Book 8 - Parliament of Victoria

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT BILL 2011
Thursday, 2 June 2011 COUNCIL 1709
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! We were
doing really well for a long while. That is enough.
Mr P. DAVIS — The interjection infers that the
government is not making itself available for scrutiny.
What does Mr Somyurek think this process is? We are
in the committee. The issue is that — —
Mr Somyurek interjected.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order!
Mr Somyurek! I will give Mr Somyurek the call to
respond to anything that Mr Davis says he objects to if
he wishes. All he needs to do at the conclusion of
Mr Davis’s remarks is get my attention.
Mr P. DAVIS — Mr Somyurek and Ms Pulford are
seeking information from this minister about legislation
which their government amended in 2008. It seems to
me that if those members of the previous government
were not well informed when they supported the
legislation in 2008, about which now they are asking
questions, then they should explain themselves to the
house.
It seems to me that the changes that were implemented
in 2008 were interfered with by the previous
government, because those changes have caused
problems for rural municipalities. We are now trying to
fix those problems because those changes have had a
disastrous impact on and caused a mess for those
municipalities that had arrangements in place for local
holidays to reflect the needs of their iconic events —
whether it was a race meeting or an agricultural show.
We are now seeing members of the previous
government asking questions about matters that relate
to their responsibility — changes that occurred on their
watch when they were responsible for administering the
foregoing legislation.
This bill deals with a narrow and specific set of
changes. Those changes, as the minister has clearly laid
out, are about the opportunity for individual
municipalities to make a choice as to whether or not to
substitute the Melbourne Cup Day holiday with other
days — a day or half-days — and how those days will
be applicable in different parts of the municipality. It
provides discretion for the council in consultation with
the local communities. To suggest that there is a
capacity for the minister at the table to provide
information about which shires are likely to take what
decision at this point is a fallacious argument.
The bottom line here is that we have had the
second-reading debate, and the prosecution in the
committee stage should be restricted to an
understanding the mechanics of the bill. Opposition
members are trying to construct some rhetorical debate
about something they messed up in 2008 which they
cannot quite adjust to. My view is that the minister is
providing information as diligently as he can in
response to their requests, which frankly are arcane.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! I do not
need Mr Davis’s advice about how to manage the
debate. We are on clause 1, which outlines the purpose
of the bill. A wide range of issues can be raised, and
they have all been in order.
Mr SOMYUREK (South Eastern Metropolitan) —
That bit of synthetic indignation from Mr Philip Davis
has me totally bemused. Where did that come from?
Mr P. Davis — From the heart.
Mr SOMYUREK — It did not come from your
heart, Mr Davis, because if it did, I know you would do
better than that. How dare you question our right to
scrutinise your legislation? How dare you question our
right to hold you accountable? How dare you?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Through
the Chair, Mr Somyurek.
Mr SOMYUREK — Through the Chair, of
course. In terms of 2007–08, Mr Philip Davis referred
to the period before 2008, and the minister referred to
a period before 2008, so I merely asked a question
about that. My information is that 23 out of the
48 non-metropolitan councils did not invoke a public
holiday in lieu of Melbourne Cup Day in 2007. That is
just under 50 per cent of rural and regional Victorians
who did not get a public holiday — —
Mr P. Davis — That is irrelevant.
Mr SOMYUREK — It is relevant. All I have done
is ask a question. Why should I be subjected to that
diatribe because I asked a question? It was synthetic
indignation. I am totally bemused as to why he did that.
I am sure it was not to rescue Mr Dalla-Riva, because I
know Mr Dalla-Riva does not need rescuing.
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria) — I take the
opportunity to again ask my question about the
government’s expectation of how the half-day shire
arrangements, which are a key feature of this
legislation, will work. This is my final question on
clause 1, and I am not interested in having a lot of MPs
spend their Thursday afternoon in this place caught up
in some rhetorical flourish-type exercise.
My question was simply about the government’s
expectation about the likely take-up of the half-day