Hong Lim MP, Member for Clayton » Speeches

BUSINESS NAMES (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL 2011 – Thursday, 8 Dec 2011

admin — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 03:59:45 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I am pleased to speak on the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2011. This bill should hopefully be business friendly. I am amazed that no previous speaker has been prepared to acknowledge that this bill completes the process commenced under the previous Labor government to transfer the responsibility for registration of business names from each individual state to the commonwealth under a single national system of registration. In a sense it follows on from a process started 110 years ago with Federation, which provided for free trade between the states. However, it is the work done between the states and the commonwealth government in more recent years to harmonise laws and establish national registers that has led to this initiative.

Registering a business name is very important for small and micro businesses. Simply using one’s own name does not say much about a business. While your name might be Smith, it is likely that your family has not been in the blacksmith business for generations or even a few centuries. A person with the surname Baker might bake bread but probably does not. Registration of a business name is not only effective in promoting one’s business but also much cheaper for a small or sole trader than forming a company and meeting all the regulatory compliance. Of course if one attaches a description of the business to the name, then business name registration becomes mandatory.

The advantage for businesses in moving to a system of single national registration is that if they trade in a number of states, they will not have to register in every state. One national registration will suffice. If businesses also need an Australian business number (ABN) — and that will become compulsory — there will be a one‑stop shop for them to apply for that. Previously businesses have applied for business name registration in their state and obtained their ABN from the commonwealth government.

In legislating for the transfer to national business name registration, the bill before the house repeals the Victorian Business Names Act 1962. Clause 1 of this bill adopts the commonwealth Business Names Registration Act 2011 and the commonwealth Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Act 2011. However, there are a couple of issues for Victorian businesses which I have to point out. The minister in his statement of compatibility preceding his second‑reading speech said that the transfer to the national system will significantly reduce fees associated with registering business names, and the previous speaker also alluded to that. But that is not true — certainly not for Victorian businesses renewing their business names. They currently pay $61.10 to Consumer Affairs Victoria, but it is proposed that they will pay $70 for renewal at the national level, an increase of a whopping 14.5 per cent.

The search engine Google generates its income from paid advertising. It promotes businesses by providing predicted searches in the search box and by results appearing as a person types in their query. Companies pay for prominent listings with Google. If prospective businesses perform a Google search for the term ‘national business names registration’, the first result they see will be www.businessregistration.com.au, which is the business division of Business Switch Pty Ltd. This is not a government agency; it is a private company that will of course charge for services. I find it regrettable that it has been allowed to register such an official‑sounding and therefore misleading domain name. Perhaps the minister would care to have his department look into this matter.

In the meantime a business wanting to register a name should register through Consumer Affairs Victoria until the transfer is complete. Following the transfer, business names registration will be managed and administered by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. There is a grandfather clause relating to identical business names in various states, so it would be okay if the name Lim Aeronautics is already registered in both New South Wales and Victoria; ASIC will differentiate between them by putting ‘Melbourne’ or ‘Sydney’ in brackets after the name. However, if the name Lim Skydiving is already registered in Melbourne, then after the national transfer a New South Wales business will not be permitted to register the same name.

Victorians considering registering a business name and facing the possibility of there being an identical name interstate should consider acting now. Likewise, businesses need to be aware that it will be compulsory to obtain an ABN if they register a business name after the transfer to national registration. All in all, this bill, which will complete the work of the previous state Labor government, is business friendly. I wish the bill well and a speedy passage.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS – Rail: Clayton level crossing – Thursday, 24 Nov 2011

admin — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 01:14:06 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I would like to again bring to the attention of the house the deteriorating condition of the Clayton railway crossing, which is now being featured weekly in the local paper and was also featured in the Age only two days ago. Members will recall that I have already brought to the attention of the house the fact that the Clayton railway crossing was ranked no. 7 by the Department of Transport and VicRoads among more than 300 level crossings to be separated. But when the Baillieu government came in, it threw away the list without consultation or advising the public. Instead, it is upgrading the crossing at New Street in the electorate of Brighton, which is represented by the Minister for Innovation, Services and Small Business, and also the Dalvui Lane crossing in the electorate of Polwarth, which is represented by the Minister for Transport, as nos 1 and 2 in terms of funding allocation.
Transparency International defines as corruption in the Third World when a minister allocates or misappropriates state funds for their own good — their own personal gain.
Time expired.

SERIOUS SEX OFFENDERS (DETENTION AND SUPERVISION) AMENDMENT BILL 2011 – Tuesday, 22 Nov 2011

admin — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 01:03:43 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I rise to make a contribution on the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Amendment Bill 2011. This bill could have been much more. Although the opposition does not oppose the bill, a lot more could have been built into the bill to make it more meaningful for the community. As the minister said in his second reading speech, the bill makes a number of technical amendments to the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009. Herein lies the problem. The bill does nothing to increase victims’ rights or to provide the community with more information about serious sex offenders. I will say more about that in a moment, but first I will mention the key features of the bill, which several members have already gone through.
Clause 4 modifies interim supervision orders by amending section 58 of the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009. Clause 7 amends section 67 of the principal act to provide that a periodic review is not required if the offender is in custody. Clause 12 of the bill allows Victoria Police to dispense with the notification period when acting on serious breaches of supervision orders. Clause 13 broadens the scope for the sharing of information between agencies. As members can see, there is nothing in the bill about empowering victims and the community.
I now want to turn to one of the most serious and tragic sexual assault cases possible. I refer to the case of 73 year old grandmother Marie Zidan, who was sodomised, raped and strangled in 2000 by two offenders who were aged 15 and 16 at the time. These two murderers and rapists are now free in the community. Recently an application was made by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Supreme Court to lift a suppression order so that an application could be made to the Children’s Court to reveal their names. As the prosecutor, Daryl Brown, told the court on behalf of the DPP, ‘It’s the public’s right to know their identity’. However, this application failed, and it was always going to fail because of the law as it currently stands.
I know that the Minister for Corrections, the minister who introduced this bill, previously took a different position on this matter. The minister could have easily included a provision in this bill that was consistent with the position he took when he was in opposition. I refer to a report in the Herald Sun of 6 January 2007 headed ‘Outrage over killer’s rights’, which says:
Acting shadow Attorney General Andrew McIntosh said the onus should be on children accused of homicide or rape to convince a judge their case and identity should not be openly reported, not the other way around.
So much for being tough on crime. If the minister were fair dinkum and if he really believed what he was quoted as saying in 2007, then he could have dealt with it in this bill. If he believed the community’s right to know overrides the legal principle of not disclosing child offenders’ names, especially when it comes to serious sexual offences, then he could have got it through this Parliament, as his party has a majority in both houses.
The other matter which the Minister for Corrections has failed to deal with concerns the extent to which local communities should be informed about the housing of serious sex offenders in their neighbourhoods. The minister referred to Corella Place as providing transitional housing for up to 40 serious sex offenders. That is certainly true. Some of these offenders come from prison or a secure forensic psychiatric unit such as the Thomas Embling Hospital in Fairfield. Corella Place was built adjacent to the Ararat Prison and has a high degree of supervision. However, as the minister said, Corella Place is transitional. What the minister did not canvass is where serious sex offenders will go after Corella Place. He did not say whose neighbourhood they will live in.
The Liberal Party pretends to put the community before offenders and carries on parading itself as tough on crime, even if it impacts on their rehabilitation. However, the minister is strangely silent on whether local communities will be told about offenders being housed in their neighbourhood. The minister is right: this is just a technical bill. He has wimped out on the opportunity to deal with the complex issue of the community’s right to know versus the rehabilitation of the offender. The government will be judged accordingly — that is, on whether it is really tough on crime or whether it was just parading itself for the sake of winning the state election last November. I rest my case.

LIQUOR CONTROL REFORM FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL 2011 – Wednesday, 9 Nov 2011

admin — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 04:27:06 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Liquor Control Reform Further Amendment Bill 2011, which amends the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998. At the outset let me say I am going to be pretty negative in my contribution. I understand that members of the opposition do not oppose this bill, but a critical eye needs to be cast over the bill, particularly in regard to the administration of the suspension of liquor licences and in regard to the so-called election commitment made by the Liberal Party. In his second-reading speech the Minister for Consumer Affairs made a big deal of this bill implementing his party’s election promises on liquor licensing; however, when the bill is tested against the election policy, the minister’s claim comes up short, and I will point out where to the house.
The bill amends the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 by introducing a demerit point system for licensees and permittees, introducing a new licence type for wine and beer producers, recognising the importance of live music in the purpose of the act and making other minor and technical amendments accordingly.
A night out with friends and family, good food, pleasant company and a couple of drinks in moderation are what make for many people a relaxing and enjoyable experience. However, so often what should be a healthy social situation can turn into something much uglier with the abuse of alcohol, and we have heard plenty about that. Serving liquor to those severely intoxicated and sometimes also high on drugs can lead to violence, including, literally, homicide. The residential amenity of local neighbourhoods can be adversely affected, and of course children are particularly vulnerable to under-age serving of alcohol.
That is why legislation needs to promote the responsible serving of alcohol and be tough on those licensees who breach their responsibilities. Presumably this is what the Liberal Party had in mind at the last state election. The Liberal Party’s election policy at the 2010 state elections was titled ‘The Victorian Liberal Nationals coalition plan for liquor licensing’. It promised a new approach. The heading on page 8 of the plan reads:
A new approach to liquor licence infringements — demerit points.
The Liberals went on to say on page 8 of their plan:
A Liberal-Nationals coalition government will: establish a driver demerit points-style system applicable to liquor licences.
The system will feature gradations of points depending on the seriousness of the offence. So, for example, serving a minor would carry more points than serving an intoxicated adult.
Each licence will have point numbers allocated depending on the class of licence, size of venue and any other relevant risk factors.
One is then entitled to assume, given that one motorist might get an on-the-spot fine for exceeding the speed limit by, say, 5 kilometres per hour and another might have their licence suspended and lose their vehicle for doing 40 kilometres per hour over the limit, that a harder line would be taken with a licensee who served alcohol to a child. However, this is not the case, and it is clearly a broken promise. There is no distinction between the type of offence and the type of licence.
The next broken promise takes us into dangerous territory. The Liberal Party also promised on page 9 of its plan that:
Demerit point thresholds will be set for different licence types. Reaching each threshold will automatically trigger liquor licence suspensions of 24 hours, 7 days or 28 days. No appeal will be possible.
However, this is not the case, as the bill provides the minister with the power to cancel or delay the suspension. Imagine giving the Minister for Police and Emergency Services the power to cancel drivers licence suspensions as of now. As I said, this is dangerous territory and reflects the ‘born to rule’ attitude of those on the other side of the chamber. The administering and review of penalties should be kept well away from politicians. Think about 1980s Queensland; think about separation of powers. Any appeal against a penalty, if there is to be one, should only take place on a judicial or tribunal basis and certainly not be administered by politicians. We certainly would not want the Minister for Planning administering appeals against liquor licence suspensions. What if the licensee were a Queensland Liberal Party president?
The final comment I would make is that much of what relates to fees, such as the 5-star system, discounts for good records and the loss of ratings for bad records, will be dealt with by regulation. Therefore it needs to be said that this house cannot easily examine the impact of fee changes on licensees. While the government is always responsible for the impact of its legislation, that is particularly the case with this bill. I rest my case.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS – Victorian volunteer small grants program: closure – Wednesday, 26 Oct 2011

admin — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 04:22:43 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I wish to draw to the attention of the house that this government has scrapped the Victorian volunteer small grants funding program without any notice or consultation with stakeholders. This funding program was introduced by the Bracks and Brumby Labor governments and was aimed at attracting volunteers from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds to the wonderful world of volunteering. Over the years community groups, including non migrant groups, have benefited significantly from this program by applying to the Department of Planning and Community Development.
As late as April this year government MPs and ministers were still singing the praises of this program and calling on community groups to apply. A number of my local community groups responded to those calls and tried to obtain application forms from the official website. From mid June community groups noticed that the program just disappeared from the website. The government did not even have the courtesy or decency to inform people that it had scrapped this funding. A cruel joke indeed!
As part of Labor’s A Fairer Victoria program, this program was allocated $3 million for three years on an ongoing basis, with no closing dates for applications. It was very well received and popular among small community groups, especially migrant groups, because they could take time to apply and were not under pressure to meet a closing date. This house should be outraged and concerned that our volunteers and voluntary community groups are being disadvantaged and discriminated against by this government’s insensitive and heartless scrapping of this funding program and should demand that this program be restored as a matter of priority and urgency.

ADJOURNMENT – Victorian certificate of applied learning: funding – Tuesday, 25 Oct 2011

admin — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 04:18:54 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — The matter I raise tonight is for the attention of the Minister for Education, and the action I seek is that funding for the Victorian certificate of applied learning (VCAL) for 2012 and beyond be restored as a matter of urgency. The withdrawal of funding for the VCAL program is part of a disturbing trend of the Baillieu government. My electorate of Clayton has three secondary schools within its boundaries, two government schools and one independent school, which all operate the VCAL program. This year Westall Secondary College has been operating the VCAL program off site at two locations. It is a successful program. In fact it is so successful the college was intending to expand it by also operating two classes at the main campus in 2012. The funding cut to this school will be $105 000, and it is unacceptable and intolerable.
I take pride in the fact that Westall Secondary College is one of the few schools that offers English as a second language VCAL, with many of the students coming from refugee backgrounds. This year Westall Secondary College VCAL students of Burmese descent won a major prize at the Bayside Film Festival for a documentary film about their journey from Burma to the freedom of Australia. Westall’s program also achieved further success in that its 2011 local education and employment re engagement program won a major prize for being an excellent community VCAL provider, awarded by the Bayside Glen Eira Kingston Local Learning and Employment Network.
Westall Secondary College operates in a low socioeconomic environment and is doing significant work with refugee students, new migrants and disengaged students from its catchment area and from other local secondary colleges. It is extremely important that these marginalised young people do not slip outside the system. In fact it will be a failure of this government if it turns its back on these young people. The funding cut means that money will need to be found from an already tight school budget, and it could see the school operate in deficit.
I implore the minister to take immediate action to restore funding, provide certainty to this college and to all 400 providers and, most of all, show support to our most vulnerable and needy students.

CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES AMENDMENT (SECURITY OF YOUTH JUSTICE FACILITIES) BILL 2011 – Thursday, 13 Oct 2011

admin — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 04:08:23 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — It is a great pleasure to join the debate on the Children, Youth and Families Amendment (Security of Youth Justice Facilities) Bill 2011. My contribution will take a different angle, because we have heard so much about the different aspects of how this bill has come about as a result of the Comrie review and the Ombudsman’s report and so on. I was surprised by the member for Pascoe Vale, who did not mention, when she spoke about how our juvenile justice system is a shining example worldwide and is recognised as such and respected internationally, that it was under her watch that some of those positive visionary things happened. I feel that in a place like the Parliament we act in an adversarial way towards each other. We are too negative, and we rarely pay respect or due regard to the good work our members have done.
In my early years here in this chamber I was perturbed every year when I read the annual reports of the youth parole board. I hope that by bringing this to the attention of the minister at the table, the Minister for Local Government, or the Minister for Community Services, who is not in the chamber at the moment, the message will get through that we should continue with our tradition of caring. We know that we have to be very firm and forceful with young offenders, but we have to be fair as well.
I recall the early settlement of the Indochinese community in Victoria. We have all heard about the young Vietnamese, Cambodians and Chinese from the three countries in Indochina who came here as unattached youngsters; they would tag onto a family, but they were not true members of the family. Those families had no tradition as such of settling in a third country. The youngsters were let loose, and they could not cope with their new environment. They formed gangs, became involved in drugs and became violent. As a result they were locked up.
Every year for three or four years in a row the youth parole board consistently mentioned in its reports that the number of young offenders from this community was growing out of proportion to the population of Victoria as a whole and that the juvenile justice system had to handle and meet the challenge of this growing number of young offenders. Ironically we are now seeing the same thing happening with the Sudanese and other new African communities. If members look at the last two reports of the youth parole board, they will see exactly the same story.
What the former Minister for Community Services, the member for Pascoe Vale, did all those years ago is figure out that unless the system was culturally specific and culturally relevant, these people were going to come out and reoffend, because nobody was catering for them inside or outside the system. I thought the approach of lock them up and throw the key away or the gung ho style of taking no prisoners displayed by members on the other side of the chamber, if my reading of their contributions was not wrong, was very disturbing. After all, these are young people.
In the early years I felt that we should send them back; they should not be here. But after 20 years they are now contributing members of the community. They are decent people; they are fathers, responsible husbands and all that, and it is really encouraging. This is because the former Minister for Community Services, the member for Pascoe Vale, had the decency and the vision to use scholarship within the Indochinese community so that their own people could be trained and go into the system to look after the young offenders. They went in to care for the young offenders and respond to their needs and to train them while they were inside or when they came out by providing them with special traineeships et cetera, so that they could become useful, contributing members of the community.
I think that we tend to forget a little thing like that or overlook it. But our system is a shining example; we are leading the world. We should keep this tradition, and we should be proud and walk tall in the knowledge that the Victorian juvenile justice system is second to none.
The bill deals mainly with security arrangements to make sure that young offenders never escape again. It introduces mechanisms to check for and confiscate articles and so forth. You can do all of these things, but unless you have a human touch and facilitate these young people — help, guide and nurture them — they will come out and reoffend rather than contribute to the community. No matter how much legislation we put through, no matter how many mechanisms we put in place and talk about, unless we deal with young offenders as human beings we are going to fail them and fail ourselves.

CRIMES AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS ACTS AMENDMENT (OFFENCES AND PENALTIES) BILL 2011 – Thursday, 13 Oct 2011

admin — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 03:50:18 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I rise to speak in the debate on the Crimes and Domestic Animals Acts Amendment (Offences and Penalties) Bill 2011. Pets, companion animals, domestic animals, whichever term one prefers, are a source of joy and companionship for so many people. Indeed the therapeutic benefit of pets is now understood, with some nursing homes having visiting pet programs. However, pet ownership, as many members have mentioned, must be considered first and foremost a responsibility rather than a right. I say this for two important reasons. Firstly, there are the animal welfare responsibilities. Secondly, there are the nuisance issues, which at the extreme can become dangerousness and include attacks on people, as we have seen. Responsible pet ownership is very much a commitment for the life of the animal rather than a purchase of a consumable item to be discarded when it has lost its appeal.
This bill, which deals with dangerousness issues, introduces several new offences under the Crimes Act 1958. Clause 3 in part 2 of the bill inserts new section 319B into the Crimes Act 1958, which I will come back to later in my contribution, to create an indictable offence relating to a failure to control a dangerous, menacing or restricted breed dog that kills a person. The clause also inserts new section 319C into the Crimes Act 1958 to create the indictable offence relating to recklessness as to whether controlling a dangerous, menacing or restricted breed dog may place another person in danger of death.
We all hope that the very creation of these offences will be sufficient to force owners of dangerous dogs and restricted breed dogs to act responsibly and that eventually there will be no restricted breed dogs in Victoria. Ultimately we hope this will be sufficient to ensure that the tragedy which occurred just a few weeks ago of Ayen Chol, a 4 year old girl, being mauled to death by a pit bull is never repeated. However, if there is another case and a subsequent criminal prosecution, then it needs to be understood that such a prosecution will be strongly defended, because it is now a serious matter rather than a summary offence. A conviction under section 319B can lead to a prison term of up to 10 years and a conviction under section 319C to a prison term of up to 5 years.
I can see several definitional matters in the bill that defence lawyers might seek to test, and some members in earlier contributions have queried this aspect. The first is the definition of what is a restricted breed, the second is what constitutes recklessness and the third is what a reasonable person might have anticipated. As the minister said in his second reading speech, this bill follows the Domestic Animals Amendment (Restricted Breeds) Bill 2011, which was passed by the Parliament in August. That bill dealt with the problem of how to correctly identify restricted breeds, including DNA issues, by providing for the gazetting of an ‘approved standard’ in defining a restricted breed. In relation to an ‘approved standard’ section 3(3) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 reads:
(3) A dog that falls within an approved standard for a breed of dog specified in a paragraph of the definition of restricted breed dog is taken to be a dog of that breed.
Section 3(4) reads:
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) an approved standard is a standard that has been approved by the minister and published in the Government Gazette.
It is critical that the minister gets his wording of an ‘approved standard’ correct. It would be horrific if the grief of a victim and their family were compounded by a prosecution failing because this provision fell over. I hope the minister will give the house some assurance on this in his concluding remarks.
Likewise we can expect defence lawyers to test the inclusion of the reasonable person test in clause 319B of the bill before house. To achieve a successful prosecution under this clause there are several elements that must be made out, including that ‘a reasonable person would have realised that that failure’ — that is, the failure to control the dog — ‘would expose the victim or any other person to an appreciable risk of death’. I would like to hear further explanation from the minister as to why this provision exists and an assurance that it will stand up in court. We can also expect lawyers to test what constitutes recklessness, so there is much riding on whether the government got its definitions correct.
A further matter I wish to raise is in relation to the tragedy of Ayen Chol. Like many I am appalled that the owner may only face prosecution for a summary offence and a fine for an offence such as a dog being found at large. If it has not already done so, I would urge Victoria Police to obtain advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions and for the DPP to consider, given all we know about pit bulls, whether the conduct of the owner was so negligent as to open up liability to more serious charges.
I wish to conclude where I started — on pets being a source of joy and companionship. That is certainly the history of the dog as it evolved from the wolf into the pet dog we value today. It is generally accepted that humans and dogs found sufficient common benefits in support and companionship for dogs to become domesticated. The opposition does not oppose the bill; its members of course support the bill. I hope for the speedy passage of the bill.

GAMBLING REGULATION AMENDMENT (LICENSING) BILL 2011 – Tuesday, 11 Oct 2011

admin — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 03:43:51 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I rise to speak on the Gambling Regulation Amendment (Licensing) Bill 2011. While the opposition is not opposing the bill, I want to put on the record where this bill is deficient and where there is a liberal dose of hypocrisy. We have all heard the member for Melton and others on this side of the house speaking on the many points they have raised, but let me start by saying that this bill purports to do several things. It bans lobbyists from lobbying for the awarding of gambling and wagering licences. It provides for new monitoring arrangements. It also provides for the suspension of bookmakers or their employees upon their conviction for certain offences.

The bill establishes a new monitoring regime. It claims to provide for an independent monitor, but I ask: how independent will it really be, given that the monitor will be Intralot? I have looked at the Intralot website, where it describes itself as follows:

Intralot has become an international protagonist in the lottery sector, with more than 5400 employees and a presence in more than 53 countries on all five continents. Intralot currently holds a dominant position in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Central America and the Caribbean, with a significant presence in North America, and is continuing its dynamic expansion in Oceania and Africa.

Is this really what we want as an independent monitor?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Victoria) — Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member for Clayton, but I think now is a good time to break for dinner.

Sitting suspended 6.30 p.m. until 8.01 p.m.

Mr LIM — I was making a reference to the fact that I had a look at the Intralot website, and I quoted Intralot’s own words when it portrayed or proclaimed itself as a ‘protagonist’. I asked the
question: is this what we really want as an independent monitor, a protagonist? Yes, it is a protagonist; it is one of the main figures in gaming with huge interests around the world in gambling. Surely it should dawn on all of us that an independent monitor should be independent, not one of the main players.

But I am not surprised about the liberal dose of hypocrisy we have seen over this appointment. The now minister continually raised probity questions about Intralot while in opposition, and now he has appointed it as his independent monitor. He criticised it for its shortfall in sales, and now he is lauding it for having ‘proven, modern technology’. In opposition the minister criticised Intralot for
the charging of up‑front licence fees. Indeed during a grievance debate in the house on 28 May 2008, the now minister said

I call on the minister to immediately sit down with Intralot and negotiate the removal of these outrageous up‑front licensing fees for lottery agents.

Now that he is minister, has he had the discussion with Intralot? That is the question we should all be asking.

Clause 40 of the bill states: 40 Determination of application

After section 8.3.13(2) of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 insert —

“(2A) Without limiting the grounds on which the Commission may refuse an application for a minor gaming permit, the Commission must refuse an application if, in the Commission’s opinion, the activity the organisation wishes to conduct under the permit is offensive or contrary to the public interest”.

The minister in the second‑reading speech gave the example of in‑vitro fertilisation treatment. I have no difficulty with this proposition. Indeed, I hope the commission takes a proactive approach. I would say that any health procedure should be solely considered on need within a health setting. For example plastic surgery,
including breast implants, has been offered as a prize overseas. I am sure Kyle Sandilands would be capable of offering likewise in Australia.

I find it concerning that the government is withdrawing the commission from monitoring some forms of lottery draws. Intuitively I find this disturbing. Given Diebold’s problems in the US with fraud allegations and illegally altering the software of voting machines, if anything there should be increased independent monitoring of electronic systems of a sensitive public nature. The minister in the second‑reading speech also made a big song and dance about banning lobbyists from lobbying for the awarding of gambling and wagering, and we have heard many speakers referring to this before. However, when you look at clause 47 of the bill, you see it says in subclause (2):

The Minister may refuse to consider or to grant an application for the monitoring licence, if the Minister is satisfied that the lobbyist, for or on behalf of an interested person in relation to a licence awarding process, has carried out a lobbying activity.

There are similar provisions relating to wagering and betting licences. These provisions do not say the minister must refuse, only that he may. If the banning of lobbyists is such an important principle, why provide discretion as to the consequences? What if the Minister for Planning became the Minister for Gaming and gave preferential treatment to Liberal Party office‑bearers?

However, the most disappointing aspect of this bill is that it does absolutely nothing for problem gamblers. This is an issue I have been deeply and genuinely concerned with since my election to this place. It very much affects the communities I represent, both in terms of their socioeconomics and their ethnicities.

I do not want to go into the history of when I commissioned an intern to look at the effects of gambling on my community. I called a press conference which was planned to be just after question time at that time. The then Premier had a very deep involvement with the casino. The member for Melton referred to this; it was an outrage. The then Premier attacked me during that question time savagely, I must say, prior to the press conference that was planned to occur after question time.

While we are not opposing the bill, I have to say it is quite disappointing. It could have been a lot more than what it is. Accountability is mentioned in the bill. That remains to be seen, because at the same time there is a failure to address the greater social issue.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS – Chinese Community Council of Australia: information session – Wednesday, 12 Oct 2011

admin — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 06:04:17 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I rise to congratulate the Chinese Community Council of Australia (CCCA), Victorian chapter, on hosting another successful event. More than 50 leaders from various Victorian Chinese community organisations attended an afternoon gathering at Parliament House on 18 August. This event was hosted by the Chinese Community Council of Australia, Victorian chapter, as an information session on its national conference in Melbourne in August 2012.

Attendees heard speeches from several MPs, all of whom warmly encouraged bipartisan cooperation and unity among Chinese community groups in Australia. MPs who addressed this gathering
included the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship; the Leader of the Opposition; the President of the Legislative Council, the Honourable Bruce Atkinson; the shadow Treasurer, the member for Lyndhurst; the Shadow Minister for Finance, the member for Preston; and former Liberal Senator Tsebin Tchen.

Dr Stanley Chiang, president of the Victorian chapter of CCCA said he was encouraged by the bipartisan support from both the coalition and the ALP. He stressed that this gathering was a significant step for the Chinese community towards achieving its goal of creating a united voice for the Chinese in Australia. He welcomed and congratulated the more than 20 Chinese community organisations who joined up as members on the day, and he thanked them for their faith in the work and vision of the CCCA. So far the Victorian chapter of the CCCA has a membershipof close to 40 organisations.

I must report that the Queensland chapter of the CCCA was launched on 18 September this year, so the Chinese community is now linked up on the eastern seaboard of Australia.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS – Wings Foundation – Thursday, 15 Sep 2011

admin — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 04:54:49 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — On 22 August I attended the Wings Foundation’s annual scholarship and awards presentation. This foundation has awarded more than $10 000 annually to hundreds of
international Chinese students who have not just achieved outstanding academic results but who have proven community affairs involvement as well. I met with the many past and present awardees of the Wings Foundation who have gone on to become activists on university campuses and to hold management positions in the student unions.

The Wings Foundation is auspiced by 2Future, which runs cheap tutorial classes to support international students. It runs the tutorial classes not for monetary gain but to focus on building and growing a long‑term socially responsible group of young leaders to make a difference in Australia. I believe these young leaders of 2Future and the Wings Foundation, led by Gen Li, Daniel Pan and Tony Wang, and their incredible bunch of volunteers, are the unsung heroes of the Chinese community. In less than three years they have built a social infrastructure and network from scratch and grown it into a non‑profit, mutual assistance organisation to provide support and fellowship to needy international students to help them settle successfully in Australia. Indeed this is a Chinese first. They are deeply committed, with strong belief in their convictions and sacrifice. They have donated financially to many community organisations, including three Chinese senior citizens clubs in Box Hill, Springvale and Clayton that I am aware of.

DRUGS, POISONS AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AMENDMENT (PROHIBITION OF DISPLAY AND SALE OF CANNABIS WATER PIPES) BILL 2011 – Wednesday, 14 Sep 2011

admin — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 04:48:36 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I rise to speak on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Prohibition of Display and Sale of Cannabis Water Pipes) Bill 2011. It would be remiss of me not to
share a cultural aspect in this debate. I grew up in a culture where, if you come from a good family, you do not drink or smoke. When young men start approaching young women for marriage, the first question that the potential parents‑in‑law ask is, ‘Do you smoke?’, and if you do, you are out. This very strong cultural background is such that nobody drinks or smokes where I come from. But the irony is that cannabis grows wild in my country, Cambodia, and nobody smoked it until the war in Vietnam spilled over to Cambodia. We heard that the Americans smoked it in great quantity, so we exported it to Vietnam for them, but then it eventually came back to affect our young people. That is the irony of this whole thing.

Having said that, the anecdotal comment has been made that the best soup in Cambodia, and also in Vietnam, in some of the better, well‑known restaurants has probably had a pinch of cannabis added to make it taste so good. I have started to question why the soup is so good in those popular restaurants in Springvale and probably the Richmond strip. Has there been a pinch of cannabis added? But there is no doubt that in general the effect of cannabis is bad. I thought it was interesting to share that with the house.

It is understood that there are serious issues associated with the consumption of cannabis. Last month, when this house debated the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Drugs of Dependence) Bill 2011, I set out in detail my concern about the mental health impact of cannabis use. For this debate I will just summarise what I said previously.

There is a causal relationship between consuming cannabis and mental illness. Cannabis, probably through one of its chemicals, THC, or delta‑9‑tetrahydrocannabinol, can quite likely trigger a psychotic episode in some people who have a predisposition to that. An article in the British Journal of Psychiatry attempted to quantify this:

On an individual level, cannabis use confers an overall twofold increase in the relative risk for later schizophrenia. At the population level, elimination of cannabis use would reduce the incidence of schizophrenia by approximately 8 per cent, assuming a causal relationship.

Therefore what actions the government takes through legislation and through its programs and services to reduce cannabis usage is critical. Unfortunately this bill is not helpful. It might allow the government to look tough, but will it really reduce the use of cannabis in the community? Unfortunately the answer is that this bill is not much more than window‑dressing.

Where is the scientific evidence of the level of usage of bongs? In her speech the Minister for Mental Health made sweeping generalisations but was light on detailing just what research supported her claims. I suspect casual users are more likely to roll a joint. Maybe more regular, hard‑core users use bongs, but they will be determined to keep using mechanical implements. Some drink bottles, in particular those of a well‑known sports drink which I will not name, can be readily made into bongs. Will the minister next ban drink bottles of a certain shape and composition? When I was a university student people adapted milk bottles for use as bongs. There will always be a level of resourcefulness. Will cigarette papers and tobacco pipes be banned because they can also be used to smoke cannabis?

In her second‑reading speech, the minister stated that the government will not ban hookahs, or shishas, which are used by Middle Eastern communities. This is presumably due to cultural sensitivities, and I can understand that. While she stated that these are used to smoke tobacco products, she was silent on the fact that they can also be used to smoke cannabis — there is no doubt about that. Obviously the minister did not do an internet search. There is an abundance of websites giving advice not only on the consumption of cannabis in general but specifically on how to use it in shishas.

I will quote from one website. While I do not intend to read its address into the record, I will make it available to Hansard to verify the quote. One person, in a posting titled ‘Marijuana shisha’, asked:

I was wondering if anyone had instructions to make marijuana shisha for hookah use … I have heard of people just mixing the two but I was wondering if it is possible to make it with just weed and no tobacco … if you do know of a way to make some could you please include measurements. Thank you!

A reply says, in part:

I’ve used marijuana in a hookah before.

I will not read his advice into the record as I do not think it is in the public interest, although the person responding does say:

I … got stuck in my chair for about 2 hours.

The minister is blind to what is obvious from the most casual of internet searches — that is, that shishas can be used to smoke marijuana. While I am talking about shishas, it is important to note that in not banning shishas the government has clearly given priority to cultural considerations rather than the health issues at stake. That is not a surprising decision by the Liberal Party, which has had so much difficulty in breaking its financial relationship with the big tobacco companies.

I wonder whether the minister is aware of some important World Health Organisation information. I draw the attention of the house to a 2005 advisory note by the World Health Organisation study group on Tobacco Product Regulation. I should say that the term ‘study group’ is the name the WHO now uses for its scientific advisory committees. The WHO scientifically examined the use of tobacco water pipes and dispelled the myth that somehow water pipes may be safer, saying on page 3 of its report:

The water pipe smoker may therefore inhale as much smoke during one session as a cigarette smoker would inhale consuming 100 or more cigarettes.

The WHO lists 10 very important points about the implications of its report. I will not read through that list. However, if the first principle of government is ‘do no harm’, then, with one caveat, this bill does nothing much at all. That is why the opposition is not opposing this bill. The caveat is that cannabis usage should not be treated as being a matter that is out of sight, out of mind. The government might be acting tough in banning bongs, but the much bigger challenge is providing resources for education and prevention, treatment and policing. For example, there are just not enough inpatient
psychiatric beds for those with an acute psychosis, including a drug‑induced psychosis. Out‑of‑area admissions, premature discharge and the revolving door are just some of the challenges not taken up in this bill.

HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION NATIONAL LAW (VICTORIA) AMENDMENT BILL 2011 – Wednesday, 31 Aug 2011

admin — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 04:24:01 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I rise to speak on the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Amendment Bill 2011. This bill will amend the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 by imposing a time limit on appeals. While this is not a large bill, it should nevertheless be regarded as more than merely a technical bill as it limits the rights of health practitioners. I will say more about that later. This bill follows a raft of bills dealing with health practitioners introduced in the previous two parliaments. The reform of legislation relating to the registration of health practitioners was undertaken by the Labor government. This reform included the move to a system of uniform national registration of health practitioners. The Health Professions Registration Act 2005 brought 12 health professions under uniform legislation. Amending bills in 2007 and 2008 took into account the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) discussion on a national scheme and, pending that scheme, ensured that Victoria had modern and up‑to‑date legislation, including strong and effective disciplinary provisions.

In 2009 the previous government introduced the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Bill. That bill implemented the 2008 COAG agreement to bring the registration of health practitioners under a national scheme by 1 July 2010. As I have remarked in previous debates, the protection of consumers of health services is the fundamental responsibility of government, and it can only be done by legislation and the licensing of health practitioners. The registration of health practitioners provides an assurance to the consumers of health services that professionals such as doctors, nurses and indeed practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine are safe, skilled, ethical and competent practitioners.

The implications of having unsafe practitioners can be tragic, as we saw in the case of Dr Death in Bundaberg. Therefore the registration of health practitioners is one of the most critical legislative and regulatory responsibilities undertaken by the state. The registration of health professionals is much more comprehensive than just handing out licences to practise. Certainly for registration it is mandatory for professionals to have undertaken the prescribed education and training. However, it also imposes obligations relating to safe practice, especially an obligation to have attained and to continue to satisfy required levels of competence. For instance, practitioners cannot renew their registration without recency of clinical practice.

There is growing recognition of the importance of continuing education. Registration in the case of some practitioners, such as nurses, provides those who have undertaken specialist education and training with identification through specialist endorsement.

Registration requires health professionals to act ethically, professionally and competently and ensures that there are processes for reviewing this, including the handling of complaints initiated by aggrieved consumers and sanctions that include loss of the right to practise.

There are a number of areas in which health practitioners may encounter legal disputes. These include admission to practise, issues relating to competency, unfitness to practise because of substance abuse or criminal offences, and complaints from consumers. There are now well‑developed and transparent disciplinary and legal processes. Nationally a practitioner’s right of appeal is limited to
28 days. This is not the case in Victoria. This bill brings Victoria into line by imposing, from 1 July next year, a 28‑day time limit in lodging an appeal with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. This is one of the concessions that has to be made in order to achieve a nationally uniform scheme of health registration. However, it needs to be noted that it will result in a reduction of the rights of practitioners.

The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee reported on this bill in Alert Digest No. 6. I thought the committee was a bit wimpy, given its responsibility for rights. Its comment on the bill was restricted to quoting from the minister’s second‑reading speech in respect of the delayed commencement of the provision. The committee, I believe, should have gone a step further in its comments section and identified that the imposition of a 28‑day time limit on appeals was a reduction in rights but a necessary trade‑off in moving to nationally uniform registration of health practitioners.

Despite this concern, this side of the chamber will not be opposing the bill because of the overriding benefit to Australia and to health practitioners themselves in allowing practitioners to more readily practise throughout the country.

HANSARD – DRUGS, POISONS AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AMENDMENT (DRUGS OF DEPENDENCE) BILL 2011 – Wednesday, 17 August 2011

admin — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 00:20:35 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Drugs of Dependence) Bill 2011. I believe we now have a greater understanding of the health implications of mind‑altering drugs, including cannabis, particularly as a trigger for psychotic episodes than we did, say, 15 years ago.

Early in my career, just a couple of months after my election to this place, I sat in this chamber — of course on the other side of the chamber — on 31 May 1996 as Professor David Penington, the then chairman of the Premier’s Drug Advisory Council, presented to this chamber a report of the Premier’s advisory council. In that report the council recommended the decriminalisation of possession and use of small amounts of cannabis as well as cultivation for personal use of up to five plants. For a while it looked as though Victoria might decriminalise cannabis.

In his presentation to the house Professor Penington argued the case on the basis of trying to break the link with hard drugs and drug traffickers. However, I believe he understated the adverse health implications of cannabis use. There is now a growing body of research that shows that cannabis has some sort of causal relationship with psychosis. It is not as simple as saying cannabis use causes psychosis; more likely, for some individuals with a predisposition or vulnerability to psychosis cannabis can be a trigger to the onset of psychosis.

For the purpose of my contribution I will rely mainly on Sane Australia, which explains psychosis as a severe mental illness that involves the onset of delusions and hallucinations. Someone experiencing psychosis is unable to distinguish between reality and delusion, meaning contact with reality is completely lost. For example, one piece of research by Arseneault, Cannon, Witton and Murray which appeared in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2004 hypothesised that there is a causal link between the use of cannabis and psychotic disorders. The research found, and I quote:

Among the chemicals found in cannabis, THC, or Delta‑9 tetrahydrocannabinol, is the main psychoactive chemical responsible for the ‘high’ effect of marijuana use. This may well be the trigger for those with a predisposition; while some may experience only once the frightening experience of hallucinations and delusions, for others this may be the onset of ongoing chronic schizophrenia.

Speaking of chronic schizophrenia, the drug Kronic, which this bill is a response to, may well be appropriately named. There is much we do not yet know about the effects of mind‑altering drugs, but to me it is clear that drugs designed to mimic substances such as cannabis, both in their ingredients and effect, should be dealt with in similar terms.

The principal act is the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981. Section 4 of the principal act is the definitions section. Clause 4 of this bill amends section 4(1) by amending the definition of a ‘drug of dependence’ to include drugs specified by regulation.

In his second‑reading speech the minister claimed this bill is future proof, presumably because as new drugs which may have been created in the laboratory appear, the provision in clause 4 will kick in and allow the minister to proscribe other substances. In one sense this bill is not future proof because it is subject to the quite sensible provision of a 12‑month sunset. However, putting the sunset
provision aside, I wonder whether this will really be the last time we have this matter before us in this chamber. I suspect there are those who are waiting to create substances we could not have envisaged, which will be administered in ways not imagined. So, while the opposition does not oppose the bill, this is unlikely to be the last time this issue is before the house.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS – Clayton electorate: landfill sites – Thursday, 30 June 2011

admin — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 06:12:35 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I raise the extreme concern of the community in the electorate of Clayton in relation to the continuing intolerable, disgusting and health hazardous odour problem unnecessarily suffered by our community. I raised this as an adjournment matter last night, and I raise it again this morning to stress the extreme seriousness of the community’s concern. I wish to draw the attention of the house to the fact that the horrible smell coming out of those offensive landfill sites has adversely affected the community, and so much so that some people feel compelled to sell their homes and move out of the area.
Community members believe this government has failed to take the correct action to safeguard their health, quality of life and right to live in a hazard free environment. Community members know the Environment Protection Authority, the government and the landfill operator could do the right thing, because they know what their responsibilities are, but the landfill operator has been allowed to not do the right thing, take the community for granted and treat members of the community like people in Third World countries who have to live near rubbish dumps. This is not right, and I ask the Minister for Environment and Climate Change to take serious action on behalf of the community. The community is outraged, and I invite the minister to attend a public meeting on 20 July to witness the outrage of the community firsthand. This situation should not be allowed to continue, and I challenge the minister to attend the meeting.

ADJOURNMENT – Clayton electorate: landfill sites – Wednesday, 29 June 2011

admin — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 06:10:31 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — The matter I raise is for the attention of the Minister for Environment and Climate. It concerns the constant odours emanating from landfill sites in Clayton South, Clarinda and Dingley. The action I seek is that the minister direct the EPA (Environment Protection Authority) to revoke the licences of landfill site operators that have failed to comply with the Environment Protection Act 1970.
In October 2010 the EPA issued a penalty infringement notice to Transpacific Industries at Victory Road and a pollution abatement notice to a company named enviromix. In November 2010 Din San nursery was also issued with a penalty infringement notice. By January of this year odours were emanating from the landfill site 24 hours a days, 7 days a week. The sickening smell was travelling as far as Parkdale Beach in the south and Princes Highway in the north and could be smelt at the entrance to the Monash Medical Centre. This has become a major health issue, not just for my constituents in the Clayton electorate but also for residents in neighbouring areas.
In February of this year I wrote to the minister alerting him to the problem. On 24 February the EPA acted — sort of. It issued enviromix with both a penalty infringement notice and a pollution abatement notice. The Transpacific Industries sites at Fraser Road and Victory Road were issued with notices of contravention, and Din San nursery had its licence revoked.
Unfortunately the sickening odours continued. Since February there have been hundreds of complaints from residents via telephone, letter and fax directly to the EPA, and three community meetings have been held. Between April and June my office received over 140 EPA odour reporting sheets, which were faxed to the EPA for recording and action. The comments from residents on these odour reporting sheets are a sad indictment of a government that has been slow to acknowledge the right of residents to quality of life. Common complaint comments are ‘Made me sick’, ‘Gave me a headache’, ‘Hard to breathe’, ‘Cannot open windows or doors or turn my air conditioning on’ and ‘Cannot go outside to hang clothes, do gardening, sit or invite friends to my home’. The odours reported were described as chemical smells, rotten eggs, sulphurous, gas like, rubbish, rancid, putrid, foul, decaying, vomit, manure and sewage.
Last week the EPA finally issued pollution abatement notices to the Clayton South regional landfill and Transpacific Industries sites at Fraser Road and Deals Road, and it has been reported that the minister paid a visit to one of the operators, Transpacific Industries. In response Transpacific Industries has now offered a duplication of the new EPA 24 hour hotline. This is just a stalling tactic. These sickening odours continue. The evidence is clear. Now is the time to act. I entreat the minister to do his job. I also invite the minister to attend a public meeting on 20 July to experience the residents’ outrage firsthand.

CONSUMER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 2011 – Tuesday, 28 June 2011

admin — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 06:08:10 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I rise to speak on the Consumer Acts Amendment Bill 2011. I say at the outset that Labor has a very proud record in relation to consumer protection. I could go through the long list of our achievements, because we walk tall and proud among other states in Australia.
This omnibus bill makes amendments to a number of acts, including the Owners Corporations Act 2006, the Fair Trading Act 1999, the Conveyancers Act 2006 and the Consumer Affairs Legislation Amendment (Reform) Act 2010, and it repeals the Companies (Administration) Act 1981. However, the most significant amendment relates to the conduct of real estate agents, particularly in cases where they are to obtain a beneficial interest in property for which they are handling the sale.
Clause 4 of the bill amends the Estate Agents Act 1980 by substituting section 55 of the act and inserting a new section 55A. Specifically, clause 4 of the bill substitutes the following into section 55:
“55 Restriction on agent purchasing property
(1) An estate agent must not obtain a beneficial interest in any real estate or business that the estate agent has been commissioned by any principal to sell.
Penalty: 240 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.
(2) An agent’s representative employed by an estate agent must not obtain a beneficial interest in any real estate or business that the estate agent has been commissioned by any principal to sell.
Penalty: 240 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.
The legislation states very clearly that an agent or their representative must not buy a property for which they are handling the sale. Serious penalties are attached for breaching this provision. It is a very strong statement indeed. However, somewhat surprisingly, given what would appear to be such a strong principle, the bill goes on to insert into section 55(4) of the principal act that a breach does not occur if certain conditions are met, such as written acknowledgement and non payment of commission. The very strong legislative prohibition ends in a whimper by providing some fairly broad exemptions.
I am very concerned for members of my community from non English speaking backgrounds, because such legislation gives them no protection. There is such an obvious conflict of interest in the situation of an estate agent purchasing a property for which he or she is handling the sale that I wonder whether the conflict of interest can ever be satisfactorily overcome, no matter how honest the intentions of the agent are and no matter how well informed the vendor is in giving their consent. It is very difficult for those who are not familiar with the system to negotiate it when it is fair, let alone if they are dealing with people who are manipulating the system.
In other areas the balance of power between the professional and the individual obtaining the service is so heavily in favour of the professional that consent to certain things cannot be given, but in the case of the estate agent the focus is the property. For most people, a home is the most significant asset or investment they will ever own. There can be a marked imbalance in the relationship between the agent and the vendor — for example, an elderly, infirm vendor who has lost his or her spouse and is preparing to go into some form of supported accommodation. That is a situation I have come across quite a few times. In such a situation the imbalance of power in the relationship is so strong that I do not believe that conflict of interest issues can ever be overcome, and we need to seriously consider that type of circumstance.
I do not believe the government has made the case for overriding conflict of interest, let alone eliminating that conflict. I am not confident that there will not be complaints and legal disputes arising out of new section 55 of the Estate Agents Act 1980. I hope the minister will have a good look at this area and, if there is a need for amendment, that he will allow for that. The opposition is not opposing the bill, but this is a serious concern that needs to be taken into account.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS – Wen Qiu – Thursday, 16 June 2011

admin — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 05:32:44 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I rise to congratulate two outstanding Australians of Asian background. Geneticist Wen Qiu has won the Premier’s Award for Health and Medical Research for her breakthrough in studying cancer formation. Supported by the Australian Society for Medical Research and the state government, last week’s awards worth $16 000 have been established to recognise academics and researchers in the field of detecting and combating early symptoms of cancer. Applying methods of weeding out early cancer cells that may spread and later grow to become malignant, Dr Qiu, who is from China, delivered important insight into the formation of cancer. Her work has been recognised by world renowned academic journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and Nature Genetics.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS – Fr Vincent Long Van Nguyen – Thursday, 16 June 2011

admin — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 05:31:19 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — Later this month, Fr Vincent Long Van Nguyen, who arrived in Australia from a Malaysian refugee camp in the 1980s at the age of 18, will be Australia’s first Asian Catholic bishop. As an asylum seeker who had to endure terrifying weather, pirate attacks and a leaky, small and overcrowded boat with no food or water for days, he fled the Vietnamese communist rule like other of his countrymen in the late 1970s and early 1980s. He survived a 16 month stay in a refugee camp and later found a special attachment to the Catholic faith. As one of four auxiliary bishops in Melbourne, Bishop Long will look after the western suburbs, which have a vibrant Catholic migrant community.

ADJOURNMENT – Clayton South Primary School: redevelopment – Wednesday, 15 June 2011

admin — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 05:27:37 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — The issue I raise is for the attention of the Minister for Education. The action I seek is for the minister to commit to the redevelopment of Clayton South Primary School as a matter of priority to enable the school and the school community to move forward with certainty. The previous Labor government’s Victorian schools plan and Building Futures program would have seen every public school rebuilt or modernised by the end of 2016. The Victorian schools plan was not just about rebuilding public schools; it was about the regeneration of education and the provision of a renewed focus for parents to be part of their school community. The rebuilding of public schools was about the transformation of current learning spaces into flexible learning areas and activity zones. The rebuilding was about transforming teaching and providing personalised learning pathways for students. In 2008 the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development completed a comprehensive report on stage 2 of the Building Futures program on education facilities in the region, which report included Clayton South Primary School.
Clayton South Primary School is a school with a diverse mix of students with over 25 different nationalities. Many students come from very disadvantaged backgrounds. In terms of current facilities, I invite the minister to inspect the school with me. To say it is dilapidated is an understatement. The buildings are of a light timber construction and they date back 50 or 60 years. The art room was built in the 1930s. In the report Clayton South Primary School was clearly assessed as meeting every educational criterion for rebuilding.
The appraisal of the rebuilding plans continued during 2009 and 2010, and considerable moneys have been spent on having detailed plans drawn up and the project costed. The school is now up to tender stage. However, no funds were allocated in the May state budget and no information has been forthcoming to the school on when or if the redevelopment will go ahead. This is a slap in the face for the local community, and reading the budget papers confirms that the Premier and the Minister for Education have decided to fund school projects on the basis of politics rather than on demonstrated need.
I am extremely concerned that these plans will be abandoned and that moneys spent to date will go to waste. The school community is very apprehensive and concerned. Children who attend this school deserve improved facilities, and they require a decision to be made right now. The project has been properly assessed; all the hard work has been done. I entreat the minister to commit to funding the redevelopment of Clayton South Primary School and to direct his department to issue the tender forthwith.

ROAD SAFETY AMENDMENT (HOON DRIVING AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2011 – Tuesday, 14 June 2011

admin — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 05:24:22 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I am pleased to make a contribution to the debate on the Road Safety Amendment (Hoon Driving and Other Matters) Bill 2011. I am as pleased to make a contribution to this debate as I was to contribute to the debate on the hoon driving legislation which passed through the Parliament several years ago. I recall well that it was a Labor government that sought to tackle this problem head on. As previous speakers have pointed out, hoons are a scourge on our society, and their behaviour is the essence of antisocial behaviour in our community. At one level there is the image of a young buck with his baseball cap on back to front revving his early model Commodore, perhaps, and waking the neighbourhood while he does burnouts and doughnuts in local streets. Considered not only antisocial but also a fool, the hoon leaves valuable rubber stuck to the bitumen.
However, much more serious is the potential for hoons to kill and maim themselves, their passengers and tragically third parties, be they other motorists or pedestrians who happen to be innocently passing by. Lygon Street is an example of a place where hoons have killed themselves and others, and we have also seen such examples reported in the press. As far as I am concerned there is not much difference between racing a car down Lygon Street and firing a bullet down the same street and hoping for the best. If hoons are going to use their cars in a manner such that they become weapons, then that is to be considered dangerous and criminal behaviour and the drivers deserve to have their cars taken away, just as we expect police to relieve other offenders of their weapons.
Holding a drivers licence and being allowed one’s motor vehicle on the road should not be seen as a right but rather as a privilege with responsibilities attached to it not to endanger the safety of others. I am proud that it was the Bracks and Brumby Labor governments which introduced the anti hoon provisions in legislation in 2006. We extended the scheme with the Road Legislation Further Amendment Act 2007, which applies the vehicle impoundment scheme to motorists who run lights at level crossings. With the Road Safety Amendment (Hoon Driving) Act 2010 the offences leading to vehicle impoundment were extended to unlicensed driving, drink driving and drug driving, and these are to apply from 1 July this year.
The anti hoon legislation is clearly working. By last year more than 10 000 cars had been impounded, so the police are clearly enforcing the provisions. The majority of drivers having vehicles impounded are unfortunately first time offenders. Hopefully this would suggest that most offenders learn their lesson on the first offence and that the legislation is deterring repeat offences. The mechanism for the vehicle impoundment scheme is that the grounds are spelt out in the principal act, the Road Safety Act 1986 in part 6A, which deals with the impoundment, immobilisation and forfeiture of motor vehicles. This bill amends both the principal act and the Road Safety Amendment (Hoon Driving) Act 2010 by inserting several measures, in particular increasing the period of impoundment of a motor vehicle for a first impoundment from 48 hours to 30 days.
When we introduced the original anti hoon law it was considered controversial in some quarters. Of course there were likely to be refinements based on experience, such as Labor’s 2007 and 2010 bills. On that basis I have no difficult with the proposal before the house. I say this with one caveat: during this term the Liberal government will find that it will not be enough just to appear to be tough on offenders. Complex social issues and problems require complex responses, including resources, education and addressing the underlying causes — and I will give a good example at the end of my contribution.
For instance, I welcomed the Road Legislation Further Amendment Act 2007 as a way of increasing safety at the Clayton Road railway crossing in my electorate, because it made running through flashing lights or boom gates at railway level crossings an impoundable offence. This very busy railway line carries both metropolitan trains for the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines and V/Line trains. Given the interplay of the Monash Freeway and the Princess Highway as well as other major roads, it carries a lot of road vehicles, including heavy transports. However, extending the period of impoundment for a first offence, including running level crossings, from 48 hours to 30 days will not entirely prevent incidents. Sadly, as long as we have level crossings there will be fatalities. The only guaranteed solution is grade separation, and I hope the government takes that to heart.
This legislation is the easy part — that is, extending the period of impoundment of motor vehicles for a first offence or, in other words, getting tough with offenders. What the Liberal Party is going to find more difficult is resourcing a permanent solution and allocating resources based on merit and priority rather than on politics. One only needs to think of Brighton to realise that the Liberal Party has some way to go in tackling our most dangerous railway crossings. It will take more than impounding a hoon’s car for 30 days to make our railway crossings safe.
In conclusion, I cite the good example of a community working together with councils. I refer to the Southern Ethnic Advisory and Advocacy Council, which is working in conjunction with the cities of Monash and Kingston to coordinate a driving program for disadvantaged kids from the Sudanese community. I will be taking part in the launch of that program on the weekend. There will be 26 young learner drivers from that community matched with 30 volunteer instructors who will contribute something like 120 hours of driving. It is a fantastic program that should be commended and held up as an example. This is the practical education, support, encouragement and empowerment that drivers need to learn what their responsibilities are.

APPROPRIATION (2011/2012) BILL 2011 – Thursday, 2 June 2011

admin — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 03:03:41 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I am very pleased to contribute to this debate on the Appropriation (2011/2012) Bill 2011. I am astounded at the successive contributions from those on the opposite side of the chamber. I have been here long enough to note and respect the tradition that you give credit where credit is due, and it is only appropriate at this time to remind the chamber, and particularly the new members on the other side, that it was under the Labor government, under the leadership and watch of former Premiers Bracks and Brumby, that Melbourne was voted the most livable city and place in the world for three consecutive years. That was during our time in government.

This is not a small achievement, because Melbourne was compared to 120 other cities in the world, judged across 12 criteria and came first three times. It has been only during the past four years that Vancouver has become equal with Melbourne. It has been recognised not just by faraway economic magazines but throughout Australia that the achievements of the Labor government during its 11‑year reign have put Melbourne, and Victoria, up there as the sporting, cultural, major event and shopping capital of Australia.

I recall giving a notice of motion only some 13 months ago, and I would like to reflect on that and bring it to the attention of the house. It is important for us not to lose what we have achieved and be subject to this nonsense denigration from members on the other side with their gung‑ho cowboy style who come in here and get carried away with their so‑called victory — by just one seat.

As an example I refer to commentary by Paul Kelly, editor‑at‑large of the Australian, in an article on 14 April 2010. He paid tribute to the then Premier Brumby and said he was ‘running the state government widely seen as the best in Australia. We just hope the current Premier can fit into that kind of shoe.

At around the same time it was again reported in the Australian that the Premier was highly regarded for presiding over a booming and renaissance Melbourne, which is now respected and regarded as Australia’s first city in every respect, particularly in terms of being diverse, confident, innovative, family and business friendly, having a strong economy and a great quality of life and enviably being the intellectual, cultural and sporting capital of Australia, renowned for its prosperity, livability and sustainability. Nobody can take that away from Labor. No amount of denigration of our achievements is going to wash, because these comments come from independent third parties and the media, which are very critical of Labor all the time, in their own words.

I come to the budget that was presented by the Treasurer. It goes without saying and is almost an understatement to say that after 11 years in opposition this mob is not fit or prepared for government. In fact we know from their initial reactions after the election that they were not prepared for governing Victoria, because they did not expect to win. Deep down we all know that. Our achievements with successive budgets delivered by Labor were the best. I can never forget that. After the past two budgets delivered by Labor, the business community came out consistently each year — not just because of our AAA rating but because we are very much business‑oriented, business friendly — and applauded the budgets time after time.

At the same time, Labor’s subsidies to business under successive budgets were to the tune of $1 billion every year. I do not want to go into all the detail, but at the same time we never forgot our base. It is Labor, the government of the people, the government of the working class and the government of the underdog. Consistently we subsidised the program called A Fairer Victoria to the tune of $1 billion. So what we have heard from members on the other side of the chamber who have said that we have failed over 11 years is just nonsense and unacceptable.

I will now turn to my electorate and pick up the theme of what is happening insofar as this budget is concerned. I pick up on jobs, because it appears that the word ‘job’ was not mentioned even once by the Treasurer when he delivered his speech. Jobs are very important. As has already been mentioned by the member for Oakleigh, during the last 12 months that we were in power we delivered more than 100 000 jobs, but we forget that it has been consistently reported in the media that Victoria produced more than half the jobs in the nation during our time in government. This tends to be easily forgotten by people. This is quite an achievement.

Looking at the contrast with what is happening now I go straight to my electorate, and it becomes evident that this government is neglectful, either because it is naive or because it is incapable of dealing with jobs. I am thinking of the synchrotron, but let me first mention the job losses at Bosch. Acting Speaker, right in front of you there are two microphones; each seat in this chamber has one. These microphones are made by Bosch Australia, which is in my electorate. Two months ago Bosch Australia lost 400 jobs, and there was not a whimper from this government or from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The jobs lost involve highly qualified, top end, specialised roles. There was no negotiation or attempt to keep the jobs in Clayton or Victoria. Bosch has something like 1800 employees in Melbourne, 1100 of whom work in the heart of Clayton. Now 400 of those jobs are gone or will be going soon. This government did nothing to negotiate with management or to try to help the employees. These are not just ordinary, run‑of‑the‑mill jobs, they are jobs requiring highly trained and qualified professionals.

It struck me as amazing that this government is not just neglecting jobs but is acting as a job killer as well; it is killing jobs. The synchrotron is going to be killed by this government because — —

An honourable member interjected.

Mr LIM — Listen. I urge the member opposite to read yesterday’s Age. It contains a full‑page article condemning this government for neglecting and killing the synchrotron. The synchrotron provides jobs for 125 highly qualified, cutting‑edge scientists that we should be proud to have. The synchrotron also provides service to 1200 other scientists around the country, but now the synchrotron is closed because this government is prepared to kill it.

Those in government say that they do not like the synchrotron. Somehow they got it into their heads that they just do not like the synchrotron, so all the jobs are going to go. What they do not understand is that these scientists are the pride of our nation, not just Victoria. We should be walking tall and proud because of them. Without these jobs our scientists will have to pack their suitcases and go to Tokyo or Germany or the USA to have their experiments carried out. I just hope many members opposite take the opportunity organised by the Speaker and the President to visit the synchrotron this week. It is important for them to understand how vital it is that we keep the synchrotron going. It is cutting‑edge technology. We fail miserably as a manufacturing country and state because we cannot compete with India or even with Indonesia now. With its stable political scene, Indonesia is emerging as a strong competitor. We cannot compete with China anymore in the traditional manufacturing areas, but we are still ahead of the pack when it comes to cutting‑edge technology. That is where we, as leaders in this country, have to act to ensure the growth and support of these scientists so that they will continue to keep Australia on the cutting edge when it comes to manufacturing.

I was lucky enough in the former government to have been appointed special adviser to the Premier on business relations between Victoria and Asia, and on many occasions I have visited China, India and other countries. People in those countries are amazed that we have the synchrotron and that we are encouraging this scientific research and development locally and then feeding it into the manufacturing sector so we can grow jobs. These other countries could never dream of competing because we are ahead of them. If it is now curbing this growth, the government stands to be condemned.

I would like to touch on the Monash children’s hospital. I hope the government will wake up to itself. Members of the coalition are dithering, and they do not know what they are talking about. I take the opportunity to thank the members on this side who have taken part in the campaign to make sure that the Monash children’s hospital is going to be built. There is a demonstrated need for this hospital by way of 330 000 children in the south‑eastern corridor alone. However, this government says there is no need for the hospital. Those opposite are dithering; they want to build it in eight years, but there is a need for it now.

Projects like this hospital are connected to jobs. There will be 457 jobs created just by the building of that wing containing the children’s hospital, for which there is a demonstrated need. Plans for the hospital were developed by professionals. The plans were not wishy‑washy, which is what the member for Mount Waverley implied, thereby denigrating the work of these professionals. I remember the day when we announced the plan for the children’s hospital. There was jubilation among members of the medical community. We should be enormously grateful for the professional quality of their work, and I take this opportunity to congratulate them on their hard work and their dedication to the children of the south‑east.

I think this government has produced a very miserable budget. The coalition has to wake up to the fact that the challenge is to govern for all Victorians, not just for those in Liberal seats. I have listened consistently to speaker after speaker on the other side carry on about the minister going to visit only Liberal seats, which shows that the government is neglectful. My community of Clayton deserves better treatment, as do communities across the whole of Victoria. I hope this government responds accordingly and positively and wakes up to itself, realising that it has not done a reasonable or fair job. It is disappointing that the Premier has come out with a so‑called family statement but has miserably failed the families of Victoria. The Premier stands to be condemned unless all the issues I have raised are addressed positively, purposefully and effectively.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS – Public transport: international student concessions – Tuesday, 31 May 2011

admin — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 03:00:20 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — The Australian Human Rights Commission’s draft minimum standards in relation to international students, to be released soon, outlines measures to protect Australia’s 470 000 international students from inadequate housing, work exploitation and violence. I draw the attention of the Minister for Public Transport to the commission’s important recommendations to have public transport concessions for all students, regardless of their citizenship or mode of study. The commission notes with concern that the lack of transport concessions exposes young international students to the risk of violence.

It is obvious, according to the Australian Human Rights Commission, that the transport concessions are a real problem. Members of the house are well aware that these young international students are walking late at night rather than catching public transport, as they are not entitled to the concessions that local students are entitled to. This puts them in more danger than if they could get on public transport — a tram, a bus or a train.

Victoria has Australia’s largest number of international students as a proportion of its tertiary enrolments. We therefore have benefited significantly from this annual $18 billion industry, which is now bigger than even the tourism industry. Victoria and New South Wales are the only two states to refuse public transport concessions for international students. We are being regarded as mean‑spirited, arrogant, exploitative and uncaring.

I entreat the minister to take the lead in this matter. A transport concession would send a very positive goodwill and welcoming message — —

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The member’s time has expired.

ADJOURNMENT – Australian Synchrotron: funding – Thursday, 26 May 2011

admin — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 02:58:43 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Innovation, Services and Small Business. I ask that she take all necessary action to ensure the reallocation of the ongoing funding for Victoria’s world‑class synchrotron facility in my electorate of Clayton.

I draw the attention of the house to the widespread and serious concerns of our hardworking and highly respected scientific community at the state government’s failure to allocate funding in this budget for the synchrotron. These people are disappointed and astounded by the government’s decision, as they expected the government to build on and consolidate what the Labor government has already put in place instead of taking such destructive action. Their anger is real and profound, and there is no telling what is going to happen tomorrow when the parliamentary delegation, which has been organised by the Speaker and the President, visits the site. I cannot imagine a more ironic and cynical situation unfolding.

Victoria’s international reputation as a research and innovation hub will be undermined because of the Baillieu government’s funding cut. Industries such as engineering, mining, pharmaceuticals and telecommunications, as well as medical research, will no longer be able to make use of the highly valuable intense beams of light produced by the synchrotron. Recently Monash University’s Professor James Whisstock managed to use the synchrotron’s radiation to successfully make discoveries about a molecule crucial to the human body’s defence against infections and disease. That is just one of the important breakthroughs that occur at the Australian Synchrotron. Based in Clayton, the state‑of‑the‑art research facility employs some 120 highly skilled staff and supports the work of 2500 scientists. Now those scientists will have to pack their suitcases and go overseas to process their research.

Over the period of five years since the synchrotron’s opening, scientific discoveries of world significance have been made at this centre. Apart from scientific significance, extraordinary economic value can be achieved by applications that take advantage of the synchrotron’s beam.

We can no longer compete with countries like China and India in traditional manufacturing industries, but our cutting‑edge technology, like the synchrotron, still puts us ahead of the pack. This government is responsible for cutting the scientific and economic throat of Victoria. I implore the minister to restore funding as a matter of urgency and as a mark of respect for this exceptional project.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AMENDMENT BILL 2011- Tuesday, 24 May 2011

admin — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 02:56:44 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — It is appropriate that we call a spade a spade. This is disgraceful legislation, and I more than oppose the bill. I thought I would never live to see something like this happen in Victoria, but this bill gives the lie to any notion that a Baillieu government would be small‑l liberal or progressive in the mould of the Hamer government. It also gives the lie to the view that the Baillieu government, unlike the Kennett government, would move slowly and cautiously and cause no great harm or offence to people. Indeed by nobbling the watchdog, the Baillieu government is demonstrating that it is the direct descendent of Kennett, not Hamer. I am very disappointed.

The previous speaker said people in his electorate would be jubilant about the bill, but I can say on behalf of the people of my electorate that they were very depressed to hear about this bill being introduced into Parliament. While the Premier might be seen in some quarters as being socially progressive, with this bill he has let the uglies of the Liberal Party off the leash. I can imagine this bill being introduced by the ugly, right‑wing, Christian fundamentalists of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party. I did not expect this to come from the Victorian division of the Liberal Party, especially from people I have respected in the past. This bill is the work of hard right fundamentalists. No wonder the Attorney‑General hates the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 — he had to say in the statement of compatibility for this bill that it raises a number of human rights issues.

One of the most concerning amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 being made by the Attorney‑General in this bill is in regard to the ability of religious schools to discriminate in employment. Does this mean that a handyman or a secretarial or clerical worker could be refused employment because they are a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Christian or indeed of the wrong Christian denomination? Surely the only tests should be competence for the job and, because they will be working with children, the satisfaction of the working‑with‑children police checks.

Unfortunately the repeal of the inherent requirements test will enable a religious body to discriminate in employment on the grounds of religious belief, religious activity, sex, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental status or gender identity. The Attorney‑General justifies this discrimination — and it is discrimination — by saying that schools should not have to employ those who are opposed to them. This view really goes to the heart of the issue. Just because you are of a different colour, faith, ethnicity or the opposite gender, it does not follow that you are opposed to certain people or organisations. On our side of the house we call that diversity and say that that vibrancy and richness strengthen our community, and we are very proud of that.

On our side of the house we also recognise that some people, because of their differences, are more vulnerable to discrimination, such as migrants from non‑English‑speaking backgrounds. As a starting point we hope for tolerance, decency, understanding and a welcome. Unfortunately it is not always a welcoming hand that is offered. When people are discriminated against in areas such as employment we believe there need to be commissions with real teeth to deal with such matters and real laws that outlaw such conduct.

The government refers to changed governance arrangements for the commission. This we can be sure is code for changing the personnel and nobbling the ongoing work of the commission. A further change will do away with own‑motion investigations by the commission. I quote from an article that appeared in the Sunday Age of 22 May 2010, in which the equal opportunity commissioner, Dr Helen Szoke, puts it succinctly:

‘Discrimination is no different to occupational health or safety, or business regulation’, Dr Szoke told the Sunday Age. ‘It’s a law and you shouldn’t breach it. As someone regulating that law, we’d prefer to have a suite of ways we could address it.’

I congratulate Dr Szoke for the courage of her comments. We all remember how the Kennett government sacked or nobbled anybody who disagreed with it. One of the victims was Moira Rayner, a previous equal opportunity commissioner. We will see whether this Attorney‑General has more strength of character in dealing with criticism, and if not, whether the Premier will rein him in.

Sadly this bill is not a one‑off. I am sure the Attorney‑General wants to scrap the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Already the Liberal Party has scrapped acknowledgement of the traditional owners of the land, and today we learned that Victoria Police is scrapping its multicultural advisory unit. I have been involved with that unit a lot in the past 20 years. I know what it has done, what it has achieved and what its success rate is, and it is tragic to see this development. The Premier has to decide when it comes to social fairness and inclusiveness whether he will act with the decency of Dick Hamer or whether he is going to allow his uglies to have their heads.

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT BILL 2011 – Tuesday, 24 May 2011

admin — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 02:51:44 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I am very happy to rise to contribute to debate on the Public Holidays Amendment Bill 2011. Currently councils can apply to the Minister for Innovation, Services and Small Business to substitute another day as a public holiday in lieu of Melbourne Cup Day. If a council does not do so, the default position is that Melbourne Cup Day applies as a public holiday in that municipality.

This bill has a couple of main provisions. It allows councils to apply to the minister for small business to have a substitute public holiday apply in only part of their municipality. Therefore it would be possible to have two or more different public holidays in one municipality. The bill also allows for the substitute public holiday to be split across two different days. In the second‑reading speech for the bill the minister for small business explained the rationale for these measures was ‘flexibility’. I have been here long enough to know that whenever the Liberal Party uses the expression ‘flexibility’ it is usually code for attacking and cutting the conditions of workers and their families.

Indeed the Liberal Party has form when it comes to public holiday arrangements and their impact on families — for example, its refusal to preserve Easter Sunday as a public holiday. When last in government, over seven and a half years the coalition abolished two public holidays, show day and Easter Tuesday. Nothing the Liberal Party does on public holidays should be considered benign.

I would like to draw the house’s attention to the fact that at its state conference last Saturday, in an urgent motion moved by the secretary of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, Michael Donovan, the Australian Labor Party resolved to oppose this bill. Members can imagine how concerned the union is that this will affect the working conditions of its more than 50 000 members, most of whom are shop assistants.

Let us examine the two main provisions in this bill. Firstly, there is the fact that different parts of a municipality may have different public holidays. An obvious implication is that a different public holiday could apply to people within the one family depending on where the individuals work or go to school. The shadow minister for small business went through this detail already. We are not necessarily talking about rural towns 100 kilometres apart. The minister for small business used the example of Jeparit and Rainbow in her second‑reading speech. For goodness sake, those two towns are only 30 kilometres apart. They share the one football club in the Mallee Football League, the Jeparit‑Rainbow Football Club. That team has been in the league since 1997 following the merger of the separate Jeparit and Rainbow clubs in 1996, but by the minister’s reckoning the two towns may well have different public holidays.

The second provision in the bill relates to the splitting of public holidays so that a town or community can have a half‑day cup day and a half‑day show day. An important consideration in providing workers with recreation and leisure time is that it be provided under suitable arrangements, whether for families maximising their time together or for individual workers having a decent break from the job. This is best achieved by a whole day’s break rather than a few hours off the job with the worker still having to travel to and from work and to work some hours on the same day. That was the model for reduced working hours such as the 38‑hour week — that is, that it provided additional days off.

I say that two into one does not go. Let us not forget why we have a bill which is trying to create both a cup day and a show day by making two public holidays out of one. The reason is that when they were last in government the minister for small business and her party abolished the show day holiday. As I said earlier, the government has form when it comes to public holidays. Without its earlier actions, communities could have both a whole‑day cup day and a whole‑day show day. If there is a push on from agricultural societies for public holidays for their events, the Liberal Party should have the honesty to say it made a policy decision to abolish the show day holiday.

Despite changes in our work and life patterns these days Sundays and public holidays remain important days for families. In fact because of the change in the pace of living they are even more important in providing families with valuable leisure time to spend together. That should be the starting point for how we view Sundays and public holidays. At the same time we recognise that for many low‑paid workers who have to work on these days penalty rates are critical in providing not big pay packets but wages on which they can survive.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS – Anzac Day: Clayton electorate – Thursday, 5 May 2011

admin — Tue, 17 May 2011 00:20:18 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I rise to congratulate the Rotary Club of Monash for organising this year’s schools Anzac service for the youth in the city of Monash. I also wish to congratulate the Rotary club president, Andrea Olsson, and the organising committee member, John Hocking, for their volunteer work in conjunction with Neil Slaughter, the president of the Waverley RSL sub‑branch, and other members who assisted on the day.

This year over 40 schools and 800 students attended the cenotaph located in the Central Reserve in Glen Waverley. The event was supported by the Royal Australian Navy Band, HMVS Cerberus and the Australian catafalque party. Colonel John Coulson, RFD, ED, retired, OAM, made the Anzac address at the service, which the students listened to intently. It was certainly very pleasing to see the students gaining an understanding of our proud history, offering their respects to our fallen servicemen and women and gaining an appreciation of our current armed service personnel stationed around the world.

Colonel Coulson was a member of the army reserve for 35 years, was attached to 5RAR in South Vietnam in 1967 and also served with the British army in 1981. Colonel Coulson is currently a governor of the Shrine of Remembrance, the chairman of the Battle for Australia Commemoration National Council and a member of various regimental associations.

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

ADJOURNMENT – Moorabbin Airport: pilot training – Wednesday, 4 May 2011

admin — Tue, 17 May 2011 00:16:21 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I wish to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister responsible for the Aviation Industry in relation to the latest increase in pilot student numbers at Moorabbin Airport of an additional 200 students. The action I seek is for the minister to adopt the position of Kingston City Council as reported in the Mordialloc Chelsea Leader of 13 March, which states that Kingston council wants the training to end by 2030, with helicopter training to be phased out by 2015. In that article, Kingston council is also reported as saying:

Pilot training hours should be limited to weekdays between 8.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m., and banned on weekends and public holidays.

I urge the minister to adopt this position as well. The article goes on to say:

In recent years, there have been several incidents involving training aircraft in Kingston residential areas and within the airport boundary. A trainee pilot was killed in a midair collision over Cheltenham in 2008.

I received the minister’s media release of 25 March this year applauding and heralding the extra capacity at the airport, and I quote:

The Baillieu government is actively supporting the growth of our state’s aviation and aerospace industries in both domestic and international markets, including pilot training —

at Moorabbin Airport.

This is news to my community in Clayton South and Clarinda and also to the community in the neighbouring area of Dingley Village. These communities live under the flight paths and experience noise on a daily basis. I would like the minister to explain what sort of consultation with the community was undertaken to form the position outlined in the media release. Did he even speak to residents in the cities of Greater Dandenong and Kingston to see what their views were? I think the answer is no. Does the minister agree that his support of the increase in training at Moorabbin Airport goes against the will of the community and the councils that are at the coalface and that experience the effects of living so close to the airport?

I ask the minister to acknowledge the comments of the Dingley Village Community Association which stated very clearly in a recent submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport that it believed the community should be meaningfully consulted if there is going to be a change in the current situation and that the community should be given an opportunity to have some input into managing noise and safety issues which are a real source of frustration and annoyance.

The Moorabbin Airport Residents Association has said that no‑one listens and no‑one helps. I invite the minister to come to my community so that he can start listening — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Nardella) — Order! The member’s time has expired.

FAMILY VIOLENCE PROTECTION AMENDMENT (SAFETY NOTICES) BILL 2011 – Wednesday, 4 May 2011

admin — Tue, 17 May 2011 00:12:05 +0000

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I am pleased to join the debate on the Family Violence Protection Amendment (Safety Notices) Bill 2011. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill. As many members of the house have already mentioned, the family is a place for love, trust, protection and comfort and for personal growth and support. Sadly, that is not always the case, as we have heard many times from other speakers.

When violence occurs within the family, some members of the family are particularly vulnerable to physical, sexual or mental harm. Once the euphemism ‘a domestic’ was used to mask something more serious. A domestic was something a bit embarrassing that polite people did not talk about, an event that diverted police from dealing with more serious crimes. The attitude was, as the title of one 1970s book on family violence put it, ‘Scream quietly or the neighbours will hear’.

But these days the community recognises that family violence is a serious issue requiring a range of responses, including comprehensive legislation and committed resources through the police, the courts and social support. I agree with the honourable member for Derrimut, who mentioned that we have a very proud record of providing just that, especially under the leadership of former Attorney‑General Rob Hulls.

From the perspective of a multicultural Victorian I would particularly like to say that no matter what bill we introduce, the cultural boundaries are such that domestic violence is pretty well hidden, particularly in my community — that is, the Chinese community. Three weeks ago I had the opportunity to speak in Sydney at the national conference of the Chinese community about the fact that the Chinese community had to come of age and people had to stop trying to protect its so‑called honour by not speaking out. The degree of domestic violence in the Chinese community is as high as it is in any other community, yet I do not think it has been brought to the attention of the authorities. This also means that resources have not been appropriately directed to supporting the Chinese community. I would particularly like to see this addressed.

Interestingly enough, this past weekend in all the major dailies — the Herald Sun, the Australian and the Age — it was reported that domestic violence had been a particular focus of attention for the federal government. The government advertised a national plan to reduce violence against women and their children as part of the Community Action Grants funding round. This is a funding provision of $3 million over a period of three years, and each community organisation can apply for up to $250 000 over that three‑year period. I hope the Chinese community will take up this offer and the challenge of addressing meaningfully the domestic violence problem that has been hidden.

For a local member there is another aspect to this issue. Many other members have mentioned that violence comes in many forms, including both physical abuse and mental abuse. However, members may not be aware or may not have come across other forms of violence perpetrated against women, particularly those in the migrant community. These women may be here as a sponsored spouse, and they may be subjected to horrendous treatment. This is related to financial control. If a bride or spousal member does not behave, they may be threatened with being sent back or subjected to traditional ways of treating daughters‑in‑law. They may be subjected to tremendous psychological violence which may impair them for a long time, or they may end up being divorced or forced to seek refuge elsewhere. That again is another major problem. This bill means a lot to my community, and I am truly supportive of every aspect of it.

Let me come back to the focus of the bill. A nine‑year trend analysis prepared by the Victims Support Agency and published by the Victorian government’s Department of Justice in 2009 contains important data. The report is entitled Measuring Family Violence in Victoria — Nine‑Year Trend Analysis — Victorian Family Violence Database. The key findings, a number of which are intuitive and well understood, appear on pages 16 and 17. For example, among patients presenting to Victorian public hospital emergency departments, 75 per cent of adult females had experienced their injury by being struck by another person. Only 26 per cent of adult males had experienced this type of injury. Three‑quarters of adult women, compared with 40 per cent of men, sustained their injury within their home. Another issue that is also now better understood is elder abuse, whereby older parents are vulnerable to assault by their children.

Of particular importance in considering this bill are two key findings. Firstly, and I quote from page 16:

One of the main reasons family violence victims often remain in abusive situations is due to a lack of affordable and safe housing options.

Secondly, in many of the cases recorded there was no active intervention order. Again, I quote:

According to the police data, only one‑quarter of the incidents they attended had an active intervention order at the time they were called out.

The report further states:

More than one‑third of aggrieved family members who were very fearful of the perpetrator did not have an active intervention order in place and more than 40 per cent of incidents where the violence was reported to be getting worse also did not have an active intervention order in place.

In addition:

Aggrieved family members with multiple reports to the police for previous family violence incidents are less likely to have an active intervention order in place.

Family violence safety notices are a critical measure in allowing the police to take quick action, and that is the focus of this bill. They were introduced by the previous government on an interim basis in 2008, and the sunset clause of that act is removed by this bill.

Unfortunately the Attorney‑General has been somewhat churlish in spending much of his second‑reading speech on attacking the previous government for introducing family violence safety notices on an interim basis. He is obviously still in opposition mode, but it is not appropriate to play partisan politics in this case. Just because something is introduced on an interim basis or has a sunset clause does not mean it will be scrapped at the end of the period. It is often the means to allow a quick response and to pilot and evaluate prior to a permanent arrangement.

For the record, an evaluation of family violence safety notices was conducted by Thomson Goodall Associates. It was presented to the Victorian family violence round table. The evaluation found that overall family violence safety notices were working. It is very important for all of us to remember that. Without much more to say, I commend the bill to the house. It goes a long way to further strengthening action against family violence in this state.