NATIONALS ANNOUNCE SCHOLARSHIP FOR YOUNG LEADERS 2008
The Nationals spokesperson for Education, Peter Hall today announced that The Nationals Scholarship program for Young Leaders will run again in 2008. The scholarship will assist students from rural and regional Victoria through their chosen tertiary course.
The total value of the Scholarship is $5,000 which may be shared amongst one or more successful applicants.
“The scholarship has been a great success over the past two years. The response from students around country Victoria has been overwhelming and of a high calibre. The quality of the applications shows the strength of young people in country Victoria. Six deserving students have so far shared in the scholarship money that will no doubt provide much needed assistance throughout their higher education,” Peter Hall said.
“The Nationals Scholarship offers students a great opportunity to gain financial assistance with their studies and helps reinforce the need to attract promising young leaders to continue to reside and work in country Victoria.”
The selection criteria for The Nationals Scholarship includes the applicant’s academic record, leadership qualities and community involvement. It is intended that The Nationals Scholarship be awarded to students who are intending to return to or remain in the country after their course and demonstrate a career commitment that will ultimately benefit rural/regional Victoria. Special consideration may be given to students in hardship situations for whom the scholarship will provide major assistance.
The application process will open on January 1, 2008 and close on February 25, 2008. Forms can be downloaded from The Nationals website: www.vic.nationals.org.au
Wednesday, 19 December 2007
F.O.I REQUEST ON TRARALGON BY-PASS
East Victorian MP Peter Hall today (Wednesday 19 December) lodged a Freedom Of Information application in a bid to find out what is happening with the proposed Traralgon by-pass.
“It is frankly ridiculous to have to take this action, but the State Government simply refuses to release the results of its own inquiry,” Mr Hall said. “Many people – council, local residents and businesspeople – are extremely frustrated by the lack of information, so this is a way by which we can hopefully find out what is going on.”
He called again for the Government to release the information as soon as possible, rather than have to be forced through the Freedom Of Information process.
“All people want to know is which is the preferred by-pass route,” he said. “I can’t for the life of me understand why people should not know that. We all know there has been an inquiry, we know that there are a couple of options and we know the by-pass will be constructed one day.
“All we want to know at the moment is where the route is, so that planning can take place for the future development of the Traralgon-Morwell corridor.”
Mr Hall and his Nationals’ colleague, Morwell MLA Russell Northe, have been pursuing the Government for months now.
Mr Northe pointed out that an inquiry early this year was a supplementary inquiry following a first inquiry in 2004.
“People locally want to know what the future holds for the area so they can make business and personal decisions about development, including housing, which is becoming a bigger issue with each month that passes,” Mr Northe said.
The supplementary inquiry was completed in the first half of this year, and Mr Northe has a letter in which the previous Premier, Mr Bracks, stating that the committee report was due for completion in the first week of July.
Mr Hall raised the matter in Parliament early in November.
“We wonder what there is to hide, or whether it is simply the State Government doesn’t realise this is an important issue,” Mr Hall said.
“I think the State Government is treating the people of this area with contempt and what’s worse, is actively holding back the progress of the Latrobe Valley and Gippsland.”
He said he and Mr Northe would push the Freedom Of Information application through as quickly as possible.
“It is frankly ridiculous to have to take this action, but the State Government simply refuses to release the results of its own inquiry,” Mr Hall said. “Many people – council, local residents and businesspeople – are extremely frustrated by the lack of information, so this is a way by which we can hopefully find out what is going on.”
He called again for the Government to release the information as soon as possible, rather than have to be forced through the Freedom Of Information process.
“All people want to know is which is the preferred by-pass route,” he said. “I can’t for the life of me understand why people should not know that. We all know there has been an inquiry, we know that there are a couple of options and we know the by-pass will be constructed one day.
“All we want to know at the moment is where the route is, so that planning can take place for the future development of the Traralgon-Morwell corridor.”
Mr Hall and his Nationals’ colleague, Morwell MLA Russell Northe, have been pursuing the Government for months now.
Mr Northe pointed out that an inquiry early this year was a supplementary inquiry following a first inquiry in 2004.
“People locally want to know what the future holds for the area so they can make business and personal decisions about development, including housing, which is becoming a bigger issue with each month that passes,” Mr Northe said.
The supplementary inquiry was completed in the first half of this year, and Mr Northe has a letter in which the previous Premier, Mr Bracks, stating that the committee report was due for completion in the first week of July.
Mr Hall raised the matter in Parliament early in November.
“We wonder what there is to hide, or whether it is simply the State Government doesn’t realise this is an important issue,” Mr Hall said.
“I think the State Government is treating the people of this area with contempt and what’s worse, is actively holding back the progress of the Latrobe Valley and Gippsland.”
He said he and Mr Northe would push the Freedom Of Information application through as quickly as possible.
Tuesday, 18 December 2007
WINDFARMS DEVALUE LAND
WINDFARMS DEVALUE LAND
Victorian Nationals Energy spokesman PETER HALL has called on the Government to acknowledge that windfarms devalue properties surrounding the land on which they are sited, and to review planning guidelines to reflect the drop in value.
Mr Hall said that irrefutable proof of property devaluation was contained in conditions attached to a recent planning permit issued by South Gippsland Shire Council.
The condition, attached to a permit to subdivide land adjoining the proposed Bald Hills wind energy facility, requires future land owners to be advised that “residents on the lots may experience detrimental amenity affects arising from the facility such as noise, blade glint and blade flicker.”
Mr Hall said this latest legal requirement comes on top of sworn independent assessments of land devaluation in areas where wind turbines are or are planned to be located.
“The State’s planning guidelines blithely ignore the impact wind turbines have on the value of neighbouring properties and at the very least this impact should be part of the planning considerations. In every other form of development, such impacts are legitimate considerations when determining whether or not a permit should be granted,” Mr Hall said.
Mr Hall said the Shire of South Gippsland had acted very responsibly in attaching the warning as a planning condition.
“The Shire needs to protect itself and the rate payers of South Gippsland against any future legal action,” Mr Hall said.
“It is the State Government which should now re-think its entire wind energy policy.
Wind turbines in the numbers envisaged by the Government will have a major detrimental impact on landscape values, a major impact on nearby residential amenity, an environmental hazard for birdlife and produce comparatively little energy.
“The Government’s renewable energy policies should be targeted at those renewables that have less negative environmental impacts such as solar, geothermal and bio-fuels,” Mr Hall concluded.
Victorian Nationals Energy spokesman PETER HALL has called on the Government to acknowledge that windfarms devalue properties surrounding the land on which they are sited, and to review planning guidelines to reflect the drop in value.
Mr Hall said that irrefutable proof of property devaluation was contained in conditions attached to a recent planning permit issued by South Gippsland Shire Council.
The condition, attached to a permit to subdivide land adjoining the proposed Bald Hills wind energy facility, requires future land owners to be advised that “residents on the lots may experience detrimental amenity affects arising from the facility such as noise, blade glint and blade flicker.”
Mr Hall said this latest legal requirement comes on top of sworn independent assessments of land devaluation in areas where wind turbines are or are planned to be located.
“The State’s planning guidelines blithely ignore the impact wind turbines have on the value of neighbouring properties and at the very least this impact should be part of the planning considerations. In every other form of development, such impacts are legitimate considerations when determining whether or not a permit should be granted,” Mr Hall said.
Mr Hall said the Shire of South Gippsland had acted very responsibly in attaching the warning as a planning condition.
“The Shire needs to protect itself and the rate payers of South Gippsland against any future legal action,” Mr Hall said.
“It is the State Government which should now re-think its entire wind energy policy.
Wind turbines in the numbers envisaged by the Government will have a major detrimental impact on landscape values, a major impact on nearby residential amenity, an environmental hazard for birdlife and produce comparatively little energy.
“The Government’s renewable energy policies should be targeted at those renewables that have less negative environmental impacts such as solar, geothermal and bio-fuels,” Mr Hall concluded.
Tuesday, 11 December 2007
VICFORESTS SHOULD BE REPLACED: HALL
VicForests is “murdering” the native hardwood timber industry in Victoria and should be abolished, according to the Nationals’ Peter Hall.
Mr Hall raised the matter in Parliament last week, when he called on the State Government to replace VicForests, after what he described as “an unprecedented period of uncertainty, job losses and economic decline in Victoria's native hardwood timber industry.”
Mr Hall called for VicForests to be replaced with a new organisation, with clear objectives to advance the industry, having regard to social and environmental outcomes and not just economic ones.
“Since the introduction of the Our Forests Our Future policy in 2002 those who choose to remain in the industry were promised a future of greater security and certainty, but the exact opposite has proved to be the case,” Mr Hall told Parliament.
“The timber auction system has been a disaster. It has not served either large or small sawmill operators well. Indeed sawmills have closed since the policy was launched.
“The proposed tender system for harvest and haulage is looming as an even bigger disaster for the sector. VicForests itself has restructured, with two regional offices closing and many internal job losses. On top of that VicForests made an operating loss last year.”
Mr Hall said he feared the Government had another agenda.
“VicForests is required to follow the directions of the minister. If the government does not want a native hardwood timber industry in Victoria, it should come clean, tell us and buy out the rest of the industry.
“If it wants to keep the industry, then I say to the government: get rid of VicForests and put in place an organisation that is prepared to look after the industry, not murder it.”
Mr Hall said if the Government was not prepared to abolish VicForests, it should at least direct VicForests to abandon all plans to tender out harvest and haulage operations.
Outside Parliament, he said tendering out of harvest and haulage operations was not part of the government's Our Forests Our Future policy and nor was it part of the orders in council that established VicForests in the first place.
“I am particularly disappointed that the Minister, in answer to a question I put, indicated that he thought the balance between economic, social and environmental issues was about right at the moment!” Mr Hall said.
“Clearly he speaks to quite different people than I do, because there are many people in the timber industry who are struggling to survive and the plans by VicForests to tender out these activities will only make it worse.”
Mr Hall said the State Government needed to act now if it wanted Victoria to have a hardwood industry in the future. “That of course, is the real question: does this Government want an industry?”
Mr Hall raised the matter in Parliament last week, when he called on the State Government to replace VicForests, after what he described as “an unprecedented period of uncertainty, job losses and economic decline in Victoria's native hardwood timber industry.”
Mr Hall called for VicForests to be replaced with a new organisation, with clear objectives to advance the industry, having regard to social and environmental outcomes and not just economic ones.
“Since the introduction of the Our Forests Our Future policy in 2002 those who choose to remain in the industry were promised a future of greater security and certainty, but the exact opposite has proved to be the case,” Mr Hall told Parliament.
“The timber auction system has been a disaster. It has not served either large or small sawmill operators well. Indeed sawmills have closed since the policy was launched.
“The proposed tender system for harvest and haulage is looming as an even bigger disaster for the sector. VicForests itself has restructured, with two regional offices closing and many internal job losses. On top of that VicForests made an operating loss last year.”
Mr Hall said he feared the Government had another agenda.
“VicForests is required to follow the directions of the minister. If the government does not want a native hardwood timber industry in Victoria, it should come clean, tell us and buy out the rest of the industry.
“If it wants to keep the industry, then I say to the government: get rid of VicForests and put in place an organisation that is prepared to look after the industry, not murder it.”
Mr Hall said if the Government was not prepared to abolish VicForests, it should at least direct VicForests to abandon all plans to tender out harvest and haulage operations.
Outside Parliament, he said tendering out of harvest and haulage operations was not part of the government's Our Forests Our Future policy and nor was it part of the orders in council that established VicForests in the first place.
“I am particularly disappointed that the Minister, in answer to a question I put, indicated that he thought the balance between economic, social and environmental issues was about right at the moment!” Mr Hall said.
“Clearly he speaks to quite different people than I do, because there are many people in the timber industry who are struggling to survive and the plans by VicForests to tender out these activities will only make it worse.”
Mr Hall said the State Government needed to act now if it wanted Victoria to have a hardwood industry in the future. “That of course, is the real question: does this Government want an industry?”
Monday, 10 December 2007
Establishing a water substitution target
To address Melbourne’s future water needs the Victorian Government is proposing to take 75 billion litres of water from the Goulburn Valley – a region already desperately short of water- and build a seawater desalination plant at Wonthaggi.
The Government’s plans are expensive leading to a doubling of the price of water for consumers, they will have a negative impact on the environment and are socially divisive.
The Nationals believe a better way forward is to provide effective incentives for industry and households in Melbourne to substitute recycled water and storm water for potable water used for non potable purposes such as flushing toilets, watering lawns and gardens and by industry.
There are huge untapped opportunities to do this given that each year Melbourne Water pumps 300 billion litres of treated sewage into the sea and 500 billions litres of rain water falls in the metropolitan area with most of that entering Port Phillip Bay and Westernport as stormwater runoff.
Our solution involves establishing a mandated water substitution target with the aim of replacing 30 percent or 130 billion litres of the city’s current potable water use with recycled water, treated storm water or rain water by 2020.
The proposal is modelled on comparable Victorian and Commonwealth schemes to promote
renewable energy and more efficient use of electricity.
The Nationals have put out a discussion paper on Establishing a water substitution target which is available from the link below or by directly by clicking on teh heading of this item.
http://www.vic.nationals.org.au/pdf/WaterDiscussionPaper.pdf
Your feedback and comments would be welcome.
Peter
The Government’s plans are expensive leading to a doubling of the price of water for consumers, they will have a negative impact on the environment and are socially divisive.
The Nationals believe a better way forward is to provide effective incentives for industry and households in Melbourne to substitute recycled water and storm water for potable water used for non potable purposes such as flushing toilets, watering lawns and gardens and by industry.
There are huge untapped opportunities to do this given that each year Melbourne Water pumps 300 billion litres of treated sewage into the sea and 500 billions litres of rain water falls in the metropolitan area with most of that entering Port Phillip Bay and Westernport as stormwater runoff.
Our solution involves establishing a mandated water substitution target with the aim of replacing 30 percent or 130 billion litres of the city’s current potable water use with recycled water, treated storm water or rain water by 2020.
The proposal is modelled on comparable Victorian and Commonwealth schemes to promote
renewable energy and more efficient use of electricity.
The Nationals have put out a discussion paper on Establishing a water substitution target which is available from the link below or by directly by clicking on teh heading of this item.
http://www.vic.nationals.org.au/pdf/WaterDiscussionPaper.pdf
Your feedback and comments would be welcome.
Peter
Thursday, 6 December 2007
LOCAL DECISIONS STILL ON SCHOOL UNIFORMS
LOCAL DECISIONS STILL ON SCHOOL UNIFORMS
School councils will be able to continue making their own decisions in relation to school uniforms, if the recommendations of a Parliamentary inquiry are adopted.
Eastern Victorian MP, Peter Hall, a member of the Education and Training Committee that conducted the Inquiry into Dress Codes and School Uniforms in Victorian Schools, has welcomed the recommendations, which leave much of the decision making with local communities.
“There are many issues, such as suitability of clothing for climate, encouraging physical activity by students and cost factors, that can only be considered at a local level,” Mr Hall said. “It became clear early in the inquiry that there is widespread agreement that choices about school uniforms should continue to be made by individual schools and their communities. Quite rightly school councils should be able to make their own decisions.”
The committee came up with a number of other key recommendations. These included that:
The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development’s guidelines encourage schools to consider standards for staff dress and appearance during the development and review of dress codes and school uniform policies.
All Victorian schools include a statement addressing sun protection in their dress codes or school uniform policies and the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development promote best practice for incorporating sun protective clothing and sunglasses and;
The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development require all Victorian schools to make a sun protective hat available to students as part of their dress codes or school uniform policies.
The Committee also recommended that all schools consider how their school uniform policies can contribute to greater levels of physical activity among students.
Mr Hall said it was interesting to note that most schools already require a uniform.
“The Committee found that 72.8 per cent of Victorian schools have a ‘full’ compulsory school uniform, which requires students to wear summer and winter uniforms specified by the school,” Mr Hall said, quoting the report. “A further 12.4 per cent of schools have a ‘basic’ compulsory uniform, with limited specifications for clothing such as wearing school colours or some items with a school logo, while 7.2 per cent of schools have an optional uniform. Only 0.5 per cent has an ‘occasional’ uniform.”
Mr Hall said another contentious issue raised was whether dress codes and school uniform policies should also apply to teachers and other school staff.
The Committee found that 43.8 per cent of Victorian schools (including 27.1% of government schools) have some form of written dress code for their staff, either setting out general or specific standards of dress. Although the Committee did not consider staff dress codes in detail, it noted that the appearance of school staff may have an influence on students, and believes that many of the issues covered by the inquiry are relevant to dress codes or uniforms for both students and staff.
“The Committee has recommended that schools consider staff dress and appearance when developing and reviewing their dress codes and uniform policies,” Mr Hall said. “This also needs to be based on a sensible approach, depending upon the requirements of the school and the work that is being undertaken by staff.”
The other issue is strengthening the sun protection elements of policies, which the committee believes is one of the most direct ways in which dress codes and school uniforms can support student health and wellbeing.
“The Committee believes sun protection is of such importance that all Victorian schools should be required to include a statement addressing sun protection in their dress codes or school uniform policies,” the committee report said. “This should include providing all students with an option or requirement to wear a sun protective hat, as well as appropriate standards relating to sun protective clothing and sunglasses.”
Mr Hall welcomed the findings of the committee, which he described as a sensible approach to improving school uniform use.
School councils will be able to continue making their own decisions in relation to school uniforms, if the recommendations of a Parliamentary inquiry are adopted.
Eastern Victorian MP, Peter Hall, a member of the Education and Training Committee that conducted the Inquiry into Dress Codes and School Uniforms in Victorian Schools, has welcomed the recommendations, which leave much of the decision making with local communities.
“There are many issues, such as suitability of clothing for climate, encouraging physical activity by students and cost factors, that can only be considered at a local level,” Mr Hall said. “It became clear early in the inquiry that there is widespread agreement that choices about school uniforms should continue to be made by individual schools and their communities. Quite rightly school councils should be able to make their own decisions.”
The committee came up with a number of other key recommendations. These included that:
The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development’s guidelines encourage schools to consider standards for staff dress and appearance during the development and review of dress codes and school uniform policies.
All Victorian schools include a statement addressing sun protection in their dress codes or school uniform policies and the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development promote best practice for incorporating sun protective clothing and sunglasses and;
The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development require all Victorian schools to make a sun protective hat available to students as part of their dress codes or school uniform policies.
The Committee also recommended that all schools consider how their school uniform policies can contribute to greater levels of physical activity among students.
Mr Hall said it was interesting to note that most schools already require a uniform.
“The Committee found that 72.8 per cent of Victorian schools have a ‘full’ compulsory school uniform, which requires students to wear summer and winter uniforms specified by the school,” Mr Hall said, quoting the report. “A further 12.4 per cent of schools have a ‘basic’ compulsory uniform, with limited specifications for clothing such as wearing school colours or some items with a school logo, while 7.2 per cent of schools have an optional uniform. Only 0.5 per cent has an ‘occasional’ uniform.”
Mr Hall said another contentious issue raised was whether dress codes and school uniform policies should also apply to teachers and other school staff.
The Committee found that 43.8 per cent of Victorian schools (including 27.1% of government schools) have some form of written dress code for their staff, either setting out general or specific standards of dress. Although the Committee did not consider staff dress codes in detail, it noted that the appearance of school staff may have an influence on students, and believes that many of the issues covered by the inquiry are relevant to dress codes or uniforms for both students and staff.
“The Committee has recommended that schools consider staff dress and appearance when developing and reviewing their dress codes and uniform policies,” Mr Hall said. “This also needs to be based on a sensible approach, depending upon the requirements of the school and the work that is being undertaken by staff.”
The other issue is strengthening the sun protection elements of policies, which the committee believes is one of the most direct ways in which dress codes and school uniforms can support student health and wellbeing.
“The Committee believes sun protection is of such importance that all Victorian schools should be required to include a statement addressing sun protection in their dress codes or school uniform policies,” the committee report said. “This should include providing all students with an option or requirement to wear a sun protective hat, as well as appropriate standards relating to sun protective clothing and sunglasses.”
Mr Hall welcomed the findings of the committee, which he described as a sensible approach to improving school uniform use.
HALL WELCOMES GIPPSLAND PARLIAMENTARY SITTINGS
The Nationals Member for Eastern Region Peter Hall says an historic Upper House sitting in Lakes Entrance will be well-received by the local community.
The State Government today announced that the Upper House will sit in Lakes Entrance next October, while the Lower House would meet in Churchill.
“I made representations to the President of the Upper House on behalf of the Lakes Entrance community earlier this year,” Mr Hall said.
“Previous regional sittings of Parliament have focused on issues of concern to country families and I expect that East Gippsland will take centre stage next October.
“Following on from the fires and floods, it is a great opportunity to showcase the region’s attractions in a more positive light.
“I will work with the local business community and East Gippsland Shire Council to capitalise on this opportunity.”
Lakes Entrance Business Tourism Association board member Darren Chester said LEBTA had written to the Upper House President, requesting the Parliamentary sitting.
“Once we learned that the Parliament was considering a sitting in regional Victoria during 2008, we decided to nominate our town as a suitable venue,” Mr Chester said.
“We have received a lot of media attention in recent months which has tended to portray Lakes Entrance and the broader East Gippsland region in a negative manner.
“This is an excellent opportunity to host decision-makers from throughout Victoria and give them a taste of East Gippsland hospitality.”
The State Government today announced that the Upper House will sit in Lakes Entrance next October, while the Lower House would meet in Churchill.
“I made representations to the President of the Upper House on behalf of the Lakes Entrance community earlier this year,” Mr Hall said.
“Previous regional sittings of Parliament have focused on issues of concern to country families and I expect that East Gippsland will take centre stage next October.
“Following on from the fires and floods, it is a great opportunity to showcase the region’s attractions in a more positive light.
“I will work with the local business community and East Gippsland Shire Council to capitalise on this opportunity.”
Lakes Entrance Business Tourism Association board member Darren Chester said LEBTA had written to the Upper House President, requesting the Parliamentary sitting.
“Once we learned that the Parliament was considering a sitting in regional Victoria during 2008, we decided to nominate our town as a suitable venue,” Mr Chester said.
“We have received a lot of media attention in recent months which has tended to portray Lakes Entrance and the broader East Gippsland region in a negative manner.
“This is an excellent opportunity to host decision-makers from throughout Victoria and give them a taste of East Gippsland hospitality.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
