Ms GARRETT (Brunswick) — Today I grieve for the people of my electorate of Brunswick given the complete absence of initiatives proposed for the electorate by the Baillieu coalition government. There has not been one initiative or one promise for the residents. Coupled with this is the fact that the Baillieu conservative government has announced policy directions in critical areas of the environment and human rights which have caused grave concerns for many of my constituents.
First, I deal with the very important need to invest in education in Brunswick, which has a rapidly growing population and increasing student numbers. The former Brumby Labor government acknowledged the need to expand the capacity of Brunswick Secondary College, and it committed to a capital upgrade for this school to expand and modernise what is a critically important facility in my electorate. Currently the school’s enrolment is at 840 students and, as is listed on its website, the department’s northern metropolitan region office has given approval for the school to grow from the current size of 900 to 1100 students over the next few years. This could not occur without the significant capital investment required for the school to expand and modernise. Without it there will be increased class sizes and the school will not have the facilities it needs. As is the case with schools throughout my electorate, one of the college’s main strengths is the diversity of its student population. There are students from over 40 different backgrounds.
The college is also committed to the breadth of learning choices, getting the best out of every young person and fostering leadership, which is so important in our community.
Brunswick is not just recognised as a great place to live, it is also a great place to educate your kids. This is why we need to invest in further modernising and expanding this school. It is critical for the growing population of young families in the area. It would be a betrayal by this coalition government if it were to completely ignore the needs and aspirations of my community simply because it is located in an opposition electorate.
In particular I would urge the Minister for Education to rethink his position as stated in this house in December last year, when he said:
Our priorities are our election promises and once we have fulfilled those election promises, not Labor’s election promises, we will then consult with the communities, the local schools, the local members and the department and work out our priorities and how we can best fulfil the needs of these schools.
I urge the Minister for Education and those on the opposite side of this house to appreciate that they are the custodians of the delivery of education for the whole of Victoria. The capital upgrades of schools should not be the place for politics. Politics should not punish the students and families in my electorate or in any electorate. Decisions such as these must be based on need and evidence. Need and evidence should form the basis of capital works programs for schools across the state. I urge the Minister for Education to visit the Dawson Street, Brunswick campus of the RMIT University and see for himself the extraordinary work of the school and the community.
The increasing population of Brunswick also means that the need for community health services is growing and more investment is required. The previous government recognised this and acknowledged the need to support the expansion of Merri Community Health Services, committing $8.5 million for the consolidation of the many services that MCHS provides into a new facility. This important community organisation delivers many services to our local community and to the residents of the Moreland area. Over 70 programs and services are available through this community health service. They include community health, nursing, dental care, counselling, aged-care support, engagement with refugee and newly arrived communities, family support services, diabetes prevention and education, group health services for schools and community organisations and other community health promotion. They are vital services for that growing community, and these need to be supported. The service currently has a state and federal grant base of approximately $23 million.
Obviously, with a budget of this size and the breadth of services, the programs delivered make MCHS a a significant health service provider for the inner north and northern suburbs of Melbourne.
It is imperative that the same commitment to support the expansion of this community health service be supported by the current government, and I urge the current government to consider a capital grant to allow for the consolidation of these services, having in mind the efficiencies and further service delivery that could be achieved in the upcoming budget process. I call on the Minister for Health to come down and see firsthand the work of the nurses, other health professionals and allied health providers and workers on the ground at this outstanding health service.
As I foreshadowed earlier, it is not only in the area of investment in local services, it is also the significant policy positions that have already been taken by this new conservative government that are causing deep concern for the constituents in my area. In particular I mention decisions and announcements made by the government in the key areas of the environment, human rights and workplace fairness. These are all areas of great interest to the people in my electorate; many in my electorate cite these matters as being of deep significance to them and their families.
Firstly, I turn to the Baillieu coalition government’s decision to reintroduce cattle grazing into the Alpine National Park. This decision has been raised repeatedly with me by constituents as a matter of grave concern to them, and rightly so, given the questionable nature of the justification provided by the government for making such an extraordinary move.
Mr Carbines — Like Japanese whaling.
Ms GARRETT — Indeed; it is like the sham Japanese scientific whaling program where a smokescreen for the slaughter of these animals is provided for the culinary appetites of a few. The return of cattle grazing to high country based on a sham scientific excuse smacks of this situation.
As we are all aware, the comprehensive report of the Alpine Grazing Taskforce released in 2005, which led to the ban on cattle grazing, advised that grazing potentially increases the risk of bushfires.
However, the Baillieu government’s six-year so-called scientific trial allows for 400 cattle to graze in the Alpine National Park as a tool for bushfire mitigation based on the premise that grazing reduces blazing. The nature of this trial has been roundly criticised and it is hard to believe it is genuinely designed to have any tangible impact as a fire prevention measure.
It is clear that this decision has been cast as a scientific trial to get around Victoria’s National Parks Act 1975, which is specifically designed — government members might be surprised to hear — to protect national parks from environmental hazards like this. This research allows grazing to fall under the clause in that act which requires that the government ensure that appropriate and sufficient measures are taken to protect each national park and state park from injury by fire.
Of course some hand-picked and privileged cattle people have been granted access to the national park to graze their cattle and are now called ‘fuel reduction service providers’ — this from a government that said it was ‘getting rid of spin’. Logic would suggest, along with a substantial body of evidence that already exists, that the apparent use of cattle in this way, as a method of fuel reduction, will do next to nothing of the sort. In fact it may make the situation worse.
Flammable fuel loads for wildfires which are contained in this area are branches, twigs, bark, leaves and shrubs — cows do not eat a lot of that. Why not call this for what it is? It is the opening of public land — a designated national park, which by definition is meant to be a sanctuary for fragile ecosystems, flora and fauna — for a disgraceful misuse of this important public asset.
Mr Noonan — A National Party park.
Ms GARRETT — Indeed, it is a National party park. Members of my electorate have expressed their dismay at the actions of this government. They see through the spin and nonsense of describing this as a scientific trial. Some of the people who have spoken to my office are trained firefighters with scientific backgrounds and are adamant that on any assessment this action is not justified, and any such finding will be seen as questionable.
Recently we heard in the media the words of the federal Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, the Honourable Tony Burke: ‘It is a national park, not a farm’. This whole sorry tale calls into question how serious this government is about running an open and accountable government free from spin.
This is anything but a scientific trial; this is a political and ideological initiative that flies in the face of scientific, independent and departmental advice. Quite frankly, the government should be ashamed of jeopardising such a unique and endangered ecosystem. I am deeply concerned, and after discussions with the shadow minister I am wholly supportive of the opposition’s position to continue to voice its strong resistance to this policy. We will work with the community and environmental organisations to pressure the Baillieu Liberal-Nationals government to overturn this initiative.
Members of my electorate are deeply concerned that on-the-run, ideologically driven policy decisions like this one are forming the basis and tone of this conservative government. Many constituents have also raised with me their concern about this government’s approach to the critical area of human rights and workplace fairness.
The proposed changes that have already been flagged appear steeped in conservative ideology rather than what is in the interests of governing for the whole state. The changes are certainly not in tune with the values of many of the people in my electorate. For example, the proposed changes to the Equal Opportunity Act, as summarised in recent media reports, raise serious concerns about the direction this conservative government intends to take in winding back much-needed protections against discrimination. The Equal Opportunity Act was amended in 2010 following extensive community consultation and parliamentary consideration by way of an inquiry, of which members of the house would be aware.
These amendments strike a careful balance between religious freedom and other rights.
We on this side of the house are increasingly concerned that the fundamental principle of fairness for all Victorians will be severely jeopardised by this government’s proposed amendments to the legislation and that the amendments allowing discrimination in the terms outlined by the Attorney-General will accommodate the interests of a small number of religious groups and organisations at the expense of the rights of all Victorians to equality and fairness. I encourage members on the other side of the house to become familiar with the notion of equality and fairness. It is the Australian and Victorian way to ensure that everyone gets a fair go, and these proposed changes fly in the face of where we are at the moment and where we will be if this legislation is adopted.
Critics of these proposed changes are many and vocal, and they include the Victorian Independent Education Union, the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby and the Human Rights Law Resource Centre. They say this is a backward step for rights in Victoria. Similar concerns have been conveyed to me by my constituents. These are concerns that I strongly share.
Having worked as a discrimination lawyer for a considerable part of my career, I know how important equal opportunity laws are to ensuring that every member of our community has the capacity to thrive at work and in their day-to-day lives.
These mooted changes to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, coupled with the recent speech from the Attorney-General in which he questioned the ongoing relevance of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities under a Baillieu Liberal-Nationals government, is causing considerable angst to my community, many members of which have directly fought for human rights recognition in this state.
It appears clear that what we are witnessing is just the beginning of this conservative government’s plan to wind back rights, remove protections and undermine the position of some of the most vulnerable in our community.
I urge those on the other side of the house, when they consider these mooted changes, to remember that all Victorians should have the capacity to succeed in their workplaces and to live free from discrimination.In summary, I grieve for the people of my electorate because we have not had any local service announcements for Brunswick, particularly in the areas of education and health.
I grieve for the people of my electorate because this government appears determined to wind back the clock on human rights and equal opportunity and to take us back to a time when people were subjected to discrimination. I grieve for my community because this government, in the dead of night, has for an elite few reintroduced cattle grazing in a national park, thereby winding back significant progress. This is of great concern to my electorate. We should be protecting our national parks, not destroying them.
(Hansard – 2 Mar 2011)
