PHOTOGRAPHING OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 227

Thursday, 14 March 1991

The SPEAKER (Hon. Ken Coghill) took the chair at 10.35 a.m. and read the prayer.

PHOTOGRAPHING OF PROCEEDINGS The SPEAKER - Order! I advise the House that I have approved a request by the Sunday Age newspaper to take still photographs of question time today. No additional lighting or flashlights will be used.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

PRIVATISATION OF ASSETS Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition) - I refer the Minister for Finance to his statement last night that the privatisation of assets such as the State Electricity Commission, essential services, education and health was not in the best interests of the community. How does he reconcile that statement with the statement of the Premier this morning that the government is still examining the sale of the Loy Yang B power station? Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance) - I did not notice the Leader of the Opposition at the meeting last night; however, it was well attended. I addressed the meeting on the issue of privatisation. It is no secret that privatisation is an important issue for Victoria and what I said at the meeting was that there is a very strong case for public ownership of essential utilities and services and that the government - and this is an internal party discussion - had to be very clear in its reasons for wishing to have public ownership. The government has to be clear on the outcomes it wants and the reasons for retaining public ownership and it has to know what it wants to retain and why. There is also a clear need to attract as much private investment into public infrastructure as possible in a way which is compatible with public ownership. That statement is quite consistent with the position of the government which is committed to public ownership of the major utilities and essential services. That is where the government is at odds with the opposition, which would sell anything or chop anything down. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

228 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

Members of the Labor Party and the Australian community have a strong commitment to public ownership of essential services and major public utilities. However, within that the government also wishes to explore the potential for private investment. That is well known, and it is important that within the party and the community the government spells out its commitment to both public ownership and the attraction of private investment into public infrastructure. Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - I refer to the proposed privatisation of the Loy Yang B power station and ask the Premier whether she is backing the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council, who has advised he wants to proceed with the privatisation, or the Minister for Finance, who appears to be bowing to the socialist left and union militants when he stated yesterday evening that he does not want to proceed with the deal. Ms KIRNER (Premier) - I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question because, as the Minister for Finance just said, it is an important issue which requires a lot of debate in the community and in the Labor Party. It is extremely interesting that the opposition can say with a click of the fingers that it would sell the Gas and Fuel Corporation, which brings to Victoria $300 million a year. The opposition says it would hand over that profit to the private sector. Despite that, the opposition will not allow the sale of the State Insurance Office. What hypocrisy! Can one imagine a bigger act of hypocrisy than actually saying the Liberal Party in government would sell the State Insurance Office but this government cannot? The government is saying it is an appropriate current public asset to put on sale now. The Leader of the Upper House and the government have made no decision to sell any part of the State Electricity Commission, and that has been made absolutely clear from the start by me and the Minister responsible. However, the government will not walk away from the discussion about how Loy Yang BI and B2 are to be funded. A government committee is currently considering that issue; it will look at it just as the government is considering other issues in terms of private investment in public infrastructure. The government will continue to look at it and it will make a decision in the best interests of the community. The government and the opposition know - it is rightly an issue on the table - Australia is spending less money now on infrastructure per person than was spent 40 years ago. The Leader of the New South Wales government, the Premier of South Australia, John Bannon, and myself will put on the table at the May Premiers Conference that a particular matter must be addressed by the National government and State governments cooperatively. That matter is what is needed in terms of public infrastructure in Australia now, how it can be funded by the public sector, what part of it should be owned by the public sector and what contribution the private sector can make. They are big questions and the government will not walk and has not walked away from them. It has walked up to them; it has established a committee to consider those questions; it even has a public-private sector committee checking the guidelines. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 229

My view and that of the community is that the issue is far too important for it simply to be a one-off ideological position of the opposition. SCHOOL RETENTION RATE Mr ANDRIANOPOULOS (St Albans) - Can the Premier inform the House of the most recent advice she has received regarding the government's efforts in having more students complete year 12 schooling? Mr McNamara - They've got nothing else to do. Ms KIRNER (premier) - The Leader of the National Party interjects, 'They've got nothing else to do". That is a good example of why the retention rate in country areas is 5 per cent behind metropolitan areas; people like him do not care about country kids staying on at school. My government has a commitment to allowing all young people the same right as honourable members opposite would want for their children to complete year 12. That goes for kids in the country, in working-class areas and for women and kids with disabilities. I am delighted to inform the House that this year the year 12 retention rate has jumped dramatically by 12 per cent. When this government came into office only 27 per cent of young people stayed on to year 12; this year the figure is 75 per cent. The opposition seems to have a fixation - particularly when it is the shadow Minister making the statement - about the issue of social justice. It seems to have apoplexy. It does not understand what the words mean. "Social justice" means a fair go for all kids to complete year 12, and we are almost there. In one decade the government has changed the face of opportunity for children in Victoria, an opportunity to excel at and complete year 12. When this government came to power there was nowhere in normal schools for kids with disabilities, now 4500 kids with disabilities are in normal schools - by their choice and that of their parents - and many of them are going on to year 12. This government is not going to let it rest there because if one stays on to year 12 one wants to have somewhere to go, to make real choices. Victoria has the highest participation rate of any State in tertiary education. The government is now in a position to look at the further extension of training opportunities on the basis of the announcement made by the Commonwealth government. Finally, I am delighted to note that the Commonwealth government in its recent industry statement on achieving excellence has adopted this government's position on a school improvement program of identifying good schools and practice. There are not many times when one can say that the whole community agrees on something that is important for the future of its children, but the opportunity of staying on to year 12 as a result of the changes in education that this government has created QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

230 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

through the Victorian certificate of education gives us one of those occasions. I congratulate the teachers, parents and students of Victoria on this enonnous change that is in the interests of the children themselves. SALE OF STATE ASSETS Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton) - I refer to the Treasurer's recent trip to Europe which he described as being to investigate the sale of State assets, including the sale of the State Electricity Commission. Has he now abandoned these plans to protect his Labor Party preselection? Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - I thank the honourable member for Brighton for his question because I do not seem to be able to get those kind of capital questions up in our questions committee. I am happy to have the opportunity of answering it. As was made clear there were a number of purposes behind my visit to Europe, which followed-- Honourable members interjecting. Mr ROPER - Listen to the honourable members opposite! After only two days they can no longer remain diSCiplined. It shows they are two-day discipline people. As a result of discussions with officers and members of the Committee for Melbourne, it was the view that it was important that direct discussions about the Victorian and Australian economies be held with the leading financial houses in Europe. In cooperation with the Committee for Melbourne, a kind of business organisation from which we have had a lot of cooperation - unlike members opposite - a program was organised so that we saw the main banks directly and discussed the Victorian and Australian situations with them. As the Minister for Finance and the Premier have just said, we also discussed the opportunities that would be 'available over time for private sector involvement in infrastructure. That has not occurred suddenly in terms of public debate. It was specifically mentioned in last year's Budget and, indeed, a group of people involved in the private sector and also leading trade union officials have been working in that area for the past couple of months. Mr MeNamara interjected. Mr ROPER - I take up the interjection of the Leader of the National Party. It involved BOMA, representatives of the AFCC and other leading representatives of the financial community who have volunteered their time to work on programs such as this. As honourable members know, during the past few years the level of capital works funds available, not just to this State but to other States, has been significantly decreased as a result of the macro-economic policies adopted in Canberra. We are responding by examining opportunities in which the private sector can participate. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 231

Guidelines have been developed in New South Wales and we have talked about them with officials from that State. We will continue those discussions to develop appropriate guidelines for Victoria which will ensure we can provide the infrastructure we need and also ensure we are able to obtain effective input into that infrastructure whether it is, as the Premier mentioned, the way we provide capital in the long term for authorities such as the State Electricity Commission or whether it is a particular hospital project, working with a particular hospital management to ensure works are done that would otherwise not be done, or whether it is roadworks.

The opposition might not want to involve itself in the private sector in that cooperative way but we certainly intend to do so in the future. FUNDING FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT Mr HARROWFIELD (Mitcham) - Is the Treasurer aware of the recommendations made by the Federal Grants Commission recommending major reductions in funding to local government in Victoria and, if so, will he indicate to the House the government's response to those recommendations?

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - It is an important issue not only for Victoria as a whole but for the 210 municipalities throughout the State that would see their funding significantly cut if the Commonwealth were to accept the Grants Commission report on fiscal equalisation.

I must say that the government condemns the basis on which the report has been put together. For the information of honourable members who may not be aware, there would be a reduction in funds, under one of the scenarios for Victorian municipalities, from $182 million to $90 million; that is, effectively, a halving of funds for local government.

It has taken some time for the Commonwealth to move to a per capita payment system for local government. Any steps along the lines of this so-called fiscal equalisation would severely affect every local government body in Victoria.

For example, in the electorate of the honourable member for Mitcham, the City of Nunawading would have its funds from the Grants Commission reduced from about $2.5 million to about $1.2 million; the City of Berwick would face a reduction from about $2 million to about $1 million; the funds allocated to the City of Geelong would drop from $600 000 to $300 000; the City of Ballaarat would have its funds cut from $1.2 million to little more than $SOO 000.

Such examples apply throughout Victoria and clearly show how the so-called principles of fiscal equalisation would penalise not only municipalities in Victoria but also Victoria as a whole. The cuts would increase the level of subsidy from Victorian taxpayers to the taxpayers of all other States, apart from New South Wales. They would have a very severe effect on the situation of local government services and of local government rates because if the reductions were to occur - and I certainly believe the Commonwealth QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

232 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

government will not adopt this report - it would mean either councils having to cut services significantly or to increase rates very substantially, or a combination of both.

The government is well aware of the efforts local government in Victoria is making to improve its efficiency; if these recommendations were to be adopted - and I certainly believe the Commonwealth will not do so - it would mean its moves towards increasing efficiency would effectively be knocked on the head.

The analysis in this report confirms the prejudice against New South Wales and Victoria in the current fiscal equalisation scheme, whereby Victorians provide about $700 million towards services in all States except New South Wales; New South Wales provides more than $800 million. There needs to be a total re-examination - and I understand the New South Wales government agrees - of the principles of fiscal equalisation that may have applied in 1900 but should not apply now.

Certainly there will be a continuing need for the two big States to look after Tasmania and the Northern Territory but there is absolutely no need any longer for the taxpayers of New South Wales and Victoria to be subsidising the other States to the present extent.

The government condemns any suggestion that these new principles should be adopted in local government financing and it will work with local government in Victoria - and, for that matter, New South Wales - to ensure they are not. ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES Mr COOPER (Mornington) - My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to the statement made last Tuesday by the Minister for Agriculture that the honourable member for Albert Park spent more on liquor than he did when Minister for Property and Services. Will the Minister confirm that allegation and will he make available to the House documentary evidence of the waste of taxpayers' funds by the Minister and the former Minister?

Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance) - As I understand it, the honourable member has quite an extensive telegram bill about which he may· need to make an explanation!

Whatever infonnation is available under freedom of information legislation will be made available to the honourable member; if he makes a request, it will be fulfilled.

MEAT INQUIRY REPORT Mr W. D. McGRATH (Lowan) - I refer the Premier to her answer yesterday when she said the government's Harrison inquiry submission went through the nonnal processes of consultation with industry unions and I ask: why were the unions, and Mr Curran in particular, consulted but not the key industry bodies such as the Victorian Farmers Federation and the Meat and Allied Trades Federation? QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 233

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - I should be very happy to show the honourable member for Lowan the diary entry recording my meeting with the meat industry employers on the issue of industrial harmony or lack of it in the meat industry, and on the issue of the future of the industry, and also the diary entry of the meeting with Mr Alex Arbuthnot, the President of the Victorian Farmers Federation. No-one, not even the employers in the meat industry or members of the Victorian Farmers Federation or the meat union, determines the content of government submissions to the Harrison inquiry.

They were all consulted on the future of the meat industry; all of them reported, indirectly, to the House on the inquiry and all of their views were taken into account. Probably just as importantly, the expert views of the departments were taken into account, and that submission proceeded. CHEMICAL STORAGE ON COODE ISLAND Mr COLE (Melbourne) - Will the Minister for Labour inform the House of the response of both the community and industry to the current review of the future of chemical storage on Coode Island?

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - Currently the government is conducting a comprehensive review and inquiry into the chemical industry in this State under the hazardous chemicals secretariat established by the government some nine months ago. During those nine months we have consulted with industry, unions and the community on chemical storage and pursued a full consultative approach on the issue.

This is in stark contrast to the consultation that occurred back in October prior to the Leader of the Opposition producing a fifteen-paragraph press statement on the relocation of hazardous material from Coode Island. According to one industry source the consultation that occurred between the Leader of the Opposition and industry was one quick telephone call.

Industry was quite flabbergasted at the announcement by the opposition that toxic and dangerous chemicals at Coode Island would be moved within the first term of its government - if indeed the opposition became government. The Australian Chemical Industry Council publicly stated that, first of all, the opposition's position on the dangers posed by Coode Island was an exaggeration and, secondly, on a number of other issues the Liberals did not seem to have their facts straight. The spokesman actually making these statements is an employee of the Australian Chemical Industry Council. He intimated that the liberals had not thought through their policy properly. Once again, I am not sure whether this council is another employer body which the Liberal Party intends to condemn as being a Labor apologist - the council spokesman was Rudi Michelson, who a few years ago was a Liberal candidate for the Federal seat of Henty.

According to industry the Liberal Party has now walked away from its position of last October on Coode Island. It is now saying that industry can stay until its leases have QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

234 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

expired, which is until the year 2006. This indicates that the Liberal Party's public stance of October last year was a sham, and that the Liberals never answered the hard question. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition, firstly, to reaffirm his position taken in October last year but, more importantly, to tell us publicly where he is going to move it to! Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! The Minister is entirely in order to provide information on factors being considered by the government in relation to existing and proposed government policy. However, he is not at liberty to use the answer to a question simply as a vehicle for attacking the opposition. Mr POPE - The question asked of me was: what is the community and the industry saying with respect to the future of chemical storage on Coode Island. That is the specific question asked by the honourable member for Melbourne: what does the community and industry have to say in respect of the relocation of hazardous materials on Coode Island? I was saying that industry sources are telling me that consultation is the right way to go. They want a decision, they want one quickly and we will provide a decision. However, the industry is saying also that what was put in October last year by the Leader of the Opposition was a sham. Now they are being told, "Don't worry about it; you can stay until your leases have run out". The issue of Coode Island is important. It is not a matter of a fifteen-paragraph press statement and a quick telephone call-as one industry source told me: a quick telephone call, that was the totality of the consultation. We are doing it in full consultation with the community and industry. LOSS OF MEAT EXPORT MARKET Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - Will the Premier confirm that the eleven pages of the government submission to the Harrison meat industry inquiry deleted after Mr Curran provided his critique of the submission documented $100 million lost to the Victorian economy in lost meat exports as a result of industrial disputation over the past eighteen months? Ms KIRNER (Premjer) - I thank the honourable member for Hawthorn for a repeat of the question asked yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. I must say that his control of his backbenchers is weakening. Honourable members interjecting. Ms KlRNER - They have been told to behave. Not only do they not behave but they have forgotten what Parliament is about, as usual. Today, led by the honourable member for Burwood, they are back to their old tricks. Yesterday I went carefully through the issue addressed by the honourable member for Hawthorn in his question, that is, the loss of export trade in Victoria. I went through all the reasons for it, part of which is industrial disputation. Others include the issue of the PETITIONS

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 235

lack of quality, the need to improve quality, the need to have a niche in the market - and all those issues that are an appropriate part of the future of the meat industry and an appropriate part of the Harrison inquiry. I know that the opposition would much prefer to have a single-minded approach to the development of industry and the future of unions. That is what they have always done; they have always had a single view about industry and unions. That is not the view of any successful Western country. If one considers Germany one finds that Germany quite clearly has a view about industry in which both industry and unions - often together on boards, I might say - have a view of how the industry should go forward and have agreed training policies. Which country has one of the best economies in the world? The answer is: Germany. I cannot understand the constant preoccupation of the opposition with a single-track approach to industry in Victoria. We are not going down that track because the road to recovery is to take an industry seriously in all its parts, and take the employers, the unions and government along with reconstruction.

PETITIONS The Clerk - I have received the following petitions for presentation to Parliament Desexing of cats and dogs To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria showeth that members of animal welfare organisations and other community members are concerned at the number of stray cats and dogs which have to be cared for and destroyed by animal welfare services. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the government of Victoria acknowledge the work of accredited animal welfare organisations by improving the level of funding and thus enabling them to provide an adequate service to the community, and that the government enact a law to ensure that all cats and dogs, other than those registered for breeding purposes, are desexed. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. By Mrs Barker (247 signatures) Victorian School for Deaf Children To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly in Parliament a ssembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria showeth that: The "Directions for the future" for students who are deaf in government schools proposes that all post-primary aged students will be educated in integrated settings in hearing schools, and therefore the Victorian School for IRaf Children will cease to function as a post-primary setting. Your petitioners therefore pray that: Both the primary and post-primary programs at the Victorian School for Deaf Children are maintained and adequately resourced so that the school can continue as a school of excellence and be a viable educational option for deaf students in Victoria. PAPERS

236 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

By Mrs Ray (2301 signatures)

Laid on table.

PAPERS

Laid on table by aerk:

Arule Caudle Centre - Report and Statement of Accounts for the year 1989-90. Bright District Hospital- Report and Statement of Accounts for the year 1989-90. Casterton Memorial Hospital- Report and Statement of Accounts for the year 1989-90. Cobram District Hospital- Report and Statement of Accounts for the year 1989-90. Eastern Suburbs Geriatric Centre - Report and Statement of Accounts for the year 1989-90. Hospitals Superannuation Board - Report and Statement of Accounts for the year 1989-90. Hospitals Superannuation Fund - Report on the Actuarial Investigation as at 30 June 1989. Mount Royal Hospital-Report and Statement of Accounts for the year 1989-90. Myrtleford District War Memorial Hospital - Report and Statement of Accounts for the year 1989-90. Port Fairy Hospital- Report and Statement of Accounts for the year 1989-90. WUliam Angliss Knox and Sherbrooke Community Hospital-Report and Statement of Accounts for the year 1989-90. Yarrawonga District Hospital- Report and Statement of Accounts for the Year 1989-90.

PAY-ROLL TAX (SUPERANNUATION) BILL Introdudion and first reading

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) introduced a Bill to amend section 3 of the Pay-roll Tax Act 1971 and for other purposes.

Read first time. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION) BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 237

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION) BILL Introduction and first reading Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) introduced a Bill to provide for the recognition of individual rights of persons to belong or not belong to an association and to amend the Industrial Relations Act 1979, and for other purposes.

Read first time.

Ordered to be printed.

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - I move:

That this Bill be read a second time tomorrow. Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - On the question of time, Mr Speaker, given that the Bill was first listed on the Notice Paper by the honourable member for Hawthorn on 26 February 1987 and that it has been continually put back on the Notice Paper with exactly the same wording, either after Parliament has been prorogued or an election has been held, and has been around for more than four years. I believe the Bill should be debated forthwith. Over the past few weeks honourable members have heard a lot about the opposition's industrial relations policy. The honourable member for Hawthorn should have his second-reading speech prepared, together with the Bill. I suggest it would be appropriate for him to debate the Bill forthwith, and I am prepared to grant him leave to do so.

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) (By leave) - Mr Speaker, I have a manuscript copy of the Bill. I am quite happy to debate the measure but I do not have sufficient copies of the Bill or of the second-reading speech for honourable members.

I make a further point: yesterday, in discussions with the Minister for Labour about the Bills listed on the Notice Paper under my name, we had an agreement and understanding that the first three items of General Business would be dispatched quickly and we would then deal with Notice of Motion, General Business, No 4.

I seek your advice as to how the matter can proceed in the absence of printed copies of the Bill. I should be happy to amend the motion by replacing "tomorrow" with 1I1ater this day".

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - On the question of time, Mr Speaker, certainly the government expected to see the Bill today. This Bill, as the Minister for Labour said, was first listed on the Notice Paper in February 1987, some four years ago. I stand to be corrected, but my recollection is that it was read a first time in 1988. Copies of the Bill would have been ordered to be printed at that stage. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION) BILL

238 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

I do not know whether the Bill has changed since 1988, when the proposed legislation was read a first time by the honourable member for Hawthorn, but after such a long period of it being listed on the Notice Paper in both this and the previous Parliament I should have thought the opposition would be ready to deal with it. The government is very keen to see what is in the Bill. It is keen to have it debated. I am sure that the community, after waiting four years to see the Bill, is also keen to have the matter debated. It is not as though this is something that has suddenly arisen. Presumably some years of preparation have gone into the proposed legislation. I should be pleased if copies of the Bill could be made so that the House could debate it as soon as possible. I hope the Bill can be printed before lunchtime today. Mr. GUDE (Hawthorn) (By leave) - Mr Speaker, I seek leave to withdraw my request to have the Bill read a second time tomorrow and to move a motion allowing it be be read a second time later this day. When honourable members have full copies of the Bill, which I have here, and copies of the second- reading speech, which I also have here, I would be happy to debate it. The SPEAKER - Order! Is leave granted? Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - Yes. Motion withdrawn, by leave. Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - By leave, I move: That this Bill be read a second time later this day. Motion agreed to. PREVENTION OF SECONDARY BOYCOTI BILL Introduction and first reading Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) introduced a Bill to promote industry trade and conunerce, to outlaw secondary boycott action, to provide for a right of action for loss or damages should a secondary boycott occur and to amend the Trade Unions Act 1958, the Industrial Relations Act 1979, and for other purposes.

Read first time.

Ordered to be printed. Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - By leave, I move: That this Bill be read a second time later this day. Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - On the question of time, Mr Speaker, the Bill was listed on the Notice Paper on 17 July 1985, almost six years ago. The honourable member should have the ability to debate the Bill forthwith, but if he wants to debate it later this day, so long as it is before lunch, that is fine. COMPULSORY UNIONISM

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 239

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, before any debate on the motion can take place it will be necessary for leave to be given. I am not sure whether leave was given. The SPEAKER - Order! I did call for leave to be granted, and leave was granted. Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - On the motion, if the honourable member for Hawthorn faces the same difficulty he faced before because he cannot make available copies of the Bill, I am sure that the House will be tolerant enough to allow the second reading to proceed now, so long as before the end of the day he distributes copies of the Bill to all honourable members "and everyone else interested in it. We would be happy to facilitate that process. The SPEAKER - Order! In speaking on the motion before the Chair the Leader of the House suggested that the second reading proceed forthwith in the absence of copies of the Bill. I believe that is an undesirable practice. I shall make every effort to ensure that copies of the Bill are printed quickly so that its second reading can occur today at the earliest opportunity. Motion agreed to. PROMPT PAYMENT OF STATE ACCOUNTS BILL troduction and first reading. Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) introduced a Bill relating to the payment of commercial accounts payable by the State or by an authority of the State.

Read first time.

Ordered to be printed. Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - By leave, I move: That this Bill be read a second ti~e later this day. Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - On the question of time, Mr Speaker, again I have no problems with the Bill having its second reading before lunchtime today, but given that notice of its introduction was first given on 26 February 1987, some four years ago, I should have thought the honourable member would have been able to read the Bill a second time forthwith rather than waiting until sometime before 1 p.m.

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn)(By l~ve) - I thank the House for its generosity in finally granting leave to allow these Bills to be debated. Motion agreed to.

COMPULSORY UNIONISM Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - I move: COMPULSORY UNIONISM

240 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

That this House condemns compulsory unionism as is practised in Victoria, especially in the building industry, because it represents a violation of the fundamental right of freedom of association laid down in the United Nations declaration of civil and political rights. The right to join a trade union is no less a basic and fundamental right than the right not to join one. An individual should be free to make his or her decision to exercise the basic human right of freedom of association that everyone of us holds so dear. The right is contained in article 22(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations, which says that everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and that no-one may be compelled to belong to an association. Yet in Victoria the very opposite occurs, with the imprimatur of the government. Concern has been expressed that if the law gives Victorians freedom of choice and freedom of association - and that is the purpose and intent of the Industrial Relations Act - it is important that such rights are upheld and maintained. It is equally as important to maintain the lawful rights applying to the formation and work of trade unions. The law protects the rights of unions in the same way as it protects the rights of other organisations that are of equal importance to the community. The denial of freedom of association, which is a basic human right, is currently the norm in Australian workplaces. If an Australian worker decides not to join a trade union, more often than not he or she is subjected to vilification and harassment and sometimes loses his or her job as a result.

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, it is evident to anyone sitting in the House that the honourable member is reading his speech. Given that the motion has been on the Notice Paper since 10 August 1988 I should have thought the honourable member would be so well versed in the issues he wants to raise as not to need to read his speech.

The SPEAKER - Order! Will the honourable member advise the House whether he is reading his speech?

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - I am referring to notes, and the Minister knows full well tha t that is so.

The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Hawthorn has advised me that he is referring to notes, and the Chair is obliged to accept his assurance. I remind him that the custom and practice of the House is that speeches should not be read.

Mr GUDE - As I said, freedom of association is a basic right that currently is being denied to Victorians. In workplaces throughout the State trade unions are harassing and vilifying those people who freely choose not to belong to a trade union; and for years workers in this country have been pressured in that way. Such practices are a denial of human rights, which we ought to ensure does not continue. Freedom of association is a cherished right; it is an important right which every decent Victorian ought to defend. COMPULSOKY UNIONISM

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 241

Recently a former Minister for Health, the Honourable C.J. Hogg, sent out letters to employees of the health Ministry extolling the virtues of trade unionism. That was a none-too-subtle way of trying to increase trade union membership, particularly in the Public Service. I have no objections to unions in the health industry contacting employees at their workplaces and encouraging them to join trade unions, giving them the opportunity to join or not to join, as the case may be. But it is well and truly over the top when a Minister of the Crown attempts to recruit employees for trade unions. I realise that she was only following the example set by the former Premier, the honourable member for Bundoora, who readily gave to the unions involved the names and addresses of all of Victoria's public servants, again to assist compulsory unionism. That was an inappropriate invasion of civil liberties perpetrated by a senior public figure who should have known better. The rights of men and women to exchange their labour for payment is now considered to be one of the most important, basic human rights, which I guess we take for granted. In the days of industrial serfdom it is fair enough to say that the powerful factory owners of Western Europe in particular did not assist in the development of trade unions. It was from such experiences that the trade union movement was born, to define and protect the rights of workers. I have no quarrel with the historical reasons for the formation of trade unions. However in the late twentieth century I believe trade unions have outlived their usefulness, a view clearly shared by the vast majority of Australians. Now more than ever we see evidence of unions constraining the liberties that they were formed to foster and protect. Trade union leaders are aware of the union movement's increasing lack of relevance to today's society. For evidence of that one need look no further than the declining membership of trade unions. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics trade union membership has fallen from 51 per cent of the work force in 1976 to 42 per cent in 1989. Only 32 per cent of private sector employees belong to trade unions. A recent Morgan research survey found that 87 per cent of Australians believed membership of trade unions ought to be voluntary. The point I made a few moments ago was that the Australian community, who are the prospective members of trade unions, have voted with their feet because only 32 per cent in the private sector believed unions were worth belonging to and the silent majority, the 68 per cent who are not represented in the industrial relations systems of this State or the Commonwealth, resented the fact that they had been effectively excised from the system. It is no wonder that almost 100 per cent of Australians believed that membership ought to be voluntary. It is interesting and worth observing that in the 1990s the typical trade unionist in Australia is a middle-aged male, blue-collar worker. I noted with interest that recently the Prime Minister's wife, Hazel Hawke, was brought in to launch a program to recruit young women into the union movement. Although I admire Mrs Hawke for being prepared to stand by the ideals she supports and for lending her name to the COMPULSORY UNIONISM

242 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

encouragement of young women and to a cause in which she believes, it is a clear public demonstration of the desperate nature of the union movement in Australia that it needs to resort to what one might call a stunt to try to generate interest in a flagging movement. Among the many noteworthy cases in the history of industrial disputes that have involved the question of union membership is the famous Dollar Sweets case. That case is not unique and represents one of the small number of cases from the late 1970s and 1980s which have had a profound and beneficial effect on the pattern of industrial relations in Australia. At page 1582 of the Hansard report of the Senate on 19 October 1988, Senator Jim Short is reported as pointing out the sorts of concerns that employees at Dollar Sweets felt concerning the compulsory procedures they were confronted with and the concerns that eventually led to a most unfortunate dispute. Senator Short described it as: ... the campaign of violence, thuggery and lawlessness then being waged by a militant, extremist, libyan-backed union, the Federated Confectioners Association against llillar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd, a small business in Melbourne. That dispute involved, amongst other things, an attempt by the union to overturn an agreement reached voluntarily between the company and its empfoyees on terms and conditions of employment. History records that the llillar Sweets case subsequently became one of the landmark cases in Australia's industrial relations history. Following action initiated in the courts by llillar Sweets, in early 1988 the union made an out-of-court settlement of $175 000. That dispute was significant for three fundamental reasons. Firstly, it gave an indication that the pursuit of proper processes of law will lead to just outcomes. As a result, civil courts are increasingly being used by those who find themselves subjected to the sort of vilification I have referred to. We have seen examples of disputes in recent times which, although I am certain they were not disputes occurring in the Victorian industrial relations jurisdiction, were of importance and, had they gone on much longer, may well have resulted in the same sort of civil action. Secondly, resistance by small business to union black bans, strikes and so on has strengthened and has had an enormous impact on the behaviour of some trade unions. Thirdly, it has proved that trade unions are no longer invincible in these areas. That is important because 68 per cent of Australians choose not to be subjected to the process of vilification of being required to become members of trade unions. The motion is about the right of the average Australian who wants to be independent to remain independent and still hold a job. That is pretty important and fundamental. It is about whether in our civilised society we are prepared to stand aside and allow thuggery and intimidation to coerce workers into union membership and to take over and rob us of essential rights. Under the coalition closed shops will become - are increasingly becoming - a thing of the past. Government contract agreements will not occur in future in the way in which the government has introduced and become involved in them. I can assure the House COMPULSORY UNIONISM

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 243 that there will be no more agreements like the National Tennis Centre agreement, where the predecessor of the Minister for Industrial Relations was castigated by no less a person than Mr Justice Ludeke, a Deputy President of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, for creating and supporting an industrial agreement that was outside the national wage guidelines. The same can be said of the Melbourne Remand Centre agreement. There will be no more Barwon Bridge agreements, with workers not working for over a year, as a direct consequence of the policies and views of the government and the way it has pursued industrial relations processes.

As an example of the direction the government has taken I will quote from a document titled the Victorian Building Industry Agreement 1989-1992, although the agreement has been in place for some time. I remind the House that this is a debate about compulsory unionism. On page 56, part 19 is headed "Union Membership (No Ticket-No Start}". This is an agreement negotiated by the government in association with other affected groups. On page 59, under point 19.5, "Subcontractors" it says:

The principal contractor shall inform his/her subcontractor/s, in writing, prior to the acceptance of any tender, that non-unionists or unfinancial union members are not permitted to work on site.

If that does not reflect compulsory unionism in this State, practised directly by the Victorian government, then I do not know what it does. In question time earlier this week the Minister tried very feebly to indicate that there is no compulsory unionism in Victoria. He referred to the Industrial Relations Bill that is now before the Parliament for debate, although I notice it is moving down the Notice Paper. It is clear that, while the government sought to embarrass me earlier today and did not succeed, it is doing exactly the same thing: it is failing to debate a Bill it claims is going to change fundamental structures of industrial relations in Victoria. Turning to page 125 of the agreement one sees the agreement was signed on behalf of the Victorian government by the Minister for Industrial Relations, and the text above his signature reads:

The Seal of the State Government of Victoria (Department of Labour) was hereunto affixed in accordance with its Constituent Documents and in the presence of .. , Immediately above that entry is the name "John Halfpenny" who has signed on behalf of the Victorian Trades Hall Council. Apart from the people directly involved in that agreement our old mate, the Premier's friend and factional colleague, John Halfpenny, is riding shotgun over the Minister for Labour. I now turn to some of the ways in which the agreement has borne down on the opportunity of people to work and the way in which it has been used unsatisfactorily. It is important to note the way compulsory union membership has impacted on a number of disputes throughout the State. I refer, for example, to the Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd St Kilda Road dispute where picket lines, thuggery, police involvement and workers COMPULSORY UNIONISM

244 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

brawling with workers occurred. Union bosses are telling the workers what they should do. The government practises a revolving door industrial relations policy. John Cummins, an employee of the Builders Labourers Federation, has moved in and out of prison more times than the Minister has had his beard clipped, if not his wings.

The Leighton's dispute was resolved in an unfortunate way for the Victorian community. Unions use their muscle to demonstrate to the community that the union bosses and their members are above the law. It is clear that Australians and Victorians in particular are sick and tired of two standards of law applying. If you, Mr Deputy Speaker, or I were driving home in our cars and had a temporary lapse, exceeded the speed limit and were fined, we would do the right thing and pay the fine without question. However, if you are a trade unionist who has bashed a policeman on a picket line you can walk in and out of gaol through the revolving door! The community does not like these double standards. The Leighton's dispute was ultimately resolved by a settlement of $2000 being paid to each picketer to make up for the loss of wages they incurred. It was not widely publicised that most of the workers who remained on the site were also paid $2000 for having to put up with walking through the picket line.

If industrial relations has been reduced to that standard as a consequence of compulsory union membership then enough is enough. People want to get on with their jobs. That was the case with the vast majority of the workers who worked at the Leighton site. I know that because I took the trouble to talk to many of them and they told me that they wanted to get on with their jobs and did not want to be part of the union, but they were not given the opportunity of opting out. If they had been the dispute would have been resolved a lot earlier than it was and it would not have cost $2000 per employee.

The government places the interests of union officials above the interests of the rank and file union members. That is contrary to Australian Labor Party philosophy, not that the Labor Party holds true to its philosophy, as can be seen from the answers given during question time today.

The government is dependent on the trade union movement in many ways. For instance, it is dependent on the union movement for its income. Approximately $1 million in union dues is given to the Australian Labor Party. The government has a direct pecuniary interest in advancing compulsory union membership because it receives a kickback from that union membership. What about the many people who do not want to join unions and who do not want to pay money to the Labor Party? They have no say at all. That is part of the pernicious nature of union membership.

Mr McNamara interjected.

Mr GUDE - As the Leader of the National Party says by interjection, it is almost theft and it is a denial of basic rights. It is an indication of the way the government is prepared to conduct its affairs. COMPULSORY UNIONISM

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 245

I remind honourable members of the way a former Premier and the Minister for Health have directed their energies to "encourage people into union membership". It is the role and responsibility of officials who are paid by the unions to carry out that function. The government wants a dosed shop so the trade unions do not have to make the effort.

I invite honourable members to examine the amount of contributions that trade unions have made to the government from the affiliation fees of union members and the amazing number of offsets that the government has made by way of grants to the union movement. Millions of dollars have been channelled into the trade union movement over the past few years. I do not say, nor do I want the Minister for Labour to misrepresent me when he refers to this point, as I am sure he win, that all government grants to the trade union movement are pay-backs. Some government grants to unions, particularly in the occupational, health and safety area, have been used properly. I am strongly supportive of the need for education in that area.

I refer honourable members to the time when the former Minister for Labour, now the Minister for Conservation and Environment, was ridding the State of the Builders Labourers Federation with the support of the opposition parties. The opposition discovered, through freedom of information requests, innumerable examples of government grants being misused by a particular union. Funds were being channelled to the union to enable it to employ officers to carry out functions other than occupational health and safety functions. The government knows that, the business community knows that, the trade union movement knows that and the opposition knows that. The opposition will not support that system and it will not continue when the coalition is elected to government, whenever the next election is held.

The Minister for Labour indicated that the Industrial Relations Bill, now on the Notice Paper, contains a conscientious provision in it. That is true, there is a conscientious provision, but what does it provide? Firstly, a person has to prove he has a conscientious objection to joining unions. Secondly, he has to pay an amount of money equivalent to the union membership fee. Having done that the person is granted a certificate of exemption which will last for one year. If the Minister calls that freedom of association then he and I walk to the beat of a different drum. That is not freedom of association. Freedom of association is where a person can make a free choice and has the right to do that through the jurisdiction of law. Although that process might be cleverly hidden from the untrained eye, the Bill is yet another attempt to enforce the old adage: no ticket, no start.

I shall now turn to the ways the people of this State have been badly affected by government decisions with respect to the Victorian Building Industry Agreement and other industrial agreements to which I referred earlier. Firstly, I refer to a report written by Mr Tom Dobson on the Westgate freeway negotiations. His report states: COMPULSORY UNIONISM

246 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

However, an industrial demarcation dispute which erupted early in the contract, delayed the erection of the factory for five months while it was arbitrated, and ultimately for more than a year because of subsequent industrial disruption by the particular union. The contractor claimed that the delay arose from the government's having negotiated a site agreement which included dispute settlement procedures with the Victorian Trades Hall Council and certain other unions, but incorrectly excluded the BLF from the agreement, so when the demarcation dispute developed, both government and VTHC were powerless to resolve it. It is bad enough that he had an agreement that had within it compulsory unionism but then to deny people who were carrying out part of that work an opportunity of having a say is even worse. The report continues: Neither the RCA nor the contractor were party to the site agreement, and the contractor claimed that since the delay was the result of an action by the government, the Road Construction Authority, as the government's agent, was liable for the contractor's costs. He concludes on this point by saying: The argument was ultimately accepted by both RCA and the Minister, and the contractor was awarded delay costs of $5.6 million. The people of Victoria paid those delay costs as a direct consequence of the process of industrial relations that had been entered into by the government by virtue of its compulsory unionism arrangements and its industrial agreements which one would have presumed were designed to avoid demarcation disputes. In fact the opposite has occurred at a cost of $5.6 million. This morning I introduced a Bill, which it is hoped we will debate later this day, relating to prompt payment of government accounts. An interesting item comes up in this report. It refers to the very late payment by the government of the money that was duly owed to the contractor, so it is bad enough that it was necessary to have an independent arbitration to find $5.6 million but now we find the following described in the report: The contractor's argument was ultimately accepted by the Road Construction Authority, although only after the dispute had progressed to arbitration... The government wanted to argue it all the way and the result was that the contractor was awarded $1.52 million in interest on the outstanding amount. Here we have the worst examples of what the government has been up to with industrial relations. I encourage people interested in this matter to get a copy of the Herald-Sun of 23 February and read a major article on pages 2 and 3 that mentions how the taxpayers are footing the bill for a flyover controversy and it relates directly back to the issue before the House: compulsory union membership and the way the government conducts its industrial relations processes. One example is the National Tennis Centre project where a $50 over-agreement wages deal was done by the former Minister. That went up to $70 for some of the union members working on the contract but not to others. Eventually the government was caught out and had to pass it on to all employees on the project. The Victorian Building Industry Agreement was added to as a result. As I said earlier, Mr Justice Ludeke, a deputy president of the Federal Industrial Relations Commission, said the deal was COMPULSORY UNIONISM

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 247

illegal and improper but, because of the arrangements between the government and its mates, the taxpayers of Victoria ultimately bore that cost. As we all know, the project is in some financial difficulty as a result of the arrangements entered into. I have a copy of some documents obtained by the honourable member for Gisborne under freedom of information some time ago relating to the National Tennis Centre when the $52 a week campaign was being waged by the unions. The claim related only to the plumbing subcontractors and it amounted to $1.5 million. That is another example of how the process of union membership by compulsion has had an impact on the broader interests of the community. I summarise by saying again that the opposition is totally opposed to the notion of compulsory unionism, that the processes that have been followed slavishly by this government since 1982, initiated by the Premier, supported by successive Ministers of the Crown, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Labour, in encouraging and coercing people into union membership and the way the Victorian Building Industry Agreement has been used to hand on money to union mates are unhealthy. It is a clear demonstration of two sets of laws that no decent Australian or Victorian would ever want to be part of. The coalition is totally opposed to that process. I come back to where I started: I enjoin the House to support the motion condemning compulsory unionism as it is practised in Victoria, especially in the building industry. I have given ample evidence of the violation of the fundamental right of freedom of association laid down in the United Nations declaration of civil and political rights: everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and no-one may be compelled to belong to an association. I commend the motion to the House. Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - Last night on the ABC television program Lilteline the compere, Mr Kerry O'Brien, put to the Leader of the Opposition, 'When are you going to come out with your various policies?" The Leader of the Opposition replied to the effect that the opposition was already releasing its policies and he said, "Last week I released our industrial relations policy". The Leader of the Opposition was obviously referring to a speech he made at the Building Owners and Managers Association meeting he attended last Thursday where, among a number of issues in his speech, he spoke for two pages on industrial relations. He claimed in the IiIteline program last night that those two pages comprise the opposition's industrial relations policy for the future. Those two pages referred to the issues that were raised today by the honourable member for Hawthorn and are, according to the Leader of the Opposition, the totality of the opposition's industrial relations policy in this State. As the honourable member for Mitcham said, it is a pretty thin policy. In fact, it is very thin if it is only two pages long. Somewhere in the two pages the Leader of the Opposition said: We do not intend to blindly go out to battle. It is not a matter of the opposition saying, ''Let's consider how we can improve industrial relations; let's see what we can do to have some industrial harmony in Victoria". Blindly COMPULSORY UNIONISM

248 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

go out to battle! These are quite fitting words when one takes into account that the honourable member for Hawthorn is reported as having said in the Sunday Sun: We will use the Anny if necessary. He has tried to move away from that statement, while his Leader is saying the opposition does not intend to blindly go out to battle. What is the opposition's industrial policy? A paltry two pages that are all about confrontation! The honourable member for Hawthorn quoted the United Nations declaration of civil and political rights but he did not quote the United Nations when he started talking about the need, as he said, for civil courts, which are being used, to be used more. He did not quote the United Nations which recently stated: The ILO recommends against the use of common law damages against unions during industrial disputes. The honourable member for Hawthorn cannot have it both ways. He is quoting the United Nations on one side and not on the other. He spoke at length about the Victorian Building Industry Agreement and his version of the potted history of the Builders Labourers Federation and how he supported the government's moves to get rid of it. When the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, deregistered the BLF in the late 1970s the Liberal government in Victoria walked away from the issue; it did not want to know. It happened under a Labor government in Victoria, and it happened because the union was corrupt. When he talked about the building industry and the VBIA, the honourable member for Hawthorn did not alert the House to the fact that Signatories to the VBIA include a number of employer groups. There is an agreement between the unions and employers on how they want the Victorian building industry conducted. Until the recent economic downturn in Victoria the building industry was booming. Every statistic testifies to the fact that the building industry in Victoria has outstripped the industry in every other State in recent years. At the moment there is a downturn but one of the reasons why the industry has been so successful in recent years is because the employers and unions have an agreement called the Victorian Building Industry Agreement, which they abide by. It gives greater regulatory control over industrial relations than occurs in New South Wales and elsewhere. It is a shame for the honourable member for Hawthorn to decry it. It is also a shame that he did not mention the fact that employers, apart from the two he selectively drew out of the VBIA document, are signatories. I turn to the issue of compulsory unionism. The honourable member for Hawthorn would have us believe there are closed shops throughout the work force and that everyone is compelled to be in a union. The reality is that 90 per cent of the work force does not come under the umbrella of a closed shop. Only 10 per cent comes under a closed shop agreement. That is not the widespread compulsory unionism we are led to believe exists if we listen to the honourable member for Hawthorn. COMPULSORY UNIONISM

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 249

There are existing laws that protect the rights of individuals who do not wish to join a union. Presently there is the Federal Industrial Relations Act which goes to the area of conscientious objection. The Industrial Relations Act 1979, which was brought in by the opposition when it was in government, does not go to the issue of conscientious objection. This government is putting it in the Bill before the House - the same Bill the opposition is opposing, even though every major employer group says it should proceed. The Federal Industrial Relations Act already covers the situation of conscientious objection.

Of the 10 per cent of the work force in the closed shop situation, the majority come under Federal awards, not State awards which come under the present State Industrial Relations Act. That Act does not cater for this issue. The government is catering for it and calling upon the opposition, as is every other major employer group, to support it. The Act will introduce a legislative provision to ensure a person has the right to withdraw from a union.

I believe in unionism and I believe it is appropriate to support the issue. Workers in Australia are receiving pay increases and improved conditions which in the main were won by the unions or negotiated by the unions and employers. The most important agreements between parties, which take into account the union movement, are probably the various accords negotiated by the ACTU. They have not only assisted in bringing about industrial harmony but have catered to the economic well-being of this country by the very nature of the negotiations.

With the accord negotiations there has been a reduction in unit labour costs which was necessary for this country to prosper. There has been a 10.5 per cent fall in unit labour costs because of collective bargaining or because of the ACTU determining the matter with the Federal government and going through the Industrial Relations Commission of Australia.

Workers are very pleased to receive condition improvements or salary increases, and quick to put their hands out, as they should be because the vast majority of workers deserve the increases they receive.

All I am saying is that I support unionism and the issue of collectivism with respect to this issue. I s1:lpport the position of people paying their way with respect to receiving benefits. They should contribute. I think that is also all that the union movement is saying: people should pay their way. If they do not belong to a union for some reason they have the capacity to opt out under the Federal Industrial Relations Act. At the moment that option does not exist in Victoria but it will exist if the Bill before the House is passed by the Legislative Council. As I said the Bill is supported by all the major employer groups in Victoria.

The so-called industrial relations policy described by the Leader of the Opposition on ABC television involves a number of issues which will help the opposition blindly go out to battle. The opposition would call in the Army if it were in government. COMPULSORY UNIONISM

250 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

What other areas does the opposition examine? Honourable members heard some when the honourable member for Hawthorn read out the tired old motions which have been hanging around for four or six years - motions he did not have a second-reading speech for when I called upon him to proceed. These ideas are tired old things dressed up as some new industrial relations policy. The policy refers to prevention of secondary boycotts. Sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act currently caters for such events. Why is further legislation needed when the Federal legislation covers all workers in Victoria? The Federal legislation allows action to be taken against unions; such provisions already exist on the statute books. Why is new State legislation necessary? It is all about members of the opposition beating their chests and trying to dress up an industrial relations policy. The policy contains issues the opposition has talked about year after year. When the Liberal Party was in government it wimped away from taking strong action. Earlier this week the honourable member for Hawthorn said he supported the government's derecognition of the Builders Labourers Federation. However, the opposition wimped away from doing that when the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, deregistered the BLF. The Liberal Party wimped away when the BLF went on strike at Loy Yang, demanding a record deal for lost time. Most people are sick of the rhetoric from members of the opposition on this issue. They are trying to get populist approval of their hairy-chested position, but they are failing. The opposition's policy refers to secret ballots. Section 99 of the current Industrial Relations Act covers that, as does the Federal Industrial Relations Act. All workers throughout Australia are covered by legislation regarding secret ballots. However, the opposition wants more legislation because it sounds good to beat the drum and get on another front page of the Herald-Sun. The government's Industrial Relations Bill currently on the Notice Paper retains the use of secret ballots, but the opposition wants more legislation because it sounds good. Members of the opposition talk continually about enterprise bargaining. That is being supported by the government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in the current wage fixing hearing. It is being supported on the basis of the need for enterprise bargaining between collective units of employers and employees under the auspices of the Industrial Relations Commission. What does the government's Bill say about that? Through the use of certified agreements and by loosening up the system, the Bill does away with conciliation and arbitration boards so employers and employees can get speedy hearings in front of commissioners. The Bill provides flexibility.

The ACITNG SPEAKER (Mr Evans) - Order! The Minister should take account of the rule of anticipation in debate. He is not at liberty to canvass the details of the Industrial Relations Bill currently on the Notice Paper. The motion before the House is narrow in confining itself to compulsory unionism. COMPULSORY UNIONISM

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 251

Mr POPE - I commented on it only because the issue was raised by the honourable member for Hawthorn. The Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Hawthorn have put forward their so-called industrial relations policy, which says the Liberal Party will ensure workers are able to cross picket lines. Workers can already cross picket lines and they are supported by the government, through the activities of the Police Force if necessary, to do so. The opposition policy refers to consideration of the industrial relations system with reference to promotion and facilitation of legally enforced enterprise bargaining agreements. I have already mentioned that enterprise bargaining is catered for; the government supports that under the auspices of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The industrial relations policy refers to using the courts to recover damages. Following the recent Heinz dispute even the President of the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party, Mr Michael Kroger, said that employers can take action through the court system. I have said already the Trade Practices Act covers action that can be taken, but the opposition has whacked in that issue to appeal to the populace. The opposition's industrial relations policy is a hotchpotch of sloganeering and rhetoric that will never be carried through. The Liberal Party will not go blindly out to battle; it sounds good for the Herald-Sun, but the Liberal Party will not "use the Army", as the honourable member for Hawthorn said in the Sunday Sun. The honourable member said the Liberal Party would use the Army as necessary. Perhaps he could refloat HMAS Cerberus because Victoria has not had an army for a century. The ACI1NG SPEAKER - Order! The Minister should get back to the subject of the motion, which deals with a specific question. This is not an appropriate opportunity for canvassing the ambit of industrial relations. Mr POPE - I sat in silence and listened to the honourable member for Hawthorn as he widely canvassed the issues. I recall him mentioning how the opposition would deal with unions in this State. However, I take note of what you say, Mr Acting Speaker. The issues covered in the motion are part of the supposed centrepiece of what the opposition will do for industrial relations in this State. It is 'a hotchpotch of hairy-chested rhetoric that has no substance. As political commentators'and employers have said, it is nonsensical and empty. If it is the opposition's industrial relations policy, as the Leader of the Opposition said last night to Kerry O'Brien on ABC television, what consultation took place with employer groups? The ACI1NG SPEAKER - Order! I again remind the Minister that the motion does not deal with broad industrial relations matters. It deals with compulsory unionism, and the Minister should come back to that point. COMPULSORY UNIONISM

252 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

Mr POPE - The policy is a hotchpotch; it will not be implemented by the opposition if ever it gets into office, and heaven help us if it does. The motion deserves no further comment because it can be seen for exactly what it is - absolute rhetoric and political grandstanding to appeal to the editors of the Herald-Sun. Mr W. D. McGRATH (Lowan) - The motion moved by the honourable member for Hawthorn relates to compulsory unionism and how it violates fundamental rights under the United Nations declaration of civil and political rights.

For the past 20 minutes I have listened to the Minister for Labour speak about industrial relations and where the government sits in contrast to the opposition. Mr Acting Speaker, you would agree with me that the role of industrial relations in the next five years in Victoria - whether it relates to the building industry or other industries - is going to be vitally important in determining whether this State and this nation survive.

The Minister destroyed his own argument because recently he has been quoted in the press talking about the role of unions and the problems relating to the union movement - the extreme union movement, as he has said on a couple of occasions - and how there need to be changes in its operations.

There is nothing wrong with that and I applaud the Minister for doing it; the sorry part is that he had to apologise to the Premier for his statements. It was a front page story.

Mr Micallef interjected.

Mr W. D. McGRATH - Isn't it good the way the left winger jumps up when the nerve is touched? I support the Minister for Labour's comments relating to compulsory unionism in areas such as the building industry, manufacturing or whatever. The fact that he had to apologise was quite disconcerting to me.

I remember when a former Federal Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Peter Nixon, opened the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) conference in Echuca some ten years ago. A farmer at that conference asked whether the then Federal government would move to bring about compulsory unionism within the farming community because it wanted all farmers to belong to the VFF. To his credit Mr Nixon was able to give a very good illustration of the dangers of making it compulsory for a farmer to belong to the VFF.

I hear what the Minister for Labour says about belonging to a union and I support the concept that if people want to join a union they should have the right and freedom to do so, but if they do not wish to join a union they should not be forced by the hierarchy within the union movement to belong to one.

One continually hears of incidents of union thuggery - the Minister used the words "industrial harmony". I totally agree with that. If there were industrial harmony there would be a good work ethic, a good work force and management, with profits, and the economy would be doing well rather than being on its knees. I support industrial harmony. COMPULSORY UNIONISM

Thursday. 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 253

Too often in the building industry industrial thuggery has taken place. For an example one has only to look at what has happened on the Leighton site in St Kilda Road in the past six or twelve months. Why did the Minister not give honourable members an outline of the government's position on that dispute? Mr Pope interjected. Mr W. D. McGRATH - You did not talk about the building industry. You had a great opportunity this afternoon to address compulsory unionism as it relates to the building industry and tell the House what the government's philosophy or approach is. I sat here for 20 minutes and did not hear you speak about the Leighton site. Mr Speaker, many industrial disputes have taken place in Victoria, some examples of which are the disputes at Hoechst and at Heinz, the tram strike a few months ago and the St Kilda Road building project I mentioned earlier. They were all about industrial relations. If this nation is to go anywhere we all have to address industrial relations and get back to a work ethic. Whether it is management, worker, or whoever, it has to be a combined and joint venture in industrial relations to achieve one common goal.

This is where in recent months the Labor government has let Victoria down badly. It has been far too sympathetic to the left wing union movement, which is strongly committed to compulsory unionism. It is very dominant in the building and meat industries, both of which are highly orientated towards taking up employment and giving job opportunities. What has happened in Victoria in the past twelve months because of the dominance of the left wing union movement in the building industry is that there has been an enormous growth in unemployment and a tremendous loss in job opportunities. People are getting tired of the way the union movement is dominating politics in Victoria. The honourable member for Hawthorn has put forward a very constructive explanation of the ambitions and direction of the next coalition government of Victoria. Victoria has an enormous debt problem which has to be addressed on many fronts if we are going to come to terms with it. Bringing it all together will require a strong building industry, manufacturing industry and mining industry, and a strong agricultural sector. That is not being encouraged under this government. People lack a strong commitment to a work ethic in this State. How do you get a strong work ethic? ~t has to be given by example by the leaders ot our State, whether they are leaders from government or the union movement. That example is not forthcoming at this particular time. What the honourable member for Hawthorn is endeavouring to do today is to increase awareness of and give substance to the fact that there needs to be a work ethic. He is saying, "Go out there, workers, you do not have to belong to a union; it does not have to be compulsory." The opposition is not going to stand for union thuggery; it is going to look for the industrial harmony that the Minister for Labour spoke about. Putting those two thoughts together, we could well have the Minister for Labour behind the scenes, although it might not be politically expedient for him to do so, silently agreeing with the honourable COMPULSORY UNIONISM

254 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

member for Hawthorn - and that is different from the views of some of his left wing colleagues - that there needs to be industrial harmony rather than the sort of industrial thuggery that has been seen in the building industry. Mr Pope interjected.

Mr W. D. McGRATH - The interjection of the Minister for Labour about sending in the army is not what one would expect from him. I should have thought the Minister would have been a little above that type of remark.

Resolution of the industrial dispute that occurred at SPC Ltd would have come out strongly on the side of enterprise bargaining had it not been hijacked by the Trades Hall Council and brought before the Industrial Relations Commission. The dispute could have been dealt with at the local level but, because there was a compulsion for unionism to become involved, the opportunity of dealing with it at that level was denied.

I shall highlight where the coalition government will be going: it will give workers with strong work ethics who want to get on with the job a commitment to work together with them so that the $40 billion debt facing Victoria can be paid. An enormous job awaits the coalition government. It will not allow the workplace to be dominated by union thuggery. We must have industrial peace and harmony and we must have a strong work ethic before we will get anywhere in this State. I commend the honourable member for Hawthorn for his motion.

Mr MICALLEF (Springvale) - I acknowledge the contribution of the honourable member for Lowan purely for the fact that he had two thoughts - one more than he normally has. He was good with the rhetoric about hijacking and thuggery. He used colourful terms of the gangster era, an era that he was obviously brought up in. He spoke about a Labor government that has let the left wing position on union thuggery and hijacking prevail but I shall put on record the benefits the government has put in place during the past eight years.

Mr Evans - What about all those rotten tomatoes!

Mr MICALLEF - I shall examine the government's record. Let us forget the rhetoric and the tomatoes that the honourable member for Gippsland East appears to be obsessed with. In the twelve months to November 1990 New South Wales, the so-called Premier State, lost 600 000 working days as a result of industrial disputes but in the same period Victoria lost only 350 000 working days.

Mr Penin - That has nothing to do with it!

Mr MICALLEF - It has a lot to do with the industrial scene. It is an acknowledgment that Victoria is performing much better in industrial relations terms than is New South Wales. The record speaks for itself. The days lost per 1000 employees under the previous conservative government -- COMPULSORY UNIONISM

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 255

Mr PERRIN (Bulleen) - On a point of order, earlier the Acting Speaker ruled on a point of order that narrowed the debate before the House to the specific motion. I believe the honourable member for Springvale is canvassing the wider subject of industrial relations but the motion before the House relates to compulsory unionism. The honourable member for Springvale has been on his feet for a few minutes but he has not mentioned that subject. He was in the Chamber during the Acting Speaker's ruling but he is clearly now flouting the Chair's ruling, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to bring him back to order. Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - On the point of order, the honourable member for Springvale was also here when the honourable member for Hawthorn was speaking to his motion, as was the honourable member for Bulleen. When the honourable member for Hawthorn spoke he covered the industrial situation in Victoria. He certainly went into a wide-ranging debate about industrial relations and I believe it is more than appropriate for the honourable member for Springvale to be replying to those matters raised by the honourable member for Hawthorn, which included the issue of too many strikes in Victoria.

'D'e honourable member for Springvale is showing that it is a nonsense to suggest that Victoria is the stricken State that the honourable member for Hawthorn suggested. In fact, the honourable member for Springvale is putting this information in rebuttal of the points made by the honourable member for Hawthorn.

The SPEAKER - Order! On the point of order, unfortunately I was called outside the Chamber at the early stage of the debate referred to in discussion on the point of order. At the time the honourable member for Springvale was interrupted he had spoken for only 2 minutes and it then appeared he was setting the context within which he would speak to the motion. I remind the honourable member for Springvale that the purpose of the debate is to debate the motion but in the circumstances I believe he should have some latitude in setting the context in which he will make his remarks.

Mr MICALLEF (Springvale) - I was responding to the last speaker, the honourable member for Lowan, who said Victoria was strike ridden. I was setting the record straight and I was responding directly by saying the number of working days lost under the previous Liberal-National Party regime between 1972 and 1981 was 800 days lost per 1000 employ~s, but under the leadership of the Labor gov.ernment it is down to 200 days lost per 1000 employees.

If you relate the comparison to New South Wales, Victoria is well down on days lost. If you relate this to the current administration compared with the previous administration, the days lost are significantly down. Therefore, the facts do not bear out the rhetoric.

Victoria has an effective system of industrial relations. It is delivering industrial harmony. The Minister for Labour said that under the Thompson government a scandalous situation occurred of public money being used to bribe people to strike for six months.! am an avid unionist. Millions of dollars from government coffers were used COMPULSORY UNIONISM

256 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

by the Thompson administration, but it was still unable to organise its industrial relations policy for the benefit of the community. Honourable members interjecting.

Mr MICALLEF - I turn now to compulsory unionism. The opposition is not only opposed to compulsory unionism, it is really opposed to effective unionism. It has couched. the motion in terms of compulsory unionism being an undemocratic denial of human rights, but it is actually saying it does not want any form of effective organisation. The only unionism the opposition wants is token unionism; it is the type of organisation the opposition would accept and support.

Today the House is having a classic exercise in union bashing. The rhetoric about union bashing seems to become more exaggerated. the longer the opposition is out of office. I suggest next year we will see more of the colourful terminology used by the honourable member for Lowan and more of the colourful characters on the other side; they may read public notices in the Herald-Sun and then come out with some of the rubbish in that newspaper!

The record of the government is very good. The reason it has been successful is that the government has been consultative. It has relied. on tripartism in industrial relations. It is no accident that members of employer organisations - for example, Ken Crompton - have come to an understanding with the government. From a very hostile position a number of years ago they have worked. with the government on the basis of its consultative approach.

The government is supportive of tripartite mechanisms, whereby unions, employers and government work together in areas such as manufacturing, industrial relations, industrial training, and so on. The package of tripartism has really delivered an effective cooperative consultative approach to the Victorian industrial relations scene. Unions have a fundamental position within that tripartite position and the opposition should come to terms with that.

Unions are fundamentally democratic institutions; one must note that in past and present repressive regimes around the world the first democratic organisations to be attacked. by any tyrants are trade unions. One need look only at the trade union role in Solidarity and the way Solidarity protected. the democratic rights of not only the workers but of all the people. Unions have always had a broader view and it is about time the opposition accepted. the legitimate role of trade unions and their very real impact in supporting and guarding the human rights records of ordinary people throughout the world.

Freedom of peaceful assembly now exists. That is one of the fundamental rights for which the trade union movement has fought, and it has won. Only a few years ago you were not allowed. to hand out leaflets in Melbourne's streets. I remember some years ago I was booked. by a Melbourne City Council officer for handing out leaflets -- COMPULSORY UNIONISM

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 257

Mr PERRIN (Bulleen) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I again point out that the debate is very narrow. The motion before the House talks exclusively about compulsory unionism. Apart from the point of order I made previously, which probably occupied about 1 minute, the honourable member for Springvale has been speaking for 10 minutes but has not touched on the subject matter of the motion before the House. The honourable member is talking about being fined for distributing pamphlets in the city. That has nothing to do with the motion before the House and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to bring him back to order and to the motion which, as the Acting Speaker pointed out previously, is very narrow. The SPEAKER - Order! I have been listening to the honourable member for Springvale and I certainly believe in large measure he has been addressing the motion before the Chair. It is difficult for the Chair to relate some of his more recent remarks to the motion and I ask him to relate his remarks to the motion now before the House. Mr MICALLEF (Springvale) - Mr Speaker, I did see some error in mentioning the United Nations covenant on human rights; I was referring to that subject in my contribution, and saying that trade unions have played a substantial role in winning those sorts of freedoms in Melbourne. I understand the honourable member has some difficulty linking those issues, and that is the point I have been making. The opposition has a very narrow and blinkered view; it does not acknowledge that trade unions have played that important role. The opposition objects to unions being effective in organising and representing workers. Any interference with the ability of unions to be effective and to organise must cut across their ability to deliver those well-established benefits to their members. For example, this week the people of Melbourne have been acknowledging and celebrating the Australian 8-hour day; it was a world first and was achieved by the Australian Labor movement. The trade union movement was important in establishing those pioneering rights for workers throughout the world. The opposition criticises so-called compulsory unionism but its attack is really a fallacy; it is all about the unions' abilities to organise effectively and to deliver on behalf of their memberships. Why not be honest? Why not say it? The community will appreciate some honesty. I am sure the Herald-Sun and the honourable member for Brighton will appreciate some honesty from the opposition about its attitude to the trade union movement in this country. I have had some experience as a shop steward in a so-called closed shop; I represented about 1500 workers belonging to twelve unions. During twelve years not one day was lost by workers I represented on the issue of compulsory unionism. The only occasion that provided the potential for a strike concerned a person who refused to join the union and was dumped in the organisation. The workers quite rightly rejected that approach and every worker in the establishment refused to work with that person because the issue at the time was politically motivated; extreme right-wing

77199/91-9 COMPULSORY UNIONISM

258 ASSEMBLY . Thursday, 14 March 1991

groups were prevalent at the time and were manipulating the compulsory unionism issue to their advantage by attacking the trade union movement. That is an example of the issues that may surface on the compulsory unionism issue. On the question of political levies, the rules of trade unions must be registered in the Industrial Relations Commission. Political levies are organised by the trade unions and that is a legitimate process. The trade unions introduce and support their own rules that must be registered to ensure the unions comply with the IRC guidelines. Therefore, although workers pay political levies via their trade unions that is an acknowledged and accepted practice.

The misuse of funds was alluded to by the honourable member for Hawthorn in his very narrow contribution. He particularly referred to occupational health and safety grants and their relevance to trade unionism. He said the funds allocated to the Victorian Trades Hall Council had been misused. One must become a little suspicious because not one specific allegation can be substantiated by the honourable member for Hawthorn.

It is very easy to generalise, as does the Herald-Sun, and become involved in glib stuff. Certainly the community expects details of allegations that can be Substantiated before someone can effectively be labelled with having misused public funding.

Another issue raised was conscientious objection. I have had some experience as an industrial shop steward, and I have found that often people have misused the conscientious objection process purely to get out of paying a particular union membership fee. But, as the honourable member for Morwell points out, there is never any doubt that they will accept the rights won for them by the trade unions such as the 8-hour day, penalty rates, holidays and annual leave loading. One should be able to assume that if they accept the benefits won by trade unions the reason for not joining a union would be monetary. If they do not want to join purely because they do not want to pay the membership, that is a different issue to being a legitimate conscientious objector.

The bona fides of conscientious objection can be established easily and dearly by asking a conscientious objector to donate an equivalent amount of money to their favourite charity or a deSignated charity. This would then remove from them any need to prove that they are not using the conscientious objection purely to get out of paying the membership fee. I think that stance is quite reasonable.

The secondary boycotts provision is another furphy. A number of the things the honourable member for Hawthorn spoke about are provided for under Federal legislation and secondary boycotts are covered. Therefore, I do not see the need to introduce such a provision at a State level as it would be merely a duplication and a widening of our bureaucracy.

Secret ballots are another amazing furphy often heard about from the conservatives who do not understand the nature of industrial relations. The fact is that secret ballots already COMPULSORY UNIONISM

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 259

exist within the Act and there is no need to reintroduce something for the purposes of political grandstanding. I would prefer to see a little basic honesty from the opposition. I would perhaps be more understanding if the opposition were to say that it was opposed to trade unions, rather than it throwing up the red herring about secret ballots when secret ballots already exist.

The unions and the community have certainly learnt how to deal with the fact that industrial processes, when they break down, lead to disputation but when those relations do break down people need to remember that there are two sides.

During the Heinz dispute people were concerned about the tomato growers, and that was a legitimate concern, but people need to remember the two sides to industrial relations - the employer and the worker. If there are bad industrial relations it is difficult for rational discussion to take place within that climate. When John Halfpenny intervened the Heinz dispute was resolved in the Trades Hall Council very quickly.

The rhetoric of the opposition just does not stand up under scrutiny. Previous speakers spoke about enterprise bargaining. What these people are saying is that they want the ability for organisations and unions to enter into agreements that go below a base rate. That is what it is all about.

The ability for companies and unions to enter into enterprise bargaining already exists; they have the facility to register those agreements within the Industrial Relations Commission, but the opposition is saying it wants agreements that will break the existing award structure. In this instance a little bit of honesty would help. The government's record is second to none. As opposed to the previous Liberal government in Victoria or the present New South Wales government our record stands on its own.

An understanding exists between the Trades Hall Council, government and the police about the conduct of people involved in picket lines. The agreement seems to work well, apart from the odd extreme circumstance when truck drivers drive through picket lines causing potential harm to workers and picketers. That is when it gets out of control.

Picket lines exist at present and the police escort workers or scabs, I should say, through picket lines, and they do it on a regular basis so I do not know what the opposition is on about when it refers to picket lines because existing processes and rights are available to the workers and I can only say from my experience with industrial disputes that in the area of police resources there seems to be no shortage of police, wherever a picket line exists.

In the case of the Dollar Sweets dispute or the Hoechst dispute it is easy for the employer to pick up the telephone and ring the police, and within a matter of seconds there can be ten-or fifteen police cars at the site with three reinforcements to supervise the crossing of picket lines. So this issue by the opposition is another furphy which also raises the question of the allocation of police resources. COMPULSORY UNIONISM

260 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

The police seem to give a high priority to ensuring that that agreement works, so I guess one could say the opposition has an ally on its side in that respect, or at least most employers do, and that understanding has worked very well. The trade unions have delivered quite a peaceful industrial relations scene in Victoria. They have represented workers effectively and will continue to do so. On many issues the trade unions have been at the forefront, such as on award restructuring, work practices, demarcation issues and amalgamation, along with the accord which has delivered major industrial harmony in this country. Most employers understand that the organisation delivering this industrial harmony is the trade union movement. The union then organises to represent the workers and that delivers the peace and consultation to the work environment. If ever there is a change in government the unions will rue the day when a Phi} Gude or somebody like that - who has a total lack of understanding and has completely alienated everybody in dealing with the unions - is in charge. He has even alienated Ken Crompton from the industrial process. The conservatives have put forward a load of rubbish. It is union-bashing, colourful rhetoric and no substitute for a policy. Mr HONEYWOOD (Warrandyte) - My contribution to the debate will be brief. Prior to being asked by the government whip to pad out his speech by 10 minutes the honourable member for Springvale made a very important point. His point was that the first democratic institution to be attacked by a tyrant is a trade union. Nothing could be further from the truth. As we all know from the history of revolutions, the first democratic institution to be attacked by a tyrant is the media. This morning honourable members have heard a constant attack on one particular newspaper, the Herald-Sun. What the Herald-Sun has to do with compulsory unionism, I do not know! Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! The Chair will be resumed at approximately 2 p.m. The honourable member for Warrandyte may continue his remarks when the matter is next before the Chair. Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended 1.1 p.m. until 2.3 p.m. POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - By leave, I move: That consideration of Orders of the Day, Government Business, the remaining Notices of Motion, General Business, and Orders of the Day, General Business, Nos I to 29 inclusive, be postponed until after the following Orders of the Day, General Business: Industrial Relations (Freedom of Association) Bill - Second reading; VICTORIAN RELIEF COMMITI'EE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 261

Prevention of Secondary Boycott Bill- Second reading; and Prompt Payment of State Accounts Bill- Second reading. Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - Leave is refused.

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - Mr Speaker, on a point of order, earlier this day, when these Bills were introduced and read a first time, the government indicated that it would give leave to have the Bills debated later today. I seek an indication from the Attorney-General as to when later this day the Bills will be called on for second reading. The SPEAKER - Order! There is no point of order. Any member has the right to refuse leave.

Mr W. D. McGRATH (Lowan) - On a further point of order, Mr Speaker, I respect your ruling but I submit there is an issue of credibility relating to all of this. I refer to the debate that took place just prior to General Business being undertaken. The Treasurer made the claim that he was keen to debate the Bills to which the honourable member for Hawthorn has referred. The Treasurer said that he hoped copies could be made available quickly and, in fairness to him, he made mention of a time, that is, before lunchtime today. Immediately after that, the honourable member for Hawthorn moved and was granted leave to move that the Bills be read a second time later this day. The SPEAKER - Order! There is no point of order.

VICTORIAN RELIEF COMMITIEE (AMENDMENT) BILL Second reading Ms KIRNER (Premier) - I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to give the Victorian Relief Committee power to sell goods collected by it, subject to Ministerial guidelines. The Victorian Relief Committee is a longstanding publicly funded organisation whose function is to provide relief for persons in distress. The committee has a proud and enviable record of achievement in Victoria in performing this important task. The Victorian Relief Committee is an organisation with a distinctive role in the Victorian welfare field. It is unique in Australia as the only instrumentality set up by an Act of Parliament to dispense material aid continuously throughout the year. Bedding, furniture, kitchenware, food, clothing and all manner of other household items are provided from a reserve of carefully selected materials, with considerable assessment of the needs of those who will receive them. Professional counselling services are available to all clients of the committee. EQUIPMENT (pUBLIC SAFETY) BILL

262 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

Today the Victorian Relief Committee is a major provider of material aid in this State. The number and diversity of welfare groups and agencies applying to it on behalf of their clients is testimony to this. While the committee and its small staff are coping admirably with the increased demand for services, there is concern that the diminished income received in recent years may limit the capacity to meet requests. The committee is very grateful for all items generously donated to it. However, often items that are donated, although valuable, may not be of a nature or condition to be of the greatest practical application for those to whom the committee provides assistance. A power to sell such goods to augment the committee's income and purchase more appropriate items would increase the resources available to the committee in carrying out its valuable work. The Bill will give the committee that power, subject to Ministerial guidelines. In conclusion, on behalf of the government and all Victorians, I thank Dame Phyllis Frost for her untiring and selfless devotion to the work of the Victorian Relief Committee and for the leadership and character she has always displayed. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr PESCOTI (Bennettswood).

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 28 March.

EQUIPMENT (PUBLIC SAFETY) BILL Second reading Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - I move:

That this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to preserve statutory control over equipment safety in the public domain, and in doing so contribute to the process of consolidation and rationalisation of legislation controlling equipment safety. A major rewrite of the primary regulations covering equipment safety is now being carried out. The main objective is to modernise the regulatory control of cranes, boilers and pressure vessels and other equipment used in the workplace. This modernisation process is being done by bringing all the occupational safety regulatory controls within the ambit of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. This is in keeping with the original intentions of that Act, which included the repeal of the earlier equipment safety legislation. In carrying out this process it is essential that government retains the ability to regulate the design, manufacture and use of potentially dangerous equipment in the public domain. The Occupational Health and Safety Act, for the most part, can regulate equipment and activities only in the workplace. The specific equipment safety legislation METUNG LAND BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 263

- the Lifts and Cranes, Boilers and Pressure Vessels and Scaffolding Acts - regulates equipment with no regard to whether or not the equipment is in a workplace. That is, the legislation covers the safety of the equipment in the public domain as well as the workplace. Consequently, a separate Act is required which will continue control over equipment safety in the public domain. It is intended that the Bill will not extend obligations or duties beyond what generally applies under the existing equipment safety legislation. The types of equipment covered by the Bill will also remain comparable to the older legislation and in any case will not be more extensive than the types of equipment regulated under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. KEY FEATURES OF THE BILL The general style of the Bill follows the Occupational Health and Safety Act model to ensure different administrative and enforcement systems are not needed. Inspectors under the new Act will be able to issue improvement notices and prohibition notices. Inspectorial powers will, for the most part, duplicate those under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. There is a capacity for the Minister to issue codes of practice and the regulation-making JX>wers also follow the Occupational Health and Safety Act provisions. The Bill contains an amendment to allow municipalities to appoint inspectors under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. These inspectors' JX>wers will be limited to covering occupational health and safety matters related to scaffolding in their municipal districts. In addition, the legislation will continue the practice of mUnicipalities retaining scaffolding permit fees. This will perpetuate comparable provisions under the Scaffolding Act, but also extends these municipal scaffolding inspectors' powers to allow them to exercise the powers available under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The intention is that these JX>wers will be strictly restricted to matters related to scaffolding. It is intended that regulations under the proposed legislation will essentially duplicate the revised equipment safety regulations now being drafted under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I commend the Bill to the House Debate adjourned on motion of Mr GUDE (Hawthorn).

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 28 March.

METUNG LAND BILL Second reading Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) - I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. METUNG LAND BILL

264 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

The Bill provides for the granting of a 50-year lease for marina development at Storth Ryes near Metung. The Storth Ryes resort is a major residential resort development proposed on 160 hectares £ronting Lake King, 2 kilometres west of Metung on the Gippsland Lakes. The focus of the development will be a marina with public boating facilities on the reserved Crown land being part of the foreshore and bed of Lake King. The proposed $50 million development includes a 450-room resort hotel-motel with convention facilities, 250 residential apartments, land for 450 house lots, a 350-berth marina, an 18-hole golf course, lake and harbourside service and marina commercial centres. The developer, Victorian Properties Pty Ltd, which owns the 160 hectares freehold, initially prepared an environment effects statement in July 1986 for the proposed resort. Later a supplementary report for a revised proposal was prepared at the request of the then Minister for Planning and Environment to include a number of government requirements for public facilities and access to the lake foreshore and redesign of components of the freehold development. Following the public exhibition and independent panel hearing and assessment the then Minister for Planning and Environment approved a planning scheme amendment and granted planning permission in December 1989. The amendment and agreement with the developer establish an ongoing development approvals process that requires continued monitoring, discussion and approval of development plans by the responsible authority and referral agencies. The development guidelines issued by the Minister include a requirement for staged development with tourism facilities and residential development preceding the marina. This will ensure that the developer completes components on the freehold land in a satisfactory manner before entering into a lease for development of the marina and associated facilities on Crown land. The development is consistent with government policy relating to the Gippsland Lakes zone and is identified as a priority project in the government's Gippsland Lakes tourism development program. In addition, it is identified in the East Gippsland Regional Economic Development Review as a beneficial development to the Lakes regional economy which is expected to generate some 80 jobs during and after construction as well as the indirect economic benefits. The developers have requested that a long-term lease of up to 50 years over the Crown land component be approved by government for the marina. Existing legislation under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 provides for maximum lease periods over reserved Crown land of 21 years with the approval of the Minister. As substantial capital costs would be involved in construction of the marina and because of its relationship to the development and operation of the resort as a whole, a lease for a maximum period of 21 years is not viable. A 50-year lease would be appropriate for the developer to amortise investments and ensure the long-term viability of the project. WERRmEE SOUTH LAND BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 265

The Bill enables a lease of 50 years over the Crown land component of the proposed Storth Ryse development to be granted by the Minister or by a committee of management to overcome the 21-year limitation contained in the Crown Land (Reserves) Act. The Bill includes the usual provisions of an Act of this type to ensure that the Crown is not liable for compensation for anything done under or arising out of this Act. I commend the Bill to.the House. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr COLEMAN (Syndal).

Debate adjourned until Tuesday, 26 March.

WERRIBEE SOUTH LAND BILL Second reading Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) - I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for the revocation of two permanent reservations over coastal Crown land at Werribee South, the reservation of that Crown land and an adjoining area of the bed of Port Phillip Bay for recreation and tourism purposes and the power to grant leases over that reserve for any period up to 50 years for marina development. Particulars of the reserves and plan of the relevant land are contained in Schedule 2 to the Bill. The creation of safer and more convenient boating facilities is part of the government's boating strategy for Port Phillip.Bay. As part of this strategy Werribee South was one of four locations identified by the government for initial investigation by a government task group. Investigations into alternative sites at Werribee South were conducted and the one considered most suitable is that situated adjacent to Duncan's Road approximately 2 kilometres east of the mouth of the Werribee River. This site contains approximately 11 hectares consisting of freehold land, Crown land permanently and temporarily reserved for public purposes and unreserved Crown land forming part of Port Phillip Bay. The freehold is currently under a contract of sale to the Werribee City Council. Evaluation of this site in relation to environmental and social impacts under the government's two-stage approval process has been completed. An environmental effects statement has been assessed and a planning scheme amendment has been approved. The planning scheme allows the construction and operation of the boat harbour complex incorporating a 3OO-berth marina, boat ramps, safe haven areas, berth facilities for commercial and casual use and associated tourist, recreation and parking facilities. The development will provide for public access and facilities. WERRmEE SOUTH LAND BILL

266 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

It is envisaged that the marina, boat ramps, commercial marine facilities and some public parking will be undertaken under the terms of a lease granted under the Act. Such a lease can be granted by the Minister or by a committee of management under conditions approved by the Minister. The present legislation provides that ownership of improvements reverts to the Crown or the committee of management at expiry of the lease, but limits to 21 years the maximum period for which such a lease can be granted. As substantial capital costs will be involved in marina construction at this site a maximum lease period of 21 years is not considered financially viable. A SO-year lease would be appropriate for the developer to amortise invesbnents and ensure the long-t~rm viability of the project. This Bill enables a lease of 50 years to be granted over the Crown land component of the proposed marina development at Werribee South. The Bill also provides for the removal of the current reservations over the foreshore which is reserved for public purposes and for the reservation of the Crown portion of the total site for recreation and tourism purposes. Although no proponent has yet been selected to develop the site, the government wishes to complete the planning process by ensuring that the Crown portion is appropriately reserved and that long-term leasing arrangements can be offered to a successful developer. The City of Werribee has conducted an expressions of interest process which began in May 1990. One of the respondents has put forward a well documented proposal which is currently being assessed. It is the government's intention to appoint the City of Werribee as a committee of management over the new Crown reserve so that the whole site can be managed as one. Suitable leasing provisions will be developed once a preferred developer has been selected. However it is the government's intention that any development will proceed only on a commercial basis with rent reflecting market values. Lease rental may be shared, under a formula to be agreed, between government and the city, where it will be applied to Crown reserve foreshore management within the municipality. However the likely rental income will depend on the nature and extent of the development on the Crown portion of the site. This will only be known following the acceptance of a preferred proponent and approval of a detailed design plan. The Bill includes the usual provisions of an Act of this type to ensure that the Crown is not liable for compensation for anything done under or arising out of this Act. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr COLEMAN (Syndal).

Debate adjourned until Tuesday, 26 March. ACCIDENT COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 267

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) BILL Second reading Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill supports two of the key policy objectives of the 1989 reforms to WorkCare, namely: restoration of the financial position of WorkCare while retaining the fundamental social objectives of the scheme; and a greater emphasis on health and safety in the workplace to improve safety and claims performance and a strengthened bonus and penalty scheme to encourage employers to improve their claims records. There is evidence to show that the 1989 reforms are having the desired effect: the financial position has improved sharply with a reduction in the unfunded liabilities which could mean that WorkCare is fully funded by 1995; there is a speedier and lower cost disputes resolution system; employers have strong incentives for improved performance and lower costs as a result of an expanded range of levy categories and an increased scale of bonus and penalties; and there has been a significant reduction of 32.7 per cent in the number of open claims between the end of September 1989 and December 1990 and a 10.1 per cent reduction in the number of long-term claims for the same period. This Bill contains amendments designed to implement the recommendations of the 1991 levy review, initiated by the Pretnier, and to address some anomalies in the legislation. LEVY REUEF TO EMPLOYERS Two amendments offer levy relief to employers and reflect the recommendations of the levy review. All employers will benefit from the decision to exclude award and non-award superannuation from the definition of leviable remuneration. The Bill also permits the Accident Compensation Commission (ACC) to provide, through regulation, retrospective relief to employers who suffered net levy rate increases on 1 July 1990 exceeding 100 per cent. Generally net levy rate increases for individual establishments in this category will be capped at 100 per cent. This is worth $25 million to these establishments in 1990-91. The 100 per cent cap on net levy rate increases will also apply in future years. BONUS AND PENALTY SCHEME Two amendments are specifically targeted to improve claims performance through adjustments to the bonus and penalty scheme. An employer's bonus or penalty for ACCIDENT COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

268 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

claims performance is determined by two factors: the total claims for the previous two calendar years, and the level of certifiable remuneration for the previous financial year. Some employers are avoiding penalties under the bonus and penalty scheme by manipulating these factors. One such method is to delay the reporting of claims incurred near the end of a calendar year until the next year. The Bill imposes a three-month limit on employers seeking reimbursement from the ACC for claims payments, unless the commission is satisfied that there is good reason for a longer delay. This will prevent employers avoiding levy increases for poor claims records. A complementary provision limits the manipulation of certifiable remuneration. Currently a non-certification penalty is imposed on employers who are late to certify. Under the current legislation the commission does not have the power to retain the penalty as a general rule. The Bill provides that regulations may make non-certification penalties generally non-refundable. This will remove the incentive for employers to delay the certification of remuneration. This amendment also reflects the recommendations of the levy review. INDEXATION OF COMMON LAW CAP A specific problem is the need to ensure that the $140 000 cap on common-law claims, introduced in 1987, is appropriately indexed. This action is required because a recent Supreme Court judgment pointed to legislative anomalies which negated the original legislative intent in relation to the indexation of the common law cap. This amendment ensures that in future common-law claims have a ceiling equivalent to $140 000 indexed annually from 1 July 1988. CERTIFICATES OF INCAPACITY The government has reviewed the entitlement to issue initial and continuing certificates of incapacity. The Bill extends to physiotherapists the right to issue continuing certificates of incapacity. This will help minimise the duplication of time and cost involved when a WorkCare claimant is undertaking a course of physiotherapy, but must regularly obtain a continuing certificate from a doctor, chiropractor or osteopath. However the goverrurient remains concerned about the need to monitor carefully the quality of certification by all health professionals. This extension of the right to issue continuing certificates of incapacity will be supported by an improvement in quality control to ensure that WorkCare claimants receive the highest standard of diagnosis and treatment. ERROR IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The Bill also contains an amendment to the reporting requirements of the Victorian Accident Rehabilitation Council. The council is currently required to provide reasons in its quarterly and annual reports for not providing rehabilitation. One of the reasons specified in the Act is that the employer has not provided employment. This needs to be corrected by deleting the word "not". ACCIDENT COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 269

PRISONERS DETAINED INTERSTATE While there is a provision in the Act preventing prisoners detained in Victoria from obtaining weekly WorkCare benefits in respect of any period for which a prison sentence is served, the Act does not provide for prisoners detained outside Victoria. The Bill removes this anomaly. The Bill also contains a number of statute law revision amendments. The reform measures .contained in this Bill are intended to fulfil the government's commitments arising from the levy review and to refine the operations of the Accident Compensation Act. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton). Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - I move: That the debate be adjourned until Tuesday week. Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton) - I seek the two-week adjournment which has been the norm in this House. This is an important matter. I do not anticipate it will be particularly contentious, with perhaps one exception, but it is necessary for the opposition to consult with a very wide range of business interests in relation to this matter. Most of the persons at law interested in the matter are organisations rather than individuals, and it is often difficult for them to respond within a short period. The adjournment moved by the Minister constitutes no more than eight working days. Even in past sessional periods, with an off week in the middle, it would have meant an effective adjournment of more than two weeks. It now means an adjournment of only eight working days. One must consider the exigencies of the mail and what has frequently been the case where, with upwards of 100 organisations to be consulted, the Papers Office has been unable to provide sufficient copies of the Bill for an immediate mail out. In addition, consultation must take place before the coalition parties can consider the Bill in light of that consultation. I put it to the House that it is simply inadequate to adjourn a matter of this kind - I would put it as high with any Bill but particularly with this Bill-for as little as eight working days. That is legislation without proper consultation. If any issue arises we are forced to raise it in the Upper House, with all the difficulties that involves, rather than raising it here so that the Minister can consider the results of the consultation we undertake. I appeal to the House and the Minister to provide a reasonable opportunity - a minimum of two weeks - to facilitate proper consultation with people who will be affected. I do not doubt the government has undertaken consultation but, particularly with measures of this importance, it is important that the opposition parties also have the opportunity to consult on the actual Bill and not on some abstract proposal. HEALTH SERVICES (CONCILIATION AND REVIEW)(FURmER AMENDMENT) BILL

270 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour)(By leave) - Last Friday I instructed officers of my department to telephone the coalition spokesperson on WorkCare to arrange a mutually agreeable time to brief him on the contents of the Bill. My understanding is that the briefing was to take place yesterday. I do not know whether it did take place - I understand it did. I will consider allowing more time if it proves to be necessary. The difference between an adjournment until Tuesday week and an adjournment of two weeks does not really affect Parliamentary party meetings and so on; it has the effect of allowing only two additional days. If more time is required I will be more than happy to talk with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until Tuesday, 26 March.

HEALTH SERVICES (CONCILIATION AND REVIEW)(FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL Second reading Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I move:

That this Bill be now read a second time. Honourable members will recall that legislation was enacted last spring to repeal the sunset clause in the Health Services (Conciliation and Review) Act 1987. This was done because it was obvious that the trial period of operation of the Health Services Commissioner had proved it to be an outstanding success. Victoria has the only such position in Australia and I am pleased to report that the community is taking advantage of the opportunity to air its grievances. Over the calendar year 1990 the commissioner received 4808 contacts from members of the public, 1546 of which were treated as complaints under the Act. I am pleased to say that twcrthirds of these complaints were resolved through providers - hospitals and private practitioners - responding directly to consumers. Of the remaining one-third, most were resolved by conciliation or referral to an appropriate agency; only a fraction have had to be further investigated either by the Health Services Commissioner or an appropriate professional body. This is the highest rate of complaint handling by any similar agency anywhere in Australia. It shows that the commissioner - independent of both government and health care providers as he is - clearly has credibility with the community. The tenure of the Health Services Commissioner is now secured by the Health Services (Conciliation and Review) (Amendment) Act 1990. At the time this legislation was introduced, the government foreshadowed further amendments which would improve the operation of the Act. These amendments are contained in the Bill which is now before the House. The Bill is designed to implement a number of recommendations made by the Health Services Commissioner to clarify and improve the principal Act. It makes no changes of fundamental principle to the Act, but COMMUNITY PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 271

rather aims to ensure that the Act works effectively by resolving some problems which have arisen over its administration. It will enable the commissioner to operate with generally greater flexibility, a need which has been identified since the position was created. Rather than take up the time of the House by describing in great detail each amendment proposed in the Bill, I have attached comprehensive clause notes to the Bill for the assistance of honourable members. These set out the problems addressed by this Bill and the effect of each proposed amendment.

These amendments have been sought by the Health Services Commissioner and are endorsed by the Health Services Review Council. I am sure honourable members will agree that they will be of considerable assistance to the commissioner in fulfilling the role envisaged for him by Parliament.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr WEIDEMAN (Franks ton South).

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 28 March.

COMMUNITY PROTECfION (AMENDMENT) BILL Second reading Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I move:

That this Bill be now read a second time. BACKGROUND

Last year, this Parliament enacted the Community Protection Act, to provide for the preventive detention of Garry David. It did so with great reluctance, because the Act encroached upon the principle that a person should not be deprived of liberty except as punishment for a crime or for the treatment of a mental illness.

But, as elected representatives of the Victorian people, we also have a responsibility to protect the community from threats to its safety. By his words and deeds, Garry David indicated that he was a serious threat to community safety, a threat that could not be adequately dealt with by conventional measures. I regret to inform the House that this remains the case.

The Community Protection Act contains a one-year sunset provision. That was included because it was anticipated that within that period we could resolve the general issues surrounding mental disturbance and community safety - there was a serious threat to safety in this case. COMMUNITY PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL

272 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

That has not been possible, and will not be possible before the Community Protection Act expires on 24 April. The issues are complex, and the Parliament and the community must have a reasonable period to consider thoroughly any proposals.

MAIN PURPOSE It is the intention of the government to introduce such general legislation later in this session. Until the arrangements provided by that legislation are in place, the Community Protection Act must be extended, and that is the main purpose of the Bill. RIGHTS REMAIN PROTECTED The essential elements of the Act which protect the interests of Garry David remain in place. An order for his detention must be made by the Supreme Court, not the government, or any individual officer or mental health professional. Further, the court can make such order only after it has heard all the relevant evidence, and on the basis of the evidence is satisfied that Garry David is a serious risk to public safety, and that he is likely to commit an act of violence against another person. A court order is necessary before his place of detention can be changed.

DURA nON OF ORDER EXTENDED The Bill provides that an order can be made for up to twelve months, not six months as currently provided. This reflects a realistic assessment of the serious difficulties which are involved in Carry David's rehabilitation. But it may be that within the life of an order Garry David will make substantial progress. The Bill allows for this possibility by providing Garry David with the right to apply for an order to be reviewed. This would allow the court to shorten the duration of the order, to revoke it entirely, or change the place of detention. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS

As well as these substantive amendments, the Bill makes a number of technical amendments which are thought desirable because of the experience of the administration of the Act. For example, the court is currently entitled to make an interim detention order only pending determination of the initial application for a preventive detention. This may, for example, create a gap between the expiration of an order and the determination of an application for an extension.

The Bill therefore provides that the court has power to make interim orders pending the determination of any application under the Act. None of the technical amendments upset the careful balance which the Act strikes between Carry David's rights and the need to protect the community from violence. BURRUMBEET LAND BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 273

CONCLUSION The Community Protection Act is a measure the Parliament was compelled to take because of extraordinary circumstances. The persistence of those circumstances compels the government to extend its duration. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr PESCOTI (Bennettswood). Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I move: That the debate be adjourned until Thursday, 21 March. Mr PESCOTI (Bennettswood) - I have had discussions with the Attorney-General and I have asked him to agree to a further extension of time if that is required. Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) (By leave) - I agree to an extension of time. The existing legislation expires next month so there is some urgency with the Bill. It is a vexed question and the opposition may require more time, but the government wants the Bill adjourned, in the first place, for one week so that Parliament ultimately will have the opportunity of debating the matter before the Community Protection Act expires. If the opposition wants more time beyond next Thursday, it will be granted but I do not say that in an unlimited sense, because we are clearly all mindful of the expiration of the existing Act. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until Thursday, 21 March.

BURRUMBEET LAND BILL Order of the Day read for resumption of debate. The SPEAKER - Order! I ad vise the House that I have examined this Bill and am of the opinion that it is a private Bill. Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) - I move: That this Bill be treated as a public Bill and that the fees be dispensed with. Motion agreed to. Second reading Debate resumed from 15 November 1990; motion of Mr Crabb (Minister for Conservation and Environment). Mr COLEMAN (Syndal) - The Bill provides an opportunity for a family who have leased a small portion of land in the parish of Burrumbeet for approximately 90 years to purchase that land and convert it to the use for which they have been using it. The land was originally reserved as a water supply because there was a spring on it and that spring served a community before the storing and reticulation of water became as WATER (MINERAL WATER) BILL

274 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

effective as it is today. For that reason the land was originally taken out as a Crown allotment so that it could be used for water access. The family who have occupied and farmed the land have a small building on it and are disinclined to make any changes to their building while the land is held by the Crown. They are interested in taking over the land on a freehold basis and the Bill allows for that. On that basis the opposition supports the passage of the Bill. Mr LEA (Sandringham) - I support the comments of the honourable member for Syndal. I was attracted to the Bill by the unusual nature of the clauses, so I did some research at the Registrar-General's Office and found that it is essential that any reserve land become unreserved by the passage of an Act of Parliament and that is why the Bill is necessary. Water has historically been of great importance to that area because it was in short supply on the goldfields that operated before the turn of the century. An interesting book Watering the Garden State by the Monash University historical geographer, Or Powell, states at page 30: Rainfall variability was the bane of European settlement: a seemingly capricious environment held out its own rewards and sanctions, and time and again the alien rhythms of farming and grazing were dangerously out of phase with nature's pace and patterns. In fact, the preservation of water was often more rewarding than the results of goldmining. I support the Bill. It is unusual, but clearly deserves the support of all parties. Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Passed remaining stages.

WATER (MINERAL WATER) BILL Second reading Debate resumed from 15 November 1990; motion of Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment).

Mr COLEMAN (Syndal) - The purpose of the Water (Mineral Water) Bill is to double the government's take on mineral water extracted in this State. The issue was comprehensively canvassed during debate in this House on the new Water Act, and it was assumed that groundwater, especially mineral water, would continue to be extracted under the arrangements that existed previously; that is, a levy of 1 cent a litre to be paid by those extracting the water with the levy being used for the maintenance of supply and facilities in the area. WATER (MINERAL WATER) BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 275

The committee that is supposedly in charge of spending this money has spent considerably more than the levy has earned - that is not unusual for this government­ and the remedy seems to be doubling the levy rather than cutting the spending. The opposition finds some difficulty with that attitude because the previous honourable member for Ballarat North, Tom Evans, was heavily involved in implementing the levy and putting together a group of civic-minded people in the Daylesford area to allocate the funds towards facilities of community benefit.

The government's argument for the increase in levy is that the 1 cent a litre apparently charged is not keeping up with inflation. That argument is invalid because the collection of the 1 cent a litre has increased each year it has been in place and has certainly kept up with inflation. It has also increased because of the development of flavoured mineral water which has found a niche in the market, not only in Australia but also overseas.

Clearly this is an attempt by the government to raise additional money. On that basis the .opposition is opposed to the Bill.

Mr LEA (Sandringham) - I support the honourable member for Syndal because I have had representations from people in the Sandringham area with interests in mineral waters. Because their operations are small they would be adversely affected by the increase from 1 cent to 2 cents a litre; their operations would be placed at risk and that would lead to monopolies by the large operators. One constituent mentioned the quality of mineral water produced across the State varies to a considerable degree and he asked me to raise questions in the House and through freedom of information about the operation of mineral water producers and whether there were any favourites among the larger companies. The 100 per cent increase in levy is outrageous and would favour the larger operators and adversely affect small mineral water producers. I register my strong concern.

Mr ELDER (Ballarat North) - The Bill affects part of my electorate, the town of Daylesford, which is renowned as the spa capital of Victoria. Not only is it a beautiful environment but it is also world renowned for the many varieties of mineral water extracted from the basins within the area.

The levy that was first imposed was to assist tourist operators to promote tourism in the area. It certainly worked and the bathhouse development at Hepburn Springs is a credit to the community and an example of how funds were spent in the right way.

The levy was also used for general improvements in the spa areas from Kyneton across to Ballan, taking in Daylesford. Of course the government made as much mileage as it poSSibly could from the improvements that were made. When funds were sent to the government they were reallocated on the recommendations of the Mineral Springs Advisory Committee which advised the government on how these funds should be spent. WATER (MINERAL WATER) BILL

276 ASSEMBLY Thursday. 14 March 1991

Interestingly enough just prior to the last Federal election, Mr Neil O'Keefe, a Federal member of Parliament, and the Victorian Minister for Conservation and Environment unveiled plans for the new bathhouse at Hepburn Springs. These were also used in the 1988 State election by the government as a ploy to attract votes. However, the government did not do its homework and overspent on the facility that it had promised in the election campaign. Of course that promise is on record and the government has had to deliver. The problem for the government is where to get the extra funds. Honourable members know the State is strapped for funds at the moment The answer the government came up with was to increase the levy from 1 cent to 2 cents a litre to pay for the promised redevelopment of the bathhouse. The bathhouse looks magnificent and I have no problems with that. My only concern is that when times are tough we should be cutting our cloth to suit. In a promotion exercise during the last election campaign the government committed the funds despite the fact that it was overspending. Spa water is a gift from God. The government has nothing to do with putting it under the ground or with extracting it. The levy is nothing more than another tax that is being passed on to the people bottling the mineral water. Daylesford, like most other towns in rural Victoria, is being hard hit by the current economic crisis which is affecting small and large businesses all around country Victoria. Daylesford is getting to the stage where it has almost more people on social security benefits than people in gainful employment. Recently the Daylesford abattoirs closed as a direct result of Federal government policy when the Department of Primary Industries and Energy increased its rates from 60 per cent to 100 per cent for meat inspection services. The local State Electricity Commission office at Daylesford has also closed. The Cadbury-Schweppes bottling factory at Daylesford, which bottled mineral water for consumption in Australia and for export to the United States of America and Europe has also closed. These are all nails in the coffin of a small country town because with the closures jobs are lost in the area. The government has not consulted with local bottlers, local transport operators or the local council. The 100 per cent levy increase will put many people out of work because operators will not be able to compete with counterparts in New South Wales who do not have this levy imposed. Ultimately what will happen is that the large bottlers and even the small ones will say,"We are going to close down because we cannot compete with New South Wales, which does not have this 2 cents a litre tax on each bottle of mineral water".

The government has failed to realise the low margins on bottles of mineral water. In fact, the government has been ready to praise local bottlers who have tried to get into the American market and are starting to make inroads. Before they even start there is a 1 cent a litre tax on the commodity they are trying to sell, and they are operating on very low margins. They are trying to get volume in the markets but it is very hard when one WATER (MINERAL WATER) BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 277

cannot price the bottle of spa water one is selling at a low enough price to get market share. On a dozen bottles of mineral water - boxed and exported - the margins are around 3 cents a bottle, and in some cases even less than that. This tax does not help at all. The people who are actually transporting mineral water to Melbourne are local people - private contractors - and the tax will mean the death of their industry because large bottling companies in Melbourne will say, "We are going to close down and go interstate". Being a chemist, Mr Acting Speaker, you would be aware that mineral water can be manufactured in a factory by adding the necessary chemicals. I think manufacturers have to call it table water on the label but it is the same product. The government's present revenue is based on increased volumes which have risen as follows: in 1980-81 the figure was $156 000; in 1984-85 it was $325 000; and in 1988-89 it was $540 000. These volumes are estimates; they are not metered measures. The bottlers, including the major ones that operate out of Melbourne, believe the increase in tax from 1 cent to 2 cents would kill the industry as it exists in Victoria, put more people on the dole queues and have a severe impact on small rural communities such as Daylesford where this industry is a major employer. One of the problems with the levy is the fact that it does not go into a trust fund but straight into government coffers and it supposedly is allocated on a regional basis as the funds are generated. However, no interest is being accumulated on the money that is generated and it is believed - I cannot say whether it is correct - that the money has not been allocated back to the spa regions for which the levy was established but has been lost or used by the government on another of its high-flying schemes. I am pleased that the coalition has decided not to support the government in its move to increase the levy. The people of Daylesford, which has been a traditional Labor town until now, are pleased the coalition has said it will not have the Bill and will jettison it in another place.

Mr REYNOLDS (Gisborne) - I support the honourable members for Syndal and Ballarat North as I represented Daylesford when the levy was first imposed. I commend the honourable member for Ballarat North on his speech and the views he expressed on behalf of the Daylesford people, and concur wholeheartedly with his comments. On behalf of portions of my electorate, which also includes the spa area, I say that they see little of the funds and rarely have. We have to fight tooth and nail all the way. The Mineral Springs Advisory Committee thinks all mineral water comes out of Daylesford, but that is not exactly right. There are springs just north of Craigiebum and out of Kyneton and Taradale. To obtain some of the funds available we have to make an awful lot of noise. Therefore, I understand the honourable member for Ballarat North when he talks about the effect this may have on the economy of Daylesford, which is a battling town at the WATER (MINERAL WATER) Bn.L

278 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

best of times. It also affects other small areas which could benefit from the levy but do not seem to. The Mineral Springs Advisory Committee needs to have more teeth to administer the fund and we need to look longer and harder at the levy and what it achieves.

Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) - I am grateful to honourable members for their responses. However, I am a bit disappointed that the opposition has apparently taken the view that it does not support the increase in the levy on mineral water. I thought this was the sort of measure about which one would have consensus. The idea of putting a 1 cent levy on mineral water was raised in the late 1970s and I recall the discussions and argument about it. There was a great argument about real mineral water as opposed to fake mineral water.

The idea was to try to get a source of funds which could be used to protect the natural mineral water because at the time there were piggeries operating in the catchment and other things that were not conducive to ensuring the quality of the water system in the area.

Since the 1 cent levy was introduced in 1980 it has worked extremely well. To be honest, if the levy had been set at 1 per cent or some such pro rata level we would not be debating this matter at all. It would just be increasing with the CPI, I suppose. In actual fact, since 1980 there has been no increase; it is harder to increase by fractions of a cent because of the way the system is established. The experts in my department said that if the CPI was applied to the 1 cent levy, it would now be 2.2 cents. It has been expressed as an index figure. The increase from 1 cent to 2 cents is entirely appropriate compared with the prices in 1980.

The second issue is that the money is intended to be spent on enhancing the mineral water area and the capacity --

Mr Coleman interjected. Mr CRABB - The honourable member for Syndal interjects and suggests we isolate the money in a fund. There is no question that the amount of money raised by the levy, and more, has been spent since 1980. A lot of money is being spent on the protection and improvement of mineral water reserves: that is, the monitoring and research into how mineral water works and the eventual protection of all the activities within a substantial radius of all outlets of mineral water. That costs a lot of money.

The local people and the people producing mineral water regarded this an appropriate way of going about things. All that is being done here is, effectively, to index a levy Parliament was unanimous about in 1980. It is disappointing to see there is now no consensus when all that is being done here is to index the levy in the light of the changing value of money.

Mr Elder interjected. FISHERIES (ABALONE LICENCES TRANSFER CHARGES) BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 279

Mr CRABB - The CPI has doubled since 1980. It is a fact of life. Things are twice as dear as they were in 1980. Mr Coleman - So mineral water has to be twice as dear? Mr CRABB - It is the things that are done to the mineral reserves that now cost twice as much as they did in 1980. No doubt wages are twice what they were in 1980 but no-one works twice as hard. The methodology for spending the money is the same as it was, and n(H)ne has voiced any criticism about it. The opposition is scoring cheap political points, not at my expense but at the expense of the mineral water industry and the people who live and have businesses in the relevant areas. I am extremely disappointed in the position taken by the opposition. Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed. Committee Clause 1

Progress reported.

FISHERIES (ABALONE LICENCES TRANSFER CHARGES) BILL Second reading Debate resumed from 15 November 1990; motion of Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment). Mr COLEMAN (Syndal) - The Bill represents a gross breach of promise by the government. It attempts to increase the fees for the transfer of an abalone fishing licence from $10 000 to $50 000. That can be described only as an astronomical increase and one which totally disregards the economic crisis in Victoria. It also disregards the situation under which the industry has existed and the commitments it has been given by the government over a period of years. The government has tried before to increase the fee to $50 000, or 5 per cent of the amount of the transfer. At that time it was the subject of much negotiation with the industry, and the then Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, the current Minister for Community Services, gave some undertakings. I should have thought the government would respect those commitments. I shall refer to a letter from the then Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, Mrs Setches, while the Fisheries (Abalone Licence Charges) Bill 1989 was being debated in the FISHERIES (ABALONE LICENCES TRANSFER CHARGES) BILL

280 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

other place. The then Minister met with the industry group and came to an understanding abou t the process that would be followed in increasing the transfer fees. I shall read the letter because it is instructive about the way the former Minister approached the issue and it also gives an indication of the negotiating process carried out. I do not know whether the current Minister was privy to this information, but I assume he would have been advised about what occurred. On that basis, I wonder why the Minister is determined to press on with the substantial increase in fees. The letter of the former Minister states: On the afternoon of 7 March I met at the Parliament with Ms Melita Proebstl representing the Victorian Fishing Industry Federation (VFIF). The purpose of our meeting was to discuss matters relating to the Fisheries (Abalone Licence Charges) Act 1989 which, as you know, is currently on the Notice Paper for the Legislative Council to consider. You should also be aware that there was consultation between my department and the VFIF prior to 7 March and as a consequence of this, the government believes that the current Bill requires further amendment. On 7 February my department received from the federation a detailed submission which had been prepared by the VFIF on behalf of the abalone diver. Essentially this submission contained four elements and these were: l.Licence Renewal Fee That a formula would be used for determining the renewal fee paid for the abalone licence fee each year. This formula would take into account movements in the beach price for abalone and any changes in individual quota in relation to the quota attached to each licence in 1988-89. That the average beach price for abalone would be determined for each financial year immediately preceding the year of licence renewal and such information would be obtained from documents which processors will be required to submit to my department. That the licence fee for this year will be $23 450 and this reflects a fee determined by the application of this formula. That is the licence fee, not the transfer fee. Already operators in the industry are paying annual licence fees of $23 450. The letter .continues: I have agreed to all these and the proposed amendments would set these provisions into the Bill. Negotiations took place, and the Minister agreed to a formula for a licence fee of $23450. Negotiations continued on that basis. I again quote from the former Minister's letter: The Bill which is presently listed proposes a transfer fee of 5 per cent of the value of the licence or $50000. That proposal is contained in this Bill. The letter continues: Concerns were expressed by industry about their requirement to meet such an increase in the transfer fee (at present $10000) and also charges under the government's proposed Goodwill Tax (Stamps Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. It was proposed that the transfer fee be set at 5 per cent of the value of the licence or $50 000, whichever is the greater. Running concurrently with that situation was the 5 per FISHERIES (ABALONE LICENCES TRANSFER CHARGES) BILL

Thursday. 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 281

cent goodwill tax the government proposed but which it is now not game to put on the Notice Paper. In the circumstances people selling abalone licences would have been exposed to the 5 per cent goodwill tax or $50 000, whichever is the greater, in the transfer fee. They would have faced double jeopardy and would have had to pay 10 per cent on the transfer of the licences. They objected and it was the subject of a considerable amount of negotiation between the opposition, the government and the Victorian Fishing Industry Federation. The former Minister, Mrs Setches, went on to say:

There has been discussion between my department and the VFIF on this matter and it is now proposed that the transfer fee will remain unchanged ... That is, that it will remain at $10 000. The letter continues:

... the industry being fully aware that they will be subject to the goodwill tax. The charges made in this area will take into account the transfer fee being paid. I have agreed to this. That is what the former Minister said, that was her undertaking. On today's Notice Paper the Fisheries (Abalone Licences Transfer Charges) Bill is listed as Item No. 18 and the Stamps (Amendment) Bill is listed as Item No. 23. That Bill provides for a 5 per cent good will tax. This government wheels up here on Thursday afternoon and jumps across ten items to bring on the Fisheries (Abalone Licences Transfer Charges) Bill; why not bring on the Stamps (Amendment) Bill first? The opposition parties are determined to defeat the Stamps (Amendment) Bill because it has the double jeopardy principle in it; it provides for the 5 per cent goodwill tax that these people object to paying twice. The Minister for Conservation and Environment needs to call on his department to provide him with the undertakings of the former Minister, Mrs Setches, and to honour them. Most honourable members in this place have had dealings with the Minister on a range of portfolios, and whilst there may be some haggling at the end of the day he is prepared to honour agreements. Here is an agreement that, in my view, is set in concrete. Undertakings were given by the former Minister that this legislation would not proceed and that the 5 per cent would be collected by way of the goodwill tax provided for in the Stamps (Amendment) Bill.

On that basis the opposition intends to oppose this Bill. The government sets the abalone industry on some sort of pedestal and then constantly attacks it; it introduced a licensing system that provides a value for the licences which the government looks at through rose-coloured glasses every time there is an opportunity to seek additional funds.

The operators in the industry are successful people, but the government put the licensing process in place and now wants to collect from each transfer $50 000 or 5 per cent of the value. What the former Minister proposed and agreed to was that this process would not continue until the passage of the goodwill tax legislation was determined. Her letter continues: FISHERIES (ABALONE LICENCES TRANSFER CHARGES) BILL

282 ASSEMBLY Thursday. 14 March 1991

Tha t a formal register of fishing rights, similar to a property register conferring upon the prescribed parties -licence holders and financial interests - security and title in the licence similar to that given under the registration of land, be established. I have indicated that I will not agree to this. I have told the VFIF and abalone industry that I do recognise that licences have an access right. As I said earlier, the discussion revolved around transfers on licences. There is no objection on the part of the abalone licensees and licence holders - and they are part of the negotiations to set the licence formula based on a bench price that allows the licence price to fluctuate on a land price - to paying for access to a resource. They do not see it as a resource tax but they are prepared to pay a licence fee to access the resource. They are adamantly opposed, as are the opposition parties, to the application of this transfer fee. The Leader of the House ought to consider what is to be the process of dealing with some of these issues on the Notice Paper in the coming weeks. The Stamps (Amendment) Bill has a hook in it and the failure of the Leader of the House to bring that Bill on for debate ahead of the debate on the Fisheries (Abalone Licences Transfer Charges) Bill is evidence that the Leader of the House recognises that. The opposition flagged its position on the process it would follow on 10 December. The government was left in no doubt as to what the opposition would be doing because a press release issued under my name on that day said that the government must resolve the issue either by bringing on the Stamps (Amendment) Bill for debate in Parliament or withdraw the Bill. The government was warned that the opposition would object to an abalone licence fee if the government tried to push it through Parliament. One is contingent on the other. If the government puts the Stamps (Amendment) Bill up and allows it to be dealt with and follows it with the Fisheries (Abalone Licences Transfer Charges) Bill, the opposition will consider it in that course of proceeding.

Because of the ~ay the government has put it up, at present the opposition has no option but to oppose the Bill. House divided on motion: Ayes, 45 Mr Andrianopoulos MI5 Hirsh MrSandon MrBaker MrJolly MrSeitz MI5 Barker MrKennan MrSercombe Mr Batche10r MrKennedy MI5 Setches MrCain MsKirner Mr A.J. Sheehan MrCrabb Mr McCutcheon Mr F.P. Sheehan Mr Cunningham MrMcDonald MrShe11 MrDollis MrMathews MrSimmonds MrErnst MrMica11ef MrSpyker MrFordham MrNorris MrThomson MI5 Garbutt MrPope Mr Trezise MrGavin MI5 Ray DrVau~an MrHamilton MrRoper MrWalSh Mr Harrowfield MrRowe MI5Wilson MrsHill Tellers MrCole MrLeighton FISHERIES (ABALONE LICENCES TRANSFER CHARGES) Bll..L

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 283

Noes, 38 Mr Austin Mr Honeywood MrPescott Mr Bildstien MrJasper MrPlowman MrBrown MrJohn MrReynolds MrOark MrKennett Mr Richardson MrColeman MrLea Mr E.R. Smith MrCooper Mr Lieberman Mr I.W. Smith MrDelioppo Mr W.O. McGrath MrSteggall Mr Dickirison MrMcNamara Mr StoCI

Read second time.

Committed. Committee Clause I Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) - Clause I establishes the purpose of the Bill. During the second-reading debate there was discussion about the appropriateness of increases in the charges payable on the transfer of abalone licences. It is fair to say that abalone licence charges are quantitatively higher than many other licences for fishing, in that the fees are far beyond what you might call a fee-for-service notwithstanding that a lot of money is spent pursuing abalone poachers and indeed enforcing the fishing laws and regulations. We spend more money on pursuing abalone poachers than on pursuing anybody else. It is not the casual ethnic.illegal fisherman that we pursuing, but professional criminals because such an enormous volume of abalone is sought, particularly from Japan. I am advised that the charges more than pay for these costs. The process of adjusting the fee is entirely appropriate in that regard. There is a need to establish a transfer fee at the time licences are transferred so that the public receives some percentage of the value licence-holders receive, not by virtue of them having built ,up any business acumen necessarily but simply because they have a licence to do something that nobody else is allowed to do without a licence. Licence fees have increased in value and the principle is a good one. There is only a limited amount of abalone in our seas. Only a small number of licence-holders, currently 71, benefit from this fishery. Although it is a dangerous occupation it provides substantial incomes. Nevertheless the fee is appropriate as licences now worth approximately $1.3 million might well have cost $200 when licences were first introduced twenty years ago. That increase in value ought be repaid to some FISHERIES (ABALONE LICENCES TRANSFER CHARGES) BILL

284 ASSEMBLY Thursday. 14 March 1991

extent so that the community benefits. That is the principle on which the Bill is based; it is entirely appropriate and has been used in other areas. During the second-reading debate the honourable member for Syndal referred to the double taxation of the abalone fishermen because of stamp duty on goodwill and the transfer of business duty that is to be introduced. He was concerned that a fisherman would have to pay both fees. It is the government's intention that when the Stamps (Amendment) Bill is dealt with it will introduce a House amendment to exclude:

...any fee or charge (that) is payable under any other Act in respect of the transfer of any property acquired with the business, (that) the amount of that fee or charge shall be deducted from the amount of duty payable under this subdivision...

Goodwill is an example. It is the government's intention to ensure the Bill will contain a provision whereby people will not be taxed twice on the same transaction.

However, it is not unreasonable that we look for ways of perhaps incorporating that provision in this Bill and to that end it is my intention during debate on the next clause to seek to report progress so we can consider an amendment.

Mr COLEMAN (Syndal) - One could say the offer being made by the Minister about a proposed amendment would be acceptable in any other circumstances but in this case already there has been a dear breach of an undertaking. It could be said we need to see the colour of his money. Probably the best resolution of the present situation is to adopt his proposal that we report progress, and have discussions.The industry that is directly affected by the proposal has not been -invited to any meaningful consultations --

Mr Jasper - That's not surprising.

Mr COLEMAN - No, it is not surprising. Given the process followed in the previous instance, which resulted in the former Minister giving an undertaking on this issue, at least the industry should have been consulted. That did not happen but I hope, having heard the Minister's statement that he is prepared to enter into discussions on this matter following an adjournment of the debate, he will meet a deputation of abalone fishermen to hear their grievances --

Mr Roper interjected.

Mr COLEMAN - Perhaps abalone fishers, or perhaps the people involved with abalone fishing - do you like that better?

There is a desperate need for the Minister to understand the issue and have confidence that the proposal for the exemption from the goodwill tax is acceptable to the industry, which does not wish to pay the 5 per ~ent transfer tax on its business twice.

Accordingly, I will support the Minister when he moves that progress be reported to allow discussions to continue. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSE1\ffiL Y 285

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2

Progress reported.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL Second reading Debate resumed from 30 November 1990; motion of Mr POPE (Minister for Labour). Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - During recent weeks the Bill has had a substantial amount of media publicity, for very good reasons. The government has introduced the Bill without any political mandate; it went to the people at the last election on a lie. It did not tell the community its forward program and it certainly did not indicate to the community its intention to tear up the industrial relations law in Victoria and replace it with completely new legislation. At the time of the last election a number of prominent features have lead the coalition to take a firm stand on certain legislation introduced in this place. The question of a political mandate is most important; it is of prime importance when one considers this Bill. On 19 February last the Leader of the OppoSition made it clear that the coalition intends to reject legislation on a number of grounds; the relevance of that statement to the Bill is in the phrase referring to "defeating Bills involving new major social, industrial relations and financial change for which Labor has no 1988 election mandate". Be that as it may, the Bill contains a number of features that are of concern to the opposition. I turn to the question of discussions that are normally conducted. A number of draft Bills have been produced and distributed in various ways by the department. As the Minister has publicly stated - and I believe him to be accurate - principal negotiations have taken place between officers of his department and a small representative group of employers from the Victorian Congress of Employer Associations. I think the employers were involved in two principal negotiations - the Minister nods his head that that is so. On about 17 September last the Minister for Labour was good enough to give me a copy of a draft Bill-which contained a number of features that l}ave found their way into the final document, and which are of considerable concern to the opposition. We have made no secret of our concern. My concerns, as expressed to a policy assembly meeting of the Liberal Party, were extensively reported in the media on the following day. On another occasion I attended a function jointly convened by the Department of Labour and the Industrial Relations Society of Victoria at the University of Melbourne. I am not certain who sponsored that popular seminar but representatives of the Minister attended. After my address I sat at lunch next to the President of the State Industrial INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

286 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

Relations Commission and I made it clear that the opposition has a number of concerns about the Bill. As to the consultative process, it is worthwhile observing at the outset that when the opposition parties contacted employer groups they found they were quite willing and prepared to discuss early drafts and the final Bill with them.

The 30 employer organisations with which the opposition had meetings about the Bill were not only involved with arrangements with the Minister but were people directly affected by the Bill. Representatives of the Victorian Public Service Association and some other unions made a response to our request for consultation; but the Secretary of the Trades Hall Council and the Trades Hall Council itself refused to consult with the opposition, or at least they did not avail themselves of the opportunity.

People can draw their own conclusions from that, but I would have thought that it was very important that the Trades Hall Council offer its views to the opposition parties on the legislation.

Regrettably, I have to point out that this is not the first occasion on which this has occurred. I do not know whether it is because the Secretary of the Trades Hall Council does not pass on anything in writing to his elected body or whether he has just taken it upon himself not to consult, but it is a pretty crumby arrangement, and I place on record my disappointment at the Trades Hall Council's attitude in this matter.

It is also fair to say that notwithstanding the opposition's concerns about the Bill, there are a raft of organisations with varying views on it. The main players who have had consultation with the Department of Labour have indicated a measure of support for the Bill but it is not wholehearted support. They believe a number of variations need to be made to the Bill.! do not know whether the Trades Hall Council wants any amendments made, but certainly they have not conveyed that to the opposition.

A number of organisations from which I have received a communique indicate qualified support for the Bill but I notice, for example, that the Victorian Farmers Federation is not attaching its name to that document. One would have to recognise that the federation represents roughly a third of the Victorian work force and, being out of the metropolitan area, many of them are involved with farms and associated businesses that go with them.

By far the largest group of employers, not just in this country but in Victoria, are the small business employers, and again I have to say that the Australian Small Business Association's Victorian Division, and indeed its national body, have expressed antagonism towards the Bill. I have been inundated with calls and communiques from a range of employers also expressing concern.

In addition, not all of the trade union movement supports the Bill, and I should like to quote, just by way of example, from a document of the Victorian Affiliated Teachers Federation which states: INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 287

I advise that the Victorian Affiliated Teachers Federation, which is recognised by the Industrial Relations Commission of Victoria, supports the opposition's stance in blocking the passage of the government's Industrial Relations Bill for the following reasons: l.The Bill gives more power to larger unions. 2.1t does not appear to allow automatic recognition for unions currently recognised which do not have seats on conciliation and arbitration boards. 3.1t does not provide for secret postal ballots before strikes. 4.1t discriminates against employees who choose not to belong to unions. 5.1t allows for preferential treatment and preferential conditions of work for union members in the workplace. 6.1t paves the way for compulsory unionism. 7.1t does not provide for voluntary employment agreements. The VA TF would only support changes to the Industrial Relations Bill which incorporated measures to counter the above. We request that changes to the Industrial Relations Act made by the Liberal Party when in government incorporate the given points outlined. This is an indication of some of the concerns we have received from an organisation affiliated with the Trades Hall Council. Also in this pre-consultative process I would have thought that it was incumbent on the government to forward copies of the draft Bills, and indeed the final Bill, to all organisations which are recognised organisations under the State Industry Act, and we are talking about approximately 200 organisations. Regrettably, the first time the vast majority of those organisations had any knowledge of the draft Bills, let alone the real Bill, was when they received advice from my office which was looking for their comments and communique on matters raised in the Bill. I would have thought that in a democracy where people have a direct connection with legislation which impacts on their capacity to represent their constituency, whether it be employer or employee, they were entitled to at least a consultation or advice or request for information from the government, particularly when the Bill is throwing out completely the old legislation. So much, then, for the question of consultation. The main reason for the Bill being rejected by the opposition parties is that the government has no mand~te for this type of legislative reform. The honourable member for Mitcham says that this is nonsense, but the government was re-elected on a lie in a whole raft of issues. I will give examples of where that mandate is fallacious: only days before the last election the people of Victoria were told that WorkCare was on target to be fully funded at 2.4 per cent of payroll. Within six weeks the now sacked Treasurer told us that WorkCare was an absolute debacle. That had fo be known beforehand, as indeed the government knew the situation on a number of issues. We do not have a State Bank any more; we do not have a Pyramid Building Society any more. We have a scandal in pretty near every area, so the mandate does not exist. If the truth had been told the Labor Party would not be sitting on the government benches now - and every honourable member knows full well that that is the truth - so the government should not now try to claim a mandate for a complete rewrite of the legislation. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

288 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

Turning to clause 3 of the Bill, the objects clause, nowhere in that clause is there any reference to enterprise agreements or genuine freedom of association. The Minister has been on the public record during the course of debates over recent weeks as indicating that there is a capacity to have enterprise agreements. That may be true to the extent that at least there is some reference to connections between the State Act and the Federal Act, and the Federal principles might apply, but we are talking about real enterprise bargaining not a pretend situation which is just an award by another name. If one looks to other States, one can see the value of enterprise bargaining and the way that issue could be tackled if done genuinely. New South Wales has introduced specific legislation for enterprise bargaining, not a sleight of hand proposition such as the one our Minister for Labour is on about. The awful truth that the government does not want to hear is that it is not interested in enterprise bargaining at all. The government is interested in registered agreements that are controlled, run and manipulated within the industrial club as part of the industrial relations system processed through the Federal or State Industrial Relations Commission. The government is not concerned with more flexible hours, broader job classifications, new training programs, job opportunities, better procedures or negotiated agreements - all those things that form part of an enterprise bargaining agreement. I do not necessarily agree with all that has happened in New South Wales but, to show its bona fides in the arrangements it has made, the government in New South Wales had the integrity at least to establish a new Act and to lay down a new set of procedures to be followed by unions and employers as well as individual employees who may choose to become part of that process. The first and most important difference between the coalition and the government is that the coalition is concerned to introduce into the workplace a properly constructed enterprise bargaining arrangement. The coalition recognises that 60 per cent or thereabouts of private enterprise employees are not members of a union and they may want to negotiate directly with their employers. The coalition is aware in particular that in smaller and medium-sized businesses the practice has already begun and out there people are negotiating to protect their jobs and to provide opportunities so that they can keep their jobs. This is at a time when the unemployment rate is soaring and by June is likely to be 10 per cent. I do not get any joy from that and I hope I am wrong. I know what it is like and I am not happy about it at all, particularly as I have a son who is unemployed at the moment. Oause 3, the objects clause, emphasises registered associations and ignores, or at least down plays, the individual employer and employee. The Bill is concerned to enshrine the industrial relations club in law. Its provisions seek to ensure that registered organisations - big business organisations and big unions - will control the game of industrial relations played out before the Federal and State industrial relations commissions. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 289

The Bill is not about allowing individual freedoms. Earlier today honourable members debated the same sort of problems. Here is another major difference between the coalition parties and the government. Whenever the next election is held the people in this State will not be faced with the situation the government presented before the last election. The government did not tell the people of Victoria about the major changes it would insist on introducing to the industrial law of this State. The coalition parties are in the process of informing the community of the direction we intend to follow. The coalition intends to enhance the rights of individuals - and not those of the union bosses - by industrial law. The coalition intends to ensure that employees have the opportunity of negotiating directly with their employers. We intend to ensure also that those who choose to remain within the system - as it will be modified - will have that opportunity. The coalition is concerned to provide genuine freedom of choice by giving people the opportunity of making their own judgments. I refer to clause 4, the definitions clause. The definition of "industrial matter" on page 4 is so wide that it could be construed to cover a political dispute and go way beyond what one might normally regard as an industrial dispute. On page 5 paragraph (k) of the definition appears: ... questions of what is fair and right in relation to any industrial matter having regard to the people immediately concerned and of society as a whole; and the words sound innocuous enough. However, one must consider how the words may be interpreted. It is not a big point but one that must be considered, because, having regard to the people immediately concerned, the words could prove to be a problem. As in the recent SPC Ltd dispute, which involved the Victorian Trades Hall Council and others, questions relating to such matters as a depriv~tion of power or even a right to keep jobs might arise. In the SPC dispute people chose to negotiate an arrangement­ the same thing is happening now at the Swan Hill Pioneer Settlement - and they did so openly and freely in the workplace. No-one had his or her arm twisted up his or her back, yet the people were told that they could not go outside the system. I cannot pick up the relevant clause at the moment; it will probably turn up later in my notes. The fact is that people cannot opt out of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act and it provides that they cannot negotiate outside the relevant award. Here was another example of a restrictive process in place because of the commitment to keeping industrial relations in a tight, fist-like situation, in which the big players are all happy. The Bill is concerned to make life easier for the professional bureaucrats who deal with industrial relations matters. The Bill does not pay any heed to the needs, wants or aspirations of employees and employers who are striving hard just to survive, just to keep their heads above water because of the terrible things this government has done over a period of time. I refer to the definition of "workplace" which appears on page 6. I suggest that "workplace" may be better defined as "any place in which employees are required to 77199/91 .... 10 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

290 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

carry on their work". I offer that to the Minister for Labour who may accept or reject it. The current definition is designed to give the industrial relations commissions power over outworkers and subcontractors. The coalition takes the view again that an exclusion clause is needed to protect owner-operators and subcontractors. This process has been gone through in recent years. I stand to be corrected but, as I recall, it was 1988 when the so-called section 22A owner-driver dispute arose. Owner-drivers were deemed to be employees for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Act. At the time they mounted a massive campaign against that provision and the Victorian Employers Federation joined them, as did others. The opposition rejected the notion. The Bill will effectively give power to the industrial relations commissions to deem people to be employees for the purpose of structuring an industrial award. The proposition is not acceptable to the coalition. Surely if this country is to get going at all it will get going because individuals - who mayor may not have a trade background - choose to start up a business and have a go. I ask: are they to be penalised; are they to be dragged into the amorphous mass dealt with by the State Industrial Relations Commission and its alignment with the Federal commission? Surely that is not a progressive thing to do as we go into the next century. I should have thought a golden opportunity was available for the government to encourage small business, to show that it can introduce an enterprise bargaining agreement system, to give small business a guarantee that its members will not be deemed to be employees. However, that is not what has happened or will happen under the provisions of the Bill. Indeed, the government has decided to go in exactly the opposi te direction. The government has repeated the sins of the past. Clause 8 refers to the functions of the Industrial Relations Commission. Although the provision appears to be satisfactory, honourable members recognise that the desired facilitation is often frustrated by one of the parties involved simply defying its order. That is a matter of some concern and again is in contrast to enterprise bargaining. Parties are bound by enterprise arrangements or agreements; there is an opportunity for restitution in the civil jurisdiction if the enterprise bargain is structured in the way envisaged by the coalition. But that is not the proposition contained in the Bill. Clause 13 refers to the functions of the commission in court session. That provision will need to be amended in the event that the Industrial Magistrates Court provisions are rejected. I made that point some time ago, so it should come as no surprise to the House that the coalition will be rejecting the Industrial Magistrates Court provisions. The government has introduced these amendments on two previous occasions and they have been rejected twice. Why would the coalition change its mind now? The employers, the unions and the government know where we stand, but the Minister for Labour pretends there is no problem. He has told the employers that this is a package deal and INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 291

that they have to cop the lot. He saidl ''You have to take the package, both the good and badl to get the things that you wanf'. That is straight-out political blackmail. Although many people may be prepared to be seduced by that process, the Liberal and National parties are not. I am pleased to report that many employers and employees, to their creditl are equally not prepared to be sucked in by that process. Oause 16 refers to the procedures necessary to bring a matter or dispute before the commission. The provision does not allow an individual employee to bring a matter before the commission other than for unfair dismissal. Every other process must be undertaken by a recognised association. That goes to the heart of the right of individuals and again negates the opportunity for genuine enterprise bargaining. I remind the House that 68 per cent of Victorian workers in the private sector do not belong to unions. One can only conclude that they are effectively disenfranchised by this measure.

Mr Maclellan - They're made second-class citizens!

Mr GUDE - The honourable member for Berwick is correct. That circumstance is disgraceful. It is not the sort of action any responsible government should lend its name to, let alone bring about by legislative change.

Mr Micallef - All the more reason why they need unions!

Mr GUDE - The honourable member for Springvale suggests that is all the more reason why they need unions. I should have thought the thousands of people who now find themselves unemployed would not think unions have been especially helpful. The honourable member knows full well, despite what may be said, that I am not anti-trade unions. However, I make no apologies for criticising key senior officials of some trade unions who have used their positions to abuse the rights of individuals and have held the community, and indeed their members, to ransom. That was a stupid interjection by the honourable member for Springvale, and does not enhance the govemmenfs position in this debate. Oause 17 refers to an application for an award. Again this could be used to catch owner-operators and subcontractors. Earlier I said there should either be an exclusion clause within the definitions of the Bill or the government should introduce another procedure to achieve the same goal. I would be happy with that. But in the absence of a further amendment I suggest the exclusion clause would be appropriate. Oause 22 effectively provides the president of the commission, in consultation with members, carte blanche to do what he likes. I suggest the provision requires some modification.

The Federal legislation takes a more reasonable approach and I shall offer it to the House. If the Minister wants to line up the State Industrial Relations Commission with its Federal counterpart he may be well advised to pick up this provision. Section 48(1) of the Federal Act states: INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

292 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

The President after consultation with members of the commission may, by signed instrument, make rules, not inconsistent with this Act with respect to: (a)the practice and procedure to be followed by the commission; or (b) the conduct of the commission; and in particular, (c) the manner in which and the time with which applications, submissions and objections may be made to the commission; and (d) the manner in which applications, submissions and objections may be dealt with by the commission. It is entirely different in this Bill. The State Industrial Relations Commission will be able to make rules virtually as it sees fit. Clause 25 refers to the general powers of the commission in industrial matters and clause 25(1) uses the word "may". Surely this will leave many important matters the commission is empowered to deal with, and in particular to settle, up in the air. It would be more realistic if "shall" were substituted for "may". The term "attempt to" in clause 25(l)(a) and (c) does not fit in with the direct powers given by other paragraphs. This is another example of what the coalition parties have grown to expect from the government over time, and is something they resent. The government's drafting procedures are sloppy. The Minister for Labour has stated publicly that the government has had more than a year to consult and get these amendments right. After all that consultation and so-called agreement it appears that a number of the Bill's provisions leave a good deal to be ' desired. Clause 25(2) refers to "preferential employment" and should be emphasised. In the last draft Bill distributed by the government, on which I commented publicly in September last year, there was no reference to "preferential employment". The Bill was silent on the matter. I remind the House that when the original Industrial Relations Act was drafted in 1979 by the Honourable Jim Ramsay, then Minister of Labour and Industry, it contained a provision that prevented Victorian wages boards from writing in any reference to preferential employment. That was in contrast to the Federal Act, which had no prohibition at all. As a result of my remarks and employer organisations taking up the issue an amendment has been made to the Bill. Clause 25(2) states: However, the commission may not detennine any industrial matter or dispute relating to the preferential employment of people who are, or who are not, members of a recognised association The provision is sloppy and should be more definite. Clause 26 refers to other general powers of the commission. Although it is probable that such other general powers would be followed in a reasonable manner there is no safeguard in this provision. The clause allows the bureaucracy to ride roughshod over businesses if it so chooses. That is not a healthy approach. It may be wise to temper the INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Umfsday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 293

all-embracing powers with some aspect of reasonableness as to the timing and notification given to any business involved in a dispute. The provisions were first drafted about one year ago. At that time I recall expressing my concern in this House about these all-embracing powers and I sought assurances from the Minister that the bureaucracy would conduct itself in a responsible and tempered manner. I believe most members of the department in that area have conducted themselves in a reasonable way. But I have to say, with some regret, that I know of a number of instances where that has not been so. I believe it would be wise for the government to offer some ten\pering words to over-zealous bureaucrats about the need for reasonableness and timely access to business premises, where their intrusion onto private premises may result in litigation. The government should caution those bureaucrats who occasionally have their excesses to be cautious and to give employers who may be affected a better opportunity of carrying the matter forward if it finally reaches the civil jurisdiction in the Industrial Magistrates Court. On first reading clause 28 of the Bill, which deals with the powers of the commission concerning compulsory conferences, seems reasonable, although I believe it is far too all-embracing. The commission should not be given this power in connection with any matter that it does not have any authority to deal with either in the first place or under another Act. Under section 152 of the Federal Arbitration Act any action taken under this provision may be rendered invalid. Accordingly I suggest that words similar to those used in subclause (1) of the clause could be inserted so that if the commission decides to hold a conference of parties involved in a dispute, if it has the ~uthority to do so, it may direct people to attend. I support the provisions of clause 31, which give the Industrial Relations Commission the power to act on its own motion. I have raised the issue in the House on a number of occasions. One of the concerns of those involved in the industrial relations field - and I know it is a view shared by a number of senior members of the State commission - is that when disputes are in progress the commission does not have the capacity to intervene in those disputes on its own motion to try to reach a resolution. I am pleased to see that power incorporated in the Bill. As it relates to the Industrial Relations Commission clause 32 is totally unacceptable to the opposition. Clause 36 concerns the annual reporting procedures of the Industrial Relations Commission, which have been raised with the Minister's staff. No doubt they have taken up the matter with him, but I have no idea whether the Minister is proposing to introduce amendments to the clause. As it stands clause 36 is far too open. It ought to refer to the provisions of the Annual Reporting Act or to a specific time by which the report should be tabled in Parliament. The reference to the registrar's annual reporting provisions should also be of a similar nature. The same can be said of the president's report to Parliament, the provisions covering which need tightening. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

294 ASSEMBLY Thursday. 14 March 1991

Clause 49 concerns the reference of industrial matters to the Federal commission. This has been a matter of tOing-and-froing between the State and Federal commissions and needs detailed consideration. When associations and their members are respondents to Federal and State matters they do not expect to always remain within their original jurisdictions. Anything that affects the proper application of awards leads to a lack of clarity, and again there needs to be tightening in this area. The intent of the measure is okay, but the process is sometimes described in gobbledegook. Clause 53 requires the State commission to take into account the public interest and the state of the economy when performing its functions. I have no problem with the provision, because it is only reasonable. Nevertheless I wonder how necessary it is to have such a provision incorporated in the Bill because the connections between the State and FMeral commissions envisaged under the Act clearly require the State commission to take full account of the national wage guidelines. I believe that so far as it is able the State commission would consider itself to be charged with doing that very thing. Surely matters concerning the State economy and the likely effects on industrial awards of various decisions are things that any responsible industrial commission would take account of. To the extent that the clause states the obvious it is reasonable. Clause 54 is designed to encourage the commission to institute dispute resolution procedures. The opposition believes the clause does not go far enough and is a good example of the differences in approach between the coalition and the government. We believe that each Victorian industrial award and industrial agreement should have inserted in it as a mandatory provision a dispute resolution procedure. The resolution of disputes should not he left to the discretion of particular individuals. Because industrial agreements can have marked effects on the broader community we believe it is sensible that the insertion of dispute settling procedures should be mandatory. Clause 56 relates to the disclosure of pecuniary and other interests of members of the commission. Because politicians and others in positions of authority are required to provide such information to a disclosure of pecuniary interests register I believe the process envisaged under the Bill does not go far enough. I suggest to the Minister that a register of those pecuniary interests should be kept and a copy of them held by the Minister. As it stands the present structure requires that such a responsibility rests with the president of the commission. I put on the record that I am in no way denigrating the abilities of the President of the State Industrial Commission, but he should be relieved of that responsibility if for no other reason than that appointments are made to the Industrial Relations Commission not by the president but at a political level by the Governor in Council, which effectively means the responsible Minister. Therefore I should have thought that any declaration of the pecuniary interests of the members of the commission should be the responsibility and under the control of the Minister directly responsible. If something untoward occurred I would have no difficulty INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 295

with the President of the Industrial Relations Commission becoming involved in the administration process. Clause 62(1) refers to the commission being a cost-free jurisdiction. I ask the Minister what would happen in the event of costs being associated with the breach of an industrial agreement? There should be some opportunity to insert a provision for the taking of civil action where there has been a breakdown in the application of an agreement.

I turn to clause 69, concerning grant of recognition. Subclause (l)(b) reads: that there is no recognised association with respect to the relevant award to which the members of the applicant might conveniently belong... That is restrictive and could prevent the establishment of company unions. That there is no doubt it would prevent the establishment of company unions highlights the differences between the government and the opposition. The opposition is on about enterprise bargaining, and clause 69 effectively provides that any association of employees must have 300 members. The opposition believes it is to be commended if the employees of a small company which employs, say, 30 employees choose to form themselves into a collective and wish to become the Ajax Company Union or whatever it might be called. We see that as a healthy approach for employees to take in looking after themselves in their workplace. Clause 69 is a very important clause that may be overlooked by many people, particularly those who are involved in the industrial relations network as we know it today, many of whom would be quite comfortable to see the present situation continue. A number of unions - I will not name them because I gave an undertaking I would not - are concerned about this limitation because they see their futures being put at risk. An honourable member interjected. Mr GUDE - Some are and sOme are not. A number of people who wish to continue in the system will be effectively cut out of it. If one looks at the reports given by Simon Crean and Bill Kelty at the last Acru National Conference one will find the key things that come through are a concern, firstly, that union membership is in decline and unions are becoming irrelevant in the industrial workplace and, secondly, the suggestion being made, particularly in Mr Crean's paper, that there needs to be an increase in the number of awards containing preference provisions. The Bill goes exactly in that direction and again we see the connection between the government and its mates in the trade union movement. I have no objection at all- I think it is commendable - that people consult. That is why, earlier in the debate, I expressed my concern that Mr Halfpenny has chosen not consult with the opposition. I think it is proper that consultation take place. But when an Act of Parliament positively discriminates against the largest sector of the community involved in an interest - in this case employment - one has to be INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Bll..L

296 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

concerned about it. Changes are needed in that area. If clause 69(b) and (c) were amended there would need to be consequential deletion of clause 70(c).

Clause 71 concerns the rights of recognised associations and subclause (l)(d) refers to Industrial Magistrates Courts. On several occasions I have made clear our position on this matter.

Oause 72 is headed "Trades Hall Council to be a recognised association" and provides:

The Victorian Trades Hall Council is a recognised association with respect to any award for which a body affiliated to it is recognised.

That provision is a lift from the previous Act and I do not seek to represent it as anything else. l'find it curious that at a time when we should be looking forward to new horizons in industrial relations it is necessary to protect a particular body before all others. The position of individual unions and employers, other than under the transitional arrangements that relate to recognition under this Act, is that they are required to make an individual and separate application. In going forward one would not have thought it was unreasonable in all those circumstances to put the Trades Hall Council in exactly the same situation. The opposite is the case: it has a privileged position under the Act.

Mr Pope - Under your Act!

Mr GUDE - Under the existing Act or the proposed Act. The Minister interjects, J'Under your Act!" I have been at pains to identify that fact. I have also endeavoured to make clear - I obviously have not got through to him - that under a change to the law to be proposed by the coalition there will be no privileged rights for the Victorian Trades Hall Council; it will have equal rights, which is a very important distinction.

Oause 73, dealing with recognition of employers and groups of employers, highlights the favoured treatment proposed to be granted to the Trades Hall Council which does not apply to other bodies. The Minister has been happily prepared to negotiate with a representative body known as the Victorian Congress of Employer Associations, but I do not find its name or any privileged recognition of its role in the Act. I do not agree with the Trades Hall Council recognition provision, but one would have thought if there were going to be balance there would be an employer view. That is not the case and highlights the fundamental difference in principle between the two parties.

Clause 74 refers to the granting and revocation of employer recognition - conditions that the Trades Hall Council is not required to meet because it has a privileged arrangement.

Oause 76 refers to the publication of awards and provides that the Industrial Registrar must cause every award to be printed and published. I am sure the Minister, and the . former Minister whom I see coming into the Chamber, would agree there has been a longstanding criticism that awards of the commission take too long to be printed and that by the time one eventually gets them they are out of date. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 297

The Minister has identified who will be responsible for future production of awards. If he makes a change in a way other than by legislative change - this Bill will not be passed - and transfers those duties to the Industrial Registrar, I trust that he will give that person the staff necessary to achieve the goals proposed under this clause. That will be the case under a coalition government.

The heading to clause 81 is, 11Award has no effect if inconsistent with this Act". It is not clear to me how that provision may affect the registered agreement and I am concerned how it would impact on an enterprise agreement as proposed by the coalition parties and to which I referred earlier. In those circumstances the opposition would have difficulty with that clause. Clause 84 specifies that the higher award rate is to apply where an employee does work covered by two or more awards. That clause should be omitted because that issue should be part of the award conditions. Working conditions depend on the nature of the industry and the specific circumstances applying to that particular award. It is not practical to have a blanket provision of this type. The Bill does not include references to annual leave or long service leave. Those award conditions will be determined by the new Industrial Relations Commission, supposedly on the basis that the commission will deal with all matters that affect the employment of individual workers. In those circumstances it is unusual and contradictory to prescribe an appropriate rate to be paid in the event that a person is covered by two or more awards. In the current economic climate, where families are struggling, a husband, wife, or a single mother would snap up a second job if they found one. It is likely this provision would apply even within the one organisation. I make exactly the same remarks about clause 85, which provides that award rates will apply to some non-award work. If the government is fair dinkum about abolishing the wages board system and putting in place a commissioner who, through a panel process, would determine these matters, as applies in the Federal jurisdiction, it is appropriate that the award argued by the parties and fixed by the commission should operate effectively. Clause 85 should be omitted. Clause 90 requires that persons under the age of eighteen years engaged to do any work must be paid the appropriate award rate. There may be sound reasons for the clause, but this provision would normally be part of an award condition. It is part of the proposition that I have indicated earlier. The Minister for Labour has said at a number of public forums - I have even heard some employers say the same thing - that the Bill will not be prescriptive and will allow the proposed commission to fix wages and working conditions. This clause is an example where the Bill is prescriptive and that is not satisfactory. Oause 92 relates to restrictions on certified agreements. Subclause (1) states: The commission may only certify an agreement if it believes - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

298 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

(a) the agreement is in the interests of the parties to the agreement;

That is restrictive and subjective. Surely it is sufficient for the parties to agree and for minimum standards to be set and complied with under the Act.

Gause 92(3) states:

If an agreement includes terms based on the terms of another certified agreement, the commission must not certify the agreement unless it is satisfied that the inclusion of those terms in the agreement is justified in the particular circumstances of the agreement.

If people are able to agree on the circumstances that ought to be enough.

The coalition's policy of enterprise bargaining envisages a circumstance where a minimum wage and base conditions will be fixed, but beyond that the parties will negotiate freely the wages, work conditions, leave loading and other conditions that are so important in a flexible and changing industrial workplace.

The coalition does not see the need, once those base conditions are accepted, to require the ratification of the commission. The only thing that is required is the lodgment of the agreement simply to ensure that minimum standards are complied with. It is not acceptable for the commission to be told what things it can and cannot do or for it to vet an agreement and arrangements freely entered into. If the opposition had doubts that the government would undertake reform in this area, it need look no further than the recent SPC Ltd dispute where it effectively interfered and took over the whole arrangement.

Gause 97 relates to withdrawing from a certified agreement. Again this clause points up the stark difference in approach between the government and the coalition parties. We say that enterprise agreements freely entered into for a fixed period should be honoured and defendable by both parties. If the work force chooses to break the agreement by strike action or some other form the employer should have some entitlement to restitution. If the opposite is the case and there were problems resulting in lock-outs­ which have occurred in the past - the employees should have exactly the same rights.

Gause 98 gives the Minister the power to ask the commission to vary or amend certified agreements. If two parties have entered into an agreement and taken the trouble to have it registered, with all the humbug and nonsense envisaged in the Bill, they should not be subjected to having the Minister, or myself, when I am the Minister after the election, directing the commission to change or vary an agreement because we do not like it. We are approaching the 21st century and it is about time that we trusted each other. We are not convicts bound by chains; we are human beings trying to get flexibility in the workplace but the govemmentis still living in the past. It is hidebound by the industrial regulatory processes of the past. Its attitude is reflected in the clauses relating to certified agreements. It is bad enough proposing provisions relating to the new Industrial Relations Commission but in this instance, where there may be some freedom to make agreements, big brother says ''No, we know best, we will tell you how your agreement ought to be structured." INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 299

Oause 101 at the commencement of Part 11 proposes the establishment of an industrial magistrates court. As I said earlier, we oppose that provision for a number of good reasons. Firstly, a Metropolitan Industrial Court has been in existence for a long time. I have not received a single complaint from any employer organisation, trade union, individual employer or individual employee about the proper function of that court. Given that we have rejected provisions such as this in the past, somebody who felt it might be no good might have contacted us - maybe Mr Halfpenny might have done so - but there has been no criticism. The Bill proposes to widen the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Industrial Court. The new industrial magistrates court proposes to cover areas that are currently covered by the normal magistrates courts that operate throughout the State and it is proposed that in addition to matters handled, such as wages, it will also handle co~struction industry long service leave, boiler pressure vessels, lifts and cranes, scaffolding, dangerous goods and a raft of other things that are currently not covered. When the coalition bills committee had discussions with the governmenfs advisers on this matter it asked a few simple questions and I am still waiting for the answers. Perhaps the Minister might inform the House in due course, if he responds to the Bill. The questions asked were as follows. How many matters have gone to the Metropolitan Industrial Court in the past five years? How many matters in the new areas to be covered have been covered by the Metropolitan Industrial Court throughout the State? It is important to know these things. I should also like to know whether any cost analyses or impact statements have been done because these will cost the taxpayers of Victoria some money. The Bill is effectively envisaging a new legal process. The setting up of a new industrial magistrates court will require new industrial magistrates, a registrar and a whole new bureaucracy. So far no-one has been able to say how many staff are envisaged but a reading of the Bill and its addenda will show that a considerable amount of detail goes into the arrangements, including the rates of pay, the basis of the staff appointments and the extraordinary powers they will have under this proposal. Anyone with any knowledge of the politics of this State will certainly know there is a high probability we will have a change of government at the next State election. Given the propensity of the government over recent years to appoint friends of the party to judicial and quasi-judicial positions - and I have named a number of those people in the past - I do not see any real reason why we should trust the government to make the proper appointments because, if the appointees are not acceptable, they are there until age 65 and that even relates also to the provision of a part-time magistrate. So we can have a range of unacceptable people. If one wants to see examples of appointments one need look only at the State Industrial Relations Commission. I have the details of all the people in the commission but I shall mention only a few. The president of the commission is a former legal officer of the Australian Council of Trade Unions; the deputy president, Peter Marsh, is a former secretary of the Trades Hall Council; and another deputy president, Mr Lawrance, is a INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

300 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

member of the independent faction of the Labor Party and has been a close friend of the former Premier - maybe that helped him get the job! Myoid mate Deputy President Bob Garlick - his father was a fonner revered member of this House, an honourable member for Mildura, as I recall- was also a fonner secretary of the Victorian Teachers Union and the Air Traffic Controllers Union. Commissioner Ken Williams, who has been referred to on more than one occasion in this House, was a research officer for the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia; Commissioner Neylon was a fonner Australian Workers Union Victorian branch organiser; Commissioner Conway was a fonner secretary of the Victorian Teachers Association; Commissioner Bornstein was a fonner secretary of the Association of Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees; Commissioner Luckman was with the Association of Professional Engineers and the Master Builders Association - one for the other side - Commissioner Lane was a fonner director of industrial relations at the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures; Commissioner Gwyther was with the Victorian Employers Federation; Commissioner McIntyre was a fonner employee of the Department of Labour, and Commissioner Burke was an organiser of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia Victorian branch.

Mr Pope - And the VEF.

Mr GUDE - I thank the Minister for his interjection because it was not my intention to exclude that reference. It is a good point that a number of people are involved in professional associations - and I am well aware of that, having been involved in that area - and have tracked on both sides of politics and both sides of industrial relations. That does not in any way state what their political preferences might be. However, irrespective of the interjection, the fact is that the balance of the commissioners are clearly slanted in one way and I am talking about the propensity, capacity and likelihood that the government will make a whole series of unacceptable political appointments. I shall not go back over the raft of political appointments that were made in the WorkCare area but some of them have been identified in this House in the past so the government has a recent track record of looking after its friends - jobs for the boys. Reference is also made to the appointment of a registrar and a deputy registrar and this will create an additional new bureaucracy. I have asked the department for costings on this and whether any work has been done in this regard. I was told there would probably be only one person appointed. The department really had no idea so it is clear that what was a good idea at the time has not been thought through. Apparently no costings will be done. If the opposite is the case I would be pleased to receive that informa tion.

Clause 124 is headed 11Appeal may only be made to Commission in Court Session". I make the point again that this is an appeal from the proposed industrial magistrates court and it really keeps the situation within the club because it is the agency that makes the Act, administers the Act, prosecutes the Act and tries the Act. Where is the independence? What happened to justice being seen to be done as well as being done? It INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 301

is not envisaged under this provision. It is all kept within the club. Appeals will be heard within the system. It is regretted that there is a relatively similar provision in the current Act. Section 126 states that a question of law that arises from a matter of appeal from the Magistrates Court must be heard by the Supreme Court. So here we have a differentiation. When it comes to a matter of pure law the Supreme Court is called in to do the job because it has been recognised that the people who are involved in the State Industrial Relations Commission do not have the power to carry out that function. In my view those areas ought to be covered under the civil jurisdiction. They should be tried separately as they are now under the Metropolitan Industrial Court and any appeal should go to yet another civil court so justice is seen to be done. Putting it another way, they should be tried in real courts. Clause 13 relates to the powers of inspectors. A good deal of concern has been expressed to the opposition by a number of employers with respect to the over-zealous way inspectors are carrying out their duties. An Honourable Member - And background.

Mr GUDE - And background. I could have said exactly the same thing about this raft of inspectors with respect to the Industrial Relations Commission. This process of politicising the Victorian Public Service has to stop. People ought to be appointed because of their capacities. I do not really care what somebody's politics are. I care whether they can carry out their functions in a proper way. The requirement to provide a statutory declaration is going a bit too far for all but the most difficult cases. There does not appear to be anything written into the Act which enables a satisfactory adjustment of any breach, discrepancy or error discovered on inspection. That is a matter that could have received attention. Subsection Hf) should include something - I offer this as a suggestion - which will enable him or her to perform those functions, including the correction or remedying of any errors discovered during the course of the inspection.

That would be taking a proper active role which would resolve the differences. It would be taking a non-pecuniary role. It would be a responsible role, but that sort of notion has obviously not occurred to the government. The powers given under section 86 of the Federal Act seemed to be more reasonable. Section 86 of the Federal Act says:

(1) For the purpose of ascertaining whether awards and the requirements of this Act are being or have been, observed, an inspector may, at any time during ordinary working hours or at any other time at which it is necessary to do so for that purpose: (a) without force, enter; (I) premises on which the inspector has reasonable cause to believe that work to which an award applies is being or has been performed; or INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

302 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

(it) a place of business in which the inspector has reasonable cause to believe that there are documents relevant to that purpose; and (b) on premises or in a place referred to in paragraph (a): (I) inspect any work, material, machinery appliance, article or facility; (il) as prescribed, take samples of any goods or substances; (iil) interview any employee; (iv) require a person having the custody of, or access to, a document relevant to that purpose to produce the document to the inspector within a specified period; and inspect, and make copies of or take extracts from a document produced to him or her. Surely the House would agree those are reasonable rights for an inspector to have. They are structured in a way that would enable reasonable access to any documentation that might be required, not prescribing the onerous requirements of clause 131 of the present Act. I will not take up the time of the House by going through all of that but I suggest people might like to examine that section. Oause 134 of the Bill enables an inspector to require an employer to calculate wages. I would have thought that an examination of the record should be adequate without the excessive demands of this clause having to be enforced. In my view it ought to be deleted. I want to turn briefly to some of the comments that were made in the Minister's second-reading speech. The Minister states: In performing its functions, the commission will be required to take into account the public interest, including the economic interests of Victoria. I have received a number of comments from business organisations to the effect that the commission has not done that to date. In far too many instances it has slanted its determinations against the employer and in favour of the trade union. Those are not my connotations; they are the connotations of employers who have found themselves party to the system. In the second-reading speech the Minister also states: The Bill imposes a membership requirement of 300 members ... I have already mentioned my concern about that. It goes down the ACTU line in completely the opposite and wrong direction, if one is to move towards genuine enterprise bargaining. The second-reading speech states: Part 11 provides for the establishment of an Industrial Magistrates Court to hear those industrial and occupational health and safety and related matters ... Again I say this will mean additional expense and duplication for little if any gain. The second-reading speech continues: Prosecutions for breaches and proceedings for civil recovery may be commenced at any time within six years of the date of the alleged offence. This is another area one would have to be concerned about in terms of its practical application. In my view six years is impractical. Twelve months may be more reasonable INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 303

because, taking into account the ownership of small businesses, it would be pretty well impossible to trace an offending party. Surely the practical implication is that there ought to be a change to reduce that period from six years to twelve months. When one contemplates the number of small businesses that operate in Victoria one can see that of all the businesses, businesses that employ 50 or less represent 80 or 85 per cent of all employers. That makes the implication of the Minister's proposal quite significant. The opposition believes it is a farcical requirement. In the second-reading speech the Minister says:

The Bill also includes a provision to enable an unpaid superannuation payment to be enforced against any employer, including any amount that would have accrued had the payment been made when required.

This is a torturous statement, and hard to follow. Surely the enforcement of the amount payable under an award is all that would need to be stated. It goes to the question of the way the legislation has been structured.

Clause 139 refers to those who can prosecute under the Act. I believe the wording of section 1(a) through to (c) is capable of providing a delegation that could go to somebody who is not an employee of the Crown. I do not believe that is the intention but I draw it to the Minister's attention.

I believe section 139(1)(a) and (b) go far enough, and it should be made clear that the delegation cannot be made outside the Department of Labour or another government department. I offer that suggestion to the Minister as well.

The second-reading speech states:

The Bill is designed to ensure that the emphasis is placed on reinstating the employee. Re-employment in another position is to be a consideration only where reinstatement is impracticable with compensation being the last resort.

That refers to the provision of unfair dismissal. Even the terminology that is used assumes, incorrectly, that the dismissal is always unfair and the employer is always wrong. In practice that is not always the case. There can be faults on both sides but the legislation should not aim to be one-sided, and that is what it is. In any event, the probable reinstatement may not be the proper method to adopt, and that is another matter that needs to be addressed.

The opposition takes the view that further changes need to be made to the provisions in the Bill relating to unfair dismissal. A person should be required to pay a lodgment fee, perhaps $50, to test the sincerity of the application. In the past the first step taken by people who had been dismissed for whatever reason - these days it is because of redundancies - was to make an application claiming unfair dismissal. What they were really doing was saying, '1've got my pay one way and if I can get a bit more and the system is loose enough I'll go for it". That is not good enough. If a claimant is found to be vexatious a penalty should apply. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

304 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

Oause 146 refer~ to the recovery of money owed, and the prescribed period of six years appears to go too far. Clause 146(3) goes to the fact that an employee's recognised association can take proceedings on behalf of an employee. I made the point before that the silent majority of people, some 68 per cent, who choose not to belong to a trade union - or have not been harassed into joining - are disenfranchised by the Bill. To put some fairness and equity in the measure "recognised association" should be replaced by "employee's agent". That would enable a recognised association to continue to act on behalf of those who choose it, but it also allows non-union members to have access to people to represent them when having a matter heard before the court. The opposition is critical of the fact that the government has not thought through the issue. Reference to an employee's agent does nothing more than provide sensible justice. It gives a person a fair and reasonable right to be heard before a quasi judicial body. It can be a harrowing experience for a person to appear in a public court, even one as "friendly" as the State Industrial Relations Commission, where one must queue for hours. Oause 147(5) states:

An order under this section may be enforced as if it were an order made by the court in a civil proceeding. However, if any amount remains to be paid after all reasonable means of civil enforcement have been tried, the order may be enforced as if it were a fine imposed by the court. That points out the deficiencies of club courts as opposed to the real courts. Recovery of unpaid superannuation is referred to in clause 148. The reference to "recognised association" should be replaced by "employee's agent". It may be a surprise to the government, but trade union members are not the only people who receive superannuation either through awards, agreements or the instigation of the employer. Oause 149 refers to unfair dismissals. Again I make the point that the Bill gives specific and privileged rights to recognised associations, and that needs to be dealt with. The loogment time for a claim of unfair dismissal is covered in clause 151 and it increases the period for loogment from four to ten days. After an employee has been dismissed, he currently has four days in which to lodge an unfair dismissal claim. The Bill increases that to ten days, and the opposition rejects that proposal. The government argues that it will allow a cooling-off period and, therefore, there will be fewer applications. The opposition takes a different view - it will allow those who want to bog down the system to do so with even greater ease. Oause 153 deals with the Industrial Relations Commission refusing to hear an application. It is a weak clause because it is not specific enough and it should be redrafted in the following terms:

(1) The commission shall refuse to consider an application put before it for conciliation and arbitration until it is satisfied that the matter has been dealt with in the following manner: INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 305

(a) As soon as practicable after the dispute or claim has arisen, the employee concerned has taken the matter up with his or her immediate supervisor and/or employer affording him or her the opportunity to remedy the cause of the dispute or claim; (b) Where any such attempt at settlement has failed, or where the dispute or claim is of such a nature that a direct discussion between the em ployee and his or her immediate supervisor and/or employer would be inappropriate, the employee has notified a dually authorised representative of his or her union and who, if he or she considers that there is some substance in the dispute or claim, shall forthwith take the matter up with the employer of his or her representative and the employer's recognised association and that all parties have endeavoured to remedy the cause of the dispute or claim. (2) A written report indicating the steps taken to resolve the claim or dispute shall be submitted to the commission before any such application shall be dealt with. That is wholly consistent with the disputes and grievance settling arrangements the coalition believes should be a mandatory part of industrial awards and agreements. Oause 160 relates to deductions from pay. Sometimes through error an employee is overpaid. However, the recovery or adjustment of such overpayment is difficult, if not impossible. If the Bill is to be given any serious consideration the government should include in this clause a further provision along these lines: In the case of a genuine error where an employee is paid in excess of any pay entitlement such overpayment may be recouped by the employer as soon as practicable after it has been discovered by way of deduction from an ensuing pay. The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Noms) - Order! Without wishing to interrupt the honourable member for Hawthorn, I note that he is suggesting alterations to clauses. The Committee stage of the debate may be the correct time for him to pursue such an argument. Mr GUDE - Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker for your consideration. I shall endeavour to confine myself to direct matters. However, it has been the practice in this House when the opposition has found deficiencies in legislation and is able to offer constructive suggestions that the government has taken up those suggestions. I simply wish to assist the Minister so if the Bill is debated in Committee the Minister may at least have had some opportunity of considering my suggestions. Nonetheless, I accept and understand the sentiments of your instruction, Sir. The Bill refers to secret ballots, but it makes relatively little change to the current arrangements. The provisions in the Act have rarely, if ever, been used and one can see the deficiencies that exist. The coalition has made its position clear on this matter. It believes the provision is deficient and pre-strike balloting should be conducted in such a way that it minimises the impact and discomfort to the community of industrial action where it occurs. Further, it envisages that a secret ballot conducted in that way would not legitimise strikes, it would give a clear indication that all of the people who are party to the ballot have given some consideration to the point. The opposition takes the view that where employees act in a manner that is inconsistent with or illegal in the sense that it is in contravention of an award or agreement, that should not in any way militate against an employer's rights to a civil action that may be 77597/91-11 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

306 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

available. It is the intention of the coalition in government to strengthen those legal rights. That is yet another example of the totally different approach the government takes compared to the coalition. I now refer to the matter of conscientious objection to trade union membership. The government would have honourable members believe the Bill before the House goes all the way in ensuring that there will be no compulsion in unionism. What is proposed is that a person has to make out a case for the genuineness of his or her conscientious objection and has to pay an amount of money equivalent to what he or she would have had to pay to the trade union he or she could reasonably have been expected to join - I am not sure who defines "reasonably". A certificate will be issued for one year. There is a renewal application procedure and the money generated out of that goes into consolidated revenue. I do not call that freedom of association at all, that is an insult and impost. All Australians should be able to make a free choice, they should not have to put their hands up and say, "Please, I don't want to belong to a trade union" and then have to justify that in some formal way. Worse still, to have to pay fees because they freely choose not to belong to a trade union is humbug and nonsense. It is unacceptable and un-Australian and it breaches international conventions and is not something that the coalition will endorse or support. Oause 182 relates to leave if no award applies. It is a new provision in part and expands the old section 5B to cover parental leave and so on. Either the specifics ought to be spelt out in the legislation or it ought to be left to the commission to deal with, if that is the way the government envisages that these things will be carried out. Clause 188 refers to certain guarantees being illegal. Subclauses (5) and (6) state: (5) However, an award may authorise such agreements. (6) The Commission in Court Session may also authorise such an agreement by order, on the application of an employer. Those subclauses should be deleted and incorporated in subclause 188(1) by prefacing it with something like: Unless an award or the Commission in Court Session so authorises an employer must not...

And SO on. This is another suggestion to help the Minister for Labour to change the clumsy construction that is proposed in the legislation. Clause 189 refers to contracting out and states:

(1) Unless expressly allowed by this Act, the award or order, any provision in any agreement which purports to annul, vary or exclude any provision of this Act, or an award, or any order made by the Commission or the Commission in Court Session, is void. There is no capacity to negotiate outside the award. Again, it points out the stark differences in approach between the government and the coalition. The opposition believes in enterprise bargaining and facilitating a capacity to break out of the shackles, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 3(Jl

to freely negotiate in the workplace conditions that are conducive to the particular enterprise or organisation operating most effectively. Finally, I will turn to what I believe are serious omissions in the Bill that are vital to the coalition's enterprise bargaining direction and would protect smaller employers. The Act excludes annual holiday provisions. The government says that the commission can fix that, yet the government has found the time to prescribe certain other things, as honourable members heard when I went through the Bill earlier. It removes any reference to long service leave. Over a period in this place the government has sought to make many changes to long service leave conditions applying in various industries. In the construction industry area there is a situation where it is seeking to reduce the period of employment from ten years to five years before benefits are paid. That has the imprimatur of the Premier. That is what the Building Workers Industrial Union notices are saying. In those circumstances a case run by the union or the Trades Hall Council, because of their privileged affiliation under this Act, for a reduction in similar provisions under other awards would also be backed and supported by the Premier. Given the nature and extent of the Industrial Relations Commission one would not have to be an absolute genius to work out what the likely outcome is. Some of us have been around for a few years. I go back to the late 60s and early 70s when there were changes in this area when the construction industry long service leave arrangements first started. The employers involved in the present situation were the first to give workers compensation make-up. It is a heavily unionised industry and the unions have been able to exercise particular influence over it. I am also aware, because I have been involved in this area all of this time, of the flow-on implications of the make up of pay in the workers compensation area. Surely the Minister does not seriously expect the opposition to ignore a situation like that. The opposition knows the flow-on implications of applications that are likely to take place and the process of enterprise bargaining it envisaged will be facilitated by the opposition in government: we will set down minimum standards and they will include annual leave, long service leave and grievance settling procedures. All the detail of that will be spelt out by the coalition in due course. For all of those reasons and because of all the reservations I have expressed about the Bill, I believe the Minister has presented this Parliament with a document that in large measure does not address the opportunities that are available to us in industrial relations. It takes us nowhere. It shackles us and binds us to the worst features of past industrial law in this State and in this country. It is totally contrary to the commitment of the coalition. I conclude where I commenced: the opposition will be rejecting the proposed legislation. The government had no mandate, it did not indicate to the community that it would be seeking these changes. It has failed to bring the matter to the broader electorate and openly and freely discuss it with all the employer representatives and others. In all of ADJOURNMENT

308 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

those circumstances there is no way that the opposition can support the Bill and it will be opposing the legislation.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr MICALLEF (Springvale).

Debate adjourned until next day.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - I move:

That the House do now adjourn. Public Transport Corporation Mr HEFFERNAN (Ivanhoe) - I direct to the attention of the Minister for Transport and, in his absence, the Minister for Labour, who is at the table a matter concerning the Roads Corporation. As recently as late February and early March the Minister instructed the Roads Corporation to hand over $25 million of the corporation's funding to meet the salaries and wages of the Public Transport Corporation. It has also been brought to my attention that early last year $14 million was also transferred to the Public Transport Corporation, which will be accrued to funds for the next financial year of funds Public Transport Corporation, thereby making a total of $39 million in road funding, which is urgently needed to be spent on roads not only in the city but also in the country.

These funds represent a misappropriation of Commonwealth funding. What right does the Minister have to reallocate that funding when it has already been allocated for major road work by the Commonwealth government? The situation reflects the major financial problems in the Public Transport Corporation that are hidden from the taxpayers.

It is not right that the Roads Corporation should be placed under pressure to transfer those funds because they have been allocated to it. The funding should not be used elsewhere to be replaced at a later date. The problems are only being transferred to a later date and that date might well be when the coalition comes to power when it will find there has been an even greater deterioration in the financial situation that it will have to overcome.

I ask the Minister to make clear what is happening in the Roads Corporation and Public Transport Corporation. Taxpayers and Parliament have a right to know what will be the arrangement over the next twelve months.

As further deterioration of the public transport area occurs with losses in the vicinity last year of $2 billion the government is robbing the Roads Corporation when roads continue to deteriorate. Pressure is being put on the officers in these departments to transfer money even though it is on a temporary basis. ADJOURNMENT

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 309

Honourable members have a right to know what is happening in the department and I call on the Minister to inform the House either this evening or at a later date about what is happening. Syringe exchange program Mr WEIDEMAN (Frankston South) - I direct to the attention of the Treasurer, who represents the Minister for Health in another place, the syringe exchange program. I understand 145 pharmacies are involved in the syringe exchange program together with ou tlets of Health Department Victoria. They exchange syringes to discourage the multi-use of single syringes so that the AIDS virus is not transferred to unsuspecting drug users. The program for disposal of needles and syringes is excellent. As a member of the Parliamentary committee involved with investigations concerning AIDS I recommend the program. The program was recently established in Frankston; it has been called the Pit Shop and needles can be exchanged on the evenings of Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. I understand each year about 500 000 needles and syringes are exchanged by Victorian pharmacies and another 500 000 by organisations such as hospitals and community health centres. Therefore, about 1 million needles and syringes must be disposed of yearly. In my area needles are available at about $5 for a pack of twelve. Many drug addicts purchase the packs and go to the changing sheds on the beach. After use, they throw the needles into the bushes. A number of the small yellow containers should be made available in all municipalities so that needles will not be thrown onto the beaches where young people sit or walk. This may avoid the spread of contagious diseases like hepatitis or AIDS. Suitable bins must be provided on the beaches. I understand Health Department Victoria intends to install the bins in 40 Victorian municipalities but there is some problem abou t their manufacture. This excellent program should be extended to accommodate other syringe users in the community, such as diabetics. They have much difficulty disposing of medical-type refuse because the needles and syringes cannot be placed into conventional domestic rubbish bins. A local breeder on the Mornington Peninsula, who is conducting a genetic breeding program, cannot dispose of the 500 needles and syringes he must use. A number of diabetics have approached me for information about where the needles may be deposited. I understand there are special containers available from some councils, including my local council, but many council officials tell the diabetics the bins are either unavailable or must be bought. I ask the Minister to investigate whether diabetics may avail themselves of that service. Most have difficulty disposing of medical waste. Victoria should have some regulation and control of its disposal. I ask the Minister to convey my concern to the Minister for Health in the other place, and ask her to increase the number of outlets now available. ADJOURNMENT

310 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

Availability of granny flats Mr MATHEWS (Oakleigh) - The matter I direct to the attention of the Minister for Planning and Housing concerns the granny flats program that for a number of years has been operated with considerable success by the Department of Planning and Housing. That success springs very much from the capacity the program gives to families to respond to the needs of relatives when those relatives find themselves in need of a level of care requiring proximity to the family but which falls short of that involving institutional care. The very nature of that form of need makes it important that granny flats should be provided speedily. My concern is about the increasing delays being experienced in the installation of granny flats. Recently my attention was directed to an instance where application was made for a granny flat in September last year, and the Ministry speedily gave the necessary approvals for that application. Even so it is now March and the granny flat has yet to eventuate.

I am advised that the delay in question is caused by a "practice on the part of contractors to group the granny flat projects allocated to them until they have a number of projects in hand before any action is taken.

I ask the Minister to interest himself personally in ensuring that the delays associated with this practice are now overcome.

Frankly, it is intolerable that an elderly woman such as the one involved in this application, who finds herself in ill health and whose relatives are only too glad to accept responsibility for her well-being provided a granny flat is available for her accommodation, cannot have the granny flat installed expeditiously in the backyard of a relative's house because of this practice on the part of the contractors working with the Ministry.

The Minister should intervene and see that an end is put to this practice and that people are able to obtain a prompt service with the installation of the granny flats.

~se of vehicles by secondary school students Mr E. R. SMITH (Glen Waverley) - I raise a matter for the attention of the Treasurer, and in his absence I pass it on to the Minister for Transport. It concerns the exemption of stamp duty on demonstration vehicles for use by schools.

For the past ten years Brandon Park Secondary College has been given a demonstration vehicle by Geoff Brady Motors, and it is used each year by the students for driving and road safety practice. I believe they use AFL Park for performing these tasks. The entire grade goes to the park to practice the various skills.

Since stamp duty was placed on demonstration vehicles, firms such as Geoff Brady Motors, which have been donating the vehicles temporarily as a matter of public-spirited gesture, have found that the new rule is the straw that breaks the camel's back. ADJOURNMENT

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 311

At the moment I have a son at Brandon Park Secondary College and I am on the school council. The college asked for my assistance in endeavouring to seek relief by being granted an exemption from government stamp duty. The college wanted to know whether the State government could bring pressure to bear on the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation to give the dealer, and hence the school, an exemption in this case.

I rang Geoff Brady this afternoon and he said that five different secondary schools were receiving vehicles. He has been providing this service for approximately ten years, and it represents in the vicinity of $70 000 a year to him. Because of the state of the economy this added impost of $500 stamp duty has become too much of a burden on Geoff Brady.

I asked the school to send me the figures, which they did. In dollar terms, the dealer commitment for the year might include the following costs on the provision of a $20 000 vehicle: financing of the vehicle at, say, 16 per cent - $3200; depreciation over twelve months - $4500; registration --$350; and pre delivery - $700. I asked him what pre-delivery included and he said number plates, advertising, delivery from the factory and so on. If one includes the $500 stamp duty impost it makes a total of $9250.

I asked him about the condition of the vehicles when they were returned. He said that they had always come back in top condition. Geoff Brady Motors had then sold these vehicles on the second-hand market. Stamp duty of $500 was then due. Geoff Brady had not been required to pay this extra money and so in a tight economy, when dealers like Geoff Brady are feeling the recession, having to pay an additional $500 stamp duty on each demonstration vehicle at the time they are sent to the schools makes it impossible for Geoff Brady Motors to continue with this generous offer. As a result of Geoff Brady withdrawing his program, valuable driving instruction for students will now cease. I ask the Treasurer to use his good offices with the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and seek an exemption of the $500 payment so that a most worthwhile project will be able to be continued.

I read briefly from a letter I have received from Mr Gray, the Secretary of the Brandon Park Secondary College, who says:

As a college, we recognise that our students become car owners. Hence our road safety education program culminates in all of our VCE (Victorian certificate of education) students being required to complete a unit in pre-driver education. This is a college decision, which requires students to complete this unit above and beyond VCE certificate requirements. Students are then provided with the opportunity to take a one (1) week intensive driver skills program at the Driver Education Centre of Australia (DECA) in Shepparton. Approximately sixty (60) students undertake the program each year. We have had considerable support from our college community in implementing the program.

The government is long on words about education. Fortunately the Minister for Transport is at the table; he will appreciate what I am saying. The government says it is keen to provide education for our young people so that in the future when they get into vehicles they will understand their responsibilities and what is required of them. ADJOURNMENT

312 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

The program to which I have referred has had a high level of success. I see the honourable member for Wantima nodding her head; she knows how important and successful the program has been. Once again, I urge the Treasurer to seek an exemption of the payment of the $500 so that the successful program can continue to be conducted and the students in my electorate and those surrounding it can have the benefits of the program that has been available to those who have been fortunate to take part in it. Potato cyst nematode Mr w. D. McGRATH (Lowan) - I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Agriculture. In recent times cyst nematodes have been found in potatoes being grown in Victoria. As I understand it, one of the problems presenting itself is that, upon such a finding, any other plants - that is, tubers, bulbs, carrots, parsnips, and small shrubs and trees - growing within a 20-kilometre radius cannot be sent interstate. I understand also there is no protocol within the Department of Agriculture that allows for a change in this ban. People growing these products in Victoria have contracts with people in New South Wales and now they find themselves unable to fulfil those contracts because they are within the20-kilometre zone of where the cyst nematodes have been found.

Mr Speaker, with your background, you will understand the problem I raise. What happens is that an investigation is carried out only on the property where it is suspected that the nematode is present. Then a blanket ban is put on the 20-kilometre radius zone and everybody is out. I ask the Minister for Agriculture to investigate the matter and to determine whether some other mechanism than a blanket ban on a 20-kilometre radius zone can be introduced. I ask him to determine whether other bulbs, tubers and root plants can be allowed to be moved out of the area so that existing contracts can be filled and normal business can continue, rather than penalising everyone in a 20-kilometre radius zone. I ask if the ban can be restricted to the property where the nematode has been found. Wantirna South Primary School Mrs IflRSH (Wantirna) - I raise for the attention of the Minister for Finance, who is the representative in this House of the Minister for Education and Training, a matter of urgency concerning the redevelopment of the Wantirna South Primary School.

The school is in traditional apple orchard country in Wantima South. Last month it held its 50th anniversary celebration, which was a wonderful occasion. The Minister for Education and Training attended and officially opened stage 1 of the development.

The Wantirna South Primary School commenced in 1941 as a small single-teacher rural school. It was opened after many representations from the local State member of Parliament to the Minister responsible for education. It is certainly a community-based ADJOURNMENT

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 313

school in that the community was responsible for getting it going and has kept it going ever since. According to its history, it took some years for this little, old-fashioned school to have electricity connected. In the middle 1970s when only 100 students attended the school a few portable classrooms were moved in. In this modern day and age those portables are not considered satisfactory for students. They do not have proper heating; they are cold in winter and hot in summer. I suggest they are entirely inappropriate. Stage 1 of the school redevelopment program, which the parents have been fighting for since the middle 1980s, has been successful. The school has a strong community approach. After the Ministry of Education revealed that it was considering closing down the school because it was both small and old the parents made a number of representations to the Minister of the day. Through their efforts the school remained open. On reflection, that was a good decision because the school population is increasing in leaps and bounds. Unfortunately, every time there is an increase in the number of students another one of the old-fashioned portable classrooms has been put in place. Stage 1 of the redevelopment, which was designed by the school community, consists of an extremely attractive building with two classrooms with a wide verandah along one side. The plans for stages 2 and 3 follow the same pattern. The design is non-traditional for a school but the building is totally functional with wet areas, carpet, insulation and so on. On his recent visit to the school the Minister said how impressed he was with the work the school community had done. The strong commitment by a former principal, Hilary Bloom, and the current principal, Max Harris, has encouraged the parents to keep the redevelopment campaign going.

It is vital for the school community that stages 2 and 3 be funded in the next financial year. I emphasise the importance of the representations made to me and I pass on the community's request to the Minister that the redevelopment of the school should continue.

It is not appropriate for children to spend another year in the old portables that really should be condemned. The outside toilets at the school are out of date and must be replaced. I well recall the appalling conditions of schools when I was a child. In a one-teacher school the child who had the seat by the fireplace was the only one who kept warm in the winter months; the other students froze. Although Wantima South Primary School is a wonderful school in terms of atmosphere and parent commitment, it is not physically adequate for the children, for the teachers to work in or for parents to be involved with. I ask the Minister to ensure that funding for stages 2 and 3 of the redevelopment will be available in the 1991-92 Budget. ADJOURNMENT

314 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

WorkCare levy Mr HAMILTON (Morwell) - I raise a matter that concerns a small business in the Latrobe Valley, the proprietor of which is Mr Peter Needham. The SPEAKER - Order! I ask the honourable member to identify which Minister he wants to address the matter. Mr HAMILTON - I direct the matter to the attention of the Minister for Labour who is responsible for WorkCare. As I said, the matter concerns Mr Peter Needham, who is the proprietor of Latrobe Valley Carpet Care. He has received a number of letters from the Accident Compensation Commission (ACC), but the most concerning is the one that informed Mr Needham of a retrospective increase in his WorkCare levy because of a mistake in the written advice sent to him by the commission concerning his levy for the period 1 October 1989 to 30 June 1990. Mr Needham rightly argues that no business can operate profitably when, after setting aside from its budget the money needed to pay the advised WorkCare levy, the ACC informs the proprietor the rate was incorrectly calculated and that, as a result, he has to pay an increased retrospective levy. In this instance Mr Needham has had to find an extra $345. In February 1990 the ACC wrote to Mr Needham saying:

The net levy rate for the period 1 October 1989 to 30 June 1990 is 4.07 per cent. Levy payments may now be made at the new rate. That advise was underlined and the letter was signed by the levy information officer of the claims and levy division of the Accident Compensation Commission. Twelve months later an officer from the Levy Collection Agency, acting as an agent for the commission, wrote to Mr Needham saying:

Pleased be advised that the rate of 4.07 per cent advised by the Accident Compensation Commission in Februaru 1990 was calculated manually and was provisional only. The recalculated rate of 4.6640 per cent is correct. There was no indication in the February 1990 letter that the rate of the levy was provisional. The letter from the agency goes on to say:

Pleased be further advised that outstanding levy for this period will be collected without penalty.

That was none too generous given that twelve months after being advised of his new WorkCare levy Mr Needham was informed that a mistake had been made and that that mistake was the responsibility of WorkCare. What has happened to Mr Needham is irresponsible. If the Accident Compensation Commission has made a mistake it should have to bear the cost of it, not small businessmen like Mr Needham. Although, as I said, in this case an additional $345 has to be paid the principle involved is far more important. Such mistakes are unacceptable, and the ACC must ensure that when mistakes are made it does not attempt to retrospectively levy clients. ADJOURNMENT

Thursday, 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 315

The Minister should examine the matter because it is important not only to this small business proprietor but also as a matter of principle. I ask the Minister for Labour to ensure that similar mistakes are not repeated and that Mr Needham's problem is sorted out. I shall send the written material I have to the Minister so that he knows all the details and can take up the matter on behalf of my constituent. Responses Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport> - The honourable member for Morwell raised a matter he wishes passed on to the Minister for Labour. He was concerned about a letter sent in error to a small company in his electorate relating to a difference of $300 in the WorkCare levy and the impact that would have on the business in the current economic climate. I will raise the matter with the Minister and request that he urgently raise the matter with Accident Compensation Commission which is responsible for WorkCare. The honourable member for Wantima related the 50 year history of the Wantima Primary School and the struggle to maintain the school. She indicated that the growth of population in the area warranted the reconstruction of stages 2 and 3 of the school and that the old portables that presently exist are unsatisfactory. I will pass the matter on to the Minister for Education and Training for his urgent attention. The Deputy Leader of the National Party raised a matter for the attention of the Minister for Agriculture concerning a ban on products grown within a 20-kilometre zone of a property where potatoes affected with blight have been identified. He indicated there was a need for flexibility because of the impact on other agricultural businesses. I will take up that matter with the Minister for Agriculture. The honourable member for Glen Waverley raised an important point about driver education. I wish to commend the schools in his electorate and Geoff Brady Motors, the company that supplied the vehicles, for being part of a driver education program. The honourable member would be aware I took certain action to introduce a graduated licence system allowing sixteen-year-olds to drive with L-plates and gain experience before going for their licences. There is always debate as to what sorts of driving courses should be run. I believe that sort of debate is healthy in the community. I congratulate any company which makes vehicles available to allow students to be taught responsibility in driving. Everyone knows the horrific effect of the road toll on P-plate drivers. The honourable member seeks an exemption for car dealers of the stamp duty on demonstration vehicles. I will take the matter up with the Treasurer to see if there is any action he can take. The honourable member for Frankston South raised a matter for the attention of the Minister for Health, which I shall pass on. The honourable member for Ivanhoe raised a matter relating to the transfer of funds from the Roads Corporation to the Public Transport Corporation. I can assure the ADJOURNMENT

316 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 14 March 1991

honourable member and the House that there was no transfer of Federal funding - it is illegal! Every cent of Federal funding allocated to a project is spent on that project. There is always an argument between the Roads Corporation and the Public Transport Corporation about whether if you put a bridge over a railway line it is a Public Transport Corporation cost or a Roads Corporation cost; if you improve a railway crossing or a road does the Roads Corporation or the Public Transport Corporation raise that money. I have always indicated that we look at our budget and have a responsibility to develop a proper transport system, whether in relation to roads, public transport, facilities for motor bikes, bikes or pedestrians. I can assure the honourable member that any money allocated is used in the best possible way to provide services for the Victorian community. Mr Speaker, you will be interested to know that following the special Premiers Conference, State and local governments will have greater flexibility in relation to priorities for Federal funding. From time to time there has been criticism of State and local governments about priorities; that there were greater needs in other areas, particularly parts of rural Victoria. It provides the opportunity of communication between local government and members of Parliament so that when money becomes available and priorities are specified they can decide how the local community will plan the strategy in their area. This process will allow for greater input,an improvement in lifestyle and better allocation of priorities, particularly in the metropolitan area.

Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - The honourable member for Oakleigh raised for my attention the availability and supply of granny flats. The honourable member indicated that the waiting time for persons making application was not appropriate and he cited a case of an elderly woman in ill health who had been waiting for a flat for approximately six months.

Mr Richardson interjected. Mr McCUTCHEON - The honourable member for Forest Hill, by interjection, refers to the inefficiency of the Department of Planning and Housing. The honourable member should wait for the information regarding the provision of granny flats because he might benefit by hearing that information. The honourable member for Oakleigh referred to the formal process of obtaining council permission to connect sewers, electricity and the like, and associated problems such as locating a building at the back of a sloping site. Difficulties often arise in connecting services to new dwellings. Normally there is a six-month period, but in this instance the honourable member referred to an application that was made in September, about six months ago, and I shall obtain the details of that application so that I can see where it is in the process and let him know if there are matters holding it up. Mr Richardson interjected.. ADJOURNMENT

Thmsday. 14 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 317

Mr McCUTCHEON - In response to the interjection from the honourable member for Forest Hill, my department is doing a marvellous job in providing housing for the people of Victoria. The record of this government makes the efforts of previous governments pale into insignificance. The government has a fine record in increasing public housing stock and improving the maintenance and quality of that stock. Honourable members interjecting. Mr McCUTCHEON - During the last sessional period in a debate on public housing I answered a question regarding waiting lists. The reason there is a waiting list for public housing is because the product now available is much superior to anything that was available under previous Uberal administrations. The opposition ought to be aware that there are approximately 150 000 households in Victoria that require public housing. The previous Uberal government made no attempt to provide adequate stocks of public housing and the quality of that housing was extremely poor. Since this government has been in office it has improved the quality of stock and many more people want to take advantage of the housing available. Motion agreed to.

House adjourned 6.9 p.m. until Tuesday, 19 March. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 319

Tuesday, 19 March 1991

The SPEAKER (Hon. Ken Coghill) took the chair at 2.5 p.m. and read the prayer.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS The SPEAKER - Order! I welcome to the public gallery two members of the Queensland Parliament, Mr Kenneth Smyth, MLA for Bowen, and Mr Darryl Briskey, MLA for Redlands. Mr Briskey and Mr Smyth are members of the Parliamentary Services Commission and in that connection are visiting the Victorian Parliament today. I also advise the House that in the public gallery is a group of eight children and one teacher from the Olinca Elementary School in Mexico City.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

WORLD CONGRESS CENTRE Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition) - I refer to the Treasurer's denial of the Estimates subcommittee's calculation that the taxpayers' liability in respect of the World Congress Centre is at least $394.3 million. What is the Treasurer's estimate of the taxpayers'liability? Mr RaPER (Treasurer) - It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has now discovered that Victoria has an excellent World Congress Centre. People might remember that under the previous government at least half a dozen reports were prepared on the urgent need for a World Congress Centre in Melbourne if Melbourne was to maintain its position as a place for congresses to be held. Despite those reports, nothing occurred. In conjunction with the private sector this government determined that Victoria should have a congress centre. I understand from my colleague the Minister for Tourism that already there has been a significant increase in the number of congresses in Victoria as a result of the completion of the World Congress Centre. Indeed, I believe well over 100 congresses have been forward booked. It was deliberately decided to use private sector funding and ownership for the congress centre, and if the Leader of the Opposition had consulted with the members of his party who are on the Economic and Budget Review Committee he would be aware that when I gave evidence to that committee I said the government would seek advice from the owners of the centre as to the financial arrangements and their availability to members of the committee. QUESTIONS WITHOur NOTICE

320 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

I specifically suggested that one of the matters we might raise is whether Mr Hallam, an honourable member for Western Province in another place, may have access to all the documents which are commercial in-confidence documents on a confidential basis. I said to the committee that its estimate was on the high side and that, as a result of the way the financing was arranged and the ownership by the private sector was organised, there was a saving compared with the level of costs if the money had simply been borrowed as a government borrowing.

Those details and the details of the contract are being discussed with the unit trust, and I shall properly inform the Parliamentary committee of the results of those discussions.

Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - I refer the Minister for Tourism to his evidence given on 19 February to the Estimates Subcommittee of the Economic and Budget Review Committee when he denied that the government's commitment to the World Congress Centre was open-ended. Does the Minister concede that his evidence is contradicted by the legal advice received by the board of the congress centre that the Treasurer is legally obliged under the subsidy deed to pay at the direction of the manager sums on account of any expense, loss, damage, cost and liability that have been incurred or that may be incurred?

Mr CRABB (Minister for Tourism) - If the Leader of the National Party, who is the tourism spokesperson for his party, had shown enough interest to turn up at the committee meetings he would have heard what was said. I was asked who picks up the tab if the congress centre goes over budget. I said then and I say now that it is no different from any other organisation that goes over budget. The Treasury ends up paying, but there is hell to pay, which is as it should be so it does not happen again. All the steps are taken to ensure that the budget of the centre is met, just as all steps are taken to ensure that everyone else meets their budget. COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRES Mrs BARKER (Bentleigh) - Will the Premier inform the House of the implications for new industry in Victoria following last week's Federal announcement on industry and cooperative research centres?

Ms KIRNER (premier) - I thank the honourable member for Bentleigh for her question and her interest in this matter. Victoria is widely known as the centre of knowledge-based industry in Australia; it has fine educational institutions, it has research bodies and it has companies interested in backing research and development.

Last week it was particularly pleasing that the Victorian government was able to win from the Commonwealth government the announcement of four cooperative research centres. They will act as the basis for ensuring that further research is done in Victoria to enable industries to benefit from research and development. The Commonwealth will allocate $30 million to the cooperative research centres, of which there are fifteen, and I was extremely pleased that Victoria won four of the centres in the first round. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 321

The first cooperative research centre is for aerospace technology and services. As I said last week in my statement on industry, the centre of the aerospace industry at Avalon will be one of the new and important industries for Victoria. In conjunction with this morning's announcement that the aerospace show will be at Avalon in 1992, Victoria now has the ability to focus on the cooperative research centre at Avalon as being second to none in South-East Asia for aerospace research. The second grant is for a centre for research for cellular growth factors. Some of the terms are highly technical, but that centre will be a bonus not only for the people of Victoria but also for the people of the world in terms of the work being done on pharmaceutical industry products to attack cancer. The third grant is for the G. K. Williams Cooperative Research Centre for Extractive Metallurgy. I am confident that the work that will be done at that centre on the extraction of raw materials in mining will lead to industries, such as the mineral sands project proposed for the western area of Victoria, being one of the most advanced in the world. There is no point in simply having research development without the research being applied, and that is why I am particularly pleased that in its recent industry statement the Federal government granted $4.9 million to a chemical company in Altona for the development of a citric acid plant. This is a world quality innovation. Where there was a factory that looked like closing there is now a bounty worth $4.9 million over the next three years to ensure that the factory will be a foundation for a new world industry based in Victoria. That sort of confidence and moving forward with Victoria is the sort of action the government is demonstrating while the opposition cannot find, even under the bed, a policy on industry. WORLD CONGRESS CENTRE Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton) - Will the Treasurer explain why the list of contingent liabilities in his most recent finance statement did not disclose as a contingent liability the financial obligation the government has assumed in respect of the World Congress Centre? Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - As was mentioned at the hearing, there are very detailed arrangements in terms of the finance statement which is prepared by the Department of Treasury. If my recollection is correct that was not regarded as appropriate treatment for that particular item. It is interesting that rather than saying what a great job the people who got the World Congress Centre going have done in boosting tourism in Victoria the opposition­ obviously having read the Herald-Sun this morning - simply says, "This saves us all the trouble of writing our own questions, let's do that". As the Minister for Tourism and I have said, there has already been a significant boost to tourism in this State resulting in substantial benefits to the private sector because at last Victoria has got the World Congress Centre that was thought necessary back in the mid-1970s. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

322 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

There are more than 100 forward bookings and there have already been more than 300 functions in the first year of operation of the World Congress Centre. As I said to the committee, we will seek discussions with the unit trust which owns the centre and will be back in touch with the committee. That is what I intend to do.

It would be interesting for the opposition to say what its policy is on tourism. What is its policy? Is it a bit like the opposition's agriculture policy, which is going to be finished in February but will not be released until some time later in the year, or the various other policies that it says are nearly ready. Perhaps it simply is not ready on tourism. The government believed this State needed a World Congress Centre and arrangements were made to ensure it had one. It was done on a basis that made it cheaper than simply using traditional government borrowings. VICTORIAN TOURISM COMMISSION Mr NORRIS (Dandenong) - I ask the Minister for Tourism whether he is monitoring the impact of last year's changes to the structure of the Victorian Tourism Commission and, if so, will he indicate to the House the progress he believes is now being made by the commission in establishing Melbourne and Victoria as tourism destinations.

Mr CRABB (Minister for Tourism) - Last year the government moved the focus of the Victorian Tourism Commission entirely to marketing and progressively got out of the non-core activities, that is, activities not related to promoting this State for tourism, both domestically and internationally.

As part of that we merged our retail operations with the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria and that is now very successfully operating through 30 different outlets as opposed to the State-owned one in Collins Street. As a result of this the number of staff in the Victorian Tourism Commission has been decreased from 220 to 120; some millions of dollars saved thereby are being allocated to tourism marketing.

The results of this are outstanding. The Lakes campaign, the Murray campaign and the Melbourne Now campaign produced increases of between 15 and 25 per cent while they were being conducted. I am delighted to say that through this year the tourism industry has maintained the excellent figures of the year before. That record is an outstanding credit to the tourism industry in a time of national and even international recession. The most recent campaign for the high country during the summer season led to operators at one of the mountain resorts reporting increases in patronage of up to 40 per cent over that period. That is a tribute to the increasing professionalism of the industry and to the focus of the Victorian Tourism Commission on its actual job - namely, marketing - and leaving the private sector to get on and do the things it does best.

It is true that tourism is likely to be our biggest industry in years to come. To that end it is a portfolio that ought to have a bipartisan approach. There should be some commonality of view between all parties in this House about support for the tourism industry. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 323

Exactly twelve months ago to the day, at the country tourism conference the Leader of the Opposition told the tourism industry that his then tourism spokesman, the honourable member for Mornington, was putting the finishing touches to a policy. Whatever happened to the finishing touches? I am not sure what has happened because the policy has not yet turned up! About a week or so ago we did have the collected and distilled wisdom of the new spokesman, the Leader of the National Party, contained in the Bendigo Advertiser. I do not know if that is the same policy that has been around for twelve months but it must be because he said, III will cut the size of the Victorian Tourism Commission and shake it up" - we have done that! He said he would put the subsequent wage savings into marketing - we have done that! He said he would second marketing people from private enterprise to help the Victorian Tourism Commission - we have done that! What really disappointed me about trying to develop consensus about where the industry is going is that apparently the opposition policy is to have government-backed tourism offices across the State, able to make instant sales of tourism packages. Apparently the opposition has a plan to have a State-owned web of travel agencies across the State, but that is exactly what we have most successfully just got out of. What is being advocated by the opposition for the industry goes something like this: ~ple will come into an office in Bendigo and say, ''Look, I have not been to Gippsland". The reply will be, IIHere is literature on the Gippsland Lakes, here is what a houseboat costs, these are the departure times" and they can then say, IIYes, that is great" and a sale is made! What brilliant insight and what stunning clarity of vision! Think of the amount of work he must have put into that to have such an astonishing grasp of the complexity of an industry! I say to the opposition parties: for goodness sake, let us get a bipartisan approach and drive off the concept of nationalising the travel industry. MEAT INDUSTRY Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition) - My question is directed to the Premier. Is it a fact that Mr Curran was provided with a copy of the government's originally proposed submission to the Harrison inquiry and asked to make comments? Ms KIRNER (Premier) - Last week I dealt with a series of questions on which the opposition then proceeded - until I actually tackled the Deputy Leader of the National Party on a radio station - to make unfortunate comments about my integrity in this House. I took exception to those comments with the Deputy Leader of the National Party, and he certainly backed off. The government has a clear process for the preparation of government submissions: it is done by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The lead department is the senior department on the particular issue, in this case initially it was the Department of Agriculture, and then it goes to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet for coordination. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

324 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

Last week I said clearly there was consultation with the Victorian Farmers Federation and the employers in the meat industry on the general issue of the meat industry. It is also accurate to say that prior to August 1990 the submission was forwarded to the Australian Council of Trade Unions through the Department of Labour. Obviously the meat industry as an issue has fallen away for the opposition benches, especially the National Party, because the Deputy Leader of the National Party is not here for question time, when the meat industry was the subject of questions of his. As I offered, I am happy to provide answers to the letter he sent to me about the dates and times of meetings. The most interesting part of this questioning is the fact that it is not the policy opposition members are interested in. An Honourable Member - They haven't got any!

Ms KIRNER - Indeed; and they have had to set up a National Party forum or a rural task force to find a policy. The National Party, without the Liberals, is now going into country areas of Victoria and saying, 'What do you want us to put in our rural policy?" Isn't that amazing? If the Liberals are going to be in it, I hope it gets added to the press release because this one will be chaired by the member of the Legislative Council for the Western Province -

Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition) - My point of order, Mr Speaker, is on the question of relevance. The Premier has had great latitude and has chosen not to address in any way, shape or form, in the 3 minutes that she has been speaking, the question I asked. It was solely in reference to Mr Wally Curran and whether he was provided with a copy of the government's originally proposed submission to the Harrison inquiry, and I asked the Premier for her comments. I suggest that it is time the Premier now addressed the question. The SPEAKER - Order! As I have heard the Premier's reply, she has provided information concerning the process followed by the government, and no doubt is coming to the point of the question raised by the honourable member. At this stage I am unable to relate the latter part of the Premier's remarks to the question that was asked, and I ask her to return to the question.

Ms KIRNER - The point I was making on this rural task force is that the real issue for Victoria on the meat industry and, indeed, on agricultural industries generally, is: what are the policies of both the opposition and the government on the meat industry and the rural industry? Our policies are clear. They are so clear that on the issue of rural industries and development in regional areas we now have from the opposition a new policy and it is called, liMe too!" QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 325

Recently, the Leader of the Opposition went up to Ballarat and on the question of the State data processing centre - and he still has not given us that regional development policy--

The SPEAKER - Order! I am having some difficulty relating the Premier's remarks to the question that was asked. I ask her to return to the question.

Ms KIRNER - I am pleased about the liMe too" policy; and just to conclude -- Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order!

Mr Brown - Conclude? You haven't started!

Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - On a further point of order, Mr Speaker, the question put forward by the Leader of the Opposition was quite straightforward. He asked the Premier whether a copy of the submission to the Harrison meat inquiry was given to Mr Curran - yes or no. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! I have already requested the Premier to return to the point of the question. I do not uphold the further point of order.

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - As I said, in conclusion - and I noticed that the instructions given by the Leader of the Opposition to his backbench about not getting frustrated about good behaviour in this House are not being followed by him --

Mr Coleman - What about your own?

Ms KIRNER - And not by the honourable member for Syndal either! But coming back to my original point, the submission was forwarded to the ACTU. It was commented on by the council and, in Mr Curran's own words, by himself as well, and the final submission was the property of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The final submission was sent without being seen by anyone other than myself and the appropriate Ministers and our officers.

Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - I ask the Premier: given her own words spoken just then that no-one else saw the submission after it was presented to the ACTU, why did she not see fit to produce a copy of that document to the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia or to the Victorian Farmers Federation?

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - I know that the opposition is having a great deal of difficulty in coming up with a rural policy, and that is perfectly clear by its having to set up -- with the National Party in the lead, just in case it is edged out of any country seats by the Liberal Party -- a task force to come up with a meat industry statement. I have answered that question; I answered it last week. QUESTIONS WITHOur NOTICE

326 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the Premier is going to extraordinary lengths to avoid answering the question. The question I asked was quite clear: since Mr Curran obviously had an opportunity of looking at the government's proposal to the Harrison meat industry inquiry, could the Premier advise the House -- Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! The Leader of the National Party is perfectly entitled to put a question without interruption. I particularly ask the honourable member for Wantirna to remain silent. Honourable Members (To Mr McNamara) - What is the point of order? Mr McNAMARA - The point of order is that the Premier has not answered the question, which is quite straightforward. The question I asked is: if Mr Curran was given a copy of the document, why was the same courtesy not extended to the Meat and Allied Trades Federation and the Victorian Farmers Federation? Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! I ask the honourable member for Richmond to remain silent. I do not uphold the point of order. Ms KIRNER (Premier) - I have made it clear that there was consultation on the meat industry with the Victorian Farmers Federation and the meat and allied trades employers group; I have the dates here to demonstrate that. I have made it clear about the submission and I now intend to get on with the development of the meat industry in Victoria, including the food processing industry. If this opposition, which has no policies, wants to keep on with the kind of work that it has been doing over the past few weeks - which is not about total policy, not about the total industry, but about one particular issue - it is welcome. What the community wants is a revitalised meat industry and it will get that through the Harrison meat industry inquiry. COMMUNITY SERVICES VICfORIA REGIONAL ADMINISTRA­ TION Mr McDONALD (Whittlesea) - Is the Minister for Community Services aware of recent claims made in respect of new administration arrangements in the Hume region? If so, will she inform the House of the cost of those new arrangements? Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Community Services) - Honourable members will be aware that Community Services Victoria made some changes to administrative arrangements in the Hume region. In fact, changing what were ten regions to five resulted in CSV being able to make savings in its administrative budget. The target in the Hume region was a saving of $220000. We wanted also to improve delivery services by setting up an area office in Wangaratta. Honourable members will know that Wangaratta is a manufacturing town having some QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 327

difficulty with the rural downturn. In the Wangaratta area there is a population of high need. CSV found some offices that were almost ready to be occupied but needed some refurbishment which would cost approximately $3000. Lo and behold, the honourable member for Forest Hill issued a press release in which he continued his inaccurate and misleading statements. He was a little confused and perhaps somewhat misied on what would be the cost of the refurbishment. The honourable member for Forest Hill issued a press release saying that $3000 worth of office refurbishment would have a total cost of $300 000. The cost of providing vehicles to service that area office will be $8000, but the honourable member got out his calculator and suggested the cost would be $200 000. So the honourable menlber for Forest Hill advised the Hume region that the establishment of the area office in Wangaratta would cost $500 000 when the actual cost will be $11 000. The honourable member has a history of making misleading statements in the press. This incident again demonstrates that people living in the Hume region cannot trust the Liberals to issue a press release on costs. The honourable member misled the community by referring to a total cost of $500 000 and he failed to recognise that $220 000 would be saved by the amalgamation of the regions. The honourable member would not mention that in his press release because he believes the provision of community services is not one of the core functions of government, like transport and education.

The SPEAKER - Order! The Minister is tending to debate the question. She is at liberty to provide information to the House but not to debate answers to questions without notice.

Mrs SETOiES - I am deeply concerned about what the opposition will do with community services. It does not believe a $800 million portfolio is even part of the core function of government. It appears the community can look forward to more misleading statements from the honourable member for Forest Hill. MEAT INDUSTRY Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - I refer the Premier to the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures that show that 45200 working days were lost between May and November 1989 due to industrial action in the Victorian meat processing industry, a fact that was deleted from the government's submission to the Harrison inquiry, and ask: were these figures deleted at the request or suggestion of Mr Curran or at the request of industry representatives, the Victorian Farmers Federation and the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia?

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - I share the concern expressed by the honourable member for Hawthorn about the level of industrial disputation in the meat industry. That is one reason why Victoria took the trouble to make a submission to the Harrison inquiry.

I told the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia, the Victorian Farmers Federation and the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union that we need the Harrison inquiry to work through a resolu tion to the problems facing the industry, and I look forward to the results of the inquiry. QUESTIONS WITHOur NOTICE

328 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

DISPUTE SETILEMENT Mr KENNEDY (Bendigo West) -- Will the Attorney-General ad vise the House of progress he is making in devising new approaches to resolving disputes, especially in country Victoria?

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I thank the honourable member for his question and for his ongoing interest in this issue and in country Victoria, particularly in Bendigo. I should like to congratulate him for the outstanding work he did on the establishment of the Chinese lytuseum in Bendigo, which I had the pleasure of opening. I know the Premier and I are looking forward to opening the Capital Theatre in Bendigo, a project with which the honourable member has been closely identified. The government has made considerable changes not only in attempting to make the court system more efficient but also in endeavouring to ensure that as many disputes are resolved on an informal basis outside the court system as is possible. Honourable members will be aware that, although we want a strong and effective court system, litigation is not always the best resolution of a dispute. For that reason the government has the best track record in Australia for establishing alternatives to litigation. They include the introduction of an arbitration procedure in the Magistrates Court and oversighting and encouraging the courts to develop pre-trial conferences, both in an informal and formal sense, and that has been an extraordinary success. Seven dispute resolution centres will be funded, which will deal with a whole range of disputes including neighbourhood disputes. We have also funded the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration which hears hundreds of arbitrations a year. Last week, as part of continuing government support for the concept of alternative dispute resolution, I launched a report for further development in that area. We are considering a pilot project in Bendigo and in Geelong for a system whereby parties going to the court or to a lawyer, if they are contemplating litigation, will be encouraged to seek informal resolution of the dispute through one of the local neighbourhood resolution centres. This facility has not got into the political arena as yet. I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Burwood could use one of these centres for negotiations on their ongoing dispute. I would be happy to try to resolve or participate in whatever mediation is necessary. I do not know whether the National Party's rural task force has taken notice of the centres in Bendigo or Geelong but I encourage it to do so. Perhaps it could meet members of the Liberal Party at these centres to encourage them to take an interest in this area and their ongoing disputes could possibly be resolved happily at one of these mediation centres in Geelong or Bendigo. In relation to the work being done in Geelong and Bendigo, the legal practitioners through the Law Institute of Victoria have been supportive of the project, as well as the court officers. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 329

There are dispute resolution centres already established. The first centre established in Victoria was in Bendigo. I know honourable members on the cross benches understand the powerful commitment of the government to regional Victoria and its ongoing and continuing interest, which is in stark contrast to that of the Liberal Party, which has apparently abandoned its rural policies. These mediation centres will be conducted by trained dispute settlement mediators - I am talking of the ones in the fonnal program and not the ones on the other side - and we will see that the venues are accessible to all parties. If resolution can be achieved at an early stage of course there is a large saving to the parties as well as a saving in the personal aggravation which often attends formal litigation. I congratulate the honourable member for Bendigo West for his support for the project and other people in the legal community and the mediation community in Bendigo. I know honourable members representing the Geelong area have also been supportive. I hope the success of these pilot projects will mean they will not only spread to other regional parts of Victoria but also in metropolitan Melbourne. MEAT INDUSTRY Mr JOHN (Bendigo East) - I refer the Premier to the statement in the government's original submission to the Harrison inquiry that the number of workers employed in the meat processing industry in Victoria has declined from 15000 in 1972-73 - the highest in Australia -- to approximately 6000 in 1986-87, which was deleted from the doctored submission. Were these figures deleted at the request of Mr Wally Curran or at the request of industry representatives? Ms KIRNER (Premier) - Last week we went carefully through the reasons for the decline of employment in the meat industry in Australia. They included such issues as the difficulty of exporting quality meat, particularly meat that was accepted as quality in Middle Eastern countries. They included the difficulties - and quality is one of them - of improving the meat industry in Victoria. Mr Coleman interjected. Ms KIRNER - I would not have expected the honourable member for Syndal to have been even the slightest bit interested in this issue. He is not interested in the shadow Ministry for which -- Mr Coleman - You have just jeopardised the trade! Ms KIRNER - I believe the honourable member still has the responSibility to shadow a pOrtfolio. They included the importance not simply of having a meat killing industry but of having a meat processing industry, and the difficulty of getting that without both proper industrial conditions and proper industrial agreements. Simply because the honourable member for Bendigo East was not listening to that answer I do not propose to repeat it. But I sympathise with the honourable member not QUESTIONS WITHOur NOTICE

330 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

only for not making it back to the front bench but also for not making it onto the rural task force.

Mr J. F. McGRATH (Warmambool) - I refer the Premier to the fact that the figure 2.4, which highlights the declining economic importance of the meat industry in Victoria from 1980-81 to 1986-87 compared with other agribusinesses, was deleted from the governmenfs submission to the Harrison inquiry, and I ask whether the figure was deleted at the request of Mr Wally Curran, the Victorian Farmers Federation or other industry organisations.

Ms KIRNER (Premier) - The sting of this blow-by-blow attack will be lost on country people who, unlike the opposition, are interested in the future of the meat industry in Victoria.

The future and potential of the Victorian meat industry are clearly described in government statements, which I shall not repeat to the House for fear of actually imparting to the opposition some real commitment to the meat industry.

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE REVIEW Mr GAVIN (Coburg) - Will the Minister for Finance advise the House of the measures he is taking to improve further the review of government expenditure in the lead-up to this year's Budget? .

Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance) - As part of the ongoing activities of the Ministry of Finance I have two major tasks at present. The first is the monitoring of government expenditure with relation to the current Budget and the second is the preparation and development of next year's Budget.

With a view to securing a better Budget outcome this year, in the past couple of months officers of my Ministry have set specific targets for agencies relating to the current Budget. They have distributed the notional savings, which range from 0.3 per cent of some budgets to 1.5 per cent of other agency budgets. Having given out those notional targets they have worked through them very closely with the agencies. The initial target was to achieve savings in the range from $47 million to $50 million. To date we have achieved an outcome very close to $70 million, which is very good progress towards securing a better Budget outcome for this year.

This process, which we have had going in the Ministry of Finance for the past couple of months, has proved very successful. It is interesting to note that the Leader of the Opposition thinks it is such a good idea that he will claim it as his initiative in the unlikely event of the opposition ever coming to office. By way of taking him up on his startling initiative I shall welcome any suggestions he has to make about ways of continuing that progress, and I look forward to those contributions being made in the near future. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 331

MEAT INDUSTRY Mr CLARK (Balwyn) - I refer the Premier to the figures on the declining total weight production in the Victorian meat industry included in the government's submission to the Harrison inquiry -- Honaurable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! It is not possible for the Chair to hear the question clearly because of the level of interjections from members on my right. I ask all members to remain silent so that the honourable member can ask his question without interruption. Mr CLARK - I refer the Premier to the Victorian meat industry and the figures on the declining total weight production included in the government's submission to the Harrison inquiry and I ask: was the 1980 production figure reduced from 200 000 tonnes-- Mr Seitz - Boring, boring. The SPEAKER - Order! I advise the honourable member for Keilor that he is as much subject to the Standing Orders as anyone else, and I ask him to remain silent. Mr CLARK - I ask the Premier: was the 1980 production figure reduced from 200 000 tonnes in the original draft submission to 152 000 tonnes in the final submission; and were those figures altered at the request or suggestion of Mr Curran? Ms KIRNER (Premier) - The last four questions, I think - it is a bit hard to keep up with them in terms of their lack of content or, indeed, intent - have dealt with how the government's submission to the Harrison inquiry was developed and whether it was at the behest of the unions or at the behest of employers. I have made quite clear how the process went ahead and that there was consultation on the meat inquiry with employers from the Victorian Farmers Federation and that the first submission was sent before August to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and subsequently commented on by Mr Curran. I find it fascinating that this opposition has the audacity to ask whether employers' views and the views of the business sector were sufficiently taken into account. Let us go through the record. The issue of whose views being taken into account is a very important matter of process - questions about it have taken up most of question time. I refer to the -employers' views being taken into account. ,Has the opposition taken into account the views of the employers on the Industrial Relations Bill? No! On the casino authority? No! Have they been and will they be taken into account on the State Insurance Office? No! On the docklands authority? No! Have they been taken into account on the whole vision of Melbourne exercise? The answer is no. So who do opposition members think they are criticising the government, which has had good consultation with employer and business groups in this State, and saying that it does not take into account employers' views? STANDING ORDERS

332 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton) - Mr Speaker, the point of order I raise relates to relevance. You have repeatedly ruled that Ministers are required to direct their answers in a manner relevant to the question. The question was quite specific as to statistics in the submission which showed for the same year, 1980, originally 200 000 tonnes -- Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! Mr STOCKDALE - The original submission showed for 1980 the figure of 200 000 tonnes. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! I have already cautioned the honourable member for Wantirna once today. I warn her. I will not warn her again. Mr STOCKDALE - The question was specifically directed at a figure in the original submission for 1980 which was shown as 200 000 tonnes but which was reduced to 152 000 tonnes in the final submission. The Premier was asked whether that figure was falsified at the request of Mr Curran. She has not addressed that matter at all. The SPEAKER - Order! In responding to the question the Premier has sought to outline the process generally followed by the government. However, I advise the Premier that she must relate her remarks to the question that was asked. I do not uphold the point of order. Ms KIRNER (Premier) - In their desperation, members of the opposition are inclined to use language like "misled the House" - an accusation with which they have not proceeded - and "falsify". I suggest if the opposition wishes to maintain respect in the House, as the government does, it be more careful about the language it uses and the way it uses question time.

STANDING ORDERS Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - I desire to give notice that tomorrow I will move: That until 31 December 1991 - 1. Standing Order No. 124 be suspended and the following rule applied in its place: "124. A member may be at liberty -- Mr KENNETI (Burwood) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, this seems to be a matter of substance. I ask the Minister to start again and read it so the House can hear what he has to say. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! There is no point of order, but as a matter of courtesy I ask the Minister to recommence his notice. Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - To continue: STANDING ORDERS

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 333

"124. A member may be at liberty to ask an oral question without notice at the time of giving notices of motion -- Mr KENNETT (Burwood) - On a further point of order, Mr Speaker, I ask the Minister to start the notice again. He is reading at his normal second-reading speed, which is unable to be understood. As a matter of courtesy, if he is giving notice, we on this side of the House would like some idea of what he is talking about. It makes a mockery of Parliament and of the respect the Premier referred to a moment ago. The SPEAKER - Order! There is no point of order. As a courtesy to the House I ask the Leader of the House to recommence his notice. Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - It reads: I desire to give notice that tomorrow I will move - That until 31 December 1991 - 1 Standing Order No. 124 be suspended and the following rule applied in its place: "124. A member may be at liberty to ask an oral question without notice at the time of giving notices of motion. Provided that such questions may be asked from the time Mr Speaker calls on questions until the lapse of - (a) 45 minutes on Tuesday; and (b) 30 minutes on other days, unless such time be extended at the discretion of Mr Speaker; and 2 Standing Order No. 104 be suspended and the following rule applied in its place: "104. No member shall speak for more than 30 minutes in any debate in the House except in debate on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill when a member may speak for 30 minutes. Provided that, with the consent of a majority of the House on a motion to be moved and determined at once without amendment or debate, a member may be allowed to continue such speech for a further period not exceeding 10 minutes -- Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, when the Treasurer started reading paragraph (b), relating to Standing Order No. 104, he said "30 minutes" whereas the printed document I have says "20 minutes"; the Minister said "30 minutes" twice. The SPEAKER - Order! Again as a matter of courtesy I ask the Treasurer to clarify the figure to which he referred. Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - I made it quite clear that it was for no more than 20 minutes, except in debate on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill, when a member may speak for 30 minutes. Honourable members interjecting. Mr ROPER - I continue: Provided that, with the consent of a majority of the House on a motion to be moved and determined at once without amendment or debate, a member may be allowed to continue such speech for a further period not exceeding 10 minutes. Provided also that the mover, Leader of the Government, Leader of the Opposition or Leader of the third party or any member deputed to speak first on - PAPERS

334 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

(a) the motion for second reading of a Bill (except for the Appropriation Bill) or a substantive and independent motion, may speak for 1 hour and, with the consent of a majority of the House on a motion to be moved and determined at once without amendment or debate, may continue such speech for a further period not exceeding 30 minutes; and (b) the motion for the second reading of the Appropriation Bill shall not be limited in time. When any leader deputes his right he shall then be limited to the same extent as other members. In Committee, except as provided under Standing Orders, no member other than a member in charge of a Bill or motion, or Minister in charge of an Estimate, shall speak more than twice on anyone question, nor more than 15 minutes on the first occasion and 10 minutes on the second occasion; and 3 Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Orders: (a) A Minister may move a motion specifying a maximum time limit (exclusive of any adjournment or suspension of sitting) for the consideration of a government Bill or Bills (except a Supply Bill). (b) A maximum time limit may be allotted for the following stages of each Bill: (i) for the second-reading stage; (ii) for the Committee stage; and (iii) for the remaining stages. (c) Upon such motion being moved, debate thereon shall be limited to 15 minutes and no member shall speak for more than 5 minutes. H the debate be not sooner concluded, then forthwith upon the expiration of that time the Chair shall put the question on any amendment or motion already proposed from the Chair. (d) On the Order of the Day relating to a Bill which has had time limits imposed being called on, a Minister may move a motion varying the maximum time limit for a particular stage or stages and upon such motion being moved, debate thereon shall be limited to 15 minutes and no member shall speak for more than 5 minutes. H the debate be not sooner conCluded, then forthwith upon the expiration of that time the Chair shall put the question on any amendment or motion already proposed from the Chair. (e) On the expiration of the time allotted: (i) the Chair shall put forthwith the question on any amendment or motion already proposed from the Chair for the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings on a Bill; and (ii) in the case of the consideration of any Bill in Committee or on any of the remaining stages, the Chair shall put any clauses and schedules and any amendment and new clauses and schedules desired by the government - copies of which have been circulated by the government among members 1 hour at least before the expiration of the allotted time - and any other question required to dispose of the Bill before the Committee or the House. No other amendments, new clauses or schedules shall be proposed. (f) Standing Order No. 70 (Closure of Debate) and Standing Order No. 105 (Guillotine) shall not apply to any proceedings in respect of which a time limit has been fixed in pursuance of this resolution.

PAPERS Laid on tab le by Clerk: Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1961-Commonwealth Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Regulations, No. 6 of 1991. Planning and Environment Act 1987 - Notices of approval of amendments to the following Planning Schemes: JOINT SITTING OF PARLIAMENT

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 335

Altona Planning Scheme - No. RLI34. Bairnsdale (City) Planning Scheme - No. L23. Brighton Planning Scheme - No. RL134 Buln Buln Planning Scheme - No. LIS. Chelsea Planning Scheme - No. RL134. Coburg Planning Scheme - No. L18. Cranbourne Planning Scheme - No. L39. Flinders Planning Scheme - No. L75. Frankston Planning Scheme - Nos L16, RL134. Metropolitan Region Planning Schemes -No. R93 Part 1. Mordialloc Planning Scheme - No. RL134. Momington Planning Scheme - No. L32. Port Melbourne Planning Scheme - No. RLl34. Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme - No. RL134. St Kilda Planning Scheme - No. RL134. Sandringham Planning Scheme - No. RL134. South Melbourne Planning Scheme - No. RL134. Werribee Planning Scheme - No. RL134. Williamstown Planning Scheme - No. RL134. Statutory Rules under the following Acts: Fisheries Act 1968 - SR No. 35/199l. Health Services Act 1988 - SR No. 37/1991 together with a copy of the Commonwealth Health Insurance (1990-91 General Medical Services Table) Regulations (as amended) as required by section 32 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 to accompany the Statutory Rule. Medical Practitioners Act 1970 - SR No. 36/1991. Public Service Act 1974 - Public Service Determination Nos 42/1990; 6/1991. Racing Act 1958 - SR No. 39/1991. State Superannuation Act 1988 - SR No. 4O/199l. Transfer of Land Act 1958 - SR No. 42/1991. Wildlife Act 1975 - SR No. 34/1991

JOINT SIlTING OF PARLIAMENT La Trobe University council Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - On 28 November 1990 a joint sitting was held in this Chamber to recommend members for appointment to the,La Trobe University coundl. That joint sitting recommended only two members for appointment, and it is now appropriate to hold another joint sitting to recommend a further member for appointment to the coundl. Therefore, I move, by leave: That this House meets with the Legislative Council for the purpose of sitting and voting together to choose a member of the Parliament of Victoria to be recommended for appointment to the council of the La Trobe University and proposes that the time and place of such meeting be the Legislative Assembly Chamber on Tuesday, 26 March instant, at 6.15 p.m. PUBLIC SERVICE (INDUSTRIAL FUNCTIONS) BILL

336 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC SERVICE (INDUSTRIAL FUNCTIONS) BILL Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) -- By leave, I move: That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to consider amendments to the Public Service (Industrial Functions) Bill to provide that corporations and certain public bodies may nominate persons to represent employers on a conciliation and arbitration board. Motion agreed to.

SENTENCING BILL Second reading Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill completely overhauls sentencing law in this State. It contains some of the most fundamental changes to sentencing law ever introduced into Victoria. It is the end product of a long and painstaking re-examination of sentencing law and practice in this State. The fundamental building block of that reform was the 1988 report of the Victorian Sentencing Committee chaired by Sir John Starke QC. The research and consultation which went into that report took over three years and resulted in a three volume report. Since that time the recommendations of the Starke committee have been the subject of considerable debate, further research and wide consultation. TRUTH IN SENTENCING One of the most fundamental changes effected by this Bill-in conjunction with the Corrections (Remissions) Bill- is to implement a policy of truth in sentencing. This policy recognises that the public has a right to know what period of imprisonment will be served by a person who receives a prison sentence in a Victorian court. It is no longer acceptable to the Victorian' public that administrative interventions like remissions and early release should reduce the period fixed as the minimum term by the sentencing judge. Truth in sentencing is a measure aimed at the public's right to know and to ensure that the public has confidence that the sentence passed is the sentence served. It is not about increasing sentences. Abolition of remissions without corresponding adjustments in sentencing law would increase sentences anq cause a concomitant increase in the prison population of up to one-third. Indeed, abolition of remissions in New South Wales has led to an explosion of the prison population and severe problems in prisons. Victoria has learned from this unhappy experience. The legislation must make it clear that it is not intended that the abolition of SENTENCING BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 337

remissions will in itself lengthen the period served. Rather, it means that the period served reflects the sentence passed. The Starke committee recognised these problems. While it recommended the abolition of remissions, this recommendation was part of a package of measures aimed at avoiding sharp increases in the prison population. The government accepts the Starke committee view that abolition of remissions must be part of a package.

A major recommendation of the Starke package was the reduction of maximum sentences fixed by legislation for offences overall. The committee argued that by lowering the statutory maximum penalties, Parliament would indicate to the courts that the abolition of remissions should not lead to an across-the-board, unjustified increase in the actual time served in prison.

The scale of maximum sentences proposed by the Starke committee was the subject of a special review by the sentencing task force under the chairmanship of Mr Frank Costigan QC. In line with the recommendations of the task force, the Bill contains a thirteen level scale with ten custodial levels and three non-custodial levels defined in terms of maximum penalties.

All offences under the Crimes Act are allocated to one of these levels. The Bill implements the recommendations of the sentencing task force with one exception. No maximum penalty for a sexual offence will be reduced. For example, the maximum sentence for aggravated rape - currently twenty years - will remain and will not be reduced as proposed by the task force.

The Starke committee also proposed that remissions be abolished over a five-year period. This was to allow the courts to adjust to the abolition of remissions and for the government to make any necessary amendments if prison numbers began to escalate too sharply.

However, the government has decided to abolish remissions for future sentences upon proclamation of the Act. That decision requires an additional measure - similar to those contained in New South Wales and Commonwealth legislation - but without the defectS pointed out by the courts in both the New South Wales and Commonwealth legislation. Clause 11 of the Bill requires judges and magistrates to take account of the fact that remissions have been abolished and reduce the sentence accordingly.

Thus, where previously a judge would have set a nine-year minimum sentence but because of remissions the offender would be released after six years, the judge ,would now fix a six-year sentence. The public will know that this is the sentence that has to be served without any scope for administrative tampering. .

I repeat, the purpose of this provision is to achieve truth in sentencing; it is not to increase the length of sentences.

77597/91-12 SENTENCING BILL

338 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

SENTENCING GUIDELINES The Starke committee found that lack of consistency in sentencing constituted a significant injustice. One of the measures suggested as a means of promoting consistency in sentencing - the Judicial Studies Board - has already been the subject of legislation passed last year. When operational, the Judicial Studies Board will enhance consistency in sentencing by carrying out sentencing research, offering seminars on sentencing to judges and magistrates, and making up-to-date statistical information available to sentencing judges and magistrates. In addition it is intended that the Judicial Studies Board will have the opportunity of conducting seminars on the new Act - that is this Act - after it has passed. This Bill promotes consistency in sentencing in a number of ways. Firstly, in clause 5, the Bill sets out the principles governing sentencing in this State. The clause enshrines the principle that prison is a punishment of last resort. Secondly, in clause 7, the Bill provides that the Full Court may issue guideline judgments for the guidance of the courts in relation to a variety of matters, including choosing among sentencing options; the purposes which should be pursued in sentencing offenders for particular offences; and the criteria to be used in determining the seriousness of particular offences. This provision will allow the court to issue guideline judgments and resolve general sentencing problems without the need to wait for a particular case or the particular issue to come before the Full Court in litigation. INTENSIVE CORRECTION ORDER The Bill introduces a new sanction - the intensive correction order. This measure is designed to provide a severe punishment just short of imprisonment but more severe than a community- based order. When a court is considering imposing a term of imprisonment of no more than twelve months it may impose an intensive correction order instead. The intensive correction order will have stringent core conditions attached regarding intensive supervision by community correction officers, attendance at community corrections centres to perform a minimum of 12 hours per week in unpaid community work, and treatment programs. In addition, program conditions may be imposed requiring the person to undertake residential and/or community-based programs to address personal factors which contributed to their offending behaviour. Examples include anger management programs, alcohol and drug programs, and programs designed to develop living skills and personal responsibility. FINE DEFAULT PROVISIONS There has been considerable concern about the existing provision in relation to fine default under which people with thousands of dollars of fines can cut out those fines by spending a weekend in gaol. This anomaly has been cured in the Bill by raising a presumption that the gaol term imposed in default of multiple fines will now be presumed to be consecutive rather than concurrent. While prison remains an option of last resort - especially in cases of fine default - it is clear that some people are flouting the system. People will be given every chance to pay their fines and those who are bona SENTENCING BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 339 fide and cannot pay will not be sent to prison. However, for those who abuse the system and wilfully refuse to pay, realistic prison sentences must be available. INCREASING MINIMUMS ON LIFE SENTENCES Under current law it is not possible to increase the minimum term for those sentenced to life imprisonment. Thus, if a person serving a life sentence with a minimum of 25 years for murder commits another murder in prison, the sentence for the second murder has to be concurrent with the first. This means that, in effect, the person's minimum term will not be increased. Clause 14 of the Bill makes it possible to increase the minimum term. CONVICTION /NON-CONVICTION The current law about whether a conviction may be imposed after a finding of guilt and which sentences are available in either case has become hopelessly complex. The Bill rationalises and simplifies the law on the topic. ENFORCEMENT OF FINES AGAINST CORPORATIONS Another abuse cured by the Bill is the use of the corporate veil by unscrupulous company directors to avoid personal liability. For example, an unscrupulous director who runs up thousands of dollars of parking fines on a car leased by a $2-company will now be caught. The fines will be enforced against any director of that company who knowingly allows the company to attract the criminal liability in the full knowledge that the company does not have the assets to pay the fines incurred. These provisions are contained in clause 66 of the Bill. CONCLUSION The Bill is the result of a major reform effort over five years on a topic of major community concern. Sentencing is a matter on which there will never be unanimity, but this Bill represents a remarkable consensus on the major issues. It is vital that we seize this opportunity to make these major changes. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs WADE (Kew). Mr KENN AN (Attorney-General) - I move:

That the debate be adjourned until Tuesday, 2April. Mrs WADE (Kew) - On the question of time, Mr Speaker, this is obviously one of the most important Bills that will come before Parliament this sessional period, and I do not need to elaborate on that. It will take careful consideration, and I should be grateful if the Minister would give an undertaking that further time will be made available if required.

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General)(By leave) - This is a v~ry important Bill. Two weeks, in effect, gives the opposition at least four weeks by the time one takes into account Easter. PA Y -ROLL TAX (SUPERANNUATION) BILL

340 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

Although the government would be prepared to consider an extension of time, it would like the Bill to pass through this House with an opportunity of it being passed totally in this sessional period. It would like the Bill to be debated in the other House in accordance with its practices so that Upper House members have the opportunity of debating and dealing with the Bill this sessional period. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until Tuesday, 2 April.

PAY-ROLL TAX (SUPERANNUATION) BILL Second reading Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - I move:

That this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that superannuation contributions by employers are not included in the definition of wages for the purposes of pay-roll tax. The estimated cost in pay-roll tax forgone is about $10 million in 1990-91 and $35 million in a full year. There is, of course, a corresponding benefit to taxpayers. The definition of wages in the Pay-roll Tax Act includes "other benefits" paid "in relation to" an employee. These words are intended to prevent the erosion of the pay-roll tax base by the growth of forms of remuneration that otherwise would be outside the definition of "wages" . The Commissioner of Pay-roll Tax received strong legal advice that award superannuation contributions by employers fell within this definition of wages. Accordingly, he issued notices to taxpayers to the effect that from 1 January 1991 these contributions would be taxed. In such matters Parliament has laid the responsibility on the commissioner to interpret and apply the law and has provided for taxpayers to have a right of challenge so that the matter can ultimately be settled in the courts. There is no power of Ministerial direction. However, when the government considered the position it decided to propose legislation to ensure that superannuation contributions by employers are not included in the definition of wages. This course removes a burden from Victorian employers and is conducive to economic recovery. It also avoids a period of uncertainty that would have ensued during any litigation on the matter. The government's decision has been welcomed by employer groups. The Bill defines superannuation contributions by reference to the Commonwealth Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and is to operate retrospectively from 30 June 1989, the date of commencement of the relevant section of the Commonwealth Act. PA Y -ROLL TAX (SUPERANNUATION) BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 341

There has never been and certainly is not now any suggestion that superannuation contributions by employers made before 1 January 1991 would be taxed, but it has been considered preferable to make the new provisions operate from the commencement of the Commonwealth provision to forestall any such inference. There remains an underlying concern that the State's revenue base is eroded by Commonwealth wages policies which lead to increased benefits via superannuation as a trade-off for restraint in wages growth. This is symptomatic of the malaise in Commonwealth-State financial relations. With some 80 per cent of taxation revenue collected by the Commonwealth, and with the States and local government being responsible for nearly half of public sector outlays, Australia has the worst fiscal imbalance among developed federations. It is vital to Victoria, and indeed Australia, that the basic problem of vertical fiscal imbalance be addressed. It is to be hoped that the opportunity is taken to make a start on that important task at the forthcoming special Premiers Conference. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton).

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - I move:

That the debate be adjourned until Tuesday, 2 April.

1 would have preferred a shorter time, but the opposition wants two weeks. Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton) - On the question of time, Mr Speaker, I advise the House that I anticipate that the opposition will have no problem with the provisions in the Bill. Obviously it has not been through our party meeting but we have adopted a position on the issue. In his second-reading speech the Treasurer referred to the attitude of employers who support the Bill. However, there is a question of the scope of the Bill with respect to consideration of the superannuation issues involved. The opposition requires the opportunity of sending the Bill to a large number of elnployer organisations and of consulting with them on the adequacy of the matters addressed in this important measure. I should not like the Bill to be debated in this House without our having had the opportunity of satisfying ourselves from relevant employer bodies that it is their belief the approach adopted will cure the problems. It would not be in the interests of anyone to rush the proposed legislation through Parliament, particularly with the bipartisan support it has, and then to slip up on some drafting measure.

I suggest that any consequences that might flow from adjourning the debate for two weeks will not disadvantage anyone, particularly as the Commissioner of Taxation has notified employers that they will not be required to include superannuation payments in any further taxation returns under the Pay-roll Tax Act. INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) DILL

342 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

It is possible to allow proper time for consultation on the Bill rather than to rush ahead simply to address a matter that never should have arisen in the first place. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until Tuesday, 2 April.

INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL Second reading Debate resumed from 1 November 1990; motion of Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General). Mrs WADE (Kew) - The Bill makes a number of changes to the procedure for incorporation by reference of other documents into statutory rules and other subordinate instruments. The result of incorporation by reference is that these documents which are incorporated into subordinate legislation have the status of subordinate legislation themsel ves. The Attorney-General in his second-reading speech referred to a number of documents that have been incorporated into statutory rules. He referred to documents issued by the Australian Standards Association, the British Pharmacopoeia, the standard international work of reference on drug classification, and to the national food standards. In referring to the national food standards he said it was most important that they should be able to be incorporated by reference and incorporated as amended from time to time to ensure that food manufacturers have to comply with only one set of standards throughout Australia. There are other types of documents that are incorporated by reference. I was amazed when undertaking some research on this issue to discover the breadth of the types of documents that are incorporated. Those documents are produced in Australia and in a number of overseas countries; they include standards from overseas countries and documents produced by government, semi-government and private organisations in those countries. Much has been made of the ability to incorporate material by reference. In matters such as the national food standards it is desirable to take appropriate action so that regulations can apply Australia-wide and people do not have to work out the current situation in every State from time to time. I wonder whether we are not taking too much of a pragmatic approach. By allowing other material, including overseas material, to be incorporated in subordinate legislation we are giving such material legislative backing. Once it is picked up in statutory rules such material has, for the purposes of the people of this State, the same status as Acts of Parliament. For example, people can be convicted for not complying with what is contained in the incorporated material. In his second-reading speech the Attorney-General gave several reasons for the desirability of incorporation by reference. Although I have already mentioned some of them, he said also that certain documents that are incorporated may be thousands of pages long. I was intrigued by that statement because it seemed to go beyond what I understood about incorporation by reference. INTERPRET ATION OF LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 343

I made further inquiries through the Attorney-General's Department and was informed that it was not unusual for incorporated documents to be thousands of pages long. I then asked the officer to whom I was speaking whether copies of such documents, particularly documents from overseas, would be readily available.

Because the Bill makes provision for such documents to be tabled they should be available to members of Parliament. On the subject of their availability to members of the public, the Bill contains provisions slightly different from the existing ones by providing that instead of the documents being required to be available at the principal office of the body responsible for the administration of the statutory rule, which is where one would normally go to look for them, in future they will be available at the department of the Minister responsible for administering the Act or, alternatively, at an appropriate place specified by the Minister in the Government Gazette.

I was concerned about the difficulties that people in country areas would encounter when faced with documents containing thousands of pages. I asked the officer of the department whether any provision would be made to have such documents available in major country centres as a matter of practice. I was told that the documents would not be available because of the cost involved. It was said that some of the incorporated documents from the United States of America could cost up to $40 000 so that, at most, only two copies of the document would be available - the one tabled in Parliament and the one available at the relevant Minister's office. So if people in Mildura want to find out about the status of a particular regulation they will have to come down to Melbourne to find out.

I wonder whether it is appropriate to incorporate documents of that type or whether we should look at other ways of making statutory rules. In his second-reading speech the Attorney-General described incorporation by reference as a sound drafting technique that is consistent with the government's policy of drafting legislation in plain English.

As a former Parliamentary Counsel I am always intrigued by the government's policy of drafting in plain English because if anything it seems that the content of the Bills now coming before the House is not as clear as it was when I was involved in their drafting. There is a lot of talk about drafting in plain English, but not much action is taken in the area.

There is not much point in having regulations that are simple and easy to read if most of the information pertaining to them is contained in other documents. The regulation itself might be simply stated in plain English and easy to read but one might not be able to obtain a copy of the incorporated document if one is not in the vicinity of the Minister's office or another appropriate place where it is kept.

You might not be able to obtain it if you are in country Victoria. If you can find it you might find it has nothing to do with plain English; in fact, it might be a very technical document that is very difficult to understand. The incorporation by reference of documents into statutory rules is consistent with plain English only if those other INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

344 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

documents are also in plain English. I wonder what safeguards we have to ensure that that is so. It is often difficult to combine incorporated documents with the original statutory rule. Sometimes it is not clear how the incorporated document fits in with what is in the statutory rule. In conversation earlier today it was pointed out to me that there are statutory rules that incorporate a document and then amend it. In those circumstances the statutory rule can read that the statutory rule incorporates a document that has been published by, say, the Australian Standards Association and then the remaining part of the statutory rule is made up of page upon page of amendments to that Australian standard. Anyone picking up that regulation would have difficulty in understanding what it was all about. To sum up, a regulation in plain English cannot be treated seriously as being in plain English unless the other material incorporated in it is also in plain English and it is clear exactly how it fits into that statutory rule. Moving to the point made by the Attorney-General in his second-reading speech that incorporation by reference ensures national uniformity in instances where that is important - he referred to the food standards regulations which adopt national food standards - it appears that the national food standards in turn can adopt other documents and that those other documents are not always available. I refer to the fifth report of the Legal and Constitutional Committee on the operation of section 32 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984, published in May 1990, which examined the incorporation of national food standards. To sort out the situation that had arisen a validating Act was subsequently introduced. The committee set out the test as it saw it and on page 3 said: The committee considers that wherever a statutory rule makes provision for or in relation to a matter by applying, adopting or incorporating material by reference, all material necessary to ensure compliance with the rule should be tabled. This may include not only primary references, but also references to documents at a secondary or even tertiary level. However, if references beyond the primary level are irrelevant to the substance of the regulation, are unnecessary or merely comprise a reference back to the primary level of reference, it clearly cannot be said that the statutory rule applies, adopts or incorporates that matter. When you read something like that you understand the whole situation is much more difficult than it used to be back in the early days when I first remember statutory rules picking up other documents by reference. In those days it was all pretty simple: you picked up the Public Service determination about travel allowance or picked up provisions about payments of committees and by reference applied them to people holding other positions or other committees. We then moved to picking up some Australian standards. It now appears statutory rules pick up a wide variety of material which in turn picks up other material which might be at the primary, secondary or tertiary level, and at some stage the person who might be bound by that statutory rule has to work out exactly what INTERPRET ATION OF LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BaL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 345

is picked up, exactly what has to be tabled and exactly what they should examine to ascertain whether they are complying with it. I refer again to the Legal and Constitutional Committee report and what it found in relation to the Food Standards Code. At page 4 the report states:

The committee has examined a copy of the Food Standards Code. This examination revealed that it, in turn, incorporated many docume.nts that should be a\:,ailable publicly if the food industry is to know what is meant by compliance with the code. For example, standard All details specifications for the identity and purity of food additives. It states that each food additive listed in column I of the schedule which appears in standard All must comply with the specifications contained in column 2 opposite. That schedule incorporates no less than 23 documents all of which, except one, were published overseas. A copy of standard All is reproduced as an appendix to this report. The code also adopts numerous Australian standards which detail the approved methods of testing foodstuffs for the presence of diseases such as salmonella and makes reference to the Official Methods of AnalysiS of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, published in Washington DC by the association.

One does not have to look at the National Food Code to appreciate that only those who wrote it will understand it.

The committee found that the primary, secondary and tertiary material relevant was not tabled with the statutory rules and that the statutory rule was void. Consequently, amending legislation to validate those food standards has been introduced.

I am pleased that the Bill is before the House because it has enabled me to consider the nature of reforms necessary in this area before I am in a position to implement them.

The Bill will make some improvement in the interpretation of legislation. The purpose of the Bill is to reform the law relating to incorporation by reference. The existing provisions are intended to balance the interests of the community in the speedy and efficient making of technical regulations against the need for Parliament and those affected by regulations to be made aware of the precise nature of the obligations imposed.

Section 32 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act provides that subordinate legislation must not incorporate extrinsic material by reference without the express authorisation contained in the Act under which the subordinate legislation is made. The section provides that the material incorporated by reference must be laid before each House of Parliament at the same time as the subordinate legislation is laid before the House. A failure to table all the material incorporated by reference renders the subordinate legislation void. Section 32 also provides that the extrinsic material must be available for inspection during normal office hours by members of the public without charge at the principal office of the body or bodies responsible for the administration of the subordinate legislation. A person may not be convicted of a contravention of a subordinate instrument or be made subject to liability imposed by a subordinate instrument if, at the time the alleged offence was committed or the liability imposed, the material was not available for inspection as required by the Act. INTERPRET ATION OF LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

346 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

The Attorney-General has said that the fact that the statutory rule may be automatically void because of the failure to table material is an unacceptable risk, as regulations may become void because of the failure to table a single document which may be of peripheral relevance. Of course, as I have demonstrated by reference to the food standard regulations, the information that is not tabled may be crucial to the understanding of the regulations. The Attorney-General also says that problems can be exacerbated by the style of Australian standards. He says that Australian standards, as we have just seen, incorporate by reference a chain of material and that if the whole chain is not tabled, as occurred with the food standard regulations, the statutory rule will be void. I say two things in response to that. It is a real advantage for Ministers and departments for which they are responsible to be able to incorporate documents by reference, and in return for that ability they are asked to table documents that are being incorporated. That to me does not appear to be asking too much. The citizens of Victoria are entitled to know what the law is, as are members of this Parliament. As I said at the beginning, we are responsible for this subordinate legislation because we are giving it legislative backing. Secondly, I ask the Minister whether he is sure of the fact that the Interpretation of Legislation Act permits the incorporation of documents which themselves incorporate other documents by reference. I am not sure the Act does permit this and I did toy with the idea of proposing an amendment to make it clear that the Act does not permit this. However it would be difficult to know the consequence of such an amendment without a full inquiry. It is a matter that should be considered in detail, and therefore I do not intend to put forward an amendment. However, I ask the Attorney-General to confirm, as he said in his second-reading speech, that he is clear the existing legislation does not permit the incorporation of a whole range of material-- primary, secondary, tertiary and so on -- from the principal document down through a whole series of documents. The coalition has been influenced in its consideration of the Bill by the fact that by and large it is implementing recommendations of the Legal and Constitutional Committee. The only comment I make about that is why has it taken so long? The recommendations of the committee were tabled in December 1986 and it appears they could have been implemented some years before the government brought them before us. As I said, since 1986 the Legal and Constitutional Committee has determined that a number of statutory rules are void because of a failure to comply. I have referred to the food standards regulations and a series of other reports from the Legal and Constitutional Committee are enlightening about the type of material that is incorporated. Again, in the light of all those reports, it is surprising that nothing has been done earlier. The committee has recommended that regulations should not!:>e void immediately as a result of a failure to table material incorporated by reference. The committee further INTERPRET ATION OF LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) Bn..L

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 347

recommends that the Legal and Constitutional Committee report on a failure to table and that the subordinate legislation be disallowed only if each House gives notice of a resolution within eighteen sitting days of that report and then disallows the regulation within twelve sitting days of that notice being given. The recommendation is that rather than being void ab initio the regulation or statutory rule or subordinate instrument will cease to have effect from the disallowance and at that stage any subordinate legislation which it replaces will be revived.

The situation at present is that disallowance goes right back to the making of the regulation and therefore has a retrospective effect. Under the proposals of the committee people will not be prejudiced as in the past by revival of superseded regulations with retrospective effect without their knowledge and without any possibility of their finding out about it.

It is also proposed that, as an alternative to disallowance, the committee can recommend the tabling of the missing material within six sitting days of its report, and a failure to table within that time may result in a resolution to disallow the regulations.

A document can be incorporated by reference to regulations in force at the time of the incorporation or as amended from time to time. For example, the national food standards are intended to be incorporated as amended from time to time so that food standards across all States of Australia will always be uniform.

At present section 32 appears to be wanting in that it does not require the amendments to an incorporation to be tabled or kept available. If a statutory rule incorporates another document, it may be altered time and time again. However, unless one chases it up from the person who publishes it, one may never know what the situation is at a given time.

The Bill picks up the proposal of the Legal and Constitutional Committee that the amending material also be tabled and made available for public inspection. That is obviously a considerable improvement and will make it easier to find out what the law is at a specific time.

I raise the matter of the resources of the Legal and Constitutional Committee. The Bill, together with other requirements about reporting, will put more of a burden on that committee, which I understand is not well resourced. The committee will be faced with an avalanche of material and it may be difficult for staff of the committee to work out what material put up for tabling applies to what statutory rule. A computer program will have to be developed to keep track of all the material for tabling, and honourable members should consider that point.

In his second-reading speech the Attorney-General said the Bill will validate all regulations which might be void as a result of an undetected failure to table all documents incorporated directly or indirectly. The Attorney-General said the Bill implemented the recommendations of the Legal and Constitutional Committee in that regard. INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

348 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

I am intrigued by the words used by the Attorney-General. It is quite clear the regulations are void; there is no question that they "might be" void. As the Attorney-General said, the Bill ensures that the regulations will not be void as a result of a failure to table incorporated material or to make it available but that a person cannot be convicted for or prejudicially affected by contravention if at the relevant time any matter contained in a document incorporated that is not an Act of Parliament or a statutory rule was not available for inspection. Members of Parliament appear to have taken a pragmatic approach to incorporation by reference. Obviously in the past twenty years the practice has snowballed significantly. The Legal and Constitutional Committee has also taken a fairly pragmatic view given the recommendations that have been adopted in this Bill. It is of concern that perhaps it is too pragmatic and perhaps we are seeing it too much through our own eyes.

If we were looking at food standards regulations perhaps through the eyes of people selling hot dogs on the Geelong Road, and if they had to understand that they were required to comply not only with the food regulations but also with all the material the Legal and Constitutional Committee described for honourable members as being incorporated in those food standards regulations, they would probably throw their hands in the air and retire defeated.

I note that the Victorian Law Reform Commission has recently examined this issue in another context. I refer to an extract from the LIw Refonn Agenda of December 1990, which refers to a discussion paper on codes of practice issued by the Victorian Law Reform Commission. The codes of practice - some, of course, being voluntary - are described by the commission in its discussion paper, which states:

The discussion paper is particularly concerned that these codes are not readily available to the public. The chairman, David Kelly, said that, "It is important that information about codes of practice should be available to the public in the same way that regulations and Acts of Parliament are made available. The present requirement that they only have to be available for scrutiny at government departments is not good enough. People should be able to buy an updated copy over the counter" . The paper proposes that updated codes be made available for public purchase from the Government Printer and that a person should not be convicted for breach of a code if it was not available for purchase at the time of the breach. Other issues are also identified by the discussion paper. For instance, some codes can be enforced by law without Parliament having had the opportunity to scrutinise their content. This raises the significant issue of whether civil or criminal penalties should be allowed to be prescribed in documents not controlled by Parliament. The remedies suggested are that all codes should be tabled in Parliament and that departments be required to consult with the Regulation Review Unit to assess the cost-effectiveness of proposed codes.

Codes of practice generally do not impose criminal or civil liability; most are voluntary. If the Law Reform Commission considers it important that they should be able to be purchased across the counter from the Government Printing Office that is all the more INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 349 reason to believe anything incorporated in a statutory rule should also be readily available. I am not at all happy with the Bill but, on the whole, it is an improvement on the present position. The Bill must be described as marginally better than the existing situation. The Minister talked about plain English and about people understanding the law - I should have thought he could do better than this Bill. The Liberal Party does not intend to oppose the Bill. I will be putting forward an amendment to provide wider powers of disallowance and I will undertake to give the whole issue very serious consideration because when the future coalition government speaks of plain English and access of people to the law it will not be a form of words. We will be making a real reform both in the form and content of legislation and subordinate legislation.

Mr JASPER (Murray Valley) - The importance of subordinate legislation cannot be underestimated. It should be recognised not only in this Parliament but also in Parliaments throughout the Western World that the regulations produced and developed under various Acts of Parliament are putting into practice what is incorporated in the Acts of Parliament; but there needs to be a review of those regulations.

The Subordinate Legislation Committee, when originally operating as a separate committee in its own right, and now as a subcommittee of the Legal and Constitutional Committee, has indicated that importance to this Parliament. The work that has been undertaken by the committee over a long period has been extremely important to the operations of Parliament.

Mr Kennan interjected.

Mr JASPER - It is interesting to hear the interjection.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Norris) - Order! The interjection is disorderly.

Mr JASPER - The Attorney-General is a former member of the Legal and Constitutional Committee. I note his interest in the subordinate legislation subcommittee. Of course he did not have a long stint on the committee, about which I am extremely disappointed; otherwise he would have obtained a better and true understanding of the way regulations are produced and developed under the various Acts of Parliament, and he may have come to understand the need to have a close investigation of those regulations and an effective subordinate legislation committee to review those regulations as they relate to the various Victorian Acts of Parliament.

Since I entered Parliament in 1976 I have been a member of the former Subordinate Legislation Committee; I moved to the Legal and Constitutional Committee in 1982 and since then I have been chairman of the subcommittee of the Legal and Constitutional Committee. The importance of this subcommittee should not be underestimated. INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

350 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments made by the honourable member for Kew, and particularly to her comment about the additional workload that may be required of the Subordinate Legislation Subcommittee of the Legal and Constitutional Committee. There may be a need for additional staff so that the committee can be truly effective. The subcommittee should be a committee in its own right; it should be a committee of Parliament separate from other committees that operate within Parliament. Because of its important work it should be separate from the Legal and Constitutional Committee. In 1982 the new Labor government decided to reduce the number of Parliamentary committees and expand the membership of committees. In doing so it brought the existing Subordinate Legislation Committee within the Legal and Constitutional Committee, and now it operates as a subcommittee. Mr Kennan interjected. Mr JASPER - Despite the interjections from the Minister and his offsider, they should listen to some of the comments about subordinate legislation and regulations generally. Despite the continual interjections -- The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! The interjections will cease. The honourable member for Murray Valley has the call. Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Murray Valley referred to the honourable member for Melbourne as an "offsider"; he should be referred to by his correct title. The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! Does the honourable member for Melbourne take offence to the term "offsider"? Mr Cole - Yes, I do. The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! Will the honourable member for Murray Valley consider withdrawing? Mr JASPER (Murray Valley) - I will be happy to withdraw but I note the honourable member for Melbourne is not in his usual position and perhaps he is not in a position to seek a withdrawal. I seek clarification from you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as to whether he can seek a withdrawal of a particular comment considering he is not in his proper place. The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! I take the point made by the honourable member for Murray Valley. If the honourable member for Melbourne seeks a withdrawal will he kindly return to his allotted place, stand and seek a withdrawal? Mr Kennan - This is Parliament at its best! Mr COLE (Melbourne) - I take enormous offence at being called the Attorney-General's offsider. I suppose it was good that the honourable member for Murray Valley at least did not call me the Attorney-General's understudy or something like that. I seek a withdrawal from the honourable member for Murray Valley. INTERPRET ATION OF LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 351

The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! Having heard the request of the honourable member for Melbourne, will the honourable member for Murray Valley consider withdrawing his remark? Mr JASPER (Murray Valley) - If the honourable member for Melbourne believes he is not a relevant offsider to the Attorney-General- although I should have thought he would have taken that as a compliment - and considers he is not able to support the Attorney-General in what he is doing, I withdraw the comment.

I trust we can now get back to the serious part of the debate on the proposed legislation. I have indicated to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Attorney-General, and the honourable member for Melbourne that the comments I have made so far in respect of the Subordinate Legislation Act and its review are serious comments. I take exception to the attitude displayed by the Attorney-General to the comments I have made. It is all very well to make fun of what goes on in Parliament. As the Attorney-General interjected, this is Parliament at its best, according to him, but I suggest that, although it is not his usual attitude, the attitude displayed by the Attorney-General to such a serious subject is inappropriate. He should have listened to what was said and taken account of the manner and seriousness with which it was put before Parliament.

I have been involved with regulation review since I entered Parliament in 1976. I consider it one of the most important aspects of the operation of the Parliament of Victoria, on the basis that governments of all political persuasions have produced wider and wider regulations under the regulation-making powers provided under the various Acts of Parliament. Those regulations remove from Parliament the control of the business of the State of Victoria. Executive governments are making decisions without reference to Parliament on many occasions.

The position has been aided and abetted by the extensive regulation-making powers provided by various Acts of Parliament. I suggest the importance of the regulation review committee is increased, particularly in its ability to take action in reviewing the regulations developed and produced by the government of the day with the approval of the Governor in Council.

I indicate again that there has been a clear extension of the powers provided under various Acts of Parliament so that more of the decisions are being undertaken by regulation. As I said also, now it is even more important that the Subordinate Legislation Subcommittee of the Legal and Constitutional Committee do its work than it was before.

The committee operated under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1962 with very few changes until 1985. Those changes were introduced by this government. I remind the Attorney-General that he was involved with the government that ensured that those changes came into being. The Subordinate Legislation (Review and Revocation) Bill was introduced in another place and was referred to the Legal and Constitutional Committee for inquiry and report. Subsequently the powers of the committee were extended considerably under the Interpretation of Legislation Act. INTERPRET ATION OF LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

352 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

Parliaments throughout Australia and in other Commonwealth nations are looking closely at the legislation operating in Victoria in respect of the review of regulations. They are looking to the lead taken by Victoria and are considering effecting changes to their review of regulations processes to incorporate many of the changes made to the review of regulations in Victoria. I make that statement as a preamble to my contribution. I emphasise the importance of the review of regulations in Victoria. As I said, since entering Parliament I have been interested in this matter and have sought to ensure that regulations meet the requirements of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1962 and the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984. The 1984 Act reforms the law governing the incorporation of material by reference. In his second-reading speech on that Bill, the Attorney-General said: ... incorporation by reference is a sound drafting technique. The problem that has developed in recent years has resulted from the passage of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984. Prior to that, considerable uncertainty existed about the incorporation of intrinsic material when considering regulations that were developed and came before Parliament and the Subordinate Legislation Subcommittee of the Legal and Constitutional Committee for review and determination. Because of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 it became difficult for regulations that needed to have material incorporated in them to be accepted by the subcommittee. The subcommittee was in the situation where it had to review a regulation that had been tabled in Parliament on the basis that it would be void if material had not been provided with the regulation. That is, since the passage of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 a change has been made under which material is required to be provided with a regulation when it is tabled in Parliament. As I indicated, in reviewing the regulation the subcommittee was in the position of looking to recommend disallowance or to recommend to Parliament that the regulation would be void on the basis that the material that should have been made available was not laid before Parliament. The Act requires that the material to be incorporated by reference must be laid before each House of Parliament at the same time as the subordinate legislation is laid before Parliament. In his second-reading speech, the Attorney-General encapsulated a background review of the problems created by section 32 of the 1984 Act. He referred also to action taken by the Subordinate Legislation Subcommittee of the Legal and Constitutional Committee and the fact that regulations were void on the basis that the material to be incorporated was not available for inspection as required by the Act. As a member of the that subcommittee I considered the circumstances under which regulations were declared void to be not only a serious breach of section 32 but also a serious matter concerning the operation and tabling of regulations in Parliament. The subordinate legislation subcommittee produced a report in December 1986 which reviewed the operation of section 32 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984. It made a large number of recommendations and the legislation is the result of that report. INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 353

The Bill implements a recommendation that a failure to comply with the table of requirements contained in section 32 should no longer automatically result in a voiding of the subordinate legislation changes. After reviewing a regulation the subcommittee will make a recommendation on whether there is a need for all the material to be provided or whether reference to that material is provided and accepted as part of the background material. Of course, the disallowance procedures were incorporated and I shall refer to them in a moment.

The Bill accepts the recommendations of the 1986 report almost in their entirety. The honourable member for Kew referred to the reports that have been prepared by the Legal and Constitutional Committee of which five were presented to Parliament from 1986 to 1990 when particular regulations were made void on the basis that the supporting material was not made available.

The first report of April 1986 referred to four regulations that were made void because of a lack of material provided when the regulation was tabled in Parliament. The second report of the committee on the operation of section 32 was tabled in September 1986 and a third report was tabled in December 1986. The fourth report - again on the operation of section 32 - was tabled in December 1988 and the fifth report in May 1990. Prior to the major report recommending a review of the operation of section 32, two reports were tabled and a further three reports were tabled after that declaring those regulations void because of breaches of section 32 requirements.

I agree with the comments made by the honourable member for Kew that it has taken a long time for the government to implement the report tabled in December 1986. I strongly support the Bill because it incorporates all the recommendations made by the Legal and Constitutional Committee in that report. It provides flexibility to the subcommittee to examine particular regulations and to determine whether material has been provided either intrinsically, by reference or by provision of material itself. The subcommittee then decides whether the regulation should be supported or whether a recommendation for disallowance should be made. The Bill provides also that those regulations made prior to the operation of the legislation will not be made void by a breach of section 32.

I am concerned about a couple of matters that have not been addressed in the Bill. I am concerned that Victoria operates differently from most other jurisdictions in Australia in the handling of recommendations for disallowance of regulations. Honourable members would be aware that the subordinate legislation subcommittee has eighteen days to report to Parliament if it believes a regulation does not meet the criteria of the Subordinate Legislation Act and there is a further twelve days within which Parliament must determine whether the report of the subcommittee is to be accepted. The difficulty in Victoria is that when Parliament or a particular House does not debate the legislation prior to the expiration of twelve days the regulation continues to be effective and operative. If the government decides not to debate the matter within the time allotted the regulation is not disallowed. INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

354 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

A further complication arises when both Houses of Parliament must debate the regulation within that time and accept or reject the report. If the ad verse report is accepted by both Houses the regulation is disallowed. There are two difficulties: firstly, when the regulation is not debated within twelve sitting days it continues in effect and also many of the Acts'cOntain a provision that a regulation must be rejected by both Houses of Parliament. In this situation the opposition parties must move amendments in this House and in another"place that the regulation be rejected.

Many recent Acts now jnclude the provision that a regulation can be rejected by either House of Parliament. The government should pick up the provision that, to be disallowed, a particular regulation must be debated within twelve sitting days or the regulation is automatically disallowed.

I refer to Notice of Motion, General Business, No. 4 listed in my name. That item refers to the Environment Protection (Scheduled Premises and Exemptions) (Amendment) Regulations 1989. A report was tabled in Parliament recommending the disallowance of Statutory Rule No. 71 of 1989 to which this item on the Notice Paper relates.

In fact, despite my representations to him, the Leader of the House decided that he would not allow the disallowance of that regulation to be debated in this House within the twelve sitting days. As a result the regulation continues to operate despite the fact that an all-party Parliamentary committee recommended its disallowance.

The regulation was debated in another place where it was resolved that the report be accepted and the regulation disallowed. However, because of the quirk or because of the way the Subordinate ~gi5lation Act and many other Acts of Parliament are set up in Victoria, the only way that a report can be accepted and a particular regulation disallowed is by the agreement by both Houses of Parliament, provided the debate takes place within twelve sitting days.

I have referred to the changes that I believe should be incorporated by the government. They are two areas that have not been picked up but which could and should be picked up by this Bill.

I strongly support the Interpretation of Legislation (Amendment) Bill. The Bill picks up all the recommendations of the Legal and Constitutional Committee's report of December 1986. It will allow for the better operation of section 32 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act. It will clarify the position and allow flexibility for the Subordinate Legislation Subcommittee of the Legal and Constitutional Committee in assessing regulations where reference material is being provided to Parliament that is subject to section 32 of the Act.

It will allow the subcommittee the ability to review a particular regulation and decide whether it is within the guidelines of the Subordinate Legislation Act and also section 32 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act. INTERPRET ATION OF LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 355

The other aspect that has been picked up is contained in clause 6, which repeals Schedule 2 of the Subordinate Legislation Act. T thank the Attorney-General for his cooperation with the committee. As I have said, the Attorney-General had a grounding as a member of that committee when he first came to Parliament, so he knows how the committee works and its importance and understands the significance I place on the fact that the government should cooperate with the committee because of the importance of regulations and the review of those regulations as they come before Parliament. The Subordinate Legislation Act has provided for the issue of guidelines for the preparation of statutory rules. The relevant provisions became effective on 1 October 1990. Section 11(5) of that Act states:

Until the Attorney-General prepares and issues guidelines under this section, the guidelines specified in Schedule 2 shall apply. The Attorney-General has produced alternative guidelines to be effective from 1 October 1990. They incorporate recommendations that the committee made on the guidelines for the preparation of regulations produced by various departments and tabled in Parliament. I support the Bill. I hope the Attorney-General will take note particularly of my concerns about the disallowance provisions in the Subordinate Legislation Act and various other Acts of Parliament. I remind him that the Subordinate Legislation Subcommittee of the Legal and Constitutional Committee is an all-party Parliamentary committee. There was only one occasion that I know of when the committee did not operate in an all-party manner and produced a report on which there was not unanimous agreement. That report related to the increase in the licensing charges imposed on abalone divers. That is the only time that I am aware of that there was division in the committee on party lines. That was an inquiry relating to the government applying a resource rent tax on the particular commodity. We believe the government should not have increased the fees and charges at that time.

That wa~ the only time there was a division in the committee on party lines. It was the only time in the almost fifteen years that I have been a member of that committee that there has been a division on party lines. In all other cases the committee has made recommendations on an all-party basis. I should like to think there will be further amendments to the procedures to ensure the government and Parliament as a whole back up the subordinate legislation subcommittee and the work it is doing, in view of the continuing and increasing importance of that subcommittee and the full committee. I refer to the fact that there is no mechanism at present for publicising the disallowance of regulations. Perhaps the matter needs to be taken up by Parliament. I am sure it will be part of a report that our committee will make to Parliament in future so that there will INTERPRETAT ION OF LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

356 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

be some mechanism to ~llow the general public to become aware of the disallowance of particular regulations. The honourable member for Kew mentioned the availability of regulations and the material supporting those regulations, particularly as they relate to section 32 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act. I can see difficulties arising if we wanted to make such information generally available to the community. Most people who are involved with regulations would understand where that material can be found and obtain it accordingly. I support the Bill and congratulate the government on taking up an issue that is the subject of a committee report, but I am disappointed that it has taken the government since December 1986 to actually take action and introduce this Bill. Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I thank honourable members for their very helpful and supportive comments. Of course I recognise the work that the honourable member for Murray Valley has done in the 30 years he has been a member of that committee. An Honourable Member - It is 34 years. Mr KENNAN - I stand corrected - it is 34 years. Mr Jasper - It is fifteen years - get it on the record correctly! Mr KENNAN - I am told the honourable member takes offence at the mention of 34 years, so I shall reduce it to 15 - he gets remissions. An Honourable Member - Does he get time off for good behaviour? Mr KENNAN - He has been well behaved and I certainly do recall having the pleasure of serving with him and others on that committee, the report of which gave rise - and I think it was a unanimous all-party report - to these issues in the first place. I understand the opposition will introduce the usual amendments relating to the disallowance of regulations by either House of Parliament. The government's position on that issue remains the same. We do not like it, but I will not take up the time of the House by calling for a division on it. The honourable member for Kew asked me a specific question about a comment in the second-reading speech about a chain of material. It is my understanding that that comment in the second-reading speech is correct. The second-reading speech gives the example of the Australian standards, which do refer to other documents. They may be documents that are standards, internationally, so there is a capacity for a chain of material to be incorporated in those circumstances. I have indicated to at least the honourable member for Kew that I shall move one amendment deeming statutory rules in the Public Service Act to be included in the definition of "statutory rule". Such statutory rules could be disallowed, but if there is a reference to them they would have to be incorporated - that is, the whole Public Service INTERPRETAT ION OF LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 357 determination - unless there is some question as to whether they are treated as statutory rules. Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed. Committee Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 Mrs WADE (Kew) - I move: Clause 3, page 8, after line 19, insert - 1/( ) A statutory rule to which sub-section (3) applies may be disallowed in whole or in part by resolution of either House of the Parliament in accordance with the requirements of section 6(2) of the Subordinate Legislation Ad 1962, which disallowance is deemed to be disallowance by the Parliament for the purposes of that Act." The amendment provides for the disallowance in whole or in part by resolution of either House of Parliament of a statutory rule to which subsection (3) applies. Members are familiar with the reason for the amendment, so I shall not go into that in detail. Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - The government is not supportive of the amendment but recognises the opposition's position and, because the amendment would be passed in the Upper House if not passed here, we will not be calling for a division on it. Amendment agreed to. Mrs WADE (Kew) - I should like to raise a number of issues with the Attorney-General on clause 3. I note that proposed new section 32 to be inserted by clause 3 defines "code" as the Companies (Victoria) Code, the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) (Victoria) Code, the Futures Industry (Victoria) Code, and so forth. As honourable members know, the legislation relating to those codes is no longer in operation in Victoria as a result of the adoption of the national corporations legislation. I should like the Attorney-General to explain why he has preserved the reference to those codes rather than picking up the national legislation that will be in force in Victoria for companies and the securities and futures industries. Perhaps he has already lost faith in the national companies scheme and the Australian Securities Commission, or perhaps he wants the companies legislation to go on its own way while he continues to pick up the former legislation that used to apply to companies in Victoria. I wanted to raise a couple of other matters. Firstly, on the chain of documents to which the Attorney-General referred. In answer to my question he gave an explanation about INTERPRET ATION OF LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

358 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991 the picking up of a chain of documents; that is, Australian standards and documents incorporated by the Australian standards. He gave the factual answer that Australian standards do in turn incorporate other documents. I ask the Attorney-General for a legal answer. I refer him to page 3 of the Bill where proposed new section 32(3) refers to "adopting or incorporating any matter contained in a document (not being an Act, Code or statutory rule) whether as in force at a particular time or as in force from time to time". I should like a legal opinion on whether, if one adopts material contained in a document, one also adopts the provisions of other documents that are referred to in that document.

Proposed new section 32(3)(b) provides for a new system of making documents available. As I said earlier, the current provision is to make them available at the principal office of the body responsible for the administration, but in future they will be made available at the department of the Minister administering the Act or an appropriate place specified in the Government Gazette. I wonder whether the Attorney-General could expand on the reasons for that provision and on the question of whether the Government Gazette is the appropriate place for that specification, because although it is available to members of Parliament it does not have wide circulation to other people who may be interested in finding out where they can obtain copies of the documentation.

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I shall consider the issue of the Companies Code while the Bill is between the Houses; we may update the definition. What I was referring to in my explanation of the chain of material is dealt with to some extent in proposed new section 32(14) on page 8 of the Bill. That states:

A document or matter is not applied, adopted or incorporated in a subordinate instrument by reason only that it is referred to in the subordinate instrument, or in another document or other matter applied, adopted or incorporated in the subordinate instrument, if the document or matter so referred to does not affect the operation of the subordinate instrument.

If it does affect the operation of the subordinate instrument, it would appear that it implies such material is able to be incorporated. That is my understanding of it and primarily that to which we refer when we say the chain can be adopted.

In relation to whether the Government Gazette is the most appropriate vehicle of communicating, again, that is a matter for the opposition. If it has other suggestions we would be happy to consider the issue while the Bill is between the Houses.

Mrs WADE (Kew) - I take note of the comments the Attorney-General has made about proposed subsection 14. However, I do not think they answer the question I asked. Subsection 14 is talking about a document and says, "A document or matter which is referred to in a subordinate instrument". That is in the statutory rule itself or the other subordinate instrument. I was referring to the document referred to in a document that is incorporated by a subordinate instrument. Possibly that is something the Minister might like to consider while the legislation is between the Houses. CEMETERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 359

Amended clause agreed to; clauses 4 to 7 agreed to.

New clause Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I move: "A. Amendment of section 42(6) of Public Service Ad 1974. In section 42(6) of the Public Service Ad 1974, after "statutory rules" insert "within the meaning of the Subordinate Legislation Ad 1962". The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that deemed statutory rules in the Public Service Act - that is, where specifically concerned with Public Service Board determinations - are included in the definition of "statutory rule" in section 32, so where there is a reference to a Public Service Board determination it is clear that it is for this purpose a statutory rule. It can be incorporated by reference to it being a statutory rule rather than incorporating a whole new document every other time. New clause agreed to.

Reported to House with amendments.

Passed remaining stages.

CEMETERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL Second reading Debate resumed from 15 November 1990; motion of Mr POPE (Minister for Labour). Mr WEIDEMAN (Frankston South) - The Cemeteries (Amendment) Bill is a small Bill and the opposition parties will not oppose it. However, we will raise some issues we wish to be considered while the Bill is between the Houses. In the second-reading speech honourable members were informed that there are 500 public cemeteries in Victoria. The cemeteries trusts are not incorporated. Potentially, members of the trust could be individually sued or have action taken against them on many issues, particularly that of personal liability with respect to the carrying out of works, purchase of equipment and all those activities that are normal business to the mortuary industry. I understand that the Bill is a forerunner to a complete rewrite of the total Act. Oause 6 is a major change. It vests the function of granting exhumation licences in the Chief General Manager of Health Department Victoria. As most honourable members involved in the health area would understand, much of the decision making has been held in the name of the Minister but, over recent years, it has been the province of the chief general manager. It has been very well accepted that the chief general manager has the right to grant these licences and that he performs many of the functions one would expect the Minister to carry out. CEMETERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

360 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

I am reminded of an occasion in 1981-82 when I was the Minister Assisting the Minister of Health. I was confronted with a licence to sign which concerned a member of my own family, a relation requiring the removal of a body which had been buried in a private family cemetery in a rural area because the family was moving to a nearby town. At the time it was not amusing but I had to inquire as to whether I was the appropriate person to sign such a document.

As honourable members would be aware, special permission is required before a body that has been buried less than two years may be removed. Later I discovered that I could sign such a licence and the matter was carried out to the satisfaction of the family concerned. However, it is more appropriate that the person directly involved, the chief general manager, has that function.

Some time ago, as honourable members will recall, the management of the Melbourne General Cemetery took certain action which resulted in more lots being rented out than there were lots available. In other words, a lot more plots were created than were available. It was something of an embarrassment when it came to light in an inquiry, and appropriate action had to be taken. That still creates a problem for the cemetery trust. If a coffin is to be buried in a grave at the Melbourne General Cemetery, or any other cemetery, with this overlay situation the appropriate depth for a coffin cannot be attained. Oause 7 will allow the appropriate depth, whatever it may be, being less than that set by regulation, to be determined by the executive officer. In this case it will allow an exemption from the regulation and will allow the chief general manager the right to approve such an exemption.

Honourable members on this side of the House are aware that clause 7 of the previous amending Bill had other powers. The only reason for its inclusion on this occasion is the reason set out in the explanatory memorandum, which talks about the particular issues.

One of the matters that has been raised by my colleagues is that that exemption could be used for other situations in other cemeteries. There has been no industry objection to any of the other clauses in the Bill, but clause 7 has caused some comment. The opposition asks that the power it provides be the total power that the chief general manager requires for solving the problem and that it should not be used to solve some of the problems that exist in other cemeteries with regard to commercial interests, to approve monumental masons or businesses or deny rights connected with setting up business within the grounds of a cemetery or crematorium. It should not, for example, be able to be used in the situation at Montsalvat in Eltham to solve the problems as the government may see them, thereby misusing the power to deny people their rights.

The mortuary industry is also concerned about giving the power to a senior public servant. Other than as expressed in the explanatory memorandum, what is the purpose of that? I ask the Minister to give a clear undertaking that that is the total intention and that the application of the provision is not to be broadened as it was in a previous amending Bill that gave many powers that were not acceptable to the mortuary industry. CEMETERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Tuesday. 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 361

My colleague, the honourable member for Gisbome, who served on the Mortuary Industry and Cemeteries Administration Committee (MICA), may add some comments on the resolutions and findings of that committee, which have been put forward by it to the cemeteries division of Health Department Victoria for possible inclusion in a rewrite of the Act. My understanding is that the clauses before honourable members today are not opposed by the opposition because they make some necessary changes to help with various problems that have been encountered, particularly relating to indemnity by the Crown, the exhumation of bodies and exemptions of the sort I referred to earlier.

The penalty set by section 11 of the principal Act is $500, which is now being changed to "] 0 penalty units" - a penalty unit being $100. The penalty of $2000 in section 19(3) is being changed to 25 penalty units, which makes it $2500, so there has been quite an increase in that penalty. Likewise with section 21(2), 10 penalty units are being substituted for $500, which is appropriate.

Section 27 A(2) is being amended by substituting 50 penalty units for $2000. That increase to $5000 seems fairly monumental; it is well over 100 per cent. In section 38, 10 penalty units are being substituted for $500, which makes it $1000. In section 40,20 penalty units are being substituted for $1000; in section 45,20 penalty units are being substituted for $500; in section 50, 10 penalty units are being substituted for $500, so it becomes $1000; section 74, $500 is becoming $1000; and finally, in section 80 the expression 1/10 penalty units" is substituted for $5000, which is the same value. I am sure the Minister has reasons for the diverse changes, ranging from an equal amount in the last case up to a 150 per cent increase in some of the other penalties.

This Bill has derived many of its ideas from the now famous and very successful Mortuary Industries and Cemeteries Administration Committee of the Parliament comprised of members from both sides of the House, and I hope in the future we see a rewrite of the cemeteries and mortuary industries legislation to serve this State well into the 21 st century.

Mr REYNOLDS (Gisborne) - I rise briefly to speak on the Cemeteries (Amendment) Bill and support the honourable member for Frankston South, particularly in his comments about the success of the Mortuary Industry and Cemeteries Administration Committee. The Bill makes only minor amendments to the Act. There are about 500 cemeteries in Victoria, each being managed by a voluntary trust.

In country Victoria many of the trustees act as the grave-diggers; they mow the lawns in the cemeteries and keep the blackberries down where they can. That work is supplemented by voluntary labour from other groups in the community, particularly the service clubs.

I am delighted to see that the trusts will now be able to be incorporated, which will in due course exempt them from problems that might arise in this world, where litigation is becoming the accepted practice. I think they deserve to be mentioned in this House for the work they do and the service they provide to the community. CEMETERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

362 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

I reiterate the concerns of the honourable member for Frankston South about clause 7 and join him in seeking an assurance from the Minister regarding the actions of the chief general manager. Anyone reading that clause could get the impression that the chief general manager has the power to override decisions made by the Governor in Council. That would give this public servant power that is far too broad and I also ask the Minister to clear up that point. The incorporation of the trust was a recommendation of the seventh report brought down by MICA and tabled in April 1987. It has taken almost four years for the proposed legislation to be put before this House on the recommendation of an all-party Parliamentary committee. There is no argument that it was needed. The committee existed for six years and a few months, but in that time it introduced ten reports to Parliament. One report of consequence that deserved consideration and is yet to be acted upon by the government is the fifth report concerning the land reserves at the Eltham Cemetery. The committee recommended that the trust be able to maintain control of land that it had bought for its own future needs. Because it was not allowed to retain control as a trust that land was taken over by the government and the government is now talking about the land being sold to private interests.The government stands condemned for not taking up the suggestion of the committee. As deputy chairman of the committee at that time I am in a position to say that that report exercised our minds for quite some time, and it was the unanimous view of the committee members of all three political parties that the recommendation contained in the report should be put into effect. In almost five years the government has not acted upon that recommendation. The government needs to review cemetery legislation. On page 2054 of Hansard on 15 November 1990 in the Minister's second- reading speech it states that the trust should be incorporated and that "this recommendation is to be considered in conjunction with the planned rewrite of the Cemeteries Act". That suggestion of a "planned rewrite" was made by the committee in April 1987, and it has taken four years to obt~in the incorporation of trustees, not a rewrite of the legislation. Surely to goodness we have enough public servants to be able to act on the recommendation more quickly than that. Another report of the committee which will come home to roost and haunt officialdom in the near future is the eighth report of the committee into prepaid funerals. There are reports of millions of dollars worth of money put into prepaid funeral funds, and the money has gone missing. This situation was evidenced in New South Wales recently.

Unless the government acts on the committ~'s report which was brought down in November 1987 - three years and a few months ago - the same problem could arise here in Victoria. I direct this matter, in particular, to the attention of the Minister. Perhaps it is something we could pass on to the relevant Minister for Health so that some action can be taken on these reports. CEMETERIES (AMENDMENf) BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 363

Finally, when the election was held in October 1988 and the committee was not reconstituted after that election I maintain the belief, as an active member of the committee for three and a half years, that one subject needed to be completed. In fact, it needed only a few weeks of work. It was on the subject of limited tenure. Again, I suggest to the Minister that the government refer the subject of limited tenure to a committee such as the Social Development Committee which could gather together information that has already been assembled by MICA almost into the draft report form. In that way the vexed subject could at last be addressed. That topic will confront the community in the near future in the same way as the prepaid funeral issue will, and I hope the government can act on both issues very quickly, and particularly on the question of prepaid funerals before millions of dollars go missing. Mr Richardson - Mr Speaker, I direct your attention to the state of the House. Quorum formed. Mr LEA (Sandringham) - The matter before the House this afternoon is a serious one. I suppose it is true to say that death is the final stage of life and that civilisation is judged by the way it handles death. One has only to look through the ages at different sarcophaguses and the memorials to past society members to see how much tribute was paid at the moment of death. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, whose renowned book on death and dying titled Death - The Final Stage of Growth has this to say: Death has always been and always will be with us. It is an integral part of human existence. And because it is it has always been a subject of deep concern to all of us. Since the dawn of humankind, the human mind has pondered death, searching for the answer to its mystery. For the key to the question of death unlocks the door of life. It is not my moment tonight to wax religious, but, in fact, this sets the scene for a view of what one could call the symbols of death in our society today - the cemetery and the graveyard. We have a cult of youth; a society which focuses on young people, and so many of our cemeteries are neglected and are lone and wasted, and bear scant memory to the people that once bore their resemblance. The Bill looks at a number of issues relating to the management of cemeteries. In Victoria there are more than 500 such cemeteries, most of which are run by people who are not paid as trustees. The Bill seeks to indemnify trustees who are exercising a duty of proper care from legal suit for liability for things that may go wrong within the cemetery situation. In addition to that it looks to make trustees responsible for making regulations for the conduct of funerals by non-professional people. Today we see a proliferation of many kinds of funeral, from the normal traditional burial to other forms of memorial such as interment and cremation. Other societies have different ways of burying their own and this Bill seeks a proper mode of conduct in spite of the desires of different religious groups or different cultural groups. CEMETERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

364 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

Clause 6 gives the Chief General Manager of Health Department Victoria the power formerly of the Minister to grant exhumation licences where they are needed for forensic or exploratory reasons to determine the cause of death where that is in dispute.

The maintenance of cemeteries has long been a matter of concern. I can think of two local cemeteries in my area of Cheltenham -- the old Cheltenham cemetery and the new Cheltenham cemetery -- which are in a very good state and are tended well and are cared for.

I have visited many Victorian cemeteries that are uncared for and unkempt and where memories have been forgotten or lost. I hope the Bill will enable better care to be taken of cemeteries.

I also express my concern about the legal protection for trustees. Previously most trusts were not incorporated. The Bill proposes that they be incorporated both for legal reasons and to cover the hiring of contractual labour to dig graves and perform other functions in cemeteries.

I share the concern of the honourable member for Gisborne on prepaid funerals. I have spoken to a number of funeral parlour representatives about the issue. Currently some $70 million has been spent on prepaid funerals. What is the government doing to regulate those funds? What protection is it offering for that investment? If the person dies before the funeral allocation is paid up and the deceased's property has gone into the estate, what happens?

There are some important issues that must be dealt with. Prepaid funerals are big business and require proper legislation. A man who pays for his funeral while in his 40s may be 90 years of age before the funeral takes place. Who will guarantee the existence of the funeral parlour 50 years down the track? Who is responsible for that?

I support the comments of the honourable members for Gisbome and Frankston South. I hope the Bill will enable trustees to better carry out their duties.

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I thank honourable members for their comments and support of the Bill. I understand the Cemeteries and Crematoria Association of Victoria has written in support of the measure. Oause 7, about which a question was asked, is designed to address the specific problem referred to in the clause notes. If problems arise in the future the chief general manager will have to take note of the provision.

The government will take on board the comments of the opposition; and if other matters are raised while the Bill is between here and another place it will be happy to discuss them. ARCHITECTS BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 365

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Passed remaining stages.

ARCHITECTS BILL Order of the Day read for resumption of debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Norris) - Order! Is there a quorum present? There being no quorum present, I ask the Clerk to ring the bells. Bells rung. The DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! I am of the opinion that the second reading of this Bill requires to be passed by an absolute majority. Second reading Debate resumed from 30 November 1990; motion of Mr McCUTCHEON (then Minister for Planning and Urban Growth). Mr RICHARDSON (Forest Hill) - I am pleased the government has at last been able to find the Minister responsible for handling the Bill. After the flurry that occurred as desperate government members went in search of the elusive gentleman, he is now present in the House. The Architects Bill is essentially a cosmetic exercise. It fiddles with the existing Act, which dates from 1958. The opposition believes it is unnecessary to introduce a completely new Bill. The existing Act has served the community perfectly well since 1958. The opposition is advised that it could continue to serve the community perfectly well in the future with only a few minor amendments. The Bill was introduced ostensibly to provide consumer protection. That is the main point made in the Minister's second-reading speech, where he said: Key features of the Bill include: consumer protection achieved through a disciplinary tribunal system for complaints handling .... It should be clearly stated that this is not a consumer protection Bill. In the Minister's second-reading speech the government admitted that: The Architects Act has been in operation since 1922 and it is generally acknowledged that there are no serious or persistent consumer problems in this area. It is spurious for the government to claim that it is engaged in a revolutionary new form of consumer protection. I have it on good authority that there was a blazing row in caucus and Cabinet, particularly in Cabinet, between the Minister for Consumer Affairs and the former Minister for Housing and Construction, now the Minister for Finance, on ARCHITECTS BILL

366 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

this very question of consumer protection and consum('r representation. Apparently the squabble was resolved when the former Minister for Housing and Construction agreed that the Minister for Consumer Affairs would be allowed to appoint two consumer representatives. Having resolved their differences they returned to the f(Klm and announced, JlWe now have a consumer protection Bill". The way the government has gone about this exercise is nonsensical. The gestation of the Bill took more than two years. There were meetings, reports, inquiries and consultations, although not always with the right people. Eventually the government came up with a Bill that it introduced into this House in the dying days of the spring session last year. I am now informed that in the intervening months between the introduction of the Bill and its being brought on for debate the government still has not got it right. I have been provided with three pages of amendments that the Minister will propose during the Committee stage. If ever we wanted some outward and visible sign of a government in complete disarray it can be found in the Bill and in the incompetent way it has been handled. Having disposed of the spurious consumer protection nonsense, the important points in the Bill are, firstly, that it restates the 1958 Act and brings it up to date, just as the 1922 Act was brought up to date by the 1958 amending Bill. The Bill enables the Architects Registration Board of Victoria to establish tribunals to hear complaints - that is, complaints against architects - although it is important to note that such tribunals will not be dispute settlement tribunals. They will hear complaints against the misconduct of architects and will not cut across the activities of, for example, the Small Claims Tribunal, nor interfere with matters that might be heard in a Magistrates Court or in some other court. The Bill provides for consumer representation on the Architects Registration Board, which I do not object to. By the government's own admission that is not necessary because the board hears only four or five consumer complaints a year; but the government's wanting such representation on the board will do no damage. One of the useful things the Bill will do is to bring the 1958 Act up to date by eliminating references to some professional organisations that no longer exist and by both including references to existing organisations and recognising that there are now three schools of architecture. Importantly the Bill provides for the incorporation of sole practitioners. At present two-thirds of the directors of an architectural company must be registered as architects. The consequence of that provision is that on the many occasions an architecture practice is run by a sole practitioner he or she must form a company and have dummy directors to comply with the law. To enable the incorporation of sole practitioners in architecture is a sensible amendment to existing legislation. The Bill continues the restriction on the use of the word "architect" to qualified practitioners. However, as in the Act, the Bill will give the registration board the capacity to grant exemptions where appropriate. When proclaimed the Bill will not be binding on the government; but it is important that the House understands the principal Act is also ARCHITECTS BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 367

not binding on the government. The reason for that curious situation is the need for the government to take account of the qualifications and work experience requirements set by the Architects Registration Board as well as the operations of the Public Service. If a junior architect - a graduate from an architecture school- goes to work for an architecture firm to acquire the two years of work experience necessary prior to final examination and registration as an architect, he or she is not referred to as an architect even while working for an architecture firm for two years. However, because of the curiosities of the Public Service it is necessary, when a government department and, in particular, the Department of Planning and Housing, employs someone engaged in architectural work, to classify that person as an architect. Someone who has not yet met the requirements of registration will be referred to or classified as an architect, because that is the way the Public Service classifies and states the position that exists within it. Although that person is referred to as an architect, for him or her to be able to continue to be employed and to not be in breach of the Act it is necessary for the government to exclude itself from the requirements of the Act. It is a curious way of approaching the problem, but then governments behave in curious ways from time to time. It is important to note that that curiositr has .been part of the process of the registration of architects for many, many years. The reality is that even though it seems a clumsy way of going about things it probably does no harm. It is also a way of overcoming a bureaucratic problem. The Institute of Architects, which is the primary professional body, asked the government to consider a number of minor amendments, and it will be interesting to see whether the Minister has agreed to them. The Bill will serve a useful purpose, but I repeat my earlier observation that I believe it would have been possible for the government to have amended the existing Act without the complete rewriting of the Bill to produce a new Act. All the effort over many months that has gone into producing something that does not change anything much at all seems to have been a useless exercise and a waste of public funds. But we have become accustomed to this government's wasting of public funds.

The legislation will do no harm. It will provide for a slight improvement in the existing situation, and for that reason the opposition will not oppose the Bill. I shall look with considerable interest at the amendments the Minister will present to the Chamber.

Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I do not believe much needs to be said at this stage about the Bill. I thank the shadow Minister for his comments and his indication that the opposition will not oppose the Bill.

Following discussions with the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and the Architects Registration Board of Victoria I wish to place on the record a number of matters. Firstly, the Architects Registration Board of Victoria is currently responsible for the accreditation of academic courses that would satisfy the academic qualification requirements in the Architects Act. ARCHITECTS BILL

368 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

The procedures presently involve the board and the Victorian chapter of the institute carrying out an accreditation investigation in accordance with a jointly prepared accreditation procedure. It is not envisaged that that method of accreditation will change.

Secondly, under its general powers the board is expected to issue guidelines on the importance of professional indemnity insurance to firms of architects in practice in Victoria. That is very important. Professional indemnity insurance is a major issue and the board is expected to issue guidelines to its members and practising architects to underline that fact.

Thirdly, there is a need for architects to maintain their knowledge of current practice issues. The board will be formulating guidelines on the need for continuing education. I remember in the 1970s one of my roles as a member of the institute was involved with the institute's continuing education programs. I believe most professions are now aware of the need for keeping practitioners up to date.

There is also the issue of specialised registration: architects specialising in a particular sphere of practice, such as historic buildings, will be looked at by the board. If one considers the complexity of the profession today there may be a case for acknowledging special expertise and registering people who possess it. Fourthly, the current Act and the Bill empower the board to issue exemptions concerning the use of the title "architect", a matter referred to by the honourable member for Forest Hill. The efficacy of the procedure will be further considered by the new board. The Bill provides for exemption from the requirements of section 4 of the Act to continue to be provided for any person employed in the Public Service of Victoria or the Commonwealth or any statutory authority in respect of that person's employment as an officer or employee.

Although the provision is contained in the current Act, interested bodies - including the honourable member for Forest Hill- have raised the necessity for the exemption, which has been in force since the passing of the first Architects Act. It is a complex issue which involves identification of positions in the Public Service in which recruits can be employed. The need to identify an architectural-type position, whether at base or senior level, would present difficulties with titles if the exemption were removed.

As changing the present situation involves changes in employment qualification requirements, I understand a considerable amount of investigation and negotiation is required for the change to take place. I place on record that I am willing to consider any future submissions from the board or other interested party on this matter and consider on their merits any arguments for change th~t may arise in due course.

There are a number of amendments. Both of them have been requested by the board and the institute. The two significant ones relate to --

Mr Richardson - Both of them? There are 24 and you can't even get that right. ARCHITECTS BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 369

Mr McCUTCHEON - The honourable member says there are 24 amendments. Most of them concern housekeeping, spelling and numbering, and in the last month a request was received from the institute for a clarification of meaning. The institute has written requesting clarification, having had the Bill for some considerable time. The two matters of moment the government has accepted are that the board itself should be incorporated to provide due protection and that the tribunal should have the power to award costs as a result of a hearing. I suggest we now go to the Committee stage of the Bill and move through those malters.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Ernst) - Order! As there are not 45 members present I ask the Clerk to ring the bells. Bells rung.

Required number of members having assembled in Chamber:

The SPEAKER - Order! I am of the opinion that the second reading of this Bill is required to be passed by an absolute majority. The question is: .

That this Bill be now read a second time. As there are no voices for the noes and there are more than 45 members present in the Chamber, I declare the second reading passed with the concurrence of the whole number of the members of the Legislative Assembly.

Motion agreed to by absolute majority.

Read second time.

Committed. Committee Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5

Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move:

1. Clause 5, lines 12 and 13, omit "architectural body" and insert "as engaging in architectural practice".

The purpose of this amendment and amendment No. 2 is to define possible offences more clearly. The term "architectural body" is hard to define, and the amendment makes it clearer. 77597/91-13 ARCHITECTS BILL

370 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

Mr RIOiARDSON (Forest Hill) - It is quite extraordinary that after many months the government has yet to get the legislation right. There have been some years of investigation and inquiry by learned committees and consultation with the profession, but the government still cannot get it right. Parliament has the absurd situation of a Bill that has been prepared over a long period, introduced during the dying stages of the spring sessional period last year, which is still not right. The government will move 24 amendments to what should have been a simple drafting exercise. It is a sad commentary on the incapacity of the government to get anything right. Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 6 Mr McCUTOiEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move: 2. Clause 6, lines 28 and 29, omit "architectural body" and insert "as engaging in architectural practice". The amendment is moved for the reasons expressed earlier. Amendment agreed to. Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move: 3. Clause 6, line 30, omit "uses" and insert "use". Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 7 Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move: 4. Clause 7, line 13, omit "practise" and insert "practice". Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 8 Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move: 5. Clause 8, line 20, after "publish a" insert "statement or". The amendment will have the effect of taking into account all forms of media and not just the print medium. Amendment agreed to. Mr McCUTOiEON (Minister for Planning and Housing)-I move: 6. Clause 8, lines 26 to 32, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert - ARCHITECTS BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 371

"(2) It is a defence to a prosecution of a person for an offence under sub-section (1) if the person proves that at the time the statement or document was made or published the person believed on reasonable grounds that the statement or document was true." The amendment ensures that the provision extends coverage to all forms of the media rather than just the print media, but that prosecutions will not occur if the person can prove that he acted in good faith.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10

Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move:

7. Clause ID, line 16, after "work" insert "and has attained a standard of professional practice satisfactory to the Board" .

The amendment ensures that the Bill reflects the board's current practice of requiring evidence of having reached a proven level of professional practice and competence.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 11 to 21 agreed to.

Clause 22

Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move:

8. Clause 22, lines 6 and 7, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert "allowances detennined by the Governor in Council".

The purpose of the amendment is to allow for consistency in the remuneration conditions of the board.

Mr RICHARDSON (Forest Hill) - The amendment is preferable to the original wording of the clause, which stipulated that fees or allowances would be fixed by the Minister and published in the Government Gazette. I know that the practical effect is that it is the Minister who sets the fees, but he must, of course, obtain Cabinet approval, and there is the additional procedure requiring that the allowances or fees will be finally determined by the Governor in Council, which really means they will be approved by the Governor in Council.

The effect of the amendment, it could be argued, is not great, but it provides an important acceptable procedure to be followed, and for that reason I support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move:

9. Clause 22, line 8, omit ''Minister'' and insert "Governor in Council". ARCHITECTS BILL

372 ASSEMBLY Tuesday. 19 March 1991

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 23 to 31 agreed to.

Clause 32 Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move: 10. Clause 32, page 13, line 2, omit "or the regulations". The amendment will provide consistency with the definitions in the Act and avoid any duplications. Amendment agreed to. Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move: 11. Clause 32, page 13, after line 13 insert- "() to require the architect to undertake further education of a kind, and to complete it within a period, stated in the determination; ( ) to impose a condition or limitation on the architect's registration relating to the architect's practice;" The amendment will provide flexibility in penalty options available to the architects tribunal for minor proved cases of non-professional behaviour. Amendment agreed to. Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move: 12. Clause 32, page 13, after line 17 insert- " - and may make any determination as to costs that it thinks fit". This enables the tribunal to recover appropriate costs of the inquiries it conducts and this power is consistent with other professional regulatory bodies under current legislation, such as the pharmacists board. Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move: 13. Clause 34, line 11 after "period" insert "specified in section 44". This is merely to provide the appropriate cross-reference for publication of determination. Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 35 Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move: 14. Clause 35, line 29, after "penalty" insert "or costs". ARCHITECTS BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 373

This is consistent with the amendment to clause 32 about the awarding of costs so the determination is made on inquiry and that imposes a penalty or costs to be enforced. Amendment agreed to. Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move:

15. Clause 35, line 34, omit "(1)". Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 36 to 43 agreed to.

Clause 44 Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move: 16. Clause 44, line 32, after "Board" insert "or Tribunal". The purpose is fairly obvious. It is a required reference which is missing from the current text of the Bill. Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 45 Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move:

17. Clause 45, line 7 before ''There'' insert "(1)". This is necessary because of proposed additional subsections. Amendment agreed to. Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move: 18. Clause 45, after line 8 insert- "( ) The Board - (a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession; (b) shall have a common seal; (c) may acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property; (d) may sue and be sued in its corporate name; (e) may do and suffer all acts and things that a body corporate may by law do and suffer. ( ) The common seal of the Board must be kept as directed by the Board and must be used only as authorised by the Board. () All courts must take judicial notice of the seal of the Board on a document and must presume that the document was properly sealed." At the conclusion of the second-reading debate I said that this request to constitute the board as a body corporate was made by the registration board but obviously it would provide protection to board members consistent with the immunity provisions of clause 56. The proposal is consistent with other professional and regulatory boards and I believe it is appropriate. ARCHITECTS BILL

374 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

Mr RICHARDSON (Forest Hill) - This is the most substantial of the amendments introduced by the Minister. It seems to me most curious that that which it now sees so clearly as being necessary was not clearly necessary when the Bill was drafted, but then I have already explored the curious way in which the government has gone about preparing the Bill so I suppose it is perfectly consistent for it to have mucked that up, too. The opposition supports the amendment. The Minister said it is consistent with procedures that prevail in other Acts of Parliament. It amazes me it was not thought of at the time of drafting. Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 46 agreed to.

Clause 47 Mr RICHARDSON (Forest Hill) - This is the clause that requires two members of the board to be appointed as representatives of consumer interests and to be nominated by the Minister administering the Consumer Affairs Act 1972. This clause is the product of that amazing row to which I referred during my contribution to the second-reading debate: the confrontation between the previous Minister for Housing and Construction and the Minister for Consumer Affairs. It just goes to show that there can be disagreement even within the extreme left faction of the Labor Party. As I understand it, the two Ministers left the room and came back having come up with a proposition that subclause (2)(a) of clauseA7 would solve the problem. That meant the Minister for Consumer Affairs was able to become involved in the appointment of the board. In my view it is not sound practice to have two Ministers responsible for matters that relate to the same piece of legislation. The sensible way for this to have been handled would have been, if one must have two consumer representatives - and indeed one does not have to have and I do not believe it will serve any particular useful service - they should be appointed by the Minister responsible for the Bill; they should not be nominated by the Minister administering the Consumer Affairs Act. The Minister for Consumer Affairs should be staying out of it altogether. If there is a need for consumer representatives to be appointed there could well be an advertisement placed in the press to inquire after expressions of interest, which is a common practice in the appointment of representatives of the community to a variety of boards of management. That seems to be the sensible way of doing it and, indeed, the government has adopted that practice in other legislation.

The reason for clause 47(2)(a) being there is the need for two socialist left Ministers to resolve a vigorous difference of opinion between them. Clause agreed to; clauses 48 to 55 agreed to.

Clause 56

Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move: ARCHITECTS BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 375

19. Clause 56, line 14, omit "or the regulations". 20. Clause 56, line 17, omit "or the regulations". The amendments omit the words "or the regulations" with the purpose of being consistent with the definition in the Act. Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 57 agreed to.

Clause 58

Mr McCUTOIEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move:

21. Clause 58, line 4, omit "or the regulations". Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 59 to 63 agreed to.

Clause 64

Mr McCUTOIEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move:

22. Clause 64, line 3, after ''Registrar'' insert "or before the Tribunal". Mr RICliARDSON (Forest Hill) - I would be grateful if the Minister would explain to the Committee why no proof is required. I refer the Committee to the wording of the clause:

In any proceedings by or against the Board or the Registrar no proof is required (until evidence is given to the contrary) ... The Minister would do the Committee a great service if he were to explain the reasons for that provision.

Mr McCUTCliEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I cannot satisfy the honourable member for Forest Hill.

Mr Richardson - That is why I asked you; I didn't think you would be able to. Mr McCUTOIEON - That is very clever of the honourable member for Forest Hill, but no proof is needed until evidence is given to the contrary. Mr RICliARDSON (Forest Hill) - My comment is brief: the response of the Minister is a further sad commentary on the incapacity of the government, and this Minister in particular, to respond to simple questions. I asked the Minister to explain for the benefit of Parliament the meaning of a particular provision and, sadly, he had to admit that he could not. Amendment agreed to. PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL

376 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move: 23. Clause 64, line 9, after "Tribunal" insert "or the Registrar". Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 65 to 75 agreed to. Newc1ause Mr MCCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Housing) - I move: 24. Insert the following new clause to follow clause 75: Regulations "AA. All regulations existing under the Architects Act 1958 immediately before the date of commencement of section 70 shall continue in force and have the same operation and effect as if they were made under this Act and may be amended or revoked by regulations made under this Act." It is a necessary transitional arrangement to ensure present regulations remain in force until a new board can be appointed to address the necessity for amended and/or new regulations. New clause agreed to. Reported to House with amendments. Report adopted. Third reading The SPEAKER - Order! I am of the opinion that the third reading of this Bill is required to be passed by an absolute majority. As there is not an absolute majority of the members of the House present, I ask the Clerk to ring the bells. Bells rung. Required number of members having assembled in Chamber:

Motion agreed to by absolute majority.

Read third time.

PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL Second reading Debate resumed from 30 November 1990; motion of Mr BAKER (then Minister for Property and Services). Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton) - The opposition parties will be opposing the Bill. To fully understand the implications of the Bill, recent developments occurring in the Public Record Office, and the reason for the high degree of community concern about this PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 377

matter, it is necessary to canvass some of the background to the legislation and the developments in relation to the Public Record Office. In 1973 the Public Records Act established the Public Record Office separately from the State Library of Victoria to enable that office to be more actively involved in managing government records. Instead of waiting for records to be offered the Public Record Office was to set standards for government to follow and it was mandated to transfer to the office, after a specified period: records that had been offered; to give management advice; to improve efficiency; to cut costs; and to develop disposal schedules to segregate permanent from temporary records. It also provided large scale secondary storage for non-current records awaiting destruction. In 1978 it became part of the new Department of Property and Services. Records repositories were established at Laverton and Ballarat; research rooms were provided where records could be used; guidance and filing identification, and an extensive publication of records were prepared. Strategies for dealing with records in rural Victoria were also developed. The first two Keepers of Public Records emphasised in their annual reports to Parliament, and elsewhere in public statements, the importance of disposal and secondary storage to produce cost savings to offset increased expenditure necessary if archives were to be saved and made available for public use. However, in 1982 the capital expenditure on shelving at Laverton dried up leaving the repository half empty for half of the decade of the 1980s. Every year the annual reports of the keepers hammered the folly of starving the Public Record Office for funds and the consequent waste of accommodation, staff and equipment in departments. In the mid 1980s unsuccessful attempts were made to censor those embarrassing reports. Everyone will remember the attention focused in the media on the battles of the successive keepers to bring public scrutiny to bear on the inadequacy of the State's record-keeping facilities. In 1986 attempts were made to amend the 1973 Act to remove the direct reporting of the keeper to Parliament but that was denied by the opposition. According to the Age newspaper this embarrassment left an unresolved legacy of hostility within those who were responsible for managing that area. Another dispute arose when the keeper tried to pursue the case of alleged destruction contrary to the Act culminating during the 1988 election in what was known colloquially as the Nordlinger affair concerning allegations of the destruction of records, when the keeper was prevented from pursuing a case that was embarrassing to the government. Late last year the illegal destruction issue flared again. The keeper, supported by the Public Records Advisory Council, asked for a legal opinion on the powers of the keeper. In October 1990 the then Minister, the present Minister for Agriculture, under the guise of initiating a new "archival heritage" initiative removed the then keeper, Mr Chris Hurley, and replaced him with a career bureaucrat, Loretta Hambly. There was speculation in the media and in Parliament that the real reason was because he refused to tone down his reports and to buckle under on the illegal disposal issue. At the same PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL

378 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

time, all members of the Public Records Advisory Council were reappointed as they came up for reappointment. In January 1991 the Public Record Office was removed to the Ministry for the Arts under the control of the Deputy Premier. The circumstances surrounding the Bill contain a critical issue of public management. As was pointed out by Mr Hurley, the deposed keeper, it is more cost effective for the government to manage records effectively, and to engage in preventative programs to ensure that records are properly managed and maintained. It is not a question of spending more money overall, but of reallocating and thus better using the funds now spent on records across government agencies. The government's recent actions and the proposals in the Bill pose a real threat to the effective discharge of the responsibility for managing public records and, indeed, for the integrity of the public records themselves, at a time when there is increased public interest in questions of accountability. The opposition opposes the Bill because it shifts the focus of the Public Record Office from the keeping of records to archival display. Already the Public Record Office is operating under a business name of Archival Heritage Program. Its basic functions have been neglected; it has been starved of funds. It has been frustrated by the internal dissension resulting from the government's high-handed attitude towards the previous keeper, and it is not effectively discharging its fundamental functions. In common with so many other areas, the government's intention is to try to turn the office away from its primary function into a function that the government hopes will curry political favour for itself, and the concentration on displays at the expense of the basic record-keeping management and maintenance function will only lead to further deterioration in this important function of government. The recommendations of the Legal and Constitutional Committee, of the Auditor-General and even recommendations from internal reviews on the operations of the Public Record Office have not been implemented. Numerous other bodies already engaged in the display of important public documents and, indeed, even archival material would be more appropriately involved in those functions. I instance particularly the State Library and the Museum of Victoria where despite the inadequacy of their facilities and despite the criticism of care of documents under their control the addition of the Public Record Office to the authorities would represent a further dilution of the responsibility for the effective management of documents with a focus on display rather than maintaining Victoria's heritage in more public documents. The 1973 Act provides a substantially satisfactory basis for public records management. Were the keeper to be given the authority and the resources in staff, accommodation and other necessary resources to implement action the powers given under that Act would enable the effective management of public records. The archival heritage program and the Bill give rise to concern because they appear to divert resources from the basic records management and archival functions to a duty of display and exhibition of those records already in custody and of private archives. PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 379

Among the members of the community who are interested in these matters there is dismay at the sacking of Chris Hurley. There is dismay at the circumstances in which he was dismissed and moved out because he had become a problem to the former Minister. There is dismay about the way the issue has been handled publicly, and there is deep disquiet in the community about the whole incident and the suspicion in that case. Indeed, it appears a virtual certainty that a public servant was punished for diligently pursuing his statutory responsibilities and was moved aside. A new position was created and a diversion provided. He was an embarrassment to the government simply because he was pursuing his duties and highlighting the government's failure to allow him to be provided with the resources necessary to carry out his functions. Last financial year the salary budget for the Public Record Office was approximately $1.3 million. It appears the Archival Heritage Program was staffed initially by redeploying and funding six non-specialist officers from elsewhere in the then Department of Property and Services at an estimated cost in salaries alone of $275 (X)O every year. Another five new Archival Heritage Program positions are being filled now, at a salary cost of up to $185 000. It appears this will pre-empt the filling of five existing vacant positions in the Public Record Office. The qualifications and duties for the advertised positions barely mention archives or records management; rather they stress characteristics such as generalised management skills and the ability to market education and publicity programs. Here is yet another case where taxpayers are having to fund the political objectives of the government at the expense of and by a reduction in the resources available for the fundamental statutory duties imposed by the legislation. Although one of the strongest reasons claimed by the former Minister for Property and Services for introducing the Archival Heritage Program was the alleged poor condition of archives already held, no additional conservation staff are being employed in the first eleven new appointments, despite the recent loss of the Director of Preservation Services in the Public Record Office. Resources are being diverted into politically acceptable tasks at the expense of the management and maintenance of Victoria's records and by allowing them to deteriorate further. It seems now that a major proportion - perhaps as much as a quarter or one-third - of the total salary funding that should be available for the performance of functions under the 1973 Act is being diverted to secondary priorities. The existing skills base in the Public Record Office is further under threat from the diversion of expert Public Record Office staff into heritage program work, in addition to the removal of Mr Chris Hurley from the position of direction of staff in professional work, development, and training, and from the loss of morale. The program is further hindered by the controversy surrounding the removal of Mr Hurley. The former Minister for Property and Services referred to concerns expressed about Victoria's archival treasures not being made accessible to the people of Victoria. Under Mr Hurley's leadership, much work has gone into properly housing and preserving PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL

380 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991 transferred archives, and arranging and describing them. That work culminated recently in the finalising of a summary guide, based on innovative archival system development work, which provides much improved information about the holdings of the Public Record Office as well as the history of government in Victoria. The search room services provide for 25 000 visitors annually, which is a measure of the existing utilisation of access. However, compulsory transfer currently applies only to records that are 85 or more years old. The people of Victoria have no rights in law to access to the great mass of non-personal records created before 1978 - that being the date from which the freedom of information legislation applies - and held outside the Public Record Office or an approved place of deposit.

The submissions to the Legal and Constitutional Committee, which investigated these matters, amply demonstrated a wide community concern about the lack of fundamental access rights. In response to the concern expressed, the committee recommended in its 38th report that a new archival access policy be established which, linked to the Freedom of Information Act, would provide a right of public access to all public records in Victoria after 30 years. The committee recommended also mandatory transfer requirements and some other improvements to access. The government accepted all these recommendations in principle, but subject to availability of necessary funding.

When pressed on this issue, the former Minister for Property and Services indicated that two of the committee's recommendations will be reviewed "with a view to developing the policy further". The two issues were concerned with the statutory criteria for closure and review rights to closed records.

The opposition considers that statement to reflect a stalling tactic. Already the policy is developed; it was recommended by the Legal and Constitutional Committee and accepted in principle by the government. Some parts of the policy, such as those related to the recommendations, do not appear to have resource implications.

In other areas the committee showed that introduction of a 3O-year rule would be cost-neutral( and could even save money if it were introduced in conjunction with improvements in disposal and secondary storage as proposed by the former Keeper of Public Records. The committee recommended a staged implementation program with offsets to minimise the resource impact.

If renewed on an annual basis, the almost $500 000 initially devoted to the Archival Heritage Program would go a long way towards meeting the committee's major recommendations and should be more than replaced by cost savings in non-current records accommodation.

The essentials of an archival program are conceptually fairly simple. Firstly, they involve the appraisal and disposal of records; secondly, the transfer of archives to and preservation in custody; thirdly, the arrangement and description of archival material; and, fourthly, the provision of access to the material. PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 381

In Victoria only a tiny fraction of the archives have been identified and brought into safe custody. Perhaps 10 per cent or less of all records merit permanent retention as archives. The most economic and effective way to segregate them is to sentence the 90 per cent of non-essential material as part of an ongoing program of records management and disposal, and to destroy that material as soon as possible after its non-essential categorisation is assigned. Non-rurrent records requiring temporary storage can be housed more cheaply than archives or current records held in expensive offices. Although charged under the 1973 Act with this records management task in collaboration with the Keeper of Public Records, many chief administrators have been doing very little of it, and the task of culling the backlog becomes progressively harder as the volume of uncategorised records assumes huge proportions. However, tomorrow's archival treasures are drawn from today's records, so the problem must be addressed. Under successive Ministers for Property and Services, the present government appears to have found the task simply too hard or not warranting the necessary devotion of resources in preference to running things that are more politically advantageous to the government. In 1990 a storage accommodation consultancy was commissioned by Mr Hurley. The O'Brien report was produced using sophisticated cost-benefit analysis of the storage undertaken by the then Ministry of Education. It demonstrated that millions of dollars could be saved through the disposal and secondary storage programs of the Public Record Office. The study and report confirmed what the previous two Keepers of Public Records had been saying over many years. Drawing on the O'Brien report, the Auditor-General's report on accommodation management, Special Report No.14, 1990, found that considerable scope existed for cost savings through more efficient records management practice, including relocation to the Public Record Office or authorised destruction. For example, it was estimated that the cost of central business district and city fringe space used for inactive or low-use records exceeded $4.2 million a year. By comparison, the imputed rental cost of this area of storage at the central records repository at Laverton would amount to only $1 million a year. That is, the failure to act in this area by moving records storage out of the central business district to the established site at Laverton resulted in a loss of saving to taxpayers of approximately $3.2 million a year. The report noted also that the Public Record Office could not meet all requests for secondary storage for resource reasons. It also cited a report recommending that a centralised storage strategy be adopted rather than the existing agency-managed bulk storage arrangements. Sitting suspended 6.30 p.m. until 8.3 p.m. Mr STOCKDALE - Before the suspension of the sitting I was dealing with the potential savings that could be made were the government to give a high priority to discharging the primary function of the Public Record Office. PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL

382 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

The Public Record Office recently developed proposals relating to the storage of records in government departments which, linked to charging for Public Record Office secondary storage and disposal consultancy services, would demonstrably result in a much more cost effective result for the government and the people of Victoria. Experience at the Australian Archives Office and the Archives Office of New South Wales confirms that once the cost and convenience advantages are appreciated, departments are eager to adopt the centralised storage option. On the face of it, the aims of the former Minister, now the Minister for Agriculture, for the archival heritage program might be regarded as praiseworthy. However, a chronic shortage of funds for the past eight years under the Labor government has meant less has been available for conservation than desirable and so some archives have not received needed treatment, although overall storage conditions are good. This shows that opportunities exist for the people of Victoria to urge the government to ensure that the Public Record Office carries out its principal function of the effective storage and maintenance of archival materials that are important to the heritage of Victoria. In a balanced program, there should be - in the past there have been - some exhibitions, displays, education and promotion. However, these latter functions represent secondary priorities and can justify only a minor allocation of expenditure when essential and urgent priorities 9f the public records program cannot be addressed because of a shortage of funds. Concerns are felt not only that the archival heritage program is being given a disproportionate share of available funds in a time of both general and specific Public Record Office shortages, but also this represents a diversion from and a smoke screen over important functions in the 1973 Act. There is also anxiety that in the arts portfolio, archival heritage program positions may have to be funded from the normal budget of the Public Record Office. There does not appear to be any indication that the Minister shares the former Minister's enthusiasm for the archival heritage program link with the Public Record Office. It appears the function of displaying non-public records and historical items, which are existing functions of both the State Library and Museum, may be considered inappropriate for the Public Record Office. They are a diversion from the central responsibility of the preservation maintenance and management of Victoria's archival records. The proposal to seek private sponsorship for the Public Record Office is a matter of concern if it is a device to relieve the government from what should be seen as one of its basic responsibilities - to provide funds for preserving its own essential records of transactions with, or on behalf of, its citizens. Not only is private sponsorship of public records highly problematical but also questions of ethics could easily arise if this is regarded as an alternative method of handling the central responsibility of the Public Record Office. The opposition has received many representations opposing the Bill from people interested in the Public Record Office. They oppose the principles upon which it is based PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 383

and they oppose the policy reflected in it. The Public Record Office Support Group has suggested that priority needs to be given to the public record keeping function of the Public Record Office and that it would be more appropriate to amend the Bill to change the administration and policy being pursued so that the Public Record Office devotes itself to the central function and priority of storing, maintaining and preserving essential public records. The opposition sees this as a Bill that is all too common in its import. It is a Bill in which the government is intent on pursuing political advantage in every activity at the expense of the long-term interests of the people of Victoria. The Bill is not worthy. There is nothing intrinsically beneficial in the diversion of resources to the mounting of exhibitions away from the central function of archival preservation, storage, maintenance and management. We believe a signal should be sent to the government by Parliament that the central responsible of the Public Record Office should be given a higher priority so that savings can be made. If the recommendations of the Legal and Constitutional Committee and the Auditor-General were to be taken up, resources would be available to upgrade the reserves available for central functions of the Public Record Office. Because the opposition regards that central function as the most important role of the Public Record Office it will oppose the Bill. Mr PESCOIT (Bennettswood) - I support the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who has given a very full account of the reasons why this Bill is an absolute nonsense. He has gone through the main details of the background to this Bill and has given very clearly every good reason why the government should be ashamed of itself for even trying to introduce such a lot of rubbish. The fact that the name of the Bill is the Public Records (Amendment) Bill and yet the substance of the Bill deals with something else shows that the government has, from the time it first thought of such a measure, been intent on doing what no government in Australia or anywhere else should be proud of: that is, doing away with the very important function of preserving public records. The fact is that no civilisation and no community should be able to go forward without being able to look at previous records to understand the past. While we are living in the present we should always be able to look up the past and be able to provide for future generations a clear record of what has happened in the government of this State during the term of this government and/ or previous governments. The fact is that the functions of the Keeper of Public Records, as established in the 1973 Act, had four specific requirements. The Keeper of Public Records had to establish standards for the efficient management of public records and in particular with respect to the creation, maintenance and security of those records; the selection of those records; the transfer of those records to the Public Record Office; and the segregation and disposal of public records not worthy of preservation. That was a very important function for the Keeper of Public Records and those functions are under attack by the way this government has treated the former keeper, Mr Coos Hurley. PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL

384 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

The Minister responsible for this activity prior to the most recent change of portfolio responsibilities was the then Minister for Property and Services, now the Minister for Agriculture. He arrived as a new boy, someone who was going to make his mark in the community as a Minister. He walked into the then Department of Property and Services and before long he had sacked the Keeper of Public Records, Mr Chris Hurley, and appointed someone else in his place, even though Mr Hurley was one of the most highly qualified archivists in this country. The Minister went uphill and downhill trying to prove the whole time that, in fact, he had not sacked Mr Hurley because he was still employed as a public servant. However, he was no longer the Keeper of Public Records; he was given a different title. Mr Hurley was called in one Friday afternoon and told summarily to get out and to go and do another job. The Minister put someone else in above Mr Hurley on the pretext that the role of that particular office was being changed. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said, the opposition has no argument with the idea of exhibiting various archival pieces of material that belong to the State, but that is not even reflected in the title of this Bill. The Bill deals with the subject of showing what are called archival treasures but what a Public Records (Amendment) Bill should be dealing with is what the government plans to do with public records in this State. If public records are not kept properly they can be distorted and the record of history can be distorted in a way that this government would like. It does not want people to know what has happened while it has been in government. There are various things that this government would wish to hide, and one example was the sacking of Mr Nordlinger, former Chairman of the Victorian Tourism Commission. Mr Nordlinger said publicly that there was one reason why he had been sacked and the government said there was another reason. The former Keeper of Public Records had the audacity, in this government's view, to actually challenge that and to pursue the issue to find out whether or not the version that the government had given of the reasons why Mr Nordlinger had been sacked was true. This former Keeper of Public Records did not realise that he was dealing with a government that had some of the traits of Nazi Germany in wanting to rewrite history. He did not realise he would pay the price of his job for pursuing the issue and trying to find out exactly what the correct record was so that he, as a professional archivist, could put into the archives of this State the facts about that matter. Eventually when there was a change of Ministerial responsibility there were people in the bureaucracy in that particular department who got rid of him. Of course, the Minister was able to say that he did not get rid of Mr Hurley, because Mr Hurley still had a job in the Public Service; but in reality he was no longer the Keeper of Public Records. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said, it is very important that this government understand its obligation to keep public records and ensure that the job of selecting public records is done properly. If one examines the job specification of the new Keeper of Public Records one notes it makes no mention whatsoever of the very PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 385

important job of selecting the right material and discarding material that is no longer relevant to the State.

The job of Keeper of Public Records is very sensitive. It requires somebody to understand with sensitivity which documents are important and which are not.

This government has one of the worst records of keeping documents of any government of this State. I wonder whether the public know that if you want to look up Cabinet documents that go back prior to the 1950s you cannot find them. I know that researchers went into the offices of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet several years after the Cain government was elected. They looked for those documents and they saw them. However, several years later people went looking for the same documents but they were no longer there. If you try to find any government that has a worse record of being able to preserve such important documents as those, you will not be able to go much further than this government.

The former Keeper of Public Records, the man who was sacked for doing his job, had had a long history of fighting with this government to obtain the funds and resources required to do his job properly. If one examines the report of the Public Record Office for the year ending 30 June 1990, which is the most recent report, one finds the following words in the introduction:

The year has not been easy.

This was written by the man who was sacked not much longer after he had written this report. He also states:

Within the space of two months after Christmas 1989, we lost three out of the management team of five - none of whom is yet replaced.

This man was one of the top archivists in this country. He had been recruited from Canberra and had been in that position for more than a decade. He had done a marvellous job and was well known in the community of archivists throughout this country and around the world as being a top operator. However, the government could not stand the scrutiny. It could not stand having someone within officialdom looking at what it was doing, scrutinising what it was doing and having the power to select documents that needed to be kept so that the community and future generations could know what the government had been up to. So the government sacked him and replaced him with somebody who did not meet the job specifications that are set out in the 1973 Act.

As part of the whitewash the Public Records (Amendment) Bill has been introduced. The Bill makes provision for exhibitions of the State's archival treasures. However, that is not the issue. The archival treasures of this State should be shown around. They should be put on exhibition. It has nothing to do with the archival qualifications that are required by the person who runs that particular office or the requirements of someone somewhere in the bureaucracy who will properly do the job of keeping our public records straight. PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL

386 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, the opposition is opposed to the Bill. It is typical of the sort of nonsense we have been receiving in recent times because the government is in the death throes of its regime. We are seeing the end of the Cain-Kirner governments; we can see the beginning of the end and we are watching the government trying to hide what it has been doing in its time in office and trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the community and let the community think it is doing great things by showing the archival treasures of this State. What it is not telling the community is that there are other parts of our history that it has either destroyed or allowed to be lost, and future generations will not be able to judge this government in the way that it should be able to be judged because there are various documents that have disappeared. Those documents were created even before this government came to office. There are various documents that they have created and destroyed. Therefore, the opposition is opposed to this Bill. Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - I do not know what sort of obstruction category the approach of the opposition falls into. I have listened as best I can to what the opposition said but it does not seem to me that it has any justification for opposing the Bill apart from the material that the honourable member for Bennettswood has just finished presenting. What the opposition has said makes me wonder whether it has read the Bill.

The Bill endeavours to bring out into the public archival treasures that are held by the Public Record Office. I hoped there would be not only support for the Bill but also acclamation for it. One might now think it is a legislative gap that makes it not possible for the Public Records Office and the Keeper of Public Records to conduct those programs, receive other materials on loan and have exhibitions of the archival treasures.

I shall give some examples that seem to have been totally ignored by the opposition. There are documents of extreme importance in the archival materials relating to the formation of this country as it presently exists and documents from the 18905 relating to the Constitution. Many documents relate to family histories, and there are important documents relating to the geographical layout of the city, such as Hoddle's maps. It would be tremendous if it were possible for those documents to be exhibited and for such exhibitions to be sponsored in the way that other exhibitions of art forms are sponsored. It is accepted not only here but right around the world that sponsorship of those sorts of exhibitions is proper. The museum has sponsorship. The IBM Mathematica Exhibition was one of the most stunning recent examples of such sponsorship, and the continuing series of exhibitions at the National Gallery of Victoria are sponsored. Art in all its forms, as with other cultural activities, is always sponsored. The Bill endeavours to do no more and no less than that - effectively to provide for fundraising and sponsorship for the exhibition of archival treasures that can properly be exhibited. Just as the museum has sponsored exhibitions to exhibit its treasures, so we would like to have exhibitions of the public records. I am at a loss to understand the spite with which the previous speech was infected, but I do not think that is a reason in the public interest, nor do I think it will withstand public PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 387

examination for endeavouring to deprive, as the opposition is, the public of Victoria and elsewhere who may come to see those sorts of things.

Another example of what could be done by the Public Record Office under the program courageously foreshadowed by the former Minister is the immigration museum at Liverpool. Many of the people who came here left through the port of Liverpool. Many came from Europe and crossed to the United Kingdom, to Liverpool, and then departed from Liverpool to come here. It would be nice to think this Bill could facilitate such an immigration museum.

There is discussion of such a museum proposed for one of the piers in the Bayside Project. We have not heard why the opposition wants to prevent the facility for such developments. I can only say this: although I do not expect it, because the opposition is tob busy with other things to focus narrowly on a book, I suggest that its members read Megatrends 2000, which outlines ten main trends for the 1990s. The authors predicted fairly accurately the trends of the 1980s. One of the main trends predicted for the 1990s is a cultural renaissance. The book recounts the enormous cultural renaissance expected not only in our part of the world but also in Europe and the United States of America, and much of that is expected to come through private sponsorship.

The opposition may not be aware, for argument's sake, that the National Gallery in London is building a 30 million pounds sterling extension that is funded by Sainsburys, and the Sainsburys wing of that great gallery is in Trafalgar Square. Presumably, if they had had to legislate for people of the mentality opposite here in control of a hostile Upper House, they would not have been able to do that. This puts us at odds and makes us in this State and country look extremely backward and backward thinking compared with developments in arts and culture elsewhere around the world.

It is a know-nothing, philistine approach to want to block Bills, to block, defeat and frustrate and to be entirely negative, not to show vision for the future and not to create opportunities and unleash and encourage the public and private sectors to harvest the great treasures we have.

On behalf of the opposition Parliament ought to apologise to the next generation of Victorians and others who are being deprived of those treasures being brought out and exhibited. What better could we offer visitors to this State, schoolchildren and adults in this State than a migration museum, constitutional history exhibitions and family history exhibitions, sponsored, in many cases, by the private sector? Many people would like to give funds to enable such exhibitions to be held but, unfortunately, because of the attitude of the opposition it seems we will be denied that. House divided on motion: PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL

388 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

Ayes, 44 Mr Andrianopoulos Mrs Hirsh MrSandon MrBaker Mr Jolly Mr Seitz Mrs Barker MrKennan MrSercombe Mr Batchelor (Teller) MrKennedy MrsSetches MrCole Ms Kirner Mr A. J. Sheehan MrCrabb MrLeighton Mr F. P. Sheehan Mr Cunningham Mr McCutcheon Mr Shell Mr Dollis MrMcDonald MrSimmonds MrErnst MrMathews MrSpyker MrFordham Mr Micallef MrThomson Mr Garbutt (Teller) MrNorris Mr Trezise MrGavin MrPope DrVaug!lan MrHamilton Mrs Ray MrWalSh Mr Harrowfield MrRoper MrsWilson MrsHill MrRowe

Noes, 36 Mr Austin Mr Honeywood (Teller) MrPescott Mr Bildstien Mr Jasper MrPlowman Mrdark MrLea MrReynolds MrColeman Mr Leigh Mr Rkhardson MrCooper Mr Lieberman Mr E. R. Smith MrDelzoppo Mr J. F. McGrath Mr I. W. Smith Mr Dicki.rison Mr W. D. McGrath Mr Steggall MrElder MrMcNamara Mr Stockdale MrEvans Mr Maclellan MrTanner MrGude Mr Maughan (Teller) MrsWade MrHayward DrNaptnine MrWallace Mr Heffernan MrPerrin MrWeideman Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) - By leave, I move:

'That this Bill be now read a third time.

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 44 Mr Andrianopoulos Mrs Hirsh MrSandon MrBaker Mr Jolly Mr Seitz Mrs Barker MrKennan MrSercombe Mr Batchelor MrKennedy MrsSetches Mr Cole (Teller) MsKirner Mr A. J. Sheehan MrCrabb Mr Leighton Mr F. P. Sheehan Mr Cunningham Mr MC<::utcheon MrShell Mr Dollis (Teller) MrMcDonald MrSimmonds MrsErnst MrMathews MrSpyker MrFordham MrMicallef MrThomson MrGarbutt MrNorris Mr Trezise MrGavin MrPope DrVaughan MrHamilton MrsRay MrWalSh Mr Harrowfield MrRoper MrsWilson MrsHill MrRowe ADJOURNMENT

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 389

Noes, 36 Mr Austin Mr Honeywood Mr Pescott Mr Bildstien (Teller) MrJasper MrPlowman Mr Clark (Teller) MrLea Mr Reynolds MrColeman Mr Leigh Mr RiChardson MrCooper Mr Lieberman Mr E.R. Smith MrDelzoppo Mr J.F. McGrath Mrl.W.Smith Mr Dickirison MrW.D. McGrath MrSteggall MrElder MrMcNamara Mr StOCKdale MrEvans Mr Maclellan MrTanner MrGude Mr MauJdtan MrsWade MrHayward Or Naptnine MrWallace Mr Heffernan MrPerrin MrWeideman Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

ADJOURNMENT Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - I move:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. Motion agreed to.

HEALTH REGISTRATION ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL Introduction and first reading Received from Council.

Read first time on motion of Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General).

PUBLIC SERVICE (INDUSTRIAL FUNCTIONS) BILL Committee Resumed from 20 November 1990; further discussion of clause 1.

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - I move:

1. Clause 1, line 8, omit 1/1986," and insert 1/1986 or". 2. Clause 1, lines 9 and ID, omit "or the Legal Aid Commission Act 1978".

These amendments remove the reference to the Legal Aid Commission Act 1978 and insert the word "or" after "1986" in line 8. PUBLIC SERVICE (INDUSTRIAL FUNCTIONS) BILL

390 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - The opposition is not concerned about these amendments, but one would have thought that in the original drafting of the Bill the Minister and the department would have realised that the Legal Aid Commission Act was covered by a Federal award and was not relevant to coverage under a piece of State legislation. It is typical of the sloppy drafting of legislation for which this government has become well known that we should now be faced with a circumstance where such amendments are necessary. Amendments agreed to. Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - I move:

3. Clause I, line 12, after paragraph (b) insert­ ";and (c) to provide that corporations and certain public bodies may nominate persons to represent employers on a Conciliation and Arbitration Board". This will amend clause 1 to include corporations and certain public bodies as being able to nominate persons to represent employers on a conciliation and arbitration board. Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 2 Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - I move: 4. Clause 2, line 2, before "This" insert "(1)". 5. Clause 2, line 2, after"Act" insert "(except sections 13(1) and (3»". 6. Clause 2, after line 2 insert- "(2) Sections 13(1) and (3) come into operation on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent." . The amendments are self-explanatory. This amends clause 2 to provide that the amendments in relation to the health department's representation on conciliation and arbitration boards become operative on Royal assent. Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 3 Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - I move: 7. Clause 3, line 11, omit ''but subject to this section". 8. Clause 3, lines 16 to 20, omit the words and expressions commencing "or the holders of offices" and ending ''by the Governor in Council" . 9. Clause 3, lines 21 to 30, omit proposed new sub-section (2). 10. Clause 3, page 3, line I, omit "(3)" and insert 1/(2)". This amends clause 3 of the Bill to provide that the senior executive service and their equivalent and unfair dismissal matters are transferred to the commission process. PUBLIC SERVICE (INDUSTRIAL FUNCTIONS) BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 391

The transfer of functions will not encompass people employed or appointed under the Public Service Act 1974 where the board does not have an industrial tribunal role. These are officers under section 23D(1): (a) principally chief administrators and other chief executive offices such as General Manager, State Training Board; (b) an office designated by the Governor in Council to be a prescribed office; this office must be from the senior executive service; and (c) an office in a public statutory authority declared by the Governor in Council to be a prescribed office. The salary and allowances of these officers are determined by the Governor in Council. This will mean that the government will retain control over the terms and conditions of employment of these people.

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - If I recall correctly when the original second-reading debate took place I pointed out that there was some discrepancy in that area in that the government was proposing to pass over part of the job and not do the whole job. It has now seen the sense of involving the commission in all of the matters that relate to wages and working conditions, including unfair dismissals. We have no objection to the amendment. Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - I move:

11. Clause 5, lines 27 to 30 and page 4 lines 1 to 4, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert "the holders of prescribed offices within the meaning of section 23D of that Act.". 12. Clause 5, page 4, lines 5 to 11, omit proposed new sub-section (6). 13. Clause 5, page 4, line 12, omit "(7)" and insert "(6)". 14. Clause 5, page 4, line 17, omit "(8)" and insert "(7)". 15. Oause 5, page 4, line 18, omit "(7)" and insert "(6)". These amendments amend the Industrial Relations Act 1979, with provisions similar to those in amendments 7 to 10. Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 6 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - I move:

16. Clause 10, lines 23 and 24, omit ''The Hospital Employees' Federation of Australia, Victorian Number 2 Branch" and insert "The Health and Community Services Union". This amends clause 10 of the Bill by changing the name of the HEF No. 2 union to the Health and Community Services Union. PUBLIC SERVICE (INDUSTRIAL FUNCTIONS) BILL

392 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - I move: 17. Clause 13, after line 18 insert-- '(1) In section 27(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979- (a) in paragraph (a), for "the trade:" and the proviso substitute "the trade or shall be a person representing a corporation or public body nominated to represent employers in the trade concerned."; and (b) in paragraph (d) (iv), after "unincorporate" insert ", or an administrative unit within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1974,".'. 18. Clause 13, line 19, before '1n" insert 1/(2)". 19. Clause 13, after line 21 insert-- '(3) In section 27(5) (a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979, after sub-paragraph (ii) insert- I/(iii) any corporation or any body or administrative unit declared to a public body under sub-section (3) (d) (iv)." .'. This amends clause 13 of the Bill to allow a corporation or certain public bodies to nominate representatives on a conciliation and arbitration board and also to provide that a corporation or public body does not have to be an employer to represent employers on a conciliation and arbitration board. This provision is in relation to the matters of representation on the conciliation and arbitration boards. Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 14 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - I move: 20. Clause 18, lines 30 and 31, omit "The Hospital Employees' Federation of Australia, Victorian Number 2 Branch" and insert "The Health and Community Services Union". This is in relation to the change of name of that union. Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - I move: 21. Gause 21, line 27, omit "Subject to sub-section (3B),". 22. Gause 21, lines 33 to 35 and page ID, lines 1 to 6, omit proposed new sub-section (3B). This amends the Intellectually Disabled Persons' Services Act 1986 to provide that unfair dismissal matters for medical practitioners appointed under the Act are transferred to the commission's process. PUBLIC SERVICE (INDUSTRIAL FUNCTIONS) BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 393

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 22 Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - I move: 23. Clause 22, line 17, omit "Subject to sub-section (3B),". 24. Clause 22, lines 23-30, omit proposed new sub-section (3B). This amends clause 22 of the Bill which amends the Mental Health Act to provide that unfair dismissal matters for medical practitioners appointed under the Act are transferred to the commission process. Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 23 Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - I move: 25. Clause 23, omit this clause. This deletion of clause 23 of the Bill deals with people employed under the Legal Aid Commission Act 1978, which was covered earlier in the Committee stage and commented upon by myself and the honourable member for Hawthorn. Amendment agreed to; clause negatived.

Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.

Reported to House with amendments.

Report adopted. Third reading Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - I move: That this Bill be now read a third time. Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) - I acknowledge that a number of amendments have been made to the Public Service (Industrial Functions) Bill. HOQourable members will recall that in the second-reading debate I expressed the opposition's concern that the Bill was being introduced at a time when the government was considering the future functions of the Public Service Board. I have told the Minister privately and now place on record that it is the opposition's intention to delay the Bill in the other place while the government considers the report on the board that has been made to it. I understand the government intends to introduce further amendments with respect to the functions of the Public Service Board. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

394 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

The fate of this Bill will depend on the nature of the new legislation to be introduced. On that basis the coalition will not oppose the Bill. Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - I accept what the honourable member for Hawthorn has said. I give him the assurance that the Bill will not be brought on for debate in the other place until the government announces its intentions for the Public Service Board. I shall ensure that the honourable member and any other members of the Liberal or National parties are properly briefed on what the government intends doing in that area. I have no problems in providing the assurance sought by the honourable member for Hawthorn. Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL Order of the Day read for resumption of debate. The SPEAKER - Order! I am of the opinion that the second reading of this Bill requires to be passed by an absolute majority. Second reading Debate resumed from 14 March; motion of Mr POPE (Minister for Labour). Mr MICALLEF (Springvale) - I support the Industrial Relations Bill and commend the government for introducing the measure. It is very much a reforming piece of legislation for the government and will benefit all Victorians. It establishes a new industrial relations system. The old system has served us well, but given the changes that have taken place the system was in need of reform and not in need of amendments as suggested by the honourable member for Hawthorn. The government's record in industrial relations has been excellent. As I said in a previous debate, there is no comparison between the record of the Labor government and that of the former conservative government. The reduction in the number of hours lost through industrial disputation has been acknowledged. The government's track record is much better than that of the previous administration. The Labor government took office in an environment of industrial disputation and has worked towards improving that situation. Victoria's record in the number of hours lost through industrial disputation is much better than that of the New South Wales conservative government. Victoria had a better industrial relations climate but there was still a need for reform. The government has taken up that need in a positive way and has consulted widely and broadly. The Bill has taken some years to reach this stage. There has been much hard INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 395

work and consultation with various employer organisations and trade unions. Again it points up the difference in style between this government and the previous administration and other governments in this country. Victoria is certainly trailblazing in the industrial relations field. The Bill has involved a significant consultative process. It has taken into account the views of all major parties involved in the industrial relations constituency in this State. Major employer organisations, major trade unions and the Trades Hall Council all support the proposed legislation. Of course the Bill does not deliver everything asked of it by each party. In all consultative processes there must be some give and take. It is unfortunate that the Liberal and National parties have not seen fit to take part in that constructive process. They have not supported the reforms contained in the Bill. In his contribution to the second-reading debate the honourable member for Hawthorn cited the Bill clause by clause. I should have thought that approach would have been more appropriate in the Committee stage. The honourable member went to great pains in criticising the Bill but offered few alternatives, except for some vague suggestion of proposing amendments to fix it up. The government believed the Industrial Relations Act required more than fixing up; it required a total overhaul. The proposed legislation keeps the government on side with the industrial community. It provides a framework in which we can all work towards industrial harmony in this State. The Bill will reduce many administrative problems involving disputation and will streamline processes. The Victorian legislation will be completely complementary to the Federal legislation. It is about time that step was taken. This reform is similar to the standardisation of the railway gauge between Melbourne and Sydney. The key feature of the new system is the abolition of conciliation and arbitration boards. To a generation of people in the industrial scene - people who have grown up with those boards - this is the passing of an era. But it is about time we put some of the things from the past in mothballs, just as we should some of the conservatives sitting opposite who are no longer relevant in today's political climate. I understand why those working within the old system will feel somewhat at a loss in adapting to the new system. However, the benefits of the new system will outweigh the experience of those who were comfortable with the old system. Honourable members will be aware of the club situation and the various awards existing under the old system. These awards are slowly disappearing under restructuring and consolidation arrangements. Many of the former conciliation and arbitration boards are no longer relevant to many awards. In the new industrial relations climate, with its accent on amalgamations, restructuring and the reduction in the number of demarcation disputes, the new system will assist the effective implementation of a relevant industrial relations system. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

396 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

The emphasis of the Bill is on conciliation. In the past too much emphasis has been placed on arbitration which, under the Bill, will be a measure of last resort. The Bill will work towards getting the parties together to negotiate and work out agreements in a rational way with the minimum of industrial upheaval.

The Bill will enable awards to be established more quickly and will replace the old system, which has tended to be somewhat bureaucratic and administratively slow. The new system will also allow for certified agreements. I know the opposition has a problem with that because it does not believe certified agreements are the same as enterprise agreements. As I keep saying, a registered agreement can provide scope for unions and employers within an industry to reach a satisfactory arrangement using the award structure as a basis on which to work.

It is important to have an award system for the protection of Victorian and Australian workers. In comparable countries such as the United States of America workers who do not work under award conditions are often well and truly exploited. It is not unusual for annual leave conditions to vary widely, with highly unionised steelworkers receiving eight weeks annual leave while workers in non-unionised sectors, who often work under enterprise agreements, receive almost no annual leave and little in the way of other conditions because they do not have the protection of industrial awards. It is ironic that such conditions are often determined by Acts of Parliament, the minimum standards of which do not give workers affected anywhere near a livable wage. Certified agreements can add to the flexibility of the award structure of the Industrial Relations Commission, which adds to its effectiveness. The establishment of the Industrial Magistrates Court is another key issue in the Bill. I do not understand why anyone would oppose the establishment of a specialist court to deal with industrial and occupational health and safety matters. Anyone who has had experience with industrial matters being dealt with by the civil courts and who opposes the measure is either utterly naive or against justice for workers who have been treated in an unlawful way in the workplace. It should be remembered that not so long ago courts would fine a firm only two shillings and sixpence if an employee lost an arm in an industrial accident.

The civil courts have rarely enforced industrial law , so the establishment of the Industrial Magistrates Court will go a long way towards setting up a specialist court that understands the issues before it. At least there will be consistency in its deliberations, sentences and so on, which is very important. The present system is unfair because certain magistrates may treat an employee more harshly than would a magistrate who does not understand the issues.

The Industrial Magistrates Court will also hear matters relating to the storage of dangerous goods and breaches of the Health Act, which currently covers areas such as the use of cancer-causing chemicals in the workplace, as the recent dispute at Hoechst Australia Ltd brought to light. Since the sensational Herald-Sun headlines have died down we have discovered that workers at Hoechst worked with carcinogenic agents INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 397

without proper protection or proper information. It is important that a proper court is established to deal with such issues. Opposition members were very critical of the workers involved in the Hoechst dispute. An Industrial Magistrates Court could play a role in preventing such disputes. The new court will replace the Metropolitan Industrial Court which is inadequate because its jurisdiction does not extend beyond the metropolitan area. Because there is a Statewide network of industrial awards it is necessary to have an industrial court with a Statewide jurisdiction that can deal with breaches of State awards and occupational health and safety regulations. In this area, too, the Industrial Magistrates Court will ensure consistency. The Industrial Relations Bill addresses the concerns of critics of the system. The only employees who will be able to make application to the industrial court will be those who are governed by State awards or by Federal awards that are prescribed under State law. That will cut out the clogging up of the court from time to time by executives who feel they have been unfairly dismissed. The industrial relations system was never intended to deal with such people, who work under contract and not under industrial awards. It is only fair that the system becomes specific in relation to areas of coverage. Concerning the unfair dismissal provision, the emphasis will be on reinstating the employee. The next stage will be redeployment or reinstatement in another job and allowing the employee to work in a different setting, which may resolve the difficulties that brought about the dismissal in the first place. Under the proposal compensation will be the last resort. Any incentives to lodge an appeal purely on the basis of receiving a compensation handout will be minimised - a very important idea contained in the proposed legislation. The Bill is much more flexible and less prescriptive. For the first time the Industrial Relations Act will deal with discrimination issues. Members of recognised associations will receive protection; from the opposite point of view, workers who have a conscientious objection will be protected under these proposals. It is disturbing that the opposition does not see merit in the proposal. Quite significant consultation has taken place between trade unions and employers. This is an opportunity to pass a composite piece of legislation that will take industrial relations in Victoria through the 1990s and to the year 2000. The opposition seems to have a preoccupation against organised labour, and against organised labour achieving rights under legislation or even under the protection of organised labour itself. The only trade unionism it seems to support is a system of enterprise bargaining where unions have less power, as in the United States of America. The experience in that country is that often unions compete for coverage and the lowest common denominator gets the contract within a large company. There is pressure and coercion for unions to act in a way which is not in the best interests of the work force. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

398 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

It is unfortunate that the Liberal and National parties have that view about trade unions. They are unable to come to terms with the view that trade unions have a legitimate, active, protective and responsible role in the community. It is unfortunate that they are unable to come to terms with that approach. The abolition of conciliation and arbitration boards is an important concept that will bring about streamlining within the current system. A single board member will be able to hear a case, which will allow a much quicker appraisal of matters coming before the boards. If opposition members cannot see merit in those sorts of proposals they are literally putting their heads in the sand.

The registry will become an independent statutory body staffed under the Public Service Act and separate from other departments. The Industrial Registrar will be appointed by the Governor in Council for a seven year term - another reform. Powers of committees will be expanded to allow greater flexibility and more effective management by the Minister. They will be clearly expressed in a rational and logical format. These sorts of proposals within a more flexible and less prescriptive piece of legislation will enable Victoria to continue its record of minimal industrial disputation and allow greater involvement, with workers and employers supporting the legislation. It is ironic that the opposition had to have a conference with the employers; one would have thought that, given its affinity with employer organisations the opposition would have developed a consultative process which allowed employers to have a fairly open and positive organisational agreement with the conservatives.

It appears to have taken a Labor government and its consultative processes - its various consultative mechanisms such as the Occupational Health and Safety Commission, the board of the Accident Compensation Commission and the Victorian Industrial Relations Commission - to be able to work together with employers and unions in a positive way.

It is unfortunate that, although employers are able to come to terms with that, the opposition - which claims to have an affinity with employers - sees it as some sort of conspiracy and is unable to see that unions can play this role. I compliment the Minister for Labour and his officers for the many hours of work and consultation that have gone into drawing up the Bill. I think in time the Bill will pass; we may get some opposition from the employers - some chest beating as tends to happen - but the longer these issues are debated the more the public sees the intransigence of the conservatives.

I think the Minister would be prepared to discuss with the opposition any proposals that would help to make the Bill more relevant to industrial relations in Victoria. He certainly would not tolerate any intransigence based purely on ideological opposition to trade unions having a say in the industrial relations system in Victoria.

The government would like to see a far more positive input from speakers on the other side - not the rhetoric of the past, but to see them become part of the industrial relations INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Tuesday. 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 399

system that allows workers, trade unions, governments and the community to have a say in developing a system that will be relevant in the year 2000.

Mr HONEYWOOD (Warrandyte) - I point out to the Minister the opening words of his second-reading speech when he introduced the Bill to the House, ''The major purpose of the Bill is to establish a new industrial relations system for Victoria". As with so many of the so1:alled initiatives of the government, one has to distinguish between theory and practice.

We just heard from the honourable member for Springvale a comment that the opposition should avoid the rhetoric of the past. In establishing a new system one should hope to avoid the mistakes of the past and bring in a new broom, put up some new proposals, some new structures, and some alternatives. The Bill attempts to replace one system of bureaucracy with another.

The attempt, in an industrial relations club fashion, to enshrine bureaucratic procedures to create new temples of wisdom and all-powerful knowledge, damns the government and indicates it has no capacity to provide a framework in which industrial relations could sensibly be practised between employers and employees.

In examining this so-called new system and distinguishing between theory and practice one need only look at the record of the Minister for Labour. The Minister constantly refers to man-hours lost in strikes and says this is a catch-all indicator of the problems besetting industrial relations practices elsewhere and indicates that Victoria is right on track. The opposition understands the Minister's excitement in attempting to hang his hat on one indicator, but in saying that indicator is the sole guide that should be followed for the wonderful industrial relations record of Victoria he totally ignores the past eight years of the Cain/Kirner government with its record number of work bans and limitations. This is where honourable members must examine the theory and practice of industrial relations, because in practice employers have been so manipulated by the Federal and State Labor governments that they have been willing, unfortunately, in many cases to put up with a number of restrictive work practices that are put on them instead of a strike. When employers have to endure work to rules, work bans and limitations they might as well have a strike, because these restrictive work practices cause anguish, lost productivity and reduced profit. The Minister for Labour never refers to these issues. He only quotes the record, the thousands of man-hours lost in strikes; he forgets the rest.

The honourable member for Springvale referred to chest beating. One need only look at the chest beating of the Minister when he refers to the Builders Labourers Federation. According to the government, the deregistration of this one union is the recipe for industrial relations reform throughout Australia! That is far from the truth. In practice the BLF is alive and well. It is in the process of taking over not one union, but two unions, the Amalagamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners of Australia and the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

400 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

The Minister beats his chest and says that his government outlawed the BLF so it can rest on its laurels. Because of the deregistration of the BLF this government has allowed the Hoechst dispute to continue at a cost of millions of dollars to the taxpayers of Victoria. Indeed, the Premier has trotted out to carry the can around for the workers on the picket line. The government allowed thousands of tonnes of tomatoes produced by hard-working farmers to rot rather than take forceful action against the union concerned. Along with the chest beating, the deregistration of one union is enough for the government to rest on its laurels and say, 'We have fixed up industrial relations in this State and we are proud of it" .

Not so long ago the Minister for Labour regularly - almost every month - responded to dorothy dixers asked by members of his backbench during question time. The Minister would spend about five minutes answering the question, 'Would the Minister care to explain the record low employment levels of the State compared with other . States?" Recently the Minister has stopped responding to these dorothy dix questions. Why is this? Is it because the government's so

The honourable member for Springvale made the point that the government consulted with employer groups, employees and unions and got it right. One has only to travel down Victoria Parade on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday morning to see the Ministerial drivers in their limousines out the front of the offices of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. The Minister and his cronies go there for their weekly briefings from the trade union bosses. The government limousines wait out the front while the Ministers are read the riot act and told how the practice of industrial relations occurs. That practice has been occurring for the past eight years.

In examining this wonderful consultative mechanism, which the Minister and the honourable member for Springvale maintain is the essence of the Bill, one finds that the Minister has used typical trade union thuggery tactics in an attempt to cajole the opposition into agreeing to the passage of the Bill.

Before the final draft of the Bill was provided to the opposition, before it had any idea what the clauses would finally contain, the Minister saw his mates at the Herald-Sun and told them that unless the opposition agreed to support every clause of this large Bill it would not proceed. The Minister said he would not allow any amendments to be moved or allow the opposition to have an input into this so

Mr Leighton - What about the employers? INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 401

Mr HONEYWOOD - If the honourable member for Preston had been in the Chamber he would have heard the honourable member for Springvale say that the employers were totally on side with the Bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. The government, in its so-called consultative process, said to the employers, ''Unless you accept the package it will not proceed". Unless the employers supported. the bad things that go with the Bill, the trade union support mechanisms and so on, the government would not give employers what they want, not even half or a quarter of what they want because it was a package. At least the employers were given a draft Bill and were consulted. before the Bill was introduced into Parliament. The opposition has had to read the Minister's statement in the Herald-Sun about supporting the Bill in its entirety without amendments.

In his second-reading speech the Minister for Labour said:

For the first time the Industrial Relations Act specifies its objects. Honourable members will note these objects are designed to provide a framework that encourages and enhances industrial harmony and the orderly and fair handling of industrial matters while having regard to the interests of the community as a whole and the parties.

The opposition would be foolish, when it is about to form a government with a record majority, to say, after this government has had eight or nine years in which to enact so-called industrial relations reform, 'We will support every clause. We have no philosophical opposition to anything contained in the Bill. We think you have been totally impartial in the way you have put it together and the way you have consulted with employers and given them a SO-50 deal".

Unless it is lucky and can extend it, the government has about six months to go to support all the thousands of Labor Party hacks that are on the gravy train. Unless it wants to do an Unsworth and leave it to the final moment, I am sure the government would agree that in its death knell it would be foolish for us to turn around and support a so-called major introduction of a new system in industrial relations.

Honourable members interjecting.

Mr HONEYWOOD - It is more logical than that contained in the second-reading notes:

Part 2 of the Bill establishes the framework of the proposed industrial relations system. The key feature of the new framework is the abolition of conciliation and arbitration boards.

On this key issue of the abolition of the conciliation and arbitration boards - otherwise known as wages boards - different employer groups and unions are lining up for and against their abolition. As part of our extensive consultation process -- -

Mr Fordham interjected. 77597/91-14 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILl..

402 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 199 I

Mr HONEYWOOD - The honourable member for Footscray laughs up there on his backbench perch. If ever there were a more clear example of the problems between theory and practice that this government has had one has to look only at his former deputy leadership and his theory that the government was on track and was soundly managing the economy of this State. Honourable members know the Minister signed the letters but they do not know whether he read them. Maybe he bought one of those automatic signature-writing machines from the United States of America - I think they are worth about $10 000 - and he probably paid for it with a VEOC loan. The honourable member for Springvale held his hand over his heart and said the abolition of the conciliation and arbitration system was a major reform and had the support of employer groups. We found that to be far from the case. In fact many large employer groups - and we consulted with twenty or more - were in favour of retention of the wages boards because, under this government, they saw them as their only chance of having a real input. Equally many small groups wanted it retained. Some groups have gained benefits from the mechanisms instilled within the current legislation and others have not. Again this is a key reason why we cannot support the Bill. A further comment made by the Minister in the second-reading speech was: The above reforms, together with the new capacity for members of the Victorian commission to hold dual office in the Australian commission will enable closer cooperation and integration between the two systems. Mr Micallef - Do you understand that? Mr HONEYWOOD - I do but I do not think Mr Kelty does because he and Mr Hawke seem to have differing opinions. Not long ago we heard from the Labor government of the Hawke species that it was willing to put industrial relations into the Federal sphere. It was willing to get rid of the Victorian Industrial Relations Commission and have the total perfonnance, institutions and practices of industrial relations in the Federal system. This was fine for Mr Hawke and his government to support but Mr Kelty stepped in when he reaJised that Victoria was the icing on the cake in the Labor movement because it provides all of the leapfrogging, all of the demarcation disputes and all of the gravy train initiatives in industrial relations that this government has come to rely on. The last thing Mr Kelty wanted was for the Victorian system to change and become subservient to the Australian system. How else would we have these wonderful work practices such as portable long service leave transported to other States? How would they leapfrog across the borders if Victoria was made subservient to the Australian industrial relations system? When the Minister spoke about establishing new frameworks he was actually talking in the rhetoric of the past: the enshrining of rorts and union preferences that has gone on in industrial relations in Victoria for all time. The opposition will not wear it. It will not turn around, as the government did with the Victorian certificate of education, and cause such havoc in a major institution, whether it is in education or industrial relations, and INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 403

then have to rewrite the books. It is not good enough because it does not fit in with our philosophy and it does not make sense to the community of Victorian taxpayers, workers and employers. The Labor Party is far from clear when it comes to deciding the so-called framework the Minister referred to when introducing the Bill, whether it is a Federal prerogative or a State prerogative and, with that question mark in mind, we have difficulty supporting the Bill. The Minister also said in the second-reading notes:

The powers of the Minister have been rationalised, logically formatted and clearly expressed. Again on the face of it one may not have any qualms with the powers of the Minister being rationalised, logically formatted and clearly expressed. Yet, how a coalition Minister could accept the powers of a Labor government Minister is beyond me because the Liberal Party has a different structure. It has a philosophy of small government as compared with the Labor Party philosophy of big government and of enshrining bureaucracy. Why should our industrial relations Minister be hamstrung for the first, second and third terms - at least - of a coalition government by the so-called t10gical formattingtt of the powers and responSibilities of a Labor government industrial relations Minister? Again we would be taking a retrograde step if we turned around and supported the Bill on that basis alone. I turn to another area touched on by the Minister in his second-reading notes:

Part 11 provides for the establishment of an Industrial Magistrates Court to hear those industrial and occupational health and safety and related matters currently heard by the Metropolitan Industrial Court and the Magistrates Court. The honourable member for Springvale told the House how this pillar of bureaucracy in the system of government would be a totally impartial and fair system of justice and would specialise in dispensation of industrial relations justice. This government is on the way out. This government is a lost cause and when we come into government we will not be stupid enough to enshrine a new pillar of bureaucracy with all of the Labor Party hack appointments that go along with it. One need only look at the appointments made by the government over the past eight or nine years in the Victorian Industrial Relations Commission to see the proof of the pudding. We would not be foolish enough to turn around and allow the government in its dying days to support its union mates. The former honourable member for Warrandyte, whom I replaced, became a magistrate as soon as he was beaten at the last elections. He had minimal qualifications for that role but he went straight on to the magistrates list because the government knew where he stood. He was a Labor Party hack; he followed the Labor Party rules of the game.

This would also be the case in the industrial magistrates court because, far from the impartial and fair system the honourable member for Springvale would have us believe, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

404 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

it would not be surprising to find a few Labor members opposite being appointed to that court prior to the government's demise at the next election. The record stands. The person I replaced in the seat of Warrandyte became a magistrate as soon as he was defeated at the last State election. The gravy train goes on. The honourable member for Springvale referred to the fact that this industrial relations reform was a bit like trying to build the standard gauge railway line between Sydney and Melbourne. That is a good analogy because the New South Wales government has been right on track when it comes to industrial relations reform. Honourable members interjecting. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Evans) - Order! The Minister for Labour will have the opportunity of replying, and he should confine his remarks to that time. Mr HONEYWOOD - To throw the Minister's words back in his face, New South Wales has established a new industrial relations system not by abolishing one institution and putting up a similar one but by going back to the drawing board and creating a genuine new system. The New South Wales government has produced a document entitled Enterprise Agreements - A Practical Guide, which refers to loosening up the system. Documents such as that establish a new system rather than reinventing the old one, and they are excellent initiatives for industrial relations reforms. I shall quote from the introductory pages of the document: The Industrial Arbitration (Enterprises Agreements) Amendment Act 1990 aims to promote a new industrial relations system in New South Wales which will achieve greater productive efficiency and better levels of industrial harmony within individual enterprises. It recognises that industrial parties themselves bear the prime responsibility for their dealings with one another. The document continues: Enterprise agreements as outlined in this guide will be suitable for employers and employees who find that they are restricted by existing awards from doing things the way they would like. Members of the government have claimed that enterprise agreements will take away the rights of workers. Nothing c(;mld be further from the truth. For example, the Power Brewing Co. Ltd in Queensland established a working arrangement with its employees. A framework for sensible industrial relations and work practices was created. Despite the fact that everyone acknowledged it was a wonderful system and even though the unionised workers unanimously supported the agreement, when the magical Mr Goss came to power in Queensland he pulled the rug from underneath the agreement. He acted on instructions from union cronies who told him how the government should run industrial relations in Queensland. The workers and employers of that company had achieved a system with which everyone was happy. In many cases the workers received additional days off for working extra hours, and that arrangement suited them. However, the Labor government in Queensland went back to the enshrined award conditions and the INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 405

inflexible system that has been the damnation of the Australian work force and productivity for years. Such a system has seen Australia steadily slip behind to become the banana republic the Federal Treasurer referred to a few years ago. The more State or Federal Labor governments enshrine rigid work practice agreements, the less hope there is for Australia to be competitive in international markets. The government has said the Bill will not proceed if the opposition attempts to change a single clause. The government ran off to the press before telling the opposition about that, so no wonder Australia is slipping behind. It is one of the few Western countries that has such an incredibly rigid system, and the Bill does nothing to loosen it up.

1 am sure the Minister would agree that the Bill creates new structures and recreates the old problems. It will require a new government with a fresh approach to improve the situation. Enterprise agreements and the freedom of negotiation between workers and management will bring into place the new system desperately required.

Consultation has been referred to throughout the debate, and members of the government have argued that this is the best possible Bill because of the extensive consultation that went on prior to its being introduced. The more one consults and supposedly takes input from all parties the more likely one is to wind up with a hotchpotch of a Bill and a second-best solution to the problem because one caves in to every interest group in the community.

Members of the opposition are on about trying to provide leadership and introducing a totally new system. However, all we hear from the Minister is that the Bill establishes a new industrial relations system in Victoria.

Leadership will not come from the Labor Party; the new initiatives required to get industrial relations back on the track will come from a new government. The Labor government is in its dying days and it cannot hope to provide the leadership required to ensure Parliament considers the best possible Bill rather than the compromise currently before it. Until such time as the Labor Party can provide that leadership, the opposition has no choice but to throw out such poor legislation.

Mr HARROWFIELD (Mitcham) - I support the Bill. This debate is important because it represents a major reform to one of the most important Acts on the statute book. The Minister and the government are to be commended for the hard work and effort they have put into the Bill.

Making a speech after the contribution of the honourable member for Warrandyte is like being at a smorgasbord - I do not know which juicy morsel to start on. The honourable member applauded the performance of the New South Wales government. He originally came from that State so I suppose it is to be expected that he should regard it as some kind of paradise. He was inclined to the belief that New South Wales was on the right track with industrial relations. I shall look at the record, although the honourable member for Warrandyte does not like facts and figures. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

406 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

For the twelve months prior to November last year more than 600 000 working days were lost in New South Wales because of industrial disputation. The figure in Victoria for the same period was 350000, almost half the amount of time lost in Nick Greiner's so-called paradise north of the border. Before talking about industrial relations in New South Wales being on the right track the honourable member for Warrandyte should examine the figures. It is important to paint the context of this debate. As we so often hear conservative parties in Australia put forward the same old tired solutions to industrial problems. We should compare the industrial situation that existed during the last ten years of the Liberal government in Victoria with the last ten years of Labor government. Mr Kennett interjected. Mr HARROWFIELD - I can understand the honourable member for Burwood being sensitive because he was one of the leading members of the government. Between 1972 and 1982, under a Liberal government, 820 working days per 1000 employees were lost, applying as it did the sort of draconian industrial measures that we hear applauded tonight. Mr Pope - Eight hundred and thirty-two. Mr HARROWFIELD - Thank you, Minister; it was 832 working days per 1000 employees in the last ten years of the Liberal government. Since 1982 the record of the Labor government shows that 200 working days per 1000 working employees were lost - almost a quarter of the Liberal record! We should examine that in terms of national figures. Honourabie members interjecting. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Evans) - Order! There is far too much interjection from the opposition benches. Mr HARROWFIELD - Let us examine that in terms of national performance. The last ten years of a Victorian Liberal government disclosed a figure 23 per cent above the national average for working days lost in Australia. The comparative figure for the last ten years of Labor government is 13 per cent below the national average for industrial time lost. Honourable members may listen to the rhetoric and to the glib assertions opposite but the cold hard facts tell quite a different story. Whatever is happening in Greiner's paradise north of the River Murray is not some magical solution to industrial relations because it has produced almost twice as many working days lost as has been experienced in Victoria in the past twelve months. The previous Liberal government's performance in Victoria included totally abusive solutions. Assertions have also been made by the honourable member for Warrandyte and, regrettably, last week by the honourable member for Hawthorn during his second-reading contribution about jobs for the boys on the Victorian industrial bodies. It INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 407 is convenient for opposition members to trot in here and point to the appointment of former trade union officials to industrial bodies. That reflects their inherent prejudice against the Victorian Labor movement.

If one examines the backgrounds of people appointed to industrial bodies in Victoria, and who presently hold positions within those organisations, one discovers that more appointees come from employer backgrounds than from the Labor movement. I do not criticise that fact because obviously the government has appointed people on their merits but that is something honourable members opposite cannot cop. They like to come here and denigrate people who happen to have come from the Labor movement or from trade union backgrounds.! shall set the record straight: more people on those industrial organisations in Victoria come from employer backgrounds than from the Labor movement.

By way of rebuttal to the inane comments opposite I refer to the assertion of the honourable member for Warrandyte about the consultation the opposition supposedly had about this Bill. Everyone knows what that consultation amounted to; the best the honourable member for Hawthorn could do in his contribution was to bowl up a couple of mickey mouse employer and employee organisations in defence of his position.

The opposition conveniently ignored its present embroilment in one of the most embarrassing disputes with employer organisations that any Australian conservative political party has had in living memory. Victorians have witnessed employers calling for an urgent summit with the Leader of the Opposition to set him straight on those issues. For example, the honourable member for Warrandyte talked about conciliation and arbitration boards. !le said, "There is really no support from employer bodies for the abolition of those boards", but that is palpably incorrect. Perhaps the shadow Minister has not properly consulted with his backbench about consultations held and feedback he has received because the honourable member should know of a letter signed by the major employer organisations in Victoria and sent to the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations.

The letter was signed by representatives of the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia, the State Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Master Builders Association of Victoria, the Retail Traders Association of Victoria, the Printing and Allied Trade Employers Federation of Australia, the Victorian Road Transport Federation, the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce and the Victorian Employers Federation. That is hardly a group of Labor supporters; they are eight of the most important Victorian employer organisations.

On the subject of conciliation and arbitration boards, the organisations state in their letter:

The reforms made by the Bill are extensive and represent the most dramatic reform proposed in recent times. Changes such as - the abolition of the ineffective-

They are not my words, but the words of the employers - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

408 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

and inefficient system of conciliation and arbitration boards; the recognition that the various levels of the Industrial Relations Commission have a responsibility to take into account the economic consequences of any decision they propose to make; the improved linkage between the State system achieved by this Bill and the improved access to the greater flexibility of workplace or enterprise agreement provided for by the Bill's provisions - all accumulate to making the proposed changes far reaching and beneficial to employers. They are not my words or the words of John Halfpenny, or of the Victorian Trades Hall Council or of any Labor Party faction; they are the words of the eight major employer organisations in Victoria. Tonight the honourable member for Warrandyte says, ''None of the employers supports the abolition of the conciliation and arbitration boards". Maybe the shadow Minister did not relay the truth to his backbench colleague. Many aspects of the old Act have served Victoria well over a long period. In the past the old wages board system was seen as one of the landmark reforms and innovations within the Australian industrial relations system. There is a need for change and reform in a modem integrated economy where State and Federal restrictions become blurred. The Bill brings forward those reforms. Also the Bill is timely because it puts a spotlight on the opposition that masquerades as an alternative government in Victoria. When the real acid is put on the opposition its practical policy falls far short of the rhetoric it applies. The honourable member for Hawthorn said the Labor government did not have a mandate for the Bill but I will set the record straight. In March 1988, prior to the last State election, the government sought to make changes to the Industrial Relations Act, including a proposal to establish an industrial Magistrates Court. Those proposals were again included in the Australian Labor Party's industrial relations policy platform for the October 1988 State election. It was a matter specifically put to Victorians. So much for the opposition's claim about not having a mandate! Advice was proffered by an appointee of the previous Liberal government, Mr Keith Marshall, a former president of the State commission. Mr Marshall recommended the establishment of an Industrial Magistrates Court. The matters contained in the Industrial Relations Bill have long been canvassed by employer organisations in this State, by the trade union movement, and by the government. It is nonsense to suggest that the government does not have a mandate to introduce the proposed legislation. The mandate is reinforced and strengthened by the extensive consultation in which the government has engaged in preparing the Bill. It is more than consultation that has taken place because "consultation" implies just sitting down and talking to people without necessarily taking on board the points being made. The government has not only consulted with employer organisations and the trade union movement but also has reached agreement with those organisations on the need for reform and the desired shape of that reform. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Bll..L

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 409

I refer to the letter addressed to the honourable member for Hawthorn, which I mentioned earlier. The letter points up the extent of the agreement reached, certainly with the employers, but also with the trade union movement. As I said, the Bill acknowledges the changes that have occurred in the industrial relations environment in this country. The old system of wages boards is no longer appropriate in the integrated system in which we operate in conjunction with the Federal system of conciliation and arbitration. The Bill seeks to replace the former wages board system with a system of industry panels similar to that of the Federal industrial relations system. I should be interested to hear from members of the opposition who are planning to block the proposed legislation whether they oppose the abolition of the current conciliation and arbitration board system and the establishment of industry panels. I ask members of the opposition: what is their policy; do they intend to stand up in the House and defend the current system? No matter how effective the old system was, it is no longer applicable today. Do members of the opposition intend to support the retention of some of the boards that have been in operation, for example, the tea packing board, the plaster of paris board, the pest control board, the ice board, the ice cream board, the jam trade board, the pastrycooks board, and - here is one for the honourable member for Hawthorn - the sand pit board? Is that the sort of structure members of the opposition want? They should stand up in the House and say what sort of structure they want for industrial relations in this State. I repeat: do members of the opposition want the boards to be retained, or will they listen to the advice proffered by employers and bring the State industrial relations system into line with the system operating at the Federal level? It would be interesting to hear what are the intentions of members of the opposition on this matter. The government has also picked up a recommendation for the appointment of an independent Industrial Registrar. Currently the registrar operates under the auspices of the Department of Labour. The proposed legislation provides that the registrar will be an independent appointee and will come under the industrial relations processes. Here is another example of how the honourable member for Hawthorn is totally ill-informed on such matters. Towards the end of February, the honourable member for Hawthorn said in one of his weekend media blitzes, during which he went around to his friends at the Herald-Sun and to other journalists, that the registrar of the Industrial Relations Commission of Victoria should be an independent appointee. That is exactly what is provided for by the Bill. I ask: why is the honourable member for Hawthorn now saying that the opposition will block the proposed legislation? Why is he saying he opposes legislation that provides for something he called for only a month ago? Honourable members know that the honourable member for Hawthorn does not do his homework, but he ought to check his facts before going on another of his weekend media blitzes. Another feature of the proposed legislation is its flexible and friendly nature. Honourable members interjecting. . INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

410 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

Mr HARROWFIELD - Time and again honourable members hear from the . opposition their support for enterprise agreements and enterprise bargaining, which is not possible under the present system of conciliation and arbitration boards. Mr Gude - You tell me which clause "enterprise bargaining" is used in. Mr HARROWFIELD - The honourable member for Hawthorn has a hang-up about the fact that no mention of enterprise bargaining is made in the objects of the Bill. I refer again to the letter from the employers to the honourable member for Hawthorn in which they support the objects of the Bill. In contradistinction to the points raised by the honourable member for Hawthorn the employers say: For the first time the Victorian industrial relations system will have a set of objects for its operation. It is all very well for the honourable member for Hawthorn to say that "enterprise bargaining" is not mentioned in the objects of the Bill. The legislation introduced by the previous Liberal government contained no objects. The employers are applauding the government for introducing objects into the legislation for the very first time. The government supports enterprise bargaining; it supports enterprise agreements reached within the framework of the conciliation and arbitration system. That is exactly what the Bill provides for: it minimises legal forms and the technicalities of the system; and it provides an opportunity for employers and employees to reach agreement on an enterprise basis and to have any agreements that are reached certified by the Industrial Relations Commission of this State. The Bill widens significantly the scope for enterprise-based agreements. Again, honourable members need not take my word for that. The employers also have made that point. I quote from the same letter which says: ... this Bill ... (provides) improved access to the greater flexibility of workplace or enterprise agreement... Here is another example of employers supporting the Bill because it facilitates enterprise agreements. The employers are not afraid to express their views; they have expressed them widely. I invite honourable members to consider what the Victorian Employers Federation has said. In a letter to the Minister for Labour the VEF said: The Bill represents an important and fundamental restating of the industrial relations system operating in the State. It creates a clear and logical framework which can be utilised by employers and employees to prevent and settle industrial matters of all kinds. I am not the person who used those words; they are the words of Mr David Edwards of the Victorian Employers Federation. Again in contradistinction to what was said by the honourable member for Warrandyte, who had the nerve to say that employers do not support the abolition of conciliation and arbitration boards, the letter from the VEF says: The abolition of the system of conciliation and arbitration boards is welcomed by us. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 411

I can understand that the honourable member for Warrandyte goes to the Small Business Association of Victoria to get his riding instructions, but he ought to talk to Mr David Ed wards and to Mr Ken Crompton and the other reputable associations in this State about these matters. Mr David Edwards says in his letter: The greater flexibility available to the parties to make agreements directly and have them certified is welcomed. This flexibili ty should crea te val ua ble options for explora tion by Victorian em ployers and their employees. Honourable members should not take just what Mr David Edwards has said but should consider also what has been written by Mr Ken Crompton. He is not known as one of the great supporters of the Australian Labor Party or the Labor government. Mr Pope - He is a realist! Mr HARROWFIELD - Yes, he is a realist. He is at the coalface, working in a practical way on day-to-day industrial relations issues. Mr Crompton continues: We also strongly support the proposed abolition of the Conciliation and Arbitration Boards which, while they have served Victoria well in the past, are clearly not appropriate in the 1990s. The honourable member for Warrandyte claimed there was no support for the abolition of the boards by the employer groups. Mr Crompton continues: We welcome the introduction of provisions for enterprise agreements ... We also welcome those provisions providing for individual employers or groups of employers to be granted the same rights and obligations as recognised employer associations in appropriate cases as well as the continuation of provisions for recognition of such associations. It defies description for the honourable member for Hawthorn in a one-and-three-quarter hour dirge to oppose the Bill saying there is no support for it and that he is doing some sort of favour by knocking back the legislation. It is important to examine the industrial magistrates court issue. This is provided for in the current Act in a different form. The Act has been superseded by events, one being the introduction of the major occupational health and safety legislation by the Cain government. It is now appropriate to have all those judicial functions brought together under one umbrella in the industrial magistrates court, which will hear occupational health and safety matters that are currently heard in the Magistrates Court and the industrial court. The honourable member for Hawthorn wrote a tacky article that was published on 13 March in the Age entitled "Bill cements a record of failure". He says: The Bill hands all this to the new industrial relations magistrates, thus reducing the impact of the real law on unions. Obviously the honourable Inember has not read the Bill because if he had he would know the industrial magistrates court may hear any matter the magistrates court is currently able to hear. There will be no diminution of the new industrial magistrates court. It is a law that was recommended to the Liberal government when it was in power. It is contained in a de facto way in the Act. It brings all those jurisdictional INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

412 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

functions together under one umbrella taking account of what has occurred during recent years. I do not understand from where the honourable member for Hawthorn gets his advice. Perhaps he gets it from the honourable member for Warrandyte who I understand was an industrial relations executive, but I believe his contribution and advice to the honourable member for Hawthorn suggests that his ability was flawed.

The Bill retains the secret ballot provision contained in the current legislation. We have heard a great deal from members opposite about not providing the right to a secret ballot and that the Bill reduces that access. That is wrong. The Bill picks up the provision in the Industrial Relations Act. Honourable members opposite would do well to go beyond the rhetoric of the secret ballots and consider how they work in practice. They believe industrial disputes arise because of sinister trade union officials who come along and impose their wills on an unwilling work force, but in fact those who understand the realities of industrial relations recognise that many conflicts arise because of genuinely felt grievances of workers. It is not because a union official provokes a dispute but because of demand from the work force. What happens when the work force votes to go on strike?

Mr Honeywood - You have a democracy!

Mr HARROWFIELD - How do you resolve a dispute? Do you sit down and negotiate? Do you talk the issue through to reach agreement? You cannot go back to the workplace because you' have had a ballot that says, "You have to go on strike". Do you have a ballot to go back to work? How do you resolve that issue?

The honourable member for Warrandyte has talked about theory and practice. His rhetoric on secret ballots is theory and it does not take account of practice in the workplace.

The honourable member for Hawthorn raised other objections about compulsory unionism and conscientious objection. Last week he spoke about the much vaunted and long awaited compulsory unionism legislation but he was rolled in the party room. The honourable members for Warrandyte and Portland rolled him in the party room. There is no provision in the Industrial Relations Act, which was introduced by the Liberal government, for conscientious objection. For the first time in Victoria a Bill introduces such a provision in line with Federal legislation, but we do not hear about that from the opposition.

Why did they not do it when they were in government? The honourable member for Hawthorn was a member of that government. Why did they not have a provision for conscientious objection? Rhetoric is one thing, what they do in practice is another.

There are many other issues that I should like to point out to the House in response to the pitiful contribution from the honourable member for Hawthorn and his sidekick the honourable member for Warrandyte who are blocking the Bill for blocking's sake. It is INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 413

nothing to do with industrial relations or the consultative process. It has nothing to do with the employers and the advice they have given to the opposition parties. Mr HONEYWOOD (Warrandyte) - On a point of order, I take offence at being called a sidekick. We on this side of the Chamber all do the kicking!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Norris) - Order! The honourable member for Warrandyte is offended by the term "sidekick". Will the honourable member for Mitcham withdraw? Mr HARROWFIELD (Mitcham) - As the honourable member for Warrandyte has plenty of side, I withdraw. Mr HEFFERNAN (lvanhoe) - I have listened to the debate and I wonder whether as politicians we are aware of what is going on in the real world. There is no doubt we are totally unaware of the huge changes that are taking place. I believe the Minister does not know about the massive changes that are going on. He is tied up with the party political system rather than achieving the things that need to be achieved. I heard the honourable member for Mitcham refer to what happened years ago. The present industrial system and economic climate in Victoria is the worst since the early 1920s. Horrific problems exist in the workplace. The government must get the message that we cannot live in the past or we will continue to go downhill. It has been stated on several occasions in this debate that a number of major employer organisations have been involved in consultations on this Bill. The Minister for Labour has said in the newspapers and on radio and television that he entered into negotiations with the employer organisations apprOximately two years ago. Mr Pope - Eighteen months ago. Mr HEFFERNAN - Between then and now this State has gone from having a reasonably good economic standing both among its people and Australia generally to a State that is on the verge of depression. In the old days did we not have the economic nous to control it? Within eighteen months we have asked all the employer organisations to make judgments based on what occurred in the early days when everything was good. I point out that Blind Freddy could make a dollar eighteen months ago because we still lived in a flamboyant and relatively good economic climate. That was the case despite the fact that the union movement gained certain benefits. You could settle anything in those days if you set out to do so. We saw it occurring in the building union. If we consider the cost today of the 35-hour week and the 9-day fortnight for the building workers we realise it is different from the cost in those days because those arrangements were made at a time when the attitude was to build at all cost. What are the consequences now? Is it the person at the head of National Mutual or the big operators and overseas investors who are paying for it? Are they really paying for what has happened to the city today because of the downturn in development? I can tell the House who is paying: it is the poor person who is renting those facilities, and the INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

414 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

working-class person who needs to use and seek the services that are provided in those buildings.

Anyone who comes in here and debates the Industrial Relations Bill on the basis that the situation today is the same as it was two years ago is living in a political cocoon and just does not understand what is being demanded in the workplace today.

Comparisons have been made between the industrial climates of Victoria and New South Wales and honourable members have quoted the number of days lost as a result of industrial disputes.

What occurred in New South Wales was that the Greiner government instituted the greatest industrial change in the history of that State. Premier Greiner took on the transport situation which had had huge losses and turned it around at great monetary savings and industrial trouble to achieve something in the transport system of which this State ought to be envious.

He also took on the teacher unions. Everyone in this place knew about that. Forgetting about the pros and cons, nevertheless, Premier Greiner took on the teacher unions. The comparison relates to two different stages: Premier Greiner took on the teacher unions and the transport system. Many working days were lost to achieve that end, but he is guaranteed of being returned to government at the next election. He also took on the Public Service.

For anyone to stand here and compare Victoria with New South Wales is ludicrous. It is an embarrassment that we are in such a mess in Victoria and the government ought to hang its head in shame. The Minister for Labour ought to be aware of the fact that compared with Victoria, New South Wales is now a vibrant State; it is on the move. It is sad for me to see what has happened in Victoria and the government, which is . responsible for the present conditions, ought to hang its head in shame.

It is obvious that Victoria is not at the level of New South Wales. We are at ground level; we will have to fight back from the bottom. That will require great sacrifices from .everyone; it will hurt everyone. However, I will not put up with the divisive tactics used time and again. The other day Martin Ferguson said that the workers are carrying the brunt of the downturn of the State. Once again he tried to divide us. Some 100 000 small businesses have gone bankrupt in this country, and he has the cheek to say that only one section of the community is bearing the brunt of the economic downturn!

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) - On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, although the honourable member for Ivanhoe is obviously enjoying his wide-ranging economic speech, I direct your attention to the fact that the House is debating the Industrial Relations Bill, which does not provide the opportunity for a wide-ranging economic discussion, as the honourable member for Ivanhoe seems to believe. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 415

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick) - On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I reiterate to you the remarks of the honourable member for Ivanhoe. It is clear that he believes the negotiations that the Minister commenced eighteen months ago were undertaken in an atmosphere very different from the contemporary atmosphere of today. What he is putting to you, Sir, is that what might have been appropriate eighteen months ago is not appropriate for today's environment. Therefore, it is his view - and strongly put, too, and perhaps with greatly compelling emotion - that the provisions of the Bill are inappropriate for the challenge of today's economy. I believe that argument can be developed by him legitimately in a second-reading debate, which is about the principles of the Bill.

Mr TANNER (Caulfield) - On the same point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Ivanhoe was also commenting on the situation in New South Wales, which was referred to at length by the honourable member for Mitcham in his contribution to the debate. In addition, I remind you, Sir, of the words of the Minister when introducing the Bill, when he stated that the major purpose of the Bill is to establish a new industrial relations system for Victoria. I suggest it allows for a wide-ranging debate and I ask you to grant the honourable member for Ivanhoe the leniency that he deserves.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Norrls) - Order! I do not uphold the point of order. I admit that the honourable member for Ivanhoe was roving far and wide, as it were, but I believe he was by and large relating his remarks to the Bill.

Mr HEFFERNAN (Ivanhoe) - Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We ought to be getting together to do something for the State. While the business sector has cried out for major initiatives to increase our local and international competitiveness this government has continued to cling to the policies and practices of the past. I do not know why it persists in doing so. It is a change that we all need; yet the government still clings to the past. The government seems to be determined to enshrine in legislation a power that the union representatives want. I can understand their position. They do not want to lose their power base or their jobs or salaries. It is a natural reaction. However, they have to become aware that it is 1991 and we are in a hell of a mess and, even forgetting who put us there, the plain fact now is that it will take all our efforts to get us out. We will all be hurt.

Mr Micallef interjected.

Mr HEFFERNAN - The honourable member for Springvale can talk all the rhetoric he likes as he sits in his safe seat. I am talking about the real people who I know will be hurt and hurt hard. However, if they are going to be hurt they expect us to produce something that will enable them to see some light at the end of the tunnel. We will not see light at the end of the tunnel unless we are willing to take up with the rest of the world a new competitive nature. It is no use saying that we do not have to do that. If we do not, how will we ever compete with our Asian neighbours! INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

416 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

I understand the Minister's concern about enshrining in this Bill all the power of the pist so that it remains with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and the club down the road. I know the honourable member for Mitcham recently stated in this House the importance of examining the membership of that club. I point out that, although the members of that club are from the private sector, I am not interested in the bureaucratic side of the private sector, and that is what they are. They are no better than private enterprise bureaucrats.

Honourable members should not come into this House telling me abou t those people who have hidden behind trade organisations all their lives, who have never been out in the real world and never made a real dollar, and who then start to tell the private sector in which direction it must go. It is not fair, and I can tell you that the private sector has had enough. That is what we are objecting to.

Small businesses are saying, "Give us the opportunity of running our businesses; give us the opportunity of telling our people the way it will be; give us the opportunity of making a profit and telling our staff that this is the way we will go" .

The Bill does not tackle the issue. All it does is enshrine the past rhetoric of Labor governments that the power base must remain. Never has there been a greater challenge to the government. It may have blown everything it has touched so far but this is where it has to start. The Minister for Labour knows he has to start here but he is not game to take that extra step.

My party does not want to pass this Bill, and I believe it has a right to stop the movement in direction evident in the Bill. What we are saying to people in the private sector is that a new way in industrial relations is coming to this State; it will give small businesses the right to say what ought to be done.

The Minister for Labour may tell me how he has conferred with Ford, Nissan and all the big industries in this State, but there is a new world being bred in this State, and that is the world where small business will have its real say. It will not be overrun by big business an~ trade unions that want to control its destiny.

Surely, the Minister for Labour must say that this is the way it is to be. This new system will enshrine only part of the old with a little bit of controlling on the inside. It will involve private enterprise bargaining, and there will be a change whereby people will have the right to say whether they will strike. People will be able to choose to help a firm out of its trouble.

I refer to the SPC Ltd dispute. I take my hat off to the old war horse, Mr Halfpenny, for how quickly he said there would be no removal of holiday loading, even if people wanted it. That was smart. He would not create a precedent. And what is government? Government is law. The precedent has been created, and I take my hat off to him because he would not let that precedent be set. But may I say to him, in turn, that he can no longer have his heavy hand because we must ask whether we can afford those luxuries. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 417

As the economy goes further down can we afford to put those costs on all of our goods? Will we see through the new Industrial Relations Bill? Is there flexibility for one to be able to make an agreement? The flexibility is there for negotiation. It is the right of the worker as I have always said, as my father said and as his father said, to withdraw his labour. That right has never been argued by me. However, the rights of the boss are gone. He has no right to sack or dismiss under any circumstances. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel for him: the employer will have equal terms with his worker, equal right to sit down and negotiate without the government and the industrial relations requirements of this government. Many people are asking whether the State will ever become competitive. I doubt whether in my lifetime this State will return to the competitiveness that it had ten years ago. It is all very well referring to what happened ten years ago under the Liberal government. The honourable member for Mitcham used that argument tonight. How were people living ten years ago? How was the State managing? One must compare how the poor people were living ten years ago with how they are living today. How are people struggling today? How are their children going to school? An Honourable Member - A lot more of them today! Mr HEFFERNAN - That's correct, they're everywhere! How can the government say that it is better today than it was ten years ago under the Liberals. Such statements are full of hypocrisy. It disappoints me to hear that being said. The government should at least face up to the reality that it has blown its chances. Mr Pope interjected. Mr HEFFERNAN - Of course, there were times during those years when industrial muscle was shown. But why? It was because we were greedy and the unions got more and more for the sake of peace. It is a different ball game today. The economy has gone down. The shoe is on the other foot but some people want to keep it where it was. Under the Liberal government the economic climate was such that unions used power and muscle, and no-one denies them that right, but I am saying that right has gone. Those days are over. It is now a new ball game. The Minister knows it and he is trying to adjust the system. I am saying to the trade union movement that the industrial relations system has to change. The Minister knows it, the honourable member for Springvale knows it and the Federal government knows it. It is a matter of bringing in a system that can be controlled in a balanced way, because it is currently out of balance. The system that exists today has run out of time. No Victorian under the next Liberal government will be subjected to being pushed, shoved and stood over again. No businessman will open his door in the morning knowing that during the day someone can come through that door, pull out his staff and tell him that his business will close if he does not do what he is told. I have seen that INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

418 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991 happen. I know the Minister would be concerned about that sort of attitude, but it does exist. It is out there. It is going on all the time. The plain facts are that if the government keeps going down the line that it wants to maintain with'the industrial relations system, it will be enshrining the strong arm tactics of the trade union movement. The coalition strategy will cause this State to come alive. Businessmen will know the State will be run by a responsible government with a responsible attitude towards them and their staff. I call on the government not to spend so much time examining what the opposition is doing, and attacking it, but rather to see the new era being born in this State. Mr MICALLEF (Springvale) - On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member has been speaking for 20 minutes but has not spoken about one clause of the Bill. He has not mentioned anything about the Bill. He has talked about small business, his grandfather, his grandmother, his uncle and aunty, and how they lived under the system - and how they must be turning in their graves at the contribution he is making today! But I suggest he should at least mention the Bill in passing.

Mr HEFFERNAN (Ivanhoe) - On the point of order, I have referred to matters already mentioned in the debate, both by the Minister and the honourable member for Mitcham, the Chairman of the Public Bodies Review Committee, and have followed up those issues. Everything I have mentioned tonight has already been mentioned in this debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Noms) - Order! I do not uphold the point of order. It is a wide-ranging Bill and even though the honourable member for Ivanhoe has wandered around the highways and byways, by and large he is relating his remarks to the Bill. Mr HEFFERNAN - I shall finalise my comments, but not because of the interruption by the honourable member for Springvale or the Minister for Labour. The cornerstone of this State's recovery, whether we like it or not, must be in the industrial relations area. I am not going to debate whether the opposition during its term in government had more industrial problems than the present government. The fact is there is a problem and the Bill does not go far enough towards solving that problem. I am sure the Minister will accept that Victoria's economic climate cannot improve with the problems that exist in the work force. You cannot run a business today. You are stupid if you try because of the problems you face. I know the Minister for Labour and the honourable member for Mitcham have never been involved in the private sector but I am sure the Minister is aware of the problems because he has been too obvious in his statements in the press. The bottom line is we have to change. Without the promotion of enterprise, skill and competition, Victoria will always languish in the quagmire it is in. We cannot work at the same standard and pace that we have for the past ten years. ADJOURNMENT

Tuesday. 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 419

Victoria depends on manufacturing which depends on overseas competition which in turn depends on the Asian community. How can this State hope to compete if it continues down the industrial track in the direction the Minister is taking it? It is important he gets across to the trade union movement that there is a new way and the union movement has to alter. The trade unions have to be flexible. They have to accept things they never thought they would say yes to. They will have to see working conditions change, and if they want to see their fellow Victorians going to work in the morning they have to change. I predict that Victoria will see an unemployment rate of 10 per cent by the middle of the year. Victoria is still on a downturn. Go to anyone and ask what the problems are! They will say you should not expand in Victoria because the industrial muscle is too much. I am not saying where it is. It is up to the government to find out. Recently there were problems in Kuwait with the supply of sheep - the Treasurer must have heard about it! One of the biggest problems against purchasing goods from Victoria concerns industrial muscle. The problem has been explained on radio. Of course Victoria wants to do business but the first thing people overseas put up against a Victorian firm is a cross. One has a black line against one because one comes from Victoria. Has any honourable member tried to get development money? You cannot get it. Victoria is on a downturn. There is no confidence and yet the Minister says, "Let's build up the confidence. Let's build up the industrial muscle and the Industrial Relations Commission~ Let them control people's businesses. Let's take it to the house down the road and let the commission take it over" . I say it is finished. I call on the government to support the move to make this industrial system flexible so that the people themselves can arrive at their own destiny with the employer. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr LEIGHTON (Preston).

Debate adjourned until next day.

ADJOURNMENT Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - I move: That the House do now adjourn. Non-payment of court-imposed fines Mr BILDSTIEN (Mildura) - The Attorney-General would be aware that each week the Victorian court network imposes fines on offenders transgressing society to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. This week it was put to me that since October warrants for non-payment of these fines were transferred from the police to the Office of the Sheriff and that there has been little action to recover these outstanding funds. ADJOURNMENT

420 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

My information is that the number of people who have been arrested for the non-payment of fines imposed by the courts could be counted on one hand. The revenue that is being lost to the State amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars every week. Obviously that is a totally unacceptable situation which needs explanation. When I discussed this matter through contacts of mine in the court system, I asked why this would be the case and it was suggested that the Attorney-General's office had actually directed the Sheriff's office not to make arrests for the non-payment of fines. In fact, they can go out and knock on the door and ask very politely whether the person in question would mind handing over the funds the court directed he or she should pay but beyond that they do nothing. Their hands are tied. That is a ludicrous situation because obviously word gets around pretty quickly and all the bad guys are taking advantage of it. I ask the Attorney-General whether or not he has issued a direction that the Sheriff's Office is not to make arrests for the non-payment of fines and, if so, why. It has been put to me it is because they are inadequately trained. Secondly, what steps is the Attorney-General taking to ensure this matter will be rectified at the earliest opportunity and that these funds which quite properly should be coming into State revenue are collected at the earliest opportunity? Decrease in teacher aide hours Mr J. F. McGRATH (Warrnambool) - I direct to the attention of the Premier an issue of what I believe to be Ministerial incompetence. I am talking about the action or inaction

Mr Kennett interjected. The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Burwood is out of his place and out of order and he is grossly interfering with the rights of the honourable member for Warrnambool. I ask him to remain silent. Mr J. F. McGRATH - The issue concerns teaching in my electorate and in particular the services of the integration aides in the education system. The reason I raise this matter for the attention of the Premier is that I have raised it with the Minister for Education since December of last year and I have been unable to get a response. I hope the Premier will take up this issue. It deals with an eleven-year-old Aboriginal boy who suffers from -- Mr KENNETI (Burwood) - On a point of order, Mr Speaker, earlier today the Premier said she wanted to bring some respect into this House. This matter is being raised by the honourable member for the attention of the Premier, who is more interested in trying to convey information to the Treasurer than in listening to the honourable member for Warrnambool. If she wants to bring some respect into the House she ought to pay the honourable member the courtesy of listening to him. The SPEAKER - Order! There is no point of order. ADJOURNMENT

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 421

Mr J. F. McGRATH (Warmambool) - This eleven-year-old Aboriginal boy suffers from osteogenesis imperfecta, brittle bones. He has been in hospital for most of his eleven and a half years but it has been found in recent times that, with the assistance of an aide, he is able to go to school. He has what is described by his paediatrician as a normal mentality, but he does have this very unusual and extreme condition of brittle bones, and he needs very careful and expert assistance. Under the integration system this boy, Brendan McGuiness, had an aide who allowed him 22.8 hours a week. It was not full time but it was quite a good allowance. The local people sought to increase that if possible, but if not to retain the 22.8 hours. Unfortunately the decision now taken by the Ministry of Education and Training is that that 22.8 hours is to be reduced to 13 hours. As a result of that Brendan has to be put back into the hospital and his condition, in terms of going into the normal school stream, is deteriorating and causing concern. He comes from a family of five with a sole parent, his mother. Unfortunately his father committed suicide two years ago. It is a very tragic story. The Minister for Education and Training is in complete control of the situation and possession of all the facts and it is an absolute disgrace that he has not responded at all to this family in relation to this child. That is just one matter that deals with integration in my electorate where the Minister has failed dismally in his Ministerial responsibility. I call on the Premier as the Leader of this government to see that her Minister delivers social justice in the case of this boy so that Brendan is able to go back into the school system for at least 22.8 hours a week, if not for an increased number of hours, to allow him to be part of society, something that he deserves. I also draw to the attention of the House the Minister's failure to respond to documentation from me about an integration aide who, in my view, was handled very poorly by the region. She, too, has not received a response and neither have I. I would welcome the intervention of the Premier to ensure that the incompetence of this Minister is dealt with as a matter of urgency. Explosion in Morwell Mr HAMILTON (Morwell) - I raise for the attention of the Premier a matter concerning the very unfortunate explosion that took place in the streets of Morwell on Sunday evening. This was a rather disastrous event in which some 46 shops were completely ruined, some 3 or 4 shops were destroyed and probably another 3 or 4 have sustained structural damage. A great deal of time, effort and money will be required for those businesses to get back on their feet. There was also much broken glass and a number of other problems that were suffered by all of the shops in that part of Morwell. Indeed, some shops 500 metres away on the other side of the railway line were also affected. It was a very substantial blast. The response from the local emergency services immediately following the explosion was excellent. Within 1 or 2 minutes of the explosion the Country Fire Authority was on ADJOURNMENT

422 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

the scene and attended to the fire. They were quickly followed up by the police and the State Emergency Service crew. A crane had to be brought in to shift a radio mast that was in a precarious position on top of one of the buildings. The response from the services was very good and I am sure the Minister for Police and Emergency Services would be proud of the way they operated; the community of Morwell was very proud of them. This disaster - and in a small town like Morwell this was a disaster - hit at a time when the town is suffering economic hardship because of changes that have taken place in the community and the shopkeepers cannot afford to be out of business. The second phase of the operation was coordinated by Community Services Victoria and a meeting was held today with all the relevant bodies present to discuss the guidelines for what should happen in following up this disaster. So far the work of all of the agencies concerned has been excellent, and I give particular praise to the Morwell City Council for the way it has cooperated and to the local chamber of commerce. I bring this matter to the attention of the Premier because, although the response has been excellent so far, it is most important that the follow-up take place and the State government agencies involved - and any Federal government agencies - ensure that the wonderful impetus is not lost so that these people can be helped back on their feet and the town is restored to normal as soon as possible. It has been an excellent effort so far but all the support agencies, especially those agencies where the State government has a responsibility and can provide some help, should make sure that that help is provided efficiently, effectively and swiftly. It would be in the interest of the small businesses that were so badly affected by the blast and the community if the Premier ensured that the State government continues to make what has already been a wonderful effort. Pyramid Building Society Mr DICKINSON (South Barwon) - I raise a matter for the Treasurer concerning a constituent, Mr Graeme Currie of Queenscliff in the Bellarine electorate, who wrote to the Minister on 15 March and has had no correspondence from the Minister since 24 December 1990. I believe representations have been made through the honourable member for Geelong and the two honourable members representing Geelong Province. Mr Currie is concerned that correspondence regarding the 25 per cent payout on the Pyramid investment has not been received by him. Mr Currie has also advised that he has not received any paperwork in relation to the bond offer in February. The circumstances have been directed to the attention of the Minister in a letter dated 15 March - I can give the Minister a further copy. I hope the Minister will have senior officers of his department contact Mr Currie in Queenscliff for some early advice as to what action can be taken in respect of the missing paperwork and what response he can now make in that matter. ADJOURNMENT

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 423

Water pricing Mr W. D. McGRATH (Lowan) - I raise a matter with the Minister for Conservation and Environment concerning his responsibility for water supply in this State. It relates to water pricing in the Wimmera - Mallee stock and domestic system of the Rural Water Commission. The Minister would be aware of the water protest that is going on, particularly in the electorate of Lowan, and even right through the Wimmera - Mallee region. It relates to the non-payment of water rates. The Victorian Farmers Federation and the water users are now considering paying their rates collectively into a trust fund and withholding them from the Rural Water Commission in an attempt to bring about some consideration by the government on water rate increases. The Minister will be aware that this pricing policy is not really acceptable to country people. The coalition does not accept the current cost depreciation involved in the rate calculations, nor does it agree that the head office costs should be at all applicable to the water users in that area. It is interesting to note that in a recent visit around the country the new Minister for Agriculture has taken up the cause on behalf of the farming community, and in fact he said last month that the proposed increases were appalling timing. That is a direct quote from him. He said he would be taking the farmers' case to Cabinet. He said it was unfair to expect farmers to take the burden of higher water charges when many of them would have no income this year. He also made the point that over the border in New South Wales the farmers are obtaining pretty close to full cost recovery on the supply and delivery of water, and the charges to those farmers are 25 to 30 per cent cheaper than they are here. The Minister for Agriculture also has been quoted on ABC radio as saying that if this is true and we compared badly, then as a farmer's representative, "I must do something about it on behalf of those farmers, and I will." So I ask the Minister for Conservation and Environment what deliberations he has had in relation to the water charges. He would also be aware that the coalition does not support the Rural Water Commission's five-year business plan and with the protest on water rates now reaching its finality - water rates have to be paid on 12 April- the Victorian Farmers Federation and consumers are looking for a statement from the Minister as to whether or not he is prepared to meet a deputation and consider bringing some sanity back into water pricing for the Wimmera - Mallee stock and domestic supplies. Television violence Mrs IflRSH (Wantirna) - In the absence of the Attorney-General, I raise a matter with the Treasurer, and I ask him to pass on the remarks. I refer to reports in this morning's Age newspaper regarding a proposed new code for television stations to limit or forewarn viewers of impending violence to be shown on ADJOURNMENT

424 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991 television. According to this morning's report the code will restrict news coverage of subjects that may distress viewers or risk provoking copycat-type crimes. It is said that the code was prompted by two tragic and horrific events in this Sta te - the Queen Street and Hoddle Street massacres. Since those tragic events Victoria has led this country in exploring new ways to curtail violence and stop it before it happens. I refer, in particular, to the Good Neighbourhood Program and also to the Community Council Against Violence chaired by a previous member of Parliament in the other place, Mrs Judy Dixon. The council does excellent work and is leading the world in trying to prevent violence, and it is doing a good job. More recently the government has taken up the issue of violence, in particular against women, and I look forward to future announcements in this area. Women should be able to play a future role in our society, and to do that they should be able to go about their lives free of harassment. Unfortunately they are also subject to attacks and they are subjected to these attacks simply for no reason other than that they are women. The Premier has said that one of the most important elements in any plan to deal with this problem lies in changing the attitudes of a very small minority of men - not the most but the minority - and I know they are a minority, but they are the people who think that women are fair game. This is an appalling and very frightening feeling that women have to put up with. The media in this situation have a very important role to play. The media protest time and again that they are not there to play a role in changing people's attitudes - and of course we can agree or disagree about the sort of role the media play - but they should be reinforcing attitudes that do not encourage violence, and they should not be reinforcing attitudes, at any stage, that encourage attacks on women or any other fonns of violence. Of late I have been greatly concerned about the attitudes to women shown by some of the men in extremely responsible positions within our media. In fact, I was more than concerned; I was absolutely outraged by an article that appeared during the Christmas period in the Herald-Sun, the largest circulating daily newspaper. They say it is the silly season but this was not silly, it was rather appalling. The article was titled, ''The language of flirt" by some bodgie PhD of whom I have never heard who was ostensibly describing the subtle language of flirting. The article was no more than an open invitation to rapists, and I have a copy of it with me. lt said if a woman adopts certain attitudes or puts herself in certain positions while sitting or standing, these should be read as a sexual go ahead for a man. This is absolutely appalling. The article stated that if a woman does such things as crossing her legs, pointing her toes, opening her mouth, tossing her hair, glancing at you, looking sideways, exposing her wrists, combing her hair, touching her shoe or a number of other ADJOURNMENT

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 425

things, such as leaning forwards or backwards, she is apparently saying, ''Take me, I'm yours". The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member's time has expired. XPT train Mr JASPER (Murray Valley) - I raise for the attention of the Minister for Transport a matter relating to the great publicity given last year to the arrival of the XPT train on a trip from Albury through to Melbourne, and the great welcome the train received when it arrived at Spencer Street station. The indication was that this special passenger service would be introduced into Victoria to extend the service that already exists from Sydney to Albury, and which would extend from Albury to Melbourne. I welcomed the train on its arrival in Melbourne, and I believed then that this service would be introduced as quickly as possible, but it appears from the information provided to me by the Minister for Transport that this improved and upgraded passenger service may not be operating in Victoria until 1993.

I remind the House that the former Minister for Transport, now the Minister for Conservation and Environment, announced in 1982 that the XPT service would be running between Albury and Melbourne by 1983.

It now appears that ten years will elapse before the upgraded passenger service will be provided for passengers wishing to travel from Sydney through to Melbourne or for those people travelling from Albury and some of the stations in between such as Wangaratta and Benalla, who would be able to use the service in travelling to Melbourne.

I raise this matter for the attention of the Minister because of the continuing pressure to introduce the proposed very fast train service and the investigations that are taking place, as well as the proposal that the service shall be provided between Melbourne and Sydney using the inland corridor through Albury-Wodonga.

I suggest that even that futuristic plan - to cost more than $6.5 billion - may be quite some time hence and the Minister should continue to pressure and upgrade the passenger service being provided in Victoria. He should try to improve the services being provided by V/Line which would be complemented by the express train (XPT) service.

The suggestion has been made that the service may not be introduced until 1993 - ten years after the initial announcement that it would be introouced in Victoria. What action has the Minister taken to ensure the XPT train will be provided as quickly as possible, and that the service will not be provided in 1993 but in 1991? Also, will the government provide an upgraded service so that we have a train service to reduce the time of travel between Melbourne and Sydney? The service and facilities already provided can be upgraded. A better service incorporating reduced travelling time should be introduced for passenger services. I ADJOURNMENT

426 ASSEMBLY Tuesday. 19 March 1991

know the Minister will only say, IIWe want a very fast freight service", but I suggest Victoria also wants a very fast passenger service provided on the standard gauge line. I ask the Minister for Transport for some action, and ask him when the service will be provided for passengers and freight. Keilor Primary School Mr SEITZ (Keilor) - The matter I direct to the attention of the Minister for Finance is for the Minister for Education and Training in another place. My concern is for the rebuilding program at Keilor Primary School. The House may be aware that on 12 March I presented to Parliament a petition signed by 1500 residents who are concerned about the school. That school was functioning rather well until Ministry officers removed the portable classrooms for all intents and purposes to have a fire reinstatement project instituted. The fire was eight years ago. Over the years the school community - the school council and parents - has spent a lot of time and money developing the school as it was with portable accommodation. Trees have been planted and the grounds have been landscaped. I understand tenders have yet to be called for the fire reinstatement program. I urge the Minister to examine the situation and give consideration to whether tenders can be immediately called for, thereby avoiding the waste of funds on re-establishing portables at the school. I seek a resolution to the problem so that parents do not again establish the school grounds only to find a reconstruction including permanent buildings -- The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The time allowed for raising matters on the motion for the adjournment of the sitting has expired. Responses Ms KIRNER (Premier) - The honourable member for Warmambool- - Mr Richardson interjected. Ms KIRNER - There is one thing about it, honourable member for Forest Hill - you will never know! Mr Richardson interjected. Ms KIRNER - I neither expect it to hurt nor do I expect it to be understood. The honourable member for Warmambool does understand education - An honourable member interjected. Ms KIRNER - The only thing you knOw. about is opera, why don't you stick to it? I share with the honourable member for Warrnambool any concern about the educational opportunities for children who have some form of disability. In the general sense he raised a question of provision for children who are being integrated into mainstream schools. The honourable member will know that when my government ADJOURNMENT

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 427

came to office very few of the type of students he has described were able to attend regular schools. Now 6500 of those children attend and are supported by regular schools. In the case of young Brendan, as the honourable member will know, there has been an appeals process. I am sure his case has been through that appeals system. If that has not resulted in a situation where Brendan, his mother and the school are satisfied, I shall be happy to take the matter up with the Minister. Mr E. R. Smith interjected. Ms KIRNER - That is about the level of your interest in kids. The honourable member for Morwell has acted most responsibly and quickly following the explosion in the Morwell shopping centre. When I visited Morwell yesterday it was clearly a devastation scene and one that could have a considerable impact on the business community in Morwell. I join with the honourable member for Morwell in praising the agencies involved for their prompt response to the emergency. The police, the State Emergency Service, the Country Fire Authority, community services groups and, in particular, as he mentioned, the local council had it under control in 2 hours. The way the council picked up the issue and worked with the local chamber of commerce and the owners who were rather devastated by the explosion was a splendid example to the community. The honourable member for Morwell is to be commended for his actions. I look forward to hearing a report from him and the representative of Community Services Victoria in the area, Mr Mark Diamond, on today's meeting of all the agencies to ascertain the level of need for assistance outside insurance assistance. I assure the Morwell business community through the honourable member for Morwell that all the needs of the community will be met either from other areas of assistance or from government ad vice. Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) - The Deputy Leader of the National Party raised with me concerns of his constituents about their water prices. This is a matter that has been raised already with me, in greater detail by the Victorian Farmers Federation and with greater eloquence by the Minister for Agriculture. It is a matter I have under consideration and I intend to communicate with the farmers in the very near future. Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) - In answer to the honourable member for Murray Valley, who asked about the XPT service and indicated that the former Minister for Transport, now the Minister for Conservation and Environment, first made an announcement that he was considering XPT service -- Mr Jasper interjected. Mr SPYKER - As the honourable member for Murray Valley indicates, it takes time to ensure that not only -- Mr Jasper - Ten years? ADJOURNMENT

428 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 1991

Mr SPYKER - The honourable member for Murray Valley would be aware that the service will run between two States and therefore two States have to reach agreement. The honourable member would be aware also that, at the time when the announcement was made by the then Minister for Transport, New South Wales showed no interest in being party to providing XPT services. It has been only in recent years that New South Wales has shown any interest in the matter. The honourable member for Murray Valley would be aware also that when the government came to office in 1982 V JUne services throughout the State were in an appalling mess and were badly run down. Mr Kennett interjected. Mr SPYKER - In response to the interjection by the honourable member for Burwood, at the moment V/Line carries more passengers than it has carried at any time since 1955. This is a matter of which the Labor government can be very proud. Honourable members interjecting. Mr SPYKER - Honourable members can ask those on the corner benches about the V /Line services, whether to Wodonga, Warrnambool, or anywhere else. Mr Jasper - Or Cobram. Mr SPYKER - Yes, or Cobram. Members of the National Party are proud of the service this government supplies. It is in stark contrast to what the opposition has indicated it will do if it comes into office; it will remove the services. Mr Cooper - Who said that? The SPEAKER - Order! Mr SPYKER - The honourable member for Momington interjects, but when he talks about losses he indicates them by almost doubling the figures or he refers to removing services. The coalition clearly intends to reduce services to country Victoria. Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable member for Momington persists in interjecting after being asked not to. He is behaving in a most disorderly and disruptive manner. I ask him to observe the forms of the House and remain silent. ADJOURNMENT

Tuesday, 19 March 1991 ASSEMBLY 429

Mr SPYKER - The honourable member for Murray Valley would be aware also of the agreement reached earlier this year between me and my colleague in New South Wales about the provision of the XPT service. We are working flat out to get the service up and running because we understand, particularly with the deregulation of the airline industry, we have to be more competitive in providing rail services. We well recognise that rail services must be improved in order to be competitive with airline services. There is no doubt that a section of the travelling public prefers to travel by train and I shall advise the honourable member for Murray Valley as soon as we can get the service in place. Here again will be an increased service provided by the Labor government for those travelling between Melbourne and Sydney. Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Minister for Finance) - In reply to the honourable member for Keilor who raised a matter relating to the Keilor Primary School, I congratulate him on his efforts on behalf of the schools in his electorate. In the past few weeks some of the problems experienced by some of those schools have been solved.

As to the issue of the rebuilding of a school following a fire, rather than replacing it with portable classrooms, I shall take up the matter with the Minister for Education and Training and I shall add Northcote to that because last night a school in Northcote experienced a similar fate to that described by the honourable member for Keilor.

Mr ROPER (Treasurer) - The honourable member for Mildura raised an issue for the attention of the Attorney-General; I shall direct it to his attention.

The honourable member for South Barwon raised a matter relating to a depositor with whom he claimed there had been some difficulty in correspondence. As I understand it, part of the difficulty may be associated with a difference in the person's postal address from where the person lives. That may have contributed to some of the difficulties. I will have that matter and the correspondence he has given me examined.

The honourable member for Wantirna raised the issue of the - I suppose - few occasions when men who do not take seriously the problem of violence against women can make the situation somewhat worse. She gave as an example an almost salacious article from the Herald-Sun of some time ago.

I will raise this problem with the Attorney-General because clearly the way stories are depicted can provoke violence which is then condemned by everyone else. I shall ask the Attorney-General to have the matter examined carefully.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned 11.37 p.m.