Victorian Parliament Hansard 2003

Title Otway National Park: establishment
House ASSEMBLY Activity Questions without Notice
Members THWAITES Date 9 October 2003 Page 881

Otway National Park: establishment

Mr CRUTCHFIELD (South Barwon) - I direct my question to the Minister for Environment. Can the minister inform the house of the latest steps in the establishment of the Otway National Park and advise how the public can become involved in this important initiative?

Mr THWAITES (Minister for Environment) - I thank the member for his question. Last November the Premier announced that the government would protect the magnificent Otway region. We will be creating a single national park from Anglesea to Cape Otway, and this will preserve Victoria's most striking national assets. We moved quickly, and early this year the Bracks government instructed the Victorian Environment Assessment Council to make boundary recommendations for the new park.

VEAC has already received 470 submissions following the release of the terms of reference for this investigation, and these submissions, I am sure the member will be pleased to know, represent a wide sector of the community and outstanding support for the new national park.

There will be community forums, and I am sure the member for Polwarth will want to take part in them. They will be at Lorne, Lavers Hill, Geelong, Anglesea, Colac and Apollo Bay. The final date for the submissions to be lodged with VEAC prior to the report is 5 December. I would urge members of the Liberal Party opposite to get their submissions in. In fact they should get both their submissions in: the submission we will no doubt get from the member for Polwarth, who is quoted as being opposed to the national park and as saying that the Liberal Party in government could reverse the decision to have a national park, and the submission from a member for Monash Province in another place who is quoted as saying that she welcomes the park and welcomes the long-term cessation of logging in the Otways.

Clearly we have two camps in the Liberal Party. I ask the leader which camp he is in, or is this just another case of the Liberals standing for nothing!

Title Liberal Party: environment policy
House ASSEMBLY Activity Grievances Members CRUTCHFIELD;
SPEAKER Date 9 April 2003
Liberal Party: environment policy

Mr CRUTCHFIELD (South Barwon) - I grieve for the state of Victoria when I see an opposition trying to gain credibility for its environmental policy by looking back some 20 years, although I hear some say 30 years; and in particular I grieve for the opposition's environmental policy as it applies to Geelong and the Otways.

It is not easy being green, and that is a quote not from the Leader of the Opposition but from Kermit the Frog. As Kermit said, it is not easy, and the opposition is finding that. It is a policy desert when it comes to the environment. It has the hawks and the doves, and the wets and the dries. For example, it has the members for Benambra and Polwarth, who support clear-fell logging in and the destruction of the Otways as well as logging in national parks.

As you would be well aware, Deputy Speaker, the fear of the people of Geelong is that that policy will be, even if we do have - -

Mr Plowman - On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I wish to have the honourable member withdraw a mistruth he said about me, which is that I support logging in the national parks. I certainly do not and never have.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! I do not believe there is a matter there that requires a withdrawal.

Mr Perton - On a fresh point of order, Deputy Speaker, the Speaker has indicated that a certain temperance of language is required. Clearly we have had three members of the Labor Party making exactly the same false accusation - that the shadow minister supports logging in national parks. They clearly regard it as a term of abuse.

The honourable member for Benambra has asked for it to be withdrawn, and I urge you, Deputy Speaker, in accordance with the rulings of the Speaker, the request of the member and the traditions of the house, to ask for a withdrawal.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! I am very cognisant of the traditions of the house and of what has repeatedly been ruled on as offensive language. I am also very conscious of the rulings of previous Speakers. I note particularly former Deputy Speaker McGrath, who often used to caution the house about requests for withdrawals around language that did not really require withdrawal.

I believe the member for Doncaster has addressed the matter through debate, which is the appropriate way of addressing it. These points of order are somewhat closer to being points raised in debate than points of order themselves.

I believe that on this occasion the language used has not reached a threshold that requires a withdrawal.

Mr CRUTCHFIELD - The people of Geelong have a fear that the policy articulated by the opposition spokesperson on the environment means that when we have a national park in the Otways the opposition will log it. Certainly the opposition needs to make it clear to the Geelong community and to the people of the Geelong region that it does not support logging in national parks and that it supports the establishment of a national park in Geelong and the end of clear-fell logging in the Otways.

There is clearly a policy vacuum in respect to the environment, because the opposition cannot articulate a clear view about where it is going. It is going one way, then it is going the other. It is flip-flopping and back-pedalling.

It is going in every direction but forward, which is demonstrated quite aptly by the reference to the past, to some 20 or 30 years ago, as the member for Benambra would be very well aware.

I particularly point out the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing think tank which articulates a different view of leadership from the one the opposition leader has with respect to the environment. It criticises him, as do members of the National Party. There is no clear unanimous view about the environment on that side of the house.

Although the opposition is not quite in bed with the National Party, they have certainly been seen holding hands in the corridor. The fear is that that holding of hands will go further and that the Liberals and the Nationals will be canoodling when the next election comes around.

Mr Perton - Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, before you entered the chair - -
Honourable members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! I would like to hear the point of order being raised by the honourable member.

Mr Perton - Before you took the chair, Deputy Speaker, the Speaker in ruling on a point of order during a previous contribution indicated that the grievance debate was not an opportunity for government members to spend the entire time attacking the opposition, its policies and its members. The member who was so cautioned then moved on to look at the substance of the issue. This member has now been speaking for 5 minutes but has not got beyond abusing the shadow minister and the Liberal Party. I ask you, in accordance with the previous ruling of the Speaker, to bring him to order.

Mr Nardella - On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is absolutely wasting time. It is only when there is an imputation against another member that standing order 108 can be used.

I ask you to rule this out of order and ask the honourable member for Doncaster to stop wasting our time, because two can play at this game.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! I do not need to hear any more on the point of order. I believe there are some cross-purposes in this. My understanding is that the honourable member for Doncaster was not on this occasion invoking standing order 108 but was referring to previous Speakers' rulings on the content of grievance debates. What he says is correct - there have been previous rulings about using the entirety of a grievance debate contribution to attack or criticise opposition members. At this stage the honourable member, while the clock shows he may have been speaking for that time, has faced considerable interruption and so has not in fact been speaking for all that time. I would remind him of the standing orders relating to not focusing the entire grievance debate contribution on references to the opposition and would ask him to come to the matter of his grievance.

Mr Walsh interjected.

Mr CRUTCHFIELD - Yes, and you should have some shame, in that the National Party has never supported a national park in its life and never will.
I bring the house to a press release from environmental groups on 12 November which refers to the environmental policy of the Liberal Party. It says:

... it is heavy in rhetoric and light on detail.

Well hello! Nothing has changed. I bring the house's attention to an article in the Geelong Advertiser of Saturday, 9 November. In respect to the Otways in particular it says:

The Libs would do well to acknowledge the groundswell of support that exists for better environmental stewardship, if only in its own interests.
It goes on to say:

The ALP's policy caught the Libs in a deep sleep.

They are still asleep at the wheel - although a very small wheel, mind you - and I challenge the Liberal Party, in particular the opposition spokesperson, to articulate another backflip, but to make sure it is said in the Geelong region. Let us make sure it is focused on Geelong, for once, with respect to water quality and water quantity and about clear-felling or logging in our catchments and the consequent effects on water quality. People do not forget the some two years of water restrictions they have had in the Geelong area and the clear correlation between the restrictions and clear-fell logging.

They should come clean. It is easy to say things, but it is a lot harder to actually do them. I again refer to Kermit - it is easy to say you are green, but it is a lot harder to do things about it. We have heard other examples such as the Wimmera pipeline and the Kyoto protocol. All those things give absolutely no hope that the Liberal Party has any credibility in using the word 'green'. It is a difficult word to say, and I know a number of opposition members stutter over the G-word.

I also note that the former mayor and former candidate for the seat of Geelong, Stretch Kontelj, in the Geelong council supported the end of clear-fell logging in the Otways.

Mr Perton - On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, you made a ruling earlier. The honourable member has now proceeded for about 4 minutes since that ruling. He has not obeyed that ruling.

I ask you to bring him to order by having him raise the substance of his grievance and not continue his attack on the opposition.

Mr Wynne - On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, I have listened carefully to the contribution by the member for South Barwon. The opposition has attempted on about four occasions to raise points of order about his contribution. By my count he has probably had about 6 or 7 minutes of his allotted time to make his contribution. It is entirely in order in grievance debates to have the opportunity to point to policy differences between the government of the day and the opposition. It is entirely in order that the member should do so. What has happened unfortunately is that there has been a concerted attempt by the opposition to disrupt the contribution by the member for South Barwon. Clearly the point of order is incorrect, and I ask you to not hear the honourable member for Doncaster further on the matter.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! In relation to the point of order, the member does have the opportunity to raise points of policy difference and make passing reference to others. I believe that since the last interruption he was moving to other matters, and I encourage him to do that.

Mr CRUTCHFIELD - Half way to being a wit - and you will never get there!
Labor's promise to end clear-fell logging in the Otways was supported by the then mayor of the City of Greater Geelong and the candidate for the seat of Geelong. Surprise, surprise!

Again it is a demonstration of the policy differences in the Liberal and National parties, and in the Liberal Party itself between the wets and the dries, the doves and the hawks, the browns and the greens or whatever other descriptions you would like to use.

The honourable member for South-West Coast has walked into the chamber - his council also voted to end clear-fell logging in water catchments in the Otways. There has been a concerted view among councils, and there have been a number of polls on the subject. It is not just about being populist; it is about being right. It is about having the evidence and the support. It is about having the intellectual rigour to look at and evaluate some of your policies, to put them forward and have them evaluated by the environmental groups. Clearly the environmental groups did that. They were absolutely scathing about some of the Liberal Party policies.

We need a clear demonstration from the Liberal Party of its change of heart about Triplet Falls. If it is not all rhetoric, let it demonstrate something tangible to the Geelong community. Let it demonstrate at least an insincere condemnation of the brutality down at Triplet Falls - even an insincere one would do! Even an insincere expression saying, 'We will review our support of the national park in the future', would be welcomed by the Geelong community.

Certainly the member for Polwarth and the Liberal Party need to be clear that there will be a national park in the Otways. There will be an end to clear-fell logging in the Otways, and a compensation package for those loggers is on the table right now. They are flip-flopping, and the member for Polwarth has shown a dereliction of his responsibilities - limited though his abilities may be - in representing the Polwarth community. He needs to support the members of his logging community and encourage them to take up the compensation packages.

I heard the member for Polwarth talk about tourism in the community. There would be a lot of tourism if he had his way about the Ciancio logging coupe and Lake Elizabeth, which is on the national estate - and they actually have tours looking at platypus as we speak - a lot of tourism would emanate in the Forest area in the electorate of the member for Polwarth if he had his way, and if the member for Benambra had his way!

Clearly the opposition needs to put something tangible on the table. I repeat my request for it to say where it stands on clear-fell logging in the Otways, the national park in the Otways, the quality and quantity of water, and on Triplet Falls - because it stands condemned.

Mr Plowman - On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order now so that I am not wasting the time allocated to the member who was on his feet. The question comes back to the use of this grievance debate to grieve.

I believe a grievance debate gives members the opportunity to grieve about something that is actually happening rather than to use the debate as a means of criticising the benches opposite. When you analyse that speech and the last two speeches from the government benches prior to that, you realise that they were used as a means of expressing criticism of the opposition benches, largely of my position and my opinions on those matters.
Mr Nardella - What is your point of order?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! Members are entitled to raise points of order and be heard by the Chair.

Mr Plowman - I am quite happy to accept the criticism.

In respect of the point of order, I ask for a ruling about the use of the grievance debate, as to what a member can actually do and whether they can use it purely to criticise the opposition benches or an individual or individuals on those opposition benches.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! I do not need to hear further at this stage. If members wish to avail themselves of the opportunity, there are a number of rulings of Speakers over a considerable time on the issue of guidelines for grievances which are documented in publications such as Rulings from the Chair and elsewhere. In each of them there is a consistent pattern of requiring grievance debate contributions to address certain matters, and they
cannot be spent in their entirety in attacks on opposition members or other members of the house, I might add.

A passing reference is allowable, but the bulk of a grievance debate contribution, in accordance with past practice, is to be centred around the matter being raised. I simply encourage all members to acquaint themselves with those guidelines if they are unclear about them and to ensure that they comply with them.

Don't know the meaning of a word? Check the glossary.