Mr WILTON(10.48 p.m.) —I rise in a similar vein to the member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash), who spoke very briefly on defending her constituents against the possibility, as she put it, of them becoming radioactive. The government clearly has made a decision, however, to locate a nuclear reactor in her electorate and it ought to be something that all her constituents should be aware of.

Of equal concern to that particular matter in Gilmore was the return to what I might best call grassroots democracy within the Victorian municipalities of my state when over the course of last weekend 53 councils had returned to democracy after what might best be called a three-year hiatus. I would like to briefly commend the successes of several of my friends and colleagues—notably Councillor Bill Nixon, who was tonight sworn in as the inaugural mayor of the city of Kingston, and the first-time councillors elected in that municipality, notably Di Comtesse, Darlene Salisbury and John Ronk. Equally, in the city of Casey, I commend people like Janet Halsell on her election and, in the city of Frankston, my colleague Bill McCluskey for a stirling job that he did in campaigning to gain election as the councillor for the ward of Buninyong.

There are some concerns associated with the return to democracy in Victoria. It may be said that ratepayers may gain from economies of scale generated by the creation of 78 councils from formerly some 200, being as they are now organised along corporate lines with the CEOs being granted more power. One would have thought, as put by the Age editorial of 18 March, that `this should bode well for ratepayers'. However, there is no doubt now a cloud hanging over this return to democracy following the comments of the Victorian state Minister for Planning, the Hon. Robert Maclellan, who said that any meddling, as he put it, with planning issues by newly elected councillors could see them forfeit some of their new powers to their CEOs.

Mr Maclellan, as planning minister, has a fairly long and dubious record of intervention and gives the distinct impression that he is, as the Age editorial puts it, `determined to curb the rights of councillors to involve themselves in what is one of the most important facets of their job'. That same Minister for Planning, Mr Maclellan, recently told a meeting of council CEOs that, if councillors were seen to be meddling in planning issues, they could relinquish some of those planning powers to CEOs, who themselves would become the responsible authority. This is no doubt nothing more nor less than an outrageous attack on democracy and is symptomatic of the arrogant state government in my state that day by day loses touch with the Victorian people.

Planning has been a major concern of local residents within various municipalities under the commissioners, and the Kennett government would have realised that planning was of course a serious factor when candidates were campaigning in the recent council elections. There has been `a sense of residential certainty' which `has been replaced by ministerial call-ins, site-specific exemptions and ad hoc planning', to use the words of Mr Demetri Dollis in his letter to the Age today. Many community groups, increasingly mar ginalised from this planning process and concerned with the adverse impact on their local environments, are for the first time now questioning the credibility of this planning system.

As I said, Mr Maclellan's record over the past 4½ years is perhaps one of interventionist approaches to the max. I can of course cite in my own electorate the case of the Sandhurst golf development, where the lungs of Melbourne, the green wedge, was for the first time ripped asunder to allow urban development in this otherwise green area. I urge Mr Maclellan to reconsider his sentiments and to allow newly elected councillors the opportunity to truly represent democratically their constituents and afford them the powers under planning arrangements. (Time expired)