in this report.

The government has indicated to the Victorian public that we take these findings very seriously and that we are going to act decisively, and the Minister for Local Government has already made an announcement on the day the report was tabled in Parliament that the government would be implementing all the Ombudsman’s recommendations. That is something I welcome, because it is appropriate that the government should take decisive action in relation to Brimbank council.

Turning to the motion before the house, I see it as a bridge too far. It draws a very long bow in seeking to make a link to the Minister for Planning, who as I said is a person of great integrity, in ways that have not been substantiated through its claims.

Paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of Mr David Davis’s motion refer to the minister and to answers Mr Madden gave the house on 7 May. The Minister for Planning has freely opened himself up to questions on this matter, offering to answer questions in the house when he was not required to do so because the matters did not relate to his ministerial responsibilities. Minister Madden has gone out of his way to come into this house and try to clarify matters in relation to these issues by volunteering to answer questions to which he did not need to expose himself. I think that is a sign of a minister who does not have anything to hide. It is a sign of a minister who is a person of integrity and who is prepared to be accountable and come into the Parliament and answer questions about these issues.

In paragraphs 1(c) and (d) of his motion, Mr Davis claims the minister had knowledge of certain activities of his electorate officer. There are references in both paragraphs to ‘his office’ in relation to the findings the Ombudsman has made about Mr Madden’s electorate officer. Mr Davis, in his very lengthy contribution, which went for almost an hour, did not produce any — —

Mr Jennings — It seemed longer.

Ms MIKAKOS — It did seem longer. Mr Davis did not produce any evidence that any of those activities did in fact take place in the minister’s office. The Ombudsman’s report does not make any findings whatsoever in relation to Mr Madden’s electorate office nor in relation to his ministerial office for that matter. Mr Davis has come in here and in very dramatic fashion waved around a wad of documents that do not

relate to matters referred to in any way by the Ombudsman.

The government has always said that if there are particular allegations individuals have about other matters, they are perfectly entitled to forward relevant information to the appropriate authority — the Ombudsman, the office of local government or the police, depending on the nature of the allegations. Yet by coming in here and making all sorts of claims, which I am sure he is not prepared to make on the steps of this place, Mr Davis is throwing mud around and hoping some of it sticks.

Other aspects of the motion, namely those in paragraph 2, again make a number of claims to the effect that the minister knew about the activities of his electorate office staff and that in some way his office — and there is again a specific reference in the motion to ‘his office’ — engaged in a range of activities. Other than the findings in relation to the electorate officer concerned, there are no findings whatsoever that Mr Madden had any knowledge or involvement in any of the activities of his electorate office staff member.

I particularly note that in paragraph 2(c) there is a claim about ‘a minister whose office influenced a series of planning decisions …’. Given that the minister is the Minister for Planning, the public might be left with the impression that the motion is seeking to suggest in some way that the Minister for Planning undertook inappropriate decision making in relation to planning issues that were before Brimbank council. The report does make some findings in relation to the allocation of community facilities — in particular I think it refers to soccer grounds and other sporting facilities — but I could find absolutely no reference to town planning issues. Was there, for example, a rezoning? Was there a change to a planning scheme? Mr Davis made multiple references to the Brimbank planning scheme. Was there even a planning permit issued in relation to any of these matters?

The answer is no. No town planning decisions were made by the minister in relation to any of these sporting facilities; they were decisions made by Brimbank councillors in relation to the allocation of council resources. There is quite a deliberate attempt in paragraph 2(c) by Mr Davis to mislead members of the public and the media to believe there is some connection between ‘planning decisions’, which were in fact financial decisions made by the Brimbank council as to how to allocate resources for sporting facilities, and the Minister for Planning. These were not town planning decisions; there is no connection. There



is no reference whatsoever in the Ombudsman’s report to town planning matters.

What we have seen here today is an attempt by the opposition to engage in a purely political exercise. As I said at the outset, a no-confidence motion is a serious matter. A no-confidence motion should relate to a minister’s responsibility as a minister. Mr Davis made a number of unsubstantiated and fanciful claims but offered no proof of any of these claims. He appears to have read a different Ombudsman’s report to the one I read, but I know Mr Davis read this report very carefully. He knows that the only link he can make is guilt by association — he is trying to tar the minister with the activities of his electorate officer. The Ombudsman’s report made no finding whatsoever that the minister had had any involvement in those activities.

Opposition members are stretching the level of fantasy here in trying to suggest that the minister should — or any of us as members of Parliament — in some way know all the activities of his electorate office staff after hours or on weekends. Do we know if any of our electorate office staff attend their local council meetings? Do we know what other political activities they might engage in? I am sure very few of us in this house or this Parliament would be able to honestly respond to those questions by saying yes.

What we have seen here is a political stunt. No evidence has been produced by Mr Davis or other members of the opposition in relation to the various issues raised in this motion. I urge members to oppose this motion.

Mr DALLA-RIVA (Eastern Metropolitan) — I was quite astounded by that contribution from Ms Mikakos, and in fact by the contributions of Labor members. The offender has been caught standing over the body with a smoking gun, yet they still say he did not do it. For those listening or reading the transcript, Mr Davis presented in excess of 130 submissions that had been made to Mr Madden, either directly or through his office in some way. The pile of documents weighs a couple of kilograms. For the member opposite to say there was no evidence that Mr Madden had any understanding of what occurred is absolutely astounding.

I will go through the motion that is before us. We heard Ms Mikakos talk about this being a beat-up. I think she and other members opposite need to understand what the motion is about. On 7 May in this house a question was asked of the Minister for Planning, as Ms Mikakos rightly pointed out. The minister accepted an invitation

to answer a question in relation to his involvement in Brimbank. He said at the time, and I will quote it again:

… not until that report —

talking about the Ombudsman’s report —

was publicly released was I conscious of either allegations or the extent of these matters.

That is astounding. Labor members are all getting behind the minister, and I understand why. They are trying to protect him, but we have hundreds and hundreds of pages of correspondence about the corruption that was occurring in Brimbank and was occurring out of the minister’s own office, and he said he knew nothing about it. The motion is not about that, it is about whether the minister misled this house. The motion states:

… no longer possesses the confidence of this house and this house —

(1) notes …

(a) the minister’s failure to fully answer questions put to him in this house on 7 May 2009 …

(b) the fact that the minister misled this house in his answers to questions without notice put to him on 7 May 2009 …

(c) that the minister knew of the political corruption in his office having been informed of the issues concerning Mr Hakki Suleyman through a series of questions and statements in this house between 2005 and 2008 …

And it goes on. This is about the credibility of a minister who got up in this chamber and declared that he knew nothing about the allegations or the extent of these matters. He knew full well what it was. As Mr Davis said today, the minister was trying to avoid answering the questions because he knew that once he admitted he had known what was going on, that would open up a whole series of issues about when, where, why, how and who, so he thought he would try to protect himself. But the fact is that when he hid that knowledge, when he stated in the chamber, ‘I know nothing’, everyone came out with all the correspondence. The media knows the minister has lied to the house. The media knows that is why there is a motion before this chamber. It is an important motion expressing no confidence in a minister. It is a very serious motion, and it is not being taken lightly.

The Minister for Planning was specifically asked about Hakki Suleyman in a Stateline interview on 8 August 2008. There have been questions across this chamber about the minister’s involvement and Mr Hakki Suleyman. There has been ongoing correspondence. I



have given the house the example of the correspondence Mr Davis presented. It literally goes to hundreds and hundreds of pages of submissions. The Sunshine Residents and Ratepayers Association has been writing to the minister. There are letters dating back to June 2005 talking about the corruption. I can single out a headline saying ‘Labor family assault claims’ from the Herald Sun of Monday, 28 November 2005. This article talks about Hakki Suleyman working for the Minister for Commonwealth Games, as Mr Madden then was. It talks about his involvement in council activities. The Brimbank Leader of 30 May 2006 ran an article headed ‘Row over free rent’. It talks about Mr Suleyman receiving a community house free for the Labor Party at a time when his daughter was the mayor. The list goes on. That was in the minister’s area.

I am astounded that government members can sit there and do the Sergeant Shultz line of, ‘I know nothing’, and say the minister knew nothing. I do not want to go through what Mr Davis read out this morning, but there are pages and pages of correspondence and extracts from correspondence to the minister. There are pages and pages of media pieces about this. There are pages and pages of correspondence and communications in this chamber in relation to questions that were put to the minister and the Premier by the Greens and by our side of the chamber in relation to the activities of Hakki Suleyman and his working for Mr Madden.

For Mr Madden to come into this chamber on 7 May and in response to a direct question about this report make the statement that:

… not until that report was publicly released was I conscious of either allegations or the extent of these matters —

is amazing, especially given the amount of evidence we have had. Ms Mikakos is a lawyer and we will probably have other lawyers getting up to speak, and if this evidence were produced, the minister would be convicted. The minister should be found guilty under this motion. The motion is clearly put. It talks about his knowledge and it talks about him misleading the house in his answers to questions without notice. It also talks about the involvement. He knew about the corruption in his office; do not tell me anything else. Everyone else knows about it. The public knows about it. Before the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, the Premier said the minister would answer questions. When we asked him questions during the committee hearing, he did not answer them. He had the protection of the Chair at that stage. That report, tabled yesterday, is there for people to see that we asked the minister to answer the questions. There was a motion which was defeated on the deciding vote of the Chair, who is a Labor member.

I do not subscribe to the fact that he was not involved in influencing planning decisions. The Ombudsman’s report clearly indicates some planning considerations were undertaken by council. You cannot say there was no consideration undertaken by his office. As was rightly pointed out earlier, Mr Hakki Suleyman was right at the doorstep; he was the gatekeeper who hid the corruption that was going on. As soon as someone walked into Mr Madden’s office, Mr Suleyman would either protect Mr Madden or prevent that corruption allegation from moving forward. You cannot tell me otherwise, given all the correspondence and all the media coverage of these issues.

Ms Mikakos said Labor acted decisively when this report came down. What an absolute bunch of hogwash. Only a couple of weeks ago the Sunday Age published an article headed ‘ALP said sorry to Brimbank accused’ — in 2005! The first paragraph reads:

Strong evidence of wrongdoing by a number of Brimbank councillors and their backers was reported to the highest echelons of the Labor Party four years ago, but instead of acting against the alleged offenders, the party apologised to them.

Can you believe it? An internal branch-stacking investigation delivered to the party’s powerful administrative committee in March 2005 named MP Telmo Languiller, his former staff member and Brimbank councillors, amongst others, as being involved in this corruption activity. That 2005 party investigation found that those named had misused MPs’ electorate offices as membership factories and that MPs and factional warlords routinely paid for people’s memberships in bulk. We need to think about that, because we just heard from some members that there was no involvement by Mr Madden. But quite clearly an internal report said MPs’ electorate offices were being misused. We know who was running the electorate office for Mr Madden: it was Mr Hakki Suleyman. He has been mentioned numerous times throughout this report, and he is linked to the issue and the motion before the chamber.

The Sunday Age article further states:

The administrative committee was told ‘the allegations contained in the report are of the utmost seriousness’ and ‘go to the heart of the integrity of the administration of the party’.

We heard before from Mrs Inga Peulich regarding the processes of the ALP and the way it allows and condones corruption. What has occurred is an indictment of the party of those who sit opposite, as pious as they are.



What I find fascinating is that it also recommended that the police investigate irregularities on a justice of the peace application and that charges be laid under the party rules. Interestingly — and this is the telling point — a motion was put on the issue of Brimbank. I will read it:

‘The administrative committee apologises unreservedly to any parties who may have been harmed as a consequence of the irresponsible and unsourced leaking of the report’, a motion passed on March 10, 2005, said.

Who passed the motion? Martin Pakula, the current industry minister who sits in this chamber. Who seconded it? Fiona Richardson. Where is she now? She is now the Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury and Finance. Who is her husband? Mr Newnham, who, as we know, is the ALP state secretary. Mr Newnham said the committee needed to apologise because the party had to protect itself from potential defamation action by those named. He was quoted as saying, ‘It was done to protect the party’. That is the bottom line: it was done to protect the party. Forget about corruption, forget about the illegal activities and forget about what was going on.

Mr Madden knew what was going on. Mr Hakki Suleyman was deeply involved and entrenched in his office for 10 years. All of us who have electorate officers know what our electorate officers are up to. You cannot receive this amount of correspondence from one minister on an issue and not know about it. You cannot not read the papers. You cannot not know about it after sitting in Parliament and being asked directly about those questions. You cannot sit in a television studio for Stateline and be interviewed about a particular issue relating to your electorate officer and then walk in here on 7 May and say you know nothing and that it was not until the Ombudsman’s report was publicly released that you were conscious of either allegations or the extent of these matters.

That is the purpose of the motion. Mr Madden has misled this chamber. It needs to be understood by members of this chamber and the broader community that if you mislead, there is a consequence. I will be pleased to see this motion passed. I look forward to it being blunt and to the minister resigning. I think it is the only fair thing for him to do. If the Labor Party is fair dinkum about what it needs to do to clear the air, it needs to start removing some of the dead wood. Mr Madden is part of the dead wood.

I will leave you with how his party sees him. An article by Nick Higginbottom headed ‘Crisis prompts reshuffle speculation’ says:

Sources said that Mr Madden was probably a victim of a cabinet shake-up ahead of the 2010 election —

hear, hear! —

A member of the planning minister’s own Right faction said Mr Madden had not performed particularly well and only remained as a third-term minister because of his public profile from his AFL success.

Time has run out, Minister. It is time to go. This motion is part of that process. It should be supported and passed today, and after it is passed the only right thing for the minister to do is to resign his position as Minister for Planning. This motion is part of that process. It should be supported and passed today, and after it is passed the only right thing for the minister to do is to resign his position as Minister for Planning.

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I think in relative terms my contribution will be a short one in time but hopefully at least as apposite as, if not more apposite than, most of the contributions I have heard today. Most of those contributions have been wide ranging and off the point. They have dealt with many matters that do not go to the heart of the motion or contribute to evidence that demonstrates that the minister warrants the degree of condemnation that is in the motion. In fact, a lot of assertions and very slippery coincidences of evidence that have been considered by the Ombudsman and material that has arrived in the hands of politicians has been used in a very particular, if not skewed, fashion. I would like to stick pretty much to the simplicity of the motion.

In the first instance I maintain my confidence in my ministerial colleague, Minister Madden. I have worked with him in his capacity as a minister for nine years; in the first instance I was Cabinet Secretary in the first Bracks government. During that period not only do I believe I became well versed in what was required of me as a member of Parliament — the accountability that ministers of the Crown have to the Parliament and the understanding of how good cabinet processes work — but I think I also gained a sound appreciation of good governance and good public administration. I do not say that lightly, and in fact it is an expectation that I have of myself and of my colleagues, and I hope the Parliament develops our understanding of those values the longer we stay within this institution. In the public and private acquitting of his responsibility as a cabinet minister, to this day Minister Madden continues to have my confidence because during the cabinet process I have seen him work through his responsibilities to the Parliament.



The Ombudsman’s report into the investigation of alleged improper conduct of councillors in the Brimbank City Council, which was tabled in the Parliament on 7 May, documents a raft of serious matters that would lead the community to have serious reservations about the behaviour of a number of political operatives within the Brimbank municipality. In fact it may lead to some degree of disgust in relation to the activities of certain councillors and those who have influenced council decisions over a period. While I would concede that this is the nature of the Ombudsman’s report and the inevitable conclusion that anybody who reads the report and relies on the evidence of the Ombudsman would agree with, the very document itself does not indicate one case where the minister in question has abrogated his responsibility, abused his roles and responsibilities or tried to seek preferential outcomes in relation to planning decisions or any other decisions of local government that may compromise his ability to carry out his duties. In fact it does not gives any indication that he has not been mindful of his ministerial obligations. There is not one finding or recommendation in the Ombudsman’s report which would support that contention.

In answering whether the minister has provided what the motion demands of him, which is a full explanation of how he responds to the report, ultimately it is measured by the minister’s ability to fully account for the matters raised in the terms which he understands himself to be fully accountable. In terms of full, frank and complete answers to the questions that have been put to him, it is only the minister’s knowledge and understanding of those issues that can be tested. In fact there is an assertion in the motion before the Chair that there are facts which have been predetermined about whether the minister has acted in accordance with his ministerial responsibility. They are assertions, and in my view they cannot be proved. Those assertions can be made and evidence can be brought to bear to support them, but they cannot be delivered as a fact in the way this motion asserts. The government has relied on the Ombudsman to provide a report to the Parliament. It has accepted the findings and recommendations of the report and acted in accordance with them.

Potentially part of the report’s findings may come at a price to quite innocent parties who may find themselves in certain circumstances. For example, I understand Mrs Peulich’s son is employed in her electorate office — if not on a full-time basis then on a part-time basis — as an electorate officer and that he engages in council activities. He may not be alone in being an innocent victim of the reforms that the government intends to introduce in accordance with the Ombudsman’s recommendations to try to remove the

potential for conflict of interest on the part of those who work in the electorate offices of members of Parliament by preventing them from standing for council. I have some degree of sympathy for innocent parties in relation to this matter, where no evidence has been brought to bear that there has been any wrongdoing or inappropriate action. It is unfortunate that it may be a consequence of the government accepting the recommendation of the Ombudsman’s report. Indeed, I think we have some degree of sympathy for that situation, and probably some arguments that have been mounted in the chamber may be coloured somewhat by the nature of some of the responses from MPs in relation to that matter. They may grieve for the opportunities of their electorate officers to become councillors or, as has been alleged, to groom them for higher political office.

Nonetheless, the government has accepted that recommendation and is implementing it. The government also accepted the recommendation that further examination is required by the Victorian Electoral Commission in relation to matters to do with the electoral process within Brimbank City Council.

The Attorney-General has sought from the electoral commission further remedies to try to provide greater confidence to the local community about the way in which elections will be undertaken in the future. My colleague the Minister for Local Government has similarly accepted the recommendation from the Ombudsman’s report and established the role of inspector to scrutinise the ongoing activities of the Brimbank City Council, to try to provide for greater accountability frameworks and confidence in the local community about the ongoing operations of that council.

There are assertions being made in some contributions to this debate about the knowledge that the Minister for Planning may have had in relation to the employment relationship with one of his electorate officers. There have been many assertions made about the knowledge of evidence the minister may have accumulated over a period of time from a variety of sources, the level of confidence he might have had in the veracity of that evidence and how he acted upon it. But it is very important to understand in relation to the Ombudsman’s report that the Ombudsman probably provided the most rigorous and comprehensive opportunity to assess the individual behaviour of the electorate officer in question, and the conclusion of the Ombudsman’s report provided a clear series of statements, if nothing else, about the professional standing of the electorate officer in question.



The minister has reported to the house that subsequent to that full scrutiny and analysis he has seen fit to terminate the employment relationship directly between himself and the electorate officer in question. As all of us would be mindful of, there are natural justice opportunities that would be afforded to our employees, or employees in any circumstance, in relation to the circumstances in which they may be removed from their employment. The minister has acted within the scope of the opportunity that was available to him, and I understand there will be subsequent consideration within the processes of Parliament and parliamentary services about the ongoing employment status of the electorate officer in question.

If you drill down through the nature of the Ombudsman’s report and ask yourself whether there was anything that indicated an adverse finding against the behaviour of the minister in terms of influencing decisions or not acquitting his ministerial responsibility, the answer is no. Has the government taken action in relation to the totally unacceptable behaviour of the Brimbank City Council, both in terms of those who have sought to determine outcomes inappropriately and those who have not acted in accordance with the democratic institutions we should establish and maintain in local government? The answer is yes, because the government has commissioned a further report from an inspector who will scrutinise the wellbeing of the council, and the electoral commission will be examining electoral matters.

The government will implement the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s report. Ultimately, on the final measure of whether the minister has acquitted his ministerial responsibility to the Parliament in the terms that have been expressed in this motion, only the minister and the government can answer. Because of my knowledge of the minister’s commitment to his ministerial responsibility and the way in which he acquits his professional and parliamentary responsibilities, he continues to have my full confidence and, I believe, the confidence of other government members, and we will act accordingly in rejecting the motion before the chair.

Mr GUY (Northern Metropolitan) — I rise to speak somewhat briefly on the motion that is before the house in relation to the no-confidence motion in the Minister for Planning. Unfortunately for this house a number of speakers opposite have missed a major point in this entire debate. It is convenient for their side to do so, but they keep missing a major point — that is, that the Minister for Planning walked into this chamber on 7 May and said very clearly:

… not until that report was publicly released was I conscious of either allegations or the extent of these matters.

They were the words of the planning minister in relation to the actions of his electorate officer Hakki Suleyman. It does not matter if it was a ministerial office staffer, it does not matter if it was an electorate office staffer, it does not matter if it was a staffer of the Queen of England — the reality is he has walked into this chamber and said it was not until that report was publicly released that he was conscious of allegations or the extent of these matters. He either accidentally or deliberately misled the chamber.

The minister is either ignorant or unintelligent — or possibly both — in this matter. It should be stated by him, and it should be either corrected by him or he should resign, because he has misled this chamber. The crux of this motion today comes down to the fact that the planning minister has misled Parliament. He has misled the people of Victoria. To members on this side of the house: sorry, but I will run through it a number of times, just as other speakers have.

The number of times that this minister obviously knew what was happening in his office are too numerous to ignore. They are too numerous to say, ‘I’m sorry, I was just foolish; I am sorry, I’m vacant; I’m sorry, I had no idea’. The fact is he obviously knew what was happening in Brimbank before he walked into this chamber and said that not until the Ombudsman’s report was released on 7 May 2009 was he conscious of allegations or the extent of these matters.

He claims he was not even conscious of allegations. Where has this guy been — on Mars? What sandpit has he had his head stuck in for the last couple of years? Where has the planning minister been? Bernie Finn stood in this chamber and delivered his inaugural speech, and I listened to it. One of its key points was about corruption at the Brimbank City Council. Time and time again I have heard speeches that referred to Hakki Suleyman, the minister’s electorate officer.

In 2005 John Vogels came into this chamber and talked about the actions of Hakki Suleyman, the minister’s electorate officer. Sorry, but I need to say it again: you are either ignorant or seriously unintelligent if you do not realise that your electorate officer is being accused of improper activities in the Parliament of Victoria, yet you claim you have no knowledge of it.

He either knew about it or he is so completely hopeless as a minister that he should not be in the job. Either he is useless and should be sacked, or he has misled Parliament. It is not ‘maybe’ and it is not ‘neither of the two’ — it is definitely one of the two. He is either



useless or he knew and he misled Parliament, and on either ground he should be sacked.

It is nice of members from the other side to come in here and say, ‘We are putting in place everything the Ombudsman said because of the Labor Party’s institutionalised corruption in a $150 million organisation in the western suburbs; we are getting to the bottom of the corruption in the Ombudsman’s report that shows Labor Party members gave themselves watches, briefcases, crystal globes, restoration furnishings, sculptures, handbags, Mont Blanc pens, pouches, diamond pendants and clock radios; we are getting to the bottom of that’. The reality is: if you did not know any of that was going on, as I said before, your head was well and truly stuck in an enormous sandpit.

While we are talking about being completely ignorant or unintelligent, why do we not have a look at an application for appointment as a justice of the peace. This form runs to nine pages. On page 3 it is very clear; under ‘Nominations’ it says:

Your application must be supported by three nominations from the committees of community-based organisations, or by a combination of committees and individuals …

Here it is! One of those signatories is the Minister for Planning. Fair enough. If I take my gauge right, about 3 or 4 centimetres below it are the words ‘Criminal history’. Again you have to be either ignorant or seriously unintelligent not to look at the form you are signing and say, ‘Maybe I should ask the bloke I’m about to endorse as a justice of the peace, to say, “Sorry, but if you’ve got serious criminal allegations in your past, are you the right person to endorse?”’. Is that the judgement of any politician — to go in there and do that, without questioning it, and to say — —

Mr Barber — Kelvin Thomson took a bullet.

Mr GUY — Kelvin Thomson was not a minister.

Mr Barber — Shadow.

Mr GUY — He was not a minister who has picked up a bible or taken an oath, gone to Government House and said, ‘I will do the right thing by the people of Victoria as a minister of the state of Victoria — no worries. And while I am at it I will endorse as a justice of the peace someone I understand has criminal convictions for assault’. While this does not come back to the crux of the motion, it comes back to one thing — that is, the appropriateness, the ability and the intelligence of the minister to do these things.

I come back to my original point, the case against the minister. The case against the minister has one very clear point, and that is that the minister said that not until the Ombudsman’s report was publicly released was he conscious of either the allegations or the extent of these matters. He was a minister of the Crown who came into the Parliament and made an unequivocal point in front of the entire Parliament in question time with no correction, no statement after it to say, ‘I may have been incorrect’. It was nothing like that. This is fact, and the fact is that it absolutely beggars belief that there could be anyone — I do not want to use the word ‘stupid’ — so absolutely ignorant of the fact that for years and years this one individual, this councillor, has been at the centre of corruption allegations made in this Parliament by a number of people on this side of the house. In fact, it was not just a number of people on this side of the house: the member for Keilor in the Assembly, a member of the Labor Party, referred to the Brimbank City Council and one of its members as being akin to Robert Mugabe. This is one of their own members of Parliament. Then the planning minister walks in and says, ‘I am sorry, I have no knowledge of the actions of the Brimbank City Council or of my own staff member, Hakki Suleyman’.

George Seitz, the member for Keilor, walked into the Parliament of Victoria — I will find the reference; I am still going through the reports. The member for Kew in the Assembly, Andrew McIntosh, questioned the minister of the upper chamber on 30 July 2008; the member for Box Hill in the Assembly raised a matter on 19 August; improper conduct allegations were being made in the media all through this time, and letters were being sent to the minister, Justin Madden, on 26 May. As I said, it beggars belief. Mr Finn, a member for Western Metropolitan Region, comes into this chamber talking about the Australian Turkish Cypriot cultural welfare officers having a $100-a-month lease. The reality is that the minister could never honestly claim to not have known about this.

On 30 July 2008 the Labor member for Keilor said:

I grieve today on behalf of the people in the Keilor electorate and the city of Brimbank, particularly because of Natalie Suleyman, who is the Robert Mugabe of Brimbank. She runs Brimbank in the same way that Robert Mugabe runs Zimbabwe. She does this with her supporters — the convicted fraudster Andrew Theophanous, who was in jail for three years for fraud; the other twice-convicted supporter, Charlie Apap; and the standover man, Hakki Suleyman, who controlled Brimbank. They are controlling Brimbank and those councillors that form the majority in Brimbank.

I do not even know if what Mr Seitz had to say is right or wrong, but I know that it is recorded in Hansard and I know that he said it in July 2008, so for a minister of



the Crown not to know about these matters — it is his own electorate — again I say that he would have to be ignorant, unintelligent or both, and as a consequence he should be sacked on either count.

The reality is the minister is probably at his wit’s end with Hakki Suleyman.

Mr Finn — It did not take him long to get there.

Mr GUY — Mr Finn might be right. It might have taken him 10 years to get there. When the minister walked into Parliament on 7 May 2009 and said he was not aware of these allegations and failed to correct Hansard, that was the nail in his political coffin, because he then misled the Parliament and therefore should be sacked. It beggars belief that anyone would not know of the material contained in all the presentations in this Parliament from Labor Party people, from Liberal Party people, from members of the Australian Greens party. It beggars belief that the local member of Parliament employing a central figure in this whole affair would not know about the affair in his own right. Therefore the minister is not ignorant of this affair. He clearly misled the Parliament in question time. He failed to correct the Hansard record and therefore he should be sacked.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — Mr Viney started off for the government by stating that the content of the Liberal Party’s motion was confused as to what it was trying to achieve and what it was claiming. I do not necessarily agree semantically with every single thing government members say and the way they say it, nor do I agree with all the arguments that have been put forward today, but the central issue that the motion puts before the house is whether the minister is a fit and proper person to be a minister.

In the past when ministers have faced motions of censure or no confidence or have been forced to resign or have resigned voluntarily it has been for one of two reasons: maladministration of their portfolios, or matters of poor judgement or behaviour outside their portfolios but in their more personal capacities that call their judgement into question.

There was an example years ago of a federal minister who had sex on his ministerial desk with — fortunately for him — his wife, I think. I remember there being some political debate about whether that was a good thing to be doing or not and what we would expect from a minister. That was a matter of personal judgement. In many other cases it has gone to a range of other issues that have brought into question the minister’s capacity. Based on those behaviours, would

you believe such a minister would be likely to behave appropriately when acting as a minister?

The word ‘corruption’ has been used a hell of a lot today and recently and also in the motion, but members would be surprised to know that there is nothing in the statute that creates a crime called corruption. In fact the words ‘corruption’ and ‘corrupt’ are barely mentioned in the Victorian statute book. When the word ‘corrupt’ is used, it is generally as an adjective describing some other type of conduct, and then it is used only on the odd occasion. It appears in the Forests Act in relation to an attempt to bribe an authorised officer over the price of logs; in the Evidence Act and the County Court Act when it comes to perjury or attempting to corrupt a court officer; and in the Whistleblowers Protection Act as a trigger for that act to come into operation. That was one of the acts brought to bear to launch the Ombudsman’s report.

In New South Wales, where there is an Independent Commission Against Corruption, they have a definition of corruption, or what they call the general nature of corrupt conduct. Section 8 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 states:

(1) Corrupt conduct is:

(a) any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority …

Hands up who thinks what was happening at Brimbank council was corrupt. Clearly it was. Clearly many of the actions and behaviours detailed in the Ombudsman’s report would fall into that category. I am not going to go through each individual act and compare them but I clearly believe that many of the acts, if proved, would be found to be corrupt.

If we do not actually have an offence of corruption in Victorian statute, then what do we have? We have a common-law offence known as misconduct in public office. That is a long-established offence which goes back centuries to British common law and has recently come back into favour, if I can use that word, as a charge that has been used against individuals by prosecutors.

It goes back to the 13th century when there was a case of a police constable who stood by and did nothing while a man was beaten. There is no law against any of us doing that but once you take on a particular public office, you take on a set of higher responsibilities. Misconduct whilst being an employee down at the local



video library is a problem for the proprietor, but misconduct in public office represents a crime against the public trust and erodes the public trust across our polity wherever it occurs and is therefore treated incredibly seriously because it is so corrosive to the basic trust in our institutions that we need in order to function. These are public institutions that provide absolutely essential services: water, electricity, human services, care of children, et cetera. It is clearly understood that damage to the basis of that public trust would begin to break down the very bases of our society.

Did the acts talked about in the Ombudsman’s report represent misconduct in public office? The definition of it as elucidated by case law comes out in the case of Sin Kam Wah v. HKSAR. The leading judgement was delivered in a Hong Kong court by Sir Anthony Mason, who is a former chief justice of Australia, and he based it to a significant extent on Australian authorities and commentaries. He said:

The offence is committed where:

(1) a public official;

(2) in the course of or in relation to his public office;

(3) wilfully misconducts himself; by act or omission, for example, by wilfully neglecting or failing to perform his duty;

(4) without reasonable excuse or justification; and

(5) where such misconduct is serious, not trivial, having regard to the responsibilities of the office and the office-holder, the importance of the public objects which they serve and the nature and extent of the departure from those responsibilities.

Those are the elements of the offence and each of those elements has been elucidated in great detail through a series of cases, not least the Hong Kong case that I mentioned.

An excellent description of this can be found in the appendix to the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption report on Wollongong part 2. It has become an offence or a prosecutorial technique of choice in instances such as these because it is an all-encompassing offence. Several Victorian police officers in the last few years have had this offence lodged against them successfully.

There is also contained within section 176 of the Victorian Crimes Act, under the heading ‘Receipt or solicitation of secret commission by an agent an indictable offence’:

(1) Whosoever being an agent corruptly receives or solicits from any person for himself or for any other person any valuable consideration —

(a) as an inducement or reward for or otherwise on account of doing or forbearing to do or having done or forborne to do any act in relation to his principal’s affairs or business …

It is equally an offence to corruptly give or offer, as well as seeking it, to any agent any valuable consideration. It is notable that when we go through that act, we find that ‘agent’ includes any person who acts on behalf of another person on a broad range of different roles, including what they describe as servant or other officer, member of committee or governing body.

The definition of ‘valuable consideration’ in the act certainly includes the offer of employment and no doubt includes a threat to withdraw employment. Notably it also is captured when the valuable consideration received or solicited is by the parent, husband, wife or child of any agent or by his partner, clerk or employee. That brings in a very wide group of people and a very broad group of possible behaviours.

Now it is notable that the offence is not actually called corruption but ‘misconduct in public office’. Important in making out such an offence is, as I stated, that a person wilfully misconducts himself or herself. How do you prove they are doing it wilfully? One way of proving it is to examine and ascertain whether they are aware that a relevant code of conduct exists for their particular office. It is easy enough to say, ‘I stepped over the line but I did not really know where the line was. I thought I was doing my job because playing politics is hardball’. But when a code of conduct exists and that person is aware of the code of conduct, it is much easier to demonstrate that they wilfully misconducted themselves.

It is interesting that the code of conduct for Victorian public sector employees runs to 42 pages. The model code of conduct for Victorian councillors runs to 10 pages, and the code of conduct for members of Parliament is four dot points:

(a) members shall —

(i) accept that their prime responsibility is to the performance of their public duty and therefore ensure that this aim is not endangered or subordinated by involvement in conflicting private interests;

(ii) ensure that their conduct as members must not be such as to bring discredit upon the Parliament —

a circular limit there! —



(b) members shall not advance their private interests by use of confidential information …

(c) a member shall not receive any fee, payment, retainer or reward … on account of, or as a result of the use of, his position as a member.

With such a limited set of guidelines an argument could be mounted saying, ‘I did not know there was anything wrong with my conduct. I did not believe I was falling foul of any rule’.

Mr Pakula’s argument was that to throw around the word ‘corrupt’ and to try and link the minister’s conduct at Brimbank and make him in some way responsible for it, devalues the currency of corruption. Something has been devalued here. It is the entire democracy of a significant part of a particular community. As I think I have just pointed out, the law treats this particular currency of being an elected representative or someone in a particular public office as extremely serious.

A whole range of arguments have been put about what the minister did know or should have known. We have not yet heard from the minister. If he has anything further to say about what he did know or did not know or did not do anything about, the scandal has been raging for a long time; I would have thought that if the minister had anything to say, he would have said it.

The minister certainly must have known that his electorate officer was involved in two allegedly violent confrontations. One was with a constituent at a council meeting where Hakki Suleyman was pursuing a particular personal political goal, and another was at an ALP internal election where the police were called to keep the peace while ALP members were voting. The minister must have known about those two events, because they were reported in newspapers; in at least one of those cases the journalist, I think it was Farrah Tomazin, sought comment from the minister. They asked the minister for his opinion on the conduct of his electorate officer.

There is also the matter of the highly discounted use of a council facility — a community resource — for an ALP operation, which, as we have read in the Ombudsman’s report, also had planning considerations in that as well as the discount on price, Hakki Suleyman’s operation got a free kick on meeting the requirements of the planning permit.

It would not take two different instances of violent conduct by my electorate officer for me to take action against that officer. If I am representing an area and my electorate officer is pursuing a political agenda using

physical intimidation of my constituents, at the very least it is wrong. Firstly, it is wrong to use physical intimidation to achieve political aims. Secondly, it is very bad for the minister’s reputation to have an employee doing that. And thirdly, the minister has a responsibility to protect and look after his community.

The ALP received a very high vote in this area, and the minister himself received a very high personal vote. A large number of people went below the line on their voting ticket to put a no. 1 in the box next to the name of Justin Madden. They must have believed, from his reputation as a football hero or whatever it is, that he was some sort of prominent and achieving individual — someone who would make a good MP and who would no doubt look out for their interests — and maybe that he was a man of leadership ability. He has let them down very badly, particularly because these people, of whom a high proportion come from overseas or from non-English-speaking backgrounds, are some of the neediest in Victoria. That is not to suggest they are politically passive or unable to help themselves, but we know they have high needs.

For the minister to not take action with that sort of conduct going on casts a great deal of concern on his character and therefore on his ability to administer his office, which is a very important and sensitive one, which has all sorts of other potential for corruption and which has a need for the highest level of probity. The idea that he would ignore that sort of behaviour makes me wonder what other conduct, if it came across his desk or to his attention, he would ignore or not have the courage to face up to.

Since this matter broke publicly, some people around this place have been saying, in defence of the minister, that he has an easygoing approach to life and that we all know he is an easygoing character who does not like to make waves. That is tantamount to saying, ‘Look, you know he is not a real player in this party’. They did not use the word ‘puppet’, but they were steering me in the direction of believing that perhaps he is not very influential anyway and he would not have been the guy making these decisions. I do not know. I cannot judge the minister’s character. I have spoken to him many times and I get a sense of the man, but we all put up a different persona.

We are all in politics, so we all show a particular face in order to try to achieve objectives that we do not always make transparent to our political competitors. Unfortunately the argument that has been bowled up to me by various people does not convince me any more, because once you run for elected office you are taking on this key public office, this public responsibility. This



is just like a police officer who sees a burglary occurring and says, ‘I am not going to worry about this’.

I do not pretend to know what is going on inside the ALP in the west. I can read lurid stories in the newspapers, but I do not necessarily believe them. But it seems to me — and the Greens have some better information by virtue of having had Miles Dymott and currently having Geraldine Brooks on the council — that this power struggle that was going on is still going on. Sure, the balance between two of the competing factions has ebbed and flowed, and the Ombudsman’s report has scared some people off, but now some people are coming after the other group, so far as I can tell. It seems to me it has broken down into some kind of warlordism and that there is no person, even within the highest echelons of the Labor government, who could come in and call a stop to it right now.

If the minister had said — and he can yet say it — that he was aware of Mr Suleyman’s conduct and these various incidents, that he had raised them with him, that he was undertaking a process with him and managing him in a certain way and that he was writing to him informing him that his conduct was unacceptable, that would be one thing. But that does not fit with the minister’s very early denial of any knowledge of the situation. If the minister came in and said, ‘I did not have any control over Mr Suleyman, and I appealed to his factional bosses to do something about him’ or if he said he went to the Premier and asked, ‘Boss, I have a big problem with this guy in my office — what are we going to do about it?’, that would be an action worthy of the office. But the minister has not said that. I am going to listen to what he says, but I do not think he is going to change his story.

As has been stated by other speakers, and I agree with them, it is the local government ministers who were the first line of defence in this thing, not the Ombudsman. You might ask why the Ombudsman did not make the sorts of findings of criminal conduct that I have tried to outline here. In fact on the day this report was released it was the Premier in question time who, unprompted, uttered the words ‘criminal behaviour’, alluding to the fact that the police may yet investigate this. Why did the Ombudsman not suggest that course of action? It is not actually his job, strangely enough. It has even been worked out in case law over the years that when similar inquiries from ombudsmen, commissions of inquiry and royal commissions have made findings and those findings have been challenged, there has been a clear separation between investigating and reporting and recommending that certain charges be laid and that there was sufficient evidence to sustain those charges. That is the job of the Director of Public Prosecutions;

that is a prosecutor’s job. It is not the job of a royal commission or an ombudsman to prepare for that; it is their job to find out what happened. As I said, it has been through case law that these sorts of limits and precedents have been established for what the two different functions might be willing to cover.

Having worked that out, I now understand why the Ombudsman would not necessarily say the various acts detailed in the Brimbank report represent criminal conduct, and they should be charged. We are separate from the judiciary so it is not our job to seek to influence that. We can only work with the tools that we have, but I expect we will see that down the line; if I do not see it, I will be surprised and disappointed.

Mr Jennings said that the Ombudsman’s report itself does not indicate particular offences by Mr Madden, and that is correct. I am not relying on that particular document in that way. I am relying on the information that Mr Madden must have had, because I had it, we all had it, and we all had it on paper. I am relying on what I map out to be his responsibilities as a member, a public office-holder, when bad conduct by an employee of his occurs.

It is a shame that this motion does not include the Minister for Local Government, because we do not rely on the Ombudsman to keep councils clean. The Ombudsman is only going to get involved in the most notorious cases. It is the local government minister who is the first line of defence, and he is getting out of this easily; I will explain the reasons why I say that.

Firstly, the local government minister, like Mr Madden, knew that he did not have the power to walk into the middle of a Labor right factional gunfight. He was too afraid to do it and knew from long experience what would happen to him if he did. Unfortunately for him that is in direct contradiction to his statutory responsibility as the Minister for Local Government and the powers that go with that.

I am talking about section 209 of the Local Government Act where the minister may appoint a commissioner and establish an inquiry into matters relating to the affairs of the council. That commissioner would have strong powers, the same protection and immunity as a judge of the Supreme Court; the rules of evidence do not apply; when that commissioner has the information and provides it to the minister, the Minister for Local Government is then in a position to move to the next step, which is the suspension of councils.

The Minister for Local Government has got all the power that he needs to take on any serious allegation of



misconduct, to fix it, and to stop it dead. It has been used in other councils. It has been used in councils where the balance of power was between Labor and Liberal slugging it out but not in the heartland of the power base of the faction that runs the Victorian government; he could not go there — not just Mr Wynne, but his predecessor. It did not need to get this far.

What have the consequences been so far? One electorate officer has been sacked, one electorate officer has been transferred as part of a continuation of the dispute which that person is having with Mr Theophanous, as is detailed in the report, and belatedly a municipal inspector has been appointed. A bunch of electorate officers who did not do anything are about to be forced to choose between public service and the job that probably allows them to continue to supplement their income — to be a councillor in the first place — because those people are trying to survive on that measly income that the state government gives them as councillors. In fact that probably does more to undermine local government democracy than any of this stuff, by just devaluing the role of a councillor and making it very hard to survive financially.

That is the limit of it, that is all that has happened. The Premier continues to say the government will implement all the recommendations of the Ombudsman, as if that is enough, as if that is the get-out-of-jail-free card. How about actually stopping the problem, which is not just a problem of whatever the current group of Brimbank councillors might be doing now there is the belated appointment of a municipal inspector? The problem here is that standards have been allowed to slide so low, and there is nobody from amongst that group who is ready to stand up and take a really hard line.

As I said, I do not understand the internal workings of that faction, so I am only guessing that maybe nobody has the power. It has broken down into warlordism and maybe there is nobody, including the Premier, who has actually got the power to go in there and call a halt. That being the case, we have got a real problem — and they do, too, obviously. That is a real worry.

The minister himself has not yet spoken in his own defence, so I am going to wait to see what he has to say, whether the line we have been getting for the last few weeks is about to change and there is about to be full accounting. That word ‘accountability’ does not actually say that you take the blame for everything. Accountability for a minister in the Westminster system does not mean that if one of your low-level public servants does something wrong, you have to quit. It

does not work like that, but you certainly have to be the person who stands up and makes an accounting for what went wrong, why it went wrong and how you intend to fix it. If you do that as a minister, you can usually survive — if you are not completely cavalier about your duties. Here, the accountability is simply accountability as a member of this place, and, as I have said, very little guidance is given to members on what the relevant conduct might consist of. But that demonstration of accountability — and accepting the consequences, too — would be the beginning of a way out of this particular hole, which we have not yet even begun to see.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan) — In his contribution Mr Barber spoke about people putting on different personas in their political lives and maybe putting on different personas for different audiences; I am not too sure if he was simply referring to that or if he condoned it. I personally 100 per cent do not believe in it. I believe you should be the same no matter what circumstances you are in. I believe in looking at things simply.

I will cop criticism that maybe that is the only way I can look at things — to look at things simply. However, I would much prefer to look at things simply. I was actually assisted this morning in understanding this motion and where the Liberal MPs were coming from by some early interjections in the debate from Mr Guy and Mr Finn, saying that this debate was on a vote of no confidence in the minister. So I want to keep my contribution simple, and I want to talk about it in terms of what Mr Finn said he believed this debate was about.

What I am about to say will not surprise anyone; it will not be anything new for anyone. What I am about to say about a vote of no confidence in the minister is that — and again this will not surprise people — the Premier has confidence in this minister. He is on the record as saying he fully supports this minister. Another thing I will say that is not surprising is that the cabinet has full confidence in this minister.

Mr P. Davis — Can you speak for the cabinet? Are you qualified to do that?

Mr LEANE — Unfortunately, Mr Davis, you are not privy to the caucus meetings we have every week.

Mr P. Davis — I’m sure you’re not privy to the cabinet discussions.

Mr LEANE — I’m sure you’re not privy — —



Mr P. Davis — That’s a big leap, Mr Leane. I presume from that that you sit at the cabinet table and have been sworn as a cabinet minister?

Mr LEANE — I feel like I am being haunted by the ghosts of two Christmases past. All cabinet ministers come to our caucus meetings, and I can tell you that our whole caucus and all the cabinet have confidence in this minister. I will extend that to stakeholders with whom I have been involved and who have been involved with the minister, who have had confidence in the minister in the way he has dealt with local issues.

Mr P. Davis — What is your personal view about corruption, Mr Leane? Do you endorse corruption in local government? Does the cabinet endorse corruption?

Mr LEANE — I will get to the barking dogs and refer to corruption in a minute.

Mr P. Davis — Are you for corruption, Mr Leane? Are you speaking up for corruption?

Mr LEANE — I will go on the record again and say that I have full confidence in this minister.

Mr P. Davis — So you endorse corruption, do you?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Somyurek) — Order! I remind members that interjections across the chamber are disorderly.

Mr LEANE — Thank you, Acting President. I am happy to restate that I have full confidence in this minister, and if Mr Philip Davis says in a twisted way that I as a member of Parliament endorse corruption, he is so far off the mark — —

Mr P. Davis — Well explain yourself! You’re on your feet.

Mr LEANE — And I will get there.

Mr P. Davis — You don’t have to read notes. You can speak off the cuff.

Mr LEANE — I am happy to get there.

Mr P. Davis — Who prepared the notes for you?

Mr LEANE — You should do some more walking in nature parks, I think. I will get there.

I mentioned government members, the Premier and stakeholders I have been involved with personally who have confidence in the Minister for Planning performing his duties. Mr Barber also mentioned that

this minister got a high personal vote in his electorate, so obviously a lot of confidence was shown in his electorate at the last election.

As I said, members should not be surprised at what I have said in my contribution, and other parts of this debate should not surprise us either. Under the two-party adversarial system we have in this Parliament and that has existed in parliaments for years, are we supposed to be surprised at opposition MPs saying they do not have confidence in a government minister?

I would have thought that in a system we inherited from Westminster many years ago, a system practised in a number of countries, it was an opposition’s role not to have complete confidence in ministers and to question and look at policies and, when it did not have confidence in those policies, to put up alternative policies.

I would not have thought it was a world-shattering thing to have a motion showing that opposition members do not have confidence in a government member. I do not think it is a world-shattering thing at all. Liberal members hope that they are making big news today and that this will be a big news item, but after 100 years it is not a big news item that opposition MPs say they do not have confidence in a minister.

I think there is a reason these sorts of motions have not come up for a lot of years, and that is because they are actually pretty stupid. I would have thought it was the role of an opposition not to have confidence in a minister. We have spent hours on something that should not be new in a parliamentary system which has been around for hundreds of years and which we inherited, but apparently the Liberal Party thinks this is a way for it to get a big headline out of a motion. This sort of motion has not been moved for a number of years because it is stupid — it is an obvious thing that opposition members would not have confidence in government ministers.

On top of that, this has been an opportunity for opposition members to put out catchwords that are way outside any report or the reality of what has happened. It is similar to what dogs do when they bark. I used to listen to Triple J and Dr Karl Kruszelnicki. When dogs bark, the first bark is ‘hello’ and the second bark is ‘goodbye’, and they keep it going. They bark this out continually — —

Mrs Peulich — It is extraordinary.

Mr Finn — It is extraordinary, Mrs Peulich. I have been listening with a great deal of interest to Mr Leane’s contribution, if you wish to call it that. I am



struggling — struggling valiantly, but struggling nonetheless — to find a shred of relevance. He is talking about barking dogs or something. I suggest it is nothing to do with the Brimbank council or the corruption surrounding it.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Somyurek) — Order! Mr Leane was developing a metaphor. I ask him to finish his metaphor and get back to the debate.

Mr LEANE — This concerns me: I never thought Mr Finn had such a glass jaw. You are 100 per cent correct, Acting President, that I am developing a metaphor. Dogs bark hello/goodbye continually. Maybe they are hoping to get some sort of action or reaction somewhere, but it is out of context. In this debate today Liberal members have been barking out ‘corruption/resign’, ‘corruption/resign’, ‘corruption/resign’. They are the words they want to get out, completely out of context with the reality of any report, anything that has happened or any facts. This is what they are trying to do today. Unfortunately for them none of it will be resonating. This is a new motion compared to the calls for paperwork we have had recently, but they have probably had their go as far as a type of motion that has not come to the house for a long time is concerned. There is probably good reason that this sort of motion has not been moved for many years, and that is because it is actually quite stupid.

I can only reiterate that government members have full confidence in this minister. Government members believe this minister is a good minister who has implemented the policies of our party to a T. Planning is an emotive area; it is a hard area. This minister has implemented all of our policies 100 per cent, and today we will not be involved in supporting a stupid motion like this.

Mr VOGELS (Western Victoria) — I could stand up here and say, ‘I told you so’ and probably sit down, because four or five years ago, when I first became the shadow Minister for Local Government, the amount of mail I received and the number of people who came to see me about the Brimbank council and the goings on at the Brimbank council was unbelievable. I was gobsmacked. I did not know local government could be so corrupt as it was at Brimbank.

I raised the issue on quite a few occasions with Candy Broad, who was then the Minister for Local Government. I usually got back the same answer: ‘If you have something, send it to us and we will investigate’. If we sent them something, did they investigate it? If they did, they did not investigate properly, because the minister always came back and

said she could not find any accurate proof of what we were saying. That was considered to be true, so they swept the matter under the carpet.

Here we go four or five years later. The Ombudsman has handed down a 200-page report because our local government ministers — previously Candy Broad and now Richard Wynne — have completely failed to investigate the accusations that were made by the people of Brimbank. I did not expect the then minister to go out there and investigate, but I would have thought her department would have done a thorough and accurate job and come up with some answers and solutions to some of the problems, as the people of Brimbank had hoped.

We know, for example, there were planning issues with Wentworth Drive. We know there were swimming pools and soccer clubs involved, and whether you did or did not get funding was all to do with which faction of the Labor Party you belonged to. Up to $650 000 for a certain soccer club depended on the whim of a faction of the Labor Party. I could not believe what was happening, and I could not believe that the ministers of the day completely ignored all the evidence put in front of them. They swept it under the carpet. Here we are, four or five years later, debating this motion because the Ombudsman has come out with this report proving corruption at Brimbank council.

It is with regret that I have to support this motion, because I think the minister has been kept in the dark. I would be very surprised if ministers of the Bracks or Brumby governments in this house ever ventured out to their electorate offices. They probably go to them once a year. As we know, electorate offices for ministers in this house, especially those in the western suburbs, are just ALP branches. They are where the ALP branches run their functions. The ministers go to them very rarely and probably do not even know what is going on out there. That does not excuse them, because they should know what is going on out there — but they obviously do not.

I have brought a lot of stuff with me in relation to all the issues I raised in this house when I was the shadow minister, but after having listened to the debate for about 5 hours I feel that most of those issues have been covered and I do not see the point of going over them again.

I need to finish by saying it is sad that the Ombudsman has had to come up with this report. As Mr Barber said, a lot of good electorate officers who have done nothing wrong, who have supported their members and who have been on council — but who have also been great



electorate officers — will have to forego their positions because of the failure of people like those employed in some Labor Party offices. Hakki Suleyman is the one we have been talking about here, but there are others. They have completely besmirched the names of electorate officers, and the Ombudsman is now saying that no councillor can work in the electorate office of a state or federal member of Parliament. I think that is very sad. As I said, there are good people out there who will lose their jobs through no fault of their own.

In conclusion, I support the motion. I am sad to do so, but I have no option other than to support the motion moved by Mr David Davis.

Mr KOCH (Western Victoria) — I was living in the hope that I would hear the minister speak on the motion before I had to make my presentation this evening.

Mr Finn — Don’t hold your breath!

Mr KOCH — As Mr Finn correctly says, I would not be game to hold my breath on that matter. The house has a very serious motion before it today — a censure motion, which is a vote of no confidence in the minister. I totally support the motion because of what has been presented in the Ombudsman’s report. I commend the Ombudsman for having the grit to investigate this issue in the manner he has and to put the report together. I have to say that I was somewhat disappointed with Mr Pakula’s contribution from the point of view that he believed very strongly the minister at no stage had done anything wrong. Unfortunately the minister was happy to be a spectator even though one senior staffer, Hakki Suleyman, was having a picnic at his expense.

There is little doubt that what has been taking place at Brimbank is not news to this chamber. As Mr Vogels and others have correctly said today, these situations have been brought to the attention of the chamber regularly, and the government has not given fair acknowledgement. I note that Candy Broad, the former Minister for Local Government, was reputing some of the things my colleague John Vogels, the former shadow Minister for Local Government, raised in his contribution. I am disappointed that that is the case, because quite obviously the Office of Local Government has no teeth, and ministers of the day certainly do not exercise opportunities that they can avail themselves of.

Ms Broad — He has powers under the Local Government Act — no more, no less.

Mr KOCH — Through the Chair, I take up Ms Broad’s interjection. I repeat that many

opportunities were available to her in that role when she was Minister for Local Government. I know that I personally brought situations to her attention in relation to a municipality in western Victoria. After the information was supplied, nothing at all was done about it. I would not be surprised if there was something going on in other municipalities — and I can assure the house that I am mindful of what is going on in the north-eastern part of Melbourne at Darebin.

Just down the road, 100 kilometres away in the City of Greater Geelong, there is similar disquiet with a couple of councillors down there, Cr Saunderson and Cr Granger. They are very happy to flag themselves as ALP members, and that is who they are representing. The same two people were obviously entertained by the federal member for Corio, Richard Marles, and the Victorian lower house member for Lara, John Eren, after their campaign and election as Geelong councillors.

The politics involved is unbelievable. I have to say I was further distressed that one of the culprits, Cr Saunderson — and he is a perennial culprit in Geelong, who was earlier charged and convicted for his conduct in relation to a conflict of interests — is a justice of the peace (JP) and is very proud of that situation. His case is not dissimilar to that of Hakki Suleyman. Neither the Attorney-General nor the Minister for Local Government has seen fit to strip this character of that status.

I have to say that being a justice of the peace is one of the most privileged roles, away from an elected position, anyone could have in Victoria. They play a very important role in communities to assist our magistrates in various ways. They may even perform duties of a bail justice when called upon. They certainly look after the witnessing and signing of affidavits. Who would have any confidence with JPs like Cr Saunderson and people like Hakki Suleyman? How could you have confidence in the integrity of these people to carry out those duties?

I can assure members that the community in Geelong is certainly reconsidering the position of that councillor, who sees himself as a shining light of the ALP. He is there to do a task for various members, both state and federal. His latest rant has been that he was left off the selection panel for the new chief executive officer for Geelong. All I can say is thank goodness that Cr Saunderson has been denied the opportunity of representing the council in such an important role as the selection of their highest officer.



Cr Granger and Cr Saunderson forgot where their financial support came from. They were quite happy to get into the council chamber and support those respective parties, although I must admit the particular party’s business name had changed from the time they were elected to when the recent applications were put on their behalf. These two councillors in Geelong had been informed of that change of business name, yet they still participated in the vote and were quite happy to vote in favour of the people who had put forward the funds for their campaign to be elected to the City of Greater Geelong.

I do not think there is a doubt in the world about what has taken place in Brimbank and about the association with the minister’s office. My colleague Matthew Guy certainly summed up the position this chamber was faced with after years of bringing these complaints to the house. On 7 May this year the minister indicated that it was not until the Ombudsman’s report was tabled and publicly released that he was conscious of either allegations or the extent of these matters.

Blind Freddy knows that is not the truth. To try to mislead the house to that degree is reprehensible. I certainly agree with all members on this side of the house who have made a contribution about that fact. Either the minister is a fool or he is incompetent, and he should no longer hold ministerial office in the current government.

As I said earlier I totally support the motion moved this morning by my colleague Mr David Davis, and I look forward to the contribution from the minister. I think it will be damning from his own point of view; certainly it will be from the point of view of this side of the house, and I am sure it will be from the point of view of the Victorian public, who, now that this has been brought to their attention, are watching closely to see what is going on at Brimbank, as they are in other municipalities.

Mrs KRONBERG (Eastern Metropolitan) — I rise to support Mr Davis’s most worthy and timely motion. If this motion had not been put before the house, I think we would have been guilty, as the government is guilty, of failing the people of Victoria by sanctioning the outrageous conduct manifested over a number of years and very much in the public focus since 2002, when Mr Vogels, in his capacity as shadow Minister for Local Government, drew to the attention of the house the collection of people who are steeped in malfeasance of the lowest order.

People have been failed by this government. This issue goes to the very heart of our system of parliamentary

democracy. The government’s avoidance of and failure to act against instances of misconduct and its witnessing, enduring and sanctioning of the Minister for Planning, Justin Madden, has got to come to an end. This is the pointy end of things for him. This is the time when, as a minister of the Crown, he is to be held to account and to receive the opprobrium and castigation that goes with letting people down when you have sworn to do the opposite.

There will be an additional cost borne by the people of Brimbank and, as this cascades through councils across the state, by the people of Victoria for the by-elections and countbacks of votes that will be required to replace those who are going to be displaced by this process. They are innocent people who are being swept up in the opprobrium that is attached to Brimbank. I think we need to make special mention of the fact that there are people of good character and integrity who work in the offices of members of Parliament and who equally serve the community in their capacity as elected representatives in municipalities across Melbourne and throughout the state. They have been swept up and tarred with the same brush, and that is an outrage.

The planning minister is culpable for turning a blind eye to the antics and activities of somebody in his employment. It beggars belief to think that councillors’ priorities, activities, reputation, conduct, strategies, thinking and everything can be attributed to the host of non-elected representatives influencing the elected representatives of Brimbank. If the minister was not aware of just how far these people were pushing the boundaries and how toxic their conduct was, then we can argue equally that he is unfit to hold the role of Minister for Planning — because he just does not get it. He just does not see it when he is absolutely immersed in empirical evidence of the sustained conduct of some people. He has not woken up to it. He has not got any of the street smarts, savvy or common sense that one requires to hold the office of a minister of the Crown.

We see the people of Brimbank as having been sorely let down by this dysfunctional council, which has been fraught with internecine conflict and heavily influenced, ironically and cynically, by people who could never be elected officials because they have criminal records and criminal convictions in abundance. I can understand that those individuals would be pretty toey and pretty frustrated and want to have an influence on the public life they have precluded themselves from by their previous conduct. Why should the people of Brimbank be let down in this way on a continuous basis?



There is so much at risk because of this malfeasance on a grand scale. Decisions have been made that ignored the best interests of the community and were instead driven by factional and political alliances. We understand that the government is squirming with embarrassment on this — unfortunately on a pike of its own making. It has been warned repeatedly over decades.

I even have my own funny little story of one of the elements at Brimbank back in the days when it was the Sunshine City Council. Long before the amalgamation there was an endemic system of playing around with procurement; all the guys at the depot had their cars lowered and fat wheels, tyres and twin exhausts installed — all bought off the back of the council. This conduct is endemic in Labor-held seats in the west. This is what is seen to be the norm, and these guys only got tripped up because they were about to deliver a Porsche on the system and somebody said, ‘That’s a bridge too far’. The culture accommodated bullying and intimidation, which directly affected the staff of the council and their wellbeing as employees.

Unfortunately the minister has always been uncomfortable and continues to fail to answer questions that arise from this report. We can say it is not as though the minister was unaware of this, because I have a host of letters from very community-minded people such as Darlene Reilly of the Sunshine Residents and Ratepayers Association, who has been out in the public domain flagging this. The minister, in his electorate, was not listening.

We can say the minister has misled Parliament over his knowledge of the activities of Hakki Suleyman at the Brimbank City Council, because the activities are well documented and this information I have here at my fingertips has been coursing through the system for at least four years. Unfortunately the Premier still refuses to act. It is ironic that I feel a bit sorry for the member for Keilor in the Assembly, George Seitz; he is on a skewer himself because he played the role of whistleblower, and they want to threaten his career in Parliament with their preselection fandangos.

We can say where the culpability in the conduct of a minister lies. If we look at an example in the United States, Richard Nixon did not raid the headquarters of the Democratic Party in his time, but he was impeached on the basis of what he knew and when he knew it. The President of the United States was impeached because he was an agent; he was complicit in an act. As far as ministerial accountability goes, we can say that a minister can be called upon to explain in Parliament his

or her actions and those of the department or the agencies under his or her control.

I am pleased that Minister Madden is sitting in the chamber now, because this is a message for him and I hope he picks up on it. He is intrinsically linked to Hakki Suleyman, a man who has created a lot of havoc amongst elected representatives, who has disappointed the community, squandered money and done all sorts of things that are outside proper conduct, convention and codes of behaviour.

The minister was complicit in that he gave Hakki Suleyman credibility by working with him. The minister’s association with him and his standing in the government flowed to Mr Suleyman, underpinned him and offset what he was all about. There is a little message there for the minister: it is the example of Winston Churchill, who after learning about the fall of Singapore, a supposedly impregnable fortress, offered an apology. He said, ‘I did not know. I was not told’. I quote verbatim: ‘I should have asked’.

No minister ever seems to forget the special moments when the public good is improved and advanced, but when something goes wrong we hear those first two sentences ad infinitum, ‘I did not know. I was not told’. Churchill accepted responsibility, but Labor’s apparent indifference to its responsibility in Victoria stands in stark contrast to this. While talking about ministerial responsibility I would like to quote a passage from the St James Ethics Centre that goes to the heart of this issue. It says:

Ultimately able to determine the shape and content of the constitution, Australian citizens are the original source of all power and authority in the land. The exercise of this power and authority by the Crown, through its ministers, must be accountable. Apart from the device of regular elections, the formal mechanism for ensuring accountability is Parliament, where the representatives of the citizens meet to deliberate …

…

Only the Crown, its ministers and those to whom they delegate authority to act form the government. Only ministers, drawn from the ranks of members of Parliament, can provide a ‘human bridge’ between the legislature and the executive — the links in a chain of accountability. So, if they do not know what is going on, we are in deep trouble.

I would say the Victorian government is in deep trouble. In his Standards of Ministerial Ethics, issued in December 2007, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says:

Ministers must not encourage or induce other public officials, including public servants, by their decisions, directions or conduct in office to breach the law, or to fail to comply with the relevant code of ethical conduct applicable to then in their official capacity. Ministers are also expected to ensure that reasonable measures are put in place in the areas of their



responsibility to discourage or prevent corrupt conduct by officials.

This is a very sad day for Minister Madden, whatever the outcome of the vote on this motion. I urge everybody to support Mr Davis and the coalition in their endeavours with this motion. It is a very sad moment of reckoning for the minister, and I feel saddened by this. It has come home to roost for Mr Madden. I urge all members to support this motion.

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) — It is a sad task, as Mrs Kronberg has just said, to make judgements about the Honourable Justin Madden, because, I say from the outset, I have long found Mr Madden a very admirable man in many respects. Some other speakers have mentioned that he is a happy person, and the happy disposition he exhibits almost constantly is something I admire and would like to be able to emulate. In addition to that, I will never forget how generous Mr Madden was in welcoming me to this place and this house.

However, having said that, on 7 May Minister Madden denied knowledge of complaints against his electorate officer. In view of a lot of evidence that has been put before the house today, that denial is extremely difficult, indeed almost impossible, to believe. Perhaps the most generous interpretation was that suggested to me by Mr Vogels, who said that perhaps Mr Madden meant he did not take the matter very seriously until the Ombudsman’s report was published. Perhaps, to be generous, we could accept that interpretation of Mr Madden’s comments.

The problem is also that the behaviour in question was not aberrant behaviour; it was ongoing, indeed over a number of years. It was not a particular event that could have been ignored but was repeated over a long period of time. Mr Viney suggested a defence — and quite a good legal one, I suppose — that had some merit. It was about separating ministerial duties from the duties of a member of Parliament. However, in the Westminster system of government every minister must be a member of Parliament. In the United States a minister may not be a member of Parliament, but here under the commonwealth constitution they must be, and I think in the United States they certainly are in practice, even though it is not a strict constitutional requirement.

In my view the evidence suggests a failure of judgement and misconduct by Mr Madden. As ALP members have repeatedly stated, this is not about Mr Madden doing something; it is about a failure to do something. However, Mr Barber showed very clearly

that for people with particular responsibilities, in many circumstances a failure to act is an act of misconduct.

What actions did Mr Madden ignore that amounted to misconduct? Firstly, there were many corrupt practices recorded in the Ombudsman’s report. Misconduct was performed by people working in Mr Madden’s electorate office. They were corrupt practices that really amounted to ripping off Brimbank ratepayers. Having worked in Sunshine as a teacher, I can say that in my experience the people of Brimbank are very hardworking people who cannot afford to be ripped off and have their rates spent on absurd purposes like $650 000 to support a local soccer team. There are many other examples, including ridiculously expensive library cards to promote the mayor. I know from the teachers and parents I met that they struggle and work hard to pay their rates.

Even worse than this are the instances of intimidation and threats of violence by people over whom Mr Madden had some responsibility, and these were not one-off events either; they were repeated and ongoing. None of us here would dream that Mr Madden himself would ever perform an act like that; we all know that he would not, he is not that kind of person. But he did have responsibility for stopping it, because all of us need to be aware that violence and threats are totally unacceptable in our political system, whether at the federal, state or local level; we all need to adopt a zero tolerance policy, and we all have an obligation to prevent violence and intimidation happening at every turn.

I am sad because I think this behaviour amounts to a failure of democracy. Mr Viney said he believes in democracy, and as the only member of the Democratic Labor Party in this Parliament I believe very strongly in democracy, but I believe that the value of democracy is inherent — that is, people should govern themselves. It is not the case that the decisions made through this process are always the right ones. As someone who has never voted for anybody who has won an election, I could not afford to think otherwise.

In conclusion, it is with some sadness that I indicate that, unless there is something very surprising in what Mr Madden is about to say, I would feel compelled to vote for Mr David Davis’s motion of no confidence in the Minister for Planning, the Honourable Justin Madden.

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I rise to briefly speak in the debate on this motion. This is not because there is not much to say but because most of it has already been said by my colleagues on this side of the house and also



because a number of substantive issues will clearly be addressed shortly by my colleague, Mr Madden, in his reply to the motion.

It is important to reflect on the number of specific issues that have been raised here today. A motion of censure of a minister is a very serious issue, and we as a house should never regard such an issue lightly, but there is a test we need to apply first. A motion was moved by Mr David Davis censuring Mr Madden for what he says are inadequacies in his administration as planning minister, but, as Mr Viney said, the motion far more substantially has a go at Mr Madden because of Mr Davis’s views of the minister as a member for Western Metropolitan Region.

If we want to start in this house on the business of moving censure motions on members of Parliament for what their electorate officer has done, let us think through carefully that very statement: what their electorate officer has done. That is fine, and the house can set itself a new standard of doing that. But I would ask every member to reflect on the standard that this house is seeking to set for a member being accountable for what their electorate officer has done and the member being accountable for what their electorate officer may or may not have done during working hours or in their other involvements.

If that is the new test that the house wants to hold Mr Madden accountable for, and if the test being applied is that an electorate officer should not be involved in party political affairs — —

Mr Finn — No, it is criminal activity.

Mr LENDERS — If that is the test being applied — —

Mr Finn — No, it is not. You know that

Mr LENDERS — I will repeat my comment: if that is the test being applied, then we are setting a whole new scene in the Westminster system. The issues raised are very serious, and these issues have been addressed by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has given a comprehensive report to this Parliament, and the government has said, ‘We will implement every single recommendation of the Ombudsman regarding the City of Brimbank and regarding the Brimbank councillors, and we will act on them’.

An honourable member interjected.

Mr LENDERS — I take up the interjection about warnings by all those greatly knowledgeable of, ‘How many years ago?’, and I will make a couple of

observations on how seriously you would objectively take opposition warnings.

We have taken seriously the response from the Ombudsman — it is a serious matter — and acted upon it, but let us reflect briefly on the opposition in this place. Since the last election those opposite have given notice of 244 motions condemning the government or ministers for various activities — that is, on 244 occasions members opposite have felt it important enough to draft a motion condemning me, other ministers or other members of the government for grave sins. If we have committed them, we should be held accountable — that should be debated — but before Mr David Davis gets on his high horse and pontificates in this place about the gravity of the situation, may I suggest he be a touch more selective.

I think it is not unreasonable for the community to say that if a government has received an Ombudsman’s report and acted on it and then a political motion comes out of this place, the government has the right to say, ‘Are you treating 244 things with the same measure or is there something unique about today?’. What is unique about today is that there is an Ombudsman’s report and we are dealing with it. The Ombudsman has given us a solution, and we are dealing with it.

But it is not just the 244 motions. What about the enormous number of motions that actually get debated in this place? I accept the politics — that this is sometimes done to manage the opposition backbench and to let someone put up their wacky idea so they can feel good that their notice of motion is on the notice paper for 20 days, and then it disappears. That is what the opposition leader does to manage some of the crazy people around him. Sometimes it is done so that the opposition has a series of options until something better comes up allowing it to get political in the house and embarrass the government.

I accept all that, but if the opposition in this place is serious in saying that this issue for which they are holding Justin Madden accountable has such gravity, then we would take it a lot more seriously if it had some issue for which to hold the government accountable every six months — not every week or six times a week. Every Wednesday, from 10.30 a.m. until stumps, the opposition is condemning the government for something.

My point is not that this is not a serious matter; it is a very serious matter that has been addressed by the Ombudsman, who has put a series of recommendations in place. The government is responding to each and every recommendation made by an independent person



who does not come into this house every Wednesday with a motion of some sort or another condemning the government.

I would like to make a couple of other observations about the tone Mr David Davis and others set when they were talking about how somehow or other there was a conspiracy because a number of ministers had been to a community cabinet at Brimbank. They asked, ‘Why did people not listen?’. People tried to get appointments with ministers and did not get them, so there was apparently some conspiracy, they said.

I will make just one observation: ministers make judgements. When political opponents attack every single member of your party and every single thing day after day, it is understandable that ministers make judgements and tune out when the opposition makes an attack. I wonder if any of those opposite have heard of a man called Mr Ian Kaye? I have probably been emailed by him 1000 times — and I do not think I am exaggerating — with conspiracy theories about Chief Justice Marilyn Warren — he is obsessed! — the Attorney-General, the Chief Judge of the County Court, the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Chief Magistrate.

The point I make is not that governments should not listen. We have listened on a daily and regular basis. The fact that there are community cabinets means that this government is actually out and about, listening to people on a daily basis. Ministers and governments make judgements and move forward.

Mrs Peulich — Get your head out of the sand!

Mr LENDERS — Deputy President, I will take up Mrs Peulich’s interjection, ‘Get your head out of the sand!’. Each and every one of us is an elected member of Parliament, and we are advised of issues by members of our community each and every day. If Mr David Davis’s standard is that if a person at any particular time alerts him to any particular issue and his view is that it is gross negligence not to chase that issue to the utmost extreme, then I think we have a new standard.

I have had people come to me with complaints about Mrs Peulich’s electorate officer, and I have had people come to me with complaints about the electorate officers of a number of members opposite. Have I gone and chased them down the burrow because someone has raised those issues with me? You make a judgement about that. If members think they can go out and do that, that is a prerogative members have, and in the end everyone makes a judgement.

The basic premise that I make here today is that, in my view, the Minister for Planning is an exemplary minister. He has administered a series of portfolios in this government with great distinction. He has taken this government through the Commonwealth Games and probably the most radical overhaul of the planning system that we need at a time of difficult circumstances.

I have full confidence in the Minister for Planning. I acknowledge that the Ombudsman has written a difficult report on Brimbank; I acknowledge that the report is an unpleasant one. The thing about the Ombudsman’s report on Brimbank is that he has actually said to government, ‘Here is a problem. Here is a solution’. His solution was a series of recommendations that had nothing to do with censuring the Minister for Planning.

The Ombudsman went in there, interviewed whomever he needed to interview and dug into every single issue he needed to with unparalleled powers given by this government for this inquiry. He reviewed every single issue and interviewed everyone he needed to in Brimbank. He had every power he needed. But did the Ombudsman — —

Mr Koch — Get your head out of the sand!

Mr LENDERS — Now Mr Koch says, ‘Get your head out of the sand!’ We set up an independent person with unparalleled powers to make recommendations to fix something in the rotten borough of Brimbank — if that is how you want to describe it — and he came out with a series of recommendations. Is one of his recommendations that Mr David Davis come in here today and condemn my colleague, the Minister for Planning?

If the Ombudsman, as opposed to Mr David Davis, came out and said that there was an issue, this government obviously would have acted. We have a motion before the house which, like hundreds of other motions from those opposite, condemns the government. There is almost a daily motion.


The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! As I said earlier in this debate, there is a difference between interjections and a barrage. The minister, without assistance.

Mr LENDERS — In conclusion, we have today seen a serious motion which, like hundreds of others, comes from the opposition condemning the government or individual members of the government. We have a motion that is directed at the Minister for Planning, and



fundamentally, as Mr Viney said, half the motion is dealing with the minister as a member for Western Metropolitan Region. So the question is raised that every member of this house has a new standard on electorate officers and it is within the legitimate purview of the house to have a view on that, but a member of the house is different. An issue of great policy significance has been identified — a problem has been identified — in the City of Brimbank. The independent Ombudsman has made a series of recommendations which the government will execute in full, and nowhere in those recommendations does the independent Ombudsman, who has delved into every detail about Brimbank council, share the view of Mr David Davis that the answer is to go out politically and have a go at a good minister.

For those reasons I oppose the motion and express my full and complete confidence in my colleague the Minister for Planning.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — I do not intend to speak for a long time, because a number of members have spoken for too long on this matter and spent too much time on this debate when we should have been debating matters of significance and more consequence for the broader community — issues such as jobs, issues like the economic crisis, issues about industry and issues about planning and population pressures. They are the issues we should have been dealing with today rather than these matters that have been brought into this Parliament for political point-scoring and grandstanding by the opposition.

I state from the outset that I am absolutely appalled by the findings of the Ombudsman in his report. Let me make that very clear — absolutely appalled. Let me also acknowledge that the government has responded in the strongest possible terms and accepted the recommendations of the Ombudsman and agreed to implement all the findings of the Ombudsman.

Following my comments in Parliament earlier this month I have requested the secretary of the Department of Planning and Community Development look at any state government planning decisions relating to Brimbank council. I have made this request in order to satisfy any public concerns about perceived impropriety.

Following the release of the Ombudsman’s report I quickly formed the view that I could not feel confident and give Mr Suleyman, my electorate officer, support for his role as an electorate officer. In relation to Mr Suleyman’s employment, as we know, he is employed by the Parliament so I am currently awaiting

the finalisation of the process currently being managed by the Parliament and the presiding officers in relation to his employment.

In terms of the accusations being made about my knowledge of the particular events outlined, I refute any allegations of wrongdoing. I want also to use this opportunity to absolutely reinforce in this chamber that I have not directed Mr Suleyman or anyone else in the Brimbank community to get involved in or take a position on local council matters. I certainly have never had control or influence over what Mr Suleyman may do or has done in his own time or in his capacity as a private citizen. As I have stated many times publicly, Mr Suleyman was already working in my electorate office when I was elected to Parliament in 1999.

On 20 May I said at a press conference that I recall seeing a letter from the Sunshine residents association in relation to the Sunshine pool matter. I spoke to Mr Suleyman at some length about this matter, about the content and what was indicated in that letter. He stated that the points made in the letter were politically motivated. If anyone in the chamber went to the website of the Sunshine Residents Association in recent days it would be very difficult not to get the impression that the material on that site was not politically motivated.

In the context of what was taking place at that time in relation to the Sunshine pool there was a heated debate in the community and people had various views and positions. That was understandable because that outdoor pool at Sunshine had remained empty for far too long. I believed in those circumstances it was reasonable for me to accept the response at the time, due to the highly charged nature of the local debate.

We all know, and I know members opposite know this too, that some council proceedings on local issues incite passions. Intemperate comments and unsubstantiated allegations are often thrown around because of local government. The coalition knows this. I refer to Mr Finn’s comments about the Brimbank council in this place. He said it was:

… a den of intrigue, backstabbing, treachery and backbiting where venom is the drink of choice …

Those comments were made on 30 July 2008.

Was he able to substantiate that? No, he used this place under parliamentary privilege, often known as cowards castle, to say that. I refer back to the comments of Minister Lenders in relation to having to try to see through the fog of what is and is not happening when there are often allegations from many people about all



those around you. It is important in such an environment that matters are properly managed. It has been my consistent position over the years that any allegations should be raised with the proper authorities. I have said in this place that they should be referred to the proper authorities and substantiated. Those authorities are the local government office, the Ombudsman and the police.


Hon. J. M. MADDEN — Otherwise, Mr Finn, they are and will remain nothing but hollow rhetoric until you are able to substantiate them. In this case the Ombudsman has investigated, reported back and made recommendations. I want to assure the house and the Victorian community that I do not and will never condone inappropriate behaviour of employees. Again, I emphasise that following the release of the Ombudsman’s report I acted by speaking to Mr Suleyman and then requested that he not attend my electorate office.

I will continue to concentrate on the important job that I have as the planning minister, and that is to not be distracted by the grubby politics of the opposition, but to ensure that Melbourne can continue to meet the challenges of population growth and an ageing population and to ensure that Melbourne remains one of the most livable cities. Nothing the opposition can throw at me will deter me from the vital task that I have.

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — I want firstly to thank all members who have contributed to this debate. It has been a difficult debate for the chamber but a very important one. Nobody should be under any illusion about the gravity of what we have been debating. I want to pick up a number of points that have been made, particularly in the latter section of the discussion. The Leader of the Government in this place said that many motions are moved. Yes, many motions are moved, but none as serious as this, as specific as this and as clear as this. A number of government members have said they accept the Ombudsman’s report, that they believe it has been a valuable contribution and that the Ombudsman has got to the bottom of a number of issues. That is accepted, but it is not sufficient to just accept what the Ombudsman said because there are further issues here. One of the issues and the one that is central to this matter is whether our minister in the chamber, Mr Madden, the Minister for Planning, knew about a number of these matters. To be honest, it is not credible — and what he said now suggests to me further that it is not credible — that he did not know in detail.

Hon. M. P. Pakula — You don’t get to decide that. You’re not judge and jury.

Mr D. DAVIS — I have to say that we look after the standards of the chamber as a chamber. The minister made comments in response to questions in this chamber in early May, and those statements were not true. There is no doubt that he had received many warnings — we are not talking about just a few — including the document that I quoted from before which listed dozens of cases of press coverage and statements in the media that dealt directly with the involvement of Mr Madden’s electorate officer, Mr Suleyman; the submissions made by groups like Save Our Suburbs and others, the Sunshine Residents and Ratepayers Association; and the dozens of submissions, letters and other correspondence. The Sunshine ratepayers association wrote to Minister Madden, and he has admitted, under pressure — and I understand this — that he had seen those letters. He now tries to provide a defence for that.

Hon. J. M. Madden — One letter; I said ‘one letter’.

Mr D. DAVIS — But I would argue, Minister, that you knew much more, that there was in fact much more evidence. There was correspondence, there were letters, there were news releases and there were statements in the local press. I cannot believe that when the Star newspaper in the minister’s area ran an attack on Hakki Suleyman on the front page the minister was unaware of that and that he did not consider it a serious matter. It is impossible to believe that he was not aware of key details around the soccer club and the arrangements with the ALP in the area.

I want to say something here about, in a sense, the collective blindness of a number of government members. This is a very serious matter. The minister said his portfolio responsibility, the economy and all those matters are serious, and of course he is absolutely right. But democracy is also important. It is the centre of our system. What has occurred at Brimbank is corrosive of our democracy. The central concern here is that the minister has not understood that misleading the house is corrosive of democracy.

The PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Davis!

Mr D. DAVIS — Through you, President, the minister appears not to have understood that his turning a blind eye over a number of years, his involvement in a cover-up and his decision not to deal with these difficult and public issues are corrosive of democracy and have allowed these activities to continue.

ALPINE RESORT AREAS REVIEW: PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS


Mr Kavanagh put his finger on it when he said that sometimes not to act is as serious as taking an action. It is for those reasons that I make the point very strongly that I believe the motion should be supported by the chamber.

I shall make one other final point. In Kevin Rudd’s Canberra, a minister would have fallen foul of a code of conduct. The Leader of the Government tried to make the case that we are setting a new standard. I do not believe the artificial division between a minister’s office and an electorate office is a suitable cover to allow corruption to occur. I do not believe it is a reasonable step to argue that that artificial division, perhaps a legal or technical division, is a sufficient cover to allow undemocratic processes to occur.

I ask the chamber to support this motion, and I ask that it do so because our democracy is central and we need to protect it.

House divided on motion:

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

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

The PRESIDENT — Order! I would just like to say that whilst this was a reasonably robust debate, I think it was conducted in a quite civilised manner, and I thank the house for that.

Sitting suspended 6.25 p.m. until 8.04 p.m.

ALPINE RESORT AREAS REVIEW: PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

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

That, in accordance with sessional order 21, there be tabled in the Council by 4.00 p.m. on 24 June 2009 a copy of each submission made to the review of alpine resort areas undertaken by the State Services Authority in 2008 and a copy of each agenda and minutes of meetings of the interdepartmental reference group that looked at matters surrounding alpine resort management boards and the State Services Authority report into them.

The Minister for Environment and Climate Change, at 12.00 p.m. on Monday, 1 June, released the State Services Authority report into alpine resorts. The government had sat on that report since June 2008. Although the minister refused to release this document to the Victorian community for 12 months, it should have been released.

Clearly more than 65 submissions were made to the State Services Authority review. In my opinion those submissions should be made public so that the public can closely examine those submissions and examine the State Services Authority review in the light of those submissions.

Some of the recommendations in the review of alpine resort areas will surprise the community. They effectively endorse a model that would see a single authority and head leases created for the major resorts, effectively, arguably, privatising the resorts. If that is the direction in which the government wishes to go, then it needs to have a serious debate with the community. There are many in the community who would be very thoughtful about that sort of step, and it is far from clear that the management approach — which would see head leases for each of the major resorts as the major device for managing the snowfields — is the best way to go.

The minister spoke about that in the chamber yesterday in response to a question by my colleague Ms Lovell. From his answer I could not get a clear understanding of where the government will head. Either way, the State Services Authority’s report itself should have been made public many months ago. The 65-plus submissions should be made public now and the minutes of the interdepartmental reference group should also be made public. Then the community can examine or give serious thought as to how it wants its alpine resorts managed in the future. Do we want them managed through a single head lease that will vest all power in one firm or do we want a different management structure? It seems to me that in most of our alpine resort areas — that is, on our mountains —

FAIR WORK (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL


there are a range of different tenure types. Community groups have chalets of various types, and there are other commercial leases. It may be that there could be a range of different models for different mountains.

It is true to say that the alpine resorts face challenges in maintaining their cash flow and their financial viability. I noticed the comments around those matters in the State Services Authority report released on Monday. I also note the minister’s comments yesterday. We need financially reliable and viable resorts in the long term.

Further, it seemed to me as I read the State Services Authority report that the government was taking an accounting focus on financial viability rather than looking at the deeper options for ensuring sufficient capital for development on the various mountains. With those few comments, I assert it is in the public interest that the submissions be in the public domain. There needs to be a community debate about the future of our alpine resorts, the protections required and the values that underlie their management. For those reasons I commend this motion to the chamber.

Mr VINEY (Eastern Victoria) — I rise simply to place on the record the same position the government has had on these matters previously. Where it is appropriate for documents to be released, we are happy to do so; where it is not, due to executive privilege and other reasons that have been documented in these Wednesday debates time and again, we will not be able to produce them. That position has been made clear to the opposition by government members in debate, by the Attorney-General in correspondence and by the Leader of the Government in this house. It is a clear position, and I just thought it was worth putting it on the record again.

Motion agreed to.

FAIR WORK (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL

Introduction and first reading

Received from Assembly.

Read first time on motion of Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industrial Relations).

BUDGET PAPERS 2009–10

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade) — I move:

That the Council take note of the budget papers 2009–10.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I am disappointed that the Minister for Industry and Trade chose not to take the opportunity to espouse the virtues of his Treasurer’s budget.


Mr RICH-PHILLIPS — Perhaps he is a bit embarrassed by it, Mr Davis, and would rather let it go away.

When the Premier was pitching the budget prior to its launch on 5 May he said that this was a budget with no bad news, that there was no bad news in this budget. I can only wonder what the Premier regards as bad news when it comes to the budget, because this is a budget that forecasts gross state product in Victoria for 2009–10 will grow by just 0.25 per cent, down from what last year was forecast to be 3 per cent.

It is a budget that forecasts unemployment will rise to 7.75 per cent, which is equal to about 216 000 Victorians who want jobs but are not able to get jobs — an increase of 60 000 from the April 2009 figure. And it is a budget that forecasts a decline in employment by more than 1 per cent compared to the 2008–09 situation.

I am mystified as to what the Premier meant when he said this was a budget with no bad news. I would hate to see what the Premier regards as bad news if he does not think 216 000 Victorians being unemployed and the economy growing by a paltry 0.25 per cent is bad news. We on this side of the house certainly think those forecasts for the coming year are bad news for this state, even if the Premier does not think that is the case.

The forecasts that underpin the budget are a constant cause of concern to this side of the house. They have been the Achilles heels of the budgets brought down by this government, and this year is no different. I would like to start by going back to the forecasts in last year’s budget, the 2008–09 budget, because they came in for considerable criticism from the opposition through the course of the budgetary process.

Last year the Treasurer and the Treasury brought down a budget that was based on the Victorian economy — gross state product — growing by 3 per cent. At the time the opposition said that with the looming global situation and the deteriorating economy Australia-wide it was unreasonable to expect the Victorian economy to grow by 3 per cent, and it was unreasonable to base a budget on the Victorian economy growing by 3 per cent when that was highly unlikely to occur. A week after Treasurer Lenders brought down his first budget, the



commonwealth government produced a budget that forecast national growth of only 2.75 per cent.

Despite the Victorian government and the Treasurer having talked about a two-stage economy in Australia, with the mining states growing quickly and the non-resource states like Victoria growing slowly, last year the Victorian Treasurer and the Victorian Treasury forecast that the Victorian economy would grow faster than the national economy by a quarter of 1 per cent. This side of the house said at the time that that was a ridiculous forecast and that it would not be met.

Sure enough, the budget produced last month updated the expected outcome for the 2008–09 year. The Treasury has recanted its forecast of 3 per cent growth for the Victorian economy and is now suggesting that the Victorian economy will grow by just 0.5 per cent. We have seen a substantial change in the forecast from last year to this year, consistent with what the opposition said would happen and consistent with what the Treasury and the Treasurer said was a ridiculous proposal when it was put forward by the opposition last year.

This brings into question how much we can rely on the Treasury forecasts contained in this year’s budget. I note that this year the Victorian budget is based on growth of, as I said before, 0.25 per cent for the 2009–10 year. A week after the Victorian Treasury forecast was produced we had the commonwealth forecast. The federal Treasurer, Mr Swan, and the federal Secretary to the Treasury, Dr Henry, in Canberra have forecast that the Australian economy will shrink by 0.5 per cent this coming year.

Again we have a scenario where the Victorian Treasury and the Victorian Treasurer are forecasting that the Victorian economy will far outgrow the national economy — by 0.75 per cent. Mr Swan is saying the national economy will contract by 0.5 per cent but Treasurer Lenders is saying the Victorian economy will grow by 0.25 per cent. We now have a 0.75 per cent difference between what the Victorian Treasury says will happen here in Victoria and what the federal Treasury says will happen Australia-wide.

Doubt has already been cast on that figure with the national account figures that were released this morning. We heard in question time today that the national account figures for the March quarter — the year to March this year — released this morning show that for state final demand, Victoria was the slowest growing state in Australia. Over the last 12 months state final demand has had zero growth in Victoria, compared to 0.5 per cent nationwide.

We are already seeing, on actual outcomes, on ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) data released today that the national economy is 0.5 per cent stronger than the Victorian economy, yet the Treasurer asks us to believe that for the coming year, the Victorian economy will be 0.75 per cent stronger than the national economy. It simply is not credible, just as it was not credible last year, and last year’s forecast has been proven to be wrong, as we predicted it would be.

It is not surprising that this forecast is wrong. Treasuries cannot be expected to get these forecasts perfectly accurate into the future. However, when the government puts so much reliance on a forecast and when the budget position is so reliant on the forecast, it is of concern.

It is worth looking back at the Victorian Treasury’s success or otherwise in forecasting growth over the last five years. I went back and matched up Treasury’s estimated growth figures from the last four budgets with the actual results as recorded by the ABS. For the 2004–05 year Treasury forecast growth in Victoria of 3.25 per cent; the actual result was 2.33 per cent. For 2005–06 Treasury forecast growth of 3 per cent; the actual result was 2.6 per cent. For 2006–07 Treasury forecast 3.25 per cent; the actual result was 2.7 per cent. For 2007–08 Treasury again forecast 3.25 per cent; this time it was nearly right — it was 3.2 per cent. For the current financial year Treasury has forecast 3 per cent; it has now updated that forecast and said it is going to be 0.5 per cent.

There has been a vast difference between what the Treasury has forecast for each of the last five years and the actual result. Every time the Treasury has overestimated the growth in the Victorian economy. This has a significant impact on the Victorian budget position. The budget papers this year show that for a 1 percentage point difference in the growth of the economy, the budget surplus is affected by $124 million. The average error in Treasury’s forecasts has been about 0.9 of 1 percentage point, so the average error is very nearly the impact shown in the sensitivity analysis in the budget — $124 million.

That would be fine if we had a decent surplus, but as the house now knows, the surplus forecast for the coming financial year is only $165 million. If the Treasury’s forecasts are inaccurate to the same degree as they have been over the last five years, we would expect virtually all of that surplus to be eliminated purely on the variation from the Treasury’s forecast.

Hon. M. P. Pakula — They might be under this year.



Mr RICH-PHILLIPS — The Minister for Industry and Trade optimistically says maybe it will be under this year. Given that for the last five years Treasury has overestimated and given that the commonwealth suggests a figure far lower than the Victorian Treasury, I suspect that that will not be case, but if Mr Pakula wishes to have that optimistic outlook, I wish him well.

I now turn to the basic parameters of the budget. This is the largest budget in Victoria’s history. The Treasurer is forecasting revenue of $42.38 billion, and I might add that for the first time more than 50 per cent of state revenue will come from the commonwealth; we are now majority dependent on commonwealth revenue for the Victorian budget. It is forecasting spending of $42.22 billion, with a surplus of only $165 million.

When I spoke on the budget in 2005 I remarked on the fact that the 2005–06 budget was the first time this Parliament had been asked to appropriate more than $30 billion in a state budget. I am amazed that here we are, only four short years later, and the Parliament is now being asked to appropriate more than $42 billion, an increase of more than 38 per cent in just four years — more than $12 billion extra in just four years, which represents a growth of more than 8 per cent compound for each of the last four years. We have had extraordinary growth in revenue and spending over the last four years. That has been the trend of this government over its life.

In the budget update in December last year we heard from the Treasurer and Premier how, as a consequence of the global economic situation and the economic situation in Australia, the Victorian budget was under pressure and that that pressure was being driven by a reduction in revenue — a lessening stamp duty and so on. The reality, though, was quite different. Although, as the Treasurer noted, the surplus for the 2008–09 year had fallen dramatically from what was forecast in the budget last year, it was not because revenue had fallen. It was not because the economy had slowed and therefore taxation collection and other revenue — GST, grants et cetera — had slowed, it was because expenditure was out of control. In the budget update for the new estimate for the current financial year, the budget revenue is actually going to be 3.5 per cent higher than was forecast in the budget last year.

Despite the economic conditions in Australia, we have not seen the budget revenue impacted. Revenue will be 3.5 per cent higher at 30 June than was forecast when the Treasurer brought in his budget last year. The reason the surplus has disappeared is that spending is almost 9 per cent higher than forecast last year. The deterioration in the budget position has nothing to do

with the slowing economy; it has everything to do with the government spending more than it said it would last year. You cannot have revenue grow at 3.5 per cent and spending grow at nearly 9 per cent, yet expect to maintain the surplus. That is the situation that this state is in for the 2008–09 year. It had nothing to do with deteriorating revenues, as previously claimed by the government.

There is an interesting line in the Treasurer’s speech in this year’s budget, where he says:

We have made substantial efficiency savings. We have restrained expenditure growth over the forward estimates period.

I guess that is like St Augustine’s prayer, ‘Lord, make me virtuous, but not just yet’, because the Treasurer talks about expenditure constraints; yet in the 2009–10 budget he is forecasting expenditure growth, compared to last year, of 8.3 per cent. Over the life of this government, expenditure has grown on average over 10 years at a massive 7.4 per cent, but this year it is going to be more — it is going to be 8.3 per cent. Yet the Treasurer is talking about restraint in expenditure. He is saying that in the next three-year period government expenditure will experience 8 per cent growth this year but will only grow between 1 per cent and 1.5 per cent in the following years. I say to this house and to the Victorian people: judge this government not on what it says it will do but on what it has done. Judge this Treasurer not on what he says he will do but on what he has done.

I ask the members of this house and I ask the people of Victoria: is it credible for Treasurer Lenders to now say the government will constrain budget spending growth to between 1 per cent and 1.5 per cent over the next three years, when last 10 years have seen average expenditure growth of 7.5 per cent? It is simply not credible to expect the government, having overseen budget expenditure growth of 7.5 per cent over the last 10 years and 8 per cent this year, to suddenly be able to limit it to 1.5 per cent over the next three years.

We are seeing this in the revenue estimates as well. Despite the Premier, in the lead-up to the budget, talking about a $2 billion hole in state taxation revenue going forward into the new 2009–10 financial year, the reality is there is a $550 million increase in state tax collection in the 2009–10 year compared to the current year. There has been no decline in state taxes; they will be higher in the new year’s budget by $550 million than they have been in the current financial year.

I would like to turn to the issue of the surplus, because last year the Treasurer, to his credit, changed the basis



on which the government counted a reasonable surplus. Prior to last year the government had a target of maintaining a surplus of $100 million. That target had been established since the Bracks government came to power in 1999 when the budget was roughly $19 billion.

In the first budget the then Treasurer Steve Bracks said that his government would maintain a surplus of $100 million. As time went on the government achieved and maintained that target. But over 10 years the value of that target has diminished. For instance, $100 million of that $19 billion budget was far more significant than $100 million out of what we now have as a $42 billion budget.

Last year, to his credit, the Treasurer revised the government’s target surplus. He said the surplus would be 1 per cent of revenue, which for last year was around $375 million. We had a new target. For the last year and moving forward our surplus would be 1 per cent of revenue — that is, $375 million for 2008–09.

This year, as the economic circumstances have changed, as we have seen the surplus for the current year erode as a consequence of the spending I spoke about earlier, the government has suddenly abandoned its target. That does the government and the Treasurer no credit. What is the point of establishing a target of 1 per cent of revenue when at the first circumstance in which it becomes difficult to achieve it is simply abandoned? After one year the Treasurer has now reverted to the $100 million target, and it does the government no credit and the Treasurer no credit that he has abandoned his previous target of 1 per cent of revenue and reverted to a $100 million surplus as the target. Of course for this coming year in a $42 billion budget that is just a little over one-third of 1 per cent of budget revenue and far short of the $423 million that the Treasurer would have had to produce as a surplus had he stuck to his new target established just 12 months ago.

It is a great disappointment to this side of the house and to the broader business community that at the first sign of difficulty the Treasurer has abandoned his 1 per cent of revenue target. As I indicated earlier, the resulting surplus of $165 million leaves very little margin for error in budget forecasts. A 1 per cent shift in GSP (gross state product), which has been the average error on the Treasury forecast, would wipe out the vast majority of that surplus.

I turn to page 369 of the service delivery budget paper, which talks about new revenue initiatives. I raise this issue in response to an answer given by the Treasurer in

question time today in relation to the deal to expand the number of gaming tables and rejig the taxation arrangements at Crown Casino. Where the government has changed taxation arrangements or introduced new taxes it has set these out on the revenue initiatives page of the budget papers. The budget papers list four new initiatives. One is the Growth Areas Development Fund and the growth areas infrastructure contribution, which has been very controversial. They will contribute just under $85 million to the budget this year. There is a line item for land transfer duty avoidance, which is the subject of the Duties Amendment Bill that is before the house this week, and there is revenue from the issue of new taxi licences. Where the revenue base has been changed, where new taxes have been introduced or where taxation arrangements have been changed, such as in the Duties Amendment Bill, they are listed under the revenue initiatives with the amount expected to be raised as a consequence of the changes.

What you do not see there is revenue initiatives as a consequence of the changes to the taxation arrangements at the casino, so while the Treasurer got up today and said, ‘It is in the budget. It is embedded in the line item of gaming taxes from the casino’, there is nothing in the budget to set out that there was a taxation change that led to those forecasts. It is the only line item, the only taxation change that is known to the Victorian Parliament and to the Victorian community, that has not been explicitly detailed in the revenue initiatives as a change in the tax base. From looking at the budget papers there is no way of knowing that there was in fact a taxation change at the casino built into the budget papers. It has simply been included in the gross amount without any reference to the incremental change as a consequence of the deal that was done by the Treasurer, seemingly without the knowledge of the Minister for Gaming and certainly without the knowledge of the Victorian people. It is misleading for the Treasurer to suggest to the house that it is included in the budget in the same way that other revenue initiatives, such as the growth areas infrastructure charge, have been included as separate line items.

On the issue of the growth areas infrastructure charge, as indeed with the issue of the casino taxation changes, I raise their relevance to the budget surplus. I have indicated that the surplus this year is forecast to be only $165 million, so it is a very small amount in the context of a $42 billion budget. When you look through these revenue initiatives you see that, as I indicated before, for the current financial year the growth areas infrastructure charge contribution and the Growth Areas Development Fund together are expected to contribute just under $85 million to the budget. Those two revenue items are roughly half this year’s surplus,



yet from getting a feel from the community and from listening to concerns about the issue in this Parliament there is no certainty that the enabling legislation for those revenue measures will be passed, and therefore there is no certainty that the $85 million that comes from those measures and contributes half of the surplus will be realised.

It is also the case with the changed taxation arrangements for the casino. The Treasurer has elected not to be explicit in the revenue initiatives page about how much those incremental increases in revenue are as a consequence of the deal he did with the casino. It is embedded in the total figure, but the difference is not spelt out. But what we do know is that if this Parliament does not agree to the deal that the Treasurer has signed up to — if it does not agree to the extra 150 gaming tables at Crown and the changed taxation arrangements — the revenue estimates for gaming revenue will not be achieved and again the budget surplus, already wafer thin, will be eroded. We are seeing a big proportion — more than half of the budget surplus — relying on measures that this Parliament has not agreed to, and there is no certainty that it will agree to them.

On a smaller issue we have the land tax duty avoidance which is contained in the Duties Amendment Bill before the house at the moment. According to this estimate it is going to contribute $2 million to the budget this year. It has been a difficult passage through this Parliament for that legislation, and again there is no certainty that it will pass. The surplus is heavily dependent on measures that have not been agreed to by this Parliament and have no certainty of being agreed to by this Parliament. The taxation changes at the casino, the growth areas infrastructure charge and indeed the duties charges contribute more than 50 per cent of the surplus. None of them is certain of passing this Parliament, which puts in great doubt the Treasurer’s forecast for the surplus this year.

The other area I touch on with reference to revenue is the government’s take of dividends. This year the government is forecasting it will receive dividends of $255 million from the non-government sector — the financial and non-financial corporations outside the budget sector. Without that $255 million in dividends the budget will be in deficit. As in previous years, the government is heavily reliant on taking dividends from corporations to prop up the bottom line.

The Treasurer is in the unique position of being able to dictate how much the corporations will pay in dividends — whether they have the resources to pay them or not. We saw at a hearing of the Standing

Committee on Finance and Public Administration earlier this year that VicForests was required to pay a dividend to the budget sector that it did not have the cash for. It was required by the Treasurer to pay a dividend and then subsequently borrow for its operations. We have seen that in other non-budget sector agencies as well. They have been required to borrow in order to pay the dividends that the Treasurer has needed to prop up his bottom line. The reality is that without the $255 million in dividends the Treasurer forecasts the government will receive this year, the budget will be in deficit.

I now turn to the issue of debt. This 2009–10 budget returns Victoria to the situation we were in with the Kirner government: $31.2 billion of government net debt by 2013. This is back to where the state was under the Kirner government, and that is the level of debt in dollar terms that the previous coalition government had to address when it came to office in 1992.

The Treasurer likes to talk about general government net debt. He does not like to talk about public sector net debt. He likes to talk only about the debt that is carried in the budget sector, despite the fact that it is only a relatively small proportion of the total debt burden carried by Victorian taxpayers through their public sector entities. But I will refer to general government net debt in relation to just one point, and that is an election promise that was made by the government in 2006. In 2006 the Labor Party produced a document entitled Keeping Victoria’s Finances Strong. It was signed off by the then Premier, Steve Bracks, and the then Treasurer, John Brumby. Under a section entitled ‘How Labor will keep the economy on track’, item 5 is headed:

Labor will ensure prudent management of general government net debt and net financial liabilities.

It goes on to state:

The ratio of net financial liabilities to GSP is well below the ratio when we came to office in 1999 and — despite the largest infrastructure program in the state’s history — will continue to remain well below that recorded in 1999 over the next four years.

The budget announced last month breaks that promise. In 2006 the government, the Labor Party, committed to maintaining net financial liabilities as a share of GSP at a lower level than the Kennett government had them in 1999. Budget paper 2, ‘Strategy and outlook’, chapter 3, at page 56, demonstrates for all to see that that election promise has been broken, because it shows that in 1999 the ratio of net financial liabilities to GSP was 11.9 per cent and by 2012 it will reach 16.1 per cent — substantially higher than the level that was



recorded under the previous coalition government and a clear breach of the promise made by John Brumby and Steve Bracks in 2006.

As I said, the Treasurer likes to talk about general government borrowings rather than total public sector borrowings. The reason public sector borrowings are relevant is that, just like general government borrowings, they have to be repaid. They have to be repaid by the corporations that undertake those borrowings, and they are guaranteed by the government. Since the budget, when asked about debt reduction strategies the Treasurer and the Premier have only ever talked about the ratio of liabilities, or debt, to GSP. Neither the Premier nor the Treasurer has been willing to talk about the actual dollars, and the reason for that is that the dollar figure continues to rise. Over the forward estimates period, out to 2013, we see the net debt figure and indeed the financial liabilities figure continue to increase beyond 2013; in the case of net debt for the non-financial public sector it is forecast to rise from $11.2 billion in 2009 to $31.2 billion in 2013.

The Treasurer and the Premier are happy to say that eventually it peaks in terms of a share of GSP and starts to fall. For this side of the house, and frankly for Victorians, having your debt burden erode simply through inflation is not paying it back. It is not drawing down the debt. If you have a household mortgage, your repayment strategy is not to simply let the value of that mortgage decline through inflation. It is paid back, just as the debt that is being incurred by the budget sector and by the corporations needs to be paid back.

A concept that has come out of the federal budget is the issue of peak debt. We have seen — but we have not heard — Treasurer Wayne Swan in his budget record some truly frightening figures for government debt over the four-year estimates period, but we have also seen in his budget a year in which debt peaks. In dollar terms it peaks and then is drawn down. In the Victorian budget we have no such thing. For the full estimates period, the debt figure in dollar terms continues to rise, and Victorians can have no confidence that that dollar figure will be drawn down into the future. The Treasurer has refused to address the issue. The Treasurer’s only comment is to talk about it being eroded as a share of GSP rather than it actually being drawn down in dollar terms. Mr Swan has not been happy to talk about it, but at least he has put it in his budget. Treasurer Lenders has neither put it in the budget nor spoken about how or when he is going to draw down that actual dollar figure of debt.

Why is this important? It is important because of the servicing cost. As we know, if we have a mortgage, if

we have a car loan or if we have a credit card, we have to pay interest on it, and so it is for the Victorian government. By 2012–13 the cost of servicing debt, both government sector and non-government sector debt, will be more than $2.2 billion. As a share of the total budget the Treasurer will argue that is not a huge proportion, and he is right; it is not a huge proportion as a share of the total budget. However, it is still a substantial amount of money in terms of government service provision.

I draw the house’s attention to budget paper 4, page 280, which sets out some of the government’s spending for 2007–08 by purpose, as categorised by the ABS: $2.2 billion is more than the government spends on technical and further education, it is more than the government spends on community health services, it is more than the government spends on housing and community development, it is more than is spent on sanitation and protection of the environment, it is more than is spent on recreational facilities and services, it is more than is spent on cultural facilities and services, it is more than is spent on road transport and it is more than is spent on rail transport. So that debt servicing cost in three years’ time, $2.2 billion, is substantially more than the government spends on the key service delivery areas for which it has responsibility.

That interest bill may not be a huge share of the government’s revenue base, but it is substantially more than it spends on key service areas for which it has responsibility. Therefore it is important that the Victorian people know when the Treasurer is going to draw down that level of borrowings, rather than simply allow them to increase or just erode through inflation and the effluxion of time.

The other related area I would like to touch on is the AAA credit rating. Mr Viney likes to say that the previous government only had it for a short time but that this government has had it for 10 years. We can no longer be certain that this government will have that AAA credit rating indefinitely. For the first time the budget papers actually set out the criteria by which the ratings agency Standard and Poor’s assesses the Victorian budget for its AAA credit rating.

The key criteria it looks at in establishing whether Victoria keeps its AAA rating is the level of its net debt plus its superannuation liabilities as a proportion of its operating revenue. If that ratio of debt plus superannuation to revenue is below 130 per cent, the state retains its AAA credit rating. It is different for different states. I met with the shadow Treasurer of the New South Wales Parliament last week; in New South Wales the ratio is lower. It is around a band of 120 per



cent to 130 per cent, so it is different state by state, but for Victoria it is 130 per cent.

The budget papers boast that in Victoria everything is okay, because we are maintaining the ratio at 118.5 per cent. The Treasurer and the Premier have indicated that we have pushed the balance sheet. We have leveraged the balance sheet to the extent we can, we are sitting on a ratio of 118 per cent; the trigger for a downgrade is 130 per cent, therefore everything is okay.

I say to the Treasurer and to the house that the margin between 118 per cent and 130 per cent in dollar terms is a little over $5 billion. We only need to see borrowings or debt increase by $5 billion, or more particularly the superannuation liabilities increase by $5 billion, and we will have exceeded that 130 per cent trigger point, at which time Victoria’s AAA credit rating would be in doubt.

I know $5 billion sounds like a large amount of money, but you only need to look at how volatile the superannuation liability is. It moves with interest rates because it is calculated as a present-value figure of future obligations; as interest rates go down, the liability goes up. We had the prospect of an interest rate cut today, which did not eventuate. We have the prospect of further interest rate cuts in the next couple of months, depending on what happens to the economy, so it would be very easy for that superannuation liability to increase by a large amount with just a small interest rate movement. It would be very easy to erode that $5 billion buffer between the current levels of debt and superannuation liabilities and reach that 130 per cent trigger point for the reconsideration of Victoria’s AAA credit rating.

It is also worth looking at the non-government sector on this question, because when the rating agencies look at the credit situation for Victoria they look at general government, being the budget sector, and the corporations, being the non-budget sector. Overall Victoria is forecasting a ratio of 118 per cent, but in the corporations, which is where a lot of the debt has been accumulated and is continuing to be accumulated, the ratio of liabilities to revenue increases rapidly. We see it go from its current level to 122 per cent by 2010–11 and then rapidly to 180 per cent by 2012–13, so if those corporations were considered as stand-alone bodies, they would not be AAA-rated corporations; they would not qualify for a AAA credit rating on the criteria used to assess the whole of Victoria.

This is important because the borrowings undertaken by those corporations are not done directly; they are primarily done through the Treasury Corporation of

Victoria, and in the Treasury Corporation of Victoria Act there is a provision that makes it very explicit that borrowings undertaken by the TCV are guaranteed by the state of Victoria.

The TCV recently made a submission to the review of the Financial Management Act, which is being undertaken by the Department of Treasury and Finance. In that submission to DTF about the review of the FMA the TCV made it very clear that its ability to borrow money by issuing government bonds was dependent on those bonds being guaranteed by the state of Victoria.

The TCV, borrowing as the TCV, would not be able to get the penetration in the financial markets without that government guarantee. It was very clear that that explicit guarantee from the state of Victoria was what allowed it to borrow at the rates and in the volumes that it did. This means that all those borrowings through the corporations done by the TCV on behalf of the non-budget sector corporations are government guaranteed. Effectively, the state of Victoria is underwriting borrowings for corporations that would not be AAA-rated if they were considered as stand-alone entities rather than part of the whole of the Victorian public sector.

It is concerning that we have seen this massive ramp-up in borrowings and debt in those corporations, as we have seen in the budget sector generally. It is my view and the view of this side of the house that Victoria’s AAA rating is not as robust as the Treasurer would like to have us believe, and it is far more vulnerable to a shift in interest rates and to an increase in debt than the government has made clear to the Victorian public.

I would now like to talk about the service delivery side of the budget. The government trumpeted this budget as a budget that is delivering on infrastructure for Victoria. That is the reason, we are told, for the massive increase in debt in the general government and the non-general government sector. We are running up debt because we are investing in infrastructure.

But the reality when you look at the budget papers in detail is quite different. Yes, the government announced in this year’s budget around $8.7 billion worth of investment over the budget period. However, the majority of that — $5 billion or 58 per cent — is either committed for the election year or beyond. Most of it is actually committed for the next term of government; it is not being delivered in this term of government. If there is a change of government, there is no guarantee that this government’s commitments will be delivered.



Most of the commitments the government is borrowing for are actually long-term commitments. They are not being delivered in the immediate future and therefore their value as a contribution to economic stimulus in the current economic environment is doubtful. If, as the Premier and Treasurer suggest, we are trying to create stimulus in the Victorian economy, why is it being delayed for three to four years into the future rather than being brought to book straightaway?

It is very telling that the ABS national accounts figures released this morning reporting on general government sector big capital expenditure and infrastructure investment show that spending by the state and local governments in Victoria is lower now than it was two years ago, which contradicts the claim by the government that we are having record investment in infrastructure. The ABS statistics certainly do not support the contention that has been put forward time and again by the government.

Allied to the issue of the promise of capital spending on infrastructure investment is the question of how much of it is real. How much of what the government claims is capital investment is actually recurrent spending that has been capitalised? We saw for many years reports out of the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development of backlogged school maintenance — hundreds of millions of dollars of school maintenance that had been deferred and that had not been completed. Schools were falling down and crumbling away, and in some cases individual schools had millions of dollars worth of school maintenance that was outstanding.

Rather than seeing a commitment of large amounts of dollars to school maintenance — if your house needs painting, that is an expense; if your car needs servicing, that is an expense; if a school needs maintaining, that is an expense — what we suddenly saw was a program of capital works at schools. The Treasurer, who was then the education minister, announced that the government would upgrade or rebuild all schools in Victoria.

You might say that achieves the same thing. Rather than doing $3 million of maintenance on a school, it is better if you rebuild it; it achieves the same thing. However, from a budgetary point of view it is very different because if you rebuild a school or build a new school, it is counted as capital investment. Rather than actually having to spend the money on maintenance and it showing up as an expense and eating into the government’s surplus, what the government actually does is say that it is building a new school or doing renovations or reconstruction, and suddenly it is a

capital expense and an investment rather than expenditure.

The question has to be asked: how much of that are we seeing in these figures that the Treasurer is putting forward as infrastructure investment? How much of the expenditure within departments — expenditure by public servants on project management, tender preparation and managing the projects on an ongoing basis — is being capitalised as infrastructure spending and brought to book as capital investment rather than as expenditure through the department, thereby artificially lowering the government’s expenses and artificially increasing the surplus?

Another area I would like to touch on is the reform agenda, or lack thereof. There is no doubt from the figures flowing through from the ABS that Victoria has failed to deliver a competitive business environment. We have seen over a number of years now a dramatic fall-off in business investment in Victoria. We have seen a dramatic fall-off in manufacturing investment. We have seen Victorian exports underperform other states. We have seen employment underperform other states. If the government is performing as well as it says it is, why are we seeing this? The reality is that it is not. The Treasurer likes to trumpet what the government is spending, but what we are not seeing from this government is efficiency and productivity improvements in spending.

The Treasurer said in question time today that when the opposition makes its budget speeches, it will call for more spending. I say to the Treasurer that we do not want more spending; we want better spending. We want the government to use the $42 billion it is collecting from Victorian and Australian taxpayers this year better than it has been over the last 10 years. We want a better return for public money than we have been getting.

The Treasurer has a plan for what he calls red tape reduction. The government has set a target to reduce red tape by 15 per cent over three years from 2006 to 2009, and it has put a dollar figure on that in the order of $154 million. No doubt the Treasurer will come into the Parliament next month and say, ‘We have achieved our $154 million target of reducing red tape’, but that ignores what else has been happening across government in terms of regulation growth.

Last week the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission produced its annual review of the Victorian regulatory system. I have to say that the VCEC has been a very good body. It was set up by this government a number of years ago and has produced



some very good work. Whether the government regards this work as very good remains to be seen. The VCEC produces an annual report on the Victorian regulatory system. In its report released last week with respect to 2007–08 it found that the cost of new and renewed regulation to the Victorian economy was $1 billion. The Treasurer says, ‘We are cutting red tape. We have cut out $154 million of red tape’, but at the same time VCEC is saying that the regulatory burden went up by $1 billion in one year. The year prior to that, 2006–07, the new regulatory burden was $2.7 billion, and the year before that, 2005–06, it was $2 billion. Over three years we have seen the administrative and compliance burden on business in this state increase by $5.7 billion.

The Treasurer will come in here next week or next month and say, ‘We have cut $150 million from the red tape burden on business; aren’t we wonderful?’. At the same time the VCEC is saying that over three years it has increased by $5.7 billion. The government has to get real if it wants to build a competitive business environment. We cannot have the sort of increases that VCEC has been stating in its reports over the last three years without them being addressed.

The other area where we are not seeing the government provide any assistance is relief for business.

Mr Drum — You should repeat that for the Treasurer’s benefit.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS — I suspect the Treasurer heard it. The government does not seem to understand the importance of cash flow to business at this time. We hear high-minded words about producing a sound business environment for Victorian businesses, yet we are seeing little evidence of it. We have not seen any relief in terms of payroll tax, we have not seen any relief in terms of WorkCover premiums and we have not seen any relief in terms of land tax in this year’s budget — all of which are factors that affect business cash flow at what is a critical time. Land tax in particular, given that it is not tied to cash flow — business can be generating no cash flow and still incur substantial land tax bills — is a major concern. That has simply not been addressed by this government.

This budget has failed to create a business environment that will allow Victorian businesses to prosper. The government said this budget was about jobs. In reality it is about one job only — that of the Premier. It is about the Premier holding onto his job. This budget is more about business as usual for this government, with the rapid increase in revenue and the rapid increase in expenditure, than it is about delivering for the Victorian

economy and the Victorian community at what is a difficult economic time.

It is my belief that Victoria’s best times are ahead of it. The Victorian and Australian economies will recover and Victorians will again prosper. However, it will not be because of the Brumby government, it will be in spite of the Brumby government. This government has yet again failed to provide the leadership and the vision that Victorians require.

Mr ELASMAR (Northern Metropolitan) — I rise to congratulate the Treasurer, John Lenders, and the Brumby Labor government for bringing down a state budget that, in this time of global recession, strives to continue to provide improved services and jobs to the people of Victoria.

As a member of the Education and Training Committee I admit to looking first at the education allocation in the budget. Again I was not disappointed. The allocation of $2.5 billion is the highest allocation of education funding in our state’s history. We thank the Rudd Labor government for its handsome financial contribution to our state’s future.

An amount of $402 million has been allocated to rebuild, renovate and extend schools across Victoria. During my many visits to Victorian schools during the past year I have seen the need to continue to upgrade and improve the standards of our state school facilities. I am pleased to see that money has been set aside for that purpose. The amount of $13.6 million has been allocated for early childhood services such as kindergartens, which will help give Victoria’s children the best start in life by providing them the opportunity to learn, grow and experience a healthy childhood. The amount of $1.7 billion has been allocated to ensure our teachers are given the appropriate incentive to strive for excellence in teaching through higher pay and more support in the classroom. The amount of $15.2 million has been allocated to meet increased demand for vocational education and training in school programs to build skills and create future jobs. The amount of $7 million has been allocated to invest in more computers in schools to give students the skills they need to succeed in any career of their choice.

I would now like to speak of the highlights of this year’s budget allocations for health. Without appropriate strategies for financially coping with our ageing population and increased migration we need to be a step ahead, and with that in mind a staggering $2.6 billion dollars has been set aside. The budget allocates $262.3 million to build better hospitals and improve health services delivery. It will also allow for



the purchase of new equipment and technology to provide the best possible treatment for all Victorians. The allocation of $825.9 million will help to cut elective surgery waiting lists and increase hospital capacity to provide treatment in the key areas of cancer, acute care and subacute services. The allocation of $72.2 million will ensure clinical placements for more than 4500 medical students, more than 12 000 nursing students, 600 dental students and about 6500 allied health students. The allocation of $52.8 million will boost dental services, which will see waiting times slashed, and $10 million has been allocated for the implementation of state-of-the-art breast cancer screening technology. This will give Victorian women access to breast cancer detection earlier, increasing their chances of survival.

I will now speak about the key highlights of the transport budget allocation. A total of $3 billion, a record amount, has been allocated to take decisive action to get our public transport system working for the travelling public of Victoria. An allocation of $562.3 million will be spent to extend the Epping line to South Morang by 3.5 kilometres and also to provide a single track between the Keon Park and Epping lines to improve efficiency for patrons. This project is also securing up to 460 jobs in construction.

The budget allocates $85.9 million to extend the yellow SmartBus route 901 service from Ringwood to Frankston and to Melbourne Airport through Blackburn, Greensborough, South Morang, Epping and Roxburgh Park. An amount of $129 million has been allocated for stage 1A of the $2.25 billion M80 ring-road upgrade project, which will widen the road between Sydney Road and the Tullamarine Freeway. There is $22.2 million to help the Brumby Labor government aim to reduce the road toll by 30 per cent by the end of 2017.

A total of $27.8 million will be invested to deliver a cleaner, greener way to travel, with $4.2 million to be used to increase the use of low carbon emission vehicles in Victoria. We feel strongly about our environment and conservation.

I will speak about the two most important aspects and initiatives of this budget as they relate to the global economic downturn. This budget has a twofold purpose: firstly, it seeks to improve the delivery of services to the people of Victoria; but secondly, it is also a major job creation program — 35 000 jobs — designed to minimise the massive unemployment crisis that is facing the world today. This budget will cushion the impact of the recession on Victorians and help to

protect families from hardship and the harsh realities of another Great Depression.

I advise my colleagues that I am especially proud of the Treasurer and our Premier today, because they have taken bold and positive steps to make Victoria the best place to live and raise a family. I commend the budget.

Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) — This budget is an interesting document. It comes at a time when Victoria faces significant challenges in a global context and when there are considerable pressures and challenges for governments of all colours and indeed for the business communities of many nations. We have seen some extraordinary changes in the financial markets and the loss of capitalisation of banks. We have seen icons of industry placed effectively in government hands because they could not continue on their own. We have seen countries like Iceland completely collapse in financial terms, and many other countries are in very dire straits.

Australia has been able to weather the global financial crisis much better than most other countries, and quite clearly the federal and state governments are very quick to take credit for some of the actions they have taken to stave off the worst effects of the global crisis. However, I would argue — and I think many of my colleagues would argue — that much of the response of particularly the Rudd federal government has been disproportionate to the challenge that was facing Australia in the early months of the global financial crisis. The reaction of the Rudd government in trying to shore up political popularity and the action of this Victorian state government in trying to shore up political popularity have put an incredible burden on future generations. The levels of indebtedness of this country and this state that have been cast by the budgets that were delivered in May both in Canberra and here in Victoria are such that we face some very significant challenges going forward. We have lengthened the period of crisis stemming from the global financial crisis.

I say it is a disproportionate response because Australia was always in a better position to weather much of the turmoil that has struck the world’s economies. It was in a strong position in part because of the stewardship of the Howard government in its years in government and the budget position in which it left Australia. It was in a stronger position, interestingly enough, because of the superannuation guarantee initiative of the Keating government, which has ensured that there were funds available for investment and reinvestment in enterprises in Australia that have provided funds to recapitalise



many companies that in recent weeks have sought to reduce their debt ratios and maintain their stability.

That was all done without current government intervention, but it meant Australia was certainly a beneficiary of a much earlier decision taken by a government. In many ways, had the Rudd government not raced out with all of its handouts and had this government not raced to create a range of projects in a hurry to try to generate jobs, we might have had a more sober but much more effective and much less expensive response to the challenges of the global economic crisis and to whatever ramifications it brought to Australia.

Whilst many would indicate that perhaps some of the initiatives of governments in their big spending to try to generate jobs are creating some opportunities and shoring up or insuring against further downturn in the Australian economy — and we certainly note the figures today which indicate that technically Australia has not yet entered recession — the reality is that much of the program that the government has put in place is unsustainable even in the short term and has massive implications for this state and this country in the longer term.

I noticed a headline recently that indicated that Prime Minister Rudd was talking about 35 000 construction sites — many of those sites in Victoria, and many subject to arrangements between the commonwealth and state governments. The reality is that those 35 000 construction sites are unachievable in many respects for this state and this country going forward, because there is simply not the skilled workforce available to complete the projects in the time frames that the government has announced.

When you talk to people at the schools about the projects that have been rolled out in schools across the state, you find them saying, ‘There is no way we can finish those projects in time. We cannot find the contractors to do the work’. When I talk to people at the education department they say, ‘We are a bit fearful that in the next round of projects the costs will increase 25 per cent because of a shortage of skills and because the projects simply cannot be delivered in that time’, and that we are going to have the same factor that occurred with the Sydney Olympics, where those tradesmen who are available can basically name their own price because there is so much work available. The reality is that the projects have not been managed properly. There has been far more appreciation of the political popularity advantages of big announcements with big price tags than of the real economics of those projects and the advantages to this state.

The integrity of the Victorian budget worries me a great deal. This government is very quick to talk about being open and transparent; it is one of the mantras of the Treasurer, who is in the house tonight. He delivered a budget, and just two days later the budget had a $440 million hole in it when the state government came out with the federal government to announce that it was building a cancer care centre.

Obviously every member of this house is keen to see a continuation of the brilliant work that the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and so many other hospitals around Victoria have done in terms of improving cancer care. We are very keen to build on that and we are very keen to see the development of this cancer care hospital which has been mooted for some time. But I find it absolutely extraordinary that this government can announce, just two days after it brought down the budget, a project that requires a commitment from this government of $440 million for the Parkville site, when that money was not in the budget.

Mr Drum — Where are they going to get it from?

Mr ATKINSON — Good question; where will they get it from? The government has got another problem, because around 10 days later it again dipped into funds that were not allocated in the budget to fund its proportion of the railway link in the western suburbs for which the federal government has rushed out funding.

That one is an interesting project because it is about a maximum of 50 kilometres of railway track, the cost of which will be over $4 billion. It is more than three times as much as the more than 1400-kilometre railway track laid in 2003 from Adelaide to Darwin. It is almost 1500 kilometres from Adelaide to Darwin, and that construction was achieved for $1.3 billion; yet the Victorian government will build, at the most, 50 kilometres of railway track for over $4 billion.

The South Morang railway that the previous member spoke about is going to cost some $700 million; how many stations would go with that? I think it was two stations that went with that track. How many kilometres did the member say it would be? Was it 3 kilometres?

Mr Drum — At least that was in the budget.

Mr ATKINSON — It was in the budget, so that is a step in the right direction, but what an extraordinary thing to have a railway cost of that magnitude when in Western Australia they can build a full railway all the way to Mandurah with around 10 stations, a completely new build, and at a fraction of the cost.



This government is big on talking about always spending more than any other government on police, health, education; no matter what it is, it says it has spent the most. It says it invests more than the Kennett government ever did and spends more than any other government has. That is not surprising, because there is an inflation factor involved in budgets anyway, so you expect that whoever is in government is going to spend more than the last government in most areas, unless there is a dramatic change in policy. But the reality is that this government has focused almost entirely on spending and not at all on outcomes.

This government pays very little attention to actually getting value for money in the services and the projects that it builds. This government is so intent on trying to be the biggest spender because there is a good publicity line or a great press release in that, but in reality it is not at all interested in actual outcomes and improvements in those services provided to Victorians for the facilities that are built.

Mr Drum — It is the drunken sailor syndrome.

Mr ATKINSON — It is the drunken sailor syndrome because, as Mr Drum would know, this budget actually takes us back to the sort of debt levels that we saw in the Kirner years, going back to over $31 billion in debt as part of this budget.

I am more concerned about this government in terms of outcomes, because it has the fewest hospital beds in Australia. It has inferior results in terms of literacy and numeracy in students despite its spending. It actually spends less than any other state on students. It spends less than any other state on TAFE colleges. It spends less than any other state on police; it has fewer police on the beat than any other state. And that is all at a time when crime statistics continue to get worse. It spends less on infrastructure and on transport, despite all the press releases that suggest it has had a high capital spend over recent years. Each year we find that its true capital spend is below that of other states. The reality is that the government’s spending does not match its rhetoric and its press releases.

In some ways this budget is also lacking integrity on the basis that — and I think Mr Rich-Phillips touched on this in his speech — this budget would be in deficit were it not for the calculation of a federal capital payment for the Education Revolution school building program being put in the recurrent budget; over $2 billion was injected into the bottom line of this budget, saving it from going into serious deficit.

I am fairly confident, though, that at the end of the year it will probably get out of this — that part of it anyway. I am not sure its overspending is not going to run it into trouble in other areas, but I think it will actually cover the $2 billion that it has wrongly put in the recurrent budget. It will do that by something else that is not really in the budget, as far as I can see, either — that is, the proceeds from the gaming machines entitlements allocation. Whilst the government expects to bring in revenue from that in around March next year, there is no allocation in the budget for it. Interestingly enough, the government has also apparently not allowed for its growth area tax, which requires so many of the payments up-front from people who have no real intention of subdividing but in many cases are simply passing land through their families.

Mr Drum — An investment contribution.

Mr ATKINSON — An investment contribution, so-called. The reality is that it is another major tax impost on Victorians, and in my understanding the proceeds have not been taken up at this stage as a budget allocation. The integrity of this budget concerns me a great deal.

In terms of specific projects, I am alarmed that projects like the Ringwood transit centre, the Box Hill railway station, and particularly Box Hill Hospital have not been addressed as part of this budget. The Treasurer quite rightly says, ‘Members of Parliament are going to stand up and talk in their budget speeches about projects they think should have been in the budget. They want the government to spend more’. But it is not necessarily a case of wanting the government to spend more. Often it is a case of desiring a better allocation of resources that are already available to the government. In other cases it is very much about better management of projects.

In the decade of Labor government in this state more than $4.4 billion has been racked up in overruns on projects. The myki ticketing system springs to mind as one of the absolute classics. Here was a project that was to cost less than $100 million, and now it is over $1 billion — and it is still not right. Just this morning we heard that there are errors with the system and that accounts are having to be adjusted at night because the myki system is wrongly taking credits out of people’s accounts.

Mr Drum — It’s just an honest mistake.

Mr ATKINSON — It might well be an honest mistake, but you would think that after all this time and money a project that has cost 10 to 12 times what it was



expected to cost would have resulted in some improvement in the system. It ought to have resulted in a workable transport system, but it has not.

I might add that the list of projects that have overrun in the past decade includes projects like Southern Cross railway station and the synchrotron project. Not only did those projects both overrun, they were both scaled back. The synchrotron has fewer beams than it was supposed to have and Southern Cross railway station has less roof than it was supposed to have. Why? Because the projects ran over budget. Whilst there was an already significant dollar overrun on both those projects, they were run even worse by the government in terms of the management of budgets and project planning and so forth because they were also scaled back. You have a double whammy in that respect.

Mr Drum — They built a $1.2 billion roof that didn’t even catch the water.

Mr ATKINSON — It did not catch the water. You would have thought that in this day and age a landmark project like that would have incorporated some sort of showcasing of the technology we need to start incorporating into modern buildings. Mr Drum is right; there was no approach to doing that. Then again, as I have indicated, the roof was not finished, so I guess you cannot expect to collect water if you have not even put the roof over some of the area.

I am concerned that the government’s approach to so many projects is driven just by a popularity agenda rather than by any real sense of economic responsibility. I refer to a project like the Springvale Road railway crossing. That project has been fought for by members of the Liberal Party for many years. It was our policy going into the last two elections to underground the Springvale Road railway crossing at Nunawading. The government was not interested in that project. To its credit, Whitehorse council funded some feasibility studies to look at the undergrounding, and it received some funding from the federal government to support some of that feasibility work. Then at the last federal election it received an assurance from the then federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, that $80 million of federal funds would go towards the project. That was matched as a policy by what was then the Rudd opposition, and it has been honoured by the Rudd government. That money then finally dragged the state government, kicking and screaming, to this project.

An aspect of this project that fascinates me is the enthusiasm my colleague Mr Robinson, the Minister for Gaming and member for Mitcham, now has for the

undergrounding project, given that I have letters from him sent just two years ago telling people that the project was not necessary because the EastLink project would take more than 20 per cent of the cars off Springvale Road. The Springvale Road works are to be done. The road is to be grade separated, with the major work to be done in January, and obviously a lot of preliminary work to be done before that. I am pleased to see that project proceed.

However, in its transport plan this government talked about doing other grade separations, not just one. There was to be money for a number of grade separations. If that money is really there, if that government intention really exists, as it was supposed to, according to the transport plan — the much-vaunted $38 billion transport plan — then why did this government not underground all of the railway line from Laburnum through to Heatherdale? If that had been done we would have received some public transport benefits and some land-use benefits out of this project. This government has taken a piecemeal approach to the railway line and traffic congestion issues in the eastern suburbs.

Undergrounding the railway line at Nunawading will have some benefits in easing traffic congestion, but it will not allow the third rail to be constructed — a third rail that the government promised before it was elected in 1999 but is yet to deliver. The government will not be able to put on more trains, because it still cannot afford to have the boom gates down any longer at Blackburn Road, Rooks Road or Mitcham Road because of traffic congestion.

Had the government been prepared to do the whole project, which is a common-sense approach to a project, we could have got more trains on the Belgrave and Lilydale lines, we could have had a significant improvement in both train services and traffic congestion, and we would have been able to do more in terms of land-use options in and around this whole railway. That could have included higher density housing, particularly in and around Nunawading where there is a need for some urban renewal. That would have been achievable, and it would have met some of the government’s key priorities and what it talks about as some of its objectives.

However, when it comes to actually delivering on projects, these objectives are compromised by this government’s failure to look at projects in a common-sense, logical, economic way.

I have no doubt that what the government will probably do is run off to some other line, perhaps the Dandenong



line which also could do with undergrounding of a number of railway crossings, and do some work there. The government will promise an underground railway project in one of the seats it needs to win at the next election. It is driven by popular politics. It is driven by the need to recruit votes in particular areas rather than by what is best for Victorians.

From my perspective, good government would ensure that a total project was completed to allow for an effective upgrade in public transport to address a problem properly and comprehensively. Then you would move on to the next one and take the same approach to another line, probably the Dandenong line in terms of its priority within the metropolitan area and as I understand the black spots identified by the government for railway crossings. But that would be done next, as the next priority.

The reason I advocate for the line through my electorate as requiring the work first is that the railway crossing on Springvale Road, Nunawading, is the worst in the metropolitan area. Mitcham Road is the third worst, and Rooks Road and particularly Blackburn Road also feature fairly high on the list. The second worst is obviously Springvale Road, Springvale, and that project should also be addressed.

The money that was squandered in the past decade — that $4.4 billion — could have built four Box Hill hospitals. It could have provided grade separations. The Nunawading project is costed at $140 million, so maybe 20 or 30 projects across the metropolitan area could have been completed for the money that has been squandered by poor management.

Many aspects of this budget concern me, particularly the indebtedness of the government as it moves forward with policies of increasing its dependency on loan funds to undertake projects. As my colleagues have indicated previously, there does not seem to be a repayment plan as part of that program. I have never been an opponent of governments having debt and using debt, because I believe that debt is an appropriate way of paying for long-term assets. As long as the debt period is less than the asset term, as long as the interest rate is sustainable and as long as the project itself is a worthwhile project, then it can be appropriate to use debt funds. But this government is running off with debt funding on a range of projects and spending money at levels that I think are unsustainable and will be a very big millstone for Victorians and for business going forward.

This is a government that has underspent in so many areas, such as hospitals. The school maintenance

backlog has now been rescued to some extent by the Rudd federal government’s program. This government has underspent on a number of road projects. It has underspent on many projects in regional Victoria, and most especially on water. This is a government that still takes dividends from all the water authorities and forces them to borrow to do maintenance work. They have to borrow to repair leaky pipes.

Mr Drum — But the borrowings don’t go into the budget.

Mr ATKINSON — That is exactly right. The borrowings are hidden from the budget. The budget is made to look even better because of the dividends drawn down from the water authorities, but the water authorities are required then to take out loans to do maintenance and repair work on their infrastructure.

This infrastructure is leaking and shedding water that we can ill afford to lose at a time of drought. It is all very well to go out with these big-ticket projects but if we are not doing even the basics, some of the water that comes down from the desalination plant into our water system — water that will be so expensively created — will be lost out of leaky pipes because the water authorities do not have the funds to repair those pipes.

While there are many things in this budget that I might take issue with, I am conscious that many members will home in on different aspects of the budget that are of interest to them specifically. I want to tackle two areas that I think are very important. They are budget areas but perhaps also go a little further in challenging the government’s policy and performance.

The first one is in regard to drugs. This government, from my perspective, has been nowhere near tough enough on drugs. This government, from my perspective, is not doing enough to tackle what is now becoming a major problem for our society. We talk about difficulties in funding in our health system. We talk about escalating costs in our health system. We talk about extended waiting lists. We talk about problems in the accident and emergency rooms. We talk about the difficulty of simply coping with the demands on our hospital system. There is no doubt that in an ageing society there are some inbuilt pressures on our health system anyway. But what is causing a massive impact on our health system is the use of drugs.

It has been indicated by the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association (VAADA), from a study done by Collins and Lapsley in 2008, that the social cost of drug abuse in 2004–05 was $55.1 billion. The figures are already



four years out of date, but I think that figure is underestimated anyway.

The cost of drugs in terms of workplace trauma and road trauma — and their impact, more importantly, on our health system — is out of control. We are trying to prop up a health system but refusing to tackle the drug issue in the way that we need to. I am told by the police that one divisional van can basically be rendered inoperative for a night because of having to deal with a single person who has taken GHB (gamma-Hydroxybutyrate). I have been to one of the medical hospitals where I was told by doctors working there that hospital accident and emergency departments are clogged with people coming in as a result of taking illicit drugs and with alcohol-related issues. When you talk to the ambulance services, it is the same story.

We cannot keep trying to treat the problem at the hospital end, at the health end of the system. We have to get serious about addressing this problem of drugs in the community. Interestingly enough, whilst the problem is understood and it is getting worse — and, as I have said in a recent debate in this place, a lot of the argument about violence in the city is not about alcohol but more about drugs, because the people who are responsible for some of these most violent incidents are stoked on drugs — we are just not doing enough about it.

The government has been cutting back in some of the programs that were supposed to be in place to tackle the issue. Even in terms of drug treatment and rehabilitation, funding has gone backwards, as VAADA has indicated. We simply need to do better.

An article in the Herald Sun of 15 April mentioned that the deadly dance drug GHB is actually cheaper and easier to get in Melbourne than anywhere else in Australia. It estimated it has a street value of less than $7 for a 2-millilitre charge. As the newspaper reported, that is the cost of two beers.

We know this problem is getting worse, yet we are not doing enough about it. Interestingly enough, for all of the government’s boast about increasing police numbers, the police union statistics indicate that police numbers across all the police stations are down on what they should be. In fact in Whitehorse they were down, I recall from the last figures I saw, by about 54 per cent, which is a massive gap in terms of policing services in one of the key police stations in the eastern suburbs.

The other area I want to touch on briefly is also related to health and the blow-out in the health budget. It is my view that one of the key things that we have to do as

public policy-makers is ensure that we can guarantee a measure of safety and security to people. That safety includes public safety. It includes understanding that the things that are legal and available in our state are not going to be causing harm to our citizens. It concerns me that many of the pharmaceutical drugs that we are using are not being re-tested or audited satisfactorily to establish that they do not have other consequences.

I am concerned that areas such as food additives have not been audited properly in this country. For information about the quality of food and food additives we rely very heavily on research that has been done in the United Kingdom, but we are not doing enough to ensure that some of the things being used here in Australia are not contributing to a range of allergies and health conditions that are overloading our health system.

We have to do more in terms of spending and in regulating some of the work being done with drugs and ensuring that drugs that have been tested initially and put into the marketplace do not cause complications or ramifications down the track. There can be side effects associated with those drugs that are simply unacceptable to us but very often go undetected.

We simply need to do more as policy-makers looking at the health areas to ensure a greater degree of public safety, so we are not having problems with substances. By ‘substances’ I do not mean the illegal stuff; I mean pharmaceutical drugs, food additives and the like and other things that are used in the community and cause problems. For example, I would be having a good look at a government level at mobile phones, because there is evidence that mobile phones are causing difficulties for some people. Some medical practitioners have linked them with tumours.

We need to understand whether that is scientifically correct, but we cannot rely on the manufacturers, on the peddlers of these products, to come up with test results and say, ‘Yes, we have looked at our products and they are all okay’. We need to be auditing those products down the track, because the ramifications for governments are significant in terms of the load that is now being placed on our health system. That is an area I would like to see governments tackle in the future. If you asked where the money for those sorts of things comes from, then I do not see a problem with hypothecating some of the taxes on alcohol. I do not see a problem with cutting back some of the government’s advertising and promotion campaigns and spending that money on programs that are designed to be a bit more proactive. We should to try to encourage preventive health measures rather than constantly trying to catch

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL


up with health demands that are exacerbated by the violence that I was talking about before, particularly with the impact of illicit drugs and alcohol and other products in the marketplace that have side effects that have not been clearly understood and that we are not doing enough to investigate. We should be doing that as part of public policy role and as people who are responsible for public health in a broader sense.

I guess the problem with every budget is that it can never be evaluated effectively on the day it comes out, or even in the weeks and perhaps even months that follow its issue. Budgets tend to show themselves, reveal their value or the problems they have created over an extended period. Some of the fundamentals of this budget cause me and my colleagues on this side of the house considerable concern, particularly in terms of the level of indebtedness and the fact that projects that are apparently unfunded have been announced subsequent to the release of the budget. Whilst there might be a reserve fund that could potentially take up those projects that I mentioned — for example, the cancer hospital and the western suburbs railway project — the reality is that there are a whole lot of other projects that are marked in against the same pot of money.

From my point of view the government is playing with the publicity possibilities of this budget rather than with the facts of effective management and the delivery of projects and proper outcomes to meet the needs of Victorians in terms of high standard services and facilities. I am concerned, as are my colleagues, particularly with interest rates certain to go up, that the burden of servicing the debt that this government has now created is going to result in significant cost increases to Victorians. Much of that burden will be delivered through charges disguised as being for good projects such as water and energy, climate change initiatives and so forth, but really they are taxes that simply represent the failure of this government to invest properly in infrastructure and to address problems effectively.

That will also be visited upon Victorians in constrained services and fewer facilities in the future, because even at today’s low interest rates the cost of servicing a $31 billion loan is around $2.2 billion. As interest rates rise the costs will go up, and that will simply cut into the services that the government of Victoria will be able to provide in the future, and it will be borrowing from our children. That is a very poor approach to government. As I said, going forward this budget will be judged harshly.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan).

Debate adjourned until next day.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Council’s amendments

Returned from Assembly with message disagreeing with Council amendments.

Ordered to be considered next day.

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT — Order! The question is:

That the house do now adjourn.

Local government: elections

Mr VOGELS (Western Victoria) — I raise an issue for the Minister for Local Government, Richard Wynne, and it concerns the timing of council elections. Having now experienced the 2008 council elections many councils have considered and pondered on the difficulties that were faced as a result of holding council elections on the last Saturday of November. It provided very limited time prior to the Christmas and New Year holiday period for new councillors to understand the breadth and complexity of council operations. New councillors acknowledge that the existing arrangements only give them a limited time to understand the scope and role of a councillor where they face critical decisions. Councillors are required to develop skills in complex matters like formal meeting procedures, town planning systems and terminology, public presentations, complaint handling, dealing with difficult people — as we all do — governance arrangements and financial strategies.

These are just some of the critical issues that must be considered while the new councillors gather a broad understanding of a business that generally provides 150-plus services across a diverse range of disciplines. These are significant learning challenges for individuals who are essentially volunteers and who frequently manage full-time employment as well as council responsibilities. With the current election timetable, this process is compounded by the introduction of Christmas festivities and January school holiday commitments.

ADJOURNMENT


Following the election councils are required to form a collective view and come up with a four-year council plan, including a strategic resource plan, by 30 June. Under the present format the first two months following the election at the end of November — December and January — are out of the equation.

Following representation from councils in my electorate, the action I seek from the minister is that he consult with the Municipal Association of Victoria and investigate the feasibility of holding the 2012 council elections on Saturday, 19 October. This would allow an extra six weeks for councillors’ workshops et cetera and at a minimum give newly elected councillors the Christmas and New Year period to digest some of the responsibilities they have taken on board.

Kew Residential Services: site development

Mr DRUM (Northern Victoria) — My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Planning, Justin Madden, and has to do with the redevelopment that is taking place at the Kew Cottages site. The project has been called in from the City of Boroondara by the minister, and he is in effect running the project from his ministerial office. We also know that during stage 2 of this development the Walker Corporation was fined by the Supreme Court after breaches of its Heritage Victoria permit because excavation works have resulted in damage to heritage listed trees. Many residents of Kew Cottages are in a far worse position at the minute, as some cottages have been demolished, and some residents are yet to find adequate and appropriate accommodation.

Apparently what has happened in recent weeks is that suggestions have been made by various people that the Kew site could possibly act as a temporary refuge for people affected by bushfires from the north-east and the outskirts of Melbourne. No sooner had that proposal been put forward than there were more serious demolitions on the site. As I believe this matter is now in the control of the Minister for Planning, I ask him to detail exactly what process led to the demolition of the Department of Human Services hydrotherapy pool at Kew Cottages, what consultation process was entered into prior to that demolition and why the residents now have to pay fees to access pools outside Kew Cottages.

It seems residents have gone from having their own facilities to paying full commercial fees for something they previously received from their own community assets. It seems that no consultation has taken place, and a range of residents are now without the assets they were able to enjoy previously. I simply call on the minister to detail what was demolished, when it was

demolished, why it was demolished and what measures have been put in place so that residents will be in no worse a situation.

Land Victoria: electronic conveyancing

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — My adjournment matter is for the attention of the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, who is responsible for the Land Victoria section of the Department of Sustainability and Environment. It concerns in particular Electronic Conveyancing Victoria, known as ECV, an electronic conveyancing system that seeks to replace paper transactions with electronic conveyancing. The Victorian government has expended a significant amount of money — $50 million on recent estimates and more than $40 million 18 months ago — and is continuing to spend around $6 million a year on the ECV project.

The national approach that was endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments about a year ago was a significant step forward, because it would have provided a low-cost approach to conveyancing transactions around the country. Unfortunately Electronic Conveyancing Victoria, despite expenditure of more than $50 million, has only had one transaction in the 18 months it has been in operation. It seems a very expensive approach, given the small number of transactions that have been achieved with that system.

I am aware that the Australian Bankers Association, the Law Institute of Victoria and other key groups, like the conveyancers, have not endorsed ECV and the electronic conveyancing approach in Victoria. What I now seek from the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, after the expenditure of at least $50 million of public money for a single completed conveyancing transaction, is an audit. I seek that the minister order a clear external audit that will achieve an understanding of how this money has been wasted and how the government proposes to put this into the national scheme.

There is still enormous resistance from the other states and the national government to the simple approach of putting ECV in as the national system. ECV would have to be massively adapted and would not necessarily work in a simple way, but the key thing here is that Electronic Conveyancing Victoria has seen massive expenditure by the state government and has been a massive opportunity for consultants, who have made tens of millions of dollars with no return to the Victorian community. I ask the Victorian environment minister to immediately launch an audit.

ADJOURNMENT


Western Victoria Region: health services

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria) — My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Senior Victorians, Lisa Neville, and is in relation to funding for a number of health services in the Western Victoria Region to address wound management for elderly and disabled patients.

As members know, there has been much progress made in terms of younger people understanding the importance of protecting their skin from ultraviolet rays, and progress will be made in terms of how those children will treat their skin as years go by. We know as we get older that our skin becomes thinner; a lack of mobility, whether we are old or disabled, also means there is an increased propensity for wounds and for them to take longer to heal.

Barwon Health, Western District Health Service and South West Health Care do a fantastic job in the electorate in addressing these issues, but it is particularly important that we ensure there is adequate funding so there is ongoing proper management to address particularly skin wounds in elderly and disabled people in our community. I call on the Minister for Senior Victorians to pursue further funding for Barwon Health, Western District Health Services and South West Health Care to address wound management and general care for elderly and disabled community members in the electorate of Western Victoria Region.

Buses: Bendigo

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) — The matter I raise is for the attention of the Minister for Public Transport and concerns bus chaos in Bendigo’s Mitchell Street. My request of the minister is that she go back and conduct a further, more thorough investigation of a central bus terminal in Bendigo’s central business district to provide a solution to the current intolerable situation.

The situation was caused by the Brumby government last year when the now defunct Department of Infrastructure re-routed every city bus down Bendigo’s Mitchell Street, which is a bustling shopping strip. The re-routing of these buses has caused havoc for many Mitchell Street businesses. Operators have reported an increase in antisocial behaviour such as shoplifting, violence and littering, and general footpath congestion, particularly at peak times such as just after school.

One business, Country Cakes, has been so badly affected by the changes to Bendigo’s bus timetable that it has been forced to move out of its Mitchell Street

premises. Country Cakes reportedly suffered a disgraceful drop in business. Its sales have dropped 40 per cent since the changes were made.

The minister has so far failed to resolve the problem, which was created by changes made by the government. Now the Greater Bendigo City Council has been forced to devise a strategy to resolve the mess by itself. The council has come up with a plan to increase the area of the footpath outside two bus stops to disperse the crowd and to narrow the intersection of Hargreaves and Mitchell streets by putting a dedicated bus stop on one side, but these are only partial solutions and it is unclear whether bus routes would be changed to accommodate these alterations. The broadening of the Mitchell Street footpath will mean that buses will stop in the left-hand lane of Mitchell Street, allowing only one lane for traffic during stops.

The Mitchell Street redevelopment is likely to cost the council and ratepayers about $2.4 million, an extra expense they cannot afford in the current tough economic climate. The Brumby government has burdened the council with this expense, as it has been unwilling to take responsibility for the problem it caused.

A longer term solution is needed to resolve this problem, and the minister should go back and conduct a further, more thorough investigation of a central bus terminal at a location outside of Mitchell Street. The minister must also ensure that the City of Greater Bendigo is not left to foot the bill alone for any works relating to the Mitchell Street bus problem, a problem that was created by the Brumby government in the first instance.

My request is that the minister go back and conduct a further, more thorough investigation of a central bus terminal in Bendigo’s central business district to provide a solution to the current intolerable situation.

City of Greater Geelong: councillors

Mr KOCH (Western Victoria) — My matter is for the Attorney-General and relates to convicted criminals using the title of justice of the peace to create an image of honesty and integrity and using that image to help them obtain public office.

The fallout from councillor behaviour at Brimbank council continues to highlight the unscrupulous methods used by elements at that council to exert undue influence and intimidate local government. This behaviour is not limited to Brimbank and the metropolitan councils. The recent activities of Cr David

ADJOURNMENT


Saunderson, a self-proclaimed ‘proud member of the Australian Labor Party’, speak for themselves. Unbelievably, earlier this year Cr Saunderson demanded Labor Party involvement in selecting the City of Geelong’s new CEO (chief executive officer). Investigations into Brimbank revealed convicted criminal and ALP electorate officer Hakki Suleyman was last year also appointed as a justice of the peace.

In Geelong, Cr Saunderson, who is also an ALP electorate officer, continues to promote himself as a justice of the peace despite having a court conviction for dishonesty. In material circulated by the councillor during last year’s election campaign he displayed the title as testimony to his honesty. Cr Saunderson was found guilty in 2007 of breaching the Local Government Act for failing to declare political donations used to fund his 2004 council election campaign. Now Cr Saunderson has been again charged under the Local Government Act for breaching conflict-of-interest provisions. Not only should he be stood down by the Minister for Local Government but he should be stripped of his justice of the peace title. Attorney-General Rob Hulls should have done this at the time of Saunderson’s first conviction.

Who would have any confidence in a person, especially an elected councillor, who proclaims he is law abiding and responsible in handling legal matters, despite having an earlier court conviction? Justices of the peace are authorised to witness official documents such as statutory declarations and affidavits, some of which are used in court proceedings, and they could possibly also be required to carry out the duties of a bail justice. In light of what has happened at Brimbank it is essential that the public has full knowledge and confidence that any agenda being pushed by the Labor Party in trying to exert influence over the selection process of the CEO at the City of Greater Geelong is to be avoided at all costs.

My request is that the Attorney-General explain on what grounds he has seen fit not to sack Cr Saunderson, earlier convicted and again charged with contempt, from this trusted and important position within the Geelong community.

Road safety: booster seats

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I wish to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Roads and Ports. It concerns a matter that was raised with me by a young father in relation to the recent announcement by the government that it was going to mandate that all children under the age of seven have to be in a booster seat when travelling in a

vehicle and that from November the parents of any children who are not will have to pay a $255 fine.

This man is a car buff. He has spent a lot of time writing for car magazines and has been a driving instructor in the past, amongst other things. He sent me an email saying he is very safety conscious, obviously, given his background. When it comes to cars and his family he spends more than $10 000 extra to buy a locally built car with every piece of safety equipment he can find. He has spent nearly $600 on a booster car seat in which he has tried to keep his boy for as long as possible. He says he has worked as an advanced driving instructor in the past and has seen the best and the worst of driving abilities in this state and elsewhere.

This man’s concern is that his five-year-old is growing out of size 7 clothes and weighs more than 30 kilograms already. He says that the child is not overweight but he cannot find a booster seat that is rated as suitable for a child weighing more than a 28 kilograms. Apparently one of his seats recently broke when his child sat in it, so you can imagine his concern about what would happen if the family car was involved in a car crash.

Given the announcement by the Minister for Roads and Ports that these will be mandatory, I ask the minister to make sure booster seats for children who are like the son of this particular constituent are made big enough to carry a larger weight range and size so that people can comply with the law. Otherwise obviously not only will children be at risk but people will be at a significant disadvantage through incurring a fine for not complying with the law.

Clearly for a law to be effective it needs to be enforceable. If this law is to be enforceable, these products need to be in the marketplace. I call on the minister to make sure this anomaly is addressed before the law becomes effective as of November this year.

Crime: Southern Metropolitan Region

Mrs COOTE (Southern Metropolitan) — My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. We all know that statistics can be controversial, particularly in relation to crime and violent crime. We have seen a number of allegations made about crime. On the one hand we have seen the government spruik about crime rates continuing to fall, and yet on the other hand we see the government has been forced to admit there has been a significant increase in crimes against the person.

ADJOURNMENT


I have heard firsthand about people’s experiences of crimes against the person, and in the Southern Metropolitan Region electorate there are a number of people who are very concerned about their safety on a daily basis. I have been conducting a series of listening posts in and around Prahran and Bentleigh. In Prahran particularly, young people are very concerned about alcohol-fuelled violence. I recently conducted a survey in Albert Park, and I had an overwhelming response from people aged between 18 and 25 who once again shared the explicit concerns they have with violence against themselves personally — and that is before we even start talking about violence against elderly people, who feel quite intimidated and threatened.

However, tonight I want to speak about — and I want action from the minister in relation to this — a letter I received from a constituent, Elaine Yeow, who has a boutique called Mio Tesoro in South Yarra. She chose to go to South Yarra because:

it is one of the most affluent and prestigious inner city suburbs in Melbourne —

in which to conduct her business. I will read extensively from her letter, because I think she encapsulates exactly the concern I am referring to tonight. She writes:

… I operate a small humble boutique selling second-hand designer fashion and accessories in South Yarra. Over the years I had my fair share of difficulties and hardship and I was well aware that owning a business is never all rosy but I definitely was not prepared to be a victim of so many crimes since my occupancy in 2005.

She goes on to talk about how she experienced a dreadful armed robbery. The police did not come, and they offered no assistance or support. She writes:

I feel helpless and sad that South Yarra has become a crime-infested area —

where criminals get away with stalking people and carrying out crimes on the streets.

The action I am seeking tonight is for the minister, as a matter of urgency, to put foot patrol police squads at all times on the streets of Prahran and South Yarra, in and around the vicinity of Chapel Street, Commercial Road and Toorak Road.

Crib Point: bitumen plant

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) — My matter this evening is for the attention of the Minister for Planning, and it relates to the longstanding issue of the proposed bitumen facility at Crib Point. The President will recall that the then member for Hastings in the Assembly, Rosy Buchanan, promised her constituents

that under a re-elected Labor government no bitumen facility would be built at Crib Point because she surely understood, as I do and as does the current member for Hastings, that Crib Point is an inappropriate location for such a facility. Notwithstanding the promise that was made by Ms Buchanan on behalf of the Bracks government, the promise made by the government not to build a bitumen facility has not been honoured. Since that time an application for a planning permit has been received, and I know this is an issue of interest to the President.

The PRESIDENT — Absolutely!

Mr O’DONOHUE — A planning permit was received by the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, and a request from the council was made to the Minister for Planning to call in the matter. The Minister for Planning subsequently called in the matter and then appointed an advisory committee, which reported to the minister in September or October last year. This is an issue that has occupied the minds of the residents of Crib Point for several years now. It is an issue that needs clarification so that the direction of the township can be resolved.

The action I seek from the minister is for him to make a decision based on the report of the advisory committee so that the people of the beautiful township of Crib Point can have certainty going forward. I remind the minister of the promise that his government made to the people of Crib Point before the 2006 state election.

Responses

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I have a written response to the adjournment matter raised by Mr Vogels on 12 March. There were nine items raised by members in the adjournment debate tonight, and I will refer them all to the respective ministers.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The house now stands adjourned.

House adjourned 10.26 p.m.

2654 COUNCIL

Date post:	22-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)€¦ · Kew Residential Services: site development.....2650 Land...

Documents