Book 8 - Parliament of Victoria

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Wednesday, 1 June 2011 COUNCIL 1619
crossings. Some can be done at a lower cost than
others.
I again note that level crossings have been flagged for
removal in the western suburbs, and there is one in
particular that I am aware of that has been publicly
listed to be examined for removal. There are others
which can be done at a lower cost. Of course any level
crossing with trains moving over roads is an issue that
we are aware of and will be doing our best to address.
Planning: Officer
Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) — My
question is to the Minister for Planning. Can the
minister advise the house of what action the Baillieu
government has taken to save small businesses in the
township of Officer and provide certainty for the future
of that town?
Hon. M. J. GUY (Minister for Planning) — I thank
Mr O’Donohue for asking me a very important
question about the Officer township and the future of
the township of Officer, which is in one of those
fast-growing areas of Melbourne and is the subject of
considerable built-form change. As you would know,
President, the Officer township is nearly 50 kilometres
out of Melbourne and is an area going through
substantial change. It has an old town centre and a
number of small business areas. It has a number of
older buildings, and indeed has a charm of its own.
Before the change of government there was a precinct
structure plan in place which flagged a large connecting
road from the freeway to the Princes Highway. The
building of that connecting road in the location that was
flagged would have seen the destruction of a number of
small businesses in the township, huge pressures placed
on neighbouring schools and the possible removal of a
very old local community hall. I was alerted to this
issue by Mr O’Donohue, by Mr Smith, the member for
Bass in the other house, and Mr Battin, who was then
the Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Gembrook in
the Assembly.
We had a town meeting and spoke to a number of
people who raised their concerns about achieving
change in a town without any option other than what
was being put forward at the time — that is, an
interconnecting road that would demolish the old town
and destroy a number of small businesses. This side of
the house values the contribution of small business to
our economy. This side of the house values the
importance of maintaining a town’s character at the
same time as allowing urban change to occur. This side
of the house made a very clear commitment that, should
we attain office in late November, we would ensure that
any structure plan that was to be approved would not be
at the expense of the township of Officer — of Van
Steensel timber merchants, of Rawson motor
mechanics and of other businesses like those that have
been in Officer for some four decades and employ local
people. We said we would get on with the job and
allow urban change to occur, but not at the expense of
that town.
I can inform the chamber, thanks to the work of
Mr Battin, Mr Smith and Mr O’Donohue, the precinct
structure plan that is approved — and I have made sure
it is approved — will see a different route put in place
to ensure the survival of the Officer town centre as it
exists today. The town centre will allow growth in the
new part of Officer township to the south of the
railway. We will allow for a new civic centre and a new
civic precinct. We will allow all those areas to be
developed.
Mr Lenders interjected.
Hon. M. J. GUY — Well, well, well, President! I
hear the former Gippsland boy constantly interjecting.
What is interesting is: where was the former
Treasurer — the former West Gippsland boy,
Mr Lenders — when Officer was about to be dug up by
former planning minister, Justin Madden? Where was
he? What did he do to stop this happening? Where was
he? Where was Mr Scheffer? Maybe he got out his
VicRoads directory to go down there. Where was
Mr Viney? Trying to find where Officer was in the
Melway. At the time they were looking at the map we
were down there talking to locals, and in government
we have ensured the survival of the old town while also
allowing change to occur.
Holmesglen: financial agreement
Mr LENDERS (Southern Metropolitan) — My
question is to the Minister for Higher Education and
Skills, Mr Hall. The minister would be aware that under
the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 a TAFE
board must:
… keep full and complete books and accounts of all money
received and paid by the board and must arrange for a
continuous audit of the income and expenditure to be made at
any intervals not exceeding one month that the Minister
directs.
Can the minister confirm whether he has directed
Holmesglen TAFE to provide him with the details of
the secret financial agreement between Holmesglen
TAFE, Carrick international and Kaplan Australia that
was announced this week?