bad laws

Unfortunately the 'Online Safety Amendment (Protecting Australian Children from Online Harm) Bill 2023 passed the Australian Senate last night, with an amendment to be inserted after section 63D.  I attach both the bill and the Senate amendment to the bill. 

In light of the looming Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation ('M.A.D) Bill,[1] Prof. Andrea Carson and Dr Max Grömping's paper looks into the real state of the information environment in Australia in comparison to other countries, focusing on the exaggerated perceived threat of so-called misinformation and disinformation on public information quality and how any harmful effects might be combatted without draconian censorship laws. 

How you can help : Download, print and distribute the double-sided A5 leaflet Ask your Senators to block Labor’s Orwellian “Misinformation Bill” . Ask your Senators to block the M.A.D. bill in the sittings of the Senate which commence Monday 18 November. The bundle of double-sided landscape-oriented A4 printed sheets will have to be carefully guillotined down the middle to give two bundles of double-sided landscape-oriented A5 printed sheets.

Biko Konstantinos has done a fantastic expose of PM Albanese's awful censorship laws that are up for voting in the Senate on 18 November 2024.

"Protection for consumer deposits in Australia's construction sector is vital as insolvencies rise, threatening the stability of the homebuilding industry," writes Dr Bradley Hastings[1] and Professor Peter Swan.

Update, 2/10/24: Of 25 submissions I could only find one that supported this legislation. The remaining 24 were strongly opposed. Unfortunately, I narrowly missed the dead-line, so my own submission, included below, was not included.

While the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 purports to aim to enhance transparency and accountability among digital platforms, it does not adequately protect users from arbitrary actions by governments regarding the content they post.

This is about the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023.

"There are three aspects of the draft Exposure Bill that are of real concern: the first relating to the role of a council albeit its relationship to its community, the second the role of mayor and deputy mayor in their relationship to other councillors, and the third the electoral system and its relationship to its electors. [...] A duly elected city council should not be subservient to the State or proscribed a role that undermines the capacity of a council to engage with its community on a broad range of issues that impact on our lives. [...] The view that what is good for other levels of government should be replicated at the local level. This reinforces that local government is ‘government’ and not an administrative arm of the State." [Candobetter.net Editor: The state government is obviously trying to remove the capacity of residents to affect what happens in their local environment and suburb. We already have almost no democratic power at state or federal level - just reduced to a risible function of voting for Tweedledum or Tweedledumber. But local government is where it all happens. This is the first line of population policy, because the councils say whether there can be subdivision or new housing, which is what dictates population growth. VCAT has been used and abused by the State government to overturn council judgment, as has the insertion of State-paid Council CEOs. This attempt to rewrite the Act risks annihilating local governments in all but name. See also 'Population and Development Battlefronts' at the end of the statement by Fitzroy Council.]

Local Government Act reviewed?

The Local Government Act is being reviewed and is in its last throes of consultation before being adopted in May this year. The Act proscribes the role of local government and thus we residents have a lot to gain and much to lose in how our City Council works and carries out the role of governing our City and building a sustainable and liveable city for all.

The Yarra City Council’s response was tabled at its 6 March meeting and should be of interest to many residents who wish to ensure that the role of local government and its relationship to our State Government is collaborative and not subservient and that its pre-eminent relationship is to the community.

There are three aspects of the draft Exposure Bill that are of real concern: the first relating to the role of a council albeit its relationship to its community, the second the role of mayor and deputy mayor in their relationship to other councillors, and the third the electoral system and its relationship to its electors.

A duly elected city council should not be subservient to the State or proscribed a role that undermines the capacity of a council to engage with its community on a broad range of issues that impact on our lives.

If we revert to the ‘roads, rates and rubbish’ mantra our City will be the poorer. The current 1989 Local Government Act sets out a high level statement that reflects a contemporary role for a council whilst the draft reduces this to a series of governance principles together with a requirement that councils ‘cooperate with other government bodies’.

This would result in our council being beholden to other governments and thus reduce their independence as a legitimate level of government. The result of not incorporating into the Act an advocacy role would limit the community’s voice through its elected representatives.

And finally the electoral system which defines local representation and the voting process underpins the value and credibility placed on a city council. As the Yarra City Council report states

“Elections in the City of Yarra have long been conducted by attendance voting, and the Yarra City Council is disappointed that the Exposure Draft makes this unlikely to continue”.

Attendance voting builds community and provides a window for residents into their local neighbourhood. State and Federal governments mandate attendance voting though increasingly pre-poll voting is becoming popular. The view that what is good for other levels of government should be replicated at the local level. This reinforces that local government is ‘government’ and not an administrative arm of the State.

[End of Fitzroy Council statement]

Population and Development Battlefronts

Here is a quick lesson in how populations are controlled when societies are governed democratically.

Population Policy Battlefronts for democracy and ecological sustainability
1. Local Government
2. State Government
3. National Government
4. Global

1. Local Government

* power of limiting building permits (and thus of limiting population growth) in line with water catchment capacities, aesthetics, civil hygiene, preservation of agricultural land and natural amenities, like green wedges, nature reserves and parkland
* promotion of energy efficient public and private buildings
* facilitation of householder independence from the State power and sewerage grid
* incorporation of local indigenous species' needs for space, food and water within the concept of local planning and as participants in the regional ecology.
* residents should have self government
* local elected officials and paid staff are servants of residents and should not implement plans without their agreement
* food and fiber production should be local where possible, minimising energy used to transport goods in and out of a community

2. State Government

Wherever States have the responsibility for and power of limiting impact on the bio-regions within their borders they should exercise this within the context of national and local population policy. In Australia the states have the power over land-use and water sources and the ability and responsibility to signal when infrastructure is close to capacity. They have a number of tools for limiting urban expansion. Among these are:

*taxes on second homes, taxes on windfalls gained by sellers when land is rezoned,
*redevelopment, not new development - of old buildings, insulation of old buildings - instead of land-clearing for new construction. These taxes are there to feedback order into the allocation of construction permits and should not be relied upon as something that can be grown to subsidise increases in government spending.
*housing as a citizen's right, a state's duty and a public cost
*land-development by the state to provide low-cost land to undercut speculative private development, which raises costs through unreasonable profits, thus driving up all other costs, and providing a motive for overpopulation

- Water should not be disaggregated from land because this removes valuable biofeedback that signals limits to growth.

- State governments must be entirely transparent in all their transactions and so must the political parties in and out of government. See "John-Paul Langbroek and why the Liberal National Party won't survive unless Labor Governments reform."

- Business can only be the servant of democracy and should not dictate population limits.
- Economy is a subset of the environment.
- State governments have no business making plans for local government to follow if these are not inspected and agreed to in detail by local residents.

3. National Government

* adoption of democratic and ecologically informed population policy
* separation of political and administrative responsibility for population and immigration
* chairing of a cabinet committee on population by Prime Minister adoption of a consumption strategy
* aim to stabilise population numbers by:
- promoting small families and a
- zero net migration program - gives around 70,000 person-spaces
* plan immigration program for the humanitarian longterm, staggering intake to cope with foreseeable ongoing demands and climate change
* Change the emphasis on immigration and population research funding from its longstanding almost exclusive focus on internal migration and ethnic group demographics, in order to give far greater attention to population numbers, per capita energy use and environmental impact.

4. Global

Australia should support policies to help people to protect local controls over land-tenure, recognising that the population problems of Africa, India and the Pacific Islands, only started when colonisation dispossessed people from their local lands and stable economic traditions in homeostatic indigenous ecologies.

Australia should direct more money into foreign aid to combat the conditions that contribute to overpopulation by assisting initiatives for educating and enfranchising women, enhancing children's health, promoting family planning education and safe, non-coercive family planning methods and protecting local self-government and self-sufficiency.

Australia and other 'Developed' countries should cooperate with United Nations global initiatives in developing longsighted population policies which take into account our high environmental/energy consumption impact per capita.

As an ecologically impoverished commodity producer, Australia should lead other commodity producers by example and assist in the development and use of low energy consumption technology and lifestyle, being careful to keep its population low in conformity with the limiting characteristics of the continent's ecology and the nature of commodity dependent economies, which also do not require large volumes of workers, unless they are conducted as slave colonies to furnish cheap supply to other countries - a practice that is neither ethical, humane or sustainable.

Australia should not encourage high birth rates or high immigration without their constituents knowledge or agreement, based on useful and true information about optimal carrying capacity and the preservation of democratic rights and local empowerment.

To me the “Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017” is more of the same – putting out a spot fire/diversionary tactic. The bill may be aimed at so-called charities that provide political advocacy while at the same time accommodating such advocacy through the back door, the bill may claim some smaller fry that are, to the government, collateral damage. Instead of addressing political donations head-on, we pathetically tinker around at the edges. As the dust settles the sharks that were dominating the pond are still there while the sardines have been thinned out!

Understanding the political gravy train

My first glimpse of the political gravy train (game of mates) in Australia was back in 1992 prior to Jeff sacking Victoria’s councils. As a bastard from the bush in the State seat of Rodney I’d joined the National Party who at the time was doing some good work for the farming community. The local branch had called an open meeting for all members and prospective members to attend to hear from speakers Noel Maughan (MLA for Rodney) and Bill Baxter (MLC for North East Province) regarding the forthcoming election.

The spectre of Council Amalgamations was in the wind and at the meeting we were informed by Bill Baxter with great emphasis that the National Party would not tolerate Council Amalgamations in any shape or form whatsoever. Within 2 years Council Amalgamations were rammed through parliament with the National Party’s blessing. At a subsequent meeting of the local branch of the Nashos when it was put to Bill Baxter regarding the obvious about-face, flip, sell-out, he refuted (lied) that he had ever given the aforesaid commitment. The meeting degenerated into a farce with Bill being ushered out the back door and many members including yours truly resigning their membership in disgust!

Political parties and political baggage

I came to realise over the ensuing years that all of the major political parties carried political baggage similar to that of the National Party. The (once) Liberal Party had morphed into a conservative organisation taking the nashos with them (or Vicky Verca), the Labour Party sold out the workers, both parties adopted neoliberal principles and the Democrats were on a hiding to nothing trying to keep the bastards honest. The neoliberal mantra under the Hawke/Keating Federal Government and the Kennett State Government redefined the political landscape dramatically during this time.

Today the landscape has only changed in the fact that the Demos have gone and have been replaced by the “Greens” who are also neoliberal despite somewhat honourable beginnings. Politically Australia has become a backwater of neoliberalism similar to North America and most of Europe and is suffering under the yoke of American hegemony, Chinese influence, neo-classical economics, overpopulation driven climate change and political indecision on all facets of the home front.

Legislating against spot-fires

Much of what passes for legislation at federal level today is aimed at putting out spot fires or shoring-up community/electoral support for the Turnbull Government. Similar to the State Governments of both Baillieu and Napthine, the Abbott and Turnbull Federal Governments have been do nothing ministries. There has been no significant legislation that these Premiers/Prime Ministers could or can hang their hats on, nothing, nought, zip, zilch!!

They have gone from proposing the ludicrous to the unworkable, shoring-up their support as they go! As spot fires break out around them their time and energy is consumed putting them out. In an effort to achieve this, diversionary tactics or smoke screens are often employed to take the community’s/electorate’s eye off the ball. The classic here was the “Same Sex Marriage” bill which was always going to get up, being taken to a (“referendum”) postal vote. This took some of the heat off the Feds for 6 months wasting time and money. In the meantime, Australia, as a nation, just drifted along with the Yanks pulling us one direction and the Chinese the other.

I read with interest the excepts from Clive Hamilton’s book “Silent Invasion” in Saturday’s Age and am currently reading Robert Macklin’s “Dragon & Kangaroo” and I’m beginning to understand an aspect of Australia’s history they I hadn’t grasped previously. Unfortunately, there is not much to like in what I’ve read so far and combined with our colonial sycophancy and our current obsequiousness to the good old USofA, we are sadly lacking especially when it comes to leadership of the nation.

Electoral Funding and Disclosure Bill 2017

To me the “Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017” is more of the same – putting out a spot fire/diversionary tactic. The bill may be aimed at so-called charities that provide political advocacy while at the same time accommodating such advocacy through the back door, the bill may claim some smaller fry that are, to the government, collateral damage. Instead of addressing political donations head-on, we pathetically tinker around at the edges. As the dust settles the sharks that were dominating the pond are still there while the sardines have been thinned out!

However, I do believe that any bid to curb the right of individuals to collectively provide alms and benevolence or to protest by either the Federal or State Governments to be an infringement of our civil liberties. This where the Australian constitution is an absolute dodo. Similar to the constitution not recognising First Australians, it doesn’t recognise the civil liberties of all Australians. As the constitution continues to fail all Australians and it will increasingly do so in the future, the more ordinary Australians and groups of Ozzies including charities will come under the spotlight. These individuals and groups will then be put under the microscope while those with money, power and political clout will able to evade this bandaid legislation and carry on as if nothing has happened.

Meanwhile the yawning gap between the haves and the have nots widens appreciably. As the middle class become trapped by the zombie neo-classical economics, climate change tightens its noose, environmental degradation continues unabated, resources become depleted, civil unrest mounts as people go hungry, fresh water diminishes and spills over into war and mass migration. This is the leaderless society that is being thrust upon us. Overpopulation is a killer!!

John Bentley

“We are all an involuntary part of a social revolution, where political parties feel entitled to take ownership of our individual rights to real and personal property, and where our civil and political rights are abused and overridden by the many politically created entities within the Australian Government System.” (Larry Hannigan).

You can read more on Larry Hannigan's blog, where it seems he is doing Victorians a great service: https://larryhannigan.com/government-state/13-victorian-local-government-act-2018-submissions/.

"We cannot hide the fact that the European left has a clear agenda. They are supportive to migration. They actually import future leftist voters to Europe hiding behind humanism. It is an old trick but I do not understand why we have to accept it. They consider registration and protection of borders bureaucratic, nationalist and against human rights. They have a dream about the politically constructed world society without religious traditions, without borders, without nations. They attack core values of our European identity: family, nation, subsidiarity and responsibility. [...] We have a heartfelt compassion for the people who left their homes. They are victims of the bad governance of their own countries. They are victims of bad international political decisions. And they are victims of our bad European policy as well which raises expectations that are impossible to be fulfilled. They are obviously victims of the human traffickers. But considering them victims must not turn ourselves into being victims. Just because we do not consider them enemies we must not act against ourselves. Our moral responsibility is to give back these people their homes and their countries. It can’t be our objective to provide them with a new European life. Right to human dignity and security are basic rights. But neither the German, Austrian nor the Hungarian way of life is a basic right of all people on the Earth. " (Speech of Viktor Orbán at the EPP Congress in Madrid, on the 22nd of October in 2015 - more than ever, relevant today.)

You can find more recent speeches and transcripts here:

Video Transcript below:

Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen, President, dear Delegates,

I would like to congratulate to Partido Popular and to the Spanish Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy for the outstanding performance of their government. Today I would like to speak about the migration crisis. This issue will determine the future of our political family. We are in a deep trouble. The migration crisis is able to destabilize governments, countries and the whole European continent. We need a strong and clear-cut answer, timetable and action plan of EPP. The Hungarian delegates welcome the resolution of the congress, declaring that the Spanish approach is the right one.

Dear Friends,

The danger we have been facing demands open and honest speech. First of all, dear Friends, what we have been facing is not a refugee crisis. This is a migratory movement composed of economic migrants, refugees and also foreign fighters. This is an uncontrolled and unregulated process. I would like to remind you that free choice of a host country is not included in the international law. I also want to underline that there is an unlimited source of supply of people, after Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Africa is now also on the move. The dimension and the volume of the danger is well above our expectations.

Dear Colleagues,

This is the right time to make clear the nature and the dimension of our moral responsibility. We are Christian democrats so the issue of moral responsibility must also be put high into consideration. We have a heartfelt compassion for the people who left their homes. They are victims of the bad governance of their own countries. They are victims of bad international political decisions. And they are victims of our bad European policy as well which raises expectations that are impossible to be fulfilled. They are obviously victims of the human traffickers. But considering them victims must not turn ourselves into being victims. Just because we do not consider them enemies we must not act against ourselves. Our moral responsibility is to give back these people their homes and their countries. It can’t be our objective to provide them with a new European life. Right to human dignity and security are basic rights. But neither the German, Austrian nor the Hungarian way of life is a basic right of all people on the Earth. It is only a right of those ones who have contributed to it. Europe is not able to accept everyone who wants a better life. We have to help them to get back their own lives with dignity and we have to send them back to their own countries.

Dear Colleagues,

Let me draw your kind attention to the fact that European Christian democratic approach doesn’t tolerate any anti-Muslim policy. Muslim faith which we honor and respect is not responsible for the root causes of this mass migratory movement.

Dear Delegates,

We cannot avoid speaking about the quality of our democracies. Does it comply with the freedom of information and speech that medias usually show women and children while seventy percent of the migrants are young men and they look like an army? How could it happen that our people’s feel that their opinion is not being put into consideration? And we have to address the question whether our people want what has been happening. Did we get authorization from them to allow millions of migrants to enter our continent? Did we get authorization not to comply with the Schengen regulations for months? No, distinguished Delegates, we did not. And it is not a convincing argument any more that what we have been doing is because of emergency. I believe we have to gather all our courage, we have to throw away PC-ness and we should launch a big debate. We have to discuss our own intentions regarding our own continent without hypocrisy and pharisaism. What do we think about our civilization heritage? Can the change of cultural pattern forced externally? Do we accept parallel societies? Or we defend our tolerant and rule of law based way of life we have lived so far?

Dear Delegates,

Europe is currently rich and weak. This is the most possibly dangerous mixture. We seem not to be able to overcome our challenges on our own. Turkey is an important strategic partner. But if based on the lack of our own power we expect the solution from them that will make us exposed. This is the current situation of Europe. If we do not want that we have to protect our borders. If we are unable to do so at Greece which is the Eastern gate of the Balkans and the first line of defence than we have to do it at the Western gate of the Balkans at Hungary and Slovenia.

Dear Friends,

We cannot hide the fact that the European left has a clear agenda. They are supportive to migration. They actually import future leftist voters to Europe hiding behind humanism. It is an old trick but I do not understand why we have to accept it. They consider registration and protection of borders bureaucratic, nationalist and against human rights. They have a dream about the politically constructed world society without religious traditions, without borders, without nations. They attack core values of our European identity: family, nation, subsidiarity and responsibility.

Dear Friends,

We are EPP. Our behavior should not be determined by the opinion of our rivals. We are a strong and great party. The stronger the attack, the stronger we need to fight back. We need to be ready to fight for our principles. We have to be innovative as well. In the rise of the new crises, the old ways do not work anymore. We need courage and new experiments, even if not every idea we try succeeds, but it should not stop us from trying. And we should not attack those who are trying. I thank for our President and for sister parties who defended us, Hungarians in the difficult times when we offered new solutions.

Dear Friends,

We are the European People’s Party – Partie Populaire, Volkspartei, Partido Popular, Party of the People – our responsibility is towards the people. Listen to the people. Let’s be determined, let’s defend Europe. Do not let the leftist mess up and reconstruct Europe! And do not let them oust the soul of Europe! Do not let liberals and socialists take away Europe from the people!

Thank you very much for your attention.

"The proposed “Smart Planning” must not proceed in its current form. The Group does not support fast tracking development, weakening permit or planning triggers or referral requirements, or permit exemptions, or the removal of appeal rights." Inside find Port Campbell Community Group Inc's submission to the Victorian Planning Provisions Discussion Paper.

Port Campbell Community Group Inc. A0051688U
Submission to DELWP’s “Smart Planning” November 2017

In the interests of balancing the present and future interests of all Victorians (g) that “Smart Planning’s” so-called “Key Benefits” must better align with the P&E Act’s Objectives which requires all development (f) to foremost meet (a), (b), (c) and (d):
(a) to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land;
(b) to provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity;
(c) to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria;
(d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value;
(e) to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co‑ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community;
(f) to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e);
(g) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.

Community Expertise

Community members and groups are crucial for their local knowledge and expertise which, if listened to, would save the State and public millions of dollars in wasted time and energy considering flawed planning proposals.
The Group has taken part in in many planning consultations – see Appendix A.

Four instances of poor planning decisions are listed below, some current:

The Southern Ocean Beach House
A major motel, retail development and excavation within meters of major caverns on Port Campbell’s fragile limestone headland cliffs.
The University of New South Wales Law Journal published a special edition on ‘Rethinking Climate Change and the Law’. A history of the Port Campbell Southern Ocean Beach House saga is part of this edition. It was launched by the Honourable Justice Brian Preston, Chief Judge of the NSW Land and Environment Court. An important part of the articles is an emphasis on community expertise and involvement in decision-making. See article attached and at: https://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/.

The Shipwreck Coast Master Plan
There was extensive community consultation, but it seems the community was not heard. The proposed projected viewing platform at the 12 Apostles appears to be high risk. It is situated above an area where there has been a major recent cliff collapse – image below. Local knowledge, and geotechnical knowledge, would say this is high risk. This is just one of the problems with the Shipwreck Coast Master Plan, because community expertise has been ignored.

12 Apostles Cliff collapse August 2011

Montarosa proposal on Princetown Flood Plain
We must ask why this proposal was permitted by Council, as the risks are obvious. We must also ask why the proposal received a $650,000 federal government grant; State Government appears to have encouraged Corangamite Shire Council to approve the development.

The proposal is an 18 room residential ‘eco’-lodge, 20 cabins elevated on stilts, a restaurant, café, shop, briefing facilities, office, function rooms, 2 swimming pools/day spa, lookout tower, cycling and walking trails, boardwalks, a boat shed and jetty pontoon/boat ramp for pleasure activities. There is an estimated 278 car parks, 5 bus parks, and 480 visitors. Council notes the development will require Crown Land “to create road access and walking tracks”.

The flood plain presents an unacceptable risk to the low-lying development, and the development presents an unacceptable risk to a non-resilient, fragile estuary environment which contains endangered and threatened species including Latham’s Snipe, Australasian Bitten, Southern Brown Bandicoot and Australian Grayling. The site adjoins the Great Otway National Park.

There will be major road and earthworks. Council notes that the 1 km long flood prone access road must be widened and raised to 2.1 metres AHD, but raising the road will create a barrier directing flood waters elsewhere which is unlikely to be resolved by culverts. The single-lane access bridge will need to be upgraded. Council notes: “The site is susceptible to flooding. The proposed buildings are located just outside or on the fringe of the 1% AEP floodplain. The finished floor levels of all buildings will be required to be no lower than 3.5 metres AHD which the application details will be achieved by placing buildings on stumps…”
The Great Ocean Road Region Landscape Assessment Study lists the area as of State significance with a landscape objective: “To protect the valley floor from development” and “Potential Threats: Development on valley floor (unlikely)”, recognising it is unlikely a development would be put on the flood plain. The Victorian Coastal Strategy states to avoid development in low lying areas. Part of the area has an Environmental Significance Overlay “for the protection of watercourses, water bodies, and wetlands”.

There are serious concerns regarding the leeching potential of the sewer and waste water system and potential for catastrophe in floods. The submission recognises the likely presence of acid sulphate soil.

Ten sites were rezoned on the Corangamite Shire coast for large tourism projects. None of these sites have been developed as yet, and none would have these risks.

Decision-makers must take into account the effects of climate change and the precautionary principle: the combined effects of rising seas, storm surge, extreme rainfall events, and flooding. But now the community has withdrawn from VCAT, who is going to make this decision? Council does not have the expertise.

The State government must investigate and insist on an independent Coastal Hazard Vulnerability Assessment and a full and inclusive public Environmental Effects Statement to assess the potential for flooding risk, and risk to the public.

Princetown Flood Plain. X marks site of proposed development with road linkages into and between the sites. Note the road into the area is flooded, and this was solely due to storm surge. A more extreme event would occur with a high rainfall event in conjunction with storm surge.
Original Photo: Corangamite Catchment Management Authority

1 Hennessy Street Port Campbell residential development
The height imposes on the public domain, overlooking a state and nationally significant headland’s walking trail. Any development is required to be a height of the vegetation and fit neighbourhood character. VCAT and Council ignored the community’s concerns and consequently failed to meet planning requirements.

1 Hennessy St does not fit neighbourhood character, nor does it meet the height guides, and it overlooks national and state listed heritage headland and walking trail. View from heritage listed Beacon Steps lookout.

Consultants

The only ones winning at the moment appear to be consultants who may conduct consultation but do not seem to listen to expert community advice. It is costing rate payers and tax payers billions.

Better Education for Planning Officers

The latest Corangamite Shire Amendment (C45) 2017 – changes to the MSS – demonstrated that planners do not understand the difference between Objectives and Strategies. Planning was advised by the Panel to rewrite them. The Panel members also noted the amendment could become irrelevant if Smart Planning proceeds. A lot of time and money had been spent on a document which could be irrelevant. Not smart planning.

VCAT

There needs to be a full review of VCAT’s inconsistencies and poor performances in decision-making which undermine the planning process.

Summary

For the benefit of Victoria there must not be weakened permit or planning triggers or referral requirements, or permit exemptions, or the removal of appeal rights.
Without real community input, the government will make many more mistakes which will cost the State billions.
Marion Manifold
Secretary on behalf of
Port Campbell Community Group Inc. A0051688U

APPENDIX A

• Shifts in Victorian climate law and policy and the planning system: Intersected views from the field and academy. Brad Jessup and Marion Manifold. UNSW publications, 2016
• Commonwealth Government’s Draft Referral Guidelines for the Southern Brown Bandicoot and the EPBC Act, 2015
• Western Regional Coastal Plan Draft, 2015 – provided submission and photos
• Corangamite Shire Draft Environment & Sustainability Strategy 2014-2019
• Victorian National Parks Association with Bioregional Profile Coastal Paper, 2014
• Amendment C36 for Heritage Overlay on Port Campbell headland, 2014. (Planning panel recommended this be implemented).
• Shipwreck Coast Master Plan, 2013-2015
• The Arts Bridge: Bridging Art, Community and the Coastal Environment, Regional Arts Victoria, 2013
• Drafted the South West Threatened Species Recovery Program which aims to provide a plan of action to recover threatened species in South West Victoria including liaising with Parks Victoria, Landcare, Conservation Ecology Centre Cape Otway and the Otway Community Conservation Network, 2013.
• Victorian Coastal Strategy Draft, 2013
• Port of Port Campbell Safety & Environment Management Plan, 2013
• Parliamentary Inquiry into Heritage Tourism and Ecotourism in Victoria, 2013
• Co-ordinated the Environment Defenders Office to assist writing and present a submission on Amendment C30 which has resulted in improved environmental outcomes, 2013.
• Corangamite Shire’s Port Campbell and Coast Amendment C28, 2013
• Corangamite Shire’s Port Campbell and Coast Amendment C29, 2012.
• The effectiveness of threatened species and ecological communities’ protection in Australia, 2012
• Plan to rehabilitate the remnant Great Ocean Road on Port Campbell headland to increase habitat for endangered species including Southern Brown Bandicoot, 2014
• Port Campbell Headland Management and Landscape Plan including Biodiversity Action Plan, 2012
• Port Campbell Headland Walking Track – Coastcare and Council Submission, 2013
• DSE Review of Land Stability at Sturgess Point, Port Campbell, 2011
• EPBC Act 1999 Draft Referral Guidelines for Southern Brown Bandicoot (eastern), Isoodon obesulus obesulus, 2011
• Review of Victorian Planning Provisions and Planning Scheme, 2011
• National Trust ‘State’ listing for the Port Campbell headland, 2008
• Parliamentary Inquiry into Use and Development of Public Land, Port Campbell Headland, 2008
• Heritage Victoria – Port Campbell Headland submission, 2008
• Victorian Coastal Strategy Draft, 2008
• Corangamite Shire Environmental Strategy, 2007
• VCAT submissions including organising expert witness reports 2003-2011
• Federal Government – Meeting the Challenge of Coastal Growth. Discussion Paper, May 2006
• Corangamite Shire’s Port Campbell and Coast Amendment C13, 2002
• Wannon Water / Parks Victoria panel to consider sewage options for the 12 Apostles
• Marion Manifold. High-risk coastal resort on flood plain. Park Watch. Victorian National Parks Association. September. 2017.
• Marion Manifold. The Port Campbell Coast: Paradise Lost. Park Watch. Victorian National Parks Association. June 2014. Pp.12-13.
• Marion Manifold. Port Campbell: Developments on a Fragile Coast. Park Watch. Victorian National Parks Association. December 2014. Pp.18-19.
• Marion Manifold. Port Campbell headland still at risk. Park Watch. Victorian National Parks Association. September 2009. P.23.
• Marion Manifold. At risk – Port Campbell headland and national park. Park Watch. Victorian National Parks Association. March 2009. Pp.12-13

"Labor is developing what is meant to be the most fundamental restructure of the Victorian planning system since the 1996 introduction of the Victoria Planning Provisions, the new Smart Planning program. [...] A simpler, more efficient and certain planning scheme is long overdue, but Smart Planning is not the way to provide it. This is a $25 million program managed through the Smart Planning program Rules team. If the system is simply to implement five minor changes, along with online access, then the program is a massive waste of money. Alternatively, if future stages are to radically change the system, then the government is hiding its intentions, locking out community groups from the process, and intends to present the public with a fait accompli." (Professor Michael Buxton*)

Labor is developing what is meant to be the most fundamental restructure of the Victorian planning system since the 1996 introduction of the Victoria Planning Provisions, the new Smart Planning program.

For the first time, the government has issued a tender for significant private sector involvement in the development of this program. A private consulting company has been given the significant role in developing what is meant to be further privatisation of the planning system.

Nobody knows what the precise instructions to this firm are because few public criteria were provided. However enough is known to provide a broad outline of government intentions. Criteria include the need to reduce regulation and regulatory costs by simplifying planning rules particularly through code assessment, lowering the level of permit triggers, increasing ‘as-of-right’ approvals and reducing local variation. The result will be a new model planning scheme which includes a new structure for the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) and new content including revised zones, overlays and particular provisions.

The new system is being promoted on the need to ‘simplify and modernise Victoria’s planning rules’, reduce complexity and increase efficiency. The rhetoric of ‘cutting red tape’ and ‘reform’ are used to sell an increasingly deregulated system.

Stages in the process

There are two main elements to the process:

• The Rules and Policy stream which is making changes to the regulatory content and structure of the VPP;
• The Systems Stream which will make substantial changes to online planning information including a single point of entry to information, an online lodgement system for permits and planning scheme amendments, the content of planning schemes, and interactive state-wide maps. At this stage, this component will not include a single online centralised portal for all planning applications.

Under the Rules and Policy stream, the government envisages four stages in the process.

Stage 1 was the addition of further categories to VicSmart focusing on residential zones

Stage 2 will comprise a first package of further changes to VicSmart, and allegedly minor changes to the VPPs..

Stage 3 is intended to include a major restructure of the VPP and implemented in mid-2018.

Stage 4 will ‘further reshape the planning system’ in even more fundamental ways. under a program titled Transform.

Consultation

The property industry is an enthusiastic advocate for Smart Planning. The Property Council, for example, stated that the new system “is exactly what the doctor ordered…to cut red tape…and accelerate decision making”.

However, community groups have been locked out of the entire Smart Planning process.

Property and professional groups are represented on the technical reference and advisory groups for the program but not residents. The following groups are represented on the advisory group:

• Municipal Association of Victoria
• Australian Institute of Architects
• Building Designers Association of Victoria
• Housing Industry Association
• Master Builders Association of Victoria
• Planning Institute of Australia
• Property Council of Australia
• Urban Development Institute of Australia
• Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association.

No members of relevant community groups of the public are represented on either the technical or the advisory group.

A Smart Planning presentation to industry organised by the Planning Institute on 31 October, proposed the following reasons for the exclusion of the public from consultation:

• Members of the public are incapable of understanding strategic planning
• Members of the public might initially object to changes to planning systems or specific developments but invariably ultimately accept them
• The large number of past reports into planning make further public consultation unnecessary.

A survey was released into potential VPP changes with a completion date of 10 July. Professionals made up most of the 688 respondents.

A discussion paper into broad proposals for Stage 1 changes was released on 16 October along with an online questionnaire with responses required by 24 November.

Stage 1 changes to VicSmart were introduced without the opportunity for public consultation in mid 2017.

Stage 2 changes will be presented to the minister and, if necessary, cabinet for approval in December for immediate adoption. This means that changes to the planning system will be immediately implemented without making the content of changes publicly available prior to adoption. The public will be presented with a fait accompli.

Stage 3 and 4 changes are expected to proceed in the same way as stage 2.

VicSmart changes

The government introduced a dual track approval system into Victorian planning with the enactment of the Planning and Environment Amendment (VicSmart Planning Assessment) Act in September 2012. Clauses 90–95 inserted into the VPP implement the VicSmart system. The Act establishes a different approval procedure for a separate class of applications but does not define this class or specify these applications. These are listed in clause 92 and initially comprised relatively minor and uncontroversial applications for various zones including subdivision to align a common boundary; construction of a fence, carport or garage; and construction of buildings and works of less than $50,000 in value not within 30 metres of a residential zone.

Clause 91 sets out the process for VicSmart applications. Applications must be processed within 10 business days and are exempt from notice, decision guidelines and review rights, policies or other provisions, although applicants may appeal a decision by the responsible authority; the responsible authority cannot request further information; authorities cannot act as referral authorities for comment on an application; environmental impacts cannot be considered; and councillors are excluded from decisions.

The government justified the introduction of a separate track by the need for a streamlined permit process aimed at ‘straightforward, low impact development proposals’, intended to ‘reduce frustration and unnecessary red tape for families wanting to make simple improvements to their homes’ and reduce ‘unnecessary delays and costs in Victoria's planning system’. However, the failure of the legislation to list the class of applications and conferring on the minister the power to develop and alter the list without further reference to parliament has allowed the progressive extension of the system by expanding the classes of applications. The then Shadow Minister for Planning, Brian Tee, commented in the parliamentary debate on the VicSmart Bill that ‘we all know that this legislation is much broader in its scope; the sky is the limit’.

The 2017 changes to VicSmart were introduced through Amendment VC137. This allowed extensions to dwellings in residential zones without a permit, and doubled the class of applications for buildings and works in a range of zones to $100,000.

These VicSmart changes have helped double VicSmart applications to 8 per cent. Further Stage 1 changes are expected to increase them to 14 per cent, ultimately rising possibly to one third of all applications. The 2016 budget estimates states that the Smart Planning program “will enable an extension to the VicSmart process, including the targeted removal of permit requirements in commercial and industrial zones, allowing faster approval times for certain development proposals….[its] proportion of planning permit applications will increase over time as reforms aimed at streamlining the planning system take hold”. It is likely that this process will reduce or remove existing rights to notice and appeal against classes of medium and high rise developments.

Stage 2 changes

Vicsmart will be integrated into particularly provisions and overlay schedules and other provisions. At present, VicSmart operates as a separate section at the end of planning schemes. Its integration into other provisions will entrench it structurally, providing codified assessments, uses and developments exempt from permits and applications exempt from notice or review. This integration will make further increases to VicSmart applications inevitable. A list of five new classes of applications is proposed at present.

Local and State planning policy will be integrated. Since local policy cannot contradict State policy, this will probably weaken local policy.

Streamlined assessment pathways will be provided by amending specific provisions to add building and works exemptions, reduce permitted applications by increasing ‘as-of-right’ uses and developments, and reduce the number of prohibited uses.

Drafting and procedural changes will be made.

Stage 3 and 4 changes

The discussion paper does not outline these. However, it is clear from the October 2017 discussion paper, Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions, and other Smart Planning material, that radical changes to the planning system are envisaged under stages 3 and 4.

A revealing indicator of the government’s approach is the reference to the Leading Practice Model for Development Assessment prepared by the Development Assessment Forum in 2005. This influential model prepared by a body composed primarily of development and professional groups has been progressively implemented by all State governments to deregulate planning systems. The paper also refers to the use of code assessment and exemptions in New South Wales and Queensland systems. These are the most deregulated in Australia. Yet the government’s overall aim for Smart Planning is to “make Victoria’s planning system the most efficient and responsive in Australia”.

The government provides little detail of how radically the Stage 3 and 4 changes will further deregulate the planning system. However, the documentation provides a sense of what is envisaged. A progressive process of change is envisaged through “successive VPP and planning scheme amendments”. The program “seeks to deliver long term, transformative changes to the planning system”. The discussion paper proposes code assessment for multiple dwellings in defined locations, increasing code assessment to remove “entirely from the need for assessment” more applications, and applying VicSmart to complex applications. The Transform process would “further reshape the planning system” for the next 30 years.

Some proposed more detailed amendments to provisions include:

• Exempt single dwellings on lots above 300 square metres.
• Increase exempt uses in commercial and mixed use zones
• Make office an exempt use in the Industrial 3 zone.
• Increase exempt commercial uses in the Farming zone.
• Review the need for permits under all overlays and liberalise Floodway and Land Subject to Inundation overlays.
• Exempt car parking requirements in nominated zones
• Exempt premises in commercial zones from planning permits for licenced and gambling premises
• Further deregulate the Heritage Overlay by removing the need for permits for dry stone walls.
• Remove clause 57 providing greater control over uses and developments in green wedge land.
• Remove the powers of referral authorities
• Review the role of Section 173 agreements and decision guidelines.

Omissions

A simpler, more efficient and certain planning scheme is long overdue, but Smart Planning is not the way to provide it. This is a $25 million program managed through the Smart Planning program Rules team. If the system is simply to implement five minor changes, along with online access, then the program is a massive waste of money. Alternatively, if future stages are to radically change the system, then the government is hiding its intentions, locking out community groups from the process, and intends to present the public with a fait accompli.

The Smart Planning process addresses none of the major problems associated with the VPPs. These problems all arise from the lack of effective regulation, not the need for further deregulation. In particular

• The recent deregulation of the residential zones should be reversed
• Height controls should be added to the commercial and mixed use zones to protect historic strip and local retail centres
• The extensive out-of-centre development allowed in commercial zones, which allows further unfair competition with traditional centres and entrenches car based centres, should be controlled.
• The few prohibited uses in commercial and mixed use zones should be expanded
• Greater heritage protection should be provided to historic industrial areas to require building reuse not demolition.
• The former rural zones should be reinstated
• Commercial uses should be prohibited in Green Wedge zones and all uses not listed in section 2 prohibited.
• Vague and contradictory decision guidelines and objectives should be rewritten in a clear, regulatory manner.
• The widespread inadequate application of standard provisions to land by local councils should be addressed to better match provisions to local conditions and need.

* About Michael Buxton

Michael Buxton is Professor of Environment and Planning at RMIT University and former head of the RMIT planning program. He spent 12 years in senior management in planning and environmental agencies in the Victorian Government and has written widely on urban form, peri-urban development and environmental policy.

This is dismantling planning schemes, removing impediments to what developers want, and allowing development on developers’ terms. What is happening under “Smart Planning” has no relationship to either of those words. Read it and weep – or get angry, and loud. This is essentially about making a single planning scheme for Victoria, controlled by the State government (and whoever may have its ear). You are having YOUR planning scheme stolen from you.

We have all been through the Elaine Carbine’s “Making Local Policy Stronger” farce 10 years ago, when all that happened was significant loss of local policy. Local policy, particularly “old” policy (i.e. something that says what it means and has teeth – like our Statement of Planning Policy No. 8) is intended to be weeded out to fit into the new format. This single planning scheme will comprise primarily State policy, which as we have all lately seen, can be changed by a stroke of the Minister’s pen.

There is also substantial cost to councils involved. To get to where so-called “Smart Planning” is intending to take us, planning schemes will have to be re-written, and if your council is currently doing a planning scheme review, they will have to start again.

Other niceties include:

• Moving the peri-urban areas from “Regional Victoria” to “Urban Growth”,
• Moving “Open Space” to “Community Infrastructure”,
• Deleting Municipal Strategic Statements [MSS], and “simplifying” what used to be in them.
• The whole section on Metropolitan Melbourne is deleted, with some parts transferred to other State policies, meaning these are now applied across the State instead of just metro Melbourne.
• Local policies will also have to be justified by identifying in the policy (“Policy Context”) the local issue that triggered the policy.
• There won’t be a policy-neutral translation of existing policy to this new format, local policies will have to be changed or deleted to fit with the format.

Local policies will have to fit in with State policy themes. If you’ve got some other issue locally – too bad. Can’t have a policy.

Watch out as well for a second attempt to introduce that idiotic “verbs matrix” that surfaced circa 2013/14 which restricts the use of verbs with which policy statements can begin, and dictates verbs that can be used.

All along the way, VicSmart infiltrates every part of the State Planning Policy Framework, together with “streamlining” permit triggers (i.e. primarily to remove them).

The whole thing is “user” (read developer) driven, and Professor Buxton’s information exposing who is making these decisions, confirms why the public has been shut out of the so-called “Smart Planning” processes.

A new Departmental unit to “vet” local policy is to be set up – ‘policy police’?

They haven’t even shown us what they are intending to do.

From our perspective, we are asking if it’s time to say the government’s promise to protect Macedon Ranges is a broken one. It can’t be protected with all of this going down, and Green Wedges are also under direct attack.

AND FINALLY, THIS IS THE ONLY TIME YOU WILL BE CONSULTED. FROM HERE THIS RUBBISH GOES STRAIGHT INTO PLANNING SCHEMES – AFTER IT HAS BEEN THROUGH THE ‘REFERENCE’ GROUPS.

Some additional specific issues for change include:
• Removing permit triggers for houses on lots between 300 and 500 sqm and use the building code to assess instead of planning system.
• Making more commercial uses to not need a permit in the Mixed Use zone
• Making motor repair shop and convenience shop as-of-right in the Industrial 1 zone.
• Making takeaway food premises, indoor recreation facilities and motor repair premises as-of-right in the Industrial 3 zone.
• Replacing the Urban Floodway Zone.
• Automatically rezoning land in the Urban Growth Zone when a precinct structure plan is approved, instead of requiring a planning scheme amendment to change the zones.
• Reviewing the use of Environmental Significance Overlay to identify ‘buffers’
• Increasing permit exemptions for single dwellings in Environmental Significant and Significant Landscape Overlays
• More permit exemptions in Heritage Overlays for ‘minor buildings and works’
• Review whether the Neighbourhood Character Overlay should be deleted.
• Review merging all current flood controls (Urban Floodway Zone, Floodway Overlay and Land Subject To Inundation Overlay) into a single control
• Increase permit exemptions in the Land Subject To Inundation Overlay
• Increased use of VicSmart where the Special Building Overlay is the only permit trigger for an application
• Amalgamate all Airport Environs Overlays with the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay -
• Car Parking – provide car parking exemptions in selected zoned (commercial, mixed use and industrial) sor section 1 uses in existing buildings
• Consider making all car parking applications (Clause 52.06) exempt from notice requirements in all circumstances.
• Review (again) all separation distances (Clause 52.10) for uses with amenity impacts.
• Review requirements for service stations.
• Review provisions for car washes to ensure they reflect current practices and “modern” car wash designs, including crossover dimensions
• Review removing liquor licensing from the planning scheme, and no permit in Commercial 1 and 2 zones.
• Review the role of the planning scheme in gaming applications.
• Review permit triggers in the Land Adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1 or Public Acquisition Overlay
• Review removing the particular provision for post boxes and dry stone walls.
• Clause 57 Green Wedges – assess whether would be more “transparent” if deleted and requirements (and restrictions?) transferred to zones.
• Consolidation of planning scheme General Provisions – this means moving them all to one place at the back of the scheme (where they are now). The change is to have a single set of application requirements, and a single set of decision guidelines – a generic version to apply in all circumstances instead of being tailored to the specific issue or requirements they apply to.
• Reviewing referral requirements (currently determining or recommending) and removing unnecessary regulatory burdens.
• All planning scheme DEFINITIONS – review. Be less prescriptive by removing ‘overly specific’ terms.

These thoughts come from Christine, of MRRA.

"The MEG Committee expresses its anger at the entire lack of contact between DELWP and residents’ groups such as ours. DELWP’s actions re the Discussion Paper seek to exclude residents from being informed of the proposed changes and from taking part in the decision-making process about the area in which we live." ..."VicSmart must not be broadened. It is quite clear that there is enough of the ‘fast tracking’ for so-called ‘simple’ planning applications. The Discussion Paper indicates that “the sky’s the limit.” When VicSmart was introduced the then Opposition (now the Government) vigorously opposed it saying that it really meant “the sky’s the limit” with regard to fast-tracking Planning Applications and this was to be deplored. The same Party (now in Government) has put aside such quibbles and enthusiastically adopted fast-tracking of applications and the Discussion Paper is mere tokenism."

Submission re …Reforming the Victorian Planning Provisions…November 2017

The MEG Committee expresses its anger at the entire lack of contact between DELWP and residents’ groups such as ours. DELWP’s actions re the Discussion Paper seek to exclude residents from being informed of the proposed changes and from taking part in the decision-making process about the area in which we live.

Community groups have been locked out of the entire Smart (so-called) Planning process and we are informed that this is because we (the people) are….

(1) incapable of understanding strategic planning
(2) likely to object initially to change and subsequently accept it…(as if there is ever a
choice!)
(3) further public consultation is unnecessary.

In other words, DEWLP and its Minister view the community with contempt!

MEG is left breathless at the sheer arrogance of this Government.

MEG has taken part in a number of Strategic Planning issues. We have attended Information Sessions and Consultation Sessions. We have lodged written submissions to Council and to Planning Panels Victoria re a number of Planning Scheme Amendments . We have made oral submissions to Panel on a number of occasions.

We have NEVER stopped our opposition to a particular Panel decision which allowed “no height limits” in one section of the area covered by Amendment C173 … a decision which has resulted in construction of an 18 storey development with 322 apartments bang up against single storey houses. The sheer ignorance and stupidity of that Panel decision makes us wonder if that particular Panel “was capable of understanding strategic planning.”

It would seem that “strategic planning” actually means State Government and those it employs “going where the dollars are.”

The Discussion Paper sets out to remove any impediments to the ambitious schemes of developers though considering the decision cited above we wonder if there has ever been any real Impediments. In Stonnington it has long been ‘development on developers’ terms.’

The Discussion Paper proposes ‘getting more development more easily.’ Given the evidence of our own eyes we wonder just how easy can it get? Clearly DELWP’s purpose is to achieve more and more development at the expense of all environmental and health issues.

The Discussion Paper suggests the ways and means to accelerate development.

(1) Broaden VicSmart
(2) Use Code Assess
(3) Removal of what developers call ‘barriers’ to their plans…(residents call
them’ safeguards’ though they do not save us from much.)

VicSmart must not be broadened. It is quite clear that there is enough of the ‘fast tracking’ for so-called ‘simple’ planning applications. The Discussion Paper indicates that “the sky’s the limit.” When VicSmart was introduced the then Opposition (now the Government) vigorously opposed it saying that it really meant “the sky’s the limit” with regard to fast-tracking Planning Applications and this was to be deplored. The same Party (now in Government) has put aside such quibbles and enthusiastically adopted fast-tracking of applications and the Discussion Paper is mere tokenism.

Some of the suggestions DELWP makes for expediting development are:-

…using the building code to assess an application instead of ResCode on lots between 300 &
500sq.m. (N.B. there are no amenity issues considered in the Building Code.)

Mixed Use Zones to have more commercial uses that do not need a Permit.

…more permit exemptions in Heritage Overlays for ‘minor’ works….whatever that means.

review the existence of Neighbour Character Overlays.

car parking….provide exemptions in selected zones

consider making all car parking applications exempt from notice requirements.

no environmental impacts to be considered.

The list is endless. “The sky’s the limit,” said the Government when in Opposition.

To introduce ‘Code Assess’ to the mix would sound the death knell for our suburbs as we know them. (Remember when Victoria was called ‘The Garden State?’) Please note that the correct term for ‘Code Assess’ is ‘Free Reign for Developers.’ Code Assess is a system in which the applicant assesses his/her application, ticks the boxes and pronounces “full steam ahead.” There is no resident input and residents’ groups such as MEG vigorously oppose it.

The Property Council is apparently delighted with the proposals from DELWP. We are told that such a system “will cut red tape and accelerate decision-making.” As they are well-represented on the Advisory Council (and residents’ groups are not represented at all) of course they are delighted with the fact that DELWP has done exactly what developers’ representatives advised …i.e. the impediments to development are to be removed. It follows that with this ‘top down implementation’ any consideration of residential amenity at local level is to be forever consigned to the archives.

The impact of the proposals on Councils will be significant. Stonnington’s entire Planning Scheme will have to be re-written just as a Review of the Planning Scheme has commenced. This will have to be restarted … and to what purpose? Whatever we want in our Planning Scheme will be over-ridden by the revised VPPS. As Local Policy cannot now contradict State Policy our Local Policy might as well not exist under proposals in the Discussion Paper so any re-writing or requests from Council for residents’ views will be mere tokenism.

There is, of course, no indication of additional resources from State Government for all the additional work. The ratepayers will be forced to pay even though we were not to be consulted by DELWP …. and we have to wonder if that was a Ministerial direction!

MEG is grateful for the ever-active grapevine in our network that permits us to discover at least SOME Government scheming.

The entire Discussion Paper is, in essence, a dismantling of all Planning Schemes in Victoria.
What is proposed under “Smart Planning” is neither ‘smart’ nor is it ‘planning.’

It proposes “getting more development more easily” and in doing so silencing the voice of residents while residents propose “getting planning in a regulated way.”

The residents’ way is “smart planning.” The Government’s way is a massive free kick to the development industry.

Ann Reid (MEG Convenor)
C/- 14 Chanak Street,
Malvern East Vic 3145
Phone/Fax 9572 3205
Email [email protected]
Web http://www.chezsamuel.com/meghome.php

We need stronger not weaker planning controls at the level of local government and more community involvement. We need to empower local government and communities by ensuring that projects other than minor modifications to existing properties are scrutinized by council in consultation with the community. It might be more time consuming and cumbersome however it will be well worth the additional effort if we can avoid a planning disaster while at the same time achieving better planning outcomes. To achieve a good result, we need to give Councils the right to veto or modify a proposed development application and in the case of a disputed application that cannot be resolved at the level of local government, I would like to recommend that we replace VCAT by appointing a democratically elected community jury with the power to veto or modify a project. Overpopulation, planning and overdevelopment and building safe, attractive and cohesive communities will be the over-riding themes in the upcoming election campaign. Any further action in relation to the proposed changes should be deferred until we elect a new government in 2018 to allow the people to decide whether or not they support further deregulation and privatisation of the planning process and the removal of appeal rights. (A. Walker, Ashburton Residents Action Group)

23 November 2017

In confidence and without prejudice

Submission – Smart Planning Initiative

Attention: Smart Planning Team

Introduction

I am a ratepayer and a local resident and I have major concerns that unwelcome and unwanted high-rise, high-density over-development poses an existential threat to our city and suburbs, living standards and quality of life.

The community must be given a greater say as to how their suburbs will be allowed to develop and this will translate into better planning outcomes and happier communities. Ratepayers elect councillors to represent them at the local government level and our councillors must be allowed to do their job.

We need tougher restrictions and more community input to help preserve Melbourne’s ranking as one of the most liveable cities in the world as this is under threat.

Neighbourhood Residential Zones

The neighbourhood residential zones were originally introduced by the Baillieu/Napthine government to protect our suburbs from the ravages of inappropriate over-development. These changes were welcomed by local ratepayers.

The height and density limits were designed to give local residents and investors, certainty and protection and ensured that those seeking to push the boundaries could no longer appeal to VCAT to achieve the planning outcomes that they desired for non-compliant projects. Since then there has been some pushback and the Andrews government has already removed mandatory height limits and replaced them with discretionary height limits in certain areas making the sky the limit. We cannot afford to further weaken the controls governing neighbourhood residential zones and mandatory height limits need to be reinstated as soon as possible.

Stage 1, 2, 3 and 4

I can understand the arguments in favour of simplifying the planning rules to allow minor modifications to properties such as erecting a fence, garden shed, carport, adding a small extension to a house or a bay window without a permit, however, when it comes to larger projects, we need stronger regulations, adequate scrutiny by local government and stronger appeal rights for local residents who value the liveability of their suburbs.

For the reasons stated above, I disagree strongly with the smart planning initiative (stages 1, 2, 3 and 4) as I believe it will open the door to a proliferation of unwelcome and unwanted overdevelopment projects in many of our suburbs and that local government and the community will be disenfranchised and excluded from the planning process. That is not acceptable by any measure. I also take offence at the statement that members of the public are incapable of understanding strategic planning. The public who are living with the consequences of unsustainable population growth and over-development understand the implications of strategic planning better than anyone.

Simplifying the planning process to allow larger projects to proceed without adequate scrutiny by local government is inherently dangerous as it would open the door to over-development, poor quality projects and we would run the risk of creating the slum precincts of the future with all the associated problems.

Conclusion

We need stronger not weaker planning controls at the level of local government and more community involvement. We need to empower local government and communities by ensuring that projects other than minor modifications to existing properties are scrutinized by council in consultation with the community. It might be more time consuming and cumbersome however it will be well worth the additional effort if we can avoid a planning disaster while at the same time achieving better planning outcomes.

To achieve a good result, we need to give Councils the right to veto or modify a proposed development application and in the case of a disputed application that cannot be resolved at the level of local government, I would like to recommend that we replace VCAT by appointing a democratically elected community jury with the power to veto or modify a project.

2018 Election

Overpopulation, planning and overdevelopment and building safe, attractive and cohesive communities will be the over-riding themes in the upcoming election campaign. Any further action in relation to the proposed changes should be deferred until we elect a new government in 2018 to allow the people to decide whether or not they support further deregulation and privatisation of the planning process and the removal of appeal rights.

A. Walker
Committee Member
Ashburton Residents Action Group
PO Box 45
Ashburton Vic 3147.

[Address for submissions. ]The discussion paper fails to acknowledge fundamental truths about our modern society and how we live. The built environment profoundly affects residents, visitors, and indeed other species every day. As such, as in other disciplines, it is incumbent upon government to exercise the “Precautionary Principle” in how it plans for Victoria’s future. A fundamental part of proper planning is to acknowledge the importance of local input and longstanding local knowledge of an area. From the discussion paper on “Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions” residents have been excluded from the both the technical and advisory groups to the “Smart Planning” process. Long standing and hard fought for citizens’ rights, previously accepted and adopted into our Planning provisions have been swept away. What is proposed is government and developers operating as a combined growth machine pitted against the residents without residents even being given a seat at the table as a minority voice. Where has our democracy gone? [Candobetter.net editor: For a history of how this has come about in Victoria, check out our 'bad laws' section.]

The Victorian Planning Provisions Discussion Paper - Submission for Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian branch

The discussion paper fails to acknowledge fundamental truths about our modern society and how we live.

The built environment profoundly affects residents, visitors, and indeed other species every day. As such, as in other disciplines, it is incumbent upon government to exercise the “Precautionary Principle” in how it plans for Victoria’s future. A fundamental part of proper planning is to acknowledge the importance of local input and longstanding local knowledge of an area. From the discussion paper on “Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions” residents have been excluded from the both the technical and advisory groups to the “Smart Planning” process. Long standing and hard fought for citizens’ rights, previously accepted and adopted into our Planning provisions have been swept away. What is proposed is government and developers operating as a combined growth machine pitted against the residents without residents even being given a seat at the table as a minority voice. Where has our democracy gone?

We note the following property and professional groups are represented on the Advisory group

· Municipal Association of Victoria
· Australian Institute of Architects
· Building Designers Association of Victoria
· Housing Industry Association
· Master Builders Association of Victoria
· Planning Institute of Australia
· Property Council of Australia
· Urban Development Institute of Australia

Most of these Industry groups and associated organisations benefit directly or indirectly from the growth trajectory adopted by the current government, and the proposed changes further strengthen the influence of these vested interests. As residents, the largest and most diverse group to be impacted by proposed changes have been excluded, this cannot be described as an objective group to “strategically” plan for Victoria and Melbourne’s future.

A Smart Planning presentation to industry organised by the Planning Institute on 31 October, proposed the following reasons for the exclusion of the public from consultation:

· Members of the public are incapable of understanding strategic planning.

· Members of the public might initially object to changes to planning systems or specific developments but invariably ultimately accept them

· The large number of past reports into planning make further public consultation unnecessary.”

We address these three claims below.

1. This egregious slur on residents is outrageous. We question the need for the public be required to “understand strategic planning” in order not to have their environment eroded. However we also observe that many residents are extremely well informed about planning issues, especially as applied to their own areas, and the technicalities and imperatives involved. Indeed, we suggest that well informed residents probably number into the tens or hundreds of thousands of people – multiples more than the hand full of planners and other vested interest entities involved in the introduction of these proposed changes.

2. This claim is not supported with empirical evidence. Whilst it may be true that some members of the public might eventually accept changes to the planning scheme or local projects, this does not prove that they “invariably accept” those changes. Indeed, what you call “invariable acceptance” may actually be exhausted and dispirited resignation. Members of the public have other jobs – they are doctors, nurses, teachers, small business owners , retailers, physiotherapists , dentists- working long hours at their jobs with their own various areas of expertise. Why should they have their rights to peacefully enjoy where they live taken away without even being heard?

3. Whilst previous planning scheme iterations have usually included substantial public consultation, this should not mean that all of a sudden consultation can stop. Public opinion is not static, nor is the demographics and changing needs of various communities. As society changes and matures it is the government's job to ensure that measures to protect resident’s amenity, safety and peace continue to be effective. To do otherwise is an abrogation of this responsibility. The discussion paper gives the sense of urgency because of the scale and volume of change envisaged for Victoria which is of course driven by population growth welcomed and lobbied for by the development industry. This augers very badly for all Victorians. Government is riding roughshod over the people of Victoria who in 2014 handed them the responsibly of governing the state. With safeguards in place and a more normal rate of growth (rather than the turbo charged population growth that Melbourne in particular has experienced over recent years) residents should be able to trust local and state authorities to make changes largely in the interests of residents. It should not be necessary for residents to have to spend their time and energy on trying to maintain their quality of life. But, as things stand with no input from residents they will be certain to get exactly what they don’t want.

In summary:

Planning should be no different to other modern disciplines, where logic and reason is used to predict outcomes and develop strategies. However, in this discussion paper government has abandoned reason and logic and has instead embraced an ill informed and primitive view that infinite growth on a finite planet is possible and indeed even desirable (for those few ill informed, short sighted and primitive thinkers). Our planet, and by extension all national and local systems, are part of the “closed system” on planet Earth where water, soil, rare earth and other mineral resources are finite. The local and regional planning targeted in this discussion paper is fundamentally reliant on these finite resources. Building, transport, telecommunications, food production, power supply etc., indeed all of modern society’s activities, rely on systems which rely on these finite resources. It is therefore incumbent upon government to adopt a planning model which acknowledges that Earth’s resources are finite and so too must growth be finite. Your discussion paper ignores fundamental truths which is to all our detriments.

So, rather than members of the public being incapable of understanding strategic planning, we suggest that it is government, its planners and other vested interests responsible for the proposals outlined in this discussion paper, who are demonstrating a lack of strategic thinking and planning.

This discussion paper heralds massive changes to the built environment and massive population increases over which residents will have no control. The more change that is anticipated , the more say residents need to have. It is not the other way around as envisaged by this discussion paper.

Jill Quirk
Secretary, Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian branch
P.O. Box 556 Hawthorn, Victoria, 3122

Brigitte Bardot, possibly once the most famous 20th century French woman, has devoted her later life to the welfare of other species, via the Brigitte Bardot Foundation. Trump has recently signed off on an awful bill to change hunting laws in Alaska to permit rates of hunting that will quickly threaten the targeted species and which are devoid of any traditional pretence of courage or skill. Bardot has written to Trump in the hope of persuading him to rescind this bill for no-holds-barred slaughter.

To President Trump

Mr President,

Yet again you parade your contempt for the the necessity of preserving nature, of defending biodiversity.

Having already wrecked the Paris agreement on climate (COP 21), your decision to allow Alaskan hunters to follow bears, wolves and their cubs right into their dens has rightly scandalised world opinion.

You are allowing shooting from helicopters and the killing of hibernating bears, even in protected areas. What cowardice, what a disgrace!

Your friend, Sarah Palin, who is also an ecological catastrophe, will be able to shoot without limits, spreading death. What are you leaving for future generations, should there be any future generations after your massively destructive quest.

In this terrifying world where man destroys everything, causing his own ruin, the duty of a statesman is to have a vision for the long-term, to defend peace rather than violence, including towards the other species that people this planet, who have the same rights as us.

Mr President, I don't know if you will be able to hear my call today via Twitter, which seems to be your official communication medium, but I dare hope that, in a flash of sanity, you will go back on your absurd decision, which represents a crime by humans against nature.

God, what sadness....

Brigitte Bardot

(Translation from French by Sheila Newman)

US Congress Quietly Passes Bill Targeting “Russian Propaganda” Websites By Tyler Durden, Global Research, December 03, 2016, Zero Hedge 2 December 2016. On November 30, one week after the Washington Post launched its witch hunt against “Russian propaganda fake news”, with 390 votes for, the House quietly passed “H.R. 6393, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017“, sponsored by California Republican Devin Nunes (whose third largest donor in 2016 is Google parent Alphabet, Inc), a bill which deals with a number of intelligence-related issues, including Russian propaganda, or what the government calls propaganda, and hints at a potential crackdown on “offenders.”

A quick skim of the bill reveals “Title V—Matters relating to foreign countries”,  whose Section 501 calls for the government to “counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence … carried out in  coordination with, or at the behest of, political leaders or the security services of the Russian Federation and the role of the Russian Federation has been hidden or not acknowledged publicly.”

The section lists the following definitions of media manipulation:

• Establishment or funding of a front group.
• Covert broadcasting.
• Media manipulation.
• Disinformation and forgeries.
• Funding agents of influence.
• Incitement and offensive counterintelligence.
• Assassinations.
• Terrorist acts.

As ActivistPost correctly notes, it is easy to see how this law, if passed by the Senate and signed by the president, could be used to target, threaten, or eliminate so-called “fake news” websites, a list which has been used to arbitrarily define any website, or blog, that does not share the mainstream media’s proclivity to serve as the Public Relations arm of a given administration.

Read more of Tyler Durdan's article here: US Congress Quietly Passes Bill Targeting “Russian Propaganda” Websites

The Baird government's controversial biodiversity laws have passed their final hurdle in parliament, with NSW farmers set to get greater power to clear their land from next year. The legislation will replace the Native Vegetation Act, which was designed to prevent mass land clearing. Thousands of possums, quolls, koalas and gliders will be killed each year if Premier Mike Baird scraps our tree-clearing laws. Nationals MPs, big agri-business and developers want to allow landholders trash our precious woodlands and urban bushland by replacing the Native Vegetation Act with weaker tree-clearing controls.

Letter

The Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP

Minister for the Environment and Energy

Dear Minister

End the senseless destruction of our wildlife - stop the carnage and destruction in NSW

The Baird government's controversial biodiversity laws have passed their final hurdle in parliament, with NSW farmers set to get greater power to clear their land from next year.
The legislation will replace the Native Vegetation Act, which was designed to prevent mass land clearing.

Thousands of possums, quolls, koalas and gliders will be killed each year if Premier Mike Baird scraps our tree-clearing laws. Nationals MPs, big agri-business and developers want to allow landholders trash our precious woodlands and urban bushland by replacing the Native Vegetation Act with weaker tree-clearing controls. These changes will:

-add extinction pressures to our state's 1000 threatened species;
-threaten our clean, reliable water supplies;
-turn our fertile land into wasteland through erosion and salinity;
-put landmark trees and bushland at risk; and
-add further to Australia's carbon pollution.

In 2015, a study by NSW Parks and Wildlife found that 60,000 hectares was being cleared per year in the state — a four-fold increase on previous State Government figures.

Professor Hugh Possingham warned that rather than protecting biodiversity, the laws would allow a doubling of broad-scale clearing that would put some native animals at risk of extinction.

The primary objections of Professor Possingham are that the government is proposing self-assessable codes that will result in broad-scale land clearing, thus degrading soil, water and biodiversity, and that the ‘no net loss’ standard against which clearing should be measured has not made the draft legislation. Despite the weight of scientific expertise opposed to the legislation the Baird Government has pressed on regardless. How are those with short-term, vested interests in monetary gain, allowed to determine their own rate of land clearing? Environmental protection is in everybody's interests, and that of future generations. Eradicating habitat is a silver-bullet for more threatened species, and native flora and fauns extinctions - already we have one of the highest rates in the modern world! Tourist come to see, and rightly expect to see, our wonderful mega-diverse range of iconic native species - vegetation, marsupials, birds, and other native wildlife. They don't want to see barren, cleared landscapes, urban sprawl and industries!

The current laws are supposed to prevent that kind of clearing without permits. The changes, which the government says were developed through a "rigorous, transparent, scientific and evidence-based process," allow farmers more freedom to clear their land without having to find equivalent areas of offsets. This is vandalism, and not only will we lose precious biodiversity functions, and native animals/birds, but we will see more desertification in the future - hardly the route to more production and more food!

The Sydney Basin, for instance, has some 1900 koalas under limited protection, with about 300 of the marsupials resident near Campbelltown one of the areas with rapid housing growth. This is because our rate of immigration is set on full-throttle levels - and not inevitable.

Last year 47,000 native animals and birds were killed in NSW by property owners using a "s121 licence". Each licence strictly controls the number of animals permitted to killed, and requires data to be lodged with the Office of Environment and Heritage. The office issued permits for 34 species, or a total of 145,550 animals and birds to be killed in 2015-16. This included more than 100,000 eastern grey kangaroos, almost 9000 corellas, 6500 sulphur crested cockatoos, 5500 galahs, 655 emus, 175 swamp wallabies, 113 wombats and 83 magpies. What sort of department of "Environment and Heritage" actually gives out so many permits to kill off native species? Some Orwellian oxymoron? They are killing off the ENVIRONMENT, habitat, biodiversity and vandalizing NSW's natural HERITAGE. How can this horrendous carnage be permitted, or justified?

Almost 1000 species of plants and animals are currently endangered in NSW, mainly due to land clearing. Over 40% of the state has already been cleared for agriculture, mining and development purposes and of what’s left, just 9% is in good condition. This leaves very little room for our native animals to maintain their homes. Since the "bad old days" of colonisation, and ignorance, biodiversity has been in steady decline in NSW. For the last 10 years, previous Governments have been working hard to halt and improve this decimation of our local plants and animals, armed with two environment protection acts – the 1995 Threatened Species Conservation Act and the 2003 Native Vegetation Act. They aren’t perfect but the World Wildlife Fund reckons these laws have saved the lives of around 250 000 of our furry amigos to date, including koalas and other native animals.

So why the new Colonial land-clearing permits, a return to the dark ages of ignorance, and law-less-ness? What about the national laws and policies that protect our native species?

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is the Australian Government's central piece of environmental legislation. It provides a legal framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places defined in the Act as matters of national environmental significance.

Specifically, the EPBC Act aims to:

-conserve Australia? biodiversity
-protect biodiversity internationally by controlling the international movement of wildlife
-provide a streamlined environmental assessment and
-approvals process where matters of national environmental significance are involved
-protect our world and national heritage
-promote ecologically sustainable development.

So, why isn't this Act being implemented against the rogue Baird government? What are our Environment ministers doing to stop the Baird governments vandalism, and destruction?

Vivienne Ortega

Secretary, Australian Wildlife Protection Council

http://www.awpc.org.au

[email protected]

Kelvin Thomson's response to a question about how Multilateral Trade Agreements (such as the transpacific partnership agreements) might affect Australia's ability to control immigration numbers and to control the awarding of local jobs to local firms. He describes how this might be problematic and does not think we should sign any treaties containing an "Investor state dispute settlement clause." He explains why. He also discusses the process which sounds as if it has a distinct bias towards corporations and against citizens. What you can do: Contact your MP and ask them what they are doing and what they have done to stop any signing of treaties with these clauses. If they cannot show they have done anything to stop them, and do not undertake to do so, then let us know and we will publish this information and their photo. (Transcript and video inside.)

Transcript of Kelvin Thomson responds on Multilateral treaties

This question was asked after Kelvin's speech about Intergenerational Equity, where he mentioned multilateral trade treaties..
(Headings and emphases by Candobetter.net editor, for clarity.)

QUESTION: I noticed that you mentioned the multilateral trade agreements. I'm just wondering. I haven't had time to get into them myself and I'd really appreciate a speech in Parliament about their impact on our ability to control immigration and also to control the awarding of local jobs to local firms and things. And anything else you can think of. Can you speak on it off the cuff for a minute?

KELVIN THOMSON MP for WILLS: It is a very serious issue. In the past, the trade agreements were directed at tariffs and quotas - getting rid of tariffs and quotas - but they are pretty much gone. So if you enter into a trade agreement with another country now - with Korea or China or whoever - the issue is, what do they want? And the sorts of things that they want are freeing up of anything in the way of restriction between movement of people, freeing up of foreign ownership restrictions, and things of that nature. So, some of these agreements now have jumped into the area - I think - of diminishing our democratic capacity to determine our own future.

"Investor state dispute settlement clause"

And, in particular, there is a thing called the "Investor state dispute settlement clause", which is in a number of trade agreements. It's not in all of them. It is in the Korean one. It's not in the Japanese one. I assume it's in the China one, but they haven't released it yet - which is another matter of concern about these trade agreements. They get signed and we only get to see them some distance down the track.

But the Investor state dispute settlement clause allows corporations to sue governments if they believe that the decisions of governments impact adversely on their bottom line.

Health impacts

And the classic example of this is when the previous government introduced plain packaging on tobacco products that - and I think it's Phillip Morris - got themselves incorporated in Hong Kong expressly to take advantage of an investor state dispute settlement clause that we've had as part of a trade agreement with Hong Kong. And they are now suing Australia on the grounds that the plain packaging legislation disadvantages them. Now, that in itself is problematic from my point of view. I believe that governments need to be able to make democratic decisions - in this case in the health interests of the nation.

Environment impacts

It's equally problematic in relation to environmental issues. For example, there are foreign companies that wish to engage in coal-seam mining in New South Wales and Queensland and the like, and you have the prospect that if governments there knock them back, that they will be sued in relation to the Investor state dispute settlement clause.

Settlement of disputes lack normal legal standards

One feature of these clauses, which again is very unsatisfactory, is that it's not that you go to some international court which rules - you know, where you've got judges of the High Court, for example, sitting there. They are arbitration arrangements and the arbitrators come and go. They can be people who are acting for the company one day and sitting as an arbitrator the next, and then acting for a company on the day after that. So that the normal legal protection and rules concerning precedent and - you know - traditional independence and the like, are not present, in terms of these disputes.

We should not enter agreements with investor-state dispute settlement clauses in them

And my own view is that we should not enter into any trade agreements which have investor state dispute settlement clauses.

QUESTION: But do members of Parliament have any control over the signing of these things? Do they get to see the agreement?

KELVIN THOMSON: What happens, Sheila, is that the Executive has control over the treaty-making process and they enter into treaties. The treaties get layed on the floor of the Parliament and Parliament has a Treaties Committee which I chaired for quite a number of years and I'm now the Deputy Chair of - so I do have some experience with this. The Parliamentary committee takes evidence, takes submissions and so on. We can listen to people and make recommendations.

Abbot Liberal Government has majority on the Treaties Committee

There is a government majority on the Treaties Committee, as on Parliamentary Committees generally, and so you don't want to be sort of too carried away about the capacity of the Committee to do much once the treaty has been signed, but we make recommendations about whether the treaty should proceed to ratification and, from time to time Treaties Committee has made serious recommendations in relation to ratification and talked about provisions in particular treaties they regarded as unsatisfactory, but we don't have the capacity to look at treaties in the same way that United States members of the Congress do, for example. [Indistinct ?It's said that] they are able to scrutinise the text of treaties and know what is being negotiated. They're not supposed to tell people about it.

Double Standard: Corporations given privileged info; Civil Society kept in the dark

But this question about the negotiation of treaties and the process being followed is interesting because - so when the Treaties Committee talks to civil society, not government organisations and so on - they say, 'This is a highly secret process. No-one knows what's going on.' You know, the train goes into a tunnel and comes out the end of the tunnel and you've got this treaty. But when we talk to corporations, or agriculture groups and the like, they say, 'Oh, no, it's a good process. You know, they tell us what's going on and they keep us informed.' So, it's clear that there is a double standard at work. There are some people who are kept informed and know what's being discussed and negotiated, and a lot of people who don't.

Human officials just seems to dream up worse and worse situations for kangaroos and carers. Wildlife activists often go to considerable expense to try to help government plan to transfer kangaroos out of the way of new roads and housing developments instead of shooting them. The usual response is that it is too difficult to transport kangaroos. The wildlife rescuers keep a watch, but usually one day they find that the kangaroos have all gone. Then someone will find some mass graves. But, when it suits the government, it seems it's all too easy to transport kangaroos, with police escorts no less.

Looking at this picture of police cars outside a bush-setting home, you could be forgiven for thinking this was a stake-out in a hostage situation. But it was actually an uninvited transport team for a couple of hand-reared kangaroos, and a slap in the face for their carer.

Mad laws create havoc

Tonight I received two pieces of news about kangaroos that highlighted the utter hypocrisy and cruel stupidity of Australian wildlife laws. One was from the owner of a wildlife sanctuary, who described how wildlife activists had managed to rescue and transport kangaroos away from a planned cull and had wanted him to take some in. He said that, not only did he have room for them at the time, but he was happy to take them. Only, the law said that he could not accept wild kangaroos. The law said the roos had to be released into the wild. But there is less and less 'wild' left, and they had already been transported away (at considerable cost) from 'wild' that was being turned into housing lots.

Colin Candy's kangaroos

The second piece of news was that Queenslander Colin Candy's pet kangaroos had been seized in another raid by the police and transported away in crates to the 'wild'. Colin is beside himself because he had rescued these kangaroos and raised them. They have never known the 'wild', with the exception of a little bit of it at the end of his back yard, which has a few acres of bush.

"I travelled to Charleville in July 2009, and approached several shooters and the kangaroo abattoir, asking if someone would save me a joey. But everyone knocked me back saying that that they kill the young and leave them in the paddock.

While driving around Charleville I noticed a sign, wanting to buy kangaroo meat. So I phoned the owner of the sign, and he told me that he also shot roos and if he happened to come across any joeys that he would save them for me.

Next day he phoned to say that he had 2. So I gratefully picked them up and brought them back to Hervey Bay, where they bred, and I hand raised half of the joeys while leaving half with their mum.

We finished fencing this place at Apple Tree Creek late in March 2014, and I caught the hand raised kangaroos and relocated them here, while I couldn’t catch the kangaroos raised by their mum. Those kangaroos I gave to a wildlife park in Maryborough on the 1st April 2014.

None of the kangaroos have any idea, what it is like to live in the wild. As you have stated, kangaroos in Qld don’t get to live much past two years of age, with most being shot before they have even reproduced." (Colin's communication to the author of this article.)

Within days the same agency that had forced the removal of Colin's kangaroos, refused a request to remove a kangaroo involved in an incident, where a 67 year old man had been injured. A stand-off has developed between Bundaberg Regional Council and the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP).

"An EHP spokesman said under the Nature Conservation Act, the EHP issued damage mitigation permits to landholders or local authorities to manage or remove problem native wildlife.

"EHP is not responsible for managing or removing the wildlife itself," he said.

But Bargara Divisional representative Greg Barnes said Wednesday's incident at Apple Tree Creek, which saw EHP officers remove five pet kangaroos from private property, highlighted that native animal issues were the responsibility of the EHP." Source: "Council and state fight over who will kill the 'roo"

In 2001 Mr Candy had two other kangaroos removed from his premises, Mitchell and Marcy. Both kangaroos died soon after they were removed. See article here.

With his first rescued kangaroos, Colin initially obtained permits as a rescuer, but let them lapse after a few years. No-one seemed to object.

Then suddenly in 2001 he became the object of authorities determined to remove those kangaroos from his premises. He lost his home fighting for them in court. How could any authority allow this to happen to someone who was trying to help our wildlife? There do not seem to be any accusations of cruelty or complaints from neighbours that would have precipitated these actions.

Although Colin has since applied for permits, he says they have been refused, on the grounds that they are only given to rescuers - who are expected to release them into the bush. Mr Candy said that he was trained as a paramedic and that

"Kangaroos are treated like pariahs in their own country, so I don't understand why I can't keep them. They are harmless beautiful creatures."

We live in endlessly expanding cities where our governments are forcing all of us into smaller and smaller spaces and forcing our wildlife into oblivion as they pave over natural habitat. As mentioned above, kangaroos in Queensland, the state where Colin lives, have an average life expectancy of only two years because they are shot for kangaroo meat. As a result of all the big males being taken, the kangaroos there are observably much smaller than in Victoria, for instance, where there is no roo-meat industry (although not for lack of lobbying). Not just the Queensland government, but every state government in Australia promotes fictions of how kangaroo populations are ballooning when it is actually our own that are forcing them from the bush onto streets. The ACT government regularly engages in wholesale kangaroo massacres on elaborate pretexts.

And now four female and one male red kangaroos that a kindly Australian called Colin Candy went out of his way to rescue when they were little have been rudely taken from him because he doesn't have a permit. This in a state that authorises industrial scale hunting of kangaroos and the abandon or killing of their young at foot or in pouch. As if anyone involved in this raid really cares about Colin's kangaroos - or dared to speak up if they did. But Colin cares and the kangaroos know nothing else. And he dares to speak up. So we must also. Because the whole thing sounds completely stupid, as well as cruel.

Please speak up for Colin and his kangaroos and for all kangaroos by emailing the following parties. Say something about the population growth that is causing the disturbance of our kangaroos and about the sheer insanity of prosecuting a man who has tried to help abandoned joeys who will now be at risk of being shot in the wild, like their mothers, in the unlikely case that they survive alone in the bush without any relationship with the local roos, who tend to chase unfamiliar roos off their territory.

Director General EHP Jon Black
Jon.Black[AT]ehp.qld.gov.au

Investigation Officer EHP Matt Barr
matt.barr[AT]ehp.qld.gov.au

Wildlife Manager EHP Michael Devery
Michael.Devery[AT]ehp.qld.gov.au

Minister EHP Andrew Powell (this bloke has the power to order the return of the roos)
Environment[AT]ministerial.qld.gov.au

Minister EHP Andrew Powell (he also orders the destruction of wild roos)
glass.house[AT]parliament.qld.gov.au

Premier Hon Campbell Newman
thepremier[AT]premiers.qld.gov.au

"The East West Link is a white elephant that risks undermining Melbourne's productive capacity and living standards. The tunnel is not a solution. It does not provide value for money. Generations of Victorians will be burdened by an $8 billion debt for a tunnel that will have long passed its use-by date. It is regrettable that this government is seeking to amend the Infrastructure Australia legislation to give the minister heightened discretion rather than going through the proper independent, transparent processes that Australians expect when it comes to large spending on infrastructure projects." - Kelvin Thomson, MP. Wills.

(All emphases and headings have been inserted by Candobetter.net's editors.)

Unpopular, unwanted, unwise

The Liberal government's biggest piece of land transport infrastructure is the proposed freeway through Royal Park in Melbourne, which it calls the East West Link. In fact, it does not link the east and west at all. Nor does it have the support of most Victorians, who know perfectly well that if it proceeds it will come with a massive opportunity cost and put paid to their hopes for a rail line to Doncaster, a rail line to Melbourne Airport, rail to Mernda or public transport to Monash University. In particular, it does not have the support of local residents, who are appalled by its impact on Royal Park, the Moonee Ponds Creek and the Melbourne Zoo. I commend Julianne Bell, the tireless secretary of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria and committee member of Royal Park Protection Group, and all the community groups who are working incredibly hard to stop this project happening: David Muir and theKensington Association, Kaye Oddie and the Friends of Moonee Ponds Creek, the Carlton Association and many others.

Costly, profligate, secretive, ill-informed

For a Liberal government that grandstands about fiscal rectitude, this $8 billion project is being put forward without passing any serious cost-benefit analysis. The government claims that the benefits of the $6 billion to $8 billion freeway outweigh the cost but refuses to provide details, claiming that this would compromise commercial negotiations.

Misunderstands Glaeser's Triumph of the City theory

The government's business case relies totally on the assumption of what economists call an 'agglomeration effect', in which population and economic clusters in cities lead to efficiencies and add to business productivity. The Linking Melbourne Authority, which provides information on road infrastructure projects conducted on behalf of the Victorian government, has referred to a book by the American writer, Edward L Glaeser, called Triumph of the City. Its main thesis is the agglomeration benefits that create cities. But the Linking Melbourne Authority does not appear to have read the book, because the book does not argue that freeways are the path to these benefits, in fact it argues quite the opposite. Mr Glaeser argues that 'driving creates negative externalities that hamper urban economies'. He warns against highway building, calling it 'antiurban'.

I quote:

“For decades we have tried to solve the problem of too many cars on too few lanes by building more roads, but each new highway or bridge then attracts more traffic.”

The Age commentator, Kenneth Davidson, has accurately pointed out in relation to the Royal Park freeway:

“It will cripple the state's fiscal position for many years through massive payments to the public-private partnership consortium that will finance it. The financial burden on the Victorian taxpayer will be so big that it will ''crowd out'' the state's core responsibilities for funding schools, hospitals, rail transport and even other roads for at least a generation.”

Contorted and ridiculous economic estimates

An email recently obtained through FOI illustrates that the Victorian government's own economic consultant, Chris Tehan of Evans & Peck, told the government that the business case had dramatically overestimated the wider economic benefits to get an artificial figure of a $1.40 return. According to The Age:

“… the methodology ‘has not been used in any of [the Transport Department's] other public transport projects or program modelling to date’”.

The financial case for the east-west link hinges on a prediction that toll road use will jump over the next 30 years because of rising wealth and shrinking petrol and CBD parking price rises.

The business case for the link makes the controversial assumption that: firstly, a driver's willingness to use toll roads will increase by 1.4 per cent per annum due to rising incomes; secondly, the rate of increase in the cost of running a car will fall from the current two per cent per annum in real terms to half a per cent per annum by 2041; and, thirdly, that the rate of increase in the cost of inner-city parking, which is currently increasing at four per cent per annum in real terms, will fall to 0.5 per cent by 2041.

Victorian government caught out manufacturing and manipulating benefits

The Victorian government has been caught out manipulating modelling to produce a favourable result.

As the minister at the table well knows, this is the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. The East West Link is this government's prime piece of proposed land transport infrastructure, and I am detailing to the House why I am opposed to this piece of land transport infrastructure.

Increasingly dodgy business case models being passed by Victorian Government

The former Infrastructure Australia head, Michael Deegan, told a Senate committee that the government's unpublished business case provided an alternative estimate showing a benefit-cost ratio of just 0.8. Under this scenario, the project would return just 80 cents for every one dollar spent, suggesting an economic loss if the stock-standard analysis preferred by Infrastructure Australia is used.

According to The Age, in a submission to a federal infrastructure inquiry, Infrastructure Australia outed Victoria for failing to submit a robust business case for the East West Link, singling out:

“….the controversial $6 billion to $8 billion road as a key example of why the public are cynical about ‘big ticket’ infrastructure announcements.”

Infrastructure Australia's 11-member council, which includes the transport experts, Sir Rod Eddington, and the federal Treasury secretary, Martin Parkinson, is understood to broadly recommend only those projects with benefit-cost ratios of more than 1.5. And Michael Deegan warns that big-spending promises are being made without proper scrutiny. The Age quotes him as saying:

“This is a particular problem during election periods where commitments are often made although robust business cases have not been prepared, let alone independently reviewed.”

Fed Gov changes afoot to ring-fence projects from independent scrutiny

The Age continues, saying that Infrastructure Australia:

““… is particularly concerned about changes proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister, Warren Truss, which will give the federal government discretion to ring-fence some projects from independent scrutiny.”"

Mr Deegan warned that any such change would ‘exacerbate’ the problem of projects being presented to Infrastructure Australia ''with limited or questionable business cases.”

The freeway through Royal Park is a classic example of economic 'mutton dressed up as lamb'.
The article continues:

“Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who is opposed to Commonwealth funding for public transport projects, has pledged $1.5 billion for the east-west project, with the rest coming from the state government, which will collect toll revenue, and the private sector.”

Costly 'solution' doomed to fail on its own terms 12 years after construction

According to the traffic expert, Stephen Pelosi, the traffic on the East-West Link in the morning peak is expected to have slowed to 20 to 30 kilometres per hour by 2031 as worsening congestion pushes the road close to capacity just 12 years after it is due to open. The East West Link is forecast to carry 80,000 vehicles a day on opening in 2019, increasing to between 100,000 and 120,000 a day by 2031 according to his modelling. He is quoted in The Age:

''If it's reaching 120,000 we're at a position where we're reaching capacity,'' Mr Pelosi said. ''Unless you intervene in some manner and manage the toll rate to influence demand, you get a situation where you're near capacity."

“

It is not much use to commuters.

457 Visas mean no guarantee Australian workers will get jobs from EastWest link

When the Prime Minister is challenged about all the manufacturing jobs that are being lost in Melbourne with the impending closure of Ford, Holden and Toyota, and the job cuts at Qantas, he says, 'It will be alright, we are going to build the EastWest Link'. But will those construction jobs actually go to Australian workers – to Victorian workers, to Melbourne workers? In fact there are no guarantees – there are no guarantees! – that Australian workers will get the jobs created on the project from design through to actual construction work. This is because government policies at the federal and state level favour foreign companies and foreign workers over Australian workers and companies.

At the end of September 2013 there were 13,440 temporary foreign workers on 457 visas in the Australian construction industry, an increase of five per cent in just 12 months. At the end of January 2014 a total of 110,000 457 visa workers were in Australia, four per cent more than at the end of January 2013. The nature of the construction industry is such that any number of these 457 visa workers could be deployed to work on the Royal Park freeway, from engineering to trades like carpentry and other blue-collar jobs. The slowdown in resource sector construction means that many firms employing 457 construction workers are desperately looking for infrastructure projects to fill the gap in their orders.

Government reducing worker protection and encouraging 457 workers

On top of that, the Liberal government has shown that its agenda is to reduce protections for Australian workers and young people in the 457 visa program in the name of deregulation and removing what it calls 'unnecessary red tape'.

Let us consider exactly what the Liberal government considers unnecessary red tape. First, it has removed or watered down the key protections for Australian workers that Labor introduced in its June 2013 legislation, the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Act 2013, specifically, the labour market testing provisions. In November last year the coalition issued regulations under that legislation which make it much easier for employers to hire temporary foreign workers on 457 visas even when qualified Australian workers are readily available and willing to do the work. The figures from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection say that, for 65 per cent of all of the 457 visa nominations.

I am not the one who made the claim that the East West Link is a solution for the unemployed manufacturing workers in Melbourne; it was the Prime Minister who made that claim. I am pointing out why that claim is flawed.
Figures from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection indicate that, for 65 per cent of all 457 visa nominations, they have exempted employers from any legal obligation to labour market test – that is, to even look for Australian workers, let alone show that none were available, before 457 visas could be approved for temporary foreign workers. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the CFMEU, pointed out in a recent submission to the Productivity Commission that, even in the minority of cases where 457 labour market testing is required, the protections for Australian workers looking for jobs on projects like the East West Tunnel are 'virtually non-existent'. They state:

“Employers have no obligation even to advertise jobs for which they nominate foreign nationals for 457 visas – ‘other recruitment efforts’ (unspecified) will suffice, according to FAQs on the Department’s website.
Job ads can be put on Facebook or buried on obscure company websites, for only a few minutes, then taken down. There is no minimum advertising time …”

The CFMEU propose there be a 28-day advertising period, and I agree with them. They also state:

“The so-called ‘job ads’ can be ‘placed’ any time in the last 12 months. This means employers can use job ads placed in February 2013 to justify their bid for 457 visa workers in February 2014 – regardless of the number of Australian workers who become available or unemployed in that time.”

Employers have no obligation to keep any records of the number of Australian applicants, the number who got jobs and those who didn’t, and the reasons why the Australian candidates missed out while temporary foreign workers did not.

Employers simply have to ‘declare’ this information to the Immigration Department and that’s the end of it. They have no obligation to prove they made good faith efforts to employ Australians first or keep records of any job interviews.

The government regards requirements like this as red tape holding back employers. I say that, without such requirements, a project like the East West Link, if it proceeds, will not employ many Victorian workers at all.
The East West Link is a white elephant that risks undermining Melbourne's productive capacity and living standards. The tunnel is not a solution. It does not provide value for money. Generations of Victorians will be burdened by an $8 billion debt for a tunnel that will have long passed its use-by date. It is regrettable that this government is seeking to amend the Infrastructure Australia legislation to give the minister heightened discretion rather than going through the proper independent, transparent processes that Australians expect when it comes to large spending on infrastructure projects.

Thursday 20th March 2014
The Hon Kelvin Thomson MP
Federal Labor Member for Wills

The most powerful thing you can do to make your Member of Parliament work on your behalf is to ask them what they did to prevent harmful legislation being passed in Parliament, then publish this information. If they did nothing they stand accused. We reproduce here the speeches made against the Summary Offences and Sentencing Amendment Bill so that Victorians can see who tried to stop this. We include some pro-Bill speeches. It seems that no-one in the Liberal Party voted against it in the Legislative Assembly. The Bill is to be debated a final time, possibly tomorrow (11/3/2014), probably within the week. (Video of protests inside)

Two most powerful points that come across in the speeches below against the impending Act are that the Labor Party was willing to go along with the Act regarding greater powers for arresting people who are intoxicated and dangerous. A related motion to divide the Act into two was unfortunately defeated. The Liberal Party lawmakers were accused of rolling this one reasonable change together with an unreasonable change to the Sentencing Act. The Second powerful point against the impending Act was that it is designed to stop unions from impeding the hiring of scab labour. This seems to be true. Given that Workers' Conditions have been eroded since the Howard Government in conjunction with vast increases in numbers of worker immigrants, this question of scab labour is bound to come up more frequently and desperately in Victoria, as businesses close down, cost of living rises (power, housing, water etc) and employers seek to drive wages down. The Liberal Members response to this last point was to use arcane theoretical examples, such as pretending that those against the Act would be wanting to allow people to stop members of the public from buying chocolates from shopkeepers they did not like. Below are the Speeches against the Bill for the Summary Offences and Sentencing Amendment.

Victorian Union volunteer link

#FF0000">SUMMARY #match2" id="match1">#FF0000">OFFENCES #match2" id="match1">#FF0000">AND #match2" id="match1">#FF0000">SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL 2013

Second reading

Debate resumed from 12 December 2013; motion of Mr CLARK (Attorney-General).

Mr PAKULA (Lyndhurst) -- It gives me no pleasure to rise to speak on the
#match3" id="match2">#FF0000">Summary #match3" id="match2">#FF0000">Offences #match3" id="match2">#FF0000">and #match3" id="match2">#FF0000">Sentencing Amendment Bill 2013. However, it gives me some
pleasure to indicate to the house that Labor will oppose the bill, #match4" id="match3">#FF0000">and it will
oppose it proudly. We will oppose this bill because it amounts to the potential
criminalisation of all forms of protest in the state of Victoria. This is a bill
which represents the Premier's impersonation of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, #match5" id="match4">#FF0000">and which
represents his attempts to be a poor man's Campbell Newman.

This is a draconian, antidemocratic #match6" id="match5">#FF0000">and unnecessary bill.

In an even more cynical, tricky and unworthy move, the government has tried to
combine its draconian move-on powers with its alcohol-exclusion orders
provisions. I say very clearly that we think the alcohol-exclusion orders are
unenforceable and unworkable. They are not sufficiently offensive for us to
oppose them, but we think the bill ought to be split. We are calling on the
government to split the bill. The two effects have absolutely no commonality
between them whatsoever. If the bill is split, we will vote for the
alcohol-exclusion provisions, which are part 3 of the bill, but if the
government does not agree to split the bill, it is our intention to move a
motion to do just that.

Mr O'Brien interjected.

Mr PAKULA -- The Treasurer interjects. We will come to the subject of how
tough this is on alcohol-fuelled violence during the course of the debate.

It is important to look at the detail of the move-on powers. Which circumstances
will give rise to police and protective services officers (PSOs) having the
power to move protesters on under the threat of arrest? All a police officer or
a PSO needs in order to move someone on is to suspect on reasonable grounds that
the person: has committed an offence in that place, is causing a reasonable
apprehension of violence to another person, is causing or is likely to cause an
unreasonable obstruction to others, is present for the purpose of procuring or
supplying drugs, or is impeding or attempting to impede any person from lawfully
entering or leaving premises or parts of premises.

We heard from the Attorney-General as reported in the Melbourne Leader on 17
February. The Attorney-General is reported to have said that the laws target
serial law-breakers. The Attorney-General is quoted as saying:

Every Victorian has the right to protest and express their views.

However, when individuals resort to unlawful tactics that threaten the
livelihood of law-abiding businesses (and) employees ... they must be held to
account.

That is what the Attorney-General said. But let us be clear: this is not a law
that applies solely to violent or unlawful protests -- it applies to any
protest. All that any police officer or PSO needs in order to break up a
protest, to move someone on or to arrest someone is a reasonable suspicion that
the person is causing an unreasonable obstruction, is likely to do so, or is
impeding or attempting to impede someone.

Mr O'Brien interjected.

Mr PAKULA -- The Treasurer interjects incessantly with his mantra, as if this
is some sort of brilliant -- --

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr McCurdy) -- Order! It is disorderly to respond to
interjections.

Mr PAKULA -- I say to the Treasurer that this is the same old nonsense that
the Tories have been going on with for 100 years, and it is the same old
nonsense that they resort to when they are in strife. This is the

same line that former Leader of the Opposition Robert Doyle ran in 2002 when he
was trying to save the furniture.

Let us go to examples of what would be covered by these move-on laws. They
include the lock-the-gate protest and the anti-fracking protest, which was
supported by The Nationals and the member for Bass. Those protesters could
easily be moved on or arrested under the powers provided in this bill. The
anti-McDonald's protesters in Tecoma could easily be moved on or arrested under
these powers.

Mr O'Brien interjected.

Mr PAKULA -- The Treasurer says, 'They should be moved on'. That is right,
because anyone's protest is illegitimate in his view. If the government believes
a picket is illegal, it will order the police to move the protesters on.

That is what the Treasurer is saying. The nurses who were protesting during
enterprise bargaining agreement negotiations when the member for Hawthorn was
Premier could be moved on under these powers. The Baiada picket, where workers
were being horribly exploited, could be moved on under these powers. Taxi
licence holders protesting on the steps of Parliament could be moved on under
these powers.

Teachers and even lawyers standing outside the County Court protesting against
legal aid cuts could be moved on under these powers. Paramedics could be moved
on under these powers. Anyone holding a protest outside a member of Parliament's
office could be moved on under these powers. Protesters holding a protest
outside 104 Exhibition Street could be moved on under these powers. On 28 June
2006 there was a protest in Liebig Street, Warrnambool, outside the office of
the member for South-West Coast and the now Premier came out. I refer to an
article in the Warrnambool Standard of June 2006, which says:

Dr Napthine's speech to workers was drowned out by crowd members shouting
'Out, out, out' as he said that since the federal government had been elected
in 1996 wages in real terms had increased ... Persistent heckling forced Dr
Napthine to retreat from the street into his office.

That is the kind of protest the government would like to see stopped and people
moved on or arrested because of some kind -- --

Mr O'Brien -- Garbage!

Mr PAKULA -- The Treasurer says, 'Rubbish'.

Mr Wynne -- 'Garbage' he said.

Mr PAKULA -- He said, 'Garbage'.

My question to the Treasurer is: how would he know. Is he suggesting that once
this power is provided that the government can control which protests are moved
on and which are not?

Mr O'Brien -- Don't you trust the courts?

Mr PAKULA -- It has got nothing to do with the courts.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr McCurdy) -- Order! The member should address his
comments through the Chair.

Mr PAKULA -- The Treasurer says, 'Don't you trust the courts?'. All that needs
to happen is that a policeman or protective services officer (PSO) on the ground
at the time forms a view about the nature of the protest and moves them on.

Even during a protest like the Plug the Pipe protest, an issue so beloved by the
members for Benalla, Swan Hill and Seymour; they could all be told to move on,
then be arrested, then have their names kept in a register and then have orders
issued against them.

The Treasurer behaves as if it is only the opposition, only the Labor Party,
that has formed this view about the move-on powers. Let us have a look at some
of the groups who have written to me and written to the government who are
opposed to these powers. They include the St Kilda Legal Service, the Federation
of Community Legal Centres Victoria, the Peninsula Community Legal Centre,
Youthlaw, Western Suburbs Legal Service, the Independent Riders Group and the
Law Institute of Victoria. Geoff Bowyer, the new president of the law institute,
has said these laws could:

...

have a significant and devastating impact on the homeless who, by the nature
of their situation, are forced to gather in public places, often returning to
a familiar spot after being moved on.

The Human Rights Law Centre has described the potential for misuse as being very
high. This is not something that has just been dreamt up by the Labor Party or
by unions; this is widely opposed throughout the legal fraternity by the Human
Rights Law Centre, the law institute, the Independent Riders Group and all
manner of members of this community because they are draconian laws and they are
unwise laws.

It is interesting to recall what government members said when they were in
opposition. On 9 December 2009 the member for Benalla talked about the
'democratic right to protest' of the Plug the Pipe protesters, but now he wants
to take that right away for

others. I suppose it does not matter for the member for Benalla because he is on
his way out of here.

On 10 November 2009, the member for Malvern, now the Treasurer, said:

It is important to note the fact that there is a very important right to
lawfully protest. We on this side of the house would not seek to do anything
which would interfere with that lawful right.

What happened to those noble sentiments?

Mr O'Brien interjected.

Mr PAKULA -- The Treasurer keeps saying, 'Lawful' as if it is only illegal
protests which are targeted, but that is not the case.

Mr O'Brien interjected.

Mr PAKULA -- Treasurer, unlike you, I have.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr McCurdy) -- Order! The member should address his
comments through the Chair.

Mr PAKULA -- On 15 March 2010 the Leader of The Nationals, now the Deputy
Premier, said:

Any information gathered on protesters by the government or private security
firms must be destroyed.

And:

There's something very wrong in Victoria when local communities are subject to
this sort of bullying and intimidation from a government.

Now he wants police to record and keep the very same information against
protesters.

We have already heard the Treasurer say today that those anti-McDonald's
protesters in Tecoma ought to have been moved on and ought to have been arrested
if they did not move on when they were told to. That is the way this government
wants to treat communities; that is the way this government wants to treat
protests in this state. Every Victorian should understand the way in which the
government is seeking to stifle protest in this state. Police and PSOs can give
a move-on order to a group; and if it is not complied with, every member of that
group can be arrested, their names recorded, their names retained and 12-month
exclusion orders applied for. Nothing unlawful needs to be happening.

Mr O'Brien interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr McCurdy) -- Order! I ask the Treasurer to cease
interjecting.

Mr PAKULA -- Can I take up the interjection?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr McCurdy) -- Order! No.

Mr PAKULA -- Acting Speaker, let me make the point without the interjection.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr McCurdy) -- Order! The member for Lyndhurst should
address his comments through the Chair.

Mr PAKULA -- In the case of industrial picketing, Acting Speaker, this power
applies even to legally protected industrial action. That has been made clear by
the government. It applies to picket lines against which no orders have been
granted, and it applies to picket lines against which no orders have been
sought, so no-one needs to have gone to court, and no illegal declaration needs
to have been made about the picket line. When the Treasurer sits here and says
that it is only about illegal pickets, that is pure sophistry on his part. No
order has to have been made against the picket, and no order has to have been
applied for against the picket. The determination of whether or not it is
illegal is simply in the hands of whoever is on duty at the time.

Mr O'Brien interjected.

Mr PAKULA -- All that in fact needs to have happened, Treasurer, is that a big
Liberal Party donor needs to have made a call to your office or to the Premier's
office, after which you make the call and say, 'Get these people out of here',
as we know occurred before.

Mr O'Brien -- On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I find the comments of the
member for Lyndhurst offensive and require them to be withdrawn.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr McCurdy) -- Order! The member for Lyndhurst has been
asked to withdraw.

Mr PAKULA -- I will withdraw. I think it is extraordinary that the Treasurer
is so thin-skinned given the accusations and the allegations he throws around in
this house day in and day out.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr McCurdy) -- Order! The member for Lyndhurst will
address his remarks through the Chair.

An honourable member -- Withdraw.

Mr PAKULA -- I withdraw. Day in, day out this Treasurer -- --

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr McCurdy) -- Order! The member for Lyndhurst has
withdrawn. The member for Lyndhurst to continue.

Mr PAKULA -- Day in, day out this Treasurer comes into this place and makes
all sorts of unfounded allegations, not just against members of this Parliament
but against people who have no connection to this Parliament. He does it under
privilege, and he never repeats his allegations outside.

Mr O'Brien -- Struck a nerve, didn't I?

Mr PAKULA -- Well, can I say that I have never asked him for a withdrawal. The
fact is that all that needs to happen is that police need to reasonably suspect
that someone has been impeded or -- --

Honourable members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr McCurdy) -- Order! I ask the member for Monbulk and the
Treasurer to cease interjecting.

Mr PAKULA -- All that needs to happen for this law to be activated is for
someone on the ground, a police officer or a protective services officer, to
reasonably suspect that someone is or may be impeded or obstructed, or that
someone might attempt to impede or obstruct. It applies to every example I have
cited. In regard to the courts, the courts only get involved after the moving on
has happened.

The government picks a bunch of examples and says, 'That would not happen in
reality'. But as I have indicated, once the power is granted, unless the
government knows something that the opposition does not, the government does not
get to pick and choose which forms of protest and which types of protesters get
moved on.

Every community rally and every community protest can be subject to these laws,
unless there is a phone call.

We heard interjections from the Treasurer. The government wants Victorians to
believe that this bill is about drug dealing. Why then is it not confined to
that? The government wants Victorians to believe that the bill is about violent
or unlawful protest, but the fact is the police already have the power to deal
with unlawful behaviour, violence or trespass. The government wants Victorians
to believe that this is about things like

east-west link protesters, but by the Linking Melbourne Authority's own
admission those protests have not cost the project even one day of lost time.
This is about all the other protests -- the lawful ones, the peaceful ones, the
inconvenient ones -- --

Mr O'Brien interjected.

Mr PAKULA -- Do you have Tourette's? You just go on and on and on with the
same mantra.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr McCurdy) -- Order! The member for Lyndhurst!

Mr PAKULA -- This is about the protests that cause the government political
embarrassment. This is about the ones where the government's mates make a phone
call and say, 'Call off the dogs'. This is about a government wanting to pick
and choose which protests it sees as worthy and which it sees as inconvenient,
where these powers will be activated. It is unwarranted, unnecessary,
antidemocratic and draconian, and it runs counter to every faux noble sentiment
coalition MPs expressed in opposition.

Those sentiments were convenient to them then, but we know, by virtue of the
introduction of this bill, that they did not mean them. If you applied all of
those quotes that I referred to earlier to this law, you would see there is an
inexplicable degree of dissonance. If you took the comments of the Treasurer,
the Deputy Premier and the member for Benalla at face value, you would think
those people could not support the introduction of this bill.

Turning to the alcohol-exclusion orders, they are a meritorious idea. The
opposition says quite openly that they are a meritorious idea. The notion of
barring people from drinking alcohol if they have committed heinous crimes in
which alcohol is a significant factor is a meritorious idea. But it is a good
idea which is being incompetently executed. It is an idea the utility of which
has been almost fatally undermined by the government's brainless obsession with
looking tough.

If you look at the provisions of the bill, it will not achieve, on any planet,
the objectives that the government says are the objectives of the bill.

Does the government, for example, leave it to judges to assess the merits of a
particular case and to look at how serious the offence was? Does the government
leave it to judges to assess whether the offender has priors? Does the
government leave it to judges to assess how big a factor alcohol was in the
commission of the offence and then leave it to judges to decide how long to
exclude the offender from licenced places for? No. It is a mandated period of
two years even if in the circumstances a judge might find that the appropriate
exclusion period was one year or indeed three years. The judge does not get to
make any of those decisions. The government has said that in every case it is
two years. Whether or not two years is right or justifiable, no matter how big a
factor alcohol was, no matter what

priors the offender has, it is two years, two years, two years.

Does the government provide licensed venues with any kind of information about
who the excluded people are? Does the government provide licensed venues with a
list of names of people who have been excluded? Does the government provide
licensed venues with photographs of people who have been excluded? Does the
government provide any additional resources whatsoever to enforce these
alcohol-exclusion orders? The answers are no, no, no and no. No-one who runs any
licensed venue will have any idea, either by name or picture, of who the
excluded people are. There are no additional resources for anyone to enforce
this law. It is totally and utterly unenforceable.

Most importantly, I ask: is it the drinking of alcohol that is barred? Is it the
purchase of alcohol that is barred? The answer is no.

Mr Clark interjected.

Mr PAKULA -- I say to the Attorney-General that that would clearly make too
much sense for this government. If someone who is excluded wanders across the
road to the European and orders a coffee or a poached egg, they will have
committed an offence -- because it is a licensed venue. Someone else can buy
that person a sixpack of beer and that is fine, but if they go across the road
and order a coffee at a licensed venue, they will have committed an offence. The
Treasurer was saying by interjection before that the Labor Party does not want
to deal with alcohol-fuelled violence. I ask: are the streets really safer if a
violent drunk cannot purchase an egg or if a violent drunk cannot order a coffee
at 8 o'clock in the morning? Are the streets really safer in those
circumstances?

Honourable members interjecting.

Mr PAKULA -- Every licensed venue, morning or night, whether or not the
offender -- --

Honourable members interjecting.

Mr PAKULA -- The Attorney-General is soft on boiled eggs. Seriously, it is
just a mantra repeated over and over again in the face of all the evidence. In
the face of a rising crime rate, in the face of overflowing prisons, in the face
of a court system collapsing and, in the face of legal aid falling apart,
members of this government keep running around beating their chests, saying, 'We
are tough on crime', while the crime rate goes up. What an absolute triumph! No
licensee of any venue, morning or night, whether or not the offender is trying
to buy alcohol, will have any information provided. There are no extra resources
for Victoria Police. This is just the epitome of an all-show, no-go confidence
trick. It is an absolute sham.

As I indicated at the outset, there is nothing in the provisions relating to the
alcohol-exclusion orders that could not be rectified, amended or fixed by a
government whose members applied some common sense and competence to them. If
the government is prepared to split the bill, opposition members will vote for
the alcohol-exclusion orders. If the government will not split the bill, in the
consideration-in-detail stage the opposition will move its own motion to do just
that. There is nothing in the alcohol-exclusion orders part of the bill that
cannot be fixed by a government whose members know what they are doing.

However, the move-on powers are irredeemable. They are draconian. They are quite
simply Bjelke-Petersen-era laws. They mean that we have set off down the
slippery slope.

Mr O'Brien interjected.

Mr PAKULA -- I say to the Treasurer that those people protesting outside
McDonald's in Tecoma are not thugs, nurses are not thugs, paramedics are not
thugs and taxi protesters out on the steps of Parliament are not thugs. I will
tell the house who government members believe is a thug. They believe that a
thug is anyone who opposes their agenda. Anyone who opposes this Treasurer's or
this Attorney-General's agenda is in their eyes a thug -- and they are
determined to shut those people up, to silence them and to haul them off to
jail. They want to haul off to jail taxi protesters, McDonald's Tecoma
protesters and Lock the Gate protesters. In the eyes of members of this
government these people are all thugs and enemies of the state because they have
the temerity to stand up to this government and to stand up for their rights.

Members on this side of the house want to make it very clear that we do not
believe that people protesting about a McDonald's in Tecoma are thugs, we do not
believe nurses are thugs, we do not believe teachers are thugs and we do not
believe paramedics are thugs. We do not believe that people who are standing up
for their basic rights and exercising their lawful right to protest are thugs.
With these laws, we have set off down the slippery slope. Today members are
debating a set of laws which infringe the vital right to protest that exists in
a democracy. It is a hard-fought-for right, a vital right and the hallmark of
any free society. These laws fundamentally offend the principles that all the
so-called lovers of freedom opposite claim to hold so dear. Members of the
Liberal Party believe in freedom

for their mates, but they do not believe in freedom for the people who might
have the audacity to stand up for themselves #match7" id="match6">#FF0000">and oppose the government's agenda.

The Labor Party will defend the right of people to protest, because these laws
do not only deal with unlawful #match8" id="match7">#FF0000">and violent protest. These laws criminalise
lawful protest, they criminalise peaceful protest #match9" id="match8">#FF0000">and they criminalise any
protest the government finds offensive. We will oppose these move-on laws, we
will oppose them proudly #match10" id="match9">#FF0000">and, if we are elected in November, we will repeal
them.

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) -- It is my pleasure to rise to support the Summary
#match11" id="match10">#FF0000">Offences #match11" id="match10">#FF0000">and #match11" id="match10">#FF0000">Sentencing Amendment Bill 2013. What a load of rubbish we have just
heard from the member for Lyndhurst -- talk about Chicken Little saying, 'The
sky is falling in' -- about what we are doing to keep people safe #match12" id="match11">#FF0000">and ensure
that businesses can get on with what they need to do, which is provide jobs.

We have seen day in and day out in this place that the Labor Party is very quick
to stand up and talk about what is happening with jobs in our state. Yet time
and again outside various business premises in our state we have seen the rights
of those businesses being impeded by protesters who are not protesting lawfully
and are not peaceful. I will come to that in a minute.

The bill protects people's right to express their views and interests in a
legitimate way and continue to protest; however, it extends powers to deal with
people who are impeding others from lawfully accessing a premises, who have
committed an offence in a public place, who are causing others to have a
reasonable fear of violence or who are endangering safety or engaging in
behaviour that is likely to cause damage to other people's property.

Mr Pakula interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr McCurdy) -- Order! The member for Lyndhurst has had his
chance.

Mr SOUTHWICK -- This is not about those people who want to peacefully protest
and express their views. This is about the unlawful thugs who support the Labor
Party. It is about the union mates who support and fund the Labor Party. The
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union has been out there engaging in
unlawful behaviour on building sites and has actively sought to disrupt business
and ensure that business comes to a standstill while union protesters are there.
We saw that with the Grocon action, which led to losses of $500 000 a day -- a
total of $10 million worth of damages -- due to inactivity as a result of the
union blockade that brought the streets to a standstill.

We saw it with the east-west link protests, which the member for Lyndhurst says
did not cost taxpayers a dollar.

Let me draw to the attention of the member for Lyndhurst the fact that the
police response to try to keep people safe covered 2575 8-hour shifts and is now
estimated to have exceeded $1.65 million in taxpayer money. Police have
pinpointed 10 people who broke the law in their efforts to prevent construction
of the east-west link from taking place. This is not about a peaceful protest.
It is about demonstrators stopping an economic activity that provides jobs and
ensures that Victoria remains open for business.

The Labor Party wants to shut the door and say, 'No, we're going to look after
our union mates'. I refer to Baiada Poultry in Laverton, which lost over $1
million in spoilt chicken as a result of protesters. They locked the doors
during that protest. A small business owner who had two trucks inside the
facility was not able to access the facility to get his spoilt chicken, and he
lost his small business as a result of being locked out of that plant.

Electricity was shut down and no diesel was allowed into that plant, and as a
result of the protest that small business and many other small businesses lost
work.

I now turn my attention to the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign
protests. We have seen a series of BDS protests. Opposition members are shaking
their heads, and so they should be. Firstly, in December 2010 we saw a protest
in Melbourne Central shopping centre. The protesters had agreed with police that
they would peacefully protest -- this comes to the crux of what this law change
is all about -- but they then went into Melbourne Central, completely took over
the shopping centre and protested until activists had to be removed from that
site. In the second incident protesters went to the Park Hyatt Melbourne hotel
and continued that behaviour.

Mr Pakula interjected.

Mr SOUTHWICK -- I will come to that.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr McCurdy) -- Order! The member for Caulfield should
speak through the Chair.

Mr SOUTHWICK -- In February 2011 there was another protest where police again
had to physically remove protesters who were impeding business at a store. It
shut down the whole shopping centre precinct for a number of hours. A number of
small businesses were affected as a result of this.

In April 2011 a Jericho cosmetics store, a small business, closed because of two
previous protests. The business owners decided to close the store because they
were not going to deal with protesters again. That was not good enough for the
protesters; they wanted to get someone, so they went to the Max Brenner store.
The Max Brenner protest involved physical confrontation with police members, and
the demonstrators were moved on. There were altercations with police, and 10
police members sustained minor injuries as a result of the protest -- so much
for the claims of a peaceful protest from the Labor Party.

In the fourth protest, again in 2011, the police public order management unit
was brought in to help police at the event with the intention of making arrests.
At this stage no arrests were made. The protesters could not get close to the
store because they were surrounded by police trying to protect the shop owners
and the businesses, so the protesters decided to take up positions on the ground
and first levels of the shopping centre.

On this occasion Melbourne Central was again stampeded by these protesters and
shut down for a number of hours. Not one store, not two stores, but the whole of
Melbourne Central was shut down as a result of this.

A fifth protest took place at a subsequent time. Some protesters went into the
Max Brenner store while others waited in another wing. The protesters who went
into the store had jumpers on and appeared to be consumers. At a given time they
took off their jumpers and were wearing shirts with protest slogans. They
chained themselves to the chairs and tables in the store and the protesters in
the other wing came into the store. An altercation took place and 19 arrests
were made.

Honourable members interjecting.

Mr SOUTHWICK -- Here is the kicker for the vocalists on the other side: all
the 19 protesters arrested were let off under the current laws because in those
circumstances they were not breaking the law. They could chain themselves to
furniture in the store, shut it down for hours, block traffic and block people
from coming into the store, but they were all let off because the current law
does not provide for move-on powers. The current law does not provide for those
who shut down businesses and aggressively protest, but the Labor Party is happy
for these protesters to continue aggressively doing what they are doing --
shutting down businesses one after the other and targeting businesses in
Victoria.

Honourable members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr McCurdy) -- Order! The member for Yuroke!

Mr SOUTHWICK -- If opposition members were genuine, they would distinguish
between what are genuine, peaceful protests and what is a disgraceful attempt to
shut down and disrupt a business and harm not only that business but its
employees, the shopkeeper, shoppers and everybody else around the store.

This legislation is designed to restore activity, restore confidence and give
police necessary powers. Opposition members should be standing up for the
Victorian policemen and women who have to deal with these disgraceful
activities. They should be standing up for those Victorian police who have to
cop it on the chin time and again. The police have told us there is nothing they
can do under the current laws. Under these new laws we are giving them the
opportunity to do something about it -- arrest those behaving disruptively, stop
that sort of activity and allow businesses to get on with what they do best. The
bill is designed to allow businesses to be successful, not be shut down, and to
provide jobs, not cut jobs, as the Labor Party wants to do.

Mr MERLINO (Monbulk) -- The Labor Party vehemently opposes the Summary
#match13" id="match12">#FF0000">Offences #match13" id="match12">#FF0000">and #match13" id="match12">#FF0000">Sentencing Amendment Bill 2013. I oppose this bill on behalf of the
community I am proud to represent. Labor opposes this bill because it is grossly
antidemocratic. The bill seeks to criminalise all forms of peaceful community
protest. The single biggest issue in the Dandenongs is the establishment of a
McDonald's franchise in Tecoma. As many members would be aware, it is the
subject of a massive #match14" id="match13">#FF0000">and peaceful community protest.

On Tuesday members of my community -- local mums #match15" id="match14">#FF0000">and dads -- protested on the
steps of Parliament House against McDonald's in Tecoma. During debate on this
bill, as the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Lyndhurst, was on his feet
leading Labor's opposition to the bill, the Treasurer said the McDonald's
protesters should have been moved on. That is the truth of what is behind this
legislation. I tell the Treasurer that every single person in Tecoma #match16" id="match15">#FF0000">and right
across the Dandenongs will be made aware of his comments.

Mr O'Brien interjected.

Mr MERLINO -- 'Terrific', the Treasurer says. He can rest assured that that
will happen.

Eleven hundred and seventy submissions opposed the application to council, and
they did so because this McDonald's would be completely and utterly out of
character with the Dandenongs and would set a disastrous precedent. Council
unanimously opposed the application. The Victorian Civil and Administrative
Tribunal (VCAT), in a reprehensible decision, overturned that democratic
decision of council. The Napthine government has done nothing to resolve this
issue. Indeed in this bill the government seeks to blame and curtail the rights
of the Dandenong Ranges community.

The failure of VCAT and this government has not deterred the community. There
have been public rallies of thousands and thousands of people, almost daily
protests and a petition of well over 100 000 signatures. A survey was conducted
and every house in Tecoma was doorknocked with one question: 'Are you for or
against the proposed McDonald's in Tecoma?'. Almost 90 per cent opposed it.

The people of Tecoma and the Dandenong Ranges do not want it, and in our
democratic society they have every right to have their voices heard and to
protest peacefully against this inappropriate development. They have been a
constant presence at the construction site -- and good on them, I say.

On 16 July last year McDonald's issued a writ against eight protesters who
became known as the Tecoma 8. On 18 July McDonald's obtained an interim
injunction in the Supreme Court that included not only the original eight
protesters but anyone else who had obstructed a vehicle or trespassed in the
previous two weeks. 'Anyone else' -- does this sound familiar? On 28 July, 3000
to 4000 people turned out to protest on the streets of Tecoma -- local
residents, mums and dads, who do not want this facility built.

The law firm Maurice Blackburn took up the case. It stated:

Maurice Blackburn represented the 'Tecoma 8' pro bono because we believe
peaceful protest is fundamental to civil rights and democracy.

...

We believe the legal action and tactics being used by McDonald's Australia to
stop protesters in Tecoma, Victoria, were an affront to civil liberties.

An interim Supreme Court injunction restricted the movement of people who had
protested against the development. The final orders sought by McDonald's
involved a group being appointed as representatives of a much larger group. If
made, they were likely to be so broad in their application that they could
have applied to people who did not know they were subject to them ...

This case went beyond Tecoma.

The orders were intimidating for many community activists because they bound
an ill-defined class of people, and were structured in such a way that, if
successful, could have had significant implications for other community
protests.

Following mediation McDonald's abandoned the lawsuit. The Napthine government,
through this draconian and antidemocratic bill, is seeking to do what McDonald's
failed to do. The Napthine government is acting against the community of the
Dandenong Ranges, and this bill is an affront to those people. It provides
powers to police to move on one person or many, to break up community protests
and to arrest protesters if they have a reasonable suspicion that someone is
impeding or attempting to impede. Deputy Speaker, when you have 4000 people
marching down Burwood Highway, it is a bit hard, don't you think, not to be
impeding?

If the police choose to move people on, as the Attorney-General said in his
second-reading speech:

... police and PSOs may give one direction to an entire group rather than
having individually to direct each person in the group to move on.

If those 4000 local residents marching down Burwood Highway are told by police
to move on and they choose not to, they could be arrested. They will be ordered
to give their names and addresses. Those names and addresses could be retained,
and then the police could apply for an exclusion order -- an exclusion order for
4000 local residents -- to say that they cannot congregate around Tecoma to
express their concern about the McDonald's.

Through this bill this government is criminalising the peaceful community
protest of thousands of my constituents. Labor will never support this.

Through this bill the government wants to destroy the local campaign to stop
McDonald's in Tecoma. Just a few minutes ago the Treasurer exposed the truth of
that. He wants the protesters to be moved on, he wants the police to -- --

The DEPUTY SPEAKER -- Order! The member knows it is disorderly to respond to
interjections, and I would suggest that he does not respond to the interjection
from the Treasurer.

Mr Pakula -- The Treasurer is not even here!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER -- Order! I am the Chair here. I have said it is disorderly
to respond to interjections. It does not matter when the interjection was, it is
disorderly to respond to it.

Mr MERLINO -- I refer to comments from Maurice Blackburn, which acted pro bono
on behalf of the Tecoma 8. Maurice Blackburn lawyer Elizabeth O'Shea said this
about the bill:

It effectively criminalises a range of behaviours that are fundamental to
freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. The right to protest has resulted
in hard-won freedoms we all enjoy and curbed excesses of corporate and
political power. Why is the Victorian government so frightened of people
congregating to express their views?

Why is the Napthine government so afraid of my community in the Dandenong
Ranges? Labor is opposing this bill and, as the shadow Attorney-General pointed
out, if we are elected to government in November, Labor will repeal the
legislation.

I challenge the future Liberal candidate for Monbulk to make that same
commitment in the lead-up to this election. I will be putting that to the future
Liberal candidate for Monbulk, everyone in Tecoma will be putting that to the
future Liberal candidate for Monbulk, #match17" id="match16">#FF0000">and we will find out if that candidate has
the same view as the Treasurer, the Premier, the Attorney-General #match18" id="match17">#FF0000">and everyone
on the government benches who feels that it is appropriate to produce a piece of
legislation that is so antidemocratic, so like what Joh Bjelke-Petersen would
have produced in Queensland many years ago. That is what this government has
produced. Labor will oppose the bill, #match19" id="match18">#FF0000">and Labor will repeal the legislation if
elected in November.

Mr NEWTON-BROWN (Prahran) -- The Summary #match20" id="match19">#FF0000">Offences #match20" id="match19">#FF0000">and #match20" id="match19">#FF0000">Sentencing Amendment
Bill 2013 is yet another election commitment being fulfilled by the coalition
government.

We promised we would set up banning notices for people convicted of violent
assaults in licensed premises and give police and licensees the tools they need
to make sure that they are safe when people socialise on licensed premises. This
is what we are doing with this bill, but it also goes much further. As we heard
during the harangue by the member for Monbulk over the last 10 minutes, the bill
also gives police the power to move people on.

Much misinformation has been spread, both in the chamber today by the members
for Monbulk and Lyndhurst and more generally by the union movement. There has
been a lot of froth and bubble about rights being protected and the freedom of
people to demonstrate and protest. This bill does nothing to impinge on those
rights. Peaceful demonstration is a cherished part of our democracy, and it is
not impacted by this bill. The right to protest or demonstrate is not absolute.
The members for Lyndhurst and Monbulk seem to think that those rights should not
be tempered in any way.

The new human rights commissioner, Tim Wilson, took up his post this week. He is
one of my constituents. In one of his first interviews he said that freedoms are
not absolute; they must be tempered by the impacts they have on other freedoms.
In other words, freedom cannot impinge on other rights which are as legitimate.
Therefore it is okay to exercise your right to demonstrate as long as that right
to demonstrate does not impinge on other people's rights not to be intimidated,
threatened, harassed or attacked. It is not okay to demonstrate if that involves
forcibly preventing people from entering their workplace. It is not okay to
demonstrate if that involves punching police horses or running over people in
vehicles.

Are these the freedoms that the member for Monbulk is seeking to protect?
Because every one of those things happened at a demonstration at the Myer
Emporium site in 2012. I went for a walk down there when the picket line was in
force, and I have to say it was an intimidating sight.

Large numbers of workers were blocking the entrance to the building site, there
was a lot of yelling and screaming, and the Grollos sustained an attack on them
which went on for weeks. The police had inadequate powers to move on the violent
protesters.

As an aside and by way of disclosure, I worked for the Grollos for three months
as a labourer on one of their building sites. I was an undercover lawyer. I was
working in construction law, and I was sent to learn about construction hands
on, so I worked at the State Electricity Commission headquarters site in
Flinders Lane. It was quite an experience. I went through various trades --
concreting, steel fixing, installing conduits -- but my cover was blown early
on, perhaps by the neat creases my mother had ironed in my overalls. Despite
this, the workforce was happy to have me there and I learnt a lot.

There was a little bit of gentle bastardisation -- I was given a homemade hammer
made out of a bit of water pipe, which was balanced like a sledgehammer -- but I
was happy to endure that and was certainly happy to be out in the open air,
learning a bit about the practicalities of the area of law in which I was
working.

One thing that struck me, however, was the loyalty of the Grollo workforce. It
was like one big family. Workers were looked after, and those with special needs
were looked after. It was not about fighting for awards and conflict between
boss and worker; it really was an atmosphere of respect and mutual care that
permeated that workforce. So it did not surprise me to

hear that the Grollo workforce united against those union picketers. People were
drawn in from outside that site to protest, and the Grollo workforce, many of
whom were union members, actually asked the picketers to go away. All they
wanted to do was to turn up to work for their employer and do the job for which
they were being paid.

I refer briefly to an article by Daniel Grollo which was published in the
Financial Review this week. He set out the sequence of events that led to this
picketing, which he said started 12 years ago when the Grollos took a stand
against lawless behaviour by unions. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and
Energy Union (CFMEU) secretary at the time simply said, 'We'll just smash them',
and that is what they tried to do. Mr Grollo noted that many of his
subcontractors and suppliers could not stand the heat, could not stand the
weight of the campaign against them, and he is thankful that there will soon be
a royal commission to put the construction industry under the microscope.

Mr Grollo shed light on the CFMEU 'business model', stating that the standard
practice is for the CFMEU to demand that a construction company employ a union
colleague that it nominates. Once that occurs, if the company caves in and
agrees, the union then has a foothold to take control of the operations and shut
down the site industrially, should there be any challenge to the union's power
in the future.

August 2012 was when the CFMEU marshalled those thousands of workers from other
building sites. It made the claim that Grocon was anti-union and had shocking
safety standards when in fact the federal safety watchdog had just recognised
Grocon as having the best safety systems across the whole industry. Certainly
the employees of Grocon did not support the union's claims on safety. They were
spurious claims with a spurious basis on which the violent picket line was
established.

The Grocon workers themselves went public, put their necks on the line and wrote
an open letter, simply asking that the basic rights that the union leadership
enjoyed also be extended to the workers on the Grocon site -- that is, to be
able to go to work, to have the respect of the union, of the workers and of the
company, and for business to continue without these sorts of illegal
disruptions.

Therefore the question has to be asked: is this what the ALP is seeking to
protect? Is it seeking to protect the rights of people to demonstrate in a way
which is illegal and which is against the interests of those workers who wish to
enter their workplace in a legal manner? It is clear that there are numerous
other examples as well. The Max Brenner case is another high-profile example of
an inappropriate demonstration, with the boycott divestment and sanctions (BDS)
organisation protesting outside the Max Brenner stores.

Again, this was a disgusting and in this case also a racist campaign that simply
overstepped the mark and had a terrible impact on the business of Max Brenner.
It scared customers away. Is this really the freedom the ALP wishes to protect
-- freedom for the BDS organisation to protest against businesses such as Max
Brenner?

The coalition government is prepared to stand up for the Jewish community -- for
the whole community -- when it is attacked by unlawful picket lines and unlawful
demonstrations that overstep the mark, from free speech to impacting on those
other rights we also hold dear.

With this legislation a clear message is being sent: peaceful protest #match21" id="match20">#FF0000">and
peaceful demonstration is encouraged -- it is part of our democracy -- but the
community does not think it is okay to stop people going to work through fear
#match22" id="match21">#FF0000">and intimidation, the community does not think it is okay to violently attack
police who are trying to uphold people's rights to go to work #match23" id="match22">#FF0000">and the community
does not accept that protest can be used for ugly, racist attacks on decent,
law-abiding people. The bill should be supported by the opposition, #match24" id="match23">#FF0000">and I
commend it to the house.

Mr WYNNE (Richmond) -- I rise to make a contribution to the Summary #match25" id="match24">#FF0000">Offences
#match26" id="match25">#FF0000">and #match26" id="match25">#FF0000">Sentencing Amendment Bill 2013 following the superb contributions by the
shadow Attorney-General #match27" id="match26">#FF0000">and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

In doing so I reiterate the fundamental position of the Australian Labor Party
that not only do we oppose this bill but that if we are given the honour of
being elected at the end of this year, we will repeal this bill as one of our
first actions in government.

Why do we make this commitment? We do it for some very fundamental reasons. This
bill essentially erodes the hard-fought-for rights of people to protest in this
state. Its genesis is a deep, abiding and visceral hatred by this government of
people who seek to show dissent, people who seek to organise themselves, people
who are part of organised labour, people who are part of the trade union
movement. We see this demonstrated every day by this unelected Premier when he
comes in here at question time. There is nothing that excites this Premier more
than bashing the Labor Party and the trade union movement. These are the only
two things in life that give him pleasure. It is the same old shtick by this
government.

All this morally bankrupt government can do is bring forward this sort of
legislation that essentially erodes the fundamental rights of citizens in our
community to

stand up and protest when they see decisions proposed by this government that
are wrong. It is wrong in relation to the east-west tunnel, which is a
fundamental mistake that has been made by this government. I support the right
of members of my community to protest peacefully against the east-west tunnel
every single day. I support the people of the community of Tecoma if they want
to stand up and express their views about decisions made and about how their
community ought to operate in the future. I also support the right of members of
the trade union movement to peacefully protest to ensure their fundamental
rights are protected. That is why we oppose this legislation. It is draconian
and antidemocratic, and it echoes back to those very dark days of the
Bjelke-Petersen government. Who could ever forget those days when, if more than
two people -- three people -- congregated together it was an illegal act. We see
the views of this deeply conservative Attorney-General echoing through this
legislation. That is very clear to us.

There are a number of aspects to this bill that I think are extraordinarily
dangerous. The first is that in the context of this bill a police officer or a
protective services officer (PSO) merely needs to suspect on reasonable grounds
that a person has committed an offence in that place or is causing a reasonable
apprehension of violence in another person, is causing or is likely to cause an
undue obstruction to others or is present for the purposes of procuring or
supplying drugs. The bill refers to reasonable grounds. I was very concerned
after having recently read a really excellent brief provided to, I think, all
members of Parliament by the Fitzroy Legal Service.

It provided a brief to us to inform the community of the potential impacts of
this bill.

The briefing paper was provided by Meghan Fitzgerald, the solicitor for the
Fitzroy Legal Service, and is endorsed by no less prestigious organisations than
the Salvation Army; the Council to Homeless Persons; the Victorian Drug and
Alcohol Association; HomeGround Services, one of our major and distinguished
emergency housing providers; Youth Projects; Justice Connect: Homeless Law; Flat
Out; the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service; and others. These are prestigious
organisations, particularly the Salvation Army. They have noted that very deep
concerns have been expressed about the potential impact of this particular bill
on the most marginalised communities.

It is not surprising that I would deal with this issue, given that I have a long
history of working with and supporting marginalised communities, not only in my
own electorate but more generally across the state. What strikes me particularly
about this bill is the aspect of it that goes to the question of someone causing
or being likely to cause an undue obstruction to others.

I will tell the house the story of where I was on Sunday. I went down to
Enterprize Park to represent my party and to acknowledge the tragic death of a
homeless man called Mouse, who had been stabbed to death in the viaduct
underneath the railway line at the park.

I went to that event with members of the Salvation Army and with the Lord Mayor
and other distinguished people. I was simply there to acknowledge the fact that
not only had dreadful harm being done there but to say more broadly to the
community that homeless people are welcome, that there is a place for homeless
people in this city and that this poor 42-year-old man's life had not been taken
in vain. I was there to say that we as a community were prepared -- and there
were perhaps 200 to 300 of us present -- to stand up together and say, 'No, your
life actually did amount to something, Mouse. We do acknowledge your life, and
in the future we need to do better when we are trying to deal with homeless
people in this state'.

Certainly the legacy of this government thus far is a very sad legacy when it
comes to addressing homelessness.

What does the bill mean for those displaced people? Causing unreasonable
obstruction is one of the tests for whether a PSO or police officer can move
somebody on. The people who are sleeping under that viaduct may well, in the
context of this bill, cause unreasonable obstruction. They may offend people
because they are living in the public realm. This is where they live. I invite
any member to go over to the substation in Fitzroy Gardens at the back of this
Parliament House at lunchtime today, because what they see might offend them.
There will be homeless people sleeping around that substation tonight. Members
may find that offensive and an unreasonable obstruction. Indeed Victoria Police
could find that an unreasonable obstruction as well and move those people on,
but move them on to where? They have nowhere to go, and that is why they are
sleeping in parks.

That is why people are sleeping in vulnerable conditions underneath the viaduct
at Enterprize Park.

The bill is completely unreasonable. It is unjustified that this piece of
legislation is before the Parliament. It will deleteriously impact upon the most
vulnerable people in our community. I refer not only to homeless people but also
to my friends in the Aboriginal community, who also live in the public realm
because that is how they choose to congregate. Smith Street is a major
connection point for members of Aboriginal communities moving through Melbourne
and seeking to link up with relatives and friends. There is absolutely the
potential that someone will create an unreasonable

obstruction #match28" id="match27">#FF0000">and the police will be able to move them on.

I submit that this piece of legislation is deeply rooted in the most
conservative elements of this government. It is a shameful piece of legislation.
It seeks to vilify #match29" id="match28">#FF0000">and criminalise organised labour in this state, which is a
shameful thing. Indeed it has the real potential to inflict very severe harm on
the most marginalised in our community -- people who live their lives in the
public realm. Shame upon the government!

Dr SYKES (Benalla) -- I rise to contribute to the second-reading debate on the
#match30" id="match29">#FF0000">Summary #match30" id="match29">#FF0000">Offences #match30" id="match29">#FF0000">and #match30" id="match29">#FF0000">Sentencing Amendment Bill 2013. I wish to make it very
clear that I strongly endorse the bill. It is yet another plank in our
government bringing law #match31" id="match30">#FF0000">and order to Victoria #match31" id="match30">#FF0000">and delivering what most people
want -- that is, to be able to feel safe in our community #match32" id="match31">#FF0000">and go to work safely.

We have heard the rhetoric from those on the other side. Crouching Tiger pounced
today. After a series of insipid performances, the member for Lyndhurst launched
into a tirade that was high on emotion, passion and rhetoric but out of touch
with what most Victorians want. As I said, most Victorians want to be free from
dangerous and threatening situations. They want to be able to walk the streets
and go to work without threats to their safety. They do not want taxpayers
dollars to be wasted on controlling violent protesters, and they do not want law
enforcement officers to be put at risk of injury as a result of the unruly and
at times absolutely disgraceful behaviour of some protesters.

The member for Caulfield drew on some examples, and I encourage people to read
his contribution in Hansard, because it is quite clear that a number of these
protests have been expensive to deal with and that serial offenders -- people
who continually break the law -- have been identified.

I think it was the member for Prahran who indicated that under the current laws
there are problems with bringing those people to justice. We saw the Leader of
the Opposition standing shoulder to shoulder with the Construction, Forestry,
Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). At the same time, through the media and other
means, the outrageous, illegal behaviour of members of the CFMEU has been
exposed -- --

Honourable members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER -- Order! We listened to the member for Monbulk, and now he
should listen to the member for Benalla.

Dr SYKES -- The people I represent have had a gutful of this sort of
behaviour. They strongly endorse the action being taken by the Liberal-Nationals
coalition government. I also reject the assertion -- --

Honourable members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER -- Order! Interjections are part of debates, but the
language has to be appropriate for Parliament. The calling of names across the
chamber will not be tolerated.

Dr SYKES -- Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for that welcome protection. The member
for Lyndhurst's opening assertion that this legislation will potentially
criminalise all forms of protest in Victoria is outrageously out of touch with
the reality. I reiterate that people who protest peacefully will continue to
have that right -- that right will be protected.

On the subject of protesting, I note that previous members have referred to a
role I have played in protesting, in particular my role in the Plug the Pipe
protests.

We protested peacefully, and yet members of the then Labor government referred
to us as 'ugly, ugly people', 'quasi-terrorists' and a 'sorry bunch of people'.
Just to make it clear that that is not a figment of my imagination or a
reflection of the passing of years, my staff checked with the parliamentary
library this morning. The library came back with the following information to
validate the statement I just made:

Peter Batchelor first referred to the pipeline protesters as ugly, ugly people
when they were brought into the gallery on 5 February 2008 ...

And:

Mr Holding referred to The Nationals as a 'sorry bunch of people' and that the
protesters had 'quasi-terrorist threats' on 21 November 2007 ...

That is documented. It is a fact that those on the other side, who at this stage
say they are going to stand up and purport to represent the people, made those
outrageous accusations against people protesting legally. Of course, as history
has shown, the Labor Party was thrown out of office. The former Labor Premier
resigned, as did the former member for Thomastown and the former member for
Lyndhurst. And of course our government plugged the pipe.

We can also refer to a more recent protest experience, where under the existing
legislation it would be fair to say that I and, I believe, some members of the
opposition may have felt unnerved when we were seeking to go from Parliament
House to the Windsor Hotel. Members of Parliament in the state of Victoria

were seeking to cross from this building to the Windsor Hotel to participate in
a function being conducted by members of the Jewish fraternity. We had to
assemble in this place and walk across that street surrounded by a cordon of
police -- police on either side -- and three police horses leading the way. I
felt uncomfortable about that, and I observed protesters attempting to injure
those horses and in the process making MPs of this state feel threatened. This
legislation is about protecting the rights of the majority of Victorians and
enabling peaceful protest but saying that violence, threatening behaviour and
serial offending are things we have had enough of and that those involved should
move on.

Moving on to the alcohol-exclusion orders, this is again sensible legislation.
We have all heard of the consequences of alcohol-fuelled violence. Like many
others, I have personal knowledge of it.

One my footy teammates, Terry Keenan, was in a pub celebrating a football
victory in the Goulburn Valley and as a result of someone being affected by
alcohol he was king hit. He went down and as a result suffered severe brain
damage. Ultimately his life support was turned off. I should say that in that
case the person who allegedly threw the punch was not found guilty, but it is an
example of a situation where alcohol-fuelled violence resulted in tragic
consequences. I and many others miss our good mate TK.

This legislation is about toughening up on people who are perpetrators of
alcohol-fuelled violence. It will enable exclusion orders to ensure that these
sorts of things are limited. It is part of an overall package where we seek to
provide the legislative ability to toughen up on people. However, in cases of
alcohol-fuelled violence and protesting it is about producing a cultural change,
getting acceptance of that and as a community rejecting the idea that
alcohol-fuelled violence is okay.

It is about rejecting the idea that there is a need to get fully tanked and then
do things that are unacceptable. It is about rejecting non-peaceful protest.

I imagine many of us have travelled to other parts of the world where people do
not enjoy the democracy we have. They realise that what we have here is special
and needs to be protected. That is why we are putting in place legislation that
further addresses the issue of alcohol-fuelled violence but importantly also
protects the right of people to protest peacefully. It absolutely rejects the
ability of people to be violent and disgraceful and to put people at risk and
cost taxpayers money. It is totally unacceptable behaviour in our democracy.

Ms GARRETT (Brunswick) -- It is with great passion that I rise today to speak
on this draconian and disgraceful piece of legislation that has been put before
the house.

Having heard a passionate contribution from the member for Benalla about the
Plug the Pipe protest and the journey those people went on and having seen the
passion on the member for Seymour's face, as we stand here it is worth noting
how people feel when there is something that strikes at the heart of their
community -- when they are concerned that something is going to destroy or
impact negatively on their community. In such cases people come together,
organise and stand up for the rights of that community.

It is very similar to the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, which
has to have a funeral plan offered to its members because so many people die on
building sites. That is why it gets so passionate about occupational health and
safety.

It is so relevant to members of the Maritime Union of Australia, which lost an
entire generation of people because they loaded asbestos off the wharfs, day in,
day out, and which stood with Bernie Banton when the James Hardie company tried
to get out of this country without paying for its obligations and when there
were thousands of people protesting in the streets about that issue. We on this
side of the house, and we hope those on the other side of the house, feel pretty
passionate about those issues. Clearly we feel that people have the right to
come together to organise and stand up for occupational health and safety and
stand up for just compensation when people are injured or die at the hands of
negligent corporations.

We in this place operate under a solemn covenant with the people of Victoria. We
are given a great privilege to make laws -- to debate laws and pass them. That
covenant means that we must stand here and protect the rights and freedoms of
the citizens of this state, particularly those who have a small voice.

This must be done especially when it is inconvenient, politically embarrassing
or hard for those who hold the reins of power, because to fail to do so is to
break the covenant the government makes with Victorians to look after their
rights and their freedoms.

To go back to the Plug the Pipe protests, these clearly caused the former
government a considerable amount of political pain. They were embarrassing,
difficult and hard to manage, but the former government did not introduce
legislation to take away the right of those people to protest. The former
government understood that people have the right to protest, particularly when
it is embarrassing and inconvenient to government.

This Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that the checks and balances that
remain in our democracy are upheld. Hard-fought freedoms and rights can be torn

away in an instant, and that is what this legislation does. This legislation
gives police an extraordinary and unchecked power to move protesters on if they
suspect the protesters have committed an offence, if there is a reasonable
apprehension of violence, if a protester is likely to cause an unreasonable
obstruction to others or is impeding or attempting to impede any person from
lawfully entering or leaving premises or part of premises. These are huge,
sweeping, discretionary, unfettered powers that will apply to all protests.

An honourable member interjected.

Ms GARRETT -- Read the legislation. In the checks and balances of our
democracy we do not allow this Parliament to have unfettered -- --

Mr Burgess interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER -- Order! The member for Hastings will get his turn.

Ms GARRETT -- We have courts and tribunals which are independent from
government and which are there to ensure that the rights and freedoms of
citizens are protected and are not subject to the whims of the government of the
day. It is always tempting for any government to come in here and hack into
those rights and freedoms because it is politically inconvenient and
embarrassing for those rights and freedoms to be upheld. People who stand up and
say, 'We dislike decisions of this government' cause the government pain, so no
doubt it is always tempting for members on that side of the chamber to squash
that sort of dissent. But a test of true character for those who hold the reins
of power is that they do not give in to that temptation, that they understand
there is a broader matter of principle and a broader responsibility and that
they are custodians in this place of democracy, which as we know is a fragile
beast and can be trampled on and dismantled very quickly.

We have had some very passionate contributions. The Deputy Leader of the
Opposition spoke at great length and with great measure about what has happened
in his community regarding the proposed McDonald's in Tecoma. We have talked
about what has happened with nurses protesting and having thousands of people in
the street protesting about health issues. We have talked about paramedics and
the ambulance crisis that is crippling this state.

Time and again people have to take to the streets to have their point heard and
to ensure that the broader community understands these issues. We have had
protests by taxi licence holders and teachers, and we have had anti-fracking
protests in regional Victoria. These are all important, precious expressions of
our democratic rights, and they are vehicles by which people can achieve change
when things are wrong. Let us face it: no government has all the answers. No
government under our democratic system should be able to dictate everything.
This is a vibrant democracy with those checks and balances.

This gets back to this government's obsession with the union movement. We have a
fundamental right as citizens in this country to have freedom of association,
and there is a reason we have this right. It has been a hard-fought -- --

Honourable members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER -- Order! If the members for Monbulk and Gembrook wish to
continue their conversation, they can take it outside the chamber.

Ms GARRETT -- It has been a hard-fought right, because for many centuries
those without bargaining power were exploited and treated appallingly. They came
together collectively to organise, to address the power imbalance and to demand
proper terms and conditions of employment. This is a noble, fundamental right.
It is a fundamental right for those workers who are given the benefit of that
collective action.

It is a fundamental tenet of our democratic system that we have checks and
balances, that the powerful members of our community do not always have the
final voice, and that people can stand together and say, 'This is unacceptable.
We demand outcomes that benefit the collective, the whole or more than just
those who hold the reins of power or the reins of money'. This is what is so
deeply disturbing about this legislation. It gives so much unfettered and
unchecked power to police to move people on, and not just move them on but to
take their names. They can be in a book for 12 months. Shut it down!

This is not said lightly by members on this side of the house, but this
legislation is similar to that introduced by a former Premier of Queensland, Joh
Bjelke-Petersen, whereby if two people were together, it was an unlawful
association. This is a very slippery slope that will impact dramatically on the
rights of all of our citizens. Those of us who have lived in Queensland or know
people there are aware of the dark days when civil liberties and rights -- --

Mr Pakula interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER -- Order! The member for Lyndhurst should listen to the
member for Brunswick.

Ms GARRETT -- We stand here proudly as a party united with our brothers #match33" id="match32">#FF0000">and
sisters in the trade union movement. We stand here proudly with the citizens of
Victoria who want the right to be able to call on this government to change its
legislative agenda #match34" id="match33">#FF0000">and to implement policies to protect their communities. We do
so with passion #match35" id="match34">#FF0000">and pride. If we are elected in November, this legislation will
be repealed. We call on this government to reflect on its covenant with the
Victorian people. Once again we are here debating an absolute breach of that
covenant. Those opposite should hang their heads in shame.

Mr WATT (Burwood) -- I rise to speak on the Summary #match36" id="match35">#FF0000">Offences #match36" id="match35">#FF0000">and #match36" id="match35">#FF0000">Sentencing
Amendment Bill 2013. I have sat here for the whole debate #match37" id="match36">#FF0000">and listened to the
empty rhetoric from those on the other side. The member for Brunswick has been
the only one on the other side who has provided any real substance or has not
overinflated figures.

The member for Brunswick has quite clearly put it out there and she has exposed
why those on the opposite side are so opposed to this bill. I think I heard the
words 'union', 'CFMEU' and 'brothers and sisters' scattered throughout the
speech. It was all about the masters of those on the other side who are pulling
the strings, organising their preselections, deciding who comes into this place
and deciding what they will say. It is all about those on the other side who are
dancing to the tune of their masters, and that is why they are so opposed to
this bill.

Honourable members interjecting.

Debate interrupted.

[Parliamentary Source]
Ms D'AMBROSIO (Mill Park) -- I am not sure that I heard it all, but who on the
other side could go past the comments of the member for Burwood?

I will put it simply, because there are many on this side of the house who want
to contribute to this very important bill, the #match7" id="match6">#FF0000">Summary #match7" id="match6">#FF0000">Offences #match7" id="match6">#FF0000">and #match7" id="match6">#FF0000">Sentencing
Amendment Bill 2013. I will confine my comments to 5 minutes. This bill is
nothing more than a Trojan Horse ridden by the ghost of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. I
remember the times of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. I remember the flight of many
Queenslanders who got caught up in peaceful, legitimate protests on the streets
at a time when not even five people could congregate without breaking the law
because of the conservative bent of an illegitimate government in Queensland.
This bill stinks of that.

I remind the house of the legitimate protests of ordinary Victorians that have
occurred and will continue to occur, whether it is a single Victorian, such as
the one who has been sleeping on the steps of Parliament for weeks on end now,
or hundreds and thousands of Victorians who want to legitimately express a view
about whatever it is that is of concern to them -- government policy, opposition
policy or whatever it might be. They all have a right to protest and they should
not be exposed to the type of draconian legislation that we are now sadly
debating in this house. I am proud to be a member of an opposition that has
declared unequivocally that in the event of its winning the election in November
it will repeal this insidious legislation.

Let me remind the house of the kinds of protests that this bill will seek to
scuttle. Taxi licence holders protested peacefully late last year outside the
office of a member for Northern Metropolitan Region in the Council.

The member called the police on that peaceful protest of family members who,
under this government, were going to lose their livelihood and perhaps their
house. That is the attitude of this government. Is it any wonder that today we
are confronted by this bill and this insidious Trojan Horse, which will allow
this government to take action in relation to protests by ordinary Victorians?

Many Victorians do not have access to the ears of government through any means
other than their own voices and their own presence. They seek to collectively
take a stand for what they believe is right. Whether I agree with them or not,
whether the government agrees with them or not, everyone has the right to do
that. It may be taxi licence holders or it may be textile, clothing and footwear
workers who are losing their jobs marching down the street. It may be people
like my mother, who did that. It may be people disputing a pipeline. You only
have to ask the previous Minister for Water about how peaceful some of those
protests were. This bill will mute every single one of those protests.

That is what the government is attempting to do today. The objective of this
bill is to demonise organised voices that come together with a common belief to
exercise a democratic right in between elections.

This is what democracy is about. Those on the other side pretend that this is
somehow about letting ordinary people get on with the business of everyday life.
I will stand up to my death to protect and preserve the rights of people to
voice their opinions, whether I believe in those opinions or not. Many people in
the 1970s and 1980s, and even up until the 1990s, protested on the streets
against nuclear war and the build-up of nuclear weapons. Those were legitimate
voices, whether I agreed with them or not -- which I happened to do. That was
legitimate protest, and this bill cuts through and ignores all of those
activities.

I ask this government whose voices it wants to hear in between elections.

Does it want to just hear the voices at the business lunches it has, where
people can buy

access and have their voices heard through lobbyists? If government members
think that is sufficient to ensure a viable, thriving democracy, then they have
sorely misunderstood their role in government and the importance and
pre-eminence of citizens -- of every Victorian, whether as a lone voice or as
part of a collective of 100 000 people -- to be able to exercise their rights
and protest against any decision at any time peacefully, legitimately and with
conviction.

Members of this government will rue the day they start applying this law to
people who have a legitimate concern and are under suspicion at the whim of an
authorised officer. They might be mothers who are crying over the deaths of
their sons because of ambulance delays, they might be taxi licence holders or
they might be workers at Golden Circle. This week 120 workers at Golden Circle
are on a picket line because this government is failing the manufacturing
industry.

This government has been happy to not say even one word in support of those
workers in Mill Park whose factory is closing down in March with the loss of 120
jobs to Queensland. Theirs is a legitimate protest because this government has
no plan to save jobs. These are the voices of people in my community for whom I
will advocate #match8" id="match7">#FF0000">and support their right to express their protest to the death.
Members of this government should be ashamed of themselves.

Ms KANIS (Melbourne) -- The member for Ferntree Gully ranted at us for 10
minutes about unions and what we will and will not do. He has now left the
chamber, but let me clarify Labor's position on this bill. Labor will oppose the
bill. We oppose the bill because it amounts to criminalisation of all forms of
protest in this state. I emphasise the word 'all'. In our view the bill is
draconian, antidemocratic and unnecessary.

What is also awful about this bill is the fact that it is a cynical, tricky and
unworthy wedge device. The government has combined the move-on powers in the
bill with its alcohol-exclusion order provisions.

While we believe the alcohol-exclusion provisions are unworkable and
unenforceable, they are not offensive to us. We are calling on the government to
split the bill. If the bill is split, as the member for Lyndhurst outlined in
his contribution, we will vote for the alcohol-exclusion provisions that make up
part 3 of the bill. However, we defend the right of Victorians to protest. We
oppose the move-on powers contained in the bill, and if elected, we will repeal
them.

The member for Ferntree Gully in his contribution was waving papers around and
yelling at us, but he did not

talk about the bill in any depth or detail at all. The bill increases the scope
and breadth of police move-on powers and substantially narrows the current
exceptions to these powers that protect protest, freedom of expression and
freedom of assembly. The bill also introduces exclusion orders that can be made
against specific individuals banning them from attending particular public
places if a certain number of move-on orders have been made against them in a
specific period of time.

Currently a member of the police force or a protective services officer (PSO) on
duty at a designated place can give a direction to a person or a group of people
in a public place to leave that public place, but the move-on powers currently
in law have exceptions. The bill increases the situations in which a move-on
direction can be given. It empowers police or PSOs to request that a person or a
group of people move on in a whole range of situations.

This is what we in the Labor Party find so objectionable, because in our view
these powers make all forms of protest in Victoria potentially unlawful.

The current legislation says that move-on powers do not apply to people who,
alone or in a group, are picketing a place of employment, demonstrating or
protesting about a particular issue, or speaking, bearing or otherwise
identifying with a banner, placard or sign, or otherwise behaving in a way that
is apparently intended to publicise the person's view about a particular issue.
The changes made by this bill would limit these exceptions. The practical
implication of this is that a protest exemption to the move-on powers would no
longer apply in picket or blockade situations.

In our view these changes would mean that protest action that attempts to more
directly achieve protest objectives, through picketing or blockading entrances
in particular, will be subject to move-on powers and the provisions which allow
for arrests for breaching move-on directions will lead to an increased
criminalisation of all such forms of protest.

We have heard a lot of discussion from the other side about unlawful protest.
This bill increases the gamut of what an unlawful protest is. In our view that
is not acceptable. In Victoria and in any democracy people have a right to
peacefully and forcefully express their views. It is quite interesting that this
bill is being brought in at a time when this government is facing more and more
protest on the streets about its agenda. We are seeing the rise of community
action against this government because the community is so disgusted with what
is happening. It is telling that this bill attacks the basic democratic right to
protest.

I would like to read a quote from a submission by the Flemington and Kensington
Community Legal Centre to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee in
relation to this bill because it articulates what is at stake. The submission
says:

Where violence or aggression has occurred during protest activity --

and I emphasise this --

police already have an array of offences available to charge if they deem
appropriate.

Victoria is free from the sorts of political violence associated with less
free, more authoritarian and non-democratic countries elsewhere.

We have [been] successful in balancing concerns about disruptions and violence
during protests with the right to freedom of movement, freedom of expression,
peaceful assembly and freedom of association so far in Victoria.

Non-violent interventions in all their forms are the last form of protest
action for Victorian citizens who feel that, according to their conscience and
beliefs, they need to make a stand and put their bodies, as it were, 'on the
line'.

We may not agree with all of the reasons for a particular protest and we can
argue the facts back and forth as any good democratic society should. But
generally, and as history has most often proven, they are good and courageous
people, and if we criminalise the option of intervening in an injustice
occurring, we reduce the role of these brave people throughout our history who
have dared stand up to greed, destruction, injustice or exploitation.

In my view the Flemington and Kensington Community Legal Centre in its
submission captures the danger of this bill. We are a free and democratic
society in Victoria, and we do not want to see the struggles that occur in
societies in which people are restricted from protesting. This bill goes too
far.

We have all been inconvenienced by protests, student occupations, rallies or
protest marches through our streets, but this bill suggests that inconvenience
is too great a price to pay. I put it to you, Acting Speaker, that that
inconvenience is a good price to pay for a community and a society that allows
people to express their views. That temporary inconvenience is something we need
for people to have their voices heard. It is okay for us here in Parliament; we
can get up, say what we like and have our voices heard, but many people in our
community do not have that opportunity. The only thing they can do is protest.

To restrict protests in this way attacks the democratic basis of our community,
and that is why we do not support these move-on powers. Let me be absolutely
clear: we will repeal these move-on powers when we are elected to government.

Ms HUTCHINS (Keilor) -- I rise to speak on the Summary #match19" id="match18">#FF0000">Offences #match19" id="match18">#FF0000">and #match19" id="match18">#FF0000">Sentencing
Amendment Bill 2013. Labor will be opposing this bill because, quite frankly, it
amounts to the criminalisation of organised labour. The government's intent is
to stop democratic processes going forward. Government members do not want to
hear when someone is objecting. They do not want to have people on the streets
objecting to their cuts #match20" id="match19">#FF0000">and changes.

They want to shut things down so that those who want to have a say will feel
threatened by the law through the clauses proposed in this bill. Previous
speakers have called on the government to split the bill into two parts so that
the alcohol-exclusion provisions can be dealt with separately. However, as
previous speakers on the other side of the house have indicated, the government
does not intend to do that. It wants to tie up all of these issues to hide the
fact that it wants to stop the right of Victorians to protest.

The move-on laws are absolutely objectionable to us, as they should be to
members of any democratic state. The bill extends the circumstances in which
people can be directed to move on, and it applies some of these circumstances to
previously excluded persons such as protesters.

Under these laws a protective services officer or a police officer has the power
to move on protesters under threat of arrest if they merely suspect on
reasonable grounds that the person has either committed an offence in that
place, is causing a reasonable apprehension of violence to another person, is
causing or is likely to cause an unreasonable obstruction to others, is present
for the purpose of procuring or supplying drugs, or is attempting to impede any
person from lawfully entering or leaving a premises or parts of a premises.

Some of the speakers on the other side of the house have talked about applying
common sense. We already have laws in place to deal with all of those situations
which police have the right to act on. What the government really wants to do is
shut down the voices

of common people who want to exercise their right to protest.

Those opposite say, 'Let us apply common sense to these situations'. I draw the
house's attention to a common-sense example. Over summer there was a protest in
the suburb of Taylors Hill in my electorate. In fact it was a protest that
affected my family. My brother came home from work and he could not enter his
house. The protest involved about eight kids who live on his street. They had
blockaded his door with bikes and were chanting, 'Set Gus free' -- Gus being my
nephew, who was banned from playing with kids on the street. They were there
protesting for an hour. If those opposite want to talk about common sense, I
would ask them if the purpose of this bill is to stop kids such as those in
Taylors Hill from protesting against parents' decisions to stop a kid from
playing? In common-sense terms, if this bill passes, that is the sort of protest
that could be stopped. That is the sort of protest where police could move in.

The police could ask such kids for their names and addresses, and they could
actually fine them $720 for breaching this law. That is how absolutely
ridiculous these laws are. No common sense is being used. Currently the
government wants to market this provision to Victorians as a bill that is about
drug dealing, violence and unlawful protest, but really the scope is much wider.
I think my example of the kids protesting in the streets of my electorate over
the right of their friends to have a play goes to the core of how ridiculous
this bill is. The government wants to shut people down for having their say.

I have been a unionist since the day I started work, and I have never attended
so many rallies as I have in the last 12 months, out in front of this place and
in the streets of Melbourne -- people using their right to protest against the
cuts this government has put in place.

Mr Watt interjected.

Ms HUTCHINS -- No, what you want to do as a government is shut down the right
of people to speak, shut down the right of nurses to protest and shut down the
rights of teachers, health workers, disability workers and taxidrivers -- they
are all the people whose voices you want to shut down when they disagree with
what the government is doing to their wages and conditions and the provision of
services they put in place. That is what this is about -- shutting down
democracy and people's voices -- and it is an absolute disgrace.

We have heard government members opposing the rights of unionists to protest
even when they have legal protection in the process of workplace bargaining --
even when they can be out there demonstrating. It is a direct attack on the
democratic rights and freedoms of people, and I quote Elizabeth O'Shea, a lawyer
with Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, who has represented not only a whole range of
asylum seekers in courts of law but also the protesters from Tecoma. She said:

This is a direct attack on democratic freedoms that people have historically
fought hard to protect. It effectively criminalises a range of behaviours that
are fundamental to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.

It is a freedom that I fought hard for many years to defend and will continue to
fight hard to defend in this place. I am proud to say that my history is steeped
in the actions of being able to protest against any government changes that may
affect workers' lives.

In 1998 a waterfront dispute here in Melbourne led to a three-week protest at
Webb Dock in which I was very involved, negotiating day in, day out with
Victoria Police at the time to ensure that that was a peaceful protest.

Mr Burgess -- Negotiating with the police?

Ms HUTCHINS -- I was negotiating for peaceful protests to proceed over three
weeks of protests at the waterfront, and I have to say it was a peaceful protest
during that time. The 1400 workers who were sacked from their jobs and were
fighting for the right to be reinstated ended up having the law on their side
after that protest. Through the Federal Court and the High Court they were found
to be acting in a lawful way to protect their jobs, and the actions of collusion
by both the company and the federal government at the time were found to be
unlawful. That dispute is part of Victorian and Australian history now, and it
demonstrates just how peaceful protest can bring about change and a better
society.

The move-on powers in this bill are draconian, they are Bjelke-Petersen in style
and they mean we have set off down a slippery slope. They infringe the vital
rights that exist in a free democracy, and they infringe the right to protest.
Labor will defend the right of Victorians to protest.

We will oppose these move-on powers, we will oppose this bill #match21" id="match20">#FF0000">and, when we are
elected in November, we will repeal this legislation.

Mr BROOKS (Bundoora) -- It is a real pleasure to join in this debate on the
#match29" id="match28">#FF0000">Summary #match29" id="match28">#FF0000">Offences #match29" id="match28">#FF0000">and #match29" id="match28">#FF0000">Sentencing Amendment Bill 2013.

At the very outset I want to clarify and repeat the point that has been made by
the lead speaker and other members on this side of the house that the opposition
does not oppose part 3 of this bill, which relates to alcohol-exclusion orders.
If the government were to split this bill, we would support that part of the
bill through the house. We think it is a cynical ploy that the government has
attached that part to the remainder of the bill that relates to the move-on
powers at this point, because otherwise we would have

been able to have that alcohol-exclusion order part of the bill moved through
the house without dissension.

The remainder of this bill deals with the move-on powers that have been central
to the debate in the chamber today, and it has become very clear from listening
to the contributions of members opposite that this bill is all about the unions.
It has become very clear. The Attorney-General in introducing this bill did not
mention unions, but it has become very clear that members of the government have
not been able to help themselves today. They have been frothing at the mouth and
falling over themselves to speak, to condemn unions, to run out their lines
about the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and to tell
all of the horror stories they like to trot out under the cover of parliamentary
privilege. But we have seen the real reason that this bill has been brought into
this place.

I think they would have been much better off to have been up-front with the
Victorian public and specifically said that this bill is about curbing union
power. If that is the case that people have been making today, that is what they
should have said from the outset. They should be up-front with people.

I would have thought a bill that contained so much restriction on people's
freedoms, whether you agree with the restrictions or not, would have been
adequately covered, explored and discussed in the Scrutiny of Acts and
Regulations Committee (SARC) report. I would have thought that that committee,
considering the important role it plays, would have given this matter serious
discussion and provided members of this house with a thorough explanation and
discussion of the issues, in particular addressing the submissions that were
made to that committee. I went to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee
Alert Digest No. 1 of 2014 and the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities
report is restricted to three small paragraphs.

It concludes with the words, 'The committee makes no further comment'.
Interestingly I gather from the minutes there was a difference of opinion on the
committee because there was a vote that indicates that government MPs on this
matter decided to vote in favour of the report that went into the Alert Digest
and the Labor members voted against it. I can only assume from that that there
was a disagreement at SARC about the content of this report. It is a very brief
report. It is symptomatic of this very issue where a government is trying to
shut down debate and lawful protest. It shut down proper discussion of this bill
in the duly constituted committee process of this Parliament. It is an absolute
sham. SARC is not functioning properly.

Members of this house on both sides rely upon the Scrutiny of Acts and
Regulations Committee to provide it with the information the house needs to be
able to debate legislation properly, and we have heard contributions from
members opposite who do not understand parts of this bill and do not understand
the concerns about it. It is impossible to respond to the concerns that have
been raised in the community if you have not had the benefit of a SARC report
that explains what those concerns are. As I said, even if at the end of that
process you disagree with the report or those views, SARC should provide a full
report.

If we go back to the last substantial changes to the Summary Offences and
Controlled Weapons Acts Amendment Bill in 2009 when Labor was in government, we
see that the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee published a fulsome
report in its Alert Digest No. 14 of 2009.

The report ran for some 14 pages, with 7 pages of discussion on the impacts on
the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. It is obvious that this
government, through the SARC process, has shut down any proper discussion of
these matters, despite a submission -- not from labour movement organisations,
not from unions, not from the CFMEU but from the Law Institute of Victoria --
which says:

The legal effect of this bill, if enacted in its current form, would be to
limit the ability of individuals and groups to assemble and protest in public.

The Law Institute of Victoria said that. This is not the CFMEU or some union;
this is the Law Institute of Victoria. That is a fact that this government has
chosen to ignore, and it does so at its own peril.

The Victorian Council of Social Service also expressed concern about the bill's
impact:

... on vulnerable groups who are highly visible in public spaces --

this is in relation to the impact of potential move-on orders --

including homeless people, people with mental health and drug and alcohol
issues, Aboriginal people and young people.

Similar concerns were expressed by the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human
Rights Commission. Its submissions to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations
Committee inquiry and to the government were ignored, and I think that is a
great shame.

The main concern I have with this bill, and which I share with members on this
side of the house, is that the threshold test -- the low bar that needs to be
jumped

over -- for a police officer or a protective services officer (PSO) to move
someone on or to potentially arrest them is that they need to have a reasonable
suspicion that someone is likely to cause an unreasonable obstruction or a
reasonable suspicion that someone is attempting to impede someone else. That
could be just about anything. Just about anything anybody does could fall under
that definition. I want to come back to that point, but I think it says
something about this government that when the manufacturing sector in this state
is dying, jobs are leaving this state, the crime rate is up, TAFE is in crisis
and ambulances cannot get their patients into hospitals, this Parliament is
debating the shutting down of protest action. That is what we are debating in
this Parliament today. The Victorian people would like us to be debating the
issues that really affect them, not the curtailment of their rights to protest.
It is absolutely outrageous.

I suggest to the member for South Barwon that the people of Geelong do not want
their rights to protest curtailed but are more interested in jobs for the future
-- highly skilled, high-wage jobs in the local community. My advice to the
member for South Barwon is that he focus on providing jobs for his community.

As I said, the test the bill provides for a PSO or a police officer moving
someone on or arresting them would see people who gather on the front steps of
Parliament House moved on or arrested. Over the last three years we have seen
many people protesting against the mean-spirited character and incompetence of
this government. In June 2012 and February 2013 hardworking teachers in
Victorian schools -- people who we entrust our children's education to -- fought
not just for their wages and conditions but also against the cuts this
government made to their schools. Under this bill they could have and probably
would have been moved on or arrested.

TAFE staff who protested in Treasury Gardens in September 2012 also could have
been moved on or arrested because there was a reasonable suspicion they might
impede or obstruct others.

My colleague the member for Ivanhoe and I, along with other members representing
nearby electorates, gathered at a protest in Burgundy Street to force the
government to fund the last stage of the Olivia Newton-John Cancer and Wellness
Centre. Would that protest have been shut down or people moved on under this
bill? The nurses -- people who care for the sick and frail in hospitals -- who
rallied on the front steps of Parliament House, not just for their own wages and
conditions but also against the cuts that this government had made to the health
system, would have been moved off the front steps of Parliament House and told
to move on or they would be arrested. Taxidrivers, firefighters and other
hardworking Victorians will have their rights taken away from them by this mean,
desperate government.

In my local community just a week ago a group of 50 residents gathered at a
small local park that the local council -- dominated by Liberals, as it happens
-- wants to flog off to developers. A former member for Eltham is on that
council #match30" id="match29">#FF0000">and is driving that process. I imagine that most of those present --
children, older people, mums #match31" id="match30">#FF0000">and dads -- would never have been in a union or
have attended a protest before. They would have been affected by this law --
they could have been moved on #match32" id="match31">#FF0000">and arrested if they did not move on. This law is
an absolute disgrace, #match33" id="match32">#FF0000">and it should not be accepted by this Parliament. As I
said, it impacts on all Victorians by restricting their rights #match34" id="match33">#FF0000">and freedoms. It
is a bad law introduced by a desperate, rotten government, #match35" id="match34">#FF0000">and it should be
rejected.

[Parliamentary Source]
Ms HALFPENNY (Thomastown) -- Firstly, I would like to repeat what has been said many times by members of the Labor Party. That is that we have consistently asked that this bill be split into two parts -- one to talk about how to deal with alcohol-fuelled violence, and the other to talk about people's democratic right to protest. There are already laws to deal with obstruction and interference with trade, and it is not necessary to have laws that go further than that. The bill we are talking about today provides for the arrest, jailing and fining of people who are merely protesting and upholding their right to protest. There are already laws to deal with all those other things.

This legislation talks about people's fundamental right to protest.

They also have a right to only be accused and found guilty of things they have actually done. This legislation provides police with the ability, if they think that maybe -- they are not quite sure, but maybe -- somebody might at some stage in the future do the wrong thing, to issue a notice to move that person on, just on the basis that a person may be doing something that a police officer may think is not the right thing to do. Again, there are laws to deal with a protester who is doing particular things, but they have to be things that the person has actually done, not simply things that they are alleged to have done. The matter then goes to court to determine whether in fact that person has committed an offence, rather than relying on the belief, suspicion or who knows what of a police officer who was at the protest.

This is a very undemocratic piece of legislation. It is not just about industrial relations protesters. It is not just about workers pursuing their rights.

It is also about other protesters, whether they be trying to preserve historic buildings or complaining about a big corporation that wants to ruin their community and their enjoyment of life. These are the things that people protest about, and they have a right to do so. We on this side of the house are opposed to any legislation that reduces the democratic right of people to protest. As has been stated previously, the Labor Party has committed to repeal this legislation if elected in November.

Video inside of nearly 4000 Victorians protesting re this legislation on March 6, 2014. "We believe that this harsh legislation is completely unnecessary in a society which is continually being undermined and is struggling to maintain work and environmental standards. This legislation is a further and heavy blow to democracy placing ordinary citizens in a position of increased likelihood of coming up against the force of the law for simply using one of the few weapons left, the right to congregate to demonstrate a point." - Jill Quirk, Sustainable Population Australia This article includes an annotated first and second reading of the Bill, with links to speeches against it and to Human Rights legislation in Victoria.

Hon. Andrew Ronalds

Dear Mr. Ronalds,

I write on behalf of the Victorian and Tasmanian branch of Sustainable Population Australia. We are most alarmed by the prospect of the Summary Offences and Sentencing Amendment Bill being passed by the Upper House of State Parliament.

We believe that this harsh legislation is completely unnecessary in a society which is continually being undermined and is struggling to maintain work and environmental standards. This legislation is a further and heavy blow to democracy placing ordinary citizens in a position of increased likelihood of coming up against the force of the law for simply using one of the few weapons left, the right to congregate to demonstrate a point.

This is of importance to our group as we are fighting to stabilise the population and to preserve our environment for future generations. This has involved attending public rallies for environmental causes. Governments need to be made aware of strong public opinion. The right for people to do this is in the interests of our shared future.

Please help to keep our democracy and vote “NO” when this legislation arises in the Upper House.

Sincerely,

Jill Quirk, President , Sustainable Population Australia , Victorian and Tasmanian branch

P.O. Box 240 West Heidleberg 3081

[email protected]
http://www.population.org.au

Speeches Against

Below are two speeches by Liberals arguing on behalf of the Bill. We have also published in another article, all the speeches we could find against the bill. Speeches against the Summary Offences and Sentencing Amendment Bill (Victorian Parliament)You should read these to see why this is a problematic bill. Two most powerful points that come across in the speeches below against the impending Act are that the Labor Party was willing to go along with the Act regarding greater powers for arresting people who are intoxicated and dangerous. A related motion to divide the Act into two was unfortunately defeated. The Liberal Party lawmakers were accused of rolling this one reasonable change together with an unreasonable change to the Sentencing Act. The Second powerful point against the impending Act was that it is designed to stop unions from impeding the hiring of scab labour. This seems to be true. Given that Workers' Conditions have been eroded since the Howard Government in conjunction with vast increases in numbers of worker immigrants, this question of scab labour is bound to come up more frequently and desperately in Victoria, as businesses close down, cost of living rises (power, housing, water etc) and employers seek to drive wages down. The Liberal Members response to this last point was to use arcane theoretical examples, such as pretending that those against the Act would be wanting to allow people to stop members of the public from buying chocolates from shopkeepers they did not like. Go here to read the speeches against the Bill and to see who voted for it or against it.

SUMMARY OFFENCES AND SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL 2013

Introduction and first reading

[Parliamentary Source]
Received from Assembly.

Read first time for Hon. E. J. O'DONOHUE (Minister for Liquor and Gaming Regulation) on motion of Hon. G. K. Rich-Phillips; by leave, ordered to be read second time forthwith.

Statement of compatibility

For Hon. E. J. O'DONOHUE (Minister for Liquor and Gaming Regulation), Hon. G. K. Rich-Phillips tabled following statement in accordance with Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the 'charter act'), [Available here as a word doc and as a pdf file] I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Summary Offences and Sentencing Amendment Bill 2013.

In my opinion, the Summary Offences and Sentencing Amendment Bill 2013, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with human rights as set out in the charter act. [CDB Editor: The clickable link gives you access to an extract of the actual 'rights'.] I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of bill

The bill amends the Summary Offences Act 1966 by expanding the grounds on which police members and protective services officers (PSOs) may direct a person to move on from a public place, and enabling police members to apply to the Magistrates Court for an exclusion order where they have repeatedly been directed to move on from a public place. The bill also amends the Sentencing Act 1991 by creating a new alcohol-exclusion order that prohibits a person who has been convicted of a relevant offence, in circumstances where the person's intoxication was a significant contributing factor, from entering or consuming liquor in specified licensed premises in Victoria.

Human rights issues

Changes to move-on powers and the related exclusion orders

The bill expands the grounds on which the move-on powers under section 6 of the Summary Offences Act may be used. A person who is directed to move on from a public place by police members or PSOs must leave that public place and is prohibited from returning to it for up to 24 hours. The related exclusion orders also prohibit a person from entering a particular public place but for up to 12 months.

The amendments impose a limitation on an individual's right to move freely within Victoria as set out in section 12 of the charter act and may, in certain circumstances, limit the rights to freedom of expression (section 15),

["15. Freedom of expression

(1) Every person has the right to hold an opinion
without interference.
(2) Every person has the right to freedom of
expression which includes the freedom to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas of all
kinds, whether within or outside Victoria and
whether—
(a) orally; or
(b) in writing; or
(c) in print; or
(d) by way of art; or
(e) in another medium chosen by him or her.
(3) Special duties and responsibilities are attached to
the right of freedom of expression and the right
may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably
necessary—
(a) to respect the rights and reputation of other
persons; or
(b) for the protection of national security, public
order, public health or public morality."

]

and peaceful assembly and freedom of association (section 16).

["16. Peaceful assembly and freedom of association

(1) Every person has the right of peaceful assembly.
(2) Every person has the right to freedom of
association with others, including the right to form
and join trade unions."

]

However, for the reasons that follow these limitations are consistent with explicit or implicit internal limits on the rights or are reasonable and justified under section 7(2) of the charter act.

["7. Human rights—what they are and when they may
be limited

(1) This Part sets out the human rights that Parliament
specifically seeks to protect and promote.

(2) A human right may be subject under law only to
such reasonable limits as can be demonstrably
justified in a free and democratic society based on
human dignity, equality and freedom, and taking
into account all relevant factors including—
(a) the nature of the right; and
(b) the importance of the purpose of the
limitation; and
(c) the nature and extent of the limitation; and
(d) the relationship between the limitation and
its purpose; and
(e) any less restrictive means reasonably
available to achieve the purpose that the
limitation seeks to achieve.

(3) Nothing in this Charter gives a person, entity or
public authority a right to limit (to a greater extent
than is provided for in this Charter) or destroy the
human rights of any person."]

All of these charter act rights can be subject to restrictions, including to protect public order, public safety and the rights and freedoms of others. Section 15 contains an explicit internal limitation to this effect (section 15(3)), but the other sections may be implicitly limited in the same way (in accordance with the reasoning in Magee v. Delaney [2013] VSC 407). In the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, from which each of these charter act rights is derived, there are express internal limitations for each of the rights in relation to measures that are necessary to protect public order, public health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others (see article 12(3) on freedom of movement, article 19(3) on freedom of expression, article 21 on peaceful assembly and article 22 on freedom of association). Although these internal limitations do not appear in the relevant charter act rights, the internal limitations in the international covenant illustrate matters that may be considered to justify limitations on those rights in accordance with section 7(2).

The new grounds for the use of move-on powers are aimed at protecting public safety and order and the rights and freedoms of others. The grounds ensure there is an appropriate balance between the right to freedom of movement, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and freedom of association of one individual and the protection of the rights of others, including the rights of others to freedom of movement, privacy, property rights and security. These are important objectives that are sufficient to justify the bill's careful and safeguarded provisions and any limitations those provisions may impose on these charter act rights.

The bill includes a range of safeguards that minimise effects on the relevant charter act rights and ensure any limitation is reasonable. A police member or PSO may tailor a move-on direction as required. For example, a direction can be given in respect of an entire public place, or just part of that place.

The duration of the direction cannot exceed 24 hours and need not be for the full 24 hours.

The making of an exclusion order by a court is discretionary and the court must be satisfied that an order would be a reasonable means of preventing that person from continuing to behave in a manner that would be the basis for another move-on direction. The court can tailor the scope of the order. For example, it may determine the nature and extent of the public place that the order applies to, and the duration of the order. Similarly, new section 6E(5) of the Summary Offences Act enables the court to allow a person to enter a place to which the exclusion order applies for specified purposes

Page 477

where it is appropriate. Exclusion orders may also be varied upon application where the court is satisfied it is appropriate.

There are also specific safeguards around the enforcement of move-on directions and the related exclusion orders. For example, a person does not commit the offence of contravening a move-on direction where he or she has a reasonable excuse for doing so. A similar exclusion applies to the offence of contravening an exclusion order.

Section 6(5) of the Summary Offences Act excludes the use of move-on powers based on the grounds set out in section 6(1)(a) and new section 6(1)(f) in relation to a person who is picketing a place of employment, demonstrating, protesting or publicising his or her view about a particular issue. That exception will no longer apply to the grounds in sections 6(1)(b) and (c) nor to the remaining four new grounds.

Those grounds are more closely related to unlawful conduct and a move-on power on those grounds should not be excluded simply because a person is engaged in picketing, protest or publicising a view. The application of these grounds in such circumstances will assist police in protecting the rights of others and maintaining public safety and order.

Power to require name and address

The bill creates a new power enabling police members and PSOs to require a person being directed to move on to provide their name and address. The right to privacy set out in section 13 of the charter act is relevant to this power. However, in my view this provision is compatible with the right to privacy as it is lawful and not arbitrary. Police will only be able to utilise this power where they intend to direct a person to move on.

This new power will enable police to keep track of when a person has been repeatedly moved on for the purposes of applying for a related exclusion order. It will also assist police in determining whether a person contravenes a move-on direction. The use and disclosure of that information would be subject to the usual protections under the Information Privacy Act 2000.

Arrest power

The bill inserts a new power into the Summary Offences Act, which provides that a police member or a PSO may, without warrant, arrest a person if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person is or has committed an offence against section 6(4) of the Summary Offences Act (contravention of a move-on direction). In my view these provisions are compatible with the right to liberty as the grounds for arrest are clear and appropriate, and cannot be regarded as arbitrary.

Section 6(4) also provides safeguards that minimise interference with liberty by expressly limiting the reasons for which a person may be detained in custody.

Alcohol-exclusion orders

Alcohol-exclusion orders prohibit a person from entering into a range of licensed premises including nightclubs, bars, restaurants, reception centres and major events. These orders limit the right to freedom of movement and are relevant to the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

Alcohol-exclusion orders are aimed at protecting public order and the rights and freedoms of others, including the right to life and the right to liberty and security of a person.

The orders may only be made after a person has been convicted by a court of a relevant offence and the court is satisfied that the offender's intoxication significantly contributed to the commission of the offence.

There is a clear and rational connection between the limitation on the right to freedom of movement and the purpose of the order. Before making an order, a court must be satisfied that the person was intoxicated at the time of the offending. Further, that intoxication must have significantly contributed to the offending. Thus, any person subject to an order has demonstrated through their offending that they are a risk to public safety when intoxicated. The alcohol-exclusion order will reduce that risk by ensuring the person cannot enter or consume liquor in many places where they could otherwise become intoxicated in public.

The effect of an alcohol-exclusion order reflects the significant contribution of alcohol to that offending. Applying the order to a narrower range of licensed venues could channel those subject to the order towards those licensed venues not covered by the order and thus place the public at those venues at risk. The strong, mandatory scheme provided for in this bill is also intended to provide a clear and powerful deterrent against others committing relevant offences. The deterrence of a discretionary scheme would be undermined by cases where an order is not made.

As with the move-on-related exclusion orders, there are safeguards to ensure alcohol-exclusion orders do not inappropriately limit other rights. Courts may create conditions where appropriate allowing a person to enter licensed premises for specified purposes. Such purposes might include employment, reaching accommodation, or attending particular events where appropriate.

Section 89DG allows a person subject to the order to apply for its variation throughout the duration of the order. Given this capacity to adjust alcohol-exclusion orders appropriately if justified by a person's individual circumstances, I do not consider that they create an unreasonable limitation on the right to freedom of movement when balanced with the important objectives of the orders, including public safety and protecting the rights of others.

Offences for contravening exclusion orders

New sections 6G of the Summary Offences Act and 89DF(1) and (2) of the Sentencing Act make it an offence to contravene a move-on-related exclusion order or an alcohol-exclusion order.

Sections 6G(3) and 89DF(4) have the effect of placing an evidential onus on the accused where the prosecution adduces proof that the accused was present in court when the order was made, or proof of service of the order on the person. The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law is relevant to these provisions. However, the right is not limited. Where the accused points to evidence that puts knowledge of the order at issue, the prosecution will still have a legal onus to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew or was reckless as to whether the order was in place.

Edward O'Donohue, MLC

Minister for Liquor and Gaming Regulation

Minister for Corrections

Minister for Crime Prevention

Second reading

[Parliamentary Source]
Ordered that second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard on motion of Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Assistant Treasurer).

Page 478

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Assistant Treasurer) -- I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Incorporated speech as follows:

This bill makes important changes to the law to better protect the community from lawless behaviour on our streets and to deter and prevent alcohol-fuelled violence.

First, the bill amends the Summary Offences Act to give police clearer and more effective move-on powers and to create longer lasting exclusion orders.

Secondly, the bill delivers the government's election commitment to ban those convicted of alcohol-fuelled violence from licensed premises for two years.

Clearer and more effective move-on powers

Move-on powers provide police and PSOs with a useful tool for safeguarding the peaceful enjoyment of public spaces by all, as well as defusing situations that threaten public order and safety. Police and PSOs are currently able to direct people to move on from public places for a range of reasons. These include where they reasonably suspect that a person is breaching or is likely to breach the peace, or is endangering or is likely to endanger the safety of another.

The bill provides further grounds on which these powers may be used. Police and PSOs will be able to direct a person to move on from a public place if they suspect on reasonable grounds that a person:

has committed an offence in the place;

is causing a reasonable apprehension of violence to another person;

is causing, or is likely to cause, an unreasonable obstruction to others;

is present for the purpose of procuring or supplying drugs; or

is impeding, or attempting to impede, another person from lawfully entering or leaving premises or part of premises.

These new grounds will provide greater certainty for police members and PSOs as to when they may exercise move-on powers, and expand the range of circumstances in which such directions may be given.

Move-on powers may be applied in relation to one person or many.

The bill clarifies that police and PSOs may give one direction to an entire group rather than having individually to direct each person in the group to move on.

The bill continues to protect legitimate rights to lawful protest or demonstration, but it makes clear that if protesters go beyond legitimate expression of views and instead resort to threats of violence or seek to impede the rights of others to lawfully enter or leave premises, police will have the power to order those protesters to move on.

To this end, the bill provides that move-on powers may be used in respect of people engaged in picket lines, protests and other demonstrations. However, the existing ground relating to breach of peace and the new unreasonable obstruction ground will not apply in those situations.

These grounds are excluded because of the scope for dispute about their application in the context of demonstrations. Police will instead be able to rely on the impeding access ground and other grounds to deal with protesters who blockade or otherwise impede access to or from premises or who resort to threats of violence or to illegal conduct.

The bill will also improve the enforcement of move-on directions. For example, the bill expressly provides that police and PSOs may arrest a person who contravenes a move-on direction. The bill also assists the detection of such contraventions by providing that police may require a person being directed to move on to provide their name and address. Currently, police are unable to do this in many cases, making it difficult to detect contraventions of the move-on directions where the person returns a few hours later. This change will also enable police to keep a record of people who are repeatedly moved on.

Move-on-related exclusion orders

Move-on powers can keep a person away from a public place for up to 24 hours, but no more. Consequently, a person may return to the place and engage in the same conduct the very next day. This can be a particular issue where police know that people are returning to a certain area repeatedly, such as for the purpose of buying or selling drugs.

The bill addresses these situations by enabling police to apply to the Magistrates Court for an exclusion order against an individual.

The making of an exclusion order will be discretionary, and the court may only make an order if it is satisfied that:

a person has been repeatedly directed to move on from the same public place or part of a public place; and

an exclusion order would be a reasonable means of preventing that person from continuing to behave in a manner that would be the basis for another move-on direction.

If a court decides to make an exclusion order, it can specify a duration of up to 12 months. During that time a person will be prohibited from entering the public place specified in the order. However, the bill does allow the court to create conditions allowing a person to enter the place if there is a good reason for doing so and the court considers it appropriate in all the circumstances.

Once an exclusion order is in place, it will be an offence to contravene that order. The offence will carry a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.

These exclusion orders will give police a new tool for addressing low-level street drug dealing and for breaking up gangs that gather in public places to threaten people or engage in criminal behaviour.

Alcohol-exclusion orders

The government made an election commitment to ban those found guilty of committing a violent offence while under the influence of alcohol from licensed premises for two years.

Page 479

This bill makes amendments to the Sentencing Act 1991 to give effect to that commitment.

A high proportion of violent behaviour is caused by people who have had too much to drink. These measures will better protect the public from the recurrence of such behaviour and create a strong deterrent to the offender and to others.

Under the requirements, a court must make an alcohol-exclusion order where it is satisfied that:

a person has been convicted of a relevant offence;

the person was intoxicated at the time of the assault; and

the person's intoxication significantly contributed to the commission of the offence.

These orders will apply to most indictable offences against the person, ranging from homicides to intentionally causing injury, as well as to sexual assaults such as rape or indecent assault, and to offences such as threats to kill and assaulting police.

Alcohol-exclusion orders will prohibit the offender from entering specified licensed premises or consuming liquor in any licensed premises anywhere in Victoria for a period of two years. Where an offender goes to jail for their offence, the exclusion will apply from the time they are released from jail. Where an offender is sentenced to a community correction order of longer than two years, the court will be able to impose alcohol treatment conditions that will continue to operate after expiry of the alcohol-exclusion order.

The licensed premises from which persons are excluded are the same as those covered by alcohol-exclusion conditions made under a community correction order pursuant to section 48J of the Sentencing Act 1991. These include nightclubs and bars -- including pubs -- as well as licensed restaurants and cafes. Bar areas of other licensed premises will also be covered, including hotel bars and bars at sporting grounds and clubs. A person is also prohibited from entering major events covered by a relevant liquor license, such as the formula one grand prix.

Provision is made for the court on application to vary the exclusion conditions in circumstances where that is justified, such as where a person lives above licensed premises or works at licensed premises. A court may also allow a person to enter licensed premises for a specified purpose if there is a good reason and the court considers it appropriate. However, the courts cannot allow a person to drink on those premises.

Contravention of an alcohol-exclusion order will be an offence, carrying a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.

Alcohol-exclusion orders will send a clear message that drunken, violent behaviour will not be tolerated in Victoria and that those who engage in it will face significant consequences for their personal and social life, in addition to whatever other sentence they receive.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan).