Ms Mikakos said the State Budget has inadequately invested in kindergarten
infrastructure, which will leave many Victorian kindergartens struggling to meet
growth in demand.

“Dr Napthine has continued the appalling legacy of Mr Baillieu by failing to fund
the upgrade and expansion of Victorian kindergartens, despite more young
families needing these vital services as our population grows,” Ms Mikakos said.

“There is no investment in this budget for any kindergarten infrastructure beyond the
next financial year – that is, after the next state election is
over.

“So not only are they not keeping up with demand, they intend to vacate the field if
they get re-elected in 2014.”

Ms Mikakos said States, Territories and the Federal Government had recently agreed
to enter into a new National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education.
The result for Victoria will be more federal money for Victoria’s
kindergartens.

“The Napthine Liberal Government continues to under-fund kindergartens in Victoria
whilst Children’s Minister Wendy Lovell continues to present Canberra’s cheques
and take credit for them,” Ms Mikakos said.

The 2013-14 Victorian State Budget also failed to address the ongoing issue of
children with disabilities missing out on multi-disciplinary assessments at
Sunshine Hospital.

“During question time today the Minister was unable to show where in the budget papers
the funding was to resolve this issue,” Ms Mikakos said.

“Ms Lovell’s inability to provide an answer comes despite having been asked about
this several times before.

“Without further investment, children will be forced to wait longer for the help they
urgently need and some will even miss out altogether on receiving important
multi-disciplinary assessments before they start school.

“Under Ted Baillieu things were bad, but under Denis Napthine they are getting
worse.”

On that day I felt very humbled to be over the road at the Windsor Hotel, sitting with so many of those who had suffered and listening to the moving contributions made by the then Premier, Ted Baillieu, the member for Hawthorn in the Assembly; the Minister for Community Services, Mary Wooldridge; the Leader of the Opposition and member for Mulgrave in the Assembly, Daniel Andrews; and other members of Parliament who spoke very sincerely.

A great deal of raw emotion filled that room, and I confess to
having shed quite a few tears, together with other parliamentarians from both
sides of the political fence. I was particularly moved and incredulous at
hearing about what I can only refer to as the past barbaric practices that had
been in place in this nation over many decades.

That is a very regrettable part of this nation’s history, one
that I was very keen to see put behind us with the bipartisan apology made by
the Victorian Parliament on that day. I considered the Victorian Parliament’s
apology to be a very significant moment in our state’s history. I thought that
it was a remarkable day and a profound moment, and I was looking forward to
seeing those affected — those many mothers, fathers, grandparents and children
– all being able to put that very sad history behind them.

I had the very humbling experience of speaking personally to
many of them on the day, and I understood that it meant a great deal to them.
For many of them, particularly the mothers who had suffered, the announcement
that they would finally be able to receive identifying information about their
children was seen as long overdue and a right that they were entitled to. In
fact it is a right that tragically many of them have not lived to exercise.

Since that day members of the Labor opposition have been open
about and willing and supportive of the coalition’s pledge to legislate to right
some of the wrongs committed under past adoption practices. We wanted to
continue the goodwill and genuine spirit of bipartisanship expressed by members
on both sides of the house in the apology late last year. We have wanted to work
hand in hand with government members to get this legislation right. I am
saddened that although we have taken many steps to date government members have
failed to take up the opportunities to fix this legislation. Tonight they will
have another such opportunity. In a very humble and sincere way, I call on them
to reconsider the position they have taken to date and to take up the
opportunity to rectify the significant failings in the bill by supporting the
Labor opposition’s amendments, to which I will be referring shortly.

On the timing of the introduction of and debate on the bill, as
I understand it, the bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly during a
sitting week timed to coincide with the federal Parliament’s apology on 21
March. Had debate gone ahead on the date originally scheduled, mothers, fathers,
children and other affected persons would have had to choose whether to be
present at the apology in Canberra or here in Melbourne for the debate on the
bill. At the time, the shadow minister for this area, Ms Danielle Green, the
member for Yan Yean in the Legislative Assembly, requested that the government
delay the debate and passage of the bill in the Legislative Assembly to in
effect enable the mothers, children and other affected persons to be present
both in Canberra for the national apology and in the Victorian Parliament for
the debate on the bill. I thank the government for acceding to the Labor
opposition’s request, put by Ms Green, to delay debate on the bill in the
Legislative Assembly. That enabled those most affected to be present in the
public gallery of the other house for the debate last sitting week.

The government has shown, at least in the one minor respect of
the timing of the debate on the bill in the Assembly, its willingness to be
flexible. On the debate here tonight, I am surprised, given that so much
correspondence on this bill has been received by members of Parliament, that the
government has chosen to bring on this bill as the third item of government
business today and that we are in fact commencing debate on the bill at 8.00
p.m. I am saddened about that, because government members know full well that at
noon today a number of mothers attended a vigil outside Parliament House and a
number of them had intended to be sitting in the public gallery to listen to
debate on the bill. The fact that the bill has come on for debate at 8.00 p.m.
has precluded them from being present.

I will let others draw their own conclusions about why the
government decided to bring in at the last moment a planning scheme amendment
and another bill for debate prior to enabling debate on this bill and why debate
is commencing so late in the evening.

I have said that the government was prepared for a very small
amount of flexibility when it came to the debate in the Assembly. We have seen a
member of the Liberal Party — he is no longer a member of the parliamentary
Liberal Party, but he is still a member of the Liberal Party — the member for
Frankston in the Assembly, Mr Shaw, also express his sincere concerns about the
flaws in this bill. He in fact voted with the Labor opposition to delay further
debate on this bill in the Legislative Assembly to enable stakeholders to be
consulted and for the flaws in the bill to be corrected.

As I said, this bill is an opportunity for all of us to right
the wrongs of the past. It is an opportunity to offer some redress for the years
of pain, regret and loss suffered by so many. When other members of the
opposition and I have looked at this bill it has become very apparent that there
are some serious flaws contained in it which completely undermine the spirit of
the Victorian Parliament’s apology. It is extremely distressing to we find
ourselves as parliamentarians in a position where we very much support the
spirit of what was behind the state apology and the national apology — to
rectify past wrongs — but we in fact see a bill come before the house that
enacts contact vetoes and criminal penalties on parents who contact their adult
children.

Given the number of concerns that have been raised with all
members of the Parliament about this bill, I was quite shocked, really, that the
minister responsible for this bill, Ms Wooldridge, the Minister for Community
Services, did not meet with or consult well-known stakeholders prior to the bill
being introduced in the Parliament and also prior to the bill being debated in
this house. There have now been a number of weeks in which the government has
had ample opportunity to go off and talk to well-known organisations, such as
Origins Australia, the Association of Relinquishing Mothers, Vanish, the
Independent Regional Mothers and others, who have all expressed their opposition
to the contact statements and criminal penalties proposed in this bill.

I want to put on record my gratitude for the incredible
determination that the shadow minister, the member for Yan Yean in the
Legislative Assembly, Danielle Green, has shown in relation to seeking to have
this bill amended in the Legislative Assembly.

She consulted extensively with stakeholders and their members,
with affected parents and with adult adoptees, which is a lot more than I can
say for the minister. I know Ms Green has had numerous meetings and discussions
with them over many weeks, and I personally have also had the opportunity to
have a number of discussions and meetings with those stakeholders.

By way of background for those listening, when the bill was
debated in the Legislative Assembly Ms Green sought to have a number of
amendments debated that would have fixed the problems with this bill, as we see
them, but the government did not enable the bill to be considered in the
consideration-in-detail stage. There was no opportunity in the other place for
Ms Green, as a shadow minister, to question Minister Wooldridge, and there was
no opportunity for that house to debate Ms Green’s amendments.

That is why, on behalf of the Labor opposition, I will be
seeking to move the same amendments — or virtually the same amendments — in
this house, which in effect seek to remove clauses 5 and 8 of this bill which
relate to contact statements and criminal sanctions. I wish to foreshadow these
amendments in my contribution, and I am happy for them to be circulated to other
members at this time. I have certainly made those amendments known to members of
the government and to the Greens political party prior to this debate, so they
have had time to consider them.

Opposition amendments circulated by Ms Mikakos (Northern Metropolitan)
pursuant to standing orders.

Ms Mikakos — What also occurred in the Legislative
Assembly is that the government voted down a reasoned amendment moved by the
Labor opposition to stop the bill going any further until consultation had
occurred with representatives of groups of affected mothers and fathers, and
with children, on contact statements, vetoes and criminal sanctions, and it had
been redrafted to express the concerns of these groups. As I indicated, I was
pleased that Mr Shaw had the decency to take on board the concerns of the
stakeholders and vote with the Labor opposition on this reasoned amendment. That
is because — and I cannot stress this enough — we on this side of the house
want this bill to be fixed. We want the government to get it right, and we have
been willing to give the government every opportunity to get it right.

As I said, we will be pleading — if I have to get down on my
knees, I will do it — with the government to fix this bill. It needs to fix
this bill. There are many people affected by it.

The government needs to accept that the bill has not struck an
appropriate balance, and we ask government members: for once, can they ignore
the fact that they have the numbers in this place? We know they have a majority
in this place. The rule of 21:19 usually applies, where government members
oppose our amendments because they can do so. We know they can do so, but we ask
them not to do so, particularly on this occasion, because there is so much at
stake. There are so many people’s lives affected by this bill.

We also ask, if the amendments fail, that the bill be referred
to the Legal and Social Issues Legislation Committee. The government would
benefit by actually giving stakeholders an opportunity to have their voices
heard. As I said, the government has not consulted with stakeholders. If the
bill were to go to the Legal and Social Issues Legislation Committee, of which I
have the privilege of being a member, we would have the ability to conduct
public hearings, to hear evidence by witnesses in person and to have written submissions presented to us. It would enable all of these concerns that have been so clearly expressed
already to be formally considered by this house and by this Parliament.

I know all members of Parliament have already been sent a
significant number of emails from personally affected mothers in particular and
adult adoptees voicing their anger at the provisions of this bill. You would
really have to have had your head in the sand not to be aware of these concerns.
I am beginning to wonder whether the government is listening, but if government
members have not been prepared to read these emails, I will seek, in the time I
have available to me, to articulate some of these concerns to members.

The key issue we are concerned about here relates to parents’
right to information about their children.

The report of the 2012 Senate inquiry into past adoption
practices made a number of recommendations, but the one that is most relevant to
today’s debate is recommendation 15. Amongst other things, it recommends that:

All adult parties to an adoption be permitted identifying information …

As it stands, the law currently only gives adult adopted
persons the right to find identifying information about their birth parents.
Whilst at the time it was seen as a huge leap forward in moving towards a more
open and transparent adoption process, the parents themselves were not given the
same rights. The government’s pledge during the apology was designed to address
this aspect, and, as I said, we welcome that. We thought it was important that
that occur.

The bill amends the Adoption Act 1984 to allow natural parents
to receive identifying information about their adult adopted sons and daughters.

We are supportive of this. There is no question about it; this
is the right thing to do. However, the government has gone further than this by
introducing contact statements. These statements will only allow adopted persons
the ability to regulate contact with their natural parents if they so choose. I
am sure the minister will say later on that this is in line with recommendations
in the Senate inquiry report, but I point out that that in fact is not the case.
Recommendation 15 of the Senate inquiry report states that:

All parties have an ability to regulate contact …

I point out that a number of stakeholders I have spoken to
strongly disagree with this recommendation entirely, but the bill has in fact
gone much further than recommendation 15. It does not apply equally to all
parties, and it seeks to put in place vetoes only against parents having the
ability to obtain information.

Stakeholders have raised with me and other members of
Parliament their concerns that this part of the bill is inconsistent with
recommendation 15, but of course the government has made no effort to date to
address those concerns. I hope it does.

Under clause 5, which inserts new section 90A, it is proposed
that an adopted person who has reached 18 years of age may give the secretary a
written statement stating their wishes about being contacted by their natural
parents. This contact statement will continue in force for five years and may
continue to be extended thereafter. In the sheer volume of correspondence I have
received from affected mothers and adult adoptees and from listening to members
of stakeholder groups I have not heard from anyone to date who was supportive of
what the government is trying to do here. It is very clear, as I said at the
outset, that the bill has not been the subject of thorough consultation at all.

The consensus amongst all the affected stakeholder groups and
their members is that contact statements will do more harm than good. The
government seems to be ignoring the fact that there are already legislative
provisions in place; whether they relate to intervention orders or to stalking
legislation, there are already legislative safeguards in place to protect people
against harassment.

I want to find out from the minister why the government is
seeking to introduce this particular provision, because I have not heard any
rational, sensible explanation from the government as to why it has introduced
such a hurtful measure — and it is a hurtful measure and a one-sided measure —
in this bill. I want to try to ignore the words the minister’s adviser used in
the briefing when she very hurtfully — and I did not say anything at the time,
which I now regret — referred to ‘crazy mothers’, because — –

Mrs Coote — On a point of order, Acting President, the member
is quoting out of turn, and in fact I have some significant material to quote
that is the correct rendition of what happened. She had better be very careful.
If you would remind her, Acting President, that she is casting aspersions on a
staff member, which is seriously — –

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Elasmar) — Order! That is debating
the issue and is not a point of order.

Ms Mikakos — I am a member of Parliament who does not
like to come in here and cast aspersions on anybody outside of this house. I only mention it because it has been referred to in the other place.

Mrs Coote — Incorrectly in the other place!

Ms Mikakos — I know that it is a very hurtful statement.
I am glad Mrs Coote has jumped up because what I was intending to say, if she
had allowed me to continue, is that I want the government to apologise for this.
I will be seeking from the minister an apology on the part of Ms Schulze for
that really dreadful statement, which was made in front of a number of
witnesses. The minister will have an opportunity to respond later, and I hope he
apologises for that because, as I said — –

Mrs Coote interjected.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Elasmar) — Order! Mrs Coote!

Ms Mikakos — As I said, it is a very hurtful description,
and to date I have not heard a single rational, sensible explanation given by
the government as to why it has been necessary to include contact statements, in
a one-sided way, in this bill. We have not heard about a single instance of an
individual supporting this provision being put in this bill.

I would be absolutely gobsmacked if Mrs Coote got up and read
an email from someone who is affected by this bill who said that they support
this particular provision because I have certainly not seen any emails of that
nature. I have a received a huge volume of emails, as I am sure other members
have in relation to this issue.

Mrs Coote interjected.

Ms Mikakos — I know Mrs Coote is keen to have her say,
and she will have her say very shortly. I want to read from one email I received
on 3 May from Merrilee Moss, who is an affected mother. She says the following:

I have been greatly touched and affected by the state apology to me in
regard to the forced adoption practices of the past. The acknowledgement of my
grief and ongoing pain and suffering has provided me with some level of
resolution and relief. The fact that the system of forced adoption was a
violation of my human rights has now been acknowledged. My child should never
have been taken away. I was told not to be selfish, that a married couple needed
my baby and they would do a much better job of bringing her up. But my daughter
was abused by her ‘perfect’ adoptive family, and the violation of human rights
multiplied, leading to an ever bigger tragedy.

I am writing to you because the adoption bill currently in Parliament
undermines the goodwill expressed in the apology by legislating against contact
statements for mothers seeking to make contact with their now adult children.
There are even criminal sanctions associated with these contact statements.
These penalties are not only hurtful, they are one-sided and completely against
the spirit of the apology. Adult children have been able to make contact with
their mothers (and fathers) since the 1984 adoption act. This amendment once
again denies mothers and fathers their basic human rights.

This is from Merrilee Moss, who is just one voice — one mother
who has some very strong views and concerns about these particular provisions
relating to contact statements.

As I see it, including contact statements in the bill only
serves to turn the clock back on just how far Victoria has come since the
adoption legislation in the 1980s. I also want to point out that we are talking
about adoptions that were carried out quite some time ago — between the 1950s
and the 1980s. That means that most of the mothers we are talking about are now
between 50 and 90 years of age. I have had emails from people in their 70s. We
are talking about very elderly people here. I cannot see how anybody would
consider them to be any kind of threat. In fact they are really quite generous
people who have gone through a great deal of trauma in their lives.

The adopted children would be between 30 and 60 years of age.
We are not talking about minors; we are talking about adult adoptees. We are
talking about adults; that is, people who are able to regulate their own
contact. These contact statements fail to recognise that adult adoptees are in
fact capable of regulating their own affairs.

As I said, there are other legal provisions already in place to
give people some protection. I cannot see why that protection would even be
necessary; all the adopted children I have spoken with have a burning desire to
know about their origins and parents. I spoke about this issue in the apology
debate late last year when I quoted at some length from a document given to me
by a woman who was my age at the time she found out she was adopted. It outlined
what a huge shock that was for her. I cannot even begin to imagine what kind of
a shock that would be. I do not want to go over that again. I just make the
point very strongly that people’s right to access to information about their
origins is an important one. I have said as much in previous debates about
donor-conceived children and so on.

The thing that surprises me is that this bill and this
particular provision are coming from a party that commends itself on believing
in the rights of the individual and personal freedoms and liberties and that has
in the past railed against what people describe as the nanny state. This party
that says it is about rights and freedoms comes in here and seeks to put one set
of regulations on just one class of people — not
even on all classes of people equally, but just one class of people. That is
what is so surprising about this provision.

In emails sent to me adult adoptees themselves have made it
clear that they feel they are perpetually being treated as children who are
incapable of making their own decisions, including decisions about whether or
not they wish their parents to make contact with them. Just to give some
perspective on that I want to read briefly from an emailed letter I received
from Ms Elizabeth Tomlinson:

As a support worker within the adoption community for several years I have
had the opportunity and privilege to speak with many, many people from all sides
of the ‘adoption triangle’.

The one thing that strikes me so often and shared by those who have been
separated through adoption is the undeniable drive and yearning to learn
something about a son or daughter lost to adoption, or a parent one has been
separated from at birth, and then hopefully be given the opportunity to have
some contact with that person.

…

What is the contact statement for? Is it to protect the adopted person from
an irresponsible natural parent? Would they not be as responsible as their
adopted son or daughter is given the right to be? … Further consultation with
the adoption community would have informed the ministers and members who have
worked on this amendment that many mothers go through very similar thought
processes as their adopted sons and daughters.

That is a perspective from someone who is a support worker and
also a mother.

I also want to refer to the perspective of adult adoptees on
this issue. I refer to an email I received from Catherine Vance on 17 April of
this year, in which she said as follows:

I am an adult adoptee and I am absolutely appalled by the proposed veto (or
contact statement) legislation. This goes against the spirit of the apology and
for many adoptees and natural parents this proposed legislation has tarnished
the apology. It is unbelievable that just six months after the Victorian
adoption apology criminal sanctions and fines of more than $8000 have been
proposed for parents who breach contact statements.

Vetoes are the shame of Australia, they are an archaic form of legislation
and are discriminatory.

There should not be a law that applies to one section of society, purely
based on who they were born to or because they had a child out of wedlock. This
is the 21st century and the shame of illegitimacy should no longer be a reason
to make discriminatory laws.

All adoptees from the closed adoption era are mature adults, with most being
over the age of 30. We are more than capable of making our own decisions and it
is insulting and derogatory to assume that we are not capable of regulating
contact in the same way as every other adult in this society is. Existing laws
are more than adequate safeguards against unwanted contact. The legislation that
proposes contact statements is yet another law that discriminates against
adoptees and natural parents. It is possible that it would prevent some natural
parents from attempting to obtain identifying information or for making contact,
because they might be afraid of the result.

There are many stories just like Cath’s. I want to personally
thank all the individuals who took the time and effort to share their personal
stories with all of us. I assure those individuals that some of us are
listening; I hope all of us are listening. I hope government members are
listening because they have the majority of numbers in this house. They have it
within their power and ability to fix this bill today and in particular to
remove from it the contact statement provisions and the criminal provisions,
which I will come to in a moment.

Clause 8 of the bill adds more insult to injury. Under this
provision if a natural parent breaches a contact statement, they will be slapped
with a criminal sanction and a monetary fine of 60 penalty units, which is
equivalent today to $8450. We are talking about a huge fine which is equivalent
to the penalty for a second-time drink-driving offence.

How the government arrived at this — why it thought a fine was
necessary to begin with; and secondly, why it thought it needed to be of such a
significant amount — is beyond comprehension. I am sure that when the first
parent is slapped with one of these fines a whole lot of lawyers out there will
be falling over themselves to represent that person on a pro bono basis. I can
see that the government will have quite a significant legal challenge on its
hands. I do not want to reflect on the judiciary, but I would be amazed if such
a fine were enforced. There would have to be some pretty amazing circumstances.

As I said, there are other provisions already in place that
provide safeguards. I cannot see why these provisions are necessary.

We are talking about monetary fines potentially being imposed
on already traumatised mothers and fathers, many of whom are in their latter
years of life, reinforcing the paternalistic views imposed by society on them
many decades ago that they were not entitled to the same rights as others in our
community because they happened to have children out of wedlock. It is a very
heavy-handed approach that will serve to continue to punish parents who were
subject to some very cruel former adoption practices which refused them not only
access to their children but even an acknowledgement that they were parents.

I stress that this is completely against the trust and goodwill
that came out of the apology made by this Parliament last year. On top of all of
this, the Senate inquiry recommendations that the government seeks to make
reference to did not make any reference to criminal sanctions; that is a
decision of this coalition government alone.

We have said time and again that we in this Parliament must do
everything in our power to hasten reunions between mothers and their children.
That position was articulated very capably by the Leader of the Opposition in
the other place, Mr Daniel Andrews. But the bill as it is currently drafted has
the potential to do just the opposite. Given the hope, trust and goodwill
generated out of last year’s apology, it is inexcusable that the government
continues to plough ahead with this bill without any consultation with
stakeholders, particularly affected mothers, whom it supposedly has sought to
make the beneficiaries of this legislation.

That is why in the committee stage I will seek to move the
amendments that I have foreshadowed and circulated. I will be seeking to delete
clauses 5 and 8 relating to contact statements and criminal sanctions, and to
make other consequential amendments.

The Labor opposition, in the spirit of bipartisanship, implores
the government to reconsider its stance in relation to the legally enforceable
contact statements provided for in the bill and to support the amendments. If
the apology is to mean anything, the government needs to recognise that it is
vital that it bring all parties along on this important journey.

The last issue I want to address relates to overseas adoptions.
We are very surprised that these issues were included in the bill in the first
place.

The bill should have focused exclusively on implementing what
was promised in the apology, but for some inexplicable reason the government has
decided to tack on completely unrelated issues with respect to overseas
adoptions, which should have been dealt with in a separate piece of legislation.

Clause 4 of the bill seeks to allow the registrar of births,
deaths and marriages to register the adoption of a child from a Hague convention
country to Australia. This will have the effect of allowing the issuing of a
Victorian birth certificate for the child. By way of example, we were advised in
the government’s briefing that in 2011-12 there were 36 intercountry adoptions
to Victoria. These comprised 23 adoptions from countries that were signatories
to the Hague convention and 13 from countries which had bilateral agreements
with Australia.

At present Victoria can only issue birth certificates for
adoptions that are finalised in Victoria where the adoptees are from countries
with bilateral agreements or Hague convention countries. Adoptions finalised in
Hague convention countries are unable to have local certificates issued. The
government has stated that this clause brings into line those adopted from Hague
convention countries with those adopted from countries with bilateral agreements
with Australia.

The government claims that this is a request from those who
were adopted from Hague convention countries and who find that foreign birth
certificates are next to useless in Australia for identification purposes — for
example, to get a passport, drivers licence or proof-of-age card. For example, a
child who is adopted from China, which is Hague convention country, and whose
adoption is finalised in China cannot receive a Victorian birth certificate.
Under this bill they will be able to do so.

However, these birth certificates are flawed in that they list
the adoptive parents as though they were the natural parents. The birth
certificates will, however, list the correct countries of birth.

I want to put forward the views of the adult adoptee I
mentioned earlier, Cath Vance, who is an Australian adoptee.
In the email she said:

I am an adoptee and have lived with having two birth certificates and
essentially a fictional identity for my entire life. The Victorian adoption
apology was for former adoption practices and it was my understanding that the
mistakes of the past were not to be repeated. Issuing fictional birth
certificates naming adoptive parents as birth parents is confusing for adoptees,
and birth records should be true and accurate descriptions of births, not a
record of who someone’s adoptive parents are.

I guess that is why I was so surprised that the government
chose to include provisions relating to overseas adoptions in this bill. That
compounds the errors made in the past. It is a very odd thing to do to have
finally said, ‘We acknowledge that we have done so much harm, that we
perpetrated so much wrong on such a large group of people in relation to
children born out of wedlock decades ago in this state’, yet not to incorporate
current thinking in relation to these issues when it comes to overseas
adoptions.

The government could have sought to introduce integrated birth
certificates — that is, birth certificates that list all historical
information, including a person’s natural parents and their adoptive parents —
as was recommended by the report of the Senate inquiry, or it could have waited
for a national agreement to be reached on the adoption of integrated birth
certificates on a national basis. I understand one state, Western Australia, has
introduced provisions for the one integrated birth certificate to list natural parents — and I
know that term is one many dislike — adoptive parents and the adoptee. All this
information is, as I said, to be contained in the one integrated birth
certificate.

As I mentioned earlier, I think an individual having access to
information about their origins is a very important right. It is important that
we as a society, as a Parliament and as members of governments seek to move to
more contemporary thinking when it comes to these issues, whether that applies
to donor conceived children or children adopted from overseas — or anywhere.

Again there has been a lack of consultation on this aspect of
the bill. I do not understand why the government is introducing provisions that
fly in the face of the spirit of the apology and has taken the approach of yet
again excluding the natural parents on birth certificates.

Stakeholders have raised concerns about the certificate being
used to deny someone information about their inter-country heritage — their
cultural heritage — in the manner of birth certificates issued to children
under adoption practices pre-1984. I hope that does not occur. It is absolutely
vital that children have their heritage respected and be provided with
information about where they have come from — about what their origins are.

Some people have also expressed concerns about current adoption
practices in Hague convention countries and also those with bilateral agreements
with Australia, and some people are not entirely convinced that unlawful
adoption practices have been eradicated in those countries. I share some of
those concerns.

I am not an expert when it comes to overseas adoption
practices, and I know this is an area where the federal government and the
federal Parliament have responsibility, but I would certainly hope every single
possible step is taken and measures are put in place to ensure that children are
protected, that parents are also protected and that we bring in an era of more
open and transparent adoption practices to enable adopted children from overseas
to be fully aware of their culture and origins.

Issuing a birth certificate that denies this reality for
whatever reasons, whether for expediency or ease, misses the point of the
changes made when the adoption legislation was first introduced. It also misses
the point of what the Senate inquiry was seeking to achieve in looking at this
whole issue of integrated systems of birth certificates. It misses the point of
the Victorian apology itself.

I cannot understand why you would say in the Victorian apology
that we recognise that these practices were wrong and then reinforce them in a
bill supposedly seeking to rectify those wrongs.

There are many flaws in this bill — many things the government
has not got right — but the key concerns we have relate to contact statements
and the criminal penalties contained in the bill. As I said, I am foreshadowing
amendments to remove these offensive provisions from the bill. I remind members
that we are here today to collectively right the wrongs of the past and that
mothers, fathers, children and other family members have been through enough —
have experienced enough trauma — and have waited long enough. I therefore urge
all members to give some very serious consideration to the proposed amendments.

To proceed without them will greatly diminish the spirit of
what we attempted to do last year in the Victorian apology and what was
attempted in the national apology, which was to apologise to those affected by
past adoption practices and to seek to rectify a great wrong. I urge members to
support the amendments.

I will be asking the minister a number of questions in relation
to the provisions of the bill when we go into the committee stage and will have
a little bit more to say about the amendments at that time.

However, I think I have already articulated the reasons why
these contact statements and criminal penalties are flawed and why I am urging
the government members — pleading with them, as I said at the outset — to
rectify this wrong, to fix this bill today, and to do the right thing as we all
agreed when we voted in the Victorian apology just a few months ago.

Leaked documents revealed local CFA group officers were briefed by CFA command on the Napthine Liberal Government’s plans to cut a further $40 million from the CFA in this year’s State Budget.

The CFA is already struggling under the pressures of last year’s $41 million budget cuts, on top of a broken election commitment of $136 million in support and training to the state’s fire services.  

Funding cuts have impacted on vital resources and training for local CFA members despite the guarantee by the Napthine Liberal Government that budget cuts wouldn’t affect training or operational capacity. 

Premier Napthine needs to come clean and confirm or deny the additional $40 million budget cut.

To sign a petition against the cuts, go to www.danielandrew.com.au

The shock pre-Easter sackings are supposedly about strengthening the economic credentials of TAFE boards. 

This removal of board chairs is an insult to the many highly talented people with strong economic credentials that are on these boards.  It is a poor reflection on those board chairs who had worked tirelessly to provide the best results for students. They have a proven record of running TAFE organisations, even in the challenging financial times of the past few years.

The sacking of the TAFE board chairs will make TAFEs more vulnerable to manipulation by the Napthine Government.

To sign the petition requesting that the Premier restore TAFE funding, including fully funding TAFE institutes’ community service obligations, go to  www.fightTAFEcuts.com.au.

Local kindergartens and other early childhood and care services in Victoria’s western suburbs were recently sent a letter by Western Health stating Sunshine Hospital Children’s Allied Health Service will no longer ‘accept any more multi-disciplinary assessment referrals for children who will be attending school next year.’  

“The Napthine Government’s budget cuts are hurting children who can least afford it,” Ms Mikakos said.

 “These assessments help children with disabilities access early intervention services, so they can get the most out of their education.

 “Instead, only children whose parents can afford private assessments will have access to these services.

 “The reality for many of these families, which come from disadvantaged backgrounds, is that they will not be able to afford to go through the private system.

 “This will mean that many children with disabilities will miss out altogether on accessing early childhood intervention services before they start primary school.

 “This is just another example of the privatisation by stealth that is happening in the public health system under the Napthine Government, which will only place untold pressure on primary schools in years to come.

 “Startlingly, both the Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development, Wendy Lovell, and the Health Minister, David Davis, were asked about this in Parliament and they were both completely unaware of the situation.”

 Ms Mikakos said that North Sunshine Kindergarten had on average 15 children a year requiring additional support, with only two or three receiving early intervention support services before they start kindergarten.

 “Just in North Sunshine Kindergarten alone, about 12 children could miss out on early intervention services if their parents cannot afford to pay for a private assessment,” Ms Mikakos said.

“The earlier children with a disability are supported, the greater their chance of
maximising their educational opportunities.”

As a result of this Government’s $616 million cuts to the health system, hospitals will be forced to add more people to the elective surgery waiting list than ever before.  This is going to have an impact on the hospitals in the northern metropolitan region, where the waiting lists have blown out significantly.

By June 2013, the Northern Hospital will have a 19% increase in the number of people
on their elective surgery waiting list since 2011-12.  The increase for the same period is 22.9% for the Austin Hospital, 35.9% for the Royal Women’s Hospital, 7.1% for St Vincents
Hospital and 53.6% for Melbourne Health.

These contracts show a litany of mismanagement by the Napthine Government of the
Victoria’s health system.  Across Victoria, 125 people have been added to the elective surgery waiting list in each and every week since the Coalition has been in Government.

The expected blow out in the elective surgery waiting list came on top of hospital
performance data released in February that detailed a system struggling to cope.

Prior to the last election, this government promised 800 new beds by 2014.  Whilst the Health Minister’s office stated that 100 new beds have been opened, nowhere near the number promised, the Premier has failed to endorse this statement.

In fact, Dr Napthine refused to acknowledge that even one new bed had been open since the Victorian Coalition took office two and half years ago.

The only thing that Mr Davis has delivered is 125 more people each week on the elective surgery waiting list, people who would actually benefit from the new beds had they been  delivered.

Health Minister Davis is keen to write the struggling system off as the Federal Government’s fault, but these documents categorically show his claims to be false and misleading and that the system was in crisis well before the Victorian Coalition Government started its fight with the Federal Government.  

Mr Napthine and Mr Davis cannot deny that the $616 million health cuts are hurting
Victorians. 

 Help us tell this government enough is enough at www.Liberalshealthcuts.com.au

On Friday 15 March 2013, Jenny, along with the Member for Mill Park, Lily D’Ambrosio, Member for Yan Yean, Danielle Green, and Labor candidate for Scullin, Andrew Giles, was
pleased to attend the Whittlesea Community Connections International Women’s Day Awards.    The Whittlesea Community Connections event honoured the voluntary contributions and achievements of women in the Whittlesea community.  Jenny congratulates all award nominees and recipients on their wonderful work.

These cuts were so savage that even the Minister responsible said he felt “shock, incredulity, disbelief and anger” about his government’s decision to make these brutal cuts – but he didn’t do anything to stop it.

The new Premier announced that the government will be putting back less than a fifth of the $290 million a year – almost $1.2 billion over 4 years – cuts they made to TAFE funding.

Sadly, Premier Napthine’s announcement of a ‘contestable fund’ will only make money available to TAFEs to do such things as fund mergers and hand over control of assets to TAFEs who will be forced to sell them in order to survive. Rather than reversing the damage, this announcement will further entrench the damage to our TAFE system.

The funds to be restored are too little and too late to save the campuses that have been closed, the courses that have been cut, and the staff that have lost their jobs.

Victorian Labor will continue to hold this government to account for the decisions they make, and the impacts those decisions have on the community. We will continue to be vocal on the impacts these harsh budget cuts are expected to have on TAFEs, and hence the broader community, and represent your views in doing so.

It is disappointing that Premier Napthine has the same disregard for TAFE as Ted Baillieu did. We need to keep fighting against this attack on TAFE.

If you or someone you know have been affected by the TAFE cuts, you can share your
story at www.fightTAFEcuts.com.au.

In last week’s cabinet reshuffle Premier Napthine missed an
extraordinary opportunity to right the wrongs of the Victorian coalition under
Ted Baillieu. He overlooked six coalition MLCs who are parliamentary secretaries
and allowed other ministers to keep their jobs — for example, the Minister for
Education, Mr Dixon, a minister who has overseen a $550 million cut from the
education budget.

He allowed Mr Hall, the Minister for Higher Education and
Skills, to keep his job, even though he has ripped the heart out of Victoria’s
TAFE system, despite belatedly giving back a paltry $50 million.

The Minister for Housing, Ms Lovell, has kept her job, even
though she has failed to convince her colleagues to invest a single dollar in
the budget for kindergarten infrastructure for our youngest Victorians. Mr
Davis, the Minister for Health, has kept his job, even though Victoria’s health system is in crisis and hospital waiting lists are bursting at the seams. By June 55 000 patients will
be waiting for elective surgery, yet the minister cannot tell us where his extra
hospital beds are. Deputy Premier Peter Ryan, who is the Minister for State
Development, remains in cabinet despite ongoing questions about his role in the
downfall of the former Chief Commissioner of Police, Simon Overland.

We have seen the departure of former Premier Baillieu’s freedom
of information officer, Don Coulson. We have had revelations of meetings in car
parks and bugged phones. Premier Napthine has refused to say if Mr Coulson has
been referred to IBAC or Victoria Police. Dr Napthine might be the new Premier
in town, but it is the same circus running the show, with the same failed
policies.

As I said, he began the Labor opposition’s contribution to this
debate, and I think he did so in a very significant way. I wish him well.

I just note that in his contribution Mr O’Brien focused a great
deal on one aspect of the bill, and that related to the cancellation of parole
in particular circumstances — that is, where prisoners are charged with or
convicted or found guilty of certain offences while on parole. Listening to Mr
O’Brien you might be forgiven for thinking that this is a significant change. I
remind members that the Adult Parole Board of Victoria does actually have in its
current practice the ability to do exactly what is being proposed in this bill:
the ability to cancel parole if there is some reoffending. It is important that
this not be held out in a way that suggests that the terrible circumstances that
have occurred in the past will all be able to be prevented.

It is important that we provide for appropriate community
safety in legislation but also in terms of resources that governments provide.
That is about policing resources and it is about how we tackle the causes of
crime, whether they be drug offending, mental health issues, or a whole range of
other circumstances. I point out that whilst the Labor opposition does not oppose the bill and the provisions that relate to the parole issues, we do have some serious concerns in
relation to other aspects of the bill, which are completely unrelated. They
relate to child protection matters in the Children’s Court. I will come to that
very briefly in a moment.

When the government seeks to present this legislation as being
tough on crime and as dealing with community safety adequately it is important
to look at what is actually happening on its watch. Assault rates have gone up
by 17.2 per cent, drug offences have gone up by 19.1 per cent, burglary is up by
11.5 per cent and motor vehicle theft is up by 10.8 per cent. These are very
significant increases and they are happening on this government’s watch. In my
own electorate, in just the Darebin police service area that covers the district
of Preston, there was a 74.8 per cent increase in drug offences; and in the
Banyule police service area that covers the district of Ivanhoe, family violence
increased by 67.6 per cent. These are phenomenally large increases.

I draw these statistics to the government’s attention because
it is important that these issues get some attention as well.

I now turn to other aspects of the bill. You would think by
looking at the title of the bill that it is only about parole issues, but under
the heading ‘other matters’ it deals with completely unrelated issues to do with
children. I have to say I was disappointed that these issues were included in an
omnibus bill because some significant changes that are being put in place relate
to limiting the rights of children to legal representation in child protection
proceedings before the Children’s Court. It is important that these matters also
receive some attention today. The opposition has some serious concerns about
these particular provisions.

Clauses 10 and 11 of the bill amend sections 524 and 525 of the
Children, Youth and Families Act 2005.

The effect of these amendments is to say that no child under 10
years of age will be legally represented in the Children’s Court family
division, unless the court determines that there are exceptional circumstances.
Where so-called exceptional circumstances exist a child can only be legally
represented on a best interest basis rather than a direct instructions basis.
What this means is that a child cannot obtain a lawyer for the specific purposes
of informing the court what their wishes are on matters of huge significance to
that child, such as with whom they will be living.

Let us remember that the children we are talking about here who
go before the family division of the Children’s Court are children involved in
child protection matters. They are the most vulnerable children who have
suffered physical, sexual or emotional abuse, have been neglected or abandoned
by their parents, or are at further risk of such harm. I believe we have a
responsibility to protect these children and young people.

It is a shared responsibility that not only cuts across
government but is also a responsibility of the broader community.

Each and every day in Victoria child protection workers face
the very difficult and challenging task of receiving new reports of alleged
abuse, having to investigate new cases and oversee hundreds if not thousands of
children in out-of-home care. I acknowledge the very difficult work that those
people do. According to the latest Department of Human Services annual report,
over 63 000 child protection reports were made in 2011-12. I was advised in a
briefing organised by the office of the Minister for Community Services, Ms
Wooldridge, that of these reports only 7 per cent go on to require court
intervention. I thank the minister’s office for providing that briefing, but I
point out that members of the opposition were not provided with a briefing in
relation to the Children’s Court provisions prior to the debate that occurred in
the Assembly; that only occurred subsequently.

Nonetheless, fronting court is a traumatic experience for
everyone involved, particularly young children, and their best interests should
be at the forefront of the system. The amendments contained in this bill are a
significant change from current practice. Up until now children aged seven or
older were assessed as to their maturity to give instructions in child
protection proceedings. If the child was mature enough, the act said they must
have their own lawyer who acts on the child’s instructions. This was deemed to
be in line with accepted international human rights law and was in fact
interpreted to be the case by Justice Garde in the 2012 Supreme Court decision
in A and B v. Children’s Court of Victoria & Ors. In making his ruling
Justice Garde noted that just because a child may not be able to give
instructions on all matters in a dispute it does not impact on their capacity to
give instructions in the context of proceedings that affect them.

The changes in this bill, however, mean that children 7, 8 or 9
years of age will no longer be able to provide instructions to an independent
lawyer on a matter that directly impacts them, and that is concerning to us on
this side of the house. The advice that I received from the minister’s office on
this matter shows just how large an impact these changes will make on children
in this age group. I was advised that of the 3893 protection applications issued
in 2011-12, 528 related to children 7, 8 or 9 years of age — that is, 13.6 per
cent; and that of the 7621 secondary applications issued in
2011-12, 1005 involved children 7, 8 or 9 years of age.

The Baillieu government previously and the current Napthine
government have argued that these changes are consistent with observations made
in the Report of the Protecting Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Inquiry, and I
strongly disagree with this. Justice Cummins made a number of important
recommendations in his report about protecting Victoria’s vulnerable children,
and particularly the legal representation of children. Section 15.3.1, which is
on page 375 of the report, states:

It is a matter of policy, law and human rights that children have an
opportunity to have their voices heard in matters that affect them …

Justice Cummins recommended that the Children, Youth and
Families Act 2005 be amended so that a child under 10 years is presumed not to
be capable of providing instructions unless shown otherwise, and that a child
over 10 years is presumed capable unless shown otherwise. It was not the
intention of this recommendation that children under 10 can never have the
capacity to give instructions. Justice Cummins also recommended that a child who
is not capable of giving instructions should be represented by an independent
lawyer on a best interest basis. Had these recommendations been implemented as
intended, this would have meant that all children would be entitled to a lawyer,
one who acted on instructions with a child who was capable of giving
instructions or one who acted on a best interest model where the child was too
immature.

During the briefing it was conceded by the minister’s office
that the government had indeed gone further than what Justice Cummins
recommended, and that is clearly the case.

The bill introduces an arbitrary age limit, where only children
over 10 years can have a lawyer acting on a direct instructions model and under
10 they have no right to instruct their own lawyer other than in what are
referred to, as I said earlier, as exceptional circumstances.

The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, in
its submission to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, said that the
amendment proposed in this bill limits the rights of children to protection in
their best interests, the right to equality and the right to a fair hearing; all
protection sections in the Victorian charter of human rights and
responsibilities.

Despite the government claiming to be observing Justice
Cummins’s recommendations, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights
Commission makes clear in paragraph 60 of its submission that Justice Cummins’s
recommended amendments to the act would be less restrictive than those proposed
in this bill.

The opposition is also concerned about the coalition’s motives
for burying such important changes in a bill that is about parole. I can only
conclude that the government’s move is one of convenience and not well thought
out. It is also about saving money, unfortunately. Giving the funding challenges
facing Victoria Legal Aid as a result of this government’s cuts, it is all but
impossible for the Children’s Court to operate under the current laws. Victoria
Legal Aid has been forced to alter its guidelines due to the failure of this
government to provide additional financial support.

There has been a considerable impact in my electorate in
response to the legal aid cuts, with the Preston legal aid office set to close,
and it has been reported that two dozen staff will be redeployed or offered
redundancy packages. I am very concerned about that, and I know Mr Pakula also
addressed this issue in the last sitting week.

There are issues in relation to added pressures on the
Whittlesea Community Legal Service and so on, but this has to be seen in the
broader context of the legal aid cuts having an impact on local community legal
services and also on the Children’s Court. I am aware that lawyers in the
Children’s Court have been acting pro bono to ensure that children under 10
continue to be represented even though legal aid funding has ceased in such
cases. I would like to share with members a few case studies I was given to
highlight the importance of such legal representation in child protection
matters.

The first case involves a lawyer representing three children
from the same family. The father in this case was alleged to have been violent
towards the mother. The children were exposed to verbal abuse and intimidation
of the mother by the father. The older children, who were both 16 years of age,
were happy to continue seeing their father and instructed that the father did
not abuse them. The youngest child, however, who was nine years of age, did not
want to see the father at all because of what he had done. The child was scared
of the father, and it was clear that the child would be traumatised if forced to
see the father.

The children’s lawyer referred the nine-year-old to another
lawyer who acted pro bono to ensure that the child’s fears and interests were
taken into account by the court and the Department of Human Services. Without
that representation all the court would have heard from the children’s lawyer was that the
child was happy to see the father.

The second case involves an eight-year-old child who had been
abused by her stepfather. The abuse included verbal abuse, intimidation,
threats, pulling the child by the hair, slapping and hitting the child. The
child said that the abuse was ongoing. The mother and stepfather suggested that
the child would be happy to see the stepfather during access but the matter
proceeded to a contested hearing. It was here that the child told her pro bono
lawyer that it would be upsetting for her to see the stepfather, that his
attitude was scary and that he should ‘change his behaviour’ before the access
occurred.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Ondarchie) — Order! I thank Ms Mikakos. Her time has
expired.

According to the Kindergarten Guide 2013, issued by the minister’s department, an early childhood teacher can declare that a child is eligible to receive a second-year of funded kindergarten if the child is observed as having delays in at least two outcome areas of learning and development, as detailed in the Victorian Early Years Learning and Development Framework, and if there is evidence to suggest that the child will achieve better outcomes if he or she attends a second year of kindergarten to strengthen the learning and development of skills in these areas to better facilitate the transition to school the following year.

The Diamond Valley and Eltham Kindergarten Teachers Association has advised me — and I understand it has also written to the minister — that the new processes outlined in the 2013 guide are incredibly onerous and would add to already enormous workloads for teachers.

The previous process only required teachers, in collaboration with the family, to fill in a document outlining the issues behind the requirement for a second year of kindergarten. The association is extremely concerned that not only does the new process require this practice to continue but it also requires documented notes from meetings with the school, with any child-care centre attended by the child and with the relevant local preschool field officer.

The association has raised concerns about the increase in workload this will create for both kindergarten teachers and preschool field officers; the lack of consultation in relation to these changes — the association certainly was not consulted; the issue of whether or not families who enrol their child late in the year will be eligible for a second year, given that all the documentation will not have been collected; and the issue, given the same reasons, of whether or not families approaching a kinder for a second year late in the year will be eligible.

Some families will not have seen the preschool field officer in time because of their own workload pressures.

I urge the minister to take on board these concerns and ensure that her department works closely with all of Victoria’s kindergartens and field officers to ensure that children needing a second year of kindergarten are not denied one. I specifically ask the minister to advise whether cost pressures and an attempt to reduce the cost of funding a second year of kindergarten is what is driving these bureaucratic changes.

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development) — I
have not seen that letter from that service, and I will take that question on
notice and get back to the shadow minister.

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — I am very happy to provide the letter to
the minister. I believe the letter has also been received by her Liberal
colleagues in Western Metropolitan Region. I will do that immediately after
question time. My supplementary question is that one of the providers that
refers children to this service is the North Sunshine Kindergarten, which has on
average 15 children a year who require additional support. It informs me that of
these only two or three are already in contact with early intervention support
services when they start kindergarten. What will the minister do to ensure that
the 12 or so children from North Sunshine Kindergarten and other preschool-aged
children in that area do not miss out on early intervention services before they
start school next year?

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development) — I am
delighted to talk about early childhood intervention services, because this
government’s record on early childhood intervention services is strong. In our
first budget we funded 150 additional early childhood intervention service
places and 150 additional flexible support packages. Late last year I announced
a further 500 early childhood intervention support places for children with
disabilities. An announcement is going to be made shortly as to where those
places have gone. In our first budget we also invested in an additional 246
kindergarten inclusion support packages to support children with disabilities to
participate in kindergarten. We have a very strong record on early childhood
intervention services, a record that we are proud of, and we are committed to
helping those children who need early childhood intervention services.

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development) — I am
absolutely delighted to talk about the benefits of reading to young children.
That report did find that there are definite benefits to be gained from reading
to young children.

In fact children who were read to six or seven times a week at
the age of four were significantly ahead of their peers in grade 3, and they
contributed greatly to improvements in national assessment program — literacy
and numeracy testing.

The Victorian government is also supporting reading to young
children by including early childhood in the Victorian Premiers’ Reading
Challenge this year. For the first time early childhood is being acknowledged in
the Premiers’ reading challenge, and the challenge is going out to parents. We
are challenging parents to read books to their children. There is a list of
books on the website that will tell parents the best books to be read to their
children and at what age, and we encourage all parents to contribute to reading
to their children.

The member referred to the Young Readers program. Unfortunately
the data around the Young Readers program showed that there had not been a
significant increase in reading to young children through the program. This was
very disappointing.

It had produced a less than 0.5 per cent increase in people who
read to their children on a regular basis. We are using other methods to
encourage parents to read to their children, including by promoting it through
the Premiers’ reading challenge.

Supplementary question

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — The minister was quoted in the article
that I referred to from the Age as saying that this was ‘an exciting step
forward’ in understanding the importance of reading to young children. If the minister is so excited about the research in this report that was funded by her department, will she be
reinstating funding to the Young Readers program in the upcoming budget? I note
that the Victorian Premiers’ Reading Challenge does not relate to children who
are not attending kindergarten or who are younger than kindergarten age.

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development) — I
would have thought that the shadow minister for children and young adults would
have learnt from having asked these questions last year. I am not about to
speculate about what will be in or out of the budget. That is the Treasurer’s
announcement, and announcements around the budget will be made on 7 May.

Since arriving in Australia in 1966, Rena has devoted more than
45 years to working in every facet of the media, including radio and television
broadcasting and print journalism. Rena was one of the founders of SBS
Television and served as a director of the Greek language programs, as a
coordinator and producer of Greek programs and as a presenter of cultural,
social and news programs, including programs for children.

She was also one of the original broadcasters on the 3ZZZ
ethnic radio station and worked on educational children’s programs for the ABC.

She currently works for the Greek Media Group in radio, TV and
print journalism and is a journalist on the New Country newspaper and the Greek
newspaper Neos Kosmos. She is a willing mentor to developing journalists.

Rena is a constant source of advice and support to many
community organisations and individuals, to which she generously gives both her
time and compassion. She has volunteered for over 30 years assisting elderly
citizens at Fronditha Care, a community organisation providing services to
Australian elders of Greek-speaking background. Rena’s melodic voice is a
welcome companion to the Greek elderly who listen to her on radio.

In 2010 Rena was awarded an Order of Australia Medal for her
service to the Greek community of Victoria. She enjoys the respect and
admiration of all generations of Greek Australians and is one of the living
legends of Victoria’s Hellenic community. It is only fitting that she be
recognised in the Victorian Honour Roll of Women as the queen of Greek
journalism. Congratulations, Rena.

We know that the government has been struggling to put bills on
the legislative program to keep this Parliament busy, and clearly it is scraping
the bottom of the barrel in finding minor amendments to bring to this house to
try and fill up the legislative program.

When the education and training sector needs substantive
reform, this government has got nothing better to do in terms of substantive
reform than to decimate our education system. This is what this government’s
idea of reform involves. We are experiencing a lot of cuts to our education
system rather than significant or actual substantive reform as the government is
claiming in the title of this bill.

In recent weeks the government has been completely distracted,
with its members being more focused on keeping their jobs than on serving
working families in Victoria and enabling them to keep their jobs.

We have heard the Minister for Education say that this
government is putting money into the programs that matter and the students that
matter. Many people in the community have questioned what that statement
actually means. The concern people have is that the government is not committed
to public education in this state.

The minister has overseen the government’s apparent commitment
to education through the savageness of its attacks on the sector. The government
has cut $550 million from the education budget. It has cut the School Start bonus, the student conveyance allowance, the education maintenance allowance, the School Focused Youth Service, Reading Recovery tutors, and the list goes on. It has ripped an
estimated $300 million from Victoria’s TAFEs. Whilst the government has managed
to recycle an old leader in electing as Premier Denis Napthine, who is
purporting to take a new direction, it is obvious that his announcement in
recent days of putting $50 million per annum back into the TAFE system over the
next few years is really going to be too little, too late. It is a bandaid
measure that is not going to repair the $1.2 billion that has already been cut
from the sector. Of course that $50 million is not going to aid the TAFE
teachers who have already lost their jobs, or the young people who may not have
a campus to attend, a course to enrol in or the ability to pay fees which have
been skyrocketing. This announcement is a pathetic attempt to make up for the
extraordinary damage that this government has already done to the TAFE sector.

As I understand it, during question time in the other place the
Premier announced that the government is going to drop performance payments in
its negotiations with the Australian Education Union (AEU). That is something
the union has been very strident in its opposition to for the last two and a
half years, so there will of course be an expectation now that this dispute is
finally resolved after such a long period of time. However, the Premier appears
to have overruled his own Treasurer, Michael O’Brien, who in the weekend papers
was reported as having said he was going to make it clear that performance
payments were going to be delivered and be part of the discussions with the AEU.
It is clear that the cabinet is already divided in such a short period of time,
where you have Treasurer O’Brien overruled by Premier Napthine on the issue of
performance payment. It will be very difficult for the government now to claim
that it is delivering on its election commitment to make teachers the best paid
in the nation, when it has moved to take that off the negotiating table.

Mrs Peulich — On a point of order, Acting President, I
understand that the lead speaker has a broader set of parameters in dealing with
the legislation before the chamber. Ms Mikakos has been speaking now for 5 minutes and so far she has not touched on a single provision in the legislation. The member may be
scene setting, but her comments are completely divorced from the legislation. I
ask you to invite her to make her comments relevant to the bill before the
house.

Ms Mikakos — On the point of order, Acting President, I
am about to come to the substantive parts of the bill. It is very common for the
lead speaker to make a number of introductory comments. I point out that the
bill refers to teachers and the Victorian Institute of Teaching. As an omnibus
bill it has a wide range of provisions. It covers a gamut of issues within the
education sector. However, I am about to speak on the bill.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Pennicuik) — Order! I thank Ms Mikakos for her
assistance. Ms Mikakos is only one-twelfth of the way through her
contribution, and as the lead speaker for the opposition she can refer to
matters in addition to the actual provisions of the bill. However, I ask her to
come to the provisions as soon as possible.

Ms Mikakos — Thank you very much, Acting President, for
your guidance. It is important to set the scene, because government speakers
will get up and suggest that this bill is the most important thing since sliced
bread and that this state’s education system cannot survive without it. We know,
however, that this bill does not contain a great deal of substance.

Mrs Peulich interjected.

Ms Mikakos — Mrs Peulich was not listening to the start
of my speech where I said the bill does not contain a great deal of substance
and that whilst we in opposition are not opposed to it, we do not think it does
a great deal. If the government is going to come in here and purport to
introduce a so-called reform bill, it should be a reform bill that actually does
positive things. Those opposite should engage and support the education system
rather than taking an axe to it as they have done.

The last thing I want to mention in terms of setting the scene
is the issue of the Gonski reforms. The federal government is proposing quite
substantive support for public education and disadvantaged students in this
state, but there has been a lack of commitment by the Victorian coalition
government to the Gonski reforms, just as there has been a lack of commitment
with regard to the health issue and so many other issues in the past.

Those opposite just engage in political point-scoring without
having any serious discussion about the school funding model recommended by
David Gonski and his committee and how we can improve the system.

I now come to the issues before us in terms of the provisions
in this bill. The two main issues in the bill relate to the Victorian Institute
of Teaching suspending a teacher when a charge is laid under commonwealth sexual
offences law and to increasing the powers of the Victorian Curriculum and
Assessment Authority, the VCAA, to investigate breaches of the national
assessment program — literacy and numeracy (NAPLAN) testing protocol. I will
cover those two issues briefly and also some of the other miscellaneous
amendments contained in this bill.

A number of provisions in the bill relate to the Victorian
Institute of Teaching. I state at the outset that the Labor opposition supports
the strengthening of any provisions relating to sexual offences and the
protection of young people and our students. I point out that the commonwealth
government has introduced new laws relating to sexual offences. This bill is
supposed to mirror those laws in Victoria to increase protection for students
and enable teachers charged with sexual offences to be suspended quickly;
however, the bill does not do that in substance. The provisions in this bill
will not make any difference to the capacity of the Victorian Institute of
Teaching to suspend teachers once they are charged under commonwealth laws.

This is because powers already exist for the Victorian
Institute of Teaching to suspend teachers once commonwealth charges relating to
sexual offences are laid. The bill merely seeks to clarify such powers. We
believe it clarifies the obvious.

Interestingly and to my understanding, which is based on the
briefing provided to the opposition on this bill, the Department of Education
and Early Childhood Development could not provide any legal advice that these
changes are in fact necessary. Perhaps speakers opposite might be able to
address that point. We would certainly be happy to see what the advice is as to
why these changes are needed. There have been, as I understand it, no cases that
highlight the need for legislative change in this area. The government has
introduced this bill to look as if it is doing something. We do not believe the
bill alters existing practice in relation to these issues.

It is interesting to look at the difference between what Labor
put into practice when it was in government and what the coalition government is
proposing in this chamber today, because the existing practices that I have
referred to were in fact put in place by the previous government. It was the
Labor government that established the Victorian Institute of Teaching, and it
was Labor that gave it the power to suspend teachers who were charged with
sexual offences. In 2010 we introduced legislation to enable police checks of
teachers both before registration and on a continual basis while registered. We
ensured that these police record checks operated parallel to national police
record checks. We improved the data flow from police records to the Victorian
Institute of Teaching to facilitate a continual stream of information about
teachers who may have acted illegally. We also included information on
disciplinary hearing outcomes on the public register of teachers.

We believe the Labor government did a great deal in this area
to ensure student safety. We do not believe the bill does much more. As I said,
it is an attempt to clarify something that already exists in practice.

The second main issue in the bill relates to the powers of the
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority to investigate breaches of NAPLAN
testing. NAPLAN, as members are aware, is a commonwealth program managed by the
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) — and I will
revert to using acronyms in my contribution; I think it makes it a bit easier.
Each year students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 sit literacy and numeracy tests, the
results of which are reported to parents, schools and state and territory
governments as well as to the commonwealth. Of course it is important that we
look at ways to minimise the potential for manipulation or cheating in NAPLAN
testing, but this bill does not do a great deal to achieve that goal.

The VCAA is the body responsible for distributing the tests to
all schools. It is the body responsible for collecting and marking student
responses and reporting the results to ACARA. This bill simply clarifies the
role of and existing powers held by the VCAA in this regard. The existing
legislation requires the VCAA to conduct testing in a correct and fair manner.
The bill amends the function of the VCAA to clarify that it has the power to
receive information and coordinate and investigate NAPLAN breaches. Given that
it is voluntary for parents, students or teachers to provide information to the
VCAA, that they already have the capacity to look at school records and that the
existing reporting arrangements are already in place, there do not seem to be
any meaningful changes enacted by these provisions.

What we are talking about here is upholding the integrity of
NAPLAN testing, but what we have seen so far from this government are cuts to
the very body — the VCAA — that administers the testing regime.

I understand this body has seen cuts that have included the
loss of a languages other than English program manager, the loss of an
Aboriginal language and cultures officer, the loss of a bushfires project
manager, the loss of an English administration and support officer, the loss of
the health and physical education officer and the loss of a number of
administrative positions. There does not appear to be any way to help the VCAA
police NAPLAN testing across the state if the government is gutting staff from
this body.

As I said, this omnibus bill deals with a
whole range of provisions. Briefly, some of the other provisions in the bill
include a requirement for teachers to provide information related to any
previous registration refusal or cancellation pertaining to any profession, not
just the teaching profession, as is currently the case. Whilst this provision
may be important, it is very badly drafted in that there is no provision for a
list of relevant professions contained in the bill itself. It relies on looking
at dictionary definitions, like the Macquarie Dictionary definition of
‘profession’, to get an idea of what this might entail.

With respect to disciplinary hearings, the bill purportedly
provides greater protection for witnesses by enabling the hearing panel to issue
suppression orders on the publication of information beyond — as is currently
the case — closed hearings. There is no information in the bill relating to any
penalty provisions that may apply.

The bill also corrects an anomaly in the Education and Training
Reform Further Amendment Act 2010 to enable the appointment of an acting chair
for the merit protection board; tightens the definition of ‘teacher’, which is a
defined term, to include a principal or head of school who has teaching
experience in any school in Australia; and makes a number of other technical
amendments.

By way of conclusion I say that with this bill we are seeing a
government that is in crisis, that has continued to cut and decimate our
education system, that does not have much of a legislative program and that
brings to this house omnibus bills that do not do a great deal — and certainly
do not do a great deal to strengthen our education system.

The government purports that this is a significant reform. It
is not. In many respects it is clarifying the obvious — clarifying what is
existing practice.

If the government is serious about reform, then it should take
the opportunity in the upcoming state budget, which is only a few weeks away, to
put back all the funding that it has cut out of our public schools, our TAFE
sector and our early childhood sector. The fact is that it had allocated zero
dollars for kindergarten infrastructure in the last state budget. We are not
opposing the bill, but we urge the government to stop its attacks on the
education system.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Ramsay) — Order! I thank Ms Mikakos. I have to say
that I see no crisis here. I am not sure where Ms Mikakos sees that, but it is not in
this chamber.

Investment in Victoria had fallen 5 per cent over the last three quarters to levels not seen
since the 1990-92 recession.

Every month unemployment has risen, job advertisements have dropped and business
confidence has slid. Month after month the Baillieu Government has failed to invest in jobs, infrastructure, manufacturing and skills and in doing so the Victorian economy has continued to go backwards.  It is no wonder the State Final Demand figures are in negative territory again.

Victoria’s State Final Demand figures for September to December 2012 fell 0.7 per cent
which followed the 0.4 per cent drop in September.  Private gross fixed capital formation in trend terms showed the weakest growth is in Victoria, down 8.8 per cent.

Victoria is now in recession because Mr Baillieu and Treasurer Kim Wells are inept economic managers.  It is clear evidence that Mr Baillieu and Treasurer Kim Wells are more concerned about internal Liberal Party politics than boosting Victoria’s economy through increased productivity, jobs and the Victorian economy.

The no action, no plan Baillieu Government continues to hurt the Victorian economy.  Treasurer Kim Wells promised to create more than 50,000 jobs but like many Baillieu Government promises, this was nothing but a pipe dream.

Mr Baillieu may not want to work hard to create and protect jobs, but Labor does and have developed a jobs and investment plan for Victoria.  Unlike Mr Baillieu, Labor understands what it takes to get Victoria’s economy moving.

Brutus was Caesar’s loyal ally who turned on him. Jeff Kennett,
the Premier’s mentor, was recently quoted criticising the government as
‘reacting rather than leading’. There seem to be many Brutuses at the moment
doing the numbers for a leadership spill. Liberal members have been busy
backgrounding the media as to the obvious — that is, that the government is
bordering on dysfunctional, giving a sense of secrecy and paranoia and looking
shambolic and undignified.

The surfacing of the secret Tony Nutt-Tristan Weston tapes this
week show the Caesar-like, imperial, born-to-rule, get-away-with-anything
mentality that pervades this government. Under Ted Baillieu thousands of
Victorians have lost their jobs — 30 000 in January alone — but the only
person the coalition is interested in helping find work for is Tristan Weston.
The needs of the Victorian people are being ignored while the Baillieu
government reels from its daily crises. The problem for the government is that
it has no Mark Antony waiting in the wings.

With the atmosphere at today’s last Liberal Party meeting
described by one MP as extremely volatile, the Premier would be well served to
heed the advice of the soothsayer to Caesar: beware the ides of March.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Ramsay) — Order! Time, Ms Mikakos — very
entertaining.

This is a pilot program that commenced in April 2010, which
offers a pre-sentencing option where a magistrate may order a young offender
aged 18 to 25 to attend the program.

The PARTY program originated in Canada. A 10-year longitudinal
study of the Canadian program was completed in 2002, and it showed very positive
results. The study showed that the program’s participants had a much lower
incidence of traumatic experiences than the control group. Since its
establishment the program has been implemented around the world, and it operates
at both the Royal Perth Hospital and the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital.

Whilst there is only preliminary evaluation data on the young
offenders program here in Melbourne, the Royal Perth Hospital recently conducted
a study into the effect of an injury awareness education program on the
risk-taking behaviours and injuries in juvenile offenders.

That study showed that young people who had committed traffic
or violence-related offences and participated in this program changed their
attitudes about risk-taking and significantly reduced their subsequent risk of
injuries and of committing traffic or violence-related offences.

In 2010, the PARTY program received $425 000
in funding over three years to expand its delivery, but this funding is now
coming to an end. This is an important program. I urge the minister to follow
her Western Australian colleagues in supporting this program, and I urge her to
ensure that there will be funding to allow it to continue with its objective of
reducing traumatic injury and death amongst our young people.

The Baillieu Government’s response to the final report of the Family and Community Development Committee’s Inquiry into Opportunities for Participation of Victorian Seniors was tabled in Parliament yesterday.

“While the Committee’s report contains a number of very worthwhile recommendations, the Government’s response to it is very light on,” Ms Mikakos said.

“The Committee made 40 recommendations seeking to enhance the social, economic and community participation of older people, yet the Government explicitly committed to only
a handful of them while committing no new funds to their implementation.

“The Baillieu Government has a responsibility to seniors to develop programs and policies to promote and facilitate participation in our community.

“Instead this Government has earned a poor reputation amongst older Victorians, having abolished the dedicated position of Minister for Senior Victorians and dismantled the Office of Senior Victorians when it first came into office.”

Ms Mikakos said the Baillieu Government have also:

• Closed up to 179 public sector aged care beds;
• Foreshadowed further cuts of $75 million to public sector residential aged care;
• Cut funding to Home and Community Care (HACC) services across the state by 2
       percent, despite spiralling demand due to an ageing population;
• Doubled the waiting list for personal alerts in just 12 months; and
• Failed to address cost of living issues affecting senior Victorians.

Ms Mikakos said the needs of senior Victorians have dropped off the Baillieu Government’s agenda and their response to the Committee’s report reinforces that.

“The Minister appears to be oblivious to the fact that his cuts in aged care do not match his rhetoric on helping seniors,” Ms Mikakos said.

“The real test will be whether the Baillieu Government fails again to provide more assistance to senior Victorians in the state budget in May.”

I wish to draw to the attention of the minister some
significant issues to do with inadequate road infrastructure in Melbourne’s
north, in particular in the city of Whittlesea, which is the second
fastest-growing municipality in Australia. Its current population of over 170
000 is expected to grow to 240 000 people within the next 10 years. It is
important to note that that population growth is not only happening in the newer
suburbs of South Morang, Mernda and Doreen but also in the established suburbs,
such as Epping, Thomastown and Lalor. The City of Whittlesea has reported that
Epping’s arterial roads are already at capacity and estimates that they will be
overflowing by 2016.

The council has listed in its budget submission the Hume
interchange at O’Herns Road and the Edgars Road extension and the duplication of
Epping Road as two of its top-10 priorities for consideration in this year’s
state budget.

It has pointed out that the Northpoint Business Park and MAB
Corporation developments are experiencing negative feedback from potential
buyers due to a lack of access to infrastructure for freight movements and
workforce availability.

The design and construction of northern and southern ramps
connecting O’Herns Road with the Hume Freeway would relieve the congested Hume
Freeway-Cooper Street interchange and accommodate the immense traffic growth
resulting from the anticipated opening of the Melbourne wholesale fruit,
vegetable and flower markets in 2014. This project would be a significant boost
to employment, investment and economic development in this area.

Extending Edgars Road would also provide access to the
employment area for the 45 000 people living in Epping North and Epping Central.

It would relieve congestion on High Street and Epping Road and
further dissipate traffic funnelled into the Hume Freeway-Cooper Street
interchange. The council also reported that Epping Road, along with High Street
between Memorial Avenue and O’Herns Road carries up to 17 000 vehicles each day.
Epping Road is plagued with open drains and inadequate shoulders. In the five
years up to 30 June 2011 it has seen 37 traffic accidents, and there have been
55 injuries and 1 fatality.

The grassfire on Monday was a reality check. We saw a huge
amount of traffic congestion as local residents tried to evacuate during the
fires, with two lanes and a third road being closed due to the fire. I am very
concerned about future fires and that the minister has written to Danielle
Green, the member for Yan Yean in the Assembly, indicating that these projects
are not on the agenda until 2046.

I call on the minister to work with the City of Whittlesea to
achieve better transport solutions for residents to the north of Melbourne but
in particular to fund the O’Hern’s Road interchange and the Epping Road
duplication, which are both very much needed.

That is the highest youth unemployment of all mainland
Australian states and territories. Victoria’s young people face an uncertain
future, with huge cuts to TAFE and education.

Premier Baillieu is overseeing what one of his own ministers
described as a dysfunctional government. Liberal MPs are falling over themselves
to support Jeff Kennett, to the point where the Minister for Housing, Ms Lovell,
wore her gold Victoria badge yesterday. The Premier needs to stop obsessing
about Mr Guy and Mr O’Brien biting at his ankles and get on with delivering a
jobs plan for our state. Victoria has gone from being a booming state under
Labor to a gloomy one under Ted Baillieu. Only Labor can return Victoria to
being an economic powerhouse by creating jobs for Victorian families, investing
in skills and training, and providing an infrastructure pipeline.

Page 11 of the report details initiatives by output area.

The report examines a whole range of very difficult issues in
terms of a number of initiatives in relation to the national partnership
agreement on homelessness, such as elderly support, substance abuse, mental
health, domestic violence, children’s education and other initiatives with
respect to the so-called outputs. I recognise the complexities involved in
dealing with these difficulties, and it is important that these recommendations
are taken on board. I also note the correspondence at the back of the report
from the departmental secretary noting some changes that will be put in place,
and I welcome all those things.

However, if the minister wants to play politics and put out a
release in which she uses this report to attack the previous government, I point
out that the Brumby government had a very impressive record on housing and
public housing. It invested more than $500 million over a two-year period to
build new homes and deliver more than 4500 social and public housing dwellings
in Victoria.

At the time that was the single largest commitment of any state
government and was the biggest social housing building program since the 1956
Olympics.

Under Labor, Victoria led the way in tackling homelessness
through innovative approaches such as the Common Ground supportive housing
facility on Elizabeth Street, which is in my electorate and is just north of
Melbourne’s CBD. I was so proud when I attended the opening of that facility
with the then Minister for Housing, the member for Richmond in the Assembly,
Richard Wynne, and the federal Minister for Housing at the time, Tanya
Plibersek. That was an amazing achievement, and I am so pleased it was
accomplished, with the support of Grocon, a very big contributor to the project,
and I acknowledge that too.

That $500 million contribution came on top of the $1 billion
federal Labor investment which boosted Victorian social housing stock by a
further 6500 units, and I am pleased that a number of those were in my
electorate.

However, that federal money is now coming to an end and the
waiting list in Victoria is growing. There are more than 37 000 people on the
public housing waiting list. We have had no investment at all from the Baillieu government to build new housing since it came to office. A very alarming discussion paper was released
by the minister in which she has flagged possible privatisation, increased rents
and limited tenure. The minister keeps refusing to rule out any of those
possibilities. We have also had cuts to front-line staff who support the most
vulnerable people in our community.

I end by saying that homelessness is a very difficult and
important issue. If the minister wants to tell the tale of two governments, I
could tell her that our government left a very proud legacy of public housing
for this state. She has done nothing in this space to date, and it is time she
lifted her game.

The program involves eight weekly counselling sessions to
identify reasons behind offending, which can involve things such as drugs and
alcohol, family issues, mental health issues and so on. It involves a program of
life skills, capacity building, information and referral, mediation and
mentoring.

The young person may also be asked to do community work or
undertake employment or education or training. A report is then prepared by
Youth Connect and is given to the magistrate who, if the young person has
successfully completed this program and the magistrate is satisfied, can then
dismiss the charges.

However, as I pointed out, it is not a mandated court-based
diversion program because the legislation in this area is fairly limited in
scope. As I said, it is one that has effectively been set up in an ad hoc way by
all parties and stakeholders involved who are trying to address youth offending.
I recently visited the Moorabbin Justice Centre and observed the program for
myself. I had the opportunity to sit in on some of the cases to see how it
operates and to speak to the local police and other youth workers. They gave
very positive feedback about how the program is operating.

A report, commissioned by Youth Connect and undertaken by RMIT,
was delivered in October 2012. It found that since its establishment, a total of
100 young people have been referred to and have completed the Right Step
program, and that two-thirds of the program participants have successfully
completed the program and have not reoffended and that more than three-quarters
did not reoffend within the first six months.

I urge the minister to respond soon to her own diversion
discussion paper, which she released in August last year. In particular I urge
her to consider the value of a program such as the Right Step program and to
also consider funding the program. That will be a great way to tackle youth
offending.

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development) — I
thank the shadow minister for children and young adults for the opportunity to
speak about early childhood intervention services (ECIS) and this government’s
commitment to early childhood intervention services. In fact, since coming to
government we have shown a strong commitment to reducing that waiting list.

When I was first briefed as minister, I was advised that under
the former government the waiting list was 2700 children. As the shadow minister
outlined, in the paper this morning it said 1021. That is because this
government has invested heavily in early childhood intervention services. In our
first budget, 2011-12, we provided $8.2 million, which provided 150 ECIS places
and 150 flexible support places over four years, and $10 million to provide 246
additional kindergarten inclusion support services (KISS) places each year.

We also announced at the end of last year $3.7 million per
annum for an additional 500 ECIS places. These will be allocated in the upcoming
weeks, so that the waiting list will reduce even further. What we know from the
budget measurements is that sometimes an ECIS place can support more than one
child, so more than 500 children on the waiting list will benefit from those 500
places. We have invested heavily, and we have reduced lists for families. Under
the former government families were left in a holding pattern on a list.

What we know also is that if we did not have the legacy of the
former Minister for Water, Mr Holding, to this state — the desalination plant
– we would have an additional $2 million per day that we could spend on early
childhood intervention services. That $2 million per day in just 3.6 — –

Honourable members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The minister to continue without
assistance.

Hon. W. A. LOVELL — In just 3.6 days that money could wipe out
the early childhood intervention services holding pattern that the government of
those opposite left these families in.

Supplementary question

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — There are currently 275 families who have
been on the waiting list for more than three months in the north-western
Victoria region, which includes 163 in Loddon Mallee and 112 in northern
metropolitan, and which includes municipalities such as Nillumbik, Banyule,
Hume, Whittlesea and Yarra. Will the department’s allocation of the new places
that the minister referred to take into account projected demand in population
growth corridors?

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development) — I
note the shadow minister was silent on these issues when those opposite were in government. She never raised those issues, she did not care about families that were in the former government’s holding pattern, and she did not care about those 2700 families. But now suddenly Labor cares. I laugh because Labor does not care. All Labor members are
interested in is a headline in the paper.

These places will be allocated across the state to assist
families who have been left on a waiting list by the government of those
opposite. We are assisting to get their children help.

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development) — I
would have thought the member would have learnt from last year that I do not
pre-empt the Treasurer’s budget announcements; budget announcements are for the
Treasurer. I can tell the shadow minister what I told her before — that is,
that 2700 children were on the waiting list, in this holding pattern created by
the former government.

The shadow minister, never raised this when her party in
government. She was silent on this matter and did not care about these families.
Our government has invested heavily in early childhood intervention services —
in an additional 650 places, an additional 150 flexible support packages and 246
additional kindergarten inclusion support packages — and the holding pattern
has been reduced.

We know there is more to be done, and we are looking at all
avenues for assisting families. We have trialled in several areas some
foundation support for families on the waiting list. This has been necessary
because the former government left us with a huge waiting list. We are now
assessing the findings of those trials, and we will look at how we can cherry
pick the best results from the different trials to provide support to families.

Supplementary question

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — So no responsibility for the 1000
children on the waiting list.

The Whittlesea families in partnership pilot project was funded
by the previous Labor government, which provided support for families on the
waiting list, and I understand it had positive outcomes for the families
involved including reduced parental stress. Given the project has now wound up,
will the minister commit to continuing to provide support to those families in
that area who are waiting for a place, particularly those families with a child
who is in their year before starting school?

The PRESIDENT — Order! I am a little perturbed about this
supplementary question, because the original question was quite broad in respect
of a budget allocation to services to support families. Is the Werribee program
funded under that state program, or was it a Werribee initiative?

Ms MIKAKOS — If I can assist, President, it is in the Whittlesea area.

It was partly funded by the Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development, which is under the minister’s portfolio responsibility.
The first question did relate to programs supporting families who were on the
waiting list, and my supplementary question also relates to a specific program
that supports families who are on the waiting list.

The PRESIDENT — Order! On the basis that there is apparently
some government funding of the Whittlesea program, I will allow the minister to
answer.

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development) — I am
happy to answer this question; in fact I believe that I really answered it in my
substantive answer. I am pleased the shadow minister has read Early Childhood
Intervention Australia’s budget application, because at least I know she is
taking an interest now that she is in opposition. She never took any interest
when she was in government. As I outlined — –

Mr Lenders — On a point of order, President, I put to you that
Ms Lovell is debating the question. She has been asked a question on government
administration, and her response in the substantive and now the supplementary
answer reflects her views on what Ms Mikakos may or may not have done in a
previous Parliament. I ask that you ask the minister to stop debating the
question, because it is not answering on government administration; it is
debating.

Hon. D. M. Davis — On the point of order, President, it is
clear that Ms Lovell was beginning a short preamble to make the point that she
welcomed the question and noted that the member was finally taking note of these
matters.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I am prepared to uphold the point of
order on this occasion.

I think Ms Lovell has twice now had the opportunity to make the
point she was making in her supplementary answer in respect of a previous
question and in response to the substantive question. I think the issue is well
covered in terms of what point might be made from that. Given those comments
have already been made previously, I think it does now amount to a debating
situation, rather than answering the question. I ask the minister to answer the
supplementary question.

Hon. W. A. LOVELL — We might have saved ourselves five minutes
had the member opposite allowed me to say, as I said in my substantive answer,
that we are looking at a few different trials that have been done around the
state on providing foundation support to those people who are in the holding
pattern left by the former government, while we reduce the backlog of families that are left in the holding pattern. We will assess all of those trials, and we will cherry pick the best of the results from those trials.

We are seeing record temperatures across our state and in our
country and expect more bushfires in the future. Currently many bushfires are
still burning in our state, and I wish those people — –

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Ramsay) — Time!

There are no simple solutions to these issues; there are no
simple approaches. However, what we are seeing here from the government is an
attempt to grab a headline — to sell a message to the community that it is
tough on crime and that it is responding in a way that will deter crime. We
heard from Mr Pakula that the government claimed it was going to do one thing
before the election in terms of introducing statutory minimum sentences for
adults and also for juveniles in relation to crimes of intentionally or
recklessly causing serious injury with gross violence, but in fact the bill
before us is very different.

I remind members that the government made this promise just a
few days before the election, and when it came into office it gave the
Sentencing Advisory Council the task of looking at the issue and advising it.
The proposal was met with a huge amount of criticism and concern from a number
of stakeholders, including the judiciary, the Law Institute of Victoria, civil
liberties groups and a number of stakeholders who work with youth offenders.

The criticisms raised included the infringement of judicial
independence; that mandatory sentencing has no history of working as a
deterrent; and, particularly in relation to the jailing of minors, that this
would have a negative impact on long-term crime rates. The Sentencing Advisory
Council took on board all of the many submissions. I point to paragraph 1.5 of
the introduction to its report of October 2011 entitled Statutory Minimum
Sentences for Gross Violence Offences. It says:

Many stakeholders were of the view that discretion is a fundamental
principle of sentencing that allows a court to tailor a sentence to the unique
requirements of a particular case, and consequently, any form of fixed penalty,
however carefully structured, could not entirely avoid unjust outcomes.

The Sentencing Advisory Council found that there were a number
of impediments to the statutory minimums being imposed in the juvenile
jurisdiction. There were issues around the capacity of our juvenile justice
system, and there were also legislative difficulties associated with a
legislative regime that for youth offenders is focused on rehabilitation. The
Sentencing Advisory Council identified a lot of problems in relation to
introducing minimum sentences for youth offenders. I guess it is no surprise
then that the government has not gone ahead and included youth offenders in this
bill. The second-reading speech, as I understand it, makes it very clear that 16
to 18-year-old youth offenders are not included in this statutory minimum
sentencing proposal, which the Liberal Party took to the previous election.

I know that there is a division; there are divergent views
within the government about whether to proceed with this.

I know that Ms Wooldridge, the Minister for Mental Health, who
is also the Minister for Community Services, has been reported in the media to
have different views to the Attorney-General on this issue, because clearly she
understands the difficulties she would have if she were to proceed with such a
proposal in relation to youth offenders.

I will focus on youth offenders briefly, if I may, because Mr
Pakula has adequately covered the issues in relation to adults. In the past
there has always been a bipartisan approach to these issues. The focus has been
on rehabilitation, and the view has been that due to their immaturity young
people should be encouraged to lead a positive life upon their release from a
juvenile justice facility, that they should not be put in the same kind of
setting as a prison environment and that they should be afforded with
opportunities whilst they are in a juvenile justice facility to be rehabilitated
and to seek education and training.

I am, however, concerned that while Minister Wooldridge has put
out a discussion paper around diversion options for youth offenders, at the same
time we have got Mr Dalla-Riva, the Minister for Employment and Industrial
Relations, who has carriage of this bill in this house, cutting funding to
programs like the YMCA Bridge Project, which I have spoken about in this house
before, which provides support, training, mentoring and employment opportunities
for young people leaving custody to help them transition smoothly back into the
community. It is a program that has secured 160 full-time jobs since it began in
2005; 80 per cent of its participants obtain a pathway to a sustainable job. It has reduced reoffending behaviour from 66 per cent to just 3 per cent — –

Mr Finn — On a point of order, Acting President, I have been
listening to Ms Mikakos now and for some time she has made little
reference to the bill. She has been talking about some government cuts or
something or other to various programs, which is clearly totally irrelevant to
the matter before the house, and I ask you to bring her back to the bill before
the chamber at the moment.

Ms MIKAKOS — On the point of order, Acting President, I
recall Mr Finn made a very wide-ranging contribution to the debate. There are
references to youth offenders in the bill, and I am addressing the issue of
youth offenders and what works and what does not work. You might not like to
hear about the cuts, though — –

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr O’Brien) — Order! Whilst not at this
stage directly upholding the point of order, I note that in its early stages the
contribution to the debate was wide ranging. Most members have spoken more
directly on the bill than on other related matters, and I call on Ms Mikakos to direct the
rest of her contribution more closely to the bill.

Ms MIKAKOS — Acting President, my point is that if the
government wants to match its rhetoric on being tough on crime with reality,
then it needs to support programs that work to reduce reoffending. It needs to
bring legislation into the house that will work and will match its rhetoric.
What we are seeing from the government in relation to youth offending is cuts to
programs that work, which as the shadow minister I am particularly interested
in. Money is being spent on putting more beds in place at Malmsbury Youth
Justice Centre and cuts are being made to TAFE and education programs that help
to provide young people with a future.

Inevitably we are going to have more crime in the future and
more young people locked up. The government is setting itself up and setting the
community up for this outcome because it is making a whole range of cuts to
programs that support young people.

If the government is serious about reducing offending,
particularly youth offending, then it needs to support those programs and
approaches that deliver to the community.

In conclusion, I commend Mr Pakula on his recent announcement
that he proposes that a future Labor government will give juries more say in the
sentencing process. That is a very positive announcement that I am sure the
community would support, because it gives the community a real say.

This bill has been dressed up as if it introduces mandatory
sentencing.

However, it preserves judicial discretion. A letter from Smart
Justice for Young People, which is a coalition of a number of organisations that
advocate on sentencing issues expresses its opposition to minimum mandatory
sentencing for youth offenders. The letter acknowledges that the government in
effect preserves judicial discretion in this bill. On that basis I and the Labor
opposition do not oppose this bill. I urge the government to think very
carefully about what it is planning to do in the future if Robert Clark, the
Attorney-General, wins the day over Mary Wooldridge, the Minister for Mental
Health, and we see further legislation in relation to youth offenders introduced
to this house.

I will be asking the minister at the table, the Minister for
Employment and Industrial Relations, when we are in the committee stage for some
assurances in relation to the dual-track system. I am flagging that now for the
benefit of the advisers in the box, because I can see the minister at the table
already scratching his head.

I conclude with those words. I do not oppose this bill.

The Baillieu government is no longer in touch with the needs of
senior Victorians, particularly in light of last year’s cuts to the home and
community care program, another program aimed at assisting older Victorians to
live independently at home. I also point to the Department of Health figures
showing that 179 public aged-care beds have already closed. It is not a mere
coincidence that these cuts have followed the Vertigan report, which recommended
that the government vacate public aged care altogether. The government’s
attitude is also evidenced by the state budget update handed down in December,
which foreshadows cuts of $75 million to public-sector residential aged care and
a significant shift towards the privatisation of aged-care beds. Our senior
Victorians have every reason to be concerned about this government’s agenda in
aged care.

I understand that this important service was established by the
Kennett government back in 1997 in response to a recommendation of the Suicide
Prevention Task Force, and it is currently funded by the Department of Education
and Early Childhood Development to work across government and also Catholic and
independent schools. In 2010-11 nearly 50 000 children participated in projects
brokered by this program.

The Baillieu government has confirmed that the service will
cease at the end of June this year, even though a consultant’s report it
commissioned said such a move would be premature. I have a number of providers
of this program in my electorate, including Berry Street Victoria, Merri
Community Health Services, Nillumbik Community Health Service, Kildonan
UnitingCare and Dianella Community Health.

I note that in its youth statement entitled Engage, Involve,
Create the government expressed a vision that all young Victorians experience
healthy, active and fulfilling lives and have the opportunity to engage in
education, employment and training and be involved in their communities. If the
government were serious about these sentiments, it would not be moving to scrap
this program. I call on the minister to reverse this decision and continue
funding this important service. This is just another short-sighted and heartless
cut by the Baillieu government, which is ignoring the needs of our young people.

Since coming to power the Baillieu government has delivered
blow after blow to Victoria’s families, and the $555 million that it has
stripped from our education system is having a devastating impact on Victorian
families and students.

It has been interesting to listen to the contributions made by
government members during this debate. One cannot help but conclude that members
of the coalition live in a parallel universe.

Somehow they seem to be totally oblivious to the cuts their own
government is inflicting on Victorian families and the Victorian education
system. No-one need go any further than read the comments made by the education
minister yesterday during question time. He said:

We are putting money into the programs that matter, and into the students
that matter …

You really have to ask yourself what the education minister is
referring to as ‘programs that matter’, and which students he thinks more
important than others, particularly when his government is cutting, and he as
minister has overseen cuts to, the School Start bonus, the student conveyance
allowance, the education maintenance allowance, the School Focused Youth
Service, VCAL (Victorian certificate of advanced learning) and TAFE, as well as
the slashing of the Take a Break occasional child-care program, a massive
underinvestment in our kindergartens — and the list goes on.

You really have to wonder who are the students Martin Dixon is
concerned about? A report in the Age of 27 January refers to the government’s
so-called economic strategy, which it released just before Christmas and which
sank to the bottom of the sea very soon after. That shows just how much
Victorians were excited by their government’s economic strategy.

If you read the fine print of that document, you would see that
Treasurer Kim Wells flagged a massive sell-off of school sites. There is a
reference in the article to 200 education department sites, and the document
also goes on to speculate on how those sites could be sold to the private system. You really have to wonder what the priorities of this government are.

The comments made by Martin Dixon are particularly revealing.
He appears to be suggesting that only some students matter and only some
programs matter. I can tell him and members of the government that the programs
that matter to Victorian families and to Victorian students are many of the
programs referred to in this motion. They are programs that provide vital
assistance to parents not only to enable their children to participate in the
education system but also to provide important programs that help students,
particularly vulnerable students, many of whom live in my electorate.

Only last week we saw many thousands of children, including Ms
Pulford’s children and many other young children, excited about going back to
school after a long summer break.

I know my nephew was very excited to be going back to school.
We also know that a huge effort goes into preparing kids to go back to school.
The costs incurred by parents in getting their children ready can be a lot, such
as having to buy new uniforms. Even if children are going from prep to grade 1,
some of them have growth spurts and sometimes they need to get new uniforms even
at that very tender young age. Children need to get clothing, books and bags,
and to pay for transport costs, school excursions and so on.

That is why programs such as the School Start bonus that the
previous Labor government provided are important. The School Start bonus
provided $300 grants to help parents cover these kinds of school costs for
preppies and year 7 students. That is why the education maintenance allowance
also was a very vital program. It assisted schools to help our most
disadvantaged families.

There has been a devastating impact since this government
decided to scrap the School Start bonus altogether and to take away the school
component that was funded directly to schools through the education maintenance
allowance. That will deprive many schools in disadvantaged electorates of being
able to assist their needy families.

There have also been cuts to the student conveyance allowance,
which has impacted on an estimated 40 000 children statewide. This allowance
provides subsidised transport for school students, and will particularly hit
families in low-fee areas, including those in the outer urban fringe and in
regional areas, including independent and Catholic school students.

Many families, not just in the public system but more broadly,
are also being adversely impacted by these cuts, but this government does not
care — we know that very clearly.

Government members could not even find it in their hearts to
fund Free Fruit Friday at a time when we have a growing problem with childhood
obesity. They would even do away with a program like that, so it is no wonder
that this government has done away with the family statement. Government members
promised they would have an annual family statement. Clearly government members
do not have much to brag about in terms of what they are delivering to
Victoria’s families, so that is why, despite a promise it would come in the
first sitting week of every year, we have not seen a family statement this week.

We are seeing many cuts to the education system. We have seen
the government walk away from its promise to make Victorian teachers the best
paid in Australia. Government members have also walked away from the former
Labor government’s Victorian schools plan, which would have seen every school in
Victoria rebuilt or renovated by 2016. Many schools in my electorate have been
left in the lurch.

During the term of the previous government many schools
gratefully received funding to undertake much-needed redevelopment. Some of
those redevelopments were not completed and are now in limbo. I refer to such
schools as William Ruthven Secondary College in Reservoir, the creation of which
resulted from an amalgamation of some local schools. That school community has
been waiting for this government to provide the final stage of funding to
complete the school’s redevelopment. The Leader of the Opposition in the
Assembly, Daniel Andrews, has gone out to visit this school, as have local
members, including the members for Thomastown and Preston in the Assembly,
Bronwyn Halfpenny and Robin Scott, and me, but we are still waiting to hear from
the minister and from the government about when they are going to take an
interest in the northern suburbs.

It is no surprise to me that that school and many others in the
northern suburbs will miss out.

When I looked through the coalition’s election commitments
during the election campaign and immediately afterwards I was shocked to see
that not a single school in Northern Metropolitan Region was included on the
government’s list of schools that were to receive funding during this
government’s four-year term. It is no surprise to the people in the northern
suburbs that they are being ignored, but this is a scandal — an absolute
scandal — and I will keep talking about it, because it is atrocious to see that
commitments were made purely with an eye to politics. Blatant pork-barrelling
went on, and whole suburbs of Melbourne have missed out entirely on capital
funding because their residents happen to live north of the Yarra.

I want to talk briefly about an important program that is referred to in the motion — that is, the School Focused Youth Service (SFYS) program. This program works to support vulnerable children and at-risk young people by establishing partnerships and coordinating services in the local community. This important service has been in operation for many years, and I understand that during 2010-11 alone nearly 50 000 young people
participated in projects brokered by this program.

This program plays an important role in keeping kids engaged
with school and local services and helps to reduce the incidence of youth
homelessness, substance abuse and suicide. A number of providers of this service
are located in my electorate. These include Berry Street, Merri Community Health
Services, Nillumbik Community Health Service, Kildonan UnitingCare and Dianella
Community Health, all of which are being affected by the discontinuance of
funding by the government.

I want to refer to correspondence from the City of Whitehorse
that has gone to all members of Parliament and talks about the impact of the
government’s decision to discontinue funding for this youth service in that
municipality. I will quote from a letter that the mayor, Cr Andrew Munroe, sent
to the minister and that we have all received. It is dated 18 December 2012. I
will quote only some parts of the letter; it is quite lengthy. The mayor says:

Council is alarmed at the government’s decision and the potential
ramifications it holds for our young people into the future. With this in mind,
Whitehorse council resolved on Monday, 10 December, to support the concerns
raised by other councils in the eastern metropolitan region and to directly
correspond with all state MPs to request that funding for the SFYS be retained
for a further three years.

The SFYS provides a vital link between at-risk and vulnerable young people
in a school setting and community-based youth support programs. It enables
innovative tailored programs to be delivered. In Whitehorse, the program is
auspiced by council and sits within council’s youth services team. It supports
more than 900 young people per year.

In 2011-12, over 9000 students took part in 91 SFYS programs across the
eastern metropolitan region of Melbourne.

The mayor’s letter goes on to talk about just how important
this program is, particularly for vulnerable young people in his municipality. I
point to this particular letter. I know that other providers are similarly
concerned. I know that peak bodies that work with young people are also
concerned about this decision. I hope the government will reconsider this,
because it is an appalling decision.

I want to talk about the impact of the cuts to TAFE and VCAL,
particularly the impacts in my community. In her contribution Mrs Petrovich
talked about there being a lack of specifics and so on. I encourage her to read
yesterday’s Daily Hansard from the Assembly. It is a good thing that the
Assembly still bothers to print the Daily Hansard; it makes it much easier to
find things. I hope the President reconsiders the fact that we do not get the
printed Daily Hansard in the Legislative Council. Hopefully with a new year a
new regime might apply in relation to that decision. It makes for easy reading
for government members in the Legislative Council to have a look at the Assembly
Daily Hansard from yesterday. Members of the opposition in the Assembly asked
the Minister for Education a series of questions and gave practical examples of
the impact that these cuts are having. The shadow minister, Mr Merlino, the
member for Monbulk in the Assembly, specifically referred to Chris from
Caulfield, who was teaching the VCAL program and that his school’s decision was
to incur debt to keep the VCAL program going because it valued the program so
much.

Mr Merlino also referred to Jody from Wantirna South, whose
son’s VCAL motor mechanics course was shut down after he had completed only
three or four modules.

In the Daily Hansard there are references by Ms Neville, the
member for Bellarine in the Assembly, to Point Lonsdale Primary School, where
eight grade 1 students will be without trained staff to assist them in the
Reading Recovery literacy program. There are references by Ms Graley, the member
for Narre Warren South in the Assembly, to the Narre Warren South P-12 College,
which dropped 50 places because of the government’s $125 000 cut to VCAL just at
that one school. There are references by the Leader of the Opposition in the
Assembly to Huntly Primary School in Bendigo, which has had cuts to the
education maintenance allowance and Reading Recovery program.

If members of the government want to say there are not specific
and tangible examples of the impact these cuts are having, then clearly they are
living with their heads in the sand. I said at the beginning of my contribution
that it seems they are living in a parallel universe. They are totally oblivious
to the impacts the government’s actions are having in their own communities and
electorates.

I do not want to ignore TAFE cuts, because they are having an
absolutely huge impact. We all know that the $290 million cuts that have been
made have led to thousands of jobs being lost, courses being cut, campuses
closing and fees increasing. I continue to be concerned about the impact on my local TAFEs. For example, Northern Melbourne Institute of TAFE was expecting to lose $25
million and 100 jobs and have 50 courses cut. Kangan Institute is also affected.
It is already in the process of selling off its Moreland campus. Many students
and staff across these institutions remain very concerned about the future.

I am pleased that our shadow minister, Steve Herbert, the
member for Eltham in the Assembly, along with other shadow ministers and the
Leader of the Opposition, has developed a plan for the future and that Labor has
made commitments, as announced in our plan for jobs and growth, to reinvest in
the TAFE system to ensure that Victorians have affordable access to education
and training. We recognise that education and training should not be a luxury
that only a few can afford. We have said that funding TAFE will be our first
budget priority, with additional funding coming from savings obtained from a
crackdown on unscrupulous operators.

This will mean that TAFEs will once again be able to offer
essential student support services — –

Mr Drum interjected.

Ms MIKAKOS — Mr Drum should read our jobs plan, because
he might learn something from it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Drum will get the call next,
so he can respond then.

Ms MIKAKOS — We want to ensure that essential student
support services and extra help are available to students with a disability,
from a disadvantaged background or requiring numeracy and literacy development.
Unlike this government, we care about young Victorians and their future.

The only planning for young people we see from this government
at the moment is a plan for more of them to be locked up. The only construction
that seems to be going on — the only priority this government has for major
projects in this state — is the building of more prisons. Clearly the
government is anticipating that its cuts to education, training and many other
important programs that help put young people on the right path in their lives
will in fact lead to more of them getting involved in the criminal justice
system and needing to be locked up. What a damning indictment of this
government’s priorities that it thinks locking up young people has to be the
priority! We say education has to be the priority. We said in government it was
our no. 1 priority, and it remains our no. 1 priority. That is why TAFE has been
at the top of the list of the commitments we have made, because we recognise
that investing in our young people has to be the priority of good governance and
good governments. Clearly the people of Victoria are not getting the benefit of
a good government at the moment.

I want to touch upon early childhood education. One would think
that investing in our youngest children would be a priority for this government.
Instead we see a government minister who continues to claim credit for funding
that is coming from her counterparts in Canberra.

Members of the government claim credit for increasing kinder
participation rates with no recognition given to the innovative approaches and
leadership shown by the previous government and, in particular, the previous
Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development, Maxine Morand — –

Mrs Peulich interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Mrs Peulich, I cannot hear the
member talk.

Ms MIKAKOS — The federal Labor government through the
Council of Australian Governments (COAG) process put in place a national
partnership, and it is those national reforms that have seen a huge injection of
federal money in kindergarten infrastructure.

Mrs Peulich interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! I just asked Mrs Peulich to
desist from interjections and she has immediately started again. I ask her to
desist and allow the member to complete her contribution. A member from Mrs
Peulich’s side will then get the call.

Ms MIKAKOS — Government members are sensitive because
they have more front than Myer on this issue. They would like to claim credit
for things that they are not prepared to put any money into.

I remind them that in this year’s state budget not a single
dollar related to kindergarten infrastructure — not a single dollar. In terms
of their funding they are underinvesting in early childhood infrastructure and
the Productivity Commission report that was released last week makes that
apparent. The Report on Government Services 2013 shows that net capital
expenditure in Victoria for 2011-12 was only $1.712 million compared to a net
capital expenditure of $44.713 million in 2010-11 when the previous government
was in office.

The figures highlight the underinvestment in kindergartens and
show that Victoria has the lowest state government investment in terms of net
capital expenditure in Australia except for Tasmania. They are pretty damning
figures. We have seen a 96 per cent reduction in net capital expenditure between
2010 and 2011. It will be interesting to see whether this government is prepared
to put some dollars into the state budget this year for kindergarten upgrades.
We continue to see the minister issuing media releases that play with words and
semantics. She is deliberately seeking to confuse the Victorian people by using
the words ‘allocating’ rather than ‘investing’ because all she is doing is
getting the money from Canberra and handing out the cheques. She is allocating
Canberra’s money and seeking to claim credit as if it was money she fought for
in her cabinet and then delivered in the state budget.

Hon. W. A. Lovell — On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I
cannot let this go past. The member should be telling the truth in a debate, not
lies.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! The minister knows that is not a
point of order; she is making a point in debate. Ms Mikakos to continue.

Ms MIKAKOS — If the minister wants to make some points,
she could participate in this debate rather than giving inaccurate information
to her backbenchers and feeding them comments which do not reflect reality. It
is important that coalition members understand — –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Mrs Peulich on a point of order.

Ms MIKAKOS interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! I advise Ms Mikakos that Mrs Peulich is raising a
point of order.

Mrs Peulich — On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, in alleging
that the minister was disseminating inaccurate information Ms Mikakos is reflecting on a member and I ask that you ask her to withdraw.

Hon. W. A. Lovell — Further on the point of order, Deputy
Speaker, the member did reflect on me by saying I was disseminating inaccurate
information. I have not disseminated any inaccurate information. It is the
member who is saying things that are inaccurate. I take offence at her remarks
and I ask her to withdraw.

Ms MIKAKOS — You ask me to withdraw and then you are
giving me the same — –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Ms Mikakos. I take the view that it is
not my position to determine whether or not the remarks are offensive other than
to say that they could be seen to be objectively offensive.

The minister has taken offence and has asked the member to withdraw.

Ms MIKAKOS — I am prepared to withdraw if the minister also withdraws, because she used the same language — –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! When I ask for a withdrawal it
is not a matter for debate or discussion. The minister has taken offence at the
remarks Ms Mikakos made and I have deemed that, in the broader
scheme of things, the minister has the right to request that withdrawal on the
basis that she finds it objective or offensive. I ask the member to withdraw.

Ms MIKAKOS — I withdraw. Thank you, Deputy President. The
minister is a precious blossom — –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Ms Mikakos, that is enough.

You may continue your contribution but do not push this point
any further.

Ms MIKAKOS — Thank you, Deputy President. It is
interesting that the minister does not want me to make a comment and then she
makes the same comment about me. Quite frankly the facts speak for themselves. I
do not need to ask for a withdrawal because the facts speak for themselves. The
minister should read the Productivity Commission’s report.

Mr O’Brien — On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, Ms Mikakos is
continuing to reflect on your ruling by debating the question of withdrawal and
it is an adverse reflection on the process of objections and withdrawal.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! The member is not reflecting on
my ruling; she is making further comment about matters that she believes have
been said about herself.

She is making comment about what she believes are similar
comments that have been made about herself and the fact that she has not sought
a withdrawal, and that is perfectly in order. In the context of this debate her
contribution is in order. It is not out of order, but I will ask the member to
come back to the motion before the Chair.

I encourage members of the government to read the Productivity
Commission report, particularly in relation to early childhood. The minister
does not seem to be aware of the figures I have been referring to that
demonstrate her lack of investment. As I said, it is in stark contrast to when
Labor was in government and we made significant contributions to capital
infrastructure out of our own state budget. However, the thing that is most galling to me and to many others, including councils who are asked to organise these funding announcements and media opportunities, is then to be told or to discover that the money is coming from Canberra and all that the Minister for Children and Early Childhood
Development, Ms Lovell, is doing, or all that her backbenchers are doing, in
going out and making these media pronouncements is allocating or handing out
cheques from the funds coming from Canberra.

Hon. W. A. Lovell interjected.

Ms MIKAKOS — Minister Lovell is handing out the cheques
that are coming from Canberra. She may be well be allocating the millions that
she is claiming are coming from Canberra — $210 million so far, and the federal
government has announced that more is to come in future. I hope federal Labor
will be re-elected so it can be in a position to deliver the $1.1 billion
further boost to Australia’s preschool and kindergarten services.

Of this, it is estimated that $266 million will be delivered to
Victoria’s kinders to continue on the great contribution of $210 million that it
has made already. When the minister goes around claiming that the funding is a
so-called ‘combination’ of state and national partnership funding, she needs to
be more honest

Hon. W. A. Lovell interjected.

Ms MIKAKOS — She has put nothing in the budget, if it is
such a priority. There was nothing in the budget this year, and she has put in a
tiny amount from internal departmental funding, basically to try to fudge the
issue and claim that it is a combination of funds. The overwhelming majority —
–

Hon. W. A. Lovell interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! I have asked the minister to
stop interjecting several times. This is not a town hall meeting. This is the
Legislative Council. The member is speaking, and she ought to be able to make a
contribution with some degree of silence. I understand that at times there will
be interjections, but constant interjection is not appropriate.

Ms MIKAKOS — I want to come now to a another aspect of
the Productivity Commission report that also makes for interesting reading.

Mrs Peulich — On a point of order, Deputy President, I was
hoping the minister might raise a point of order, but in Ms Mikakos’s remarks
that the minister should be more honest, there is a reflection on the minister
and an imputation that she is dishonest. I ask that the member apologise and
withdraw.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order!

Firstly, there is no procedure to require members to apologise.
Secondly, the remarks need to be objectively offensive. The minister has not
risen to register her objection. She did interject when the comment was made but
she did not seek a withdrawal, so there is no point of order and the member is
not required to withdraw.

Ms MIKAKOS — I know that the government is keen to shut
opposition members down and this is what happens. Every Wednesday we have point
of order after point of order from members of the government who do not want us
to tell Victorians what is going on, but they know what is going on. I think
government members all know that. They are starting to get the wake-up call that
Premier Baillieu is not delivering. It is about time that they stood up to him
and went into the party room, had a bit of backbone and said that these issues
need to be fixed.

Quite frankly, it suits us that the government members are all
too cowardly and not prepared to stand up to their Premier, or at least the
current one anyway.

Another issue in the Productivity Commission report that makes
for interesting reading also relates to child care. It is clear in the report
that if you look at the figures for state government real expenditure on child
care for 2011-12, you will see it was $631 000. If you look at the 2010-11
figures, you will see it was $3.7 million. This is a significant decline of 83
per cent as a result of cuts to the Take a Break occasional child-care program.
If you look at comparisons with other jurisdictions across that time period, you
will see Victoria has the lowest real expenditure of any state in Australia, and
it is far behind the closest state in Tasmania. It is clear that other
jurisdictions are prepared to put some real expenditure into child care. This
government was prepared to pull out of a very small program that did not cost a
lot and actually had huge benefits for Victorian families.

Many centres across the state have been affected. This program
was provided to about 220 neighbourhood houses and community centres. Last year
the Association of Neighbourhood Houses and Learning Centres reported that up to
60 per cent of its centres were forced to increase their fees to cover the loss
of this funding. Many centres also lost their public liability insurance that
was previously funded by the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority. We even had
some centres close down altogether. Yet Mrs Petrovich comes in here and
basically says how dare I raise this issue again.

I can assure members of the government that this issue has not gone away in the community. I certainly welcome the announcements from Minister Ellis, the federal Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare, of additional funding for occasional care and home care places Australia-wide, including in Victoria. I am very pleased that a number of
regional centres were able to avail themselves of this funding to address some
of these issues. However, there are still many centres that are affected by the
Take a Break program funding cuts, and the government should be aware that this
is still a biting issue in the community. It cannot just hope that it will go
away. It is a significant issue in the community. It is just astounding that
members of the government do not want to even discuss it. I know that members of
the government, including the Minister for Children and Early Childhood
Development, were very excited when they heard that occasional child care was
going to be included in the motion to be debated here today.

That is a quick overview of some of the key issues. I know that
other members wish to speak on this motion and I want to give them the
opportunity to do so. I just want to conclude by saying that a strong education
system is one that provides all children with the best opportunities in life. It
does not make any sense to me or to members of the Labor opposition that Premier
Ted Baillieu and his acquiescent backbenchers would choose to cut funding to our
schools and education system. You simply cannot create and improve services by
cutting funding. These cuts have had a terrible impact across the community and
the futures of our young people are being threatened. Along with other members
of the Labor opposition I join the chorus of voices in the community that are
calling on this government to stop the attacks on education and the cuts to our
education system.

Mrs Coote — She is fabulous.

Ms MIKAKOS — She is fabulous, Mrs Coote. She spoke in
favour of a just society. Other speakers included adjunct professor at RMIT,
Father Peter Norden, who spoke about international efforts against the death
penalty, and there were speeches from a number of inspiring students from Kew
High School. Over the years I have attended many observances of the opening of the legal year. I congratulate the organisers yet again on a wonderful turn out, and wish our judiciary and legal profession all the very best for the coming year.

It is a straightforward bill. I understand that many members
are proposing to speak on it, and it is a positive thing that members of the
house want to speak on a consumer protection bill, because such bills are
important pieces of legislation.

But I point out that this is a government that has a light-on
legislative agenda. It does not seem to be doing much to generate legislative
reform at the moment. It certainly does not seem to be doing much for the state
at all, which is evident from the front page of today’s Age, where an article
talks about the decline in jobs in this state and the fact that our construction
industry in particular is leaving the state because of a lack of investment in
major projects by this government.

As the shadow minister for seniors and ageing, legislation that
seeks to protect senior Victorians is important to me. In the past I have had
constituents who have had difficulties in dealing with retirement villages. In
particular I recall relatively recently assisting one constituent who had been
trying for years to sell her late mother’s unit in a retirement village, but who
had some real difficulties in doing that.

I was pleased when she recently contacted my office to say she
had finally managed to dispose of the unit at a lot less than the family had
paid for it, but they were relieved to be finished with what ended up being a
complex legal mess for a number of years.

It is important that we have legislation in place to protect
senior Victorians going into what can be quite significant financial investments
in the later stages of their lives and that they are able to make informed
decisions when they are making significant financial outlays. I am pleased that
the bill seeks to provide some additional protections there. I understand that
the minister has flagged that there will be further changes in this area, and I
look forward to seeing what those further reforms will be, because the bill is
minor in its nature. It essentially puts into law the requirement of retirement
village operators to provide fact sheets and other prescribed documents to
prospective retirement village residents.

I point out that there are more than 30 000 Victorians living
in retirement villages across the state, so many of our seniors will depend on
the efficacy of this legislation for their protection. It is important that we
afford them due protections and ensure that they are making informed choices.

By and large the majority of senior Victorians in my electorate
are ageing in place — that is, living independently in their homes, which
requires that they are provided with assistance by their local council and other
providers — and home and community care (HACC) services are very important in
that space. HACC services are funded jointly by federal and state governments,
and traditionally the state government has made a significant contribution to
the HACC program. However, I am concerned that recent cuts to the HACC program
by the Baillieu government will make living independently at home more difficult
for our seniors.

Before Christmas I also alluded to the blow-out of the waiting
list for personal alert devices, which also makes it more difficult for our
elderly to live at home independently.

Despite all this, we will increasingly see more Victorians
wanting to live in retirement villages in the future. This decision is not taken lightly, and people need to give careful thought and consideration as to what their financial obligations
will be. Retirement village contracts can sometimes be long and complex, leaving
seniors and their families unable to find the information they need to assess
the suitability of a retirement village, to compare retirement villages or to
understand their rights and responsibilities upon entering a retirement village.
I am pleased the bill seeks to address some of these issues.

The background to the bill is a discussion paper which the
government released in October 2011 entitled ‘Retirement villages — contract
and information disclosure options’. It canvassed a range of issues for
consideration including the improvement of information provided to prospective
residents, pre-contract disclosure, and the detail of retirement village
contracts, including standardising the contract layout and providing condition
reports on the retirement village itself.

I understand that a number of stakeholders and others made
submissions in response to this discussion paper and that some concerns were
expressed by the sector about the possibility of standardising the contract
layout and the provision of condition reports. I point out that standardised
contracts exist in many other areas, particularly in the real estate sector.
While some concerns were expressed by the sector I do not think it would have
been the end of the world as we know it to have standardised contracts, but the
government has decided not to go down this path.

The bill does not submit the requirements for the fact sheets
to be prescribed within the legislation; however, in the second-reading speech
the minister alluded to the types of information proposed to be included in fact
sheets.

These include the number and size of the units in the
retirement village; any proposals for further development of the village; the
services and facilities available to residents; the range of entry, ongoing and
departure costs; and the financial status of the village.

This is all essential information that should be disclosed to
prospective residents. However, as I said, if this information is not prescribed
in legislation, then the government will have to make regulations that
presumably will prescribe the types of information that will need to go into the
fact sheets. It is important that this type of information be disclosed to
prospective residents so that people can get as much information as possible
before making these sorts of decisions.

Essentially the bill creates two basic requirements: that a
fact sheet be provided to any person considering entering into a retirement
village contract; and that a set of prescribed documents be provided to
prospective residents before the signing of a retirement village contract. New
section 18A of the bill provides that the fact sheet will be prescribed by the
director of consumer affairs, that it must be provided within seven days to any
person who requests it, even if not specifically requested by a prospective
resident, and that the fact sheet must be provided 21 days before any contract
is signed. A fact sheet can also accompany what is referred to as ‘targeted
promotional material’ sent to any retiree, but this specifically excludes a
mail-out or letterbox drop.

New section 18A(7) makes it clear that ‘targeted promotional
material’ means material given or addressed personally to the retiree.

In addition to this fact sheet, new section 18B provides that
there will also be other specific prescribed documents which are again to be
determined by the director of consumer affairs. These documents also must be
provided free of charge within seven days. The manager of a retirement village
must advise of the right to inspect these documents 21 days prior to a contract
being signed if the retiree has not inspected any of these prescribed documents.

These are positive steps forward, and I hope they are embraced
by this important industry. Most importantly, senior Victorians who rely on
making informed decisions must be provided with this additional information so
that a lot of the angst can be taken out of this sort of decision making and
informed decisions can be made more easily.

One concern I have is that as a result of the changes in this
bill there will be a wider gap between the consumer protections afforded to
residents under the Retirement Villages Act 1986 and those afforded to residents
under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997. Residents who fall under the
provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act who live in residential parks —
which in effect act as substitute retirement villages but are not legally
classified as such — will not be afforded similar protections. I understand
that in their submissions to the discussion paper, whilst they were supportive
of this bill overall, concerns were raised about this issue by the Consumer
Action Law Centre and the Housing for the Aged Action Group. I know the latter
in particular has been quite active around this issue for some time. I hope when
the government moves to introduce subsequent reforms at a later date that its
members will also look at addressing this particular issue.

As I said earlier, the Labor opposition does not oppose this
bill.

We welcome any further consumer protection that protects
prospective tenants of retirement villages, and I hope the government will move to
introduce the further reforms it has alluded to fairly soon.

In the Northern Metropolitan Region families have made it clear that they are struggling to deal with the $555 million ripped out of education, so we are running a campaign to pass those views on to the Premier.

Every child deserves the best opportunity to learn and to participate fully in their schooling.  However, as a result of these cuts, parents in Victoria are missing out on assistance for fundamental necessities such as uniforms, purchasing text books, transport costs or even school excursions. 

The message from Spring Street to parents is ‘you are on your own’.

So each Labor Member of Parliament will be asking parents to sign a state-wide
petition to make it clear that these cuts are not okay.

The Baillieu Government cuts overwhelmingly target students from disadvantaged
backgrounds.  The northern metropolitan region has one of the highest proportions of students from disadvantaged backgrounds and will be deeply affected by the cuts.

Whether it’s the Education Maintenance Allowance, VCAL, the School Start Bonus, Fresh
Fruit Friday or the Youth Focused School Service, Mr Baillieu’s cuts to education are targeting the most vulnerable students.

How does Mr Baillieu explain that students most at risk are the ones increasingly bearing
the brunt of his ‘cost saving measures’?

For more information about the ‘Ted Baillieu is not working on Education’ campaign, please visit www.BaillieusNotWorking.com.au

I congratulate the co-chairs of the youth reference group,
Adriana and Tim; the youth engagement officer, Leo Fieldgrass; the YACVic young
media spokesperson, Nic Kimberley; and all members of the reference group on the
work they do in advocating for our young people with government.

I was very impressed with all the members of the reference
group, and I wish them well in the future.

Molly fought passionately for equal pay for women, public
housing and better public health and transport, and was an energetic campaigner
for senior Victorians. She was a founding member of the Housing for the Aged
Action Group and campaigned for the redevelopment of the Roberts Street public housing estate.

In 2006 she was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for
Community Service for Aged Care, Health and Youth. Molly was also a member of
the Union of Australian Women and Women’s Health in the North, and I was very
pleased recently to have been able to give her a hug when she was campaigning
with me outside the state library for a better deal for pensioners from the
Victorian government.

She was a great campaigner for the community, and I am very sad
about her passing. I extend my deepest sympathies to Molly’s family and friends.

On 7 July Josie held her annual fundraising dinner dance and
raised approximately $30 000 for the Northern Hospital’s cancer ward. These
funds will allow the purchase of air mattresses for the colorectal ward and
other equipment.

Over the years Josie has purchased hospital equipment for
cancer patients worth over $400 000, including hospital beds, trolleys, a
portable machine to detect breast cancer and various other items. I am very
grateful to Josie for her wonderful efforts. I congratulate her and her family
and thank them very much for all their efforts

Hon. D. M. DAVIS (Minister for Ageing) — I will come back to the member with
precise numbers. I do not have the numbers on hand.

Supplementary question

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — I look forward to the minister responding
to that question because, as I remind the minister, personal alerts are devices
used by frail older people and people with disabilities who are isolated and
vulnerable, living independently and requiring access to 24-hour emergency
assistance when needed. However, the minister did have an opportunity to respond
to a very similar question when he responded to a question on notice of 31
October in which I asked about these figures. He responded by saying:

The waiting list for personal alerts in Victoria as at 1 July 2012 was a
list of those waiting at that time.

It was a very flippant response. I think that response was
astounding, and I ask the minister to say why he thinks such a flippant response
is a satisfactory response to such a serious question, particularly when he says
he is a member of an open and transparent government.

Hon. D. M. DAVIS (Minister for Ageing) — I imagine that the response was a
direct response to the precise question that the member asked. I have indicated
I am happy to assist with finding out — –

Ms Mikakos interjected.

Hon. D. M. DAVIS — I am just responding to the member’s
question, and I am very happy to. I have no doubt that the response to the
question on notice was a precise response to the member’s exact question.

Ordered that answer be considered next day on motion of Mr
VINEY (Eastern Victoria).

Hon. D. M. DAVIS (Minister for Ageing) — The member will be aware that I have
indicated that I will find the precise figures for her, and I will do so
willingly. Equally I indicate that the program is at the level that was funded
under the previous government. The personal alert service is an important
service that provides support to people who are frail and in need. I strongly
support the nature of that program, and I am determined to see that good
services are provided to older Victorians.

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — I refer the minister to figures from his
own department — the figures are publicly available — and also remind him that
in 2010 the previous government provided funding for two years for a further
1000 personal alerts for frail Victorians, so there was funding that expired at
the end of the last financial year. The minister did not continue that funding
and has not allowed any additional funding to take up the growing number of
ageing Victorians who are now waiting for personal alert devices. Will the
minister provide additional funding, as the previous government did in 2010, to
reduce the number of frail older people waiting for personal alert devices?

The PRESIDENT — Order!

I am a little bit concerned about the supplementary question,
because I am not sure it is directly related to the original question — I think
it actually goes into a different area — but at any rate, I will allow the
minister the opportunity to answer.

Ms MIKAKOS — The minister in his response did say that it
was being funded at the same level as was previously the case, and my
supplementary question relates to that specific matter.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I was allowing the minister to answer.

Hon. D. M. DAVIS (Minister for Ageing) — I am not sure that the premise of the
member’s question is correct. As I have indicated, I will take that on notice
and come back to her with a response in due course.

I wish to express my concern that a number of former school
sites across the northern suburbs are currently being vandalised and set alight
whilst the community waits for the Baillieu government to take some action. The
2010 merger of Ruthven Primary School, Lakeside Secondary College and Merrilands
College allowed for a brand new William Ruthven Secondary College to be built on
the former Merrilands College site. It was envisioned that proceeds from the
sale of the former Lakeside Secondary College site would go towards completing
the buildings at the new school.

I raised this matter previously with the minister in April. I
was told that any schools identified for capital funding would be announced in
the state budget. I hope this issue is addressed urgently. Whilst William
Ruthven Secondary College has missed out on state government funding, the former
Lakeside Secondary College site continues to sit idle and is being subjected to
vandalism.

Local residents have also contacted me to express their
concerns at the condition of the former Ruthven Primary School site, which is
nearby. In the past the school facilities would be used by the community on
non-school days and after school hours; however, residents are now telling me
that they are avoiding the site because of the deteriorating facilities. The
grounds are unkempt and littered with rubbish, and windows are being smashed.
Most concerning is a number of fires that have been lit at the site, the most
recent of which happened only last week.

A number of concerned residents met with the member for
Thomastown in the Assembly, Bronwyn Halfpenny, at the school site yesterday to
discuss their concerns.

The sites of former schools in Heidelberg — the Haig Street
Primary School, Banksia La Trobe Secondary College and Bellfield Primary School
– are also sitting abandoned, waiting to have their future determined. I note
that the Minister for Planning, Minister Guy, promised back in February that the
future of these sites would be resolved within two months. It is now December,
and we are still waiting for these matters to be resolved.

I call on the minister to clean up these five sites across the
northern suburbs and make them safe for the community; most urgently, to inform
the local residents and local councils of the intended future of the sites as
soon as possible; and to take urgent steps to ensure that if the sites are to be
sold, it is done in such a way that the proceeds can be reinvested into local
schools in the area. The sites should be made safe for the community and, hopefully, available for some community purpose in the future.

Departmental figures show that as at September 2012, public aged care beds
across the state have steadily declined; with 179 less beds than when Mr
Baillieu took office in 2010.

“Despite an ageing population, Mr Baillieu is providing fewer, not more,
public aged care beds across Victoria”, Ms Mikakos said.

“There has been a steady decline in aged care beds since Mr Baillieu took
office in 2010.

“The reduction in available aged care facilities has been driven in part by the
recent closure of several regional providers, including Ballarat Health
Services’ Jessie Gillett Court Hostel and Koroit Health Services’ Koroit
Nursing Home.

“This comes on top of the recent closures at Melbourne Health’s Parkville Hostel and Western Health’s Hazeldean Nursing Home, as well as the loss of beds in many other regional communities.”

Ms Mikakos said at the same time the system was shedding beds, the
Government quietly undertook  to privatise an aged care facility in Rosebud,
not seen since the Kennett Government.

“Recently Peninsula Health announced a buyer for the Rosebud Residential Aged
 Care Service, which marks the Government’s first major departure from publicly
funded aged care,” she said.

“While there is a role for the private sector to play in aged care, Labor is
concerned the Government may be getting ready to vacate aged care services
altogether as foreshadowed in the secret Vertigan report.”

“The Baillieu Government has remained silent about its future plans for aged
care whilst allowing the sector to contract over the past 24 months, despite Victoria’s ageing population.

“This comes on top of the Baillieu Government’s 2 per cent cut in home and
community care hours, a program which has been successful at keeping people at
home and out of the high care aged facilities.

“After just two years in office, Mr Baillieu’s legacy is becoming clear – there
will be less aged care beds, more privatised facilities and less support to
keep people in their homes, which will leave more seniors much worse off.”

I take this opportunity to congratulate the CEO, Sandra Prouse,
the president, Bruna Pasqua, and the board and members on their dedication and
continued commitment to early childhood services in Victoria, particularly those
provided to children from migrant and refugee families.

From humble beginnings growing up in Broadmeadows, Justice
Kyrou was the first Greek-born person appointed to Victoria’s Supreme Court. In
his memoir he also reflects on his childhood experiences of racism, bullying and
adversity and how he overcame them. I congratulate Justice Kyrou on sharing his
and his family’s personal story. I believe it will serve as an inspiration to
many young migrant children in this country.

… aged-care services in country towns are absolutely critical, and we are
very committed to supporting them.

Given Victoria’s ageing population, how does the minister
reconcile this statement with the closure of 104 aged-care beds across Victoria
in the past two years, especially in regional Victoria?

Hon. D. M. DAVIS (Minister for Ageing) — I make the point that the member’s
premise is clearly flawed.

The government is very much determined to support aged care in
country Victoria. The member asked almost the same question at an earlier point,
and I pointed very directly to some recent budget initiatives, like those at
Swan Hill where the government is investing capital in new aged-care facilities.
That is a strong commitment.

One of the difficult spots on the horizon with respect to aged
care in country Victoria is the changes the commonwealth government is making
through its new aged-care package. The rejigging of the aged-care funding
instrument formula is of great concern because it means that many of the smaller
aged-care services are unable to get the support they need. Equally, there are
changes to the bond arrangements, which are likely to put some of our aged-care
services at risk.

We have been very much prepared to support aged-care services,
obviously, in country towns.

From time to time there are changes in the number of beds and
changes in the configuration of the beds, and the community understands that
there has been a shift over the longer term from a number of low-care beds to a
greater proportion of high-care beds. The government is able to work with health
services and with the range of providers — some government, some non-government
and some private sector — in country Victoria to provide the widest range of
services it can, but I inject a note of caution.

I can indicate that I have asked for a matter to be added to
the Standing Council on Health agenda so that aged-care issues can be discussed,
because the commonwealth government abolished the standing council for aged-care ministers, which was an unfortunate step by the commonwealth government. We have asked for the commonwealth government’s changes to the aged-care arrangements and the package it has brought forward to be put on the agenda as a standing arrangement, and we will be focusing very strongly on that.

I note also that there have been a number of telephone hook-ups
with ministers around — –

Mr Lenders interjected.

Hon. D. M. DAVIS — Mr Lenders may laugh, but this is actually
a serious matter.

The reality is that the changes in the commonwealth packages
are impacting severely on a number of providers in Victoria, on metropolitan
providers and particularly on some of the smaller country providers, and I am
determined to keep a close watch on that.

I pay tribute to the work done by Leading Age Services
Australia, the Victorian branch in particular. Gerard Mansour, as the new
national president of that organisation, has been prepared to advocate closely
with the commonwealth government and work with a monitoring group to monitor the
implementation. I have also asked that a standing arrangement be put in place so
that, every quarter, officials working in aged care meet or do some sort of
hook-up so that states can monitor the impact of the commonwealth’s aged-care
changes, because I have some concerns about the impact they will have,
particularly on country providers.

Ms
MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — I note that the minister did not actually
reject the premise of 104 aged-care bed closures, because those figures are
actually from the minister’s own department; from its website. I particularly
want to draw the minister’s attention to the amalgamation of Ballarat Health
Services’s Jessie Gillett Court and James Thomas Court hostels, which, again
according to the minister’s own department’s figures, has resulted in 52 bed
closures in Sebastopol. Can the minister guarantee that the elderly who will be
required to be placed in an aged-care residential facility in Sebastopol and the
greater Ballarat area will not miss out on securing a place in the future?

Hon.
D. M. DAVIS (Minister for Ageing) — I can indicate very strongly that the
government will work with health services like Ballarat Health Services to
ensure that proper provision is made for aged-care places, particularly for
those residents of aged-care services. I think the member may understand that
over time there was a deterioration in the nature of one of those facilities.
There has been widespread support for the steps taken by Ballarat health,
including, as I understand it, by a number of the local members of Parliament in
that area. Ballarat health has been very careful to involve people and brief
them as to what is occurring and why. It has done that very much with the shift
from low care to high care that has occurred around the countryside. This is
about providing sufficient services of the right type as needed.

In many respects the change in services that has occurred with
the shift from low care to high care reflects the success of aged-care policy
where community packages, home-care packages, have become more prominent.

That is something to celebrate rather than denigrate.

Ms Mikakos interjected.

Hon. D. M. DAVIS — I am trying to be reasonable and generous
here and to state that in fact — –

The PRESIDENT — Time!

This bill seeks to amend a number of acts of Parliament.

The first is the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 to
change the governance arrangements for TAFEs. It also proposes changes to the
eight acts that establish the universities in Victoria — namely, Deakin
University Act 2009, La Trobe University Act 2009, University of Melbourne Act
2009, Monash University Act 2009, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Act
2010, Swinburne University of Technology Act 2010, University of Ballarat Act
2010 and Victoria University Act 2010. One would expect that the longer the
bill, the greater the detail in it, but nobody could ever accuse this government
of presenting such a bill to this house.

Essentially the bill has four components.

It seeks to abolish the Victorian Skills Commission and 16
industry training advisory boards; it makes changes to governance arrangements
for TAFEs and scraps the positions of elected representatives on TAFE boards; it
scraps the positions of elected representatives on university councils; and it
makes a number of changes to the contractual arrangements for the provision of
government-funded training.

I want to indicate at the outset that the Labor opposition is
appalled at the lack of consultation with the sector and the general community
in the development of this legislation. Prior to the introduction of this bill
there was no consultation with the Victorian TAFE Association, a fairly
significant stakeholder I would have thought, or with students and unions, and
there was no opportunity for public submissions to be made.

The ad hoc nature of this government’s
decision making when it comes to Victoria’s vocational education and training
(VET) sector is dreadful. Its policy making has been a farce and its drafting of
legislation has been woeful. The Labor opposition supports measures to
strengthen the provision of quality education and training in our state and to
crack down on rorting in the system. However, we do not think this bill
adequately addresses those concerns.

Attempting to silence dissent and criticism by implementing
corporate governance arrangements which will see the minister sit behind board
appointments to our TAFEs and university councils is nothing short of
disgraceful. Unfortunately, however, it is not surprising to see this from the
Baillieu government, which in recent weeks has reminded us all of just where it
stands on the issue of rorting — that is, it covers its tracks. What better way
to silence its critics than to simply remove them from the picture and let the
minister decide who is to sit on TAFE boards and who is to be appointed to
university councils.

This government has delivered blow after blow to Victoria’s
TAFE sector, and this bill is no different. That is why the Labor opposition
will not be supporting this bill.

Mr Leane will move a reasoned amendment — and I wish to
foreshadow that to the house — which will propose that the bill be withdrawn
and redrafted to require the secretary to provide sufficient VET funding for the
continuation of existing campuses, in particular, the Lilydale and Prahran
campuses of Swinburne University of Technology. I am sure that Mr Leane will put
forward a very forthright argument about why this reasoned amendment should be
supported, because I know that what the government has put in place in relation
to the TAFE sector will have an absolutely devastating impact on his local
community. I urge members opposite to support Mr Leane’s amendment, which will
in effect spare campuses that have already been earmarked for closure as a
result of this government’s funding cuts.

Members in the other place failed to stand up for the
communities they were elected to represent, and I urge members in this house who
cover the same electorate as Mr Leane not to do the same thing. Swinburne
vice-chancellor Linda Kristjanson has stated that the decision to close its
Lilydale campus and sell the land was as a result of the government’s funding
cuts. I remind members opposite that once a campus is closed, it is gone for
good, leaving staff and students completely stranded.

I will now turn to the bill. I particularly want to turn to the
issue of VET funding contracts and contract law issues. New part 3 in the bill
aims to provide a new legal framework to govern Victoria’s billion-dollar annual
funding for vocational education and training. The bill will in effect transfer
the power of the Victorian Skills Commission to allocate training funding to
education providers directly to the Secretary of the Department of Education and
Early Childhood Development.

This formalises the abolition of the powers of the Victorian
Skills Commission and delivers those powers into the hands of the departmental
secretary. The bill also proposes a name change to the contracts students enter
into with education providers that provide government subsidised training.
Service agreements will now be referred to as VET funding contracts.

Sitting suspended 6.30 p.m. until 8.02 p.m.

Ms MIKAKOS — Before the dinner break I was speaking about
part 3 of the bill, which relates to vocational education and training funding
contracts. The bill inserts new division 1 into part 3 allowing VET funding
contracts to be enforceable despite the rules and principles of contract law.
The government’s rationale is that this will enable compliance with those
contracts to be better monitored and enforced by the department. I note that the
government has chosen to take this course of action rather than fund more
expenditure on compliance.

The bill also allows the VET funding contracts to include
monetary penalties if a training provider is found to be in breach of contract
or if standards are not met. However, it is not clear at exactly what level
these penalties will be set.

The bill allows a court to order a training provider to allow
students to complete their courses or sit any exams, particularly in a case
where monetary compensation may not be a sufficient remedy, and it allows
students to bring a claim against a training provider for a breach of contract.
On paper this looks to be a good thing. The opposition certainly supports the
cracking down on poor-quality training providers, but we have heard the
government’s rhetoric on this time and again and we want to see some action on
this matter. As I said, the government has chosen to put these provisions in
rather than pursue further compliance or monitor shonky training providers. I
will seek clarification from the minister on whether that will be pursued.

The government has not consulted with the sector or the broader
community on any of these provisions, and there is not much detail available as
to exactly how these provisions will operate in practice. The bill fails to
explain the most basic of questions, such as: what is the difference between the
new VET funding contracts and the existing service agreements? What is the
detail, type and severity of a contract breach that may result in a

monetary penalty for a training provider?
What is the monetary penalty to be? The bill is silent on all those matters, and
I will be seeking clarification from the minister in the committee stage.

There are other issues when it comes to training regulation and
compliance. At present the regulatory framework for vocational education and
training requires that all education providers must be registered with the
Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority or the Australian Skills
Quality Authority, but under this government there has been some confusion in
the sector as to who exactly is responsible for what. The changes proposed in
this bill will concentrate training regulation and compliance within the
department via the enforcement of contract law, and that confusion will remain.

Rather than improving quality provisions in service agreements
and strengthening compliance and audit capacity, the government has decided to
just bring it all in-house and worry about it later with no opportunity for
scrutiny, so we have some serious concerns about this part of the bill and its
autocratic nature.

In relation to the abolition of the Victorian Skills Commission
and the industry training advisory boards, earlier this year the Baillieu
government introduced legislation to strip the Victorian Skills Commission of
its last remaining regulatory functions and transfer its ability to remove
unsatisfactory TAFE directors directly into the minister’s hands. With this bill
it is now seeking to abolish the commission altogether along with Victoria’s 16
industry training advisory boards. Labor has always supported a regulatory
structure that provides for independent advice to government on education and
training policy; the Baillieu government supports the opposite. It wants to shut
down all avenues of independent advice.

I understand that the industry skills consultative committee,
which comprises the minister’s select industry leaders and has no input
whatsoever from the union, has not met and does not provide an adequate model
for consultation or independent advice.

In relation to the governance changes to TAFEs, the bill has a
number of very worrying aspects. We are all acutely aware that to date this
government has ripped $300 million from Victoria’s public TAFE institutions.
These cuts have been felt right across the state, with a proposed 2000 jobs or
more to be lost, and this is happening at a time when our state is facing an
acute skills shortage. We all know that not everyone can go or will want to go
to university; however, this government is making it harder for people to get
skills training and gain appropriate qualifications. We are seeing a multitude
of TAFE campus closures on the cards, course cancellations and fee increases.

We are seeing the systematic destruction of our TAFE sector and
the loss of opportunities for thousands of Victorian students, particularly in
regional communities where TAFE may be the only option for people who want to
take on further study or training.

Members opposite can sit idly by whilst the Premier and the
minister take the axe to our TAFEs, but the Victorian community is pushing back.
That is why this government is on the nose; it is because the Victorian people
are very alarmed by these cuts. They are also very concerned about the impact on
young people’s opportunities.

In the bill we are also seeing changes to governance structures
in TAFE at a time when the sector is reeling and in turmoil, so it is a very odd
time for these governance changes to be put in place.

Currently TAFE institute boards and adult education institutes’
governing bodies are bodies corporate, but the institutes themselves are not.
The bill provides for TAFE institutes and adult education institutions, such as
the Centre for Adult Education and the Adult Multicultural Education Service, to
become bodies corporate themselves. This will include a new statement of
objectives and functions for TAFEs and adult education institutions which will
emphasise their commercial objectives.

The membership of the board is also to change. TAFE board
directors currently include one staff member elected by staff, one student
member elected by students and the CEO. The bill provides for the constitution
of these boards to change so that a board must consist of not less than 9 and
not more than 15 directors, of whom one is to be appointed by the Governor in
Council as chair. The remaining directors are to be chosen by the minister,
including 50 per cent after considering the advice of the TAFE directors.

Directors will no longer be elected as representatives of
stakeholder groups, and the CEO will no longer be a director.

Opposition members are concerned that, as we saw with the
Victorian Skills Commission, these changes are proposing to remove governance
powers from other bodies and place them in the hands of the minister. These
changes are very concerning, given that, as I said, they are coming at a time of
great turmoil and concern in the TAFE sector. As I said earlier, there has also
been little consultation on these changes, which give the minister substantially
greater powers in the appointment of TAFE boards.

What does this really tell us? It is telling
us that this government wants to silence dissent and wants to stifle criticism
at a time when the sector is very alarmed about its future. It is giving the
minister complete control over board appointments and centralising a lot more
power in his hands. The bill is going to lead to the politicisation of board
appointments at a crucial time for TAFEs — at the beginning of next year. At
the beginning of next year TAFEs and training providers will be looking to
finalise their budgets for the year. They will have to make some very difficult
decisions about how they can run their institution, given the cuts to their
funding. They will have to make a whole new constitution. They will have to vote
on this constitution, pass it and go through an entire process of new board
appointments, and my understanding is that they will have to do all this by
March of next year. I think it is a very ambitious goal that the government has
set TAFE institutions in requiring them to go through all of these significant
reforms in such a short period of time.

The Labor opposition is deeply concerned about the effect these
changes will have, and that is why a future Labor government will invest in the
TAFE system to ensure that all Victorians have access to affordable education
and training.

Mr Ondarchie interjected earlier about what it is that that the
Leader of the Opposition will do. I can advise Mr Ondarchie that he can have a
look at the Leader of the Opposition’s website, from where he can download a
very good document entitled Victorian Labor’s Plan for Jobs and Growth. It is an
excellent document, and I take this opportunity to congratulate Daniel Andrews,
the shadow Treasurer, Tim Holding, and the shadow minister for higher education,
Steve Herbert, particularly for the inclusion in this significant document of a
very significant commitment to TAFE by the Labor opposition.

Of course we will have more to say about this in the future,
but we have made it very clear that the future growth of our economy depends
upon a skilled workforce that can meet the needs of industry. A government that
does not accept there is a problem is highly unlikely to develop a plan to fix
it, and that is exactly what is happening under this government. Labor will
ensure that all Victorians have the opportunity to acquire the skills they need
to secure employment.

We will get young people started again on the path to
employment. We will make sure that retrenched workers seeking retraining have
the ability to access courses, and we will do so by funding TAFEs as our first
budget priority, with additional funding coming from savings obtained from the
crackdown on unscrupulous training providers.

I think these are very significant announcements that have been
made by the Labor opposition two years out from the next state election. One
would be hard pressed to find a previous state opposition that has been prepared
to announce this level of policy detail. The number of initiatives contained in
this document is very impressive.

In terms of being prepared to support our TAFEs to meet the
training and retraining needs of the community opposition members stand in stark
contrast to this government, which has wreaked havoc on Victoria’s public TAFE
sector over the past two years. Not only are government members content to
destroy our TAFEs but they are now moving on to control our university councils
as well.

I move on to the provisions in the bill that relate to changes
to the governance of our universities. At the beginning of my contribution I
spoke about acts of Parliament that relate to our universities.

I will not go through all of them again, but I will point out
that those acts provide that university councils consist of between 14 and 21
members. Each must include at least 3 elected members who represent the staff
and the students of that university.

The Baillieu government is seeking to implement governance
changes to universities that will see those elected positions disappear. Members
of the government want to remove staff and students from our university
councils. To make matters worse, the bill provides that the number of
government-appointed members must be equal to or greater than the number of
council-appointed members. Not only does the government want to rid university
councils of elected representatives, but it also wants to hold the balance of
power. It wants to have the numbers on these university councils.

The Labor opposition is strongly opposed to these changes and
is very concerned about them. We do not support any attempts to diminish
legitimate democratic governance in this state. The democratic nature of
Victoria’s universities has been their key strength for many decades. Our
universities are deeply respected institutions, well known both here in
Australia and internationally.

There is a great deal of disquiet on our university campuses
about these proposed changes. I received an email from the president of the La
Trobe University student union council. La Trobe University is in my electorate, and it is a very significant university. In her email Clare Keyes-Liley expresses great concern about these proposed governance changes and the way they will negatively impact on students’
education and future. She sent me a copy of a motion that was passed unanimously
by the La Trobe student union, which reads:

LTSU condemns the Baillieu government in their total lack of understanding
in how a university operates. There is no evidence to suggest that these changes
will have a positive impact on university governance and the LTSU council
expresses extreme disappointment that LTU is allowing a government to impinge
upon its autonomy as an educational institution.

I note that whilst the vice-chancellor of La Trobe has
indicated his support for the bill, a number of people from La Trobe University
have put their names to an open letter that was published in the Age of 12
November 2012.

Over 225 of Victoria’s academic leaders signed this letter,
stating that the bill:

… is a fundamental threat to the autonomy of universities and will
destroy, overnight, the centuries-old constitutional tradition that protects
universities from direction by the state and interference from commercial and
sectional interests.

Mrs Peulich — Who is that from?

Ms MIKAKOS — This is from 225 leading academics in our
state, in an open letter published in the Age of 12 November. This is an open
letter that government members should give a great deal of thought to and should
be concerned about.

If leading academics in this state say that this bill threatens
their independence, then government members perhaps should pause and reflect on
these provisions. You would have thought they would also want to properly
consult with the sector, because I know that a number of university councils
have not yet had the opportunity to look at these provisions and form a view
about them.

Hon. P. R. Hall — The letter is wrong, Jenny.

Ms MIKAKOS — I look forward to the minister’s
clarification in the committee stage, but I think the letter is very concerning.
We have some fine universities in our state. I am a graduate of the University
of Melbourne, which is a university that I hold in great respect and esteem. It
is one of the leading universities in this country, and it is also a leading
university internationally.

The chancellor of the University of Melbourne, Elizabeth
Alexander, has also joined the call in expressing concern at the government’s
proposed changes.

In an opinion piece published on 14 November in the Age, Dr
Colin Long from the National Tertiary Education Union commented:

No institution that seriously lays claim to the title ‘university’ could
seek to exclude from its governing body those who represent the institution’s
essence.

Rightly so, given that the word ‘university’ derives from a
Latin expression meaning ‘a community of teachers and scholars’. Why you would
seek to exclude them is very puzzling. We are concerned about these proposed
changes.

In conclusion, members of the Labor opposition have very
serious concerns about this bill, and that is why we will be opposing it. We see
this bill as putting in place substantial changes to the regulatory framework
for education providers in receipt of government funding in Victoria. There is
no detail in the bill about how the new vocational education and training
funding contracts will work. There is no opportunity for scrutiny of the actual
terms of future contracts. There is no explanation of the types and severity of
breaches that will result in fines. There is no detail of the amount of monetary
penalties that will be applicable for contract breaches. There is also an
overarching attempt by the government to diminish legitimate democratic
governance, to remove effective governance relationships with staff and students
and to threaten the autonomy of our universities.

The government should consult on this bill. It is a complex
bill that includes a range of changes.

The government should consult with the relevant stakeholders
about each component of the bill and each of the changes that it introduces. We
have identified many unanswered questions in relation to how this bill will
work.

I will be proposing to take the bill into committee to try to
get some further information from the minister about some of the questions that
I have already posed and that my colleagues have posed in the Legislative
Assembly. We believe that the foundation of every state is the education of its
youth, but we feel that this bill does not deliver on that. It fails the youth
of Victoria and fails our education institutions, and for this reason it should
be opposed.

On Ted Baillieu’s watch thousands of Victorian workers have lost their jobs, businesses have closed-up shop and confidence has collapsed.  Instead of taking immediate action to
kickstart the local economy Ted Baillieu has been asleep for two years and any plans he has offered are decades away from making a real difference here and now.

In the absence of a policy from the Coalition, Victorian Labor has developed a plan in consultation with industry, business and community leaders to boost the Victorian economy and get it back on a sustainable footing.

Victoria Labor’s plan has been developed through extensive forums and consultations throughout Victoria. We have heard the same thing time and time again – when will the Coalition get serious about creating an environment for jobs and investment?

A future Victorian Labor Government will:

• Fund TAFEs and crack down on unscrupulous training providers;
• Establish Infrastructure Victoria to plan the State’s infrastructure
  priorities;
• Establish Projects Victoria to deliver critical major projects;
• Determine the viability of Bay West as the location for Victoria’s future
  container port;
• Protect WorkCover from government plunder;
• Establish robust regulatory burden reduction measures;
• Support Victorian businesses seeking to tap into the resources boom;
• Protect Melbourne Airport’s curfew-free status from inappropriate development;
• Support Victorian regional councils seeking to develop crucial
  infrastructure; and
• Ensure the Victorian Government’s procurement processes support local
  jobs and businesses.

Below is a link to the plan for Jobs and Growth – www.danielandrews.com.au/jobs-plan

The Foundation for Young Australians and the Safe Schools
Coalition Network are to be congratulated on organising this symposium to
promote schools that are safe environments for all students, free of homophobia
and transphobia. I hope the Baillieu government will take further steps to
encourage more Victorian schools to sign up as safe schools.

The ABC program 7:30 Vic first reported on 31 October 2012 that
this 16-year-old boy was spending 22 hours a day in solitary confinement and the
other 2 hours handcuffed in an exercise yard. There were reports about a youth
diversion round table on 19 September which was attended by the Minister for
Community Services, the Minister for Corrections, and the Attorney-General. It
took another month for anything to happen in relation to this individual.

Concerns about this case were raised by the child safety
commissioner, the Australian Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International,
Youthlaw and a number of legal groups. There were also reports of at least five
or six other young offenders being kept in maximum security at Port Phillip
Prison, although these figures have never been verified by the government.

The Minister for Community Services claimed in a media response
that she is not able to discuss individual cases. While I certainly agree that
she cannot identify individuals, I note that Professor George Hampel, a former
justice of the Supreme Court, believes there is no reason the minister cannot
disclose the number of young people who are currently being held in adult
prisons or how many are in solitary confinement. I cannot see why she cannot
disclose that quantum, particularly as these figures are published annually in
the Youth Parole Board and Youth Residential Board annual report.

We have figures for 2011-12 in the latest annual report, and I
believe the minister should be able to disclose figures from 1 July onwards.

The matter that I particularly want to raise tonight is to ask
the minister to explain why this practice is necessary in the first place and
why the security in juvenile facilities is not adequate. The 2010 review
conducted by Neil Comrie identified security, staffing and infrastructure issues
that needed to be addressed in juvenile justice and particularly the emerging
problem of high-risk, violent offenders who needed to be managed within the
juvenile justice system.

I specifically ask the Minister for Community Services to
explain why the practice of keeping youth offenders in adult prisons is
occurring — in particular why youth offenders are being kept in solitary
confinement — and why she has not taken any action to implement
the Neil Comrie recommendations, specifically in relation to what was identified
in his review as an emerging problem of high-risk violent offenders needing to
be managed within the juvenile justice system.

Most disappointingly the parents reported
that the minister ruled out taking any action to secure a public school for this
community in the short term.

Honourable members interjecting.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! This is somewhat out of control
on both sides. Members statements are an opportunity for members to make short
comments, and they should be made with minimal interjection because 90 seconds
is a limited time for a member to make a contribution. I seek the assistance of
members on this.

Ms MIKAKOS — Minister Dixon has ruled out purchasing
Acacia College and running it as a government school as well as keeping the
school going for a period until another party can step in.

The closure of Acacia College has exposed the fact that the
Baillieu government has sat on its hands for two years. Land purchased by the
previous Labor government could have been built on or construction could have
been under way by now. The government has not even drawn up plans for a school
despite the massive population growth. This is the fastest growing community in
Australia. The regional communities of Wangaratta, Swan Hill, Horsham, Sale and
Echuca each have smaller populations but each have their own secondary colleges,
as they rightly should.

It is no surprise that the Baillieu government is on the nose
in the polls given that it has nothing to show for two years in office. You do
not need a focus group to know it is time the Baillieu government provided
essential services to Victorians, including a public secondary school for the
Mernda-Doreen community.

Perhaps government members can use their focus groups to advise
them on what they need to do, but I can spare them the expense and tell them
that the Victorian people expect a health system that is efficient and timely.
They want a public health system they can rely on.

We have just seen an American presidential election where one
of the biggest issues being debated was the issue of Obamacare — that is, the
issue of what assistance the American people could rely on in terms of health
care. When you look at the results in the US it is pretty clear that the people
in the United States recognised that a public health system is important. That
is why President Obama was re-elected. If this government has any sense, it will
look at rectifying the failures in the health system and giving it the
importance it deserves.

The government can have as many focus groups as it likes, but
it is very clear that what the Victorian people are saying, and what my
constituents quite regularly say to me when they call my office about problems
with the local hospitals, is that they are not impressed with the performance of
this government in terms of health care to date and that this government needs
to lift its game. This government is continually looking at blaming everyone but
itself. It can blame the previous government, it can blame the federal
government and it can even blame the carbon tax. It seeks to blame everyone and
everything, but all it needs to do is look at the mirror and accept
responsibility. It has been in office now for two years. It promised a great
deal during the election, and it has failed to deliver. That is why people are
saying that this is in fact a failed government — a fail-you government.

This year’s state budget showed that growth funding for
hospitals has been slashed by almost half of what was delivered in last year’s
budget.

It is the worst possible news for our health system and
hospitals and even worse news for families waiting for health care in Victoria.
Up to $134.1 million has been cut from the Department of Health this year in
addition to the $482 million cut in last year’s budget, so we have seen $600
million cut from the health budget in the two years since this government took
office. We have a growing population in Victoria that is putting on increasing
demand for health services, yet the Baillieu government is choosing to ignore
that additional demand and is looking at cutting funding instead.

In 2010 under Labor 80 per cent of people who needed an
elective surgery received that surgery. Under this government it has dropped by
5 percentage points, meaning that one in four people are now missing out on
their elective surgeries. Elective surgery waiting lists show us how Victoria’s
hospitals are performing, and these massive funding cuts have caused elective
surgery performance to fall to levels not seen for nearly a decade.

Hospital data shows that there are currently 46 131 people on
the elective surgery waiting list across Victoria. In the last 12 months alone
there has also been a jump of 789 in the number of children waiting for surgery.
It took Jeff Kennett 10 years to add 10 000 people to the waiting list, but in
just two years since taking office the Baillieu government has managed to add more than 7000. These are not just numbers; these are real people, including children and those with
life-threatening conditions, who are being forced to wait longer for the vital
surgery they need, and this government is doing nothing to stop these numbers
ballooning even further.

I remember that before the election the Baillieu government
promised to provide 800 new beds to Victoria’s public hospitals, 100 of those by
June this year, to cut surgery waiting lists. This was promised to be the
Baillieu government’s solution to cut surgery waiting lists, yet the hospital
annual reports we have seen tabled in the last few weeks do not indicate that
any new beds have been created — not a single one. Whilst the Baillieu
government promised Victorians more beds and a better performing health system,
all Victoria’s health system has received to date is over $600 million in lost
funding. More and more people are being forced to wait for surgery, and more and
more will be forced to wait for surgery in the future.

It is time that Premier Baillieu and the Minister for Health
acknowledged that Victoria’s health system is chronically underfunded.

If that is not proof enough, 56 of the 81 health services that
tabled annual reports in recent weeks ran up a deficit. Many health services’
reports detail the need for urgent future planning to cater for increasing
demand for health services. I particularly want to draw to the minister’s
attention the plight of Northern Hospital, in the northern corridor of my
electorate. According to its recent annual report, Northern Health is covering
close to 728 000 people in its catchment, and this population is expected to
grow by 64 per cent — an additional 128 569 people — in the next 20 years. The
report noted that 42 per cent of patients who presented to the emergency
department needing to be admitted to hospital and needing a bed had to wait
longer than 8 hours, with 34 patients having waited for more than 24 hours in
the emergency department.

I can tell you that I receive calls regularly from people who
use Northern Hospital. They tell me about the difficulties they have been
experiencing in recent times. I particularly think that the Liberal members for
Northern Metropolitan Region need to be aware of exactly what problems our
constituents are facing at the moment as a result of their government’s
inaction. One constituent came in to see me recently. They had received a letter
from Northern Hospital telling them that due to significant staffing issues with
the eye service, their scheduled appointment had been cancelled and that the
service would be shut until further notice. The constituent had been given no
time frame as to when it would be reopened and was told to return to their GP to
discuss so-called other options. I wonder what those other options were that the
hospital was referring to. Essentially the hospital was saying, ‘Go private’. It
does not matter if you are a pensioner. It does not matter if you are a
struggling family unable to pay a private specialist.

It is interesting how the Minister for Health has turned his
back to the chamber, and all of a sudden he is not interested. I might be
raising these matters in adjournment debates and in other ways in the future. I
am going to make sure that the minister is very much aware of the problems the
Northern Hospital, the Austin Hospital and other local hospitals are
experiencing at the moment. The fact is that a number of patients turning up to
the Northern Hospital are getting letters from the outpatient department
encouraging them to go back to their family doctors to discuss their issues and
explore other options.

I want to know how the minister feels about hospitals sending
out letters to patients encouraging them to explore other options. I have a
letter here from the Northern Hospital dated 13 August and addressed to one of
my constituents. I quote from the relevant part of the letter:

We are currently experiencing an extremely large demand on this service –

that is, the ear, nose and throat clinic at Northern Hospital
–

which can result in long delays of over a year. We endeavour to prioritise
patients to ensure those most in need of attention are seen first, however this
can mean long delays for others.

It may be worthwhile visiting your family doctor (GP) to discuss this issue,
as they might be able to refer you to another service with shorter waiting
times.

The letter tells my constituent to go back to their GP, explore
other options, go private, because they are going to be waiting who knows how
long for an appointment with the clinic.

I refer to another letter from Northern Hospital to my
constituent about the cancellation of an eye appointment. It says:

Northern Health is currently experiencing significant staffing issues within
the eye service. Unfortunately this means that we must cancel your previously
scheduled appointment. Please find the cancellation notice attached.

…

Unfortunately, at this time, Northern Health is unable to provide a time
frame for when the service will be fully staffed. We therefore suggest that you
return to your GP to discuss options for care.

That is not good enough. Many of my
constituents have been receiving such letters. I can assure the minister that
this is just the tip of the iceberg. I will be raising many of those issues
here.

This seems to be a recent phenomenon. Many of my constituents
have been getting letters from Northern Hospital in recent months saying they
should go back to their GP and explore other options. I wonder why the hospital
is doing that all of a sudden. My constituents are being encouraged to explore
other options — meaning ‘go private’ — because the hospital is underfunded as
the minister has cut its funding. The hospital is unable to cope with demand and
is trying to reduce its waiting lists by encouraging people to drop off the
lists. That is what is happening. We will see more and more of this until the
minister looks in the mirror and accepts his responsibility for the situation
that Northern Hospital and many other hospitals in the state are experiencing.

It is unfair that patients are missing out on appropriate,
timely health care because the government is slashing funding from hospitals —
for example, of patients presenting to an emergency department who needed to be
admitted to hospital and were in need of a bed, 22 per cent of patients at the
Royal Children’s Hospital, 26 per cent at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, 28 per
cent at the Austin Hospital and 31 per cent at St Vincent’s Hospital waited
longer than 8 hours — in fact some patients had to wait for more than 24 hours.

The Victorian health services performance report details that
more than 7000 additional Victorians are waiting for elective surgery than when
the Baillieu government took office. They now have to languish on these waiting
lists. The emergency waiting times are also very concerning, particularly in
growth corridors like that in the outer northern suburbs. The previous
government had a proposal to develop an academic and research precinct at
Northern Hospital because of the difficulties that hospital faced in retaining
doctors.

The Baillieu government failed to commit to that proposal.

Hon. D. M. Davis interjected.

Ms MIKAKOS — We had a clear commitment, minister. We had
put in the initial stages of the funding and we had a commitment from the
federal government. All it required was a tiny amount of money. Minister Davis
failed to deliver to the people of the northern suburbs, who are getting used to
being ignored by the government.

As the minister is in the house, I remind him that I have not
received a response to my adjournment matter about the cuts to interpreting
services at Northern Hospital, which are impacting — –

Mr Ondarchie — My dad once told me that empty vessels make the
most noise.

My point of order, Acting President, is that Ms MIKAKOS is referring
to an adjournment matter and seeking a response to it, which is not the core of
what she is talking about here. I ask you to bring her back to the motion.

Ms MIKAKOS — On the point of order, Acting President, I
am talking about cuts to interpreting services at Northern Hospital. The motion
is about our health system. The fact that the minister has not responded is an
indictment of him.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Elasmar) — Order! There is no point
of order. Before Ms MIKAKOS continues, I advise Mr David Davis that if he
wants to interject, he should do so from his seat.

Ms MIKAKOS — It is interesting that there has been
deafening silence from the two government members for Northern Metropolitan
Region in terms of advocacy for the northern suburbs, more funding for Northern
Hospital, Austin Hospital and all other hospitals that have been experiencing
these problems. Mr Ondarchie sought to interrupt my contribution on cuts to
interpreting services at Northern Hospital. Mr Ondarchie needs to reflect on
that before he takes silly points of order about matters in his electorate.

I come back to the issue of cuts to interpreting services
because I feel very strongly about that issue. I have spoken to many members of
local ethnic communities in the catchment area for Northern Hospital who are
very concerned about these cuts. This cut will impact on a staggering 7000
appointments over the next year, equating to 16 per cent of total requests for
interpreting appointments in 2011. It is mainly elderly migrants and refugees
who will be affected by this cut because they are the ones who rely on these
interpreters.

This cost-saving measure is going to — I was about use an
unparliamentary expression but I caught myself in time — prove to be extremely
short sighted, because when these constituents do not fully understand the
instructions and advice given to them by their doctors, mistakes will be made
and the health care of people will be impacted upon. That will cost the health
system more money in the long term. It is short sighted of this government to be
forcing cuts to hospital funding that necessitate that level of measures by
Northern Hospital, and it will have a real impact on my constituents.

I am also very concerned about recent reports that the new $1
billion Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre will have a floor dedicated to private
patients under this government’s secret plan. I am concerned that, again, people
are being told that unless they have private health cover their needs are
secondary. It is inconceivable that this government would want to privatise
cancer treatment for those who can afford it.

I understand that my time is limited today, but in the future I
will have a lot more to say about the problems in our local hospitals. In
conclusion, our health system is buckling under the pressure of the cuts imposed
by the Baillieu government. Waiting lists are set to grow to in excess of 50 000
under this government’s funding arrangements and its cuts to funding. It is now
or never for the Baillieu government to try to stem the damage caused by its
cuts over the past two years. It does not need to conduct a focus group; it is
pretty clear from the calls that I am getting, and I am sure members of the
government are also getting, that there are problems in our health system, and
it is time the government acted to fix them.

Many of these arrivals are well-educated, well-motivated and
well-intentioned young people who I believe will be able to make an excellent
contribution to Australia in the long term.

I am anecdotally aware of many Greek-Australian families who
report that a relative has recently arrived in Victoria or is expressing an
interest in coming to Victoria. The concern I have is that these arrivals are
putting a great deal of financial strain on the longstanding and ageing members
of the Greek community in Victoria, many of whom are now pensioners and
unfamiliar with how to advise on settlement issues, which they themselves faced
40 or 50 years earlier.

These arrivals are also putting a great deal
of strain on the financial resources of our Greek community organisations. For
example, the Australian Greek Welfare Society, which is a highly regarded
organisation, plays an important role in supporting Victoria’s ageing Greek
community in education, health, welfare and child-care and language services,
but it has recently been using its own internal resources and fundraising
efforts to fund social workers to assist these recent arrivals on settlement
issues such as housing, employment and legal matters. I commend the welfare
society on establishing a volunteer migration agent service in April this year
to specifically provide information about immigration to these arrivals and
members of the broader Greek community seeking information about migration
issues.

I point out that I have also written to the federal Minister
for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen, seeking support from the federal
government in these matters.

I am asking the state Minister for Multicultural Affairs and
Citizenship to provide financial support to the Australian Greek Welfare Society
to help fund settlement services for recently arrived Greek nationals and to
work with similar organisations that might also be well placed to provide
similar support around these issues.

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development) — I
absolutely welcome the shadow minister’s question because it gives me a chance
to talk about the more than $40 million that we allocated last week to
kindergartens and preschools in Victoria. The children’s capital fund finances
upgrades to existing kindergartens, new integrated children’s centres and new
kindergartens. It is a fund that we continue to top up.

Over our two years in government we have allocated to that fund
around $64 million of national partnership funding. That is funding that I have
prioritised from the national partnership for infrastructure in Victoria.

We have also allocated money from the state budget. We have
allocated prioritised money from within our internal early childhood education
budget, and that fund is not empty yet. We have allocated more than $80 million
– in fact around $85 million — for grants to kindergartens and children’s
centres in the last two years, and that fund is not empty yet; there is more
money to come for children’s services. Last week’s announcement was great news
for Victorian kindergartens: 92 services received funding. This will fund 9 new
integrated children’s services in Victoria and 20 brand-new kindergartens, and
63 kindergartens will receive upgrades or renovations from this funding.

I know Ms Mikakos does not want us to give kindergartens more
funding.

She tweeted that earlier this year. She tweeted that the
Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development had given kindergartens
enough money. She said we should stop giving them money. But, no, we are
prepared to continue funding kindergartens in Victoria because we know the value
of early childhood education.

Supplementary question

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — The Gillard federal Labor government has
provided $210 million towards Victorian preschools and kindergartens, including
$168.6 million during the minister’s term in office, and it announced last week
an estimated $266 million over the next three years. Given that the state
government has put zero dollars towards kindergarten capital infrastructure in
this year’s state budget, when will it provide meaningful investment in
Victoria’s kindergarten infrastructure?

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development) — I
note that the shadow minister gets it wrong yet again. She said we have
allocated zero dollars this year for children’s infrastructure. We have
prioritised money from within our early childhood budget in this year’s budget
for infrastructure. I told the member that we had allocated more than $85
million in grants. Our fund is not empty. Of that, $64 million was money from
the national partnership that I prioritised for infrastructure.

Ms Mikakos — So why don’t you admit that most of the money is
coming from Canberra?

Hon. W. A. LOVELL — Let us talk about Canberra. Let us talk
about the $266 million that those opposite talk about.

The federal government’s budget clearly shows that the forward
estimates should have been $460 million a year for the national partnership, but
it has actually cut $280 million out of that by saying that it will only allocate $1.1 billion —
$280 million has been cut.

This is particularly welcome funding, given that the Baillieu
government has failed to invest a single dollar in this year’s state budget to
upgrade our existing kindergartens or build new kindergartens to meet demand.

In the media release of the Minister for Children and Early
Childhood Development last week announcing $40 million in capital grants
Minister Lovell claimed that the funds were a ‘combination of state and national
partnership funding’. What she failed to say was that the overwhelming majority
of this funding was coming from the federal Gillard government, with the
Baillieu government providing only $4.4 million of internal departmental
funding. In the state budget there is no line item for this matter, and it is no wonder that Minister Lovell failed to provide the breakdown in question time today.

Coalition MPs have also been caught out claiming credit for
federal government funding. This has forced federal minister Peter Garrett to
step in to correct the record. Minister Lovell needs to understand that just
about anyone can hand out money, but only those who truly care make their own
investment. As Indira Gandhi once said, there are two kinds of people: those who
do the work and those who take credit. Coalition members are clearly content to
be in the latter category.

For decades in Australia young unmarried mothers were routinely
and often cruelly coerced into giving up their babies for adoption. They were
told they were doing the right thing and that they should forget, and so they
were denied the right to care for the children they had borne.

In some circumstances mothers were coerced or compelled to sign
paperwork that took their children away from them.

What happened to these mothers and fathers and their sons and
daughters was part of the systematic breaches of the legislation at that time.
It was facilitated by social policy, religious authorities and the unspoken but
understood public mores of society. It was the nation’s shameful secret, and it
was wrong. Our history has brought us to where we are today. I am very pleased
to participate in this apology motion, but I believe it is long overdue.

Past practices led to a number of babies being removed from their mother’s care and placed in institutional care, and those practices cannot and should not be forgotten. It is important that this injustice is acknowledged and that we apologise on behalf of the people of Victoria and past governments. Some of these practices occurred in the most cold
and inhumane ways, and we must ensure that they never happen again.

Over the years as a member of Parliament I have had the
opportunity to meet and speak with many women who were forced to give up their
babies, and it is clear to me that whilst these adoptions may have occurred a
long time ago — in fact decades — the effects of relinquishment are long
lasting; in fact they last a lifetime, even where contact may eventually be
established with lost sons, daughters, mothers or fathers.

By way of background, on 29 February this year the Senate
Community Affairs References Committee tabled a report titled Commonwealth
Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices. This report made
a number of recommendations, one of which was that state and territory
governments and non-government institutions that administered adoptions should
issue formal statements of apology that acknowledged practices that were illegal
or unethical, as well as other practices that contributed to the harm suffered
by many parents whose children were forcibly removed and by the children who
were separated from their parents.

Whilst it is difficult to place an exact number on the many
thousands of Victorian children who were relinquished by their mothers through
forcible adoption, one of the most widely cited records comes from a 1984 paper
by Kate Inglis, referred to on page 6 of the Senate report, which claims that in
Australia:

… more than 250 000 women have relinquished a baby for adoption since the
late 1920s.

There is a need to publicly acknowledge the pain and anguish
associated with the loss experienced by these women and their children as they
were made to feel guilt and shame due to the social mores of society at the time
and who experienced a very negative effect on their emotional, psychological and
physical health.

On page 203 of the Senate report The Benevolent Society is
quoted as stating:

The apology should recognise that vulnerable mothers were not given the care
and respect that they needed during this difficult period of their lives.

Due to the secrecy surrounding adoption in the past, birth mothers were
frequently forced to internalise their loss and grief, typically being told to
‘get over it and get on with their lives’.

It went on to state:

Many of the women we now see in counselling report that they were coerced
into signing adoption consents or believe that no consent was taken. Many were
told they could only see their babies once consent was given. We have also heard
reports that mothers were not allowed to leave hospital until they signed the
consent forms.

These are quite extraordinary practices that I am sure none of
us would imagine would happen today, yet these practices were happening up until
relatively recently, in the 1970s.

I am pleased that other state governments have also issued
apologies. On 19 October 2010 the Western Australian government gave an apology.
On 18 July this year the South Australian government delivered its apology. On
27 October 2010 the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly gave an
apology. I am pleased that currently the federal government has a reference
group in place to develop the nature and timing of a national apology.

I wish to also acknowledge that a number of organisations have
issued apologies, and I think that is a very positive step. The Sisters of
Mercy, the Catholic Church, the Uniting Church and Melbourne’s Royal Women’s
Hospital have offered apologies for their involvement in former adoption
practices.

I wish to thank members of a number of advocacy organisations
that have lobbied members of Parliament for many years around these issues, in
particular the Association of Relinquishing Mothers Arms, which as I understand
has now merged with Vanish. I also wish to thank Vanish, and in particular Mr
Leigh Hubbard for his strident advocacy on these issues. These organisations
have made very apparent to parliamentarians and to me the great pain, anguish
and suffering of the mothers, fathers and children affected by these past
practices, and I thank them for that advocacy, particularly on occasions when
they retold their personal stories. I know that was particularly distressing for
them.

Listening to their personal stories gave me a deeper insight
into the pain and anguish they experienced and continue to experience as a
result of having relinquished a child in the past. I know the children also
experienced a great deal of anguish and suffering.

Like Mrs Coote, I was over at the Windsor ballroom during the
apology proceeding in the Legislative Assembly last sitting week. It was a very
moving experience, as we were surrounded by people
who have suffered as a result of these practices. We heard a great deal of
sobbing; it was a very emotional experience for many.

Afterwards I had the opportunity to meet and have a
conversation with an extraordinary woman, Elizabeth, who told me her story. I
was particularly moved by her telling me that she was 43 years of age, which is
my current age, when she first received a letter in the mail and discovered for
the first time that she was adopted. This was obviously a hugely life-changing
event for her. I asked her if she would write her story down for me. In the
speeches that have been made we have heard a lot of very anguished stories about
the suffering people have experienced, but I thought I would offer to the
Parliament one person’s story. It is not the only story of course; every
person’s circumstances were different. Some children were told at a very young
age, and others were told at different stages of their lives, that they had been
adopted.

I wish to share with you Elizabeth’s story by quoting from a
document she has given me. It states:

My name is Elizabeth and I was born in 1947 in Elsternwick, Victoria.

My mother and father were not married and my mother’s family, under no
circumstances, would let her keep me after I was born … When my mother began
to show her pregnancy, she moved to stay in an outer Melbourne area until I was
due so she would not cause embarrassment to her family (what would the
neighbours think!).

After I was born, my mother was never allowed to see or hold me. My father
on several occasions, tried to take me to her but was always thwarted by the
nursing staff.

My mother was forced to sign a blank piece of paper which was later used as
an agreement of adoption and to deny her any access to me or search for me, in
the future.

My parents married two months after my birth and returned to the hospital to
get me but I had already been adopted out to a family who had a three-year-old
son (also adopted).

I cannot imagine their heartache — the pain they must have endured for many
years is inconceivable.

They never gave up hope of finding me and thankfully information regarding
adoption practices and adoptees was introduced into Parliament (I think in
1986).

They had registered with non-government agencies in their search for me
without success for over 40 years but with this governmental change, their
search would finally end.

My adoptive parents had never wanted my brother and I to know of our
adoption (for their own reasons) and thus it came as an overwhelming surprise,
shock and life-changing moment, to receive a letter from the department of
community services, stating that my natural parents were looking for me!

I had a very happy childhood, was much loved and well cared for by my
adoptive parents, and I am thankful that they had both passed away when I
received this news as it would have been extremely difficult for them.

I was given brief information about my natural parents and left with the
decision as to whether I wanted to make contact with them.

This was an agonising time for me but after two months I decided I had to
make contact and wrote to two people who had given me life but whom I had never
known.

We arranged to meet; they travelled from interstate and it was the first
time my mother had seen me. My father held me for minutes and wept. They were
both in their 60s and 42 years had passed.

On looking back, I think it took me around 10 years to reconcile what had
occurred in my life — living for 42 years with one name and family, then
learning of a new family with a brother and sister. There are still times when I
get overwhelmed by the whole thing.

It was a positive and happy reunion — my family and friends were and still
are wonderful and today I still am in contact with my mother and sister.

My father and brother have passed away. My parents gained not only their
daughter but grandchildren as well. We communicated almost every week either by
phone or mail and my father made several tapes of general happenings in their
lives, which I still have and play. It brings them closer to me.

I will always be very thankful to my adoptive parents for the life and love
they gave me, but always lurking in the back of my mind is ‘What if?’.

I know of several people who were also adopted but not all had a happy
outcome such as mine, or were denied access to their mothers and fathers for
various reasons. It is a shameful period of our history, but as the apology
stated, it will never happen again.

I trust that those adoptees and their mothers who have suffered so much pain
and anguish will gain some solace from the apology, for which I thank the
Victorian government. I attended the proceedings and whilst there were many
tears (mine included), I felt that it would have helped many who were there. It
was wonderful to see members of Parliament from both sides of politics, standing
together in the Windsor ballroom to acknowledge the apology.

I was also very pleased to hear that there will be further help available
for those involved in a variety of resources.

That is Elizabeth’s story, and I thank her sincerely for
sharing it with us — I hope she is watching this.

In conclusion, I also welcome the measures the Minister for
Community Services, Ms Wooldridge, announced last week.

The mothers I have spoken to over the years have made it very
clear there is a need for continued counselling, so I certainly welcome that
announcement. I also look forward to the legislative changes that the government
has flagged in relation to the Adoption Act 1984.

There is no United Nations convention that states one has a
right to a child, only one that states the rights of a child — rights which to
a large degree were not observed or respected for many years in
Australia under these past adoptive practices. It is hard for many of these
mothers and fathers to forget the pain of having their babies taken away: they
will never forget that pain. In the words of one such mother, as quoted on page
29 of the Senate report:

A mother whose child has been stolen does not only remember in her mind, she
remembers with every fibre of her being.

Some people have been waiting a very long time for this
apology, others a lifetime. I am very sad that some are no longer with us to
hear this apology.

Whilst these issues are not easily addressed, I believe this
apology is an important step, and I wholeheartedly support this motion and this
apology.

Last year the Baillieu Government cut the Mentoring and Capacity Building Initiative which was a dedicated stream of funding for youth mentoring programs across the state that was initiated by the previous Labor Government.  It also cut funding to the Victorian Youth Mentoring Alliance, which has now merged with YACVic in order to keep its organisation going.

These are not the actions of a government that supports youth.

Last week, it was reported that a 16 year old was kept in solitary confinement for
four months inside an adult prison.

Ms Mikakos said that a youth worker had reported at least five 16 or 17 year olds
being held in maximum security inside adult facilities.

 “The Baillieu Government has refused to disclose how many juveniles are currently
held inside adult prisons,” Ms Mikakos said

 “The Government must explain why this practice is necessary and why the security in
juvenile facilities is not adequate.”

Ms Mikakos said a review undertaken by Neil Comrie in 2010 identified the
security, staffing and infrastructure issues that needed to be addressed in
juvenile justice, including what was then an emerging problem of high risk
violent offenders who needed to be managed within the juvenile justice system.

“Youth offenders are being locked up in solitary confinement in adult prisons because
the Baillieu Government has not done anything in two years to address how to
manage high risk violent youth offenders,” Ms Mikakos said.

Ms Hennessy said that it was time the Baillieu Government took responsibility.

“It is time the Baillieu Government showed some leadership and stopped the buck
passing,” Ms Hennessy said.

“Ministers Wooldridge, McIntosh and Clark have gone into hiding and it’s time that one of them took responsibility.

“The Victorian prison system is already overcrowded with protection and isolation
units already under enormous pressure to accommodate adult prisoners.”

I have visited many youth mentoring programs across Victoria
and have seen and heard firsthand what it means for a young person to have a
mentor in their life. It is a close bond of friendship and trust that often goes
on to become a lifelong relationship. It has proven successful in linking
disengaged young people to jobs, education, recreation and community activities.

Last year the Baillieu government cut the Mentoring and
Capacity Building Initiative which was a dedicated stream of funding for young
mentoring programs across the state that was initiated by the previous Labor
government. It also cut funding to the Victorian Youth Mentoring Alliance
forcing it to merge with the Youth Affair Council of Victoria in order to keep
its organisation going. These are not the actions of a government that supports
youth mentoring.

Congratulations to all the award recipients and to Peter
Rutley, the Plenty Valley region commissioner for Scouts Australia and all
volunteers on their ongoing commitment to supporting our young people.

When it comes to governing in the interests of all Victorians
there are many challenges a government faces, and perhaps some of the most
difficult of these are those that deal with community safety. On a number of
occasions in the past we have had cause to debate legislation relating to sex
offender crimes.

These are particularly abhorrent and heinous crimes, and ones
that we know through evidence are much more likely to be repeated by the sex
offender. These are the issues this bill relates to.

The bill is short in length and mostly technical in nature. It
seeks to make a number of technical amendments to the Serious Sex Offenders
(Detention and Supervision) Act 2009, which was an initiative of the previous
Labor government.

Legally a serious sex offender is defined as someone who has
committed a sexual offence involving a child or a sexual offence involving
violence.

Under the current system when a serious sex offender who has
been incarcerated comes up for parole, the Director of Public Prosecutions or
the Secretary of the Department of Justice, depending on the type of order being
sought, can make an application to the court on the basis that they believe
there is probative and persuasive evidence that a serious sex offender is high
likely or reasonably likely to reoffend.

This is not a decision that is made lightly. We must remember
that we are dealing with sex offenders who have already served their sentences
and are up for release. Balanced against their right to be released is the right
of the community to be safe. This is particularly the case where children may be
involved. The principal act extended supervision orders for sex offenders in
Victoria under the Serious Sex Offenders Monitoring Act 2005, the main purpose
of which was to enhance the protection of the community.

Where there is evidence that a serious sex offender presents an
unacceptable risk of harm to the community, particularly to children, they may
be subject to ongoing detention and supervision. I still believe that this is an
appropriate approach.

Having regard to the minister’s second-reading speech, it
appears this bill is the Baillieu government’s response to the Cummins report,
the Report of the Protecting Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Inquiry, which was
delivered in February this year; that is what the second-reading speech claims.
The Cummins report makes a series of recommendations — 90 in total — which
largely deal with the reporting and investigation of suspected abuse and early
intervention for at-risk children. The recommendations related to the child
protection system as a whole.

Recommendation 50 in the report calls for the repeal of
sections 182-86 of the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act
2009 to remove the court’s power to make suppression orders. This was not a
recommendation unanimously supported by the panel, and, although it was the
majority view, this bill will not repeal these sections. In fact, the bill does
not implement recommendation 50 of the Cummins report, despite the minister’s
claim that it does so.

The bill does not change fundamentally the powers of the act,
only certain criteria within it. The coalition has claimed that this bill will
‘name and shame’ sex offenders, but it is unlikely that that will be its effect.
The most significant issue in this bill relates to the matters to which a court
must have regard when considering the making of an order in relation to the
publication or non-publication of the name, details and location, amongst other
things, of a serious sex offender.

I make the point that there are few crimes that elicit a more
emotive response than sexual offences, and understandably so. These offences
violate relationships of trust between perpetrator and victim, and almost always
cause significant psychological trauma to the victim. In many cases that trauma
is experienced for many decades to come. In fact it could be lifelong trauma
that the person experiences. The effects of such crime will be felt by the
victim and their families for a long time after the offence has been committed.

In many of these cases the victim is known to the offender.
Offenders are not always adults, but they are predominantly so, and it is quite
alarming and shocking to think that these offenders are adults with whom the
child or victim has a trusting relationship. It might be someone in their
immediate or extended family. It might be friends or neighbours. That is
atrocious.

The concern I have is that the victims themselves may not want
the details of the offender published when those details would invariably
identify the victim as well. We cannot make the simple assumption that if we
identify the name and location of the serious sex offender, the victim will feel
or be any safer, because in some circumstances doing so may well identify the
victim.

Under section 183 of the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and
Supervision) Act 2009 it is an offence to publish without court approval
information about any evidence given, witnesses heard or reports submitted in a
proceeding, or any information that could identify a victim. A member of the
police force may disclose the identity and location of an offender to CrimTrac
and the child offender register, or in the course of law enforcement.

The media may publish the identity and location at the request
of the police. Under section 185 a court may order the suppression or
publication of the identity and/or location of an offender if satisfied that it
is in the public interest. The bill does not seek to amend these provisions. The
bill seeks to replace part of the existing criteria relating to non-publication
orders — set out in section 185(c) — which deals with whether or not the
publication of details would endanger the safety of any person or the interests
of the victims or enhance or compromise the purposes of the act.

Clause 13 of the bill proposes to replace the ‘enhance or
compromise’ consideration and instead specify consideration of ‘the protection
of children, families and communities’. The opposition does not oppose this
specific amendment; in fact it supports it. It is effectively in keeping with
the aim and objective of the principal act, which is to protect the interests of
victims, families and specifically children. At the briefing we received from
the department — and I am grateful for that briefing, as I was in attendance —
it was indicated that this amendment is the centrepiece of the bill. However, I
will be interested to hear from government members how they believe this change
to section 185(c) will lead to different judicial outcomes than the current
catch-all consideration. We also support the amendment in the bill to allow a
court to view the relevant non-publication order when reviewing a supervision
order. We consider this to be appropriate. We also think it is appropriate that
offenders are not granted indefinite anonymity whilst serving their orders,
because circumstances can of course change.

Clause 11 of the bill proposes to insert a definition of the
word ‘publish’ into the principal act. To the extent that the opposition may
have concerns about this bill, those concerns relate to this area. The amendment
is, as I understand it, an attempt by the government to eliminate some
uncertainty that exists around the definition of a media organisation in the
current act. A media organisation is currently defined as a person or body that
engages in journalism. This bill says the word ‘publish’ means inserting into a
newspaper or periodical; disseminating by broadcast or telecast; or
disseminating by other means. The department indicated in the briefing that this
latter class of disseminating by other means is intended to capture things such
as blogging and internet activism. Given the extent to which technology has
developed over the last few years, the opposition understands there is a need to
address this definition. Our concern lies in the way in which this definition
has been drafted.

We are concerned that it is so broadly drafted that it may in
fact capture private communications between individuals and lead to further
unintended consequences. These are concerns that I hope government members and
the minister will address during their contributions.

Under the principal act, the secretary of the department may
notify the registrar of births, deaths and marriages of the name and particulars
of an offender to help identify any offenders who seek a name change without obtaining
prior approval. Clause 9 of the bill seeks to substitute ‘may’ with ‘must’. The
department indicated that to date it is not aware of any offender who has
attempted to change their name without approval and, according to the
department, the secretary has always notified the registrar. Effectively this is
a technical amendment that is merely updating the principal act to reflect the
current practice.

Clause 14 of the bill relates to the sharing of information and
adds the Corrections Act 1986 to the list. The list allows suppressed
information to be shared, when necessary, to carry out the functions of the acts
listed. Currently 12 acts are listed, including the Housing Act 1993 and the
Migration Act 1958. This amendment will allow corrections and custodial
officials to be informed about the names and particulars of offenders under
supervision or detention who have, for example, returned to prison on unrelated
charges.

This is a sensible amendment in that it aims to encourage the
sharing of information between the relevant authorities.

In relation to the expiry of orders, there is currently a
14-day notice period for bringing proceedings that can be dispensed with by the
secretary, the registrar or a member of Victoria Police. However, it is not
clear if that individual must personally bring the proceedings. This amendment
clarifies the intent of this provision for administrative purposes so that the
individual dispensing with the notice period does not need to be the informant
present when proceedings commence.

Lastly, clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the bill allow for the expiry of
supervision, detention and interim orders under certain circumstances. This may
be the case where the offender dies or is deported under the commonwealth
Migration Act 1958.

I understand from the briefing that since 2005 three offenders
serving supervision orders have died and two have been deported. Given these low
figures, the argument put forward in the explanatory memorandum that this
amendment will reduce court workloads is perhaps an exaggeration, but
nonetheless we think it is a sensible amendment to the principal act.

By way of conclusion, I say that this bill deals with the
incredibly difficult issue of how we manage serious sex offenders who are no
longer incarcerated. Under Labor, Victoria was the first state to adopt a regime
for the detention and supervision of offenders, and inevitably with legislation
that is the first of its kind there will need to be further amendments and
updates as we think they are warranted once we have had the benefit of seeing
the legislation operating in practice. We grappled with what were difficult
issues, and we see that the government is now grappling with similar issues.

The safety of children, victims and the community motivated
Labor’s adoption of the principal act, and we are again motivated by those
factors in supporting these amendments.

I said at the outset that the description of this as a
name-and-shame bill is not in fact accurate. We think that is a misnomer, given
the fact that the bill does not implement the recommendation of the Cummins
report in relation to this issue, but we do support the bill.

The biggest risk factor for breast cancer is being a woman over 50 years of age.  75% of women diagnosed with cancer are aged over 50.  This is the reason why BreastScreen Victorian encourages women aged 50-69 who do not have breast symptoms or changes to have a FREE screening mammogram every 2 years.  Regular screening mammograms are
the best way to find breast cancer early before any symptoms are noticed and when treatment is likely to be most successful. 

Finding breast cancer early could save your life.  Call 13 20 50 to make an appointment or book online at www.breastscreen.org.au.  Interpreter services, translated information and group bookings are available as well as assistance for women with disabilities. 

Coincidentally this is also the National Year of Reading, so
there are a number of Children’s Week activities that reflect this. It is never
too early to start reading to babies, which is why the former Brumby government
introduced the Young Readers program. This was a program all about introducing
children to the enjoyment of books and literacy from an early age.

Under this program every two-year-old in Victoria was given a
free book when they attended their two-year-old maternal and child health visit,
and parents were encouraged to read to their children. However, in her very
first state budget Minister Lovell, the Minister for Children and Early
Childhood Development, cut this program — just as she cut the Take a Break
occasional child-care program.

On Monday night I attended the inaugural Children’s Protection
Society address and was pleased to hear an excellent lecture by Professor Iram
Siraj-Blatchford, an early education expert from the University of London. The
professor spoke about the importance of parents reading to their children. I
call on the minister to reflect upon all the research and evidence on this
matter and reconsider her axing of this funding.

Minister Lovell also failed to invest a single dollar in
kindergarten capital infrastructure in this year’s state budget. Families in
growth areas in particular are reporting to me difficulties in enrolling their
children in kindergarten, and as a result this year’s Department of Education
and Early Childhood Development annual report shows that Victoria’s kindergarten
participation levels have declined. The minister does not seem to understand
that to maintain children’s services she actually needs to invest in them.

Hon. D. M. DAVIS (Minister for Ageing) — The member asked a question and I think
she is talking about correspondence, including advertising, that went in with
general seniors’ correspondence. It has been a longstanding practice, including
under the previous government, for such correspondence to help defray the cost
of those communications.

Ms MIKAKOS — So do you condone this?

Hon. D. M. DAVIS — No, I am just saying that this was in fact the case under your government too.

Supplementary question

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — I encourage the minister to have a look
at the material that has gone out, because it is personally addressed to
Victorian seniors and contains a whole lot of commercial information, including
photographs and product information, and that was the substantive content of the
correspondence that the seniors received. Can the minister give an assurance
that neither this company nor any other private company has been provided with
the personal information of any Victorian Seniors Card holder?

Hon. D. M. DAVIS (Minister for Ageing) — I thank the member for her question and
can indicate to her that it is my understanding that information on Seniors Week
and other matters has often had commercial material with it, including under her
government.

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development) — I
believe what I actually said was more children than ever before were receiving
kindergarten inclusion support services as part of the early childhood
intervention services. This is because we made an election commitment of $10
million.

Ms Mikakos — On a point of order, President, the minister is
verballing my question. I can give her a copy of the Hansard of 20 June 2012
where she did not refer to kindergarten intervention services at all.

Hon. D. M. Davis — On the point of order, President, it is a
matter for the minister to answer the question as she sees fit, as long as it is
relevant.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I am concerned that on a number of
occasions members have fairly speculative preambles to their questions, and the
result of that is that it allows ministers to be fairly wide in their addressing
of those questions.

Ms Mikakos might not be happy about the way the minister has
interpreted her question, but she has certainly picked up on the preamble. Ms
Mikakos will have an opportunity to ask a supplementary question to address
those matters.

As I have said on previous occasions, in asking their questions
members need to be aware that whilst some information can be put before the
house to support the question and to provide the minister with a context in
which they extract a more pertinent answer, the fact is that if a member is
fairly extensive in a preamble, then they are opening it up fairly
wide for the minister’s answer.

In this case I note also that the minister has only just got to
her feet. Whilst the issue is her interpretation of the question at this stage
or discussion of some of the matters that were raised leading up to that
question, the minister obviously has ample time now to address the question
itself.

Hon. W. A. LOVELL — As I was saying, in the last election we
committed $10 million, which was delivered in our first budget, that allowed a
further 246 children with disabilities to have access to a kindergarten
inclusion support package, which is part of early childhood intervention
services. In our first budget we also provided a further $8.2 million that
provided an additional 150 early childhood intervention service packages and
also 150 additional flexi packages.

This government is committed to early childhood intervention
services. We are currently undertaking a review of all early childhood
intervention services in order to reform the early childhood intervention
services to see how they can better deliver for Victorian children. At the
moment the area of early childhood intervention services is interesting because
it is uncertain how the interface with the national disability insurance scheme
will look for early childhood intervention services. We are working hard to
ensure that as many children as possible can receive early childhood
intervention services.

Supplementary question

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — I remind the minister that what she said
on 20 June 2012 was:

More children than ever before are receiving ECIS because of the Baillieu
government’s investment in this area.

There were no references at all in the minister’s answer to
kindergarten inclusion support services at all. I met with a Bendigo-based
disability service provider last week. How does the minister respond to that
provider’s claim that there have been no additional early childhood intervention
services places provided in the Loddon Mallee region in the last two years?

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development) — I do
not actually have the figures here with me at the moment, but I am happy to
provide the figures on early childhood intervention services numbers in the
particular region to the shadow minister at another time.

What I can say is that there were most definitely additional
kindergarten inclusion support services numbers provided in the Loddon Mallee
region, so that means there has been an increase in early childhood intervention
services in that area.

My question is to the Minister for Children and Early Childhood
Development. I refer to the Australian Taxation Office ruling CR 2012/70
relating to the minister’s department. Can the minister advise where in the ATO
ruling children’s services authorised officers are designated as front-line
staff and therefore excluded from participating in the scheme?

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development) — As I
explained to the shadow minister in the last sitting session, the restructure of
our department is a matter for the secretary. The sustainable government
initiative has been approved by the taxation office.

All front-line staff in the Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development have been excluded from the voluntary departure packages,
and we are committed to ensuring that front-line services continue to be
delivered.

Supplementary question

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — That was a particularly unhelpful
response. Can the minister guarantee that education and care services will still
receive timely assessment, monitoring and enforcement visits, including safety
inspections, from her department when they are required?

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development) — This
is an absolutely amazing question. As I have just explained, we take early
childhood extremely seriously. The quality of early childhood services is
paramount to the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.

The safety of children who receive those services is paramount.
If inspections are needed, they will be done in a timely fashion.

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development) — The
tax ruling sets out the principles of what is included, but paragraph 20 states:

Employees within the following government designated groups of the DEECD are
excluded from participating in the scheme. They are:

allied health professionals;

school nurses;

maternal and child health information line employees;

staff recruited through the VPS … scheme …;

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander … employees …;

executive officer class;

fixed-term VPS employees;

casual employees;

employees on probation and other like arrangements; and

employees receiving WorkCover salary payments.

As I said in my previous answer, the quality of services and
the safety of children are paramount to the coalition government. There will be
no diminishing of those services within the restructure. They are front-line
services, and they will continue to be delivered in a timely and appropriate
manner.

Supplementary question

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — Given that the minister has just read out
paragraph 20, she will see from that list that staff who support kindergartens
and other early childhood services are not specifically mentioned in the
taxation ruling.

While the minister can give those assurances about front-line
staff, the staff who support our volunteer kindergarten parent committees of
management to do things like implement the 15 hours required by the national
quality framework are not actually listed in the tax office ruling. Can the
minister provide a guarantee to volunteer kindergarten parent committees of
management who are implementing the 15 hours required by the national quality
framework that they will be able to receive timely, accurate and consistent
advice from her department when it is required?

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development) — I am
happy to give that guarantee that they will receive those support services, but I am also happy to tell the shadow minister for children and young adults that we actually provided
additional funding to Kindergarten Parents Victoria to also provide assistance
to kindergarten committees in the implementation of the national quality
framework and the change to universal access. This is because this sector is
going through a large number of changes at the moment. We believe they deserve
all the support that we can give them, and we will continue to give that
support.

Page 35

services, yet the government’s response to this is just to cut
funding.

In 2010, under the Labor government, 80 per cent of people who
needed elective surgery received that surgery. By contrast, under the Baillieu
government this has dropped by 5 per cent, meaning that one in four people is
now missing out on their elective surgery. Elective surgery waiting lists show
us how Victoria’s hospitals are performing, and these massive funding cuts have
caused elective surgery performance to fall to levels not seen for nearly a
decade. Hospital data shows there are currently 46 131 people on elective
surgery waiting lists across Victoria. The Victorian health services performance
data details that over 7000 more Victorians are waiting for treatment than when
the Baillieu government took office. These are real people, not just numbers. In
some cases they have serious or life-threatening conditions, and they are being
forced to wait longer for the vital surgery they need.

I have received numerous phone calls from constituents in the
Northern Metropolitan Region telling me about the problems they are experiencing
in our local hospitals and in particular about the delays they are experiencing
in being able to access elective surgery or even outpatient appointments. There
seems to be a growing trend for people to have their outpatient appointments
postponed or cancelled, even though those appointments are the gateway through
which these people can see a doctor or specialist in order to then get their
surgery organised. In relation to those phone calls and the people I have been
speaking with, their stories are very concerning to me, and I am sure I will
have a lot more to say about that in future.

I am concerned the government is doing nothing to stop the
numbers ballooning out even further. Before the election the Baillieu government
promised to provide 800 new beds in Victoria’s public hospitals — 100 of those
by June this year — and to cut surgery waiting lists.

Those opposite promised a great deal, but we have seen very
little being delivered. The additional beds were promised as the Baillieu
government’s solution to the need to cut surgery waiting lists, yet the hospital
annual reports do not indicate that any new beds have been created — not a
single one. We know that the doctors and nurses in our hospitals have been
asking the government to point to where these new beds that have supposedly been
created are. I have been concerned at reports that beds might be being closed so
that those same beds could be opened at a later point in time to enable the
government to claim them as new beds. If that were to happen, that would be a
very sneaky way of deceiving the Victorian people. Those opposite made a promise
they are clearly not prepared to keep.

Whilst the Baillieu government promised Victorians more beds
and a better performing health system, all Victoria’s health system has received
to date is a $616 million funding cut.

More and more people will be forced to wait for surgery in the
future unless the Premier and the Minister for Health acknowledge that
Victoria’s health system is chronically underfunded. If this does not seem to be
enough, 56 of the 81 health services which tabled annual reports last sitting
week have run up deficits. Many health services reports detail the need for
urgent future planning to cater for increasing demand for health services.

In particular I focus on the growing population in the outer
northern suburbs. The Northern Hospital is the local hospital which services
that growing community. There have been problems in that community recently, in
Mernda in particular, in relation to the lack of a government secondary school
for that community, into which thousands of new families are moving. These
families will rely upon the Northern Hospital for their health needs. The
Northern Hospital is in one of the state’s busiest corridors.

Some 42 per cent of patients who present to its emergency
department who need to be admitted to hospital and are in need of beds wait
longer than 8 hours, with 34 patients having waited in the emergency department
for more than 24 hours. These are quite alarming statistics. I am concerned
about how this hospital will meet the growing demand. The staff at the hospital
do a terrific job in trying to do the best they possibly can, but the Northern
Hospital has a very busy emergency department.

In terms of socioeconomic data, the northern suburbs are a
relatively disadvantaged community compared to other parts of Melbourne and
other parts of the state. The people who live in this area are the least able to
afford private health care, therefore they rely upon having a quality hospital
and a quality public health system.

The increased demand, increased waiting times in emergency
departments and the increase in the time spent waiting for elective surgery seem
to be reflected in many of Victoria’s public hospitals, but particularly in the
northern suburbs. Some 28 per cent of patients who presented to the emergency
department at the Austin Hospital, 22 per cent at the Royal Children’s Hospital,
26 per cent at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and 31 per cent at St Vincent’s
Hospital who needed to be admitted to hospital and were in need of beds waited
longer than 8 hours, and some waited for over 24 hours. Clearly my constituents
do not receive the quality health care they need, and I am very concerned that

Page 36

things are getting worse. As I said earlier, people are
contacting my office and reporting to me and to my Labor colleagues the
difficulties they are experiencing.

In the last sitting week I referred to issues concerning the
interpreting service at Northern Health, and I remain concerned about them.
Northern Health, which takes in the Northern Hospital, introduced cost-saving
measures a few weeks ago which would see a staggering 7000 appointments over the
next year — or 16 per cent of its total requests in 2011 — miss out on an
interpreter. Those families will need to bring in a family member to act as
their de facto interpreter.

I found it interesting that this is all happening at a time
when Minister Kotsiras, the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship,
only last month spoke in Parliament about there being a shortage of interpreters
and translators in Victoria, especially for languages spoken by newly arrived
migrants. I find it interesting that one part of the government can talk about
the need for more interpreters and be encouraging people to go into
interpreting, and then another part of government — the health portfolio — can
be cutting back on interpreting services, therefore discouraging people from
pursuing interpreting as a career. Clearly one part of the Baillieu government
needs to talk to another part of the same government.

Government members need to get their act together, because I
have an ethnically diverse community in my electorate, as I know you have too,
Acting President Tarlamis.

Many other parts of Melbourne have large culturally and
linguistically diverse communities which require interpreting services, and I
think the government needs to fix this urgently, because not only many elderly
migrants but also many newly arrived migrant residents will miss out on
interpreters and be unable to communicate effectively with their doctors about
their medical needs. Minister Kotsiras and the Minister for Ageing have spoken
about assisting seniors who have particular cultural and language needs, but
their actions are not matching their rhetoric in this regard.

The final matter I wish to touch upon relates to the reports in
this past week that the new $1 billion publicly owned Victorian Comprehensive
Cancer Centre will have a floor dedicated to private patients under a secret
plan being undertaken by the Baillieu government. It is unacceptable that the
government is attempting to privatise cancer treatment for those who can afford
it.

I look forward to the government categorically ruling this out
and making it clear that there will not be an exclusive, privatised floor at the
cancer centre that will be off limits to the large majority of the Victorian
public.

Many of us attended a BreastScreen Victoria event during the
lunch break today, and there is a genuine commitment from members on all sides
of politics to encourage more people to undertake breast screening to detect and
prevent breast cancer. Treatment rates for this terrible disease are proving
more successful, but if we are to encourage and continue that trend and have
more women survive, then we need to ensure that people can access the treatment
they need when they need it.

By way of conclusion, I know the government has been seeking to
deflect a lot of criticism around what is happening in our health system by
making all sorts of claims about federal government funding in relation to the
health system.

I remind members of the government that the updated budget
information from the commonwealth this week makes it clear that in this
financial year Victoria will receive $3.612 billion for Victoria’s health
system. In addition, Victoria will receive $11.1 billion in GST revenue.

The Victorian budget papers from May this year estimate health
payments from the commonwealth at $3.63 billion and provide a figure of $11
billion for GST payments. As you can see, Acting President, there is a very
small difference between the quantum of payments in both cases. I make the point
that Victoria is receiving the highest commonwealth contribution in history from
the federal government for its health system.

The Baillieu government cannot deflect attention from its
responsibility.

Its members have been in office for almost two years and
continue to point the finger at everyone but themselves; it is always the fault
of the previous Labor state government or the federal Labor government.
Government members need to start to take responsibility for their actions. Our
health system is buckling under the pressure of the cuts imposed by the Baillieu
government, and our waiting list is set to grow to in excess of 50 000 people
under the current funding arrangements. It is now or never for members of the
Baillieu government to do what they can to stem the damage already caused by
their critical underfunding of Victoria’s health system. Victoria’s patients
expect them to do so; in fact they demand that they to do so. Government members
need to attend to this urgently.

The suburbs of Mernda and Doreen are situated in one of
Melbourne’s fastest growing growth corridors. The City of Whittlesea has
estimated its population will grow by over 125 000 people by 2031, with the
Mernda and Doreen areas increasing by over 30 000 people. The number of children
aged 10 to 19 in Doreen and Mernda has skyrocketed from 437 in 2006 to 2746 in
2012 and is forecast to reach more than 7000 in 2021.

The previous government planned for the future by buying land
in Mernda in 2009 and in Doreen in 2010 for future secondary schools.

Mr Ondarchie interjected.

Ms MIKAKOS — We made election commitments, Mr Ondarchie,
unlike you, who pork-barrelled and looked after only the marginal seats in the
eastern suburbs.

The Baillieu government has done nothing to progress a
secondary school in either suburb and has failed to invest a single dollar in
this year’s state budget for any planning or building works to commence.

Things have now gotten to a crisis point with the proposed
closure of Acacia College. On Saturday Danielle Green and I met with affected
parents, and I can advise that they are extremely distressed — –

Honourable members interjecting.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! I say to Mr Ondarchie that I
asked Ms MIKAKOS to stop interjecting during his contribution, so I will do the same in regard to his interjections. Could he please refrain from interjecting and allow Ms Mikakos to conclude her remarks.

Ms MIKAKOS — On Saturday Danielle Green and I met with
affected parents. I can advise that they are extremely distressed about what has
happened and what this means for their children’s education as well as for the
future of their suburb.

After I spoke with local parents, it became apparent that some
of them are struggling to enrol their children in local kindergartens for next
year.

The previous Labor government helped fund the construction of
six new integrated children’s centres in Whittlesea to meet the needs of this
growing community. The Baillieu government needs to assist Whittlesea City
Council to construct further children’s centres in this growth corridor.

I call on the Minister for Education to take urgent action to
ensure that Acacia College families are supported at this time and that the
government commences construction of a government secondary college in the
Mernda-Doreen area or, preferably, that it purchases the Acacia College site to
operate as a government school to commence in 2013.

HACCI provides links to businesses, professionals, government and community for Hellenic Australians and promotes trade as well as cultural ties between Australia and Greece.

Hon. D. M. DAVIS (Minister for Ageing) — Peninsula Health has made a decision,
as it will from time to time, to work through the configuration of services,
and it has a tender to work in a partnership with a private sector partner.

Hon. M. P. Pakula — So that is a yes.

Hon. D. M. DAVIS — No. Let me be quite clear: it will depend
on the final result of the tender arrangements. If the final arrangements can
deliver better services for people on the peninsula, there may be some change;
if they cannot deliver better services, Peninsula Health is determined that the
facility will remain in public hands.

Supplementary question

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — Given that the minister would be required
to give approval to sell off a public asset, has that approval already been
given, consistent with a change of government policy?

Hon. D. M. DAVIS (Minister for Ageing) — There is no change of government
policy, as alluded to. The point is that we would have to see the final results
of the expression of interest to see whether it is in the interests of people on
the peninsula. If it is not, I am sure it will not proceed.

Hon. D. M. DAVIS (Minister for Ageing) — What I can say is that I think the
member misunderstands Peninsula Health’s purposes in this matter. Peninsula
Health is seeking to improve services for people on the Mornington Peninsula,
and there are a number of models and partnerships that may be struck in that
process.

I can indicate that Peninsula Health is absolutely determined
that there will be no reduction in available capacity on the peninsula. It is
true to say that the public capacity on the peninsula represents about 4 per
cent of operational high-care and 3 per cent of operational low-care on the
Mornington Peninsula. I can indicate to the member that Peninsula Health will
ensure that any potential partners that are identified through the expressions
of interest process will have to be approved under the commonwealth arrangements
for providers of aged care.

The fact is that Peninsula Health will not proceed with any of
these steps unless they are in the interests of people on the peninsula. If the
expressions of interest demonstrate a better outcome for people on the
peninsula, Peninsula Health will examine that way forward. If they do not,
Peninsula Health will not.

Supplementary question

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — It appears that the Vertigan report was
purely coincidental. The minister has not responded to my question about the
staffing arrangements. A spokesperson for Peninsula Health was quoted in the
Peninsula Weekly of 22 August as saying:

It is unlikely another partner would take the staff on because an
experienced provider is likely to have their own staff …

Will the minister guarantee that all the nursing and
administrative staff at Rosebud Residential Aged Care Services will be
redeployed within Peninsula Health in the event that this facility is in fact
privatised?

Hon. D. M. DAVIS (Minister for Ageing) — The premise of the member’s question —
that it will be privatised, as she has described it — is of course wrong.

Let me be quite clear: Peninsula Health is determined to expand
and strengthen services on the peninsula. It is determined to respect and
support its staff, and if staff were redeployed in any way, it would be
determined to ensure that they were redeployed in a fair way. I can indicate
very strongly that Peninsula Health is determined to get a better outcome and a
better expansion of services.

Mr Lenders — You said that in Mildura.

Hon. D. M. DAVIS — Mr Lenders interjects about Mildura. It was
Labor that sold the Mildura hospital in 2000. Candy Broad was a member of that
cabinet. Mr Thwaites, Minister for Health in a previous Labor government, sold
Mildura hospital. It was Labor that sold it on to a super fund in New South
Wales which has former Premier John Brumby on its board. Oh, my goodness! I
would not be bringing up Mildura too often if I were Mr Lenders. I do not know
whether he was in the cabinet. No, I think he was just a parliamentary secretary
in 2000.

He was in the lower house.

Mr Lenders — It was Rob Knowles.

Hon. D. M. DAVIS — No, it was not Rob Knowles who sold the
hospital; it was Labor.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I thank the Minister.

Mr Ondarchie — On a point of order, President, I seek your
clarification, I recall that this is exactly the same context we went through
during question time today. I am not sure where that sits with the standing
orders.

The PRESIDENT — Order! There is no difficulty in a member
raising a matter in the adjournment debate that might have been canvassed in
other proceedings in the Parliament. The issue covered by the standing orders is
that a member ought not broach the same issue and pose the same question or seek
the same action that they have on a previous occasion within the last six months
of the same session. That refers to the adjournment debate as far as the
coverage of the standing orders goes. There is not an exclusion on matters that
might have been covered in other aspects of a debate during the day or in a
previous period being raised again in the adjournment debate. Indeed I think it
has been done a number of times recently by members on both sides of the house.

Ms MIKAKOS — I suggest members go and brush up on their
understanding of the standing orders. The Mornington Peninsula has the oldest
demographic profile in Victoria, with 20.9 per cent of the population aged over
70. In fact the government’s own Victoria in Future 2012 document predicts that
the total percentage of people aged 65 years or older in the Mornington
Peninsula will rise from 20.7 per cent in 2011 to 29 per cent in 2031. We also
know that dementia prevalence is on the rise across our state.

Despite the ageing population the government appears to have an
ideological agenda, apparent from the leaked Vertigan report, which recommends
that the Victorian government vacate the field entirely on public aged care. It
is possible that a buyer of these facilities could demolish existing buildings,
requiring all the residents to be relocated. The minister must give residents
and their families assurances that they will be able to stay at this facility if
the facility is privatised.

The Rosebud aged-care service is the only publicly owned
residential aged-care service on the Mornington Peninsula. The closest other
public facility is in Frankston, 35 kilometres away. Residents obviously have
relationships of trust with longstanding staff members, and the minister also
failed to give any guarantees about standards of care, staff arrangements,
redeployment of staff or if staff would be retained if privatisation were to
occur. As I understand it, there has been no formal notification to residents
and their families about the future plans for this facility. Therefore I call on
the minister to give a commitment that he will fully inform residents, relatives
and staff of any future plans for Rosebud Residential Aged Care Services as soon
as possible. He really needs to do that in the coming week because, as I
understand it, the tender process is closing in a couple of weeks’ time. The
staff and the community, particularly the residents of this facility and their
families, need to know what the government’s intentions are. The minister must
come clean.

On 24 September this year the Age reported that Northern Health
wants to cut approximately 7000 interpreting appointments over the next year,
equating to 16 per cent of its total of 43 202 interpreting requests in 2011.
The article also went on to state that one in five patients at Northern Health requires an
interpreter, not only at the Northern Hospital in Epping but also at the
Broadmeadows and Craigieburn health services.

Northern Health’s interpreting service recently won an award,
and it has been shown that access to its professional service can reduce the
length of stay for patients coming from a culturally and linguistically diverse
background by almost three days. This was referred to in an Ethnic Communities
Council of Victoria policy paper as ‘an investment not an expense’. I understand
that the minister was involved in conferring that award.

On its website Northern Health says it does not condone the use
of family members or staff to act as interpreters except in cases of emergency.
However, with few interpreters being available this is exactly what is going to
happen.

I believe it is unacceptable that people will be forced to rely
on family members to translate for them in sometimes sensitive situations.

Elderly migrants will be the ones most affected by this
decision as they rely heavily on interpreters to communicate effectively with
their doctors, and I am concerned that this may impact on a patient’s ability to
make informed decisions about their medical care as well as on their
understanding of their medical condition and treatment. According to the
document entitled The Government’s Vision for Citizenship in a Multicultural
Victoria, 23.1 per cent of Victorians speak a language other than English at
home — an increase from 2006 when it was 20.4 per cent. The paper also spoke of
the government’s participation for seniors initiative and how it:

… supports the delivery of improved information provision for seniors who
have particular cultural and language needs.

If the government is serious about this, it needs to ensure
that our public hospitals have adequate interpreting services. I call on the
minister to stay true to his own government’s policy and provide adequate
interpreting services in Melbourne’s public hospitals. In particular I call on
him to ensure that Northern Health reverses the cuts to its interpreting
services.

Protesting alongside the local Member for Thomastown, Bronwyn Halfpenny and Member for Mill Park, Lily D’Ambrosio, as well as a group of concerned local residents at the Northern Hospital this morning, Ms Mikakos said that these cuts had angered the elderly migrant community in Melbourne’s north.

“It is simply outrageous that people are being forced to rely on family members to translate for them in sensitive matters.

“In such a culturally diverse area, it is quite clearly elderly migrants who will be the
ones most affected by this decision as they rely heavily on interpreters to communicate effectively with their doctors,” Ms Mikakos said.

Up to one in five patients at the Northern Hospital requires an interpreter. Due to the Baillieu Government’s cost-saving measures, Northern Health want to cut approximately
7,000 interpreting appointments over the next year, equating to 16 per cent of its total 43,202 interpreter requests in 2011.

Ms Mikakos said cutting interpreter services will ultimately lead to medical errors and
increased costs to the health service.  

“Without professional interpreters, patients will experience a reduced quality of care, compromised access to health care, unnecessary stress on families and an increase in litigation due to potential errors and misdiagnosis,” Ms Mikakos said.

President of the Northern Federation of Ethnic Senior Citizens Clubs and the Reservoir Greek Elderly Citizens Club, John Nicolaou said that many seniors were concerned about what these cuts will mean for them.

“Our members are expressing concern about how they will be able to make informed decisions about their medical care if they cannot communicate directly with their doctor,” Mr Nicolaou said. 

Ms Mikakos said there is a clear pattern of neglect from the Baillieu Government for people from disadvantaged backgrounds including migrants and our elderly.

“If the Government were serious about helping seniors they would not have made such an
extremely short-sighted decision, particularly in such a culturally diverse area of Melbourne.”

In such a culturally diverse area, it is elderly migrants who will be most affected by this decision as they rely heavily on interpreters to communicate effectively with their doctors.

Up to one in five patients at the Northern Hospital requires an interpreter. Due to the Baillieu Government’s cost-saving measures, Northern Health want to cut approximately
7,000 interpreting appointments over the next year, equating to 16 per cent of its total 43,202 interpreter requests in 2011.

Cutting interpreter services will ultimately lead to medical errors and increased costs to the health service.  Without professional interpreters, patients will experience a reduced quality of care, compromised access to health care, unnecessary stress on families and an
increase in litigation due to potential errors and misdiagnosis.

There is a clear pattern of neglect from the Baillieu Government for people from disadvantaged backgrounds including migrants and our elderly.  If the Government were serious about helping seniors they would not have made such an extremely short-sighted decision, particularly in such a culturally diverse area of Melbourne.

Under Labor in 2010, 80 per cent of people who needed an elective surgery received it.  Now under Ted Baillieu, this is expected to drop by 5 per cent when the next round of health data is released – this means one in four people will miss out.

The Baillieu Government has cut hundreds of jobs and slashed more than $600 million from the state’s health budget.  If the Baillieu Government continues its health cuts, the elective surgery waiting list may top 50,000 this year.

Prior to the last election, Ted Baillieu promised Victorians he would slash elective surgery waiting lists by adding 800 new beds into the hospital system.  After two years, the Baillieu Governemnt has slashed is health funding and can’t prove the existence of one single extra bed added to system.

It comes as no surprise that the elective waiting list is blowing out under the Baillieu Government.

The Baillieu Government’s decision to cut funding will affect fire services right across Victoria and will see shortfalls in essential training.  The funding cuts to Victoria’s fire brigades will see a reduction in career staff, fewer fire-fighters on duty per shift and staff vacancies not filled.  Recruit training courses are being cut and reviewed with both career and volunteer fire-fighters having to receive interstate training.

Labor recognises the significant contribution that career fire-fighters and support staff make across Victoria.  The states fire-fighters’ put their lives at risk every day to protect the community and deserve more from the Baillieu Government.

Cuts to the CFA and MFB together with the failures to underground powerlines and meet prescribed burning targets in areas of high bushfire risk, show a complete disregard on fire ready priorities of the Baillieu Government.

Victorian fire-fighters deserve better than to be short changed in support services and vital training.

Below is a link to a TV advertisement highlighting the Baillieu Government cuts to fire services -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3RX-UZw3w

To help fight against the Baillieu Government’s cut to CFA and MFB funding you
can sign an online petition (link below) to show your support -

http://www.danielandrews.com.au/media/news/mr-baillieu-has-cut-support-for-our-firefighters/

The bill fails to address the fundamental issue facing
vulnerable rooming house tenants — that is, being exposed to exploitative
rooming house operators. The Labor opposition has serious concerns about the
Baillieu government’s failure to establish in the bill a comprehensive
registration and licensing regime for rooming house operators, as was
recommended by the rooming house standards task force that reported to the
previous government in September 2009. While we do not oppose the bill, we take
the view that it does not go far enough; it is a missed opportunity. We believe
the bill could benefit from further consideration and an opportunity to take
evidence directly from relevant stakeholders.

For that reason I foreshadow that I will be moving a motion to
refer the bill to the Legal and Social Issues Legislation Committee.

As that committee, of which I am a member, does not have any
business at the moment, I believe it will be able to conduct an expeditious
inquiry into the bill and report back in a relatively short time. I also
foreshadow that I will be moving amendments in the committee stage relating to
off-the-plan sales contracts, and I will discuss these in further detail later
in my contribution.

As we continue to experience high demand for private rental,
rental prices continue to increase, and this is putting a great deal of pressure
on a number of vulnerable Victorians who find it increasingly difficult to find
an affordable place in which to live. Through necessity, many vulnerable
Victorians have had to rely on rooming houses and permanent residential parks, which are also referred to in the bill.

I commend to members the parliamentary library’s research brief
on the bill, which highlights just how much the rooming house industry has grown
in the last few years. According to Professor Chris Chamberlain, who recently
gave a lecture that is referred to at pages 10 and 11 of the brief and who is an
expert in the area of homelessness data and research, the rooming house
population in Melbourne has grown significantly, from around 3000 in 2006 to
over 12 000 in 2011. This is a very significant increase. Professor Chamberlain
noted that most of this growth had taken place in suburban Melbourne and that
the rooming house population had also increased in diversity.

The people who rely on rooming houses tend to be low-income
Victorians. This group includes single parents; students, including
international students; the unemployed; and aged pensioners.

For a range of reasons these people are the most likely to be
targeted and exploited by unscrupulous rooming house operators, in particular
because they do not always know what their legal rights are. A Salvation Army
rooming house report from 2011 states that:

Many rooming house occupants are unaware of their rights, or of locally
available services. Coupled with this is a high degree of fear about speaking up
against rooming house proprietors for fear of being evicted.

That report is referred to on page 7 of the parliamentary
library research brief.

Every Victorian should feel safe and secure in their housing,
no matter what type of housing that is. In recent years, however, there have
been many reports of the Dickensian nature of some rooming house accommodation.

Tragically there have also been deaths. In October 2006 Leigh
Sinclair and Christopher Giorgi died in a Brunswick rooming house fire after
being trapped in their room. I encourage members who have not already done so to
refer to the report of the coronial inquest into these two tragic deaths.

The Victorian coroner, Peter White, reported in September 2009
and found that the two deaths could have been prevented had the rooming house
operators complied with fire safety measures. The matters the coroner identified
included doors that unlocked from the inside, working smoke detectors and
sprinkler systems. The coroner was also critical of Moreland City Council, in
whose area the rooming house was, for failing to successfully administer
inspections of the property for fire safety compliance despite being aware of
the hazardous conditions of the property and despite previous warnings.

In response to that inquest and to various media reports at the
time of slum lords dominating the rooming house industry and exploiting the
vulnerable, in 2009 the Brumby government set up the Rooming House Standards
Taskforce, which was chaired by the member for Albert Park. The task force
handed down 32 recommendations for reform of the industry, including the
recommendation that there be a licensing system for rooming house operators. I
particularly wish to draw attention to recommendation 15, which recommends that:

State government develop a system of registration for rooming house
operators in Victoria through the Business Licensing Authority. As a result, to
operate a rooming house legally in Victoria premises must be registered with
local government and operators must be registered with state government. This
system will include sanctions against unregistered operators and reflect
increased penalties for non-compliance with other applicable legislation
operating in the sector (e.g. the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008).

The task force in recommendation 16 also
recommended the establishment of a statewide register of registered rooming
houses, and it is this recommendation that forms the basis of the bill. We do
not believe that is satisfactory because recommendation 15 is also an important
recommendation that would enable rooming house operators to be picked up through
the Business Licensing Authority and be registered with that authority.

I point out that when the Brumby Labor government released its
response to the task force report it backed all 32 recommendations, and at that
time the coalition opposition indicated its bipartisan support. Disappointingly
this government has not moved to put in place all the recommendations of the
task force report. We believe the absence of recommendation 15 is a big
deficiency in the legislation. For that reason the Labor opposition believes the
bill would benefit from further consideration and the opportunity to hear from
relevant stakeholders through the Legal and Social Issues Legislation Committee.

In the Victorian government’s response to the rooming house
standards task force chairperson’s report dated October 2009 the Brumby
government said the following in relation to recommendation 15:

This recommendation is accepted by government and a new registration system
for private rooming house operators will be introduced to complement the
existing registration system for rooming house premises under the Health Act
1958, for which local government is responsible. In designing the system the
government will consider appropriate criteria to be a rooming house operator.

In 2011 the Baillieu government introduced minimum standards
for rooming houses, as recommended by the task force. However, these are not due
to be operational until the end of March next year. The minister also increased
fines for individuals and companies that breach the regulations, and introduced
reporting requirements for landlords and agents unaware of unregistered rooming
houses.

The Labor opposition believes these are welcome steps towards
regulating the sector because these matters were recommended by the task force
report to which I have referred. However, the bill does not implement the key
recommendations of the task force relating to the registration and licensing of
rooming house operators.

According to an article in the Age of 14 March 2012 various
welfare agencies were critical of this, and said that:

without a central registry of rooming house operators … any standards will
be rendered virtually useless because there will be no accountability.

The shadow minister for consumer protection, the member for
Mill Park in the Assembly, Lily D’Ambrosio, has received correspondence from a
number of relevant stakeholders.

I refer to a letter from the Tenants Union of Victoria signed
by Mark O’Brien, CEO of the Tenants Union of Victoria; Jenny Smith, CEO of the
Council to Homeless Persons; Chris Povey, manager and principal lawyer of the
Homeless Persons Legal Clinic; and Steve Staikos, policy and public affairs
officer of the Community Housing Federation of Victoria.

Mrs Coote interjected.

Ms MIKAKOS — He is. They are all very good people, Mrs Coote,
and people who are very passionate about the needs of the homeless. This letter
sets out concerns the stakeholders have regarding deficiencies they have
identified in this bill. It is quite a lengthy letter so I will not quote all of
it, but I will read the key parts:

We have a number of concerns about the bill in its current form.

We have written to Minister O’Brien outlining these concerns so as to ensure
that the government’s stated desire to properly regulate unregistered rooming
houses is achieved.

As we understand it, the bill seeks to create a statewide register based on
information held by local councils on registered rooming houses. This
information, which is collected pursuant to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act
2008 Vic will then be provided to Consumer Affairs Victoria. The bill does not
appear to create any role for the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria beyond
collecting the information and collating it into an online register.

A significant problem in the rooming house sector is identifying the
operators of rooming houses, both registered and unregistered, to ensure that
they comply with their legal obligations.

This problem was identified by the Victorian coroner in the inquest into the
deaths of Leigh Sinclair and Christopher Giorgi in an unregistered rooming
house.

The proposed register does nothing to resolve this problem.

Our organisations support the recommendations of the rooming house task
force on registration and enforcement and have urged the government to consider
revising the bill to reflect the proposals contained in the task force’s report.

Essentially, organisations that work in this sector and that
are very familiar with the problems in the sector are concerned that this bill
is not going to address the fundamental problem of being able to identify the
actual business operators of rooming houses to enable the director of consumer
affairs to take action against unscrupulous rooming house operators. There is
also no licensing scheme with criteria to test whether an owner is a fit and proper person, as recommended by  the coroner. We believe this is a significant weakening of the previous
government’s position and the recommendations contained in the task force
report.

I point out that when the government was in opposition the
current Minister for Housing, Wendy Lovell, was a vocal proponent for protecting
vulnerable tenants from exploitative behaviour of rogue rooming house operators,
but this bill does nothing to advance those beliefs.

In the Whittlesea Leader of 10 June 2009 Ms Lovell is quoted as
saying:

The minister must step up the investigation of rogue rooming house
operators, including the Victorian Accommodation Centre, and ensure … action
is taken to protect vulnerable Victorians from these vultures.

Whilst Ms Lovell was prepared to characterise unscrupulous
rooming house operators as vultures when in opposition, she appears to have gone
quiet on this issue since taking office as the Minister for Housing.

Under this bill the state government through the director of
consumer affairs will simply play host to a website to which all councils must
submit details of the premise’s registration. We are talking here about the
registration of the building and the owner of the building, which was in
recommendation 16 of the task force report. But what the task force report had
at its core was looking at a way of flushing out rogue rooming house operators,
not just collating a list of registered rooming house operators. I believe this
list will be a useful tool for people supporting the homeless. The agencies that
work with them will be able to look up a list of rooming houses in any
municipality and that list will be useful.

However, the bill falls way short of implementing a
comprehensive licensing and registration system to combat the exploitative
behaviour of predatory rooming house operators.

Both the coroner and the task force identified the difficulties
of identifying exactly who the owner of a rooming house business is. They are
sometimes set up in such a way that this is done quite deliberately so that
enforcement action is not able to be taken against them. Both the coroner and
the task force found that private rooming house business models tend to separate
the owner of the premises from the operation of the business, which is why no
amount of regulation only of the premises effectively deals with the key issue
of regulating the poor behaviour of the business owners.

The opposition is also concerned that the bill does not appear
to give any role to the Business Licensing Authority, as was recommended by the
task force.

We believe that would have been the most effective way to go
ahead with this, given that it is the Business Licensing Authority that
regulates many other sectors in the community. The bill effectively leaves local
councils with a huge responsibility of updating and maintaining the register
with little apparent support from the state government.

It is not clear in the bill whether there will be any support
provided to local councils to participate in this online register. I note that
the coroner’s report was highly critical of Moreland City Council for not
properly undertaking its obligations in the inquest relating to the two
individuals I mentioned earlier.

I have some concerns about how this will operate in practice.

On page 32 of that report the coroner recommended that Consumer
Affairs Victoria plays a leading role in identifying rooming house operators and
the owners of rooming house premises in enforcing minimum standards on those
rooming houses and in implementing a licensing system for all rooming house
businesses.

However, under this watered down bill there is a completely
different approach. The state government is playing only a very tokenistic,
nominal role in the regulation of the sector.

We are concerned that the worst excesses of unscrupulous
operators could well lead to further deaths like the ones that have happened.
These are very serious issues. We believe the bill requires further
consideration. There should be an opportunity for stakeholders to express views
similar to those I quoted earlier, including those from the Tenants Union of
Victoria.

For that reason I urge the government to consider agreeing, for
the first time since this Parliament has been in operation, to a referral motion
moved by a member of the opposition to send a government bill to the Legal and
Social Issues Legislation Committee. Ms Hartland is nodding her head. She and I
and Mr Viney are members of that committee. We know very well that committee has
ample opportunity — because it does not have any work before it at the moment
– to take up this reference and look at this bill in an expeditious manner.

I want to turn briefly to other provisions in the bill. The
bill relates to duties of rooming house owners. It introduces new section 120A
to the act, which establishes a duty on rooming house owners to comply with
existing rooming house standards introduced in Parliament earlier this year. Breaches of
this new section can be referred to VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative
Tribunal) for a hearing within five business days. While enabling a speedy
hearing of VCAT is welcomed, I point out that this falls short of recommendation
9 of the task force report and a request by the tenants union that third-party
action be allowed under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 in relation to rooming
houses where a representative body can establish standing before VCAT.

The bill also contains a number of provisions about residential parks and
caravans. The bill make changes to part 4A of the act which was introduced by
the former Labor government and described in 2010 by the then Minister for
Consumer Affairs, Tony Robinson, in the second-reading speech on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2010 as a regulatory framework for site tenancy arrangements
between residents who own their own dwelling but lease the underlying land and
park operators.

Some of these dwellings have incredibly high values — often
they are valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars — and therefore they may be
the owner’s only significant asset. Even though they are not described as
‘movable dwellings’ often they are quite large and substantial and not easily or
inexpensively moved. This could result, in some instances, in residential park owners exerting pressure on a tenant in site agreement negotiations if the tenant has already
purchased a caravan. This bill proposes to expand the cooling-off periods for
the purchase of movable dwellings. Such changes follow on from the introduction
of cooling-off periods for site agreements by the previous government.

As is usually the case in agreements in relation to residential parks,
potential tenants often consider two separate contracts — one for the purchase
of their dwelling and the other for the lease of their land site.

This bill proposes to allow potential residential park tenants the option
to rescind their contract for a dwelling purchase if they subsequently reject a
site agreement proposal or exercise their right to rescind the site agreement
contract in the cooling-off period. Whilst the bill is an improvement in this
matter, the cooling-off period will only apply to consumers who purchased a
dwelling and site agreement from the same site owner. It does not apply where a
potential residential park tenant has purchased a dwelling from a
third party, such as a real estate agent or another tenant at the same esidentialpark.

Not all potential residential park tenants purchase a dwelling from a
site owner themselves. The bill provides no protection in relation to this. The
bill also makes a minor amendment to the Business Licensing Authority Act 1998
to extend the delegation powers of Business Licensing Authority Victoria
relating to straightforward decisions about licence and permit applications.

The final matter I will address relates to off-the-plan sales
of land. Currently the act requires a consumer warning about signing
off-the-plan contracts to be included in a notice on the ‘front page’ of a
contract. The bill will replace this provision with a requirement that warnings
be included in a ‘conspicuous notice’ in the contract. The bill removes a
purchaser’s right to rescind a contract for an off-the-plan sale of land where
there has been a failure by the vendor to include a warning notice in the
contract. The minister, in his second-reading speech in the Assembly on 15
August, indicated that the removal of this right recognises that rescinding a
contract is a disproportionate remedy for such failure.

These provisions will come into force on 1 December 2012.
Despite the lack of any court or tribunal decision indicating any legal
uncertainty around the stipulation that the notice appear on the front page, the
government is seeking to claim that ‘front page’ can mean something other than
‘front page’.

Apparently being ‘conspicuous’ is meant to provide greater
legal clarity than ‘front page’. I would have thought quite the opposite, and I
am sure that what is considered conspicuous or not conspicuous will become the
basis of many future legal challenges. I will be very interested during the
committee stage to find out about the legal basis for this change. I query
whether a notice in size 8 font and a notice on page 12 or the back page of the
contract are conspicuous enough? I would have thought that a notice on the front
page of the contract would be obvious to a potential consumer and would offer
them the best possible consumer protection.

It is to this part of the bill, clauses 26 and 27, that I
foreshadow the amendments I will move in the committee stage. The opposition’s
amendments seek to retain the current position so that front-page notices will
be retained for off-the-plan sale of land contracts, and the failure to include
one provides the purchaser with the right to rescind a contract.

I note that there were rescission provisions put in place in
relation to other parts of the bill as they related to residential parks, so I find it
quite anomalous that the government is seeking to give people rescission rights
in one part of the bill and then take them away in another part, particularly as
off-the-plan sales contracts can involve significant deposits being paid by a
consumer for their potential property. I will be calling on the government to
support these amendments, as they will provide much
better consumer protection and legal certainty than what is currently being
proposed. I also have some further concerns about the bill that I will be
seeking to clarify during the committee stage, and I hope these concerns will be
addressed by the minister at that time.

In conclusion, whilst we do not oppose the bill, because we
think any step forward is a positive step, we think the bill has glaring
omissions. It is a very weak, watered-down version of what could have offered
some real protection to vulnerable Victorians living in rooming houses. I hope
the government will allow this bill to go to the Legal and Social Issues
Legislation Committee to enable stakeholders to put their views, which I have
outlined, to the committee in further detail. That would enable the government
to take those concerns on board and to take on board the substantial body of
work that has been undertaken by Mr Foley, the member for Albert Park in the
other place, and the members of the rooming house standards task force back in
2009.

[Speech was interrupted here... select
page number to view full debate]

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — I move:

That the Residential Tenancies and Other Consumer Acts Amendment
Bill 2012 be referred to the Legal and Social Issues Legislation Committee for
inquiry, consideration and report by 13 November 2012.

In so doing I propose to speak in support of my motion. I
indicate to the house that this is a motion to provide a tight and timely
referral of the bill to the Legal and Social Issues Legislation Committee. It
will give that committee a period of approximately two months, including two
sitting weeks, in which to conduct hearings, which will include hearing evidence
from relevant stakeholders.

During the course of my contribution to the debate on the
second reading I quoted at some length, and I do not propose to do so again,
from correspondence the shadow minister for consumer protection has received
from the Tenants Union of Victoria and a number of other stakeholders who work
with homeless people. In that correspondence they outlined their serious
concerns about the inadequacies of the legislation. I therefore believe those
people who rely on rooming houses would benefit greatly from further
consideration being given to this important piece of legislation.

The bill provides some additional protections, but as I
indicated earlier in my substantive contribution I think it falls way below the
mark. It is a much watered-down version of what was proposed by the previous
government in accepting all 32 recommendations of the Rooming House Standards
Taskforce report.

I remind members opposite again that when they were in
opposition they indicated bipartisan support for all 32 recommendations of that
task force report — something they have conveniently forgotten about here
today.

I also point out that of the 14 motions to date to refer a bill
to the Legal and Social Issues Legislation Committee, only one has been agreed
to, and that was on the motion of a government member. It was the only motion to
have been moved by a government member.

It was a motion by the Minister for Higher Education and
Skills, Mr Hall, to refer the Wills Amendment (International Wills) Bill 2011 to
that committee — which was agreed to.

As a member of that committee I have some pretty strong views
about this. I have spoken about the wills bill in the past. Of all the bills
that could have gone to that committee, it was quite galling that that was the
one selected. It was the least controversial of the 14 bills, yet it was the one
that was selected.

We have a bill here that is about lives; it is about people who
are living in Dickensian accommodation. I agreed with a lot of the sentiments
that Mr Finn expressed in his contribution. There are people living in appalling
conditions in rooming houses in Victoria. We have had people die in fires in
rooming houses.

Mr Finn — Why didn’t you do anything about it?

Ms MIKAKOS — We did. That was an outrageous slur Mr Finn made
in his contribution. We did do something about it. We moved to make significant
reforms to this sector, something which his party said it supported when it was
in opposition but is not supporting today. This referral motion would enable the
Parliament to hear evidence about the inadequacies of this legislation. There
are some serious inadequacies in this legislation that deserve to be considered
by that committee. This government needs to take these committees seriously. The
Legal and Social Issues Legislation Committee does not have any work at the
moment. It is about time the government agreed to abide by the standing orders
and enable those committees to do their work.

I urge members to support the referral motion that will enable this bill to be considered. Hopefully some improvements can be  made to that legislation to enable it to come back to this house with sufficient time for it to be debated and hopefully amendments to it passed in both houses of Parliament before the end of this year. This would not conflict with any
commencement provisions of the bill. There is absolutely no reason, other than
political ones, not to support this referral motion.

Dementia is a growing problem in the community, with 72 000
Victorians currently living with dementia; this is expected to double by 2030.
This year the highest prevalence of dementia is found in the Department of
Health’s North and West Metropolitan region, which also takes in my electorate.
In the lead-up to Dementia Awareness Week from 21 to 28 September, it is
important to remember that dementia does not just affect the elderly. The
breakfast this morning focused on younger onset dementia.

There is an estimated 2500 people who are under the age of
65-years living with dementia in Victoria. This presents unique challenges in
relation to their different needs. Gary who attended the breakfast spoke about
his personal challenges of facing dementia whilst in his 40s, particularly in
relation to his fear of ending up in an unsuitable aged-care facility. I thank
Gary for his courage.

I was proud of the former Labor government’s support of people
with dementia, which included new funding in 2008-09 to specifically target
young people with dementia and their families and carers. I believe more needs
to be done in this particular area. I am pleased that the federal Gillard
government’s aged-care package, Living Longer. Living Better, has a significant
focus on dementia, with $238 million to be invested to tackle the illness. As
well as making dementia a national health priority, I congratulate everyone
involved today on raising great awareness of dementia.

I also encourage members to download the free Brainy App
program.

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development) — I
would like the shadow minister to give me some examples, because I have no idea
what she is talking about.

Honourable members interjecting.

Hon. W. A. LOVELL — I will answer that — –

Honourable members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The minister is trying to help the
house.

Hon. W. A. LOVELL — What I think the shadow minister is
referring to is that the indexation level for services was set at 2 per cent
this year. It was a decision of Treasury to set that, and it is a decision of
Treasury to set the indexation level each year. Given the circumstances of the
current budget and the difficult economic times we are in, it was a responsible
decision of the Treasurer to set that indexation level this year.

Supplementary question

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — Quite clearly the minister is totally
oblivious to the impact the indexation cut is having on local government, as the
Minister for Ageing was when I asked him about this same issue in relation to
home and community care services in the previous sitting week; I know he has
been inundated with local councils contacting him since. My supplementary
question to the minister — and she will probably not know the answer to this —
is: what assessment has the minister’s department made as to the impact the 2
per cent reduction in indexation will have on Victorian early childhood
services? The minister can take it on notice if she does not know.

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development) — As
we know, we are all facing very difficult economic times. My department is
working with local government and with services to ensure that efficiencies are
made, that there is no impact on front-line services and that we can work
through these tough economic times we face.

If we had not had 11 years of waste and mismanagement by the
former government, if there had been more investment in local government for
infrastructure and services, there would not be these tough economic times. But
the former government squandered money.

An honourable member — Myki!

Hon. W. A. LOVELL — Myki is just one project that shows how
the former government squandered money. Let us talk about the desalination
plant, Mr Lenders. The desalination plant is costing this state $2 million a
day.

Ordered that answer be considered next day on motion of Ms
MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan).

I remind the house that the government announced very soon
after taking office that it was going to get rid of 3600 public servants, and
then in the 2012-13 budget it announced a reduction of a further 600 positions
– so a total of 4200 public servants, who were apparently twiddling their
thumbs and did not have anything to do. The suggestion that those people working
in back rooms do not provide services to the public and do not provide any value
to the Victorian people is quite offensive to the Victorian public service. We
know that it is far from the truth.

Very little detail has been announced about the sustainable
government initiative. A number of questions have been asked by the Labor
opposition over a period of time now relating to the Vertigan report, which the
government says is a secret report. Very little information is being given to
the Victorian community and to the workers themselves.

The details of these public service cuts and exactly how many
jobs were going to be lost in each department were made public even before those
workers had been notified by email late on a Friday afternoon that their jobs
were under threat.

According to the government’s own figures an anticipated 100
jobs will be lost in the Department of Business and Industry, 400 jobs in the
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development — a department that
only has 1500 workers, so that is a very significant number, 200 jobs in the
Department of Health, 500 in the Department of Human Services, 480 in the
Department of Justice, 140 jobs in the Department of Planning and Community
Development, 50 jobs in the Department of Premier and Cabinet, 200 from the
Department of Primary Industries, 400 from the Department of Sustainable Energy,
175 from the Department of Transport, 170 from the Department of Treasury and
Finance, 350 from Victoria Police and 450 jobs from VicRoads. This is a very
significant number that will no doubt have an impact on front-line service
delivery.

That is why it is so important to debate this motion today.

There is no way that these job losses will not impact on
front-line service delivery. Looking just at the 350 white-collar jobs to go
from Victoria Police, these are roles which provide support to Victoria Police.
The people doing those jobs help prepare the paperwork for matters going before
the courts, and what will happen is that 350 sworn officers will need to replace
those people. They will be sworn officers who will not be out on the streets
uncovering crime and arresting criminals because they will be caught up doing
paperwork associated with bringing matters before the courts. It is
a bit of a joke and a lie to the Victorian people to say that the loss of those backroom jobs will not impact on front-line service delivery.

I remind Mr Finn, who says that the government has been elected
to implement its promises, that the government itself made a promise not to sack
any public service workers. I refer Mr Finn and members of the government to the
transcript of an ABC 7:30 Victoria program interview conducted on 27 November
2010 by Ms Josephine Cafagna — who I am sure government members know very well
– with the then Victorian opposition leader Ted Baillieu. The question Ms
Cafagna asked the then opposition leader was:

So will you be cutting the Victorian public service?

Ted Baillieu replied:

No way, and we’ve made that very clear.

Quite clearly the Liberal-Nationals coalition went to the 2010
election promising it would not cut jobs from the Victorian public service, and
what has it done at the very first opportunity? When the coalition was elected
it put out a budget update that found the budget to be in surplus and found the
Victorian economy to be in a very positive state. In fact I remember Premier
Baillieu saying at the time that he was surprised at how good the state’s
finances were. Then the coalition announced 4200 public servants were to go. Why
is the government doing this? It is doing it because those opposite are
right-wing ideologues in the same mould as former Premier Jeff Kennett. They are
putting out documents such as the public housing discussion paper that the
Minister for Housing, Ms Lovell, is responsible for which refers to and talks up
Big Society. They say the Big Society policies of the Cameron government in
Great Britain are something that need to be looked at further.

This is a government that wants to dismantle the welfare state.
This is a government that wants to dismantle support that working-class families
and lower middle-class families get from government. That is why we are seeing a
systematic dismantling of the public TAFE system. That is why we have seen cuts
to the education maintenance allowance, the support that struggling families get
through the public school system. That is why we have seen the scrapping of the
School Start bonus and many other supports that families rely on.

We are seeing a very clear agenda being spelt out here. The
sustainable government initiative is part of an initiative that is about
dismantling and winding back government in the same mould as we are seeing from
Mitt Romney and the Republicans in America and that we are hearing from the Tea
Party — –

Mr Finn — President Romney, if you don’t mind!

Ms MIKAKOS — Let us hope that never happens. We are
seeing the same kind of right-wing ideological rhetoric coming from the Cameron
government in the United Kingdom and from the Republicans in the United States
of America. We are seeing the Campbell Newman government in Queensland slashing
and burning government services, and now we are seeing the same practices being
adopted by the Baillieu-Ryan government of winding back government services and
cutting back on public sector positions. These are public servants who provide a
valuable service to the community in Victoria.

I want to come to the details that Ms Pulford alluded to in her
contribution. We have recently seen Australian Taxation Office rulings issued in
relation to the so-called departure packages.

In the area of youth justice I received a response from the
Minister for Community Services, Minister Wooldridge, on 17 April in regard to
my query about which categories of workers in the Department of Human Services
were going to be regarded as front line and therefore excluded from these job
cuts. She responded that:

The reduction of 500 positions in the Department of Human Services workforce
to which your question refers is part of the sustainable government initiative
announced in December 2011.

I can assure you that no front-line roles will be lost as part of this
initiative.

She went on to list a range of excluded categories and
specifically mentioned youth justice workers.

Paragraph 17 of the Australian Taxation Office ruling CR 2012/72, which relates to the Department of Human Services Victoria voluntary departure program 2012-13 early retirement scheme, categorises the classes of employees to which the departure scheme applies. Under ‘Area’ it says, ‘Youth justice centres’, and under ‘Location’, it says, ‘Youth justice’. That seems to be quite inconsistent with the response that I received from Minister Wooldridge in response to my question on notice when she said that youth justice workers would be regarded as front-line workers and therefore would be excluded.

The taxation office ruling then goes on to say in paragraph 26
that juvenile justice workers are exempt categories, and there is a list of
other categories. This taxation ruling is very unclear as to which youth justice
workers will be exempt and which will be the subject of
the voluntary departure package. It seems to be inconsistent with the response I received from the minister in response to my question on notice in April.

The motion brought to the house by Ms Pulford is a very good
one because it enables us to seek some clarification from the government as to
which categories of employment are going to be cut and which will be regarded as
being front-line services.

There are many other areas that I am concerned about. In the
time I have I want to mention, for example, a similar ruling from the Australian
Taxation Office that applies to Department of Health staff — ruling CR 2012/71
– because each department has been issued with a separate ATO ruling.

It is very clear from this ruling, and in particular from
paragraph 28, that staff who were previously in the Office of Senior Victorians
and who were absorbed into the Department of Health and work in supporting
seniors and supposedly developing a whole-of-government strategy around the
needs of seniors are also not exempt and protected as front-line staff. I am
concerned that while we have already seen the disbanding of the Office of Senior
Victorians in the Department of Health, the staff who work in the aged-care unit
in the department will also not be protected through the exclusions applicable
under this taxation office ruling and therefore will be fair game under the jobs
to go in that department.

Similarly there are many important staff in the Department of
Education and Early Childhood Development who work closely with early childhood
services across the state. They are also not exempt from the scheme that applies
to the department.

I refer members to Australian Taxation Office ruling CR
2012/70, which is the ruling that applies to staff working in DEECD. There are
many public servants who provide an important role to the community and who have
very close direct and what has been described as front-line job descriptions in
supporting members of the community who I believe are vulnerable under this
initiative that has been given the euphemism of ‘sustainable government’.

By way of conclusion I want to remind Mr Finn, who in his
contribution made a series of claims that the government is being forced to do
this, that when the Labor Party was in office Victoria enjoyed a AAA credit
rating and a budget surplus in every year that it was in office. In fact under
Labor net debt as a percentage of the state economy fell from 2.9 per cent when
it came to office to 2.5 per cent when it left office. We also cut a number of
taxes, including payroll tax.

We made six WorkCover premium rate reductions, and we were a
government that delivered very strongly in terms of support for jobs and
infrastructure. By contrast, under the coalition government net debt will be
higher than it was forecast to be under Labor; under the coalition it has more
than doubled. We also see that the operating surplus is lower than it ever was
under Labor.

The facts stand in stark contradiction to the very wild claims
that Mr Finn made in his contribution. He can come in here and bellow as much as
he likes, but the facts speak for themselves, and they show quite clearly that
this Baillieu-Ryan government inherited a budget with a strong position.

Government members have failed to make investments in
infrastructure, and that is slowing this economy down. They are not planning for
the future. They are not investing in jobs in this state. This is why we are
seeing a downturn in revenue. It is of their own making.

Because government members are not investing in infrastructure,
people are not buying and selling homes, and we are seeing declines in stamp
duty revenue. This is a budget position of this government’s own making.

Again I commend Ms Pulford for putting this motion to the
house. It is time this government’s members came in here and explained to the
people of Victoria why the government is putting the sustainable government
initiative into place. The reality is, as I said earlier, that this is about
ideology. It is about right-wing ideology, small government and dismantling
government services. Those opposite are damaging our economy, and they have
themselves to blame for that.

Currently 72 000 Victorians live with dementia, and this number
is expected to double by 2030.

According to Alzheimer’s Australia, the local government area
of Greater Geelong has the highest prevalence of dementia, with almost 3500
people, and it is expected to retain the highest prevalence of dementia in the
next few decades, with an estimated 11 600 cases. In my own electorate the
Department of Health’s north and west metropolitan region is the region with the
currently highest prevalence of dementia, so this issue clearly concerns me.

The launch this morning focused on younger onset dementia
affecting people under the age of 65 years, which is rarer than dementia
diagnosed in people aged over 65 years. Mr Garry Lovell, who developed dementia
in his 40s, spoke bravely about his fear of going into an aged-care facility
with people decades older than himself. In particular I urge the minister to
work with Alzheimer’s Australia to ensure that the aged-care sector can provide
suitable facilities for people with younger onset dementia.

The presentation by Dr Michael Woodward, head of aged and
residential care services and the director of Austin’s Health memory clinic,
also focused on the need for greater training for GPs in younger onset dementia,
as patients were being misdiagnosed and had treatment delayed.

I also point to the fact that the previous government had
provided new funding in the 2008-09 budget to include $150 000 per annum to
target young people with dementia and provide support to their families and
carers. I ask the minister to develop a comprehensive package and to look at a
range of measures that can provide specific support to younger people with
dementia as well as to their families and carers.

Bendigo TAFE has a long and proud tradition of TAFE provision but the Baillieu Government has backed it into a corner and its future is now at risk.  It has lost $9 million from its budget, resulting in 100 job losses and 39 courses to go including  agriculture, media, shearing and community services, as well as the widely predicted loss of hospitality, business, fitness and retail courses.

The Baillieu Government has devastated Victoria’s education system with more than $500 million in budget cuts to schools, VCAL and TAFEs.  In tough economic times governments should invest in skills and training to help people find employment.  But instead of investing, Mr Baillieu has made unprecedented cuts to education and training.

One of the most  heartless impacts of the TAFE cuts is the cut to the Auslan course currently offered in both Broadmeadows and Richmond  in the northern metropolitan region.  Kangan Institute of TAFE announced that it will be unable to offer the Auslan course because it has become unviable due to the state budget cuts.  That is a particularly galling outcome given that this is a language  that members of the deaf  community rely on to participate in our community.  The last course that remains available to them in Victoria is now set to go. 

The Baillieu Government is systematically destroying Victoria’s public TAFE sector and with it taking away educational opportunities for students in rural and regional Victoria.

According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) research:

The strongest performers among high-income countries and economies –

this is in terms of improved learning outcomes for students –

tend to invest more in teachers.

That is from an OECD report, Does Money Buy Strong Performance
in PISA? PISA is the program for international student assessment.

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

Since 2006 SHASP has more than halved the public housing
eviction rate in Victoria from 13 per cent to 6 per cent. SHASP services,
delivered through the Advocacy and Rights Centre in the Loddon Mallee region,
assisted over 600 at-risk local social and public housing tenants to remain
housed in 2010-11.

The 30 per cent cut to ARC’s funding over the next two years
will adversely impact the outreach and Victorian Civil and Administrative
Tribunal advocacy services provided to vulnerable tenants and will likely lead
to an increase in eviction rates.

This government’s policies have led to social housing
investment being reduced by 2.2 per cent and housing support and homelessness
assistance being cut by 1.5 per cent from last year. There has been no
investment in new public housing since the Baillieu government came to office.
The Bendigo Advertiser of 24 July reported an increase in the number of public
housing applications, and this tight situation in the rental market is
continuing. This comes on top of the Baillieu government’s discussion paper,
which talks up the British Cameron government’s Big Society policy to force the
homeless onto charities rather than social welfare.

This government has carelessly refused to rule out increased
public housing rents, fixed-term tenures and the wholesale privatisation of
public housing. That is a disgrace.