Hansard debates

  Mr KENNETT (Premier) --  I thank all members on  both sides of the  House  who
have contributed to the debate. Some contributions were worthwhile, and in a few
moments, in the third-reading debate, we will address some of the issues raised.
Therefore I will not go into any detail on these issues.
While I accept that the opposition supports the thrust of the legislation and is
concerned with some of its details, there is  no doubt that the general theme of
what Parliament is  trying to do is accepted. Amendments are to be  moved by the
opposition, and we will respond to those amendments.

Plainly, technical amendments will be moved by the government. The government is
trying to recognise  the changes  that have taken place over the past 100 years.
It  is necessary for the government  to adapt to change and  to assist change to
that end.
While there has been some criticism from the  opposition on the speed and method
by which we have come to this position, most people in their own heart of hearts
will know about the sorts of  things we have been discussing tonight. In broader
terms they have been discussed for 81 years. No new information has come forward
as to general principles; it is more to the detail of how restructuring will  be
proceeded with.
Based on  the history of council restructuring over 81 years in  Geelong, it  is
quite clear that the people of Geelong want  leadership; they want to be able to
put this continuing debate behind and to get on with the rest of their lives.

Although  some opposition members  have  referred on many  occasions to a  poll,
members on this side say,   Enough is enough.  Let us get on with it . That is a
legitimate government position,  and  I do  not  argue that. The  government  is
charged with the  responsibility to  say that  it will proceed down the path and
bring an end to uncertainty as soon as possible.
I say to the honourable member for Melbourne, who is in the Chamber and who  led
the debate  for the opposition, that we might be cutting off  our noses to spite
our faces: the restructuring of councils  may not  only put councils at risk but
also the  State government.  I interjected -- which was quite unruly at the time
-- and suggested if the honourable member moved a  motion for  the abolition  of
State Parliament, certainly I would support that motion.

I cannot speak for my colleagues, as the Bill has not been taken through all the
due processes, and they are very keen that should be  done, but I have long been
an advocate for the restructure of government from Federal to local.
As the  honourable member for Melbourne concluded, we have too many councils and
the
Federal government has  gained  a  range of authorities and powers that were not
originally provided. Taxation powers were given to State and local government as
a wartime measure in the days when Victoria had a structure of large land space,
small population and very slow communications.
Today there is still a large  land  mass  and small population but instantaneous
communications. The government must address the role of government at all levels
and must become more efficient.

 Page 1205


If the government does not do that, our community is going to demand it. This is
part of  the process  Victoria is going through at the moment  in assessing  the
financial situation of this State. The community wants the government to get its
house in order.
In the event that the Federal Parliament is not going to dissolve itself, it has
some  very  real federal  responsibilities:  foreign affairs,  defence, aviation
policies, and so on, and given that it is unlikely that the Victorian Parliament
is going to dissolve itself  --  although I am happy  to  put it to the test  if
honourable  members opposite so desire -- the next thing to do in Victoria is to
get our own house in order  quickly and to bring about as amicably as possible a
restructure of local government throughout the State.
The honourable member  for  Melbourne indicated that  he thought Victoria  might
ultimately move to having 50 councils, which is a big reduction from 210.

I do  not know whether that is  the right number, but it  is  not the target the
government is aiming for. The government hopes to continue  the process that has
started quietly,  without  a rush,  and  ultimately to respond  to  councils and
communities that want a better structure.
Approaches  have  come from  Bendigo,  Ballarat  and  other  local  metropolitan
councils  that  are  all  keen  to  work  towards  some  form of locally  driven
restructuring. That is not something the government is forcing, but  I  think it
is a natural  outcome of what is occurring at the  moment. If it were to happen,
the  processes  in place at Geelong  may provide a guide  to  handling it in the
future, particularly  when one has  regard  to the economic  relativities of the
councils  in  the areas concerned. That is where the KPMG Peat  Marwick  report,
although some opposition members have criticised it, has been so valuable.

The report  provides a method for someone outside the political arena to look at
the  local  government  structure  in  a  certain   area  to  identify   whether
restructuring  is  going  to  benefit  the  community.   The  restructuring  the
government is  proposing in Geelong will be of benefit because the government is
fundamentally saying it  will  hold  rates  at the present level for four years.
That  is  not  a  bad concession to  give  to  a  community  at a time  of  high
unemployment.  Even  in a period of  no  inflation,  it  is  amazing  how  costs
increase.
If the government can hold the rates for four years it will give the community a
great  deal of certainty. The deficit levy is to  be removed by 30 June 1996, as
the government has always said,  once  Victoria  returns to a balanced budget on
its current account.

A number of  comments have been made about  the concept that either small or big
is  not  beautiful.  I agree with that. There are no  finite  positions.  No-one
possesses  all the  wisdom  of Solomon.  Individually  in  terms of  family  and
business  or  collectively  as  a  Parliament, people can only do their best  in
assessing the information in  front of them  and trying to position  communities
for the future rather than simply reflecting the past.
In looking at the proposals the government has taken into account local interest
and economies of scale. The government cannot end up  with  small  councils  and
then contract out. Victoria must operate on a broader base.
Many comments have  been made  about the  Borough of Queenscliffe and why it was
excluded. The contribution of the honourable member for  Melbourne before supper
was better than what followed.

A number of members opposite  referred  to  Queenscliffe  and  why  it  has been
excluded from the basic amalgamation. It was my view initially that Queenscliffe
should have been included.  When the government had a look at the KPMG report it
outlined the way Queenscliffe was administered, which was in such a way that the
people of Queenscliffe  would not benefit  by the amalgamation. In  other words,
the people of Queenscliffe have been running themselves well, and small or large
communities  that do well  ought  to be  recognised.  If  the government  cannot
improve on the benefits, surely those communities deserve to be recognised. This
is where I see a major conflict made by members on the other side.
On one  hand the opposition wants  the government to recognise  local interests,
special effects, and so on, but on the other it wants the government to roll

 Page 1206


Queenscliffe  into the larger  council,  the argument  being,  as the honourable
member for  Melbourne  said, that Queenscliffe  happens to be  more conservative
than Labor in its  make-up of population. I can assure all members that that was
not the reason for the decision.
Initially I was very much  in  favour  of  Queenscliffe being included. When one
looks at the statistical information, if  there is  no benefit  then there is no
point bringing about change for the sake of change; one has to look at the whole
question a little more rationally.
The people of Geelong are more  than ready for what is taking place. Some people
are opposed  to change and will always be opposed to change. When the government
talks  about municipal restructuring  it invariably finds  that the people  most
opposed to change are the councillors or people working for them.

The  majority  of  the community wants  to  be  part of an  area  where there is
certainty and an opportunity to participate in economic growth. I thank the vast
majority of the community of Geelong for having the tolerance to go through this
process over the past  five  years,  in  particular  when there has been inquiry
after inquiry and legal actions involving the waste of public moneys.
I am confident  that the community of Geelong  is now ready for this  next step.
Comment was made that the commissioners are all going to be Liberal Party hacks,
and mention was made of  Mr Redlich. I happen to  think Mr Redlich has a lot  of
skill, but it is extraordinary that it should be argued that it is all right for
a Labor government  to appoint him based on merit and then automatically exclude
anyone the government may appoint on merit who happens to be a conservative.
  Honourable members interjecting.

  Mr Cole -- That's not true!

  Mr KENNETT -- It is patently not true! The people the  government appoints  to
this commission will be people who it thinks are well qualified to do the job in
the interests of the community of Geelong, being the Greater Geelong Council.
I shall not mention names, but after the commission  is announced I suggest that
the honourable member for Melbourne will reconsider his words because he will be
in  for  one  hell of a  shock.  I  am not going  to  mention  the name, but the
government has  approached a member of the Labor Party to be a commissioner  and
that person has accepted. That has been done as part of the necessary process to
hold the communities together.
  Mr Cole interjected.


  Mr KENNETT -- I suggest that the honourable member wait to see who is named. I
thank the people of Geelong and those  on the  opposition benches  who have made
constructive suggestions. The Bill  could not have  come  to fruition without  a
government that was committed to the interests of Geelong and its people, and it
is only as  a result of the  restructuring  that the people of  Geelong  and the
surrounding districts will have greater opportunities.
I  thank  the  Minister for Local  Government  in  another  place  who  has  had
responsibility for the carriage of the legislation. Many honourable members have
dreamed  about this  legislation  for  years;  it  is  now becoming  a  reality.
Extensive  consultation has taken  place  and the  Minister  deserves credit for
dealing  with the isolated  arguments and pressures   in  his endeavour to  give
Geelong a  fresh start  after 81  years of  debate and argument.  The Bill  will
provide to every person in Geelong the opportunities that he or she wants.