24 May 2011
Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — I am pleased to join this debate because the bill will reverse the absolutely pointless and totally out‑of‑touch decision of the former government to force local councils to nominate just one public holiday per municipality in lieu of Melbourne Cup Day.
That out‑of‑touch characterisation is particularly relevant given the sorts of contributions we have been hearing in this debate. It has become a debate about whether local councils can be trusted to reflect the views of their communities. There seems to be a suggestion being put around that councils cannot be trusted and that other groups are better informed about the aspirations of local communities. That is a proposition I unequivocally reject.
The opportunity to nominate an alternative to the Melbourne Cup Day holiday had been a longstanding right of local government, and it was a right that was ripped away by the Brumby government. Certainly in my early days in Mornington Melbourne Cup Day was not observed but Mornington Cup Day was. Given that we were then well and truly out of the metropolitan area it was a important day for the community. Clearly the nature of that community has changed, as has the nature of Mornington Cup Day, and that observation no longer applies. That was a decision that was made by the council at the time and that the community went along with even though Mornington is only 60 kilometres or thereabouts from Melbourne.
Councils have traditionally had the right to nominate not only a substitute day but also the alternative of having two half‑days of their choice. The point about having half‑day holidays is important because it is a fact that many local events that are traditionally the types of events that benefit from having a public holiday are only half‑day events. Many country race meetings or other events that benefit from having a public holiday are effectively half‑day events. It is an important option to have in the armoury.
It might also be the case that two half‑day events feature on a local calendar. There might be a race day and a show day. There might be two important half‑day events, but under the current system communities are forced to choose one public holiday for the entire municipality.
The amendments that were passed in 2008 forced that situation so that the public holiday applied across the municipality regardless of whether the holiday was relevant to the entire municipal district or not. In many cases the holiday was not relevant to the entire municipal district, and there may well have been an option that was far more relevant for part of the municipality.
Whether the public holiday is for a race day, a show day or whatever, it needs to be relevant to the community. The current rules simply do not allow for that. Forcing people to choose just one event meant in effect that many took the default position — as the member for Clayton and certainly others have said — which was to have Melbourne Cup Day. If you did not choose, you got Melbourne Cup Day, and many councils took the default position.
The decision to rip away these long‑established rights clearly demonstrated how out of touch the former government was. During the passage of the amending legislation in 2008 the Weekly Times got it right: it noted that many country race days and shows would face a slow and painful death.
Unfortunately, that assertion proved correct. It was a classic example of Labor’s absolute failure to appreciate the damage that some of its policies would do to rural communities across the state.
If members who were here at the time think back to the debates on that legislation in this place, or look to Hansard to see the debates in the other place, it will be clear there was no idea what the impact of that legislation would be — the effect the edict from Spring Street would have on the lives of so many ordinary Victorians. It even had an impact on schoolkids. It prevented them from attending and participating in many local shows simply because the council had lost the ability to continue local arrangements that suited the local community.
There was a series of letters of complaint from Rupanyup Primary School to the former minister. They confirmed for the minister, if he was in any doubt — although I am sure he was not — that the local show day was far more important to them than Melbourne Cup Day. Why would it not be? The local show day is about the local community. It is not about a horse race — albeit a very important and world‑famous horse race — in another place. It is about the local community; it should be a decision for the local community, not for ministers and particularly not for ministers as out of touch as were those who served under Premiers Bracks and Brumby.
Once again, even though we have this pretence of saying, ‘We are not sure whether we are going to oppose it or not’ from the opposition, we are seeing the Labor Party keen to put the interests of its mates before the interests of the community.
The shadow minister was at it again, putting the interests of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association ahead of those of Victorian communities. It was interesting that he did not even come up with his own quote to characterise the legislation; he had to knock off a quote from the letter from the SDA that I am sure every member has received. Then we heard the member for Yuroke criticising the capacity of councils to make decisions — doubting their capacity to represent the communities that elected them and suggesting, inter alia, that perhaps the union was in a better position than elected councils to know what local communities think about the issue.
Mr Herbert interjected.
Mr MORRIS — The member for Eltham interjected and said that the state government has to make the decision. This is about local communities. This is exactly what the Labor Party did not understand in government and does not understand now. It is about giving local communities the ability to make their own decisions. It is not about putting Labor mates ahead of local communities.
The shadow minister was putting the interests of’ his mates ahead of regional communities. Not only that, he is back to his old habits of council bashing. During his contribution he expressed doubts about their ability to consult effectively, their objectivity and their capacity to make a decision — and he questioned the concept of community‑based decision making that is the great strength of local government. He tried to blame councils for the mess he made of urban planning as minister; now as shadow minister he questions their ability to do the job. There is only one party in this discussion whose capacity to do the job is in question, and that is the shadow minister.
The shadow minister went on to construct an absurd hypothetical about the Ballan Cup and the Moorabool shire and to suggest that a council would request a holiday for an event in a neighbouring municipality. If I were the mayor of the Moorabool shire, I would take a dim view of the shadow minister’s comments, and I suspect that the same goes for the member for Yuroke’s comments about Kilmore and Seymour.
I draw the shadow minister’s attention to a part of the bill that he overlooked — that is, the extra words in new section 8A that are not in the current legislation. They require a council to specify the reasons for making a request. If a council makes an injudicious request, the minister will have the opportunity to consult further with them. That option does not exist now. The scenario that was constructed in the shadow minister’s presentation is in fact possible under the former Labor government’s legislation; it will not be possible under the new legislation.
This is an opportunity for communities to arrange for public holidays in a way that suits them and in a part of the community that suits them. It restores the flexibility they formerly enjoyed, which Labor tore away. It is a win for local communities and for councils.
I commend the bill to the house.
Legislative Assembly 24 May 2011
Printer Friendly Version...