Posted 28/8/06
1
VICHANSARD
Whole Speech (Daily Hansard - Proof Version Only)
Title
Local government: recognition, reform and partnership
House
COUNCIL
Activity
Ministerial Statement
Members
BROAD
Date
10 August 2006
Page
14
10 August 2006 COUNCIL
2 Local government: recognition, reform and partnership
Ms BROAD (Minister for Local Government) -- I wish to make a ministerial statement. Regardless of which level of government we work at, our goal should be the same -- to make a real difference to the health, education, safety, environment and enjoyment of the people who elect us and pay our wages.
It is what the community expects of us and it's our duty to deliver in the most effective way possible.
The Bracks government came to office with two broad aims:
to place communities at the centre of our thinking, and
to change the way all levels of government worked together with communities to deliver better services and outcomes
These aims have shaped the national reform agenda led by Victoria and they have shaped our reform of, and relationship, with local government.
Ten years on from the restoration of democracy to local government in Victoria, it is timely that I present to the Legislative Council a statement on the progress the Bracks government has made building and strengthening local government and our partnership with it to deliver better services to local communities.
I also want to take the opportunity to outline the next phase of reforms designed to
encourage greater collaboration and problem solving rather than arguments and buck passing, to reduce
red tape and
complexity and ultimately to deliver better services and stronger, healthier communities.
The active involvement of local government is essential to building a fair and prosperous Victoria.
We said we would make local government stronger, more democratic and more transparent, so that it could be an active partner.
I am proud to say we have delivered.
The role of local government as a distinct and essential level of government is now written in Victoria's constitution.
We have enabled local government to be more accountable and responsive to local communities.
We abolished compulsory competitive tendering and replaced it with best value, we reformed rate capping and we put the responsibility for appointing the chief executive officer back where it belonged -- in the hands of the council.
Just as importantly, the Bracks government recognised the need to make public services more responsive to local needs and to better align the efforts of state and local government in a way that helped Victorians help themselves and each other.
We recognised that state government had to work as 'partners' with local government to be more effective and deliver better outcomes.
We not only recognised these challenges, we embraced them, and to make it happen we have invested our time, effort and resources in:
reforming institutional arrangements;
building capacity and knowledge;
working in partnership with local government to deliver better local outcomes, and
promoting and improving the profile of local government.
As a result of these reforms every local government in Victoria will go to an election on the same day in November 2008 in what I hope and believe will be a celebration of local democracy.
The Victorian community does not particularly care who delivers services. They want good services delivered efficiently and effectively.
They are not interested in the arguments about institutional arrangements between the various levels of government.
While this may be so, it is however crucial to get those institutional arrangements right, because by doing so you can free up the time and resources previously lost in duplication, complexity, red tape and arguments and direct it towards better service planning and delivery.
This year marks an important watershed in the reform of these institutional arrangements.
In April this year Victoria signed an intergovernmental agreement that clarifies how the three tiers of government can better work together and which among a range of commitments, ensures local government is consulted when asked to provide extra services by either state or commonwealth governments.
This agreement is a major initiative and heralds in a new era of national, state and local cooperation to get better outcomes on the ground for local communities.
In our reforms to the institutional arrangements between state and local government we recognised the importance and value of integrated planning and the need to reduce complexity and red tape.
Last year the government asked Professor Bill Russell to lead a review with two key aims:
to streamline strategic planning undertaken by local government at the request of state departments; and
to promote more joined-up planning between state and local government to deliver community outcomes.
The review found that councils are asked to develop a number of discrete plans with different consultation requirements and different cycles without regard to councils' own planning framework and without necessarily taking into account the differences in capacity and local priorities of councils across Victoria.
This creates unnecessary duplication of planning processes; can result in community consultation fatigue and undermines rather than supports the capacity of local councils to adopt a triple bottom line approach to planning and service delivery.
As a result of this review, and to improve the integration of local and state objectives and achieve more responsive services at the local level the Bracks government will give councils, where appropriate, the flexibility to incorporate state strategic planning requirements into their strategic planning framework rather than in a separate plan.
As a first step over the next 12 months we will review the current requirements for discrete plans and will establish a mechanism to limit any future unintegrated planning requirements for local governments.
This will allow state objectives to be aligned with local priorities in a more holistic way.
It will create efficiencies in councils' planning processes and reduce red tape and duplication of administrative processes.
It will enable councils to synthesise a number of discrete plans into a defined framework; to be more inclusive in their decision making and use community planning as a means to meet the challenges of changing local expectations.
This reform in itself won't be a major conversation starter in the homes of Victorians over the next few weeks.
But the reform is a significant one, and it will deliver over time on the many issues that are currently conversation starters in Victorian households -- the need for better, more integrated and responsive services.
Making institutional reform work requires robust and well-informed dialogue underpinned by an understanding and appreciation of each other's role.
Regional management forums have been established in each of Victoria's eight administrative regions. Importantly, each forum includes a state department secretary assigned as regional champion, and members comprise chief executive officers of local government, regional managers of state government agencies, representatives of the Victoria Police, and in some cases, of key statutory bodies.
The forums bring state and local government together to identify their region's most pressing issues, and to provide new and collaborative solutions.
Other regular meetings also provide opportunities to discuss important issues. These include the regional cities group of Ballarat, Bendigo, Geelong, La Trobe, Shepparton, Wangaratta, Warrnambool, Wodonga, Horsham and Mildura, which meets with the Premier, the Minister for State and Regional Development and myself, as well as meetings with peak local government bodies and councils.
The government is also establishing a small towns Victoria group to give voice to the smaller rural councils.
Local government is a complex, diverse and large business.
Queenscliffe, at 8.6 square kilometres, a population of 3191 and a revenue base of $5.6 million, is the smallest. Mildura is geographically the largest at 22 000 square kilometres, Casey has the largest population at 217 000 and Melbourne the largest revenue base at $305 million.
Together, local councils are responsible for a significant asset base of some $40 billion1 which includes roads, drains, bridges, parks and public buildings such as libraries.
Their largest capital expenditure is on roads.
The partnership we have been building and strengthening with local government would not be possible without having rebuilt the sector's democratic base.
In this term, the Bracks government introduced the most extensive reforms to make local government elections fairer and more representative.
Proportional representation was introduced, replacing the 'winner take all' system; electoral reviews by elected councils have been replaced by independent reviews by the electoral commission conducted in consultation with local communities and to support great public transparency, candidates in local government elections must now disclose campaign donations valued at $200 or more.
From November 2008, all councils will have a common four-year cycle which will raise the profile of local government and encourage greater voter participation.
The Bracks government has also supported local government to become more transparent and accountable. We amended the Local Government Act to establish clear accountability principles to better inform the local community and encourage community consultation.
We are working with the peak bodies to promote a culture of responsibility, accountability and sound governance and to provide a systemic approach to councillor training and development.
We are also supporting local councils to develop better data collection and management systems to identify community needs, develop good practice guides for local area planning and plan for social infrastructure in growth areas.
The essential role of local government has also been recognised in the state budget.
For the first time budget paper 3 includes an overview of local government grants and transfers -- an overview which shows an increase in funding of more than 10 per cent.
While the Bracks government has backed its partnership with local government with greater resources, the commonwealth has not.
Victoria will continue to push the commonwealth to increase financial assistance grants and give local government its fair share of Australia's economic growth.
Victoria is one of the most livable places in the world.
As Victoria grows we face new challenges to maintain the livability of our cities, towns and regions and ensure Victoria remains a vibrant, creative place.
Livability is affected by what happens at a local level -- the level and quality of health, education and community services, the local environment, transport, investment and employment opportunities, community, sport and cultural facilities and the community's sense of 'connectedness'.
Local government is a key player in all of these things, either directly or indirectly, and as a result our support for and investment in local government and communities has taken many forms.
A key part of our strategy to build stronger, healthier, more livable communities has been to build the capacity and knowledge of local government
The report Actions for Community Strengthening with Local Government prepared by Professor Mark Considine from Melbourne University showed that strong and resilient communities deliver fairer and more prosperous outcomes for their members.
The report has led to a dynamic strategy to strengthen communities; one that encourages local governments to continue to play a significant role, creates an environment for greater state and local government partnerships, and increases opportunities for the community to be involved and engaged.
In doing so we committed ourselves to changing the way we do business; to rethink the traditional forms of administration and resource allocation to see whether they meet the new standard of local place-based prosperity and empowerment.
A key example of our commitment to this new approach is the Community Building Initiative through A Fairer Victoria which is about local people working with their local governments and a range of groups and organisations to shape and improve their small towns.
There are currently 19 Community Building Initiative locations working in partnership with 102 small towns across Victoria.
Over the past six months, the Bracks government has released a number of key policy statements making significant investments in and setting out key actions to improve Victoria's future.
These statements on provincial Victoria, education and training, transport, sustainability and our metropolitan growth areas focus on improving services to local communities.
They acknowledge the important and varying partnership role of local government in delivering these initiatives.
The following examples are just a snapshot of what we are doing.
Melbourne 2030 is an action plan to ensure the benefits of growth are shared fairly across the state, and in a sustainable way. Informed involvement from local government is critical to successfully implementing Melbourne 2030 and achieving its potential.
Through Moving Forward -- Making Provincial Victoria the Best Place to Live, Work and Invest we are helping regional councils manage growth, plan for the future and deliver projects that address their community's social, infrastructure and environmental needs.
As part of this we have boosted our investment in the Small Towns Development Fund by $25 million over four years to help local towns work with local councils, business and community groups to develop projects and provide advice.
With local councils, we continue to invest in community sport and recreation facilities such as swimming pools and multipurpose community facilities across the state.
Since 1999, this program has seen the upgrading and building of some 1500 facilities with over $118
million of state contribution.
We have again boosted funding for libraries to provide for better library services, new facilities and improved collections and A Fairer Victoria has delivered additional recurrent funding for Victoria's neighbourhood houses to assist them in providing their vital services.
In partnership with local government, we are addressing infrastructure and service issues for families with young children, particularly in our growth corridors, through Growing Communities, Thriving Children.
We are working with councils, community health centres and other non-government agencies to provide a comprehensive response to issues experienced by people with a disability.
The Department of Human Services is involved in a number of whole-of-government projects with local governments and local agencies to deliver better services.
And we are providing significant support for volunteering so that local communities can develop effective ways to support, extend and sustain volunteering into the future.
Our Flexible Transport Solutions program will support up to 30 councils predominantly in regional, rural and outer urban areas to deliver innovative projects that improve access to transport for disadvantaged and isolated communities.
The Bracks government is also working closely with local government in environmental management and land use planning.
Examples range from providing grants to councils such as Yarriambiack shire, that have sought help to identify, prioritise and manage weeds in their local area in partnership with the Department of Sustainability and Environment to providing more than $30 million to help local government and local communities to put Melbourne 2030 into action.
While the initiatives are numerous, and their size and scope may vary, each one demonstrates the value of state and local government working as partners to deliver better services and stronger, healthier communities.
The Victorian community expects all tiers of governments to work together to provide services that make a real difference to their quality of life -- in employment, health, education, safety and the environment.
The Bracks government recognised that local government provides services vital to the health and wellbeing of local communities, from libraries to child care and immunisation to ensuring that local planning adds to rather than detracts from local amenity.
And we recognised the need to work better with it and set about reforming institutional arrangements, building capacity and knowledge and working in partnership to strengthen communities and deliver better services.
Victoria has taken the lead at the national level to change the way governments work together to deliver these better services.
And we are building collaborative relationships between state and local governments to respond more effectively to local needs.
The Bracks government will continue to show the way forward, reduce red tape and complexity and improve the way we operate and work with local government so that we can deliver better, more seamless services.
A great deal has been done, but there is more to do. We will continue the journey and move forward together.
Hon. J. A. VOGELS (Western) -- I move:
That the Council take note of the ministerial statement.
When I received this statement I thought, 'I know the Bracks government has taken up some of the excellent policies of the Liberal Party and I will have to start all over again'.
But as soon as I saw the heading 'Recognition, reform and partnership' I instantly knew those words meant there was no money; it meant spin and rhetoric.
Hon. E. G. Stoney -- And you were right!
Hon. J. A. VOGELS -- And I was so right as I found out when I read through the document. There is no money. The minister started talking about putting a stop to blaming each other and other tiers of government and then spent half the statement blaming the federal government for everything that has gone wrong with local government. It is interesting to note that she had forgotten what she had already said.
We all know there are 79 councils in Victoria, small and large. That is not new. I have actually visited each and every one of them at least once and sometimes twice. I do not know if the minister has.
She says the things that mainly concern those councils are roads.
Whenever we talk about local roads and bridges we hear the Bracks government saying it will not be funding roads and bridges in Victoria -- that is the federal responsibility. She talks about drains, bridges, libraries and then about the largest capital expenditure being on roads, which the Bracks government refuses to fund.
We talk about the Victorian Electoral Commission looking at how municipalities elect their councillors. About half the councils have been reviewed. She talks about consultation with local communities. I can assure members that local communities were definitely not listened to. I do not know how many councils have approached me and the minister personally because they were very unhappy with the way the Victorian Electoral Commission set out how they should elect new councillors. The minister took absolutely no notice of them at all.
I have presented many petitions in the house from municipalities saying they do not accept or want this new form of voting in their electorates or municipalities, but the minister of course completely ignored them.
I would like to quote from budget paper 3, table D.1 at appendix D which is headed 'Grants and transfers to local government'. Total grants to local government this year were approximately $548 million. These are not my words; this is what it says in budget paper 3 on service delivery:
... grants and transfers to local government are expected to increase by 10.7 per cent from $494.9 million in 2005-06 to $547.9 million in 2006-07.
I have prepared a graph of the budget and I am hoping it can be incorporated into Hansard.
Hon. T. C. Theophanous -- On a point of order, President, I have examined the graph that the honourable member proposes to table and I am concerned that he cites the source at the bottom of the graph as the Victorian government budget papers. However, this is actually the honourable member's interpretation of those budget papers. It should really say 'Prepared by John Vogels'. We would be prepared to grant leave for this to be incorporated only if it said 'By John Vogels based on his interpretation of Victorian government budget papers'.
Hon. J. A. VOGELS -- I am happy to do that. My budget figures will stack up 100 per cent if anybody wants to have a look at them.
The PRESIDENT -- Order! We will need to get copies of that document and arrange to have them distributed. It should be noted on the record that the member has agreed to the government's request to include a note that it is Mr Vogel's interpretation of the budget papers.
Leave granted; see table page 65. [opens in new window]
Hon. J. A. VOGELS -- This is typical. These budget figures will stack up -- they are 100 per cent accurate. They are taken out of the budget papers and federal budget papers and are what the federal government transfers to the Victorian government, which become grants and transfer payments to local government. This government would like the municipalities and ratepayers to believe that grants and transfer payments come wholly and solely from the state government. I refer again from appendix D at page 420 of budget paper 3:
The Department for Victorian Communities provides the majority of funds to assist local government. Most of these funds are commonwealth financial assistance (around 60 per cent) and road grants (around 20 per cent) that are on-passed to local government.
This government likes to take credit for the whole grants and transfer payments but we know it should not.
The minister was at a local government mayors and chief executive officers meeting in March this year. In a statement to that meeting she said -- and this is typical spin:
Along with the ministers for local government from other states I've also been pushing the commonwealth to review the funding level to local governments, as I know you have.
Over the years, as you will know, the financial assistance grants from the commonwealth have decreased substantially as a percentage of commonwealth tax revenue.
Let me remind members, that was untied. The minister went on to say:
Commonwealth revenue has increased by 62 per cent since the Howard government came to office
That was 10 years ago. Let me remind the house that state government revenue has increased from $19 billion to $32 billion in seven years, which is an increase of 75 per cent. The statement continues:
Financial assistance grants to local government have only increased by 33 per cent over that 10-year period.
State government grants have decreased by half over a four-year period.
My graph shows that in 2002-03 state grants to local government were $206 million and that in the financial year just finished they had decreased to $113 million -- nearly half.
The minister went on to say that while the commonwealth has been able to benefit from strong economic growth its funding to local government has diminished, which is not true. I am not here to defend the commonwealth; somebody else can do that. I just want to set the record straight: it is the state that has been decreasing grants and transfer payments to local government. When it decreases those grants -- which, if you add up the figures you see amounted to nearly $249 million -- it does then hand some of that back to local councils, but it is all tied into certain silos or buckets of funding, whereas under the financial assistance grants et cetera councils can spend it on what they desire to spend it on.
I have here the Municipal Association of Victoria's wish list, I suppose you would call it, relating to the Bracks government budget. It states:
The MAV is disappointed with the lack of direct support to councils in the budget.
It goes on to say:
It is disappointing that only very limited funding was made available to local government directly in the budget.
I will name some of its requests. It asked for $2.1 million for Lighthouse Community Planning; there was no response. For public libraries there was a $25 million commitment to improve the State Library's online service delivery, but this funding will not be received by local government. For maternal and child health services it was told the funding is not available to all councils. For infrastructure renewal, very important, there was no response.
It made a request about national competition policy payments. What a furphy that is. The minister has been running this around for about three years now. Ten years ago the Keating government signed an agreement with all the states on national competition policy payments. That funding ran out after 10 years, and we all know that if you have a contract for 10 years at the end of the 10 years people make different decisions. Victoria, to its credit, passed on a percentage of the national competition policy payment to local government. I think it was 9 per cent, around $18 million. That has come to an end. But has this government replaced it? Of course not. It has not replaced it. It is still harping on about it. I see media releases going out from the MAV and the minister. This will especially affect small rural councils because it is a big issue there.
What has the commonwealth done in reply? In the last budget it gave one-off $62.5 million Roads to Recovery funding to local councils. Who are the great beneficiaries from that? Small rural councils.
For example, the council where I live, the Corangamite Shire Council, told me that the one-off Roads to Recovery package was worth eight years of national competition policy payments -- eight years in one hit. So do not tell me that the commonwealth has not lived up to its bargain of funding councils. The state of course did not get the national competition policy payment. The government received an extra $8.4 billion of GST funding, untied. Did it give even one cent of it to local government? Of course it did not, not one cent.
Also on the MAV's wish list was a request about domestic wastewater -- there was no response. On support for statewide urban planning, no response, and the list goes on. That is very disappointing.
I would like to spend the rest of my time talking about what the Liberal Party would do if it won government, and I am happy to compare that with what the Labor Party is doing.
Community involvement will be a central feature of the Liberal Party's approach when working in partnership with local government. Local government's close links with the community potentially provide the ideal shopfront and gateway for integrating a whole-of-government service delivery. Such a system would consolidate the role of local government and provide it with a sustainable, relevant role into the future. Councils -- those I visit, anyway -- and their communities are saying, 'Give us the money to buy the services our community needs and aspires to, not the services the state government believes we must have'.
The Liberal Party will support a bottom-up approach with local government and unbundle at least 50 per cent of the capital funding provided to local government to allow communities to accomplish this. As I said, the Labor government has every dollar tied up in silos. Unless you fit perfectly into the structure, no money is made available.
The Labor Party has taken more and more control over local government finances. It decreases grants to local government each and every year, except in an election year, when it says, 'We have increased your funding this year'. The graph shows that $249 million was clawed back, some of which has been handed back provided you fit into Labor's priorities. The Liberal Party knows that councils have adopted 10-year plans for their communities, and a Liberal government would work with councils in partnership to achieve these outcomes.
Local government also needs to be more proactive in pursuing benefits via collaboration between councils, asset rationalisation and regional activities. If elected a Liberal government would conduct annual cabinet meetings with the Municipal Association of Victoria, local government's peak body; appoint a ministerial committee of municipal officers, LGPro, to advise and consult with the Minister for Local Government; and conduct annual mayoral summits that include appropriate cabinet ministers.
A Liberal government will inject an extra $31 million into recurrent funding for Victoria's free public libraries in its first term. Presently the Bracks government increases recurrent library funding by the increase in the consumer price index (CPI), which means about 20 cents per capita per annum. There are approximately 5 million people in Victoria, so 20 cents per capita means the government puts in about an extra $1 million a year. On the figures I looked at, funding is now at about $5.65 per capita.
If elected the Liberal Party would increase recurrent funding per capita to $9 in its first term -- $46 million per annum -- compared to the $31.5 million it would be in 2010 based on CPI increases under Labor. That is $15 more per annum for our free public libraries.
We all know that our public libraries are used by an enormous percentage of the population, and they are going backwards. It is not just me saying that. I would like to quote from two articles I have brought with me this morning. One, headed 'Library cuts row', states:
Moyne shire has slammed the state government for failing to support regional and rural library services.
At its Tuesday meeting the council approved its annual contributions to the Corangamite Regional Library Corporation and discussed options to fill the void left by the coming end of the mobile library service.
We all know how important mobile library services are in country Victoria. They are being closed down.
Even in the city ratepayers will have to dig deeper in their pockets to keep the Whitehorse and Manningham libraries open. An article in the local press states:
The councils will collectively chip in $175 000 more ... this year ...
...
Corporation chairwoman Sharon Ellis said the councils' 3.
5 per cent increase would just maintain the current level of library services ...
She said state government ... did not provide the necessary level of support to these services.
...
Basically the state government is just walking away from the library system ...
I agree with that.
The Liberal Party also has another plan.
In her speech to local government the minister said that the most important and expensive things councils look after are roads. The Liberal Party has recognised this problem, and if elected will make funds available through the Roads to Recovery program. We have said that if we won government we would match the federal government's Roads to Recovery package, which would after 2007-08 put an extra $62.5 million per annum into the local road and bridge network in Victoria -- all up, $156 million over three years.
This has been welcomed enormously by councils right across Victoria. For example, a couple of days ago I met with the Baw Baw Shire Council. It would receive an extra $3 million; Benalla would receive an extra $1.5 million; Campaspe, $4 million; Corangamite, $3.5 million; East Gippsland, $5.7 million extra -- and the list goes on.
South Gippsland will receive $3.6 million; East Wellington, $5.3 million; and Yarra Ranges, $3.6 million. Even councils in the city will average $1 million per council for their local road and bridge networks. It is an excellent policy that has been roundly applauded by local government right across the state. That is the difference between the policies of the Liberal Party and the Labor Party in the lead-up to the election. What we hear from the Labor Party is more spin and rhetoric but less funding. Rates across Victoria have increased by approximately 100 per cent since the election of the Bracks government because of a lack of funding by the Bracks government and its cost shifting onto councils. It has put all sorts of responsibilities onto councils, which it should not have done. It is taking more and more powers away from local government -- planning powers et cetera -- and foisting more and more responsibilities onto them.
I am very pleased to respond to the ministerial statement on behalf of the Liberal Party.
I am very happy for the Municipal Association of Victoria and local councils across the state to compare what the Liberal Party is offering with what is offered by the Bracks government. Let me also say at this stage that more local government policies will be released in the lead-up to the election, but in the two areas I have mentioned, libraries and local roads, we will put an extra $200 million into local government in our first term in government. Unbundling capital grants so that local communities could decide what money was spent on rather than those at 1 Spring Street would also be an excellent outcome. I rest my case.
Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) -- I say from the outset, with no personal disrespect, that if I were the Minister for Local Government and had just delivered what was purported to be a ministerial statement -- this flimsy document -- I would be embarrassed to say what the minister said in the chamber this morning. I am flabbergasted that the government has the gall to put before the Parliament of Victoria the lightweight document that was tabled by the minister and call it a ministerial statement. I have been in this chamber for the best part of 18 years, and I have seen a few ministerial statements delivered in that time. I have come to recognise a ministerial statement as a statement of some significance; perhaps a statement in which some major announcements are made or in which some clear policy directions are set out.
But this morning we did not hear any of the things that could characterise this as a ministerial statement. What we have heard is a lot of waffle, hot air and fluffy words. We have heard nothing of substance.
The ministerial statement was delivered with no fanfare, no acclaim and no support from backbench members. The minister started her ministerial statement with only one government backbencher here to support her, and at best there were six government backbenchers here during the course of the presentation. I note that the minister is not even staying around to participate in the rest of the ministerial statement debate. What gall, what cheek and what effrontery she shows to the house and to democracy in this place by walking out 15 minutes after she has made a ministerial statement!
President, I interrupt my contribution to draw your attention to the state of the house.
Quorum formed.
I am glad that the Labor backbenchers who were not in the chamber to hear their own minister speak are in the chamber to hear me speak on this matter. It was an absolutely pathetic statement. A ministerial statement made in the Parliament of Victoria should be a statement of some significance. Members of t Labor Party have treated this Parliament with absolute disrespect -- with no regard for the protocols, forums or history of this place -- by not supporting their minister. The minister herself has treated Parliament with contempt by not making herself available to listen to the responses to her ministerial statement. What a farce this mob on my left make of the protocols of this place! It is a joke, as is the content of the ministerial statement. It contains a lot of fluffy words with no substance whatsoever. I am appalled that the minister had the gall to say those words and then walk out during the course of debate.
Mr Viney interjected.
Hon. P. R. HALL -- I have 75 per cent per cent of my party here, Mr Viney; when the minister started to speak she had only 1 of the Labor Party's 23 members here to listen to her. That is how much Labor members care about their minister and what are supposedly their policy directions in the ministerial statement.
I will go through the pages of this flimsy document and comment on them. During the course of my analysis I will refer to another document I have in front of me called the Victorian Nationals Plan for Local Government. It is a public document and it can be found on our web site. It sets out our policy on and our plan for local government. We did not hear one plan or policy from the Labor Party in the ministerial statement.
Like Mr Vogels, who at least gave an indication of what the Liberal Party policy is, I will give some indication of what The Nationals policy is. It is a pity that we did not hear any such statement from the Labor Party.
Let me start with page 2 of the document where the minister begins her recitation of this so-called ministerial statement. About halfway down the first page she talks about how the Bracks government has made local government in Victoria stronger. I can tell you that economically it is certainly not stronger. We only have to look at the rate rises local governments across the state have had to impose on their good ratepayers. More than significant is the fact that in the last three years there have been rate increases of up to 50 per cent. Economically local government has not got any stronger under the Bracks government, and I will come to the reason for that in a bit more detail later.
It is the cost shifting that is going on; it is the lack of any economic autonomy given to local government by the Bracks government's refusal to provide adequate funding for the services local government rightly deserves.
The minister goes on to talk about replacing competitive tendering with best value. 'Best value' is terminology that nobody understands and nobody uses. The Nationals were going to abandon that practice because it has not achieved a thing. It is rhetoric -- fluffy words that have no practical meaning or application in local government.
The minister claims that the government has reformed rate capping. There is no reformation of rate capping when people are seeing significant rises of 7 per cent, 8 per cent and 9 per cent in their rates every year, which is well above the consumer price index. What does the minister mean when she says the government is reforming rate capping? I do not think the government has anything to be proud of in respect of the direction in which local government rates are heading in the state of Victoria.
At the bottom of page 2 of the statement the minister talks about working as partners with local government to be more effective and to deliver better outcomes. I do not know of one council in my electorate that considers itself to be a partner with the state government, particularly when you look at examples like the rural planning reforms which have been mandatorily imposed. They do not believe they have had the say of a partner in any of this; it has been imposed upon them by the state government.
Page 3 of the ministerial statement talks about reforming institutional arrangements, building capacity and knowledge, working in partnership with local government to deliver better local outcomes and promoting and improving the profile of local government. I challenge the Labor Party to tell us how it has actually improved the profile of local government in Victoria. Again it is a bald statement that says nothing. Yes, the Constitution Act now mentions local government, but the government has not given local government equal status, as it claimed it would do before the election. That is what the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) wants to see done. Local government has been mentioned as a tier of government. How that improves the profile of local government has got me tossed.
On the same page the statement goes on to say that the Victorian community does not particularly care who delivers services. It wants good services delivered efficiently and effectively.
I agree with that sentiment, so it does, but how can that be done when local government is continually the subject of cost shifting by the state government. I admit there is also some cost shifting by local government and by the federal government, but predominantly that cost shifting has come from the Victorian state government.
To give the house an idea of the cost shifting, I refer to a report of the inquiry into local government and cost shifting by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration , known as the Hawker report. The Municipal Association of Victoria's submission to that inquiry estimated that cost shifting in Victoria to be $40 million per year in just three specific programs -- home and community care services, municipal libraries and maternal and child health. Who is responsible for municipal libraries? Who is responsible for maternal and child health and home and community care services?
Again, it is largely the state government, so $40 million per year in those three program areas alone is the result of cost shifting from the state government on to local governments. How can local governments participate in and deliver the services expected of them when we see the state government cost shifting $40 million per year to local government?
Interesting terminology has been used by the minister at the bottom of page 3 of this statement, which says:
Last year the government asked Professor Bill Russell to lead a review with two key aims ...
This is followed by two dot points, and the second dot point says:
To promote more joined-up planning between state and local government to deliver community outcomes.
What is joined-up planning? Perhaps one of the Labor Party members participating in this debate will explain to me what it all means.
On page 4 there are again some comments that have absolutely no meaning whatsoever. It says that the Bracks government -- and I might add that this is the only policy initiative outlined in this ministerial statement:
...will give councils, where appropriate, the flexibility to incorporate state strategic planning requirements into their strategic planning framework rather than in a separate plan.
Someone needs to tell me exactly what that means, because this document does not tell me a thing. It is just rhetoric again. It is just more of the flowery words this government trots out all the time. It does not mean a thing. The government makes these unsubstantiated statements without any explanation, without any meaning and without any point. If one of the government members would like to explain to the house what those words mean, I would be most grateful, because the minister certainly has not done so. As I said, it is the only new action planned, and the minister's own description of that particular course of action is a classic. This is what she said:
This reform in itself will not be a major conversation starter in the homes of Victorians over the next few weeks.
It will not be a major conversation starter because nobody knows what it means, or what it is going to do.
The minister herself is admitting that the only initiative she outlines in this ministerial statement will not even start conversations around the kitchen table in our homes. That is why I was angry at the start of my contribution to the debate today. I have relaxed a bit, and I just have to laugh because this ministerial statement is pathetic. I was angry because these things are thrown at us with no explanation. As Mr Gordon Rich-Phillips says, the minister still has not come back. Her absence is still noted. She stayed 15 minutes, and as soon as I started yelling at her she was gone. If the minister cannot stand the heat, she should get out of the kitchen! She is on her way.
Mr Somyurek -- She is the toughest you will find.
Hon. P. R. HALL -- 'The toughest you will find'? She has melted. I had finished two sentences of my speech, I raised my voice, and she put her tail between her legs and went home.
Mr Somyurek says she is the toughest of the lot -- I cannot believe it! I look forward to Mr Somyurek' contribution. Perhaps he will explain to me the one initiative the government has in this document.
I want to talk about the planning issue, because I am looking beyond the economic restrictions that are placed on local government and the economic matters it has to deal with. The second most pressing issue for local government is planning. The relationship between state government and local government with respect to planning is absolutely appalling. New rural planning schemes have been imposed upon local government, and metropolitan and outer metropolitan councils have had Melbourne 2030 imposed upon them. Each of those developments has brought on severe planning issues that need to be dealt with adequately, but that is not being done. The state government is not working well with local government on those issues. Why is the case?
We have tried to analyse the situation and have asked why state and local governments cannot work together on the planning matters. One reason is that during the 55th Parliament the Bracks government has already had three planning ministers: the Honourables Mary Delahunty, John Thwaites and Rob Hulls, all of the other place.
Ms Hadden -- Part time!
Hon. P. R. HALL -- As Ms Hadden says, each of them have been part time. Each of those ministers, except perhaps for Minister Delahunty, have had very significant other portfolios. How can the Honourable Rob Hulls do such an important job as planning properly while he has the responsibilities of Attorney-General and industrial relations? The same applies to Minister Thwaites, who is the Minister for Water and the Minister for Environment.
How could he have possibly applied himself appropriately to his responsibilities as planning minister?
There has been a lot of disruption to the planning portfolio. Because The Nationals believe that the planning and the local government portfolios are so intrinsically linked, I am going to give the house a scoop today and tell the house about another Nationals policy which has not been published on our web site. Good land use planning is critically important to rural and regional Victoria, and under The Nationals the Minister for Planning would also be the M for Local Government. T two portfolios and responsibilities are intrinsically linked and we believe the minister responsible for each of those portfolios requires a thorough understanding of the other. I do not think members would absolutely disagree with that.
Mr Mitchell has come in to listen to this important debate -- at last!
Hon. R. G. Mitchell -- I have been here for 20 minutes asleep listening to your drivel.
Hon. P. R. HALL -- Yes, asleep -- and out of your place. We look forward to Mr Mitchell's participation in the debate too. Planning is critical to local government and one of the reasons it has been absolutely stuffed up by this government is that its planning ministers have been part time and have not had the knowledge required.
Mr Somyurek -- So where's the scoop?
Hon. P. R. HALL -- The scoop is this policy decision, which I am just announcing now. It is a most sensible policy decision that Mr Somyurek would be well advised to adopt, because planning and local government go hand in hand.
We in The Nationals are strongly of the view that there needs to be a synergy between the ministers responsible for the local government and planning portfolios if the important planning responsibilities are to be carried out effectively throughout Victoria. There is a lot of comment throughout the ministerial statement with on the problems of planning. We agree there are severe problems with planning. A mighty good start would be to combine the functions of the Minister for Local Government with those of the Minister for Planning.
As I have only 3 minutes left I want to talk about a comment made by the minister at page 6 of this flimsy nine-page document:
Victoria will continue to push the commonwealth to increase financial assistance grants and give local government its fair share of Australia's economic growth.
I reckon that is hypocrisy at its best. I have already spoken about cost shifting, but there is a recommendation in this document that the state government should try to facilitate the additional grants to local government that it deserves -- and the state government did say that local government deserved the grants. All the government is saying is, 'We are going to encourage the federal government to give local government more direct money, but we are not going to give it a cent'.
In our local government policy we in The Nationals say we believe local government should be the direct recipient of a given amount of the GST revenues that comes to the state.
In the first instance we have said that 1 per cent of GST revenues -- these are additional funds -- should be given directly to local government. That would amount to an immediate increase of about $80 million to local government across the state. We also believe that over time -- we are looking at a reasonably short period of time; three, four or perhaps as much as but not more than five years -- that 1 per cent should grow to 3 per cent. With 3 per cent you would be looking at the order of almost $300 million extra going to local government. If members look at the table prepared by Mr Vogels they will see that the collective amount of grants in 2006-07 is $548 million. If an extra $300 million is added to that from The Nationals proposal you are looking at an almost 50 per cent increase in grant money going directly to local government. We say that is fair. Local government deserves that.
If the minister is saying here that local government is pressed for cash then it needs some better financial assistance, and I say to the state government that it should put some actions behind its rhetoric here and do something about it by directing to local government that 1 per cent of GST revenues, building over time to 3 per cent. T people of Victoria would then perhaps be spared the huge rate increases they are having to meet at the moment.
There are lots of other issues I could comment on that are raised in the document. It is appalling that the Minister for Local Government has come into this chamber and thrown at the house a document that does her and the government no credit whatsoever. It is an absolute embarrassment. When councillors throughout the state read this ministerial statement, which no doubt will be sent to them, they will be equally appalled at the arrogant disregard the Bracks government is showing for local government.
Ms ROMANES (Melbourne) -- I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the take-note motion in respect of the ministerial statement made by the Minister for Local Government, which is contained in the document entitled Recognition, Reform and Partnership -- Governments Working Together for Stronger Communities and Better Services.
I congratulate the Minister for Local Government on her statement, which captures the essence of the Bracks government's approach to local government. It is timely that 10 years on since the restoration of local democracy in Victoria the minister report on the progress in reforms and relationships between the state government and local government in Victoria. The Bracks Labor government has recognised local government as an important separate tier of government -- an important plank of its policy in this sector.
It is clear that local government is an absolutely essential partner with the state and federal governments in building fair and prosperous communities in Victoria and also in building strong communities that care for each other in a range of ways.
I take exception to Mr Hall's dismissal of the statement that it is rhetoric and fluffy words, because relationships are fundamentally important. To get the relationship right between the different levels of government is critically important in implementing programs and moving forward on behalf of the people of this state and of Australia. It is worth remembering that it was the Kennett government that botched its relationship with local government and local communities, which contributed to its downfall in 1999.
It is worth remembering that it was three grassroots movements that developed in response to the Kennett economic rationalism policies and cuts to services and programs and privatisation, and general contempt for community consultation, that contributed to this downfall. I am referring in this instance to the Purple Sage Project, a Victorian Women's Trust initiative, which saw thousands of women across Victoria meeting to talk about the sorts of communities they wanted to see in our state. The People Together Project took up important public issues, such as the major inquiry into public education, which was under attack by the Kennett government, and the Victorian Local Governance Association, which was formed during the Kennett years and has now become a peak local government organisation.
The VLGA ran an effective campaign to restore local democracy because many people were affronted that local democracy had been taken away during the amalgamation process.
The key plank of VLGA's campaign was not in opposition to amalgamation but in opposition to the way the Kennett government had failed to involve local government and communities in that process and how local government had been treated in a dismissive and contemptuous way by the former Kennett government.
The VLGA also was formed in response to the imposition of programs such as compulsory competitive tendering (CCT), that bizarre competitive regime imposed on Victorian councils by the former Kennett government, which introduced an ineffective approach in terms of purchaser/provider splits where one section of a council could not talk to another so could not learn lessons from activities in the field. It was a negative and destructive period, especially for smaller councils throughout Victoria.
Mr Hall mentioned The Nationals policy of combining a Minister for Local Government and a Minister for Planning.
That is exactly what we had under the former Kennett government when the minister, Robert Maclellan, held those two positions. There were numerous instances where it was perceived that to have one minister holding those two portfolios was a conflict of interest. We would not want to see a return to that situation.
When the Bracks government was elected in 1999 it introduced the best-value program as a different approach to compulsive competitive tendering for the allocation of resources at a local government level and resources for the delivery of services and projects. I recall the long discussion in this chamber at the time that the legislation for that initiative was introduced. There was a scornful opposition that at that stage was still deluded and thought the Victorian public had made a 'mistake' by electing the Bracks government. There was a lot of scepticism about that approach.
Under the best-value approach efficiency and accountability were still important factors to be taken into account in the allocation of resources, but a range of other factors could also be taken into account, not just the bottom line, the dollars that drove the compulsory competitive tendering process.
I am aware that best value has been an important initiative at the local government level, one which has introduced benchmarking of standards and outcomes and has been taken up enthusiastically by local government across the state. Rather than it being something to be scorned, as the opposition scorned it in the debate in this chamber at that time it was introduced, it has proved to be an outstanding example of how cooperation, collaboration and a partnership approach can work.
The minister's statement outlines a range of reforms that have been achieved by the Bracks Labor government in the local government sector across Victoria, and these include: in planning, the devolution of responsibilities to local government; an enhanced electoral system to strengthen local democracy; greater accountability, with good governance being valued and nurtured in various ways; the strong commitment through A Fairer Victoria to community building and the allocation of resources in a whole range of ways to support that, such as the 19 community building initiatives which flow through to 102 small towns across the state; extra support for neighbourhood houses; funding for small towns through the Small Towns Development Fund; flexible transport solutions that are being rolled out in collaboration with local government and community organisations across municipalities throughout Victoria; collaboration over environmental strategies and management; extra support for sport and recreation facilities; and a whole range of other initiatives.
I want to draw particular attention to the reforms and initiatives outlined at the bottom of page 4 of the ministerial statement.
The ministerial statement outlines the regional management forums that have been established in each of Victoria's eight administrative regions. It also outlines that each forum includes a state department secretary assigned as a regional champion. Members comprise chief executive officers of local government, regional managers of state government agencies, representatives of the Victoria Police, and in some cases key statutory bodies. It talks about how these forums bring state and local government together to identify their region's most pressing issues and to provide new and collaborative solutions to them.
As well it outlines other regular meetings on a regional basis, such as the regional cities group of Ballarat, Bendigo, Geelong, Latrobe, Shepparton, Wangaratta, Warrnambool, Wodonga, Horsham and Mildura which meets regularly with the Premier, the Minister for State and Regional Development and the Minister for Local Government, as well as with peak local government bodies and councils. Further to that it is the government's intention to establish a small towns Victoria group to give voice to smaller rural councils.
Mr Hall might want to dismiss these things as fluffy, but in my view those sorts of initiatives to bring key organisations and people together at the state and local government levels are incredibly important.
Ms Hadden -- What's the delivery on the ground?
Ms ROMANES -- I do not think we can underestimate the impact of such a collaborative approach which aims to identify the key issues and problems that local governments are facing out there in the regions, and, Ms Hadden, to deliver and take the appropriate action to address those problems and issues.
Just before concluding I wish to make some remarks on Mr Hall's comments about rising rates in councils. It takes me right back to the year 2000 when I went to a Centre for Public Policy forum at Melbourne University in the early years of the Bracks government and heard Mr Hall's leader, Mr Peter Ryan, actually confess to having made a mistake in reducing rates during the Kennett period. As the house may recall, it was compulsory for councils to reduce their rates by at least 17 per cent, and some even 'generously' reduced them by 30 per cent. Mr Ryan was reflecting on the fact that this was a difficulty for many rural councils in particular who no longer had the resources to tackle some of the significant infrastructure challenges they faced.
I think we are still suffering; councils are still catching up from those times when they were forced to reduce rates to unsustainable levels.
I would like to conclude by again congratulating the minister on the statement and on all the achievements at the local government level over the years, and for putting in place those relationships which have enabled the many different reforms and changes to happen for the better in local government in Victoria.
Ms HADDEN (Ballarat) -- I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the ministerial statement given earlier by the Minister for Local Government, Ms Broad. I must say I feel somewhat sorry for the minister, who is not in the house now. When she finished delivering her ministerial statement she left the house. I think the reason probably comes down to the fact she is somewhat embarrassed, because I expected more from this minister.
She is probably one of the better performing ministers in the Bracks Labor government and it is a shame she has been forced to read out this fluffy feel-good statement, which does not have any of the real substance I would expect to find in a ministerial statement from the Minister for Local Government.
The heading of the statement is 'Recognition, reform and partnership -- governments working together for stronger communities and better services'. There is nothing wrong with that -- I agree with that. But working together for stronger communities and better services requires the handing over of money through the state budget to enable local government to perform. I know that in my electorate of Ballarat Province the local government areas are bleeding. They simply do not have the rate revenue base to deliver the services that are required and expected -- properly so -- by the residents and ratepayers.
At the moment all the properties have been revalued and they have all gone up substantially -- and the rate notices are hitting each household. The rate increases are much more than the councils stated they would be a few months ago. The Ballarat City Council's rate rise is 7.5 per cent; the Macedon Ranges Shire Council's is just 10 per cent; the Hepburn Shire Council's is 8.4 per cent; and Golden Plains Shire Council's is a similar amount. These are massive rate rises when you are getting properties revalued and substantially increased. The rates across the Hepburn shire, for example, have increased 100 per cent in the last three years. That is manageable to some extent by property owners who have a high income and who can absorb that massive rate rise, but for those many, many residents across Hepburn shire who are on fixed incomes and pensions, that type of rate rise is impossible for them to meet. It means they have to cut back on the food they put on the table and reduce their other normal living expenses. That is not good enough.
In the May budget the local government portfolio received what I consider a very small amount compared with the other portfolios. It is a portfolio that should be given much higher priority by the Treasurer, John Brumby. On page 4 the ministerial statement says:
This reform in itself --
I do not know what reform she is talking about because I have not worked it out yet from my reading of this statement whilst I have been in the chamber for the last hour --
will not be a major conversation starter in the homes of Victorians over the next few weeks.
I agree with her on that; it certainly has not been a major conversation starter in this chamber. That is evidenced by the lack of interest by the Labor government members. We have a handful of them in the chamber at the moment. A quorum had to be called for by Mr Hall earlier because there were about two or three government backbenchers present. That is appalling and shows an absolute, total disrespect for the Minister for Local Government. She should have every one of the Labor government backbench members in this chamber, eagerly listening to her ministerial statement and eagerly wanting to speak to it. But look at them! It is either -- --
Hon. B. N. Atkinson -- She's got to earn it -- you can't dragoon them.
Ms HADDEN -- Labor members are disinterested. I know one is asleep; he has been asleep for some time -- since he waltzed into the chamber. Another one fell asleep earlier and was woken by the quorum bells. But the issue is that not only should the Labor government backbenchers be here to listen to the ministerial statement and the responses, but they should be eager to make a response themselves to support their own minister. I really feel sorry for Minister Broad because I think they have been absolutely disrespectful to her and they owe her a apology.
Accountability and transparency are spoken about in this ministerial statement and of course they are spoken about in one of the pillars of the Local Government Act. But many of the local governments across the state fail dismally in those areas. I am firmly of the belief that councillors need to be trained.
In fact, I would like them to have a certificate for being a councillor, because I do not think many of them understand their huge responsibilities under the Local Government Act. There is very little there to assist them in understanding the legal and other ramifications of carrying out their onerous duties as councillors within the boundaries of that act.
If the minister is serious about accountability and transparency, as she said in her ministerial statement, then there needs to be a lot more done about ensuring that those two very serious things happen. Councillors need to be trained so that they know their responsibilities and deal with them. I know that some months ago the Municipal Association of Victoria and the Victorian Local Government Association put forward a request that councillors be trained, and I concur with that request, which I think is reasonable and timely.
There are many issues across local government areas.
As I said, the rate rises are hurting, we have some big planning issues, and in relation to planners there is literally no skill base -- they are as scarce as hen's teeth. This issue was taken to the former planning minister in the other place, Mary Delahunty, and there were suggestions about having a panel of planners who could be called on by local government, but this has not been put into place by the Bracks Labor government. Neighbourhood houses are underfunded. The councils sought $84 million to $85 million from the state budget. What did they get? Only $23 million. It was nowhere near enough to service and maintain the very important neighbourhood houses, which play a significant role, especially in rural and regional communities.
Library funding was cut in the May budget. Rural municipalities in my electorate of Ballarat Province -- namely, the Moorabool and Hepburn shires -- lost their mobile library services, which has had a huge impact on the disabled and others who do not have public transport.
There is no public transport in many of those areas, and mobile libraries have been their only access to the social, educational and learning opportunities provided by libraries.
The management of reserved Crown land is absolutely vital, but it is not properly funded. Councils flounder on this issue, especially the Hepburn Shire Council. It has literally no idea of how to manage reserved Crown land. In fact the members of the committee of management, which under the Crown Lands (Reserves) Act is the Hepburn Shire Council, has not even met as a committee since it was elected last November to undertake its legal requirement to manage the Hepburn Mineral Springs Reserve.
These are the issues that the ministerial statement has not addressed. There are other issues involving cost-shifting, and it is absolutely vital that this cease.
This graph, which was very kindly prepared by the Honourable John Vogels -- I thank him for it -- spells out very clearly just how little the state government gives to local government. In the 2006-07 financial year on my calculations the state government will provide a little less than 40 per cent of the total payments made to local government. The state government will provide $155 million, compared to the federal government's $393 million. The state government is shirking its responsibilities in properly financing local government. We have to understand that people living in the local government area pay both taxes to the state government and rates to their local government. They are entitled to expect decent and proper services for their dollar.
Other issues concern roads and bridges. Rural and regional Victoria's roads and bridges are in dire trouble, and there is no money in the local government budget. For example, the Hepburn shire's budget is about $30 million, and it has something like 56 bridges which need major repairs.
On page 4 of the ministerial statement the minister refers to regular meetings between regional city groups, such as the one from Ballarat, and the Premier, the Minister for State and Regional Development in the other place, John Brumby, and the Minister for Local Government herself. Unfortunately they are very exclusive meetings; the general community is not able to feed into those meetings so they can be meaningful. I do not see the purpose in the Ballarat regional city group, for example, swanning down here at the expense of ratepayers and taxpayers expense to meet with the Premier. It is a load of nonsense, because I am yet to see any real difference, real input or real change to Ballarat as a result of those meetings. The minister's suggestion on page 5 of the statement about establishing the Small Towns Victoria Group may be a good thing if it is truly representative of small towns. I have received many calls from across the community in my electorate of Ballarat Province asking for local consultative committees to be elected from within the community to listen to the community, take on the issues and get action by the elected council. That is what is needed, especially in Ballarat, Hepburn, Moorabool and Golden Plains, just to give some examples.
I have dealt with the financial aspect and how the state government's contribution to local government is a little less than 40 per cent of the total payments made to local government.
With the GST revenue coming back from the federal government to Victoria -- it is in the order of $8.5 million, an increase of 6 per cent from last year -- the state Treasury is swimming with money, and it ought to be a heck of a lot more generous towards local government.
There are many issues in the ministerial statement. It is an embarrassing statement. It is a lightweight document. It has a lot of fluffy words and no substance, or if there is some substance -- --
Hon. P. R. Hall interjected.
Ms HADDEN -- There is no support from the backbench. We now have only three Labor backbenchers and one minister here. I thank the Minister for Aged Care, Mr Jennings, for sitting here and listening to me. He is fully aware from his early life of what it is like to live in country Victoria.
Hon. P. R. Hall interjected.
Ms HADDEN -- We have another hour to go, but there are no government speakers left. There are none in the chamber; they are not interested in earning their dollar as the community expects. The community expects that while it pays our salaries we actually sit in this chamber and contribute to the debates on bills and motions in this chamber and not swan around the Parliament and do whatever else some members do outside on the back balcony.
Local government should have equal status with the state government, but not at the risk of losing its autonomy and its necessary funding. Planning issues are a nightmare across the state. The Hepburn, Ballarat and Macedon Ranges shires are just some examples. The forcing of this nonsensical Melbourne 2030 garbage onto country communities is going to be fought. My communities are going to fight that head on.
In relation to planning ministers, we have had three in the term of the Bracks government, and they have all been part-time ministers. I have always maintained and continue to maintain that the Attorney-General in the other place, who is also the Minister for Planning, has a very clear conflict of interest. Mr Hulls should understand that. I know he does not have a law degree from Monash University like I do, but he has plenty of advisers who could tell him that there is a big conflict of interest between those two roles. He should not be the planning minister; he should hand it over. I suggest he should hand it over to Minister Broad, because I think she could actually handle that portfolio extremely well, certainly better than the current part-time minister who has three portfolios on his desk.
I also call on the Premier to cease immediately his spending of $80 million-odd on his self-advertising across the state.
He is embarrassing himself on television when he tells us what a good bloke he is when communities are bleeding and are not able to put food on the table. If he is really serious about improving country Victoria, I ask him to immediately redirect that $80 million-odd straight into local government so country Victoria can be a great place to live, work and raise a family, because, quite frankly, at the moment it is not. People are doing it hard. They are relying more and more on welfare and are coming to their local member of Parliament. They are coming to me, as their Independent member of Parliament, to ask for monetary handouts because they are not able to survive.
Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) -- It is just as well that the Minister for Local Government made this statement in the Legislative Council today, because had she tried to deliver this same statement in front of a local government audience at the Municipal Association of Victoria or the Victorian Local Government Association, she would have been laughed, or indeed howled, out of the room. The reality is that the rhetoric and spin, the public relations of this document simply do not reflect the experience of the relationship local government has had with this government over the past seven years.
Local governments are constantly saying to all members of the opposition, and I have no doubt to members of the government as well, that the relationship between the state government and local governments has deteriorated and the funding position between the two levels of government has deteriorated substantially.
It is fascinating to note the funding levels. This document simply contains spin. It tries to underpin some notion that in fact local government is better off financially thanks to the money allocated by state government in the current year's budget. It is fascinating to have a look at that because the last time the same amount of money was going to local government was in 2002 -- four years ago. What is interesting about that date and this year's budget, and the allocations that were made in both of those years? The fact that they are both election years. In the years before 2002 and in the years subsequent to 2002 and before this latest budget, the state contribution to local government fell markedly.
The nodding clowns on the government backbench can agree with what the minister says by saying, 'That is wonderful, that is terrific, the minister is doing a great job, this Labor government is fabulous', but the reality is that local governments cannot have the wool pulled over their eyes; they are not that stupid. They have the same sorts of charts, if not better. They know the real circumstances of the funding and the commitment of this government to local government and the communities it represents. It is a sham. The financial position of local government has deteriorated under this government. If it was not for increased contributions from the federal government -- a federal government much maligned here by members of the state government -- even in this current year, then local government would have fallen markedly behind in terms of the amount of money that it had available to deliver the range of services that it does to its communities.
It sticks in my craw when a minister claims, as the minister has in this particular statement, that there is some achievement in terms of elections and democracy delivered to the local government sector under this government. I have never known so many rorts in local government elections as I have seen under this government. Nor have I seen a minister who is so unprepared to pursue those rorts in the interests of democracy and fairness for those communities, and good governance in those communities.
I need look no further than my own municipality of Whitehorse, one of the areas that I represent in Koonung Province. I look at ministerial adviser, George Droutsas, and his conduct in running multiple candidates, not just in Whitehorse, but in other elections including elections for the Melbourne City Council. I noticed he was in here today because he is now a Labor Party campaign organiser for the state election campaign.
This man ran multiple candidates to corrupt the election process to ensure that under a postal voting system voters were duped and had no idea who they were voting for. It delivered a great result for the Labor Party in the city of Whitehorse but it delivered a dreadful result for the community. Yet we still have that council acting as apologists for the government, given that seven of the nine are members of the Labor Party. One keeps chopping and changing a fair bit; he has been in every party except the Liberal Party -- that is a fellow called Peter Allan. The house might be interested to know he is currently a member of the Greens. But seven of the nine councillors at Whitehorse are Labor councillors; they are great apologists for the government.
Last week the government announced $500 000 for a netball centre in Vermont South. That is something to celebrate, except Mr Droutsas had promised the community that the state government's contribution would be $2.5 million, so in fact the boast that was made of the $500 000 commitment means that that community -- the netball community and the broader community in Whitehorse -- has actually been short-changed. I guess the government figured it could get just as good a press release and photo opportunity with $500 000 and that it could pocket the other $2 million and save it. Besides, there was no point in pursuing Mr Droutsas's promise to the electorate because Mr Droutsas is now damaged goods. He is no longer a viable candidate for the Labor Party in the eastern suburbs so it could afford to abandon that promise and abandon that local community.
When we look at some of the relationships between the state government and local government we need look no further than planning.
This government says that it encourages local government to be autonomous and to pursue the responsibilities that it is charged with under its legislation, but that is only when it is convenient to this government, because when it is inconvenient, this government pursues policies that inhibit the ability of local governments to become involved in the governance of their areas.
As an example we need look no further than the 2030 policy which delivered a proposal for a 17-storey residential building in Mitcham. You could say that was a one-off, except that there are similar proposals in Caulfield and Camberwell. This could happen right throughout the metropolitan area because the planning system that has been delivered by this government and imposed upon local government -- not in any collaborative way, as this document tries to suggest in its rhetoric -- means that communities are now faced with developments that are totally inappropriate to the character of their areas and the needs of their local communities.
This government has tied up local government in red tape. It has conducted some great publicity exercises saying that it is going to cut red tape in local government, but when I talk to small businesses in my constituency, as it relates to the small business shadow ministry, there is absolutely no improvement in terms of planning approvals coming from local government. The reality is that planning has ground to halt in many local government authorities, in part because of the complexity of changes brought by this government and this government's insistence that it should be involved in so much more of the decision making. Recently the urban growth boundary legislation was passed through this house. It will add another layer and will take away much of the autonomy of councils in some of the fast-growing growth corridors.
We have seen the cost shifting.
Indeed, a number of the councils in my area have written to me about their concerns about not just the general trend in cost shifting to local government but also the fact that that has been exacerbated by Victorian Grants Commission changes which have reallocated funds available to local government to favour some of the developing municipalities at the expense of some of the more mature municipalities. I have argued that case with them because I believe that there is some merit in that proposal and that sort of prioritisation of funding. I do not consider that any area of government ought to be expecting a continuation of funds ad infinitum and that taxpayers will continue to fund projects that ought not be a substantial priority of the community as a whole. The reality is that that cost shifting combined with the grants commission changes has caused significant concerns and has contributed to increased rates in a number of municipalities, certainly those in the band that I represent, in Monash, Knox, and Whitehorse, and in neighbouring municipalities such as Maroondah and Manningham.
This government talks about its collaboration and activity with local government and yet it ignores the sewerage backlog. It talks a lot about its environmental credentials and yet as I understand it we have more than the 25 000 homes in the metropolitan area that still are not sewered. Many of those are in the area that I represent, in the east and north-east of Melbourne and many are in the catchment of the Yarra River and are contributing to water quality in the Yarra River, its tributaries and streams and ultimately the bays. Those matters ought to have been addressed collaboratively between local government and state government and yet there does not seem to have any great desire to do that.
Again, the state government talks about how highly it rates public transport and about its public transport programs. Yet I find that both the cities of Knox and Whitehorse have had to fund feasibility studies on major transport projects that ought to have been investigated by the state government.
One of those was on the potential railway line to Rowville, to which the state government has absolutely no commitment. The other was on the possible undergrounding of the Belgrave-Lilydale railway line that would eliminate level crossings along that line and improve both traffic congestion and, more importantly, public transport for the eastern suburbs. As I said, both those feasibility studies on important, landmark projects that would have delivered real benefits in public transport had to be funded by local government authorities because the state government was not interested in doing so. I note that now a number of councils in the eastern suburbs have joined together in a transport group to try to get some greater government attention to public transport needs in the eastern suburbs. There has been no collaboration. They have had to form a lobby group to try to press for some improvement.
I also note that the resources allocated by the state government to services and facilities such as school crossing supervisors and libraries are going backwards. The budget papers show that the total budget for those services and facilities has increased marginally but the reality is that it is being spread thinner and thinner because new services are being funded by the growth in the budget allocation and it simply has not kept pace with the needs of those communities for services and facilities such as school crossing supervisors and libraries. Therefore they have become part of that cost-shifting picture that those in local government lament.
Can I also suggest that for sports facilities much of the government's policy seems to be amiss and again seems to be more targeted at trying to get great press releases and happy snaps of ministers rather than to measure up to the needs of the community.
Indeed, in my 90-second statement this morning I discussed community expectations about swimming pool facilities in their local areas. There is no doubt that there is a mismatch between some of those community expectations and what the government's policies are trying to deliver.
On the road network, certainly the government is falling behind in its support of local government in maintaining the existing road network in good repair. I am aware of the needs of particularly many of the country and regional municipalities in regard to roads and bridges because they have been overlooked and short-changed by this state government. The people in country areas, whom this government likes to pretend it represents and supports, are in fact losing out in some of their basic infrastructure, such as roads and bridges right throughout Victoria. Certainly in the metropolitan area issues of concern including not just congestion but also road safety have been overlooked and missed by the government in funding priorities. The mismatch again between state government priorities and those determined by local governments after consultation with their communities and having a broad understanding of their local areas and transport patterns seems to be a matter of major concern.
This statement is pure rhetoric and spin. It achieves absolutely nothing. There is not a single new initiative in this statement, which members would think there would be if the minister takes the time of the house to introduce it.
It is simply does not in any way justify some of the statements and idle boasts that have been made by this government about its partnership with local government. This partnership is very strained and this government will pay a high price for ignoring the needs of local government and the communities it serves.
Motion agreed to.