HANSARD, UPPER HOUSE

28 October, 2008

Title  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (COUNCILLOR CONDUCT AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL

House  COUNCIL

Activity  Second Reading

Date  28 October 2008

Page  4544

Speech by Matthew Guy (Northern Metropolitan)

Extracts re Noel Harvey

Mr GUY (Northern Metropolitan) -- I would just like to make a couple of remarks on the Local Government Amendment (Councillor Conduct -- --

Mrs Peulich -- Acting President, I wish to draw your attention to the state of the house.

Quorum formed.

Mr GUY -- I want to thank Mrs Peulich for her concern about keeping the house interested in my comments on the Local Government Amendment (Councillor Conduct and Other Matters) Bill.

Indeed I want to thank the Minister for Planning for turning up to this part of the debate albeit I imagine he is probably on the roster to do so. There are some things for him to note in this debate; of course you would expect him to feature in it.

We should all be very clear from the start of any debate on this bill that there are elements in it which show that Labor's gag on local government is here. Labor is here with one thing in mind in relation to local government -- that is, to gag not just councillors but also to put an unprecedented gag on council candidates. Never before anywhere in Australia have we seen legislation presented to a Parliament where a government actually sought to gag people before they were elected. You have to give the Labor Party a tick for trying. Have we ever seen a party as brazen, as open

It is quite astounding. We have a party that was elected on a platform of being open, honest and accountable, and today we are reduced to legislation that gags people before they have even nominated for council. But that is where we are with the Australian Labor Party. As Mr Finn rightly pointed out on issues such as clearways, the St Kilda triangle, the north-south pipeline -- and I would add Melbourne 2030 -- new residential zones, development assessment committees -- --

Mrs Coote -- Nightclubs.

Mr GUY -- Nightclub issues, as Mrs Coote points out. This government is seeking to put an unprecedented gag upon people who have not even completed a nomination form, and that is astounding.

Before I go on I want to refer to the prominence, or indeed the lack of prominence, of organisations such as the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV).

Mrs Peulich -- Another Labor club!

Mr GUY -- Another Labor club, as Mrs Peulich says quite correctly. It is controlled like a factional fiefdom. It could be the Darebin City Council, it could even be part of the Brimbank City Council, controlled as a Labor factional fiefdom by Cr Dick Gross.

It is controlled by Dick Gross in a manner that is complicit with the government's interests first and with local government second.

Mr D. Davis -- He is reputed to be endorsed as a candidate there.

Mr GUY -- As Mr Davis says probably quite correctly, we will find that he will again be a Labor candidate in the future. That is what we have from the people opposite; Labor first and the community second. We see it with this bill; we see it with the Labor-controlled MAV; we see it with the Labor control of the Brimbank City Council, and with the control of the councils in Wyndham, Hume, Darebin, Moreland, Whittlesea and of councils across the north and the west of Melbourne that government party members control and treat as factional fiefdoms.

As Mr Finn says quite rightly, the Labor Party's view is quite consistent.

Democracy is fine so long as you are one of them, so long as you do not object, so long as you do not cause a ruction, or you do not disagree with the Labor factions, or with the government's policy of the day. Then everything is fine. But if you happen to disagree, then there is an issue, and that is where we find ourselves again today with this bill. The government just cannot handle criticism. Indeed the 19 members opposite and the 55 members in the other house collectively have the biggest glass jaw in the country. They cannot handle a single piece of criticism.

Mrs Coote -- Mr Rudd's is pretty big.

Mr GUY -- Mrs Coote is probably right. Nowadays it is probably usurped a little bit by the Prime Minister. The size of the glass jaw is amazing.

On various pieces of legislation we have seen government members walk into the house and slander industry groups, individuals, councils, other parties or people who have just taken up their individual right to speak out against government policy. They have been slandered and slammed by this government because it cannot handle criticism.

I think all members of this chamber know that Melbourne 2030 is a dog of a policy, and it is very good that the planning minister has come into the chamber to hear that.

Mrs Kronberg -- A mangy dog!

Mr GUY -- It is not just a mangy dog, Mrs Kronberg; it is one that has been to the vet who recommended it be put down.

It has gone back to the farm, run around the backyard a couple of times, been bitten by a tiger snake but still manages to live. The only people keeping it alive are its owners, the Labor Party. No-one else thinks it is a prized greyhound anymore. In fact, Melbourne 2030 is the most disastrous piece of planning policy to exist in Victoria's history, and we have a range of community groups forming against this policy that seek to destroy the urban character. What is the government's response? It is to attack them -- --

Mrs Peulich -- A reshuffle!

Mr GUY -- I will get to that, don't worry. The government's response is to denigrate them and put them down. What is the problem? 'It is not the problem of the policy; it is the problem of the people', says Labor, and, 'Surely it cannot be our policy. It must be the 5.25 million Victorians who have it wrong'. According to this government the Australian Labor Party could not have it wrong.

When we come to new residential zones we see for the first time ever a

The government says, 'Who is the problem? The problem must be these pesky people who do not want to live next door to a five-storey set of units. They should not have the right to object to living next door to a five-storey set of units. They should not have the right to be notified. The problem must be those pesky residents'. The government sought to nobble them and to take away their third-party appeal rights.

Mr Viney interjected.

Mr GUY -- It is a policy that Mr Viney's party supports, advocates and is putting forward as a piece of planning policy for this state.

I think we talked about the development assessment committees in question time. They are another move by the government. Again the government sees local government as the problem. The community must be a problem. A good example in my area is in Greensborough. There is a piece of urban renewal supported by the Banyule City Council. It is supported by the developer and broadly supported by the community, but opposed by the Labor members for Bundoora and Ivanhoe. It is supposedly supported by the planning minister. The only people who do not seem to be supporting it or coming on board are the government members.

The government came back to the community involved and said, 'We are going to take away your planning powers because you are the enemy'. It has looked around Victoria and Melbourne, and the metropolitan area, and said, 'The enemy of planning policy in this city must be councils because councils seek to undermine Labor policy'. It is too bad the policy is a dog; it is too bad it is dead; it is too bad no-one supports it.

It is too bad industry openly questions its viability, and it is too bad its population statistics are 60 per cent inaccurate. It must be the people who are at fault; it cannot be Labor.

The government rolls up to this chamber with a view of development assessment committees to do over people, to do over communities and to do over councils, when indeed, as the opposition has said from the very start, the problem is the policy. The problem is the party advocating those policies; the problem is the Labor Party. If people want better outcomes there will be a choice in November 2010, and indeed they will get better outcomes.

Before I go on I would like to talk about the Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 that exists in the Macedon Ranges Shire Council, and I raised this matter the other week. I support the retention of that statement. It is an old policy.

It was brought out in the time of Premier Hamer to protect the Macedon Ranges as a unique part of Victoria. It is like what is being done today with the Yarra Ranges or the Mornington Peninsula -- seeking to establish their own urban character and their own character of country communities. That is all the statement of planning policy seeks to do, but the government wants to kill it.

Mr Finn -- What is the local member doing?

Mr GUY -- The local member appears to be missing in action; I do not know where she has gone. There were two local members up there at one stage. An ex-planning minister used to live up there as well but that did not seem to help the cause of the Macedon Ranges. I went and defended the right of the local community to defend that planning policy. I was opposed by the mayor of the Macedon Ranges Shire Council.

Mr Finn -- What political party might he be a member of?

Mr GUY -- Interestingly, Mr Finn, the planning minister walked into this chamber and used a press release drafted by the mayor of the Macedon Ranges Shire Council to oppose a newspaper article, which I have, in the Macedon Ranges edition of the Free Press.

Mrs Coote -- What does it say?

Mr GUY -- It says, 'Guy condemns urban sprawl' in the Macedon Ranges, Mrs Coote.

Mr Finn -- Any guy in particular?

Mr GUY -- Yes, this guy -- me.

It says, '--Outrageous-- says mayor', and the mayor, Noel Harvey, 'Sheriff' Harvey, went on to rattle his spurs, being reported as saying:

'Mr Guy is suggesting that we should retain a planning policy that is 30 years old ...

And then as saying:

'Macedon Ranges ... is very mindful of what makes this the most livable rural municipality --

inviting me to come up there and see what makes it so, and he made a couple of other derogatory comments.

It was picked up by the planning minister in question time, which I found very interesting. One, 'Sheriff' Harvey has not actually given me an invitation to his saloon to wear some spurs and knock through the

I have been interested in politics for a long time. I remember coming into this Parliament -- I know it is sad -- as an 18-year-old, sitting in the chamber with two mates watching the proceedings, and ultimately I find myself sitting in here in Parliament. But in none of that time have I seen a minister assassinate himself politically, as I did in question time the other day when the planning minister walked in with a press release written by this 'Sheriff' Noel Harvey and started denigrating me for attacking the existence of planning policy no. 8 -- because Noel Harvey is a member of the Kyneton branch of the Australian Labor Party!

Mr Finn -- And has been for 30 years.

Mr GUY -- And has been for a number of years. He is a failed preselection candidate for the Australian Labor Party. Today, the only third-party endorsements that exist at the local government level are the ones you write yourself. The Labor Party walks into the chamber, writes its own third-party endorsement and proceeds to read it out as an independent thought. It might be an independent thought, because he might be from a different faction to the minister.

Mr Finn -- That is possible.

Mr GUY -- So indeed, Mr Finn, maybe that is considered, in Labor Party terms, an independent thought.

Mr Finn -- I think he's SL, actually.

Mr GUY -- He might be Socialist Left; then it might be a different faction. He is not in the Suleyman faction; he is in the Socialist Left faction. We are reduced to a situation in which the government says independent thought in local government means press releases written by members of the Australian Labor Party, which are then given to the minister to walk into the chamber with to try to do over people who are trying to protect councils.

I say to the people of the Macedon Ranges that surely in November, with a mayor who cannot be bothered standing up for the urban and town character of his own community against a government that wants to enforce new residential zones on communities such as those in Woodend, Gisborne, Kyneton and up through the Macedon Ranges, they should question their own sheriff there and ask, 'Is this a man who is independent in thought? Is this a man who challenges the government where it needs to be challenged?'. I think the answer to that is quite clearly no.

More to the point: the planning minister genuinely believed this was somehow independent thought by a member of his own political party.

An honourable member -- A different faction.

Mr GUY -- With this bill, this is where we have got to -- in today's Australian Labor Party, independent thought is by another faction. It is by someone who is on a different side internally; it has nothing to do with the community. That is sad, because it means the government is completely and utterly dismissive of community views at large. It is hearing from its own small, internal circles, from the Hakki Suleymans of the world, to -- the daughter -- the Natalie Suleymans of the world.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr GUY -- Adviser to the minister he is, Mr Finn. Those factional warlords constitute independent thought. I simply say to the Labor Party that it has gone more than way too far in rejecting the amendments that the coalition, and ultimately the Greens, will put. If the removal we seek of certain elements from the bill is agreed to, the bill will be greatly improved. The fact that those elements are in there in the first place is a gross indictment on the Australian Labor Party. It is a gross indictment on a government that seeks to gag communities that do not agree with it on planning policies -- policies such as those on clearways and pipelines. The fact that the government treats communities with such contempt is all the more reason to vote this government out in November 2010.