parliamentary debates (hansard) · was a gentleman, as indeed was arthur hewson. arthur won the...

PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

30 November 1999

(extract from Book 4)

Internet: www.parliament.vic.gov.au

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

The Governor

His Excellency the Honourable Sir JAMES AUGUSTINE GOBBO, AC

The Lieutenant-GovernorProfessor ADRIENNE E. CLARKE, AO

The Ministry

Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Multicultural Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. S. P. Bracks, MP

Deputy Premier, Minister for Health and Minister for Planning . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. W. Thwaites, MP

Minister for Industrial Relations andMinister assisting the Minister for Workcover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. M. M. Gould, MLC

Minister for Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. P. Batchelor, MP

Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Ports andMinister assisting the Minister for State and Regional Development. . . The Hon. C. C. Broad, MLC

Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Finance andAssistant Treasurer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. M. Brumby, MP

Minister for Local Government, Minister for Workcover andMinister assisting the Minister for Transport regarding Roads . . . . . . . . The Hon. R. G. Cameron, MP

Minister for Community Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. C. M. Campbell, MP

Minister for Education and Minister for the Arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. M. E. Delahunty, MP

Minister for Environment and Conservation andMinister for Women’s Affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. S. M. Garbutt, MP

Minister for Police and Emergency Services andMinister for Corrections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. A. Haermeyer, MP

Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. K. G. Hamilton, MP

Attorney-General, Minister for Manufacturing Industry andMinister for Racing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. R. J. Hulls, MP

Minister for Post Compulsory Education, Training and Employment. . . . . The Hon. L. J. Kosky, MP

Minister for Sport and Recreation, Minister for Youth Affairs andMinister assisting the Minister for Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. M. Madden, MLC

Minister for Gaming, Minister for Major Projects and Tourism andMinister assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. Pandazopoulos, MP

Minister for Housing, Minister for Aged Care andMinister assisting the Minister for Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. B. J. Pike, MP

Minister for Small Business and Minister for Consumer Affairs . . . . . . . . . The Hon. M. R. Thomson, MLC

Parliamentary Secretary of the Cabinet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. G. W. Jennings

Heads of Parliamentary Departments

Council — Clerk of the Parliaments and Clerk of the Legislative Council: Mr A. V. Bray

Assembly — Clerk of the Legislative Assembly: Mr R. W. Purdey

Hansard — Chief Reporter: Ms C. J. Williams

Library — Librarian: Mr B. J. Davidson

Parliamentary Services — Secretary: Ms C. M. Haydon

MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT — FIRST SESSION

President: The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN

Deputy President and Chairman of Committees: The Hon. B. W. BISHOP

Temporary Chairmen of Committees: The Honourables G. B. Ashman, R. A. Best, Kaye Darveniza, D. G. Hadden, P. R. Hall,Jenny Mikakos, R. F. Smith, E. G. Stoney and C. A. Strong

Leader of the Government:The Hon. M. M. GOULD

Deputy Leader of the Government:The Hon. G. W. JENNINGS

Leader of the Opposition:The Hon. M. A. BIRRELL

Deputy Leader of the Opposition:The Hon. BILL FORWOOD

Leader of the National Party:The Hon. R. M. HALLAM

Deputy Leader of the National Party:The Hon. P. R. HALL

Member Province Party Member Province Party

Ashman, Hon. Gerald Barry Koonung LP Hall, Hon. Peter Ronald Gippsland NPAtkinson, Hon. Bruce Norman Koonung LP Hallam, Hon. Roger Murray Western NPBaxter, Hon. William Robert North Eastern NP Jennings, Hon. Gavin Wayne Melbourne ALPBest, Hon. Ronald Alexander North Western NP Katsambanis, Hon. Peter Argyris Monash LPBirrell, Hon. Mark Alexander East Yarra LP Lucas, Hon. Neil Bedford, PSM Eumemmerring LPBishop, Hon. Barry Wilfred North Western NP Luckins, Hon. Maree Therese Waverley LPBoardman, Hon. Blair Cameron Chelsea LP McQuilten, Hon. John Martin Ballarat ALPBowden, Hon. Ronald Henry South Eastern LP Madden, Hon. Justin Mark Doutta Galla ALPBrideson, Hon. Andrew Ronald Waverley LP Mikakos, Hon. Jenny Jika Jika ALPBroad, Hon. Candy Celeste Melbourne North ALP Nguyen, Hon. Sang Minh Melbourne West ALPCarbines, Hon. Elaine Cafferty Geelong ALP Olexander, Hon. Andrew Phillip Silvan LPChamberlain, Hon. Bruce Anthony Western LP Powell, Hon. Elizabeth Jeanette North Eastern NPCoote, Hon. Andrea Monash LP Rich-Phillips, Hon. Gordon Kenneth Eumemmerring LPCover, Hon. Ian James Geelong LP Romanes, Hon. Glenyys Dorothy Melbourne ALPCraige, Hon. Geoffrey Ronald Central Highlands LP Ross, Hon. John William Gameliel Higinbotham LPDarveniza, Hon. Kaye Melbourne West ALP Smith, Hon. Kenneth Maurice South Eastern LPDavis, Hon. David McLean East Yarra LP Smith, Hon. Robert Fredrick Chelsea ALPDavis, Hon. Philip Rivers Gippsland LP Smith, Hon. Wendy Irene Silvan LPForwood, Hon. Bill Templestowe LP Stoney, Hon. Eadley Graeme Central Highlands LPFurletti, Hon. Carlo Angelo Templestowe LP Strong, Hon. Christopher Arthur Higinbotham LPGould, Hon. Monica Mary Doutta Galla ALP Theophanous, Hon. Theo Charles Jika Jika ALPHadden, Hon. Dianne Gladys Ballarat ALP Thomson, Hon. Marsha Rose Melbourne North ALP

CONTENTS

TUESDAY, 30 NOVEMBER 1999

CONDOLENCESHenry Arthur Hewson...................................................249

HEALTH PRACTITIONERS (SPECIAL EVENTSEXEMPTION) BILLIntroduction and first reading......................................251Second reading..................................................... 255, 262Third reading.................................................................272Remaining stages ..........................................................272

LEGAL PRACTICE (AMENDMENT) BILLIntroduction and first reading......................................251Second reading..............................................................257Remaining stages ..........................................................262

ESSENTIAL SERVICES (YEAR 2000) BILLIntroduction and first reading......................................251Second reading..............................................................256

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICEMinister assisting the Minister for Planning:

responsibilities ..........................................................251Industrial relations: workplace agreements ...............251Drugs: youth pledge......................................................252Ports: shipping management centre............................252Small business: infrastructure planning council ........252Rural Victoria: major sporting events.........................253Restaurants: smoking ban ............................................253Water safety: education campaign ..............................253Minister assisting the Minister for Workcover:

responsibilities ..........................................................254Toys: safety....................................................................254

RAIL CORPORATIONS AND TRANSPORT ACTS(MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILLIntroduction and first reading......................................254

GAS INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) BILLIntroduction and first reading......................................254

CRIMES AT SEA BILLIntroduction and first reading......................................254

PAPERS....................................................................................... 255ADJOURNMENT....................................................................... 272

Small business and consumer affairs:departmental briefing...............................................272

Trucks: transport regulations.......................................273Essential services ombudsman.....................................273Police: Murrumbeena station ......................................273Retail industry: trading hours......................................273Schools: Boronia and Upper Ferntree Gully..............273Casey: leisure centre ....................................................274Minister assisting the Minister for Workcover:

responsibilities ..........................................................274Ivanhoe East Primary School ......................................274Women: rural bursaries ...............................................275Liquor: icy poles ...........................................................275Restaurants: smoking ban ............................................275GST: small business......................................................275Rail: Geelong–Melbourne special fare .......................276Responses ......................................................................277

CONDOLENCES

Tuesday, 30 November 1999 COUNCIL 249

Tuesday, 30 November 1999

The PRESIDENT (Hon. B. A. Chamberlain) took thechair at 2.03 p.m. and read the prayer.

CONDOLENCES

Henry Arthur Hewson

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for IndustrialRelations) — I move:

That this house expresses its sincere sorrow at the death, on20 November 1999, of Henry Arthur Hewson, and places onrecord its acknowledgment of the valuable services renderedby him to the Parliament and the people of Victoria as amember of the Legislative Council for the GippslandProvince from 1964 to 1970.

Henry Arthur Hewson, known as Arthur, was born on31 December 1914 and served in this house as amember for Gippsland Province between 1964 and1970. Arthur was a dairy farmer before he enteredParliament, representing what was then the CountryParty, now the National Party. He was a member of thatparty for more than 50 years. I am advised that in 1983there was a celebration of Mr Hewson’s 50 years as amember of the National Party. It is certainly a majorachievement to have been a member of a political partyfor half a century and beyond.

Arthur Hewson was active in his local community. Hewas president of the Warragul Agricultural Society,president of the Poowong Football Club, a volunteerwith the Country Fire Authority, and a member of theRotary and Lions clubs. In addition, Mr Hewson servedon a number of government boards and authorities,including the West Gippsland Base Hospital board, theGippsland Water Utilisation Committee and theGippsland Regional Tourist Authority.

After serving in the Victorian Parliament, Arthur waselected to the federal Parliament as the member forMcMillan between 1972 and 1975 before returning tofarming. On behalf of the government I extendcondolences to the family of Arthur Hewson.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) — I join withthe Leader of the Government in expressing theopposition’s condolences on the passing of ArthurHewson. Arthur Hewson was a member of theLegislative Council and then a member of the House ofRepresentatives in the federal Parliament, a ratherunusual career. Mr Hewson gave enormous service tohis political party, the National Party, and was anindividual who I believe was well recognised by thatorganisation for five decades of service. In this day and

age it is perhaps unusual for individuals to be sosteadfastly committed to a political party and so activein its organisation for half a century. AlthoughMr Hewson was not known to me personally, it isappropriate that I place on record on behalf of mycolleagues our appreciation for his service to public life,not just his service to the Legislative Council.

Arthur Hewson was a member for Gippsland Provincefrom 1964 to 1970 — one full term. He then had abreak, a quiet interlude, and became a member of theHouse of Representatives later on, having been electedin the landslide 1972 election. He was re-elected in the1974 election, was subsequently defeated by a verynoble political party and ended his parliamentarycareer. Nevertheless, during his time in Parliament hemade a clear contribution on behalf of the people ofGippsland and was a strong advocate for the regionaldevelopment needs of Victoria in both the state andfederal parliaments. On behalf of my colleagues I paythis tribute to Mr Hewson, who died on 20 Novemberthis year.

Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western) — ArthurHewson was an absolute pillar of the National Party. Asthe Leader of the Government has said, his service tothe party went back over more than 50 years. In fact, hejoined when the National Party was the Country Party.In 1983 the National Outlook included an article on thehalf century of service of Arthur Hewson. It was notjust 50 years with the party; he served in almost everycapacity. He joined the Poowong branch at the tenderage of 18 years and served in almost every capacity, atboth branch and state levels. Arthur was elected to thischamber having successfully contested a GippslandProvince seat in June 1964 and was defeated at theJune 1970 election by Labor’s Eric Kent.

I knew Arthur Hewson only fleetingly; we came acrosseach other at odd times in the days of his retirement.But I can report to the chamber that I knew hisreplacement quite well. Eric Kent was a reveredmember of the house when I first joined it and he, too,had had an interruption to his political career, which heused to mention when he had an opportunity. Eric Kentwas a gentleman, as indeed was Arthur Hewson.

Arthur won the federal seat of McMillan and, althoughhe served just short of four years there, successfullyrecontested the seat in the election of 1974. He waseventually beaten for the seat by the Liberal Party’sBarry Simon.

Arthur Hewson was a pillar not just of the NationalParty but of his local community. The report in theBibliographical Register of the Victorian Parliament

CONDOLENCES

250 COUNCIL Tuesday, 30 November 1999

1900–1984 of his association with the party goesseveral steps further than has been spoken of in thismotion. It is appropriate that I record at least some ofthe involvements of the late Arthur Hewson.

He was a well-known dairy farmer and breeder ofjersey cattle, and served the Victorian DairyCorporation for four years during the Second WorldWar. He was a member of the Returned and ServicesLeague and for 26 years was a member and twicepresident of the Warragul Agricultural Society. Arthurwas president of the Poowong Football Club andvice-president of the Bass Valley Football League. Inaddition he was a member and chairman of the Lardnerpublic hall, Pioneer Park and picnic committees, and amember of the West Gippsland Base Hospital boardfrom 1960, as well as chairman and member of theWarragul and Drouin high school councils from 1965to 1975.

Arthur Hewson was a member of the Gippsland waterutilisation committee and chairman of the WestGippsland social worker group; director of theGippsland Regional Tourist Authority and a member ofthe Victorian Dairy Authority, the Victorian FarmersUnion and the Victorian Farmers Graziers Association,which organisations his farming life brought him intocontact with. For more than 25 years he was a volunteermember of the Country Fire Authority and was veryproud of his badge of service from that organisation.Arthur was a justice of the peace, a member of the SoilConservation Advisory Committee and a long-timemember of the Decentralisation and DevelopmentAssociation, as well as a member of Warragul Rotaryand Lions clubs. Older members of the house willremember the former Victorian DairyfarmersAssociation: Arthur was proud of his role in thatorganisation. In addition, he served a term as thepresident of the Warragul Bowling Club and was acouncillor and served two terms as president of theShire of Warragul, an involvement of which he wasparticularly proud.

Arthur Hewson was an extraordinary Victorian. I didnot know him well, more’s the pity, because everybodywho knew Arthur spoke extremely highly not only ofhis sense of justice and personal integrity but also of histotal commitment to his family and community. It iswell known that Arthur Hewson was an extraordinarilypleasant man, and I can think of no better epitaph thanthat for him.

Arthur Hewson died on 20 November in his 85th year.On behalf of the National Party, I extend condolencesto his wife, Ellen, and his four surviving children,Geoff, Neville, Russell and Julie. It is appropriate that

we take time out to record the life and contribution ofArthur Hewson and to extend our condolences to hisfamily, but it is more important that we celebrate thefull and rewarding life of a remarkable Victorian,Henry Arthur Hewson.

Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) — I have had what Iconsider to have been a real privilege in knowingArthur Hewson well. As has already been said by otherhonourable members, Arthur Hewson was a staunchmember of the National Party, having been a memberfor 64 years — a record not many people couldachieve. Arthur was one of life’s true gentlemen. I hadthe privilege of being able to classify myself as a friendof his. He was a wise person from whom I soughtcounsel on many occasions, and he readily volunteeredthat counsel. I would always listen to him because ofhis experience in community and political matters. Hisopinion was well considered.

Arthur lived in the Warragul region all his life andserved his community with the utmost distinction. Heserved on many community organisations — at lastcount, about 38 — and I am sure there are otherorganisations that his family could not remember.When Arthur did something, he did it to the full. Hewas not just a token member of many of thoseorganisations but made a long and positivecontribution. For example, he was a member of theNational Party for 64 years and achieved lifemembership. He served on the council of the Shire ofWarragul for many years and served two terms as shirepresident. He served on the board of the WestGippsland Base Hospital for 30 years and achieved lifemembership of that organisation. He was a life memberalso of the West Gippsland Agricultural Society, havinggiven many years service, and of the WarragulAgricultural Society, which was useful for the NationalParty because during election times he would ensure, aspresident of the society, that the National Party stall hada prominent location at the annual show.

In 1990 he was awarded a Medal of the Order ofAustralia (OAM) for his service to the community — awell-deserved award, although I learnt from hischildren that they considered, in a rathertongue-in-cheek way, that the OAM really stood for‘out at another meeting’, which could be true givenArthur’s involvement in community life.

As has been said, he served three levels of government,having held one of the seats of Gippsland Provincefrom 1964 to 1970 and the federal seat of McMillanfrom 1972 to 1975, and being involved in localgovernment for some 20 years. Throughout his publicservice he displayed the predominant characteristics

HEALTH PRACTITIONERS (SPECIAL EVENTS EXEMPTION) BILL


that classified him — humility, honesty and humour.He was that sort of person.

At Arthur’s funeral service in Warragul last Friday oneof his former federal colleagues, Tom McVeigh, said ofhim, ‘He didn’t seek greatness, but he attained it’. I donot think any of the 600 people who attended thefuneral service would dispute that claim because,throughout his life, whatever Arthur Hewson did in hislocal community was always appreciated and respected.He achieved greatness at his local level.

Arthur is survived by his wife of about 60 years, Ellen,and his surviving children, Geoff, Neville, Russell andJulie Follett. His children spoke at the funeral service,and in their contributions their great love for their fathercame through strongly, as did his characteristics,including his great sense of humour. I commendArthur’s children for their courage in standing up andspeaking so lovingly of their father.

The funeral was a great tribute to Arthur, who died atGracevale Lodge in Warragul on 20 November. I hadthe opportunity to visit him at the lodge about threeweeks before his death. Although at that time his healthwas failing and he was stressed, the cheeky grin thatpeople associated with Arthur remained. He wasnicknamed Tiger Hewson because of that characteristic;it enabled him to complete the tasks that confrontedhim throughout his life. I was grateful for theopportunity to meet with him again shortly before hisdeath.

Arthur had a love for life and a passion for lawn bowlsand community service. I, along with his wife, Ellen,and his children Geoff, Neville, Russell and Julie andtheir families, will greatly miss the wise counsel thatArthur Hewson was able to offer me whenever I askedfor it. I join the house in contributing to the condolencemotion for a great man in Arthur Hewson.

Motion agreed to in silence, honourable membersshowing unanimous agreement by standing in theirplaces.

HEALTH PRACTITIONERS (SPECIALEVENTS EXEMPTION) BILL

Introduction and first reading

Received from Assembly.

Read first time on motion of Hon. M. M. GOULD(Minister for Industrial Relations).

LEGAL PRACTICE (AMENDMENT) BILL



Read first time on motion of Hon. M. R. THOMSON(Minister for Small Business).

ESSENTIAL SERVICES (YEAR 2000) BILL



Read first time on motion of Hon. M. M. GOULD(Minister for Industrial Relations).

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Minister assisting the Minister for Planning:responsibilities

Hon. G. R. CRAIGE (Central Highlands) — I askthe Minister assisting the Minister for Planning: are youthe minister responsible for the Building ControlCommission?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister assisting theMinister for Planning) — I am the Minister assistingthe Minister for Planning. Although I have had dialoguewith the Building Control Commission, that authoritystill rests with the minister.

Industrial relations: workplace agreements

Hon. G. D. ROMANES (Melbourne) — Will theMinister for Industrial Relations advise the house ofVictoria’s position on the federal government’sproposed amendments to the federal WorkplaceRelations Act?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for IndustrialRelations) — The Bracks government’s policy is clearon industrial relations. Last week the governmentforwarded to the Senate workplace relations committeea submission on Victoria’s position on industrialrelations. The submission clearly identified — and itwas forwarded to — —

Hon. M. A. Birrell — Did you send it to CherylKernot?

Hon. M. M. GOULD — I sent a copy to you. Thepolicy is clear; comprehensive terms and conditionswill be established for all Victorians. In the submissionthe government identified that the second-wave



legislation before the Senate will only increase theexisting injustices to Victorian workers. Thesubmission identified a major concern of the Bracksgovernment, that 700 000 Victorian workers have onlyfive minimum conditions resulting from the previousgovernment’s referral to schedule 1A of the federalWorkplace Relations Act. The submission alsoidentified the policy of the Bracks government tosupport a unitary system that is fair for all. That systemcovers a comprehensive award system, allows for theindependence of the Australian Industrial RelationsCommission, puts an end to secret, individual contractsunder Australian workplace agreements, and is basedon a genuine no disadvantage test.

Yesterday the Victorian government’s submission wasvindicated by Democrat and Labor Senators when theyhanded down a report on the issues raised by theVictorian government, which clearly sets out that thesecond-wave legislation is an attack on Victorianworkers. The Victorian government’s submissionhighlighted its concerns and the position it is taking.

Drugs: youth pledge

Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) — I refer theMinister for Youth Affairs to his government’s youthpledge, which states:

Labor will decriminalise the possession and use of smallquantities of marijuana.

Will the minister define for the house exactly what hemeans by ‘small quantities’?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for YouthAffairs) — I thank the Honourable Peter Hall for hisquestion about small quantities of marijuana. Thegovernment recognises that any illicit drugs are a healthrisk and a public nuisance. It has a major platform onthe use of illicit drugs and a substantial policy on safeinjecting houses, which it is currently pursuing and onwhich it is negotiating with relevant stakeholders. Inrelation to any drug use, the government is stillembarking on a wide-ranging consultation process withlocal government bodies, community groups and keystakeholders.

Ports: shipping management centre

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA (Melbourne West) —Will the Minister for Ports inform the house of thebenefits of the establishment of the new shippingmanagement centre in Melbourne?

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Ports) — Somehonourable members opposite would be aware that in

1996 the Victorian Channels Authority was establishedby the previous government. Among other importantmatters for which the channels authority is responsible,it currently operates a 24-hour shipping control functionfor three ports — Melbourne, Geelong and PointLonsdale. Given that each year there are approximately3000 shipping visits to Melbourne and 500 to Geelong,the function the authority exercises is patentlyimportant. Unfortunately developments at Docklandsand with the Bolte Bridge have effectively moved thecentre of the port of Melbourne — —

Hon. M. A. Birrell — Unfortunately?

Hon. C. C. BROAD — Down towards the riverentrance. The unfortunate consequence of — —

Hon. G. R. Craige interjected.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I ask Mr Birrell andMr Craige to desist and to allow the minister to answerthe question.

Hon. C. C. BROAD — The unfortunateconsequence was that the Melbourne Harbour ControlCentre at Victoria Dock was effectively cut off from theport, which I think honourable members would agreewas not a desirable state of affairs.

Following extensive consultations, I am pleased toadvise that a new shipping management centre has beenbuilt at South Wharf on Lorimer Street. At a recentmeeting the Victorian Channels Authority was pleasedto inform me that it had not only completed the centrebut had also delivered it under budget and on time —something of which it was very proud. The authoritydeserves to be congratulated on such a great centre.

In conjunction with the completion of the centre therehas been a significant upgrading of communicationsequipment. On the advice I have been provided with Iam confident it will provide far better coverage andenable better ship management.

Small business: infrastructure planning council

Hon. W. I. SMITH (Silvan) — Will the Ministerfor Small Business guarantee that small business willhave representation on the infrastructure planningcouncil?

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for SmallBusiness) — The Bracks Labor government has given acommitment to having a small businessrepresentative — —



An Honourable Member — One smallbusinessperson?

Hon. M. R. THOMSON — One smallbusinessperson representing the interests of smallbusiness on the council.

Rural Victoria: major sporting events

Hon. D. G. HADDEN (Ballarat) — Will theMinister for Sport and Recreation inform the house onhow Sport and Recreation Victoria is promoting majorsporting events in rural Victoria?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport andRecreation) — Last Friday I was fortunate to launch theWomen’s World Bowls 2000 tournament at theParliament House bowling green. The tournament willbe held at Echuca–Moama from 8 March until25 March next year. The event will involve 170 of theworld’s best female bowlers from 34 competingcountries, including the Australian women’s bowlsteam. The economic benefits to the Echuca–Moamadistrict will be significant. I am pleased that my officewas able to promote the wonderful event and that theparliamentary grounds were able to be used for thepromotion. The launch represented the government’songoing commitment to the development of lawnbowls throughout Victoria.

Restaurants: smoking ban

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — I directmy question to the Minister for Small Business. OnSaturday the Minister for Health announced that theminority Labor government would introduce ano-smoking policy for Victorian restaurants. Did heconsult with the Minister for Small Business before heannounced the policy, which will have an impact onthousands of Victorian small businesses?

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for SmallBusiness) — The minister did not consult me beforemaking the announcement to the press on Saturdayabout the smoking ban in restaurants. However, Ishould have thought that the notion of having a healthy,clean environment in which their workers could workwould be something that restaurateurs would support.

Water safety: education campaign

Hon. R. F. SMITH (Chelsea) — Will the Ministerfor Ports inform the house what action has been takento provide safety information to boat users thissummer?

Honourable members interjecting.

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Ports) — Ifhonourable members had been listening they wouldhave heard the question. The question relates to theimportant issue of safety on the waterways thissummer.

Hon. M. A. Birrell interjected.

The PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Birrell seems to behaving a difficult day. I ask him to keep his owncounsel and to allow the minister to respond.

Hon. M. A. Birrell — Tell us what you think of thehonourable member you offended. You were trying tokeep us quiet. Tell us what you think of the guy sittingbehind you.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The minister isresponding to the question put by the Honourable BobSmith.

Hon. C. C. BROAD — Honourable members willrecall that recently in the house I referred to some tragicincidents that have already occurred on our waterwaysthis season. I advise the house that, as part of a widerange of initiatives through the Marine Board ofVictoria, the government will be taking a number ofactions to prevent further occurrences of this type. Theywill include the provision of general information aboutsafety for boaters, specific directions for jet skioperators, and advice on safe operating speeds and theimportance of life jackets.

Some members may be aware of a tragic occurrence inTasmania recently which resulted in the deaths of anumber of people who were not wearing life jackets.An important focus of the education campaign is toensure a similar occurrence does not occur in Victorianwaters.

Waterways managers have been asked to distribute thesafety information throughout the summer, but therewill be particular emphasis on Sundays 5 and19 December. That information supplementsinformation already distributed in the Victorian BoatingGuide, which has gone out with registration renewals toall powerboat owners.

The boating safety information trailers operated by themarine board will be stationed at major boat ramps andboating events during summer. The ramps will includethose at Mornington, Carrum, Geelong, Werribee,Beaumaris and a range of regional locations includingthe Gippsland Lakes, Maryborough and Moe. Thisseason the trailers have already been used at Horsham,Lake Boga and Lake Nagambie. The trailers provide afocal point and presentation area at which specific

RAIL CORPORATIONS AND TRANSPORT ACTS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL


boating issues can be discussed. Once again, the focuswill be on the important — —


The PRESIDENT — Order! I try to be fair to bothsides of the house. One of the longstanding rules of thehouse is that while a member is speaking I will notallow other members to talk over that member. I ask themembers of the opposition on my left to desist frominterjecting while the minister is responding.

Hon. C. C. BROAD — In conclusion, I point outthat the focus of the campaign is on the importantmatter of encouraging all boat users to wear life jacketsthroughout the summer.

Minister assisting the Minister for Workcover:responsibilities

Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western) — My questionis to the Honourable Monica Gould. By way ofbackground I make the point that Ms Gould has beenformally commissioned as Minister assisting theMinister for Workcover. In that capacity, will sheexplain to the house what precise responsibility attachesto that ministry, for which she accepts accountability?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister assisting theMinister for Workcover) — As I have indicated to thehouse previously, my role as Minister assisting theMinister for Workcover is one of assisting him asdirected from time to time.

Toys: safety

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS (Jika Jika) — Will theminister for fair trading inform the house what thegovernment intends to do about the sale of dangeroustoys at Christmas this year?

The PRESIDENT — Order! I presume thisquestion is to the Minister for Small Business or theMinister for Consumer Affairs, not the minister for fairtrading, as that ministry does not exist.

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — The Minister forConsumer Affairs, Mr President.

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for ConsumerAffairs) —

Hon. G. R. Craige — You can’t even get them toget the questions right.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I suggest the houseallow the minister to respond.

Hon. M. R. THOMSON — Every Christmasconcerns are raised about a flood of toys unsafe forchildren. This year two such dangerous toys havealready been found by inspectors from the Office ofFair Trading. One proprietor in North Fitzroy has beenprosecuted for the sale of toys that expand whenexposed to water. Such a toy would be a big risk tochildren under the age of three years, who tend to poptoys into their mouths. The toys expand and childrencould choke on them.

The government asks that consumers be on guard whenpurchasing toys: they should look at the labels and agerecommendations. I ask that honourable members intheir own electorates make their constituents aware ofthe problems of unsafe toys sold in the Christmasperiod. Toy manufacturers have raised the issue withthe government and are assisting the government in itsendeavours to identify dangerous toys.

RAIL CORPORATIONS AND TRANSPORTACTS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS)

BILL


Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy and Resources),by leave, introduced a bill to amend the RailCorporations Act 1996 and the Transport Act 1983, tomake consequential amendments to certain other actsand for other purposes.

Read first time.

GAS INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) BILL


Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy and Resources),by leave, introduced a bill to amend the Gas Industry Act1994 to make further provision relating to non-franchisecustomers and for other purposes.

Read first time.

CRIMES AT SEA BILL


Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for Small Business), byleave, introduced a bill to give effect to a cooperativescheme for dealing with crimes at sea, to repeal theCrimes (Offences at Sea) Act 1978, to amend theInterpretation of Legislation Act 1984 and for otherpurposes.

PAPERS


Read first time.

PAPERS

Laid on table by Clerk:

Barwon Region Water Authority — Report, 1998–99.

Central Gippsland Region Water Authority — Report,1998–99.

Central Highlands Region Water Authority — Report,1998–99.

Coliban Region Water Authority — Report, 1998–99.

East Gippsland Region Water Authority — Report, 1998–99.

Glenelg Region Water Authority — Report, 1998–99.

Goulburn Valley Region Water Authority — Report,1998–99.

Grampians Region Water Authority — Report, 1998–99.

Legal Aid — Report, 1998–99.

Lower Murray Region Water Authority — Report, 1998–99.

National Parks Act 1975 — Report of the Secretary,1998–99.

North East Region Water Authority — Report, 1998–99.

Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 — Minister’s responseto recommendations in Federal–State Relations Committee’sReport upon Register of Specific Purpose Payments receivedby Victoria.

Planning and Environment Act 1987 — Notices of Approvalof the following amendments to planning schemes and a newplanning scheme:

Cranbourne Planning Scheme — Amendment L241.

Melbourne Planning Scheme — Amendment C17.

Melton Planning Scheme — Amendments C6 and C9.

Monash Planning Scheme — Amendment L53.

Port Phillip Planning Scheme — Amendment C13.

Stonnington Planning Scheme — Amendments L89 andL90.

Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme — Amendment L114.

Yarriambiack Planning Scheme.

Police — Chief Commissioner’s Office — Report, 1998–99.

Portland Coast Region Water Authority — Report, 1998–99.

Premier and Cabinet Department — Report, 1998–99.

South Gippsland Region Water Authority — Report,1998–99.

South West Water Authority — Report, 1998–99.

Statutory Rules under the following Acts of Parliament:

Forests Act 1958 — No. 122.

Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 — No. 121.

Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 —

Minister’s exception certificate under section 8(4) inrespect of Statutory Rule No. 121/1999.

Minister’s exemption certificate under section 9(6) inrespect of Statutory Rule No. 122/1999.

Westernport Region Water Authority — Report, 1998–99.

Western Region Water Authority — Report, 1998–99.

A proclamation of His Excellency the Governor inCouncil fixing an operative date in respect of thefollowing Act:

Courts (General Amendment) Act 1995 — Section 4 —1 December 1999 (Gazette No. G47, 25 November 1999).


Second reading


That this bill be now read a second time.

The principal aim of the bill is to authorise visitinghealth practitioners to provide health care services tovisitors in Victoria, in connection with designatedspecial events, while exempting such practitioners fromthe provisions of Victorian law relating to healthpractitioners.

The Victorian government has made a commitment tohost rounds of both the men’s and women’s football —soccer — competitions of the Olympic Games inSeptember 2000. In addition, there may be othervisiting teams associated with the Olympic Games whouse facilities in Victoria for training prior to the games.

Over any year Victoria also hosts special sporting,cultural and other events which bring teams or groupsof participants from other countries into Victoriaspecifically to take part in the special event.

Many groups or teams associated with special eventsare accompanied by health practitioners who providehealth services to the visiting group or teamparticipants. Formal registration processes as providedfor in the existing Victorian health practitioner



registration acts are not deemed necessary for visitinghealth practitioners to provide services to members of avisiting team or group.

Provision is made in this bill for the Minister for Healthto declare a special event in the Government Gazette.Visiting health practitioners will then be exempted fromthe offence provisions contained in a health registrationact and from those contained in the Drugs, Poisons andControlled Substances Act and its regulations.

Furthermore, visitors who are members of a team orgroup who are visiting as part of a declared specialevent will be exempt from any offence provisioncontained in the Drugs, Poisons and ControlledSubstances Act and regulations relating to thepossession or use of a drug or poison, where the drug orpoison has been prescribed or supplied to them by avisiting health practitioner.

The bill also makes provision for a person who islicensed to supply or sell a drug or poison to beexempted from offence provisions of the Drugs,Poisons and Controlled Substances Act and regulationswhen the sale or supply is to a visiting healthpractitioner.

Similarly, a pharmacist who dispenses a prescriptionwritten by a visiting health practitioner is also exemptfrom offences under the Drugs, Poisons and ControlledSubstances Act and regulations.

The bill authorises visiting health practitioners toprovide health services to any visitor during anexemption period of a special event; and authorisesvisiting health practitioners to use any title he or shenormally uses in providing health services and to holdhimself or herself out as being able to provide thoseservices.

Visiting health practitioners are also able to prescribe orsupply a drug or poison to a visitor and to obtain orpurchase drugs or poisons for supply to a visitor.

In addition to the above exemptions and authorisations,the ministerial special event order will specify theexemption period, and impose conditions, restrictionsor limitations on visiting health practitioners relating toservices to be provided or to the security or storage ofdrugs and poisons in their possession.

This bill will streamline the process necessary for avisiting health practitioner to provide health careservices to a member of a group or team associatedwith a designated special event.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. W. R. BAXTER(North Eastern).

Debate adjourned until later this day.


Second reading



I am sure that all members of the house are aware thatthe year 2000, or Y2K, problem may potentially pose asignificant threat of upset to the everyday lives of allVictorians.

Of course, our hope is that the recent efforts made byboth government and industry are successful to ensurethat there will not be Y2K failures of computer systemsand equipment. Despite these efforts, protection againstY2K failure is not guaranteed.

Following the tragic Longford gas plant incident of1998 we have all experienced the difficulties ofday-to-day living without essential services such as gas.While the people of this state showed great adaptabilityand community spirit in a time of adversity, the cost ofthe disruption to business was significant.

As a consequence of this incident and in light ofprevious major service failures in the Australasianregion — such as the Auckland electricity supplyfailure and Sydney water supply failure — a review ofVictoria’s security of supply and emergencymanagement arrangements was conducted.

A contingency planning process has been undertakenand a review of existing emergency powers andessential services legislation has concluded that thislegislation may be potentially outdated and inadequateto effectively manage technological problems arising asa consequence of Y2K.

As part of the contingency planning process, thegovernment aims to ensure that governmentdepartments, funded agencies and service providers areprepared well before 31 December 1999 to deal with alleventualities associated with possible Y2K failure.

The government has an additional responsibility toensure that it can respond in such an emergency toeffectively manage a disruption to essential services.



The bill is specific to the Y2K problem and willprovide the necessary powers to manage Y2Kproblems. Where the Governor in Council is satisfiedthat any essential service is affected as a result of Y2Kso as to be unable to meet the community’s needs, theGovernor may make an order that this bill is to apply.Additionally, the Governor in Council may make adeclaration that any service is an essential service. Sucha provision may be used to declare food an essentialservice if it were necessary to regulate food storage anddistribution.

Where the Governor has declared that this bill is toapply, the responsible minister will have the power togive directions to any person for the purpose ofmaintaining or resuming essential services. Suchdirections may be for the purpose of regulating,restricting and rationing these essential services, havingregard to the needs of the community.

In addition, there will be tough enforcement provisionsto punish those persons or corporations who feel theirown needs to be more important than those of theirfellow Victorians and who choose to disregard suchdirections by continuing to use essential services.

There may be those that feel that the powers given tothe minister are so broad as to be almost draconian. Inresponse I ask members to note that the private andpublic sector have had the opportunity for quite sometime to undertake contingency planning and Y2Kcompliance programs.

If these programs are successful the powers under thisbill should theoretically be unnecessary. However, thisbill ensures that the state government has met itsresponsibilities to provide for effective management ofY2K problems if contingency and emergency planningis inadequate.

Additionally the bill will make an amendment to theEmergency Management Act 1986 to clarify thedefinition of emergency to include significantdisruptions to essential services or commodity supplysystems. This is designed to increase certainty foragencies who have responsibilities under the act as tothe circumstance under which they are required to act.As such these agencies will be in no doubt that theywill have emergency management responsibilities forY2K situations, in addition to fires, floods andexplosions which are currently defined as emergenciesunder the act.

Several key dates have been identified in relation to theY2K problem, including 1 January 2000, 29 February2000 and 1 January 2001. Accordingly the act will

sunset within six months of the end of the potentialY2K danger period.

Statement under section 85 of the Constitution Act1975

Clause 32 of the bill provides immunity from legalaction for persons who act in good faith in theexecution of part 2 of the act or any proclamation orministerial direction under part 2. Clause 33 states thatit is the intention of clause 32 to alter or vary section 85of the Constitution Act 1975.

The reason for altering or varying section 85 of theConstitution Act 1975 to limit the jurisdiction of theSupreme Court is to ensure that persons acting in goodfaith in the execution of part 2 of the act or anyproclamation or ministerial direction under part 2 areimmune from suit as these people are acting in thepublic interest and should be confident that their actionswill not be exposed to legal action.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. BILL FORWOOD(Templestowe).

Debate adjourned until later this day.


Second reading

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for SmallBusiness) — I move:


This bill makes a number of miscellaneousamendments to the Legal Practice Act 1996 to improvethe efficient operation of the Legal Profession Tribunal.

Power to disqualify practitioners

The Legal Practice Act 1996 empowers the LegalProfession Tribunal to disqualify lawyers who havebeen found guilty of misconduct. As the right topractice law in Victoria flows from the possession of anannual practising certificate, disqualification frompractising law is similarly linked to the cancellation of apractising certificate or the ineligibility to obtain a freshone.

However, a lawyer can surrender a practising certificateat any time. By surrendering the certificate or by notrenewing it when it lapses a lawyer may ensure that atthe time he or she is convicted they no longer hold apractising certificate. If there is no certificate to cancel,



arguably there is no clear power in the tribunal toimpose a disqualification period. The lawyer couldtherefore be eligible to apply for a new practisingcertificate immediately after being convicted. Thetribunal is currently relying on its general powers todisqualify lawyers even though there has been no priorcancellation of a practising certificate.

To put this issue beyond doubt, the act will be amendedto provide the tribunal with clear power to impose aperiod of disqualification on a lawyer even where it hasnot first cancelled the lawyer’s practising certificate.

In conjunction with this the tribunal will acquire adiscretion as to whether to refer such practitioners to theSupreme Court with or without a recommendation thatthe practitioner’s name be struck off the roll ofpractitioners.

Civil disputes jurisdiction

The Legal Profession Tribunal has effectively a smallclaims jurisdiction for the handling of civil disputes,often over costs, between a client and lawyer. Whilstthe maximum amount that the tribunal can award is$15 000 there is no limit as to the amount that can be indispute in non-cost related disputes, for instance, thosealleging negligence.

Recently there has been an increase in the number ofclaims brought before the tribunal for amounts well inexcess of $15 000. Many complainants are using thetribunal as a trial run for their larger common-lawclaim, or using the tribunal process as a fishingexpedition to gather evidence. The result of this hasbeen a huge drain on the tribunal’s resources. Hearingscan last for weeks, requiring the tribunal to examinethousands of documents and hear lengthy and complexevidence.

The tribunal was never meant to handle complex civillitigation. It was established to assist claimants,particularly those with limited financial resources, toresolve minor disputes. Complex civil matters properlybelong in the courts and it is not appropriate for thelimited resources of the tribunal to effectively subsidiseparties seeking to avoid the usual costs associated withcivil litigation.

To ensure that the original intention of the act ismaintained the proposed amendments will give thetribunal a discretion to refer such matters for hearing inthe appropriate court.

Cost of obtaining transcripts

With longer and more complex evidence beingpresented, the costs of the tribunal of obtaining atranscript of evidence for use of the full tribunal onappeal is also increasing. To address this issue the act isamended to give the full tribunal a power to order that aparty pay the full tribunal’s cost of obtaining transcriptof a hearing before the tribunal at first instance.

I commend this bill to the house.

Hon. C. A. FURLETTI (Templestowe) — I havepleasure in supporting the bill, and in doing so indicatethat the Legal Practice Bill 1996 was one of the firstpieces of legislation I had the pleasure of contributingto in this house. Having practised law for almost30 years I found it awkward to debate a bill whichimpacted so dramatically on the profession. The billwas the culmination of various changes to the legalprofession from when I was admitted in the late 1960s.

The Legal Practice Act was revolutionary in the way itreformed the control, structure, membership,supervision, conduct and practice of law in this state. Itwas the most dramatic overhaul of the Victorian legalprofession in more than a century. The act is of majorproportions: it contains more than 450 sections. As anexample of its complexity I cite schedule 2, a savingsand transitional schedule of almost 60 sections.

Because of the act’s complexity, the formergovernment introduced some three or four amendingbills over the four years after its enactment. However,considering the impact of the act, the fact that so fewminor amendments have been made is an indication ofhow successful it is. It is a fine reflection on theenormous amount of consultation that took place withall interested parties before the legislation wasintroduced. I remember commenting at the time ofdebate on the legislation that there was little doubt thatsome finetuning would be necessary. However, as Ihave indicated, the fact that that finetuning has beenkept to a minimum shows the great benefit of a largedegree of consultation and of putting in the effort at thebeginning rather than later on.

Notwithstanding the views and perceptions of many,the legal profession is an honest profession. I havespent all my working life as a practising solicitor, and Iam certainly proud to be part of the profession.

It was interesting to note that, notwithstanding many ofthe reasons given for the revolution that was to takeplace — one of those being the honesty or otherwise ofmembers of the profession — the statistics showed that



of the 8000-odd practising solicitors in 1995–96, only7 or 8 defalcations had occurred.

It is also interesting to note that on last year’s figures, ofthe 4000-odd complaints that were lodged withrecognised professional associations and the LegalOmbudsman, only a very small percentage actuallyreached the Legal Profession Tribunal. That indicatesthat most of the complaints were either of a minornature or were resolved without recourse to the ultimateumpire dealing with the legal profession.

The dispute resolution part of the Legal Practice Act isone of the most effective pieces of consumer protectionlegislation introduced in Victoria. In that respect theLegal Practice Act deals with two specific areas: thedisciplinary aspect, which relates to the conduct of legalpractitioners vis-a-vis their clients; and that area ofcomplaint or dispute which has no element ofunsatisfactory conduct or misconduct as defined in theact.

The structure set up to resolve disputes — the ministerdescribed it as a small claims tribunal in thesecond-reading speech — involves a series of processesthat inherently include mediation and conciliationthrough the recognised professional associations.Another level — the Legal Ombudsman — overridesthe RPAs. It is an independent nexus, if you like, withthe following level — the Legal Profession Tribunal —comprising either one member or three members onappeals as the full tribunal. The system appears to beworking exceptionally well, as can be seen not onlyfrom reports but also by the number of people usingthat forum to resolve disputes.

Although it is appropriate to have differences betweenthe imposition of discipline and restraints on miscreantswithin the legal profession, the tribunal also has powerto adjudicate costs disputes between solicitors and theirclients and has extended power to make compensationorders for up to $15 000 against practitioners and infavour of clients. That aspect of the tribunal’sjurisdiction has attracted a number of claims thatperhaps were not anticipated in 1996 when thelegislation was introduced.

As I said earlier, it was intended that the legislation be aform of rapid resolution of disputes between solicitorsand their clients. However, according to the tribunal, ithas turned into a forum that is being abused in that it isattracting claims for in excess of $15 000, which are notin real issue. The tribunal is attracting claims fordetermination and is being used as an avenue for a dryrun, if you like, or the first of two bites of the cherry. Anumber of claimants can go from the tribunal to the

more appropriate forum, the courts. Using thedocumentation they have obtained through thediscovery process, or using the information anddefences that have been used in the tribunal, they canevaluate the strength of their own cases in determiningwhether to proceed.

Having practised as a solicitor for a number of years, itwould appear to me that that is a terrific way ofdetermining whether to progress a case that may nothave the legal strength that one would like. If the issuesare not resolved favourably in the tribunal, costs aregenerally not awarded and the party has been able toachieve an indication of the success of the claimwithout necessarily running the risk of formal litigationin the courts and the incumbent costs associated withthat scenario.

Solicitors have been blamed for using that tactic — andit is a tactic — but the avenue exists. I would not blamea solicitor for using the process because, as we allknow, solicitors are obliged to seek to do the best fortheir clients. If, in the course of their brief orengagement, they see fit to test the case and this avenueexists — it is a legal avenue and no-one is suggestingotherwise — they should be able to do so, and they do.However, the tribunal suggests the tactic has imposedsome unexpected burdens on it. Apart from the cost oftime and effort — some of these cases take weeks —there is also the question of resources and thecomplexity of the cases that are brought before thetribunal. For those reasons the tribunal has requestedthat the legislation be amended so that on theapplication of either party to the claim, the tribunal cansuggest it is not an appropriate forum for a claim to bebrought and refer the matter to a court with theappropriate notations. I stress that the tribunal hassought to have the legislation amended because of aperception that this is not part of the jurisdiction it wasestablished to handle. I remind the house that the billwas prepared under the previous government, and thatis the primary reason that it has the support of theopposition.

Another provision of the bill gives the tribunal thepower to deal with practitioners who have been foundto have engaged in unsatisfactory conduct ormisconduct to an extent that their practising certificatesare put at risk. The processes for procuring a practisingcertificate are fairly detailed, and a practitioner will notobtain one unless a number of preconditions are met,including contributions to the fidelity fund, proof ofprofessional indemnity cover, and the like.

Sections 159 and 160 of the Legal Practice Act providethe tribunal with the power to deal with unsatisfactory



conduct and misconduct, and include suspension orcancellation of or the imposition of conditions on apractising certificate.

If a practitioner has surrendered his or her practisingcertificate or it has lapsed before the tribunal makes adetermination with respect to the certificate, it isuncertain whether the tribunal has the power to make anorder that could affect the practising certificate.Therefore, if the tribunal was minded to cancel acertificate, there would be no certificate to cancel.Some doubt exists as to whether in those circumstancesthe tribunal would have the power to disqualify thepractitioner from applying for a practising certificate inthe future.

Some doubt exists whether the tribunal can act, ascould a magistrate in the case of a driving licence, todisqualify somebody from holding a licence for monthsor years. The bill aims to give the tribunal the powernot only to cancel an existing certificate but also todisqualify a practitioner who has been found guilty ofmisconduct from applying for a practising certificatefor a particular period.

The third major amendment in the bill relates to thecosts of obtaining a transcript of a hearing before thetribunal in the first instance. As a result of the increasedworkload and jurisdiction of the tribunal, with thecomplexity of the issues being brought before it and theexpected ongoing litigation arising from the use of thetribunal for the purpose of dry-run hearings, it hasbecome increasingly necessary to ensure transcripts areavailable for any appeals against decisions of singlemembers of the tribunal. The cost of the transcripts hasbeen borne by the tribunal, but the tribunal nowbelieves that, given the circumstances, it is appropriatethat it should have power to award costs on appeal andclause 7 refers to the cost of obtaining a transcript of thehearing being included in the costs to be awarded.

The bill is another refinement to a good piece oflegislation which has been operating in Victoria foralmost four years. It finetunes matters that have arisenduring the tribunal’s operations. I am pleased to havehad the opportunity to support the bill, and I wish it aspeedy passage.

Hon. D. G. HADDEN (Ballarat) — I support theLegal Practice (Amendment) Bill, which contains anumber of important miscellaneous amendments to theLegal Practice Act. The bill aims to improve theefficient operation of the Legal Profession Tribunal andstrengthens its powers to deal with disputes, especiallythe power to disqualify legal practitioners who do not

hold current practising certificates at the time orders aremade against them.

Clause 6 amends section 160 of the principal act, whichrelates to penalties for misconduct. The Legal PracticeAct allows the tribunal to disqualify a legal practitionerholding a current practising certificate, but only whenthe practitioner is found guilty of misconduct.

The right to practise law in Victoria is governed by theholding of a current practising certificate. A legalpractitioner can surrender that certificate or simply notrenew it at the expiration of its term. Therefore, a legalpractitioner who is about to appear before the tribunaland is facing a conviction for misconduct could eithersurrender his or her current practising certificate or notrenew it. That situation poses problems for the tribunal.The full tribunal’s power to impose a penalty would becurtailed.

In simple terms, the practising certificate of a legalpractitioner cannot be cancelled if the practitioner doesnot hold a current certificate. It is similar to a person notholding a driving licence when he or she appears on adriving offence. There is no specific power with thetribunal to disqualify a legal practitioner. The tribunalhas been relying on its general powers, which isunsatisfactory.

The bill gives the full tribunal the power to disqualifyfor a specified period a legal practitioner from holdingor applying for a practising certificate so as to practiselaw. Clause 6 of the bill amends section 160 of theLegal Practice Act to provide that the tribunal may refera legal practitioner to the Supreme Court with orwithout having made a recommendation about thatlegal practitioner’s name being struck off the roll ofpractitioners.

Through the insertion of proposed section 136A,clause 5 deals with recommending matters to a moreappropriate forum. That will allow the tribunal to moreeffectively deal with small claims disputes in line withthe original intention of the act. The Legal ProfessionTribunal has power to deal with small claims that ofteninvolve disputes about costs between clients andpractitioners. At the moment the maximum amount thetribunal can award in a civil dispute is $15 000;problems have arisen about amounts in excess of thatfigure. Hearings have become costly for the tribunal,with a consequent drain on its resources. That situationwas not contemplated in the act.

The bill gives the tribunal the power to dismiss thedispute and to refer it to the relevant court orappropriate forum.



Proposed section 169A(1) will enable a full tribunal, inan appeal, to make an order regarding the cost ofobtaining a transcript of a hearing before a tribunal atfirst instance. As I said, the cost and length of suchproceedings have increased, as has the complexity ofthe evidence. The amendment will give the full tribunalpower to order a party to pay the full tribunal’s costs ofobtaining a transcript of a hearing before the tribunal atfirst instance.

Proposed new section 160 amends the principal act toextend the discretion of the tribunal to refer a legalpractitioner to the Supreme Court with or without arecommendation that the practitioner’s name be struckoff the roll of practitioners.

The bill’s amendments will improve the efficiency andoperation of the Legal Profession Tribunal. I commendthe bill to the house.

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS (Jika Jika) — As acurrent holder of a legal practising certificate inVictoria, I support the bill. I am sure the amendmentswill assist in the restoration of confidence in legalpractitioners by their clients.

Proposed section 136A amends part 5 of division 2 ofthe Legal Practice Act 1996 to allow the tribunal,constituted by the registrar or deputy registrar, or thefull tribunal to dismiss a dispute if it considers thedispute would be better dealt with by a court.

When the tribunal was established it was envisaged thatit would mainly act as a disciplinary tribunal but alsodeal with civil disputes arising between legalpractitioners and their clients. The tribunal was givenjurisdiction to deal with civil disputes up to a maximumof $15 000 to avoid a situation whereby clients wererequired to commence legal proceedings in the courtsystem to recover small amounts of legal costs whichmay have been excessively charged by their legalpractitioner. Unfortunately, some disgruntled clients areseeking to recover amounts well in excess of the$15 000 jurisdictional limit and to introduce lengthyand complex evidence before the tribunal, which iscausing the tribunal an excessive backlog in its dealingwith such disputes. Some clients may well be using thetribunal process as a fishing expedition to determinewhether to commence formal legal proceedings for anamount well in excess of $15 000. Effectively,proposed section 136A will allow the tribunal to refersuch complex disputes to a court.

Proposed new section 160 amends certain sections ofpart 5 of division 5 of the Legal Practice Act 1996which relate to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the

tribunal. Proposed new section 160 will allow the fulltribunal to refer a practitioner to the Supreme Courtwith or without a recommendation that thepractitioner’s name be struck off the roll ofpractitioners.

The act has two categories of misconduct.Unsatisfactory conduct is a lower category of offence.Section 160 refers to the penalties for misconduct,which is ostensibly defined in section 137 of the act.Misconduct is fairly grave in that it refers to excessivecharging of legal costs by a practitioner and issues suchas ignoring undertakings previously given by apractitioner.

The tribunal can order fines of up to $5000 or $50 000where the full tribunal is hearing the matter. A legalpractitioner’s practising certificate can be suspended orcancelled for a specified period and under specificconditions. The tribunal can recommend to theSupreme Court that the name of a legal practitioner bestruck off the roll of practitioners. The amendmentseeks to give the tribunal a discretion on whether tomake such a recommendation.

The proposed new section also gives the tribunal powerto order, where appropriate, that a legal practitionerfound guilty of misconduct not be allowed to reapplyfor a practising certificate for a specified period. Theamendment is necessary because unfortunately somelegal practitioners who have such proceedingscommenced against them have sought to circumventthe disciplinary jurisdiction of the tribunal by eithersurrendering their legal practising certificates or notrenewing them when they have lapsed. There is somedoubt as to whether the tribunal has the ability or thepower to suspend a legal practitioner from holding acurrent practising certificate, which he or she obviouslydoes not hold at the time, or even to order that the legalpractitioner involved not be able to reapply for a legalpractising certificate.

At present I understand the tribunal makes such ordersunder its general plenary powers, but there is somedoubt whether it has the ability to do so. Theamendment will seek to clarify that position and ensurethat the tribunal has the power to prevent a legalpractitioner who has been found guilty of misconductfrom reapplying for a practising certificate.

In supporting the bill, particularly the amendments tosection 160, I believe all legal practitioners will supportsuch changes to the disciplinary jurisdiction of thetribunal because unfortunately — and I say this as acurrent holder of a practising certificate — sometimesthe few rotten apples in the barrel give all legal



practitioners a bad name. For that reason I am sure mostlegal practitioners will welcome a position wherelawyers are not able to circumvent or find loopholes, asthey do under the current Legal Practice Act. Thetribunal and the Supreme Court will be able to fullyapply some sanctions against those practitioners foundguilty of misconduct.

Clause 7 of the bill seeks to amend section 169A of theLegal Practice Act. That section relates to part 5division 6, which deals with appeals from decisions ofthe tribunal. Currently section 169A allows the fulltribunal to make orders for the payment of costs. Theamendment seeks to extend the effect of the section toinclude the costs of obtaining transcripts of proceedingsheld by the tribunal in the first instance. As I said at theoutset, the reason for the amendment is thatproceedings before the tribunal, particularly civildisputes, are becoming lengthier and more complicatedas time goes on, and are draining the tribunal’sresources excessively. The amendment will seek torectify the situation by giving the tribunal such adiscretion. I commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Remaining stages

Passed remaining stages.


Second reading

Debate resumed from earlier this day; motion ofHon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for Industrial Relations).

Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) — This is aninteresting piece of legislation; it demonstrates in starkterms that currently Parliament is operating in adeficient mode because the government has notproperly instituted the usual checks and balances onewould expect in Parliament. The bill is a classicexample of the sort of legislation that ought to go to acommittee similar to the former Scrutiny of Acts andRegulations Committee. It is an absolute disgrace thatin the fourth week of the sitting under the newgovernment we are dealing with legislation without avehicle being in place to properly scrutinise legislation.It flies in the face of the Bracks minority Laborgovernment’s undertakings for that to occur after it hascosied up to the Independents in relation to their charterand given all sorts of commitments about how

Parliament would be better resourced, the governmentwould be more accountable, and the like. I expect thegovernment to move soon to put in place an appropriateparliamentary committee structure; otherwise itscommitments will begin to appear very hollow.

The bill has become necessary because of the approachof the Sydney Olympics. I do not think anyone wouldoppose the principle behind the legislation. Many teamsvisiting Australia to participate in the Olympics willwant to bring their own medical practitioners. Theopposition understands that and wants the Olympics tobe an outstanding success and a great boost forAustralia on the world scene. It is in the interests ofeach honourable member to facilitate that success.

However, I have concerns with the implementation ofthe legislation. I see potential dangers in the exemptionsthe bill provides and potential hazards with the fairlywide allowance it makes for the prescribing of drugs,including narcotics. I bear in mind the problem thatalready exists in this country with drugs, and moreparticularly the stringent restrictions that are imposedon medical practitioners and pharmacists in Victoria —rightly so — for the prescription of drugs. Togetherwith its provisions for the declaration of special eventsand so on the legislation seems to introduce a muchmore lax regulatory regime for the prescribing of suchdrugs. I am especially concerned to ensure that is keptunder tight reign. In a moment I shall refer to some ofthe undertakings given by the minister in another place.

To some degree I am surprised by the readiness of thegovernment to agree to allowing foreign-trained doctorsto practise in Victoria, albeit only in respect of theteams to which they are accredited. I have had someexperience in trying to have foreign-trained doctorsaccredited to service some rural parts of my electorate,and I am sure you, Mr Deputy President, haveexperienced the same thing in north-western Victoria. Ican recall that not so long ago a Croatian-trained doctorat Tongala was eventually forced to leave the countrybecause he could not get past the Medical Board ofVictoria and the doctors trade union, the AustralianMedical Association. Doctors must aspire to highbenchmarks — clear high hurdles — if they are to treatAustralian citizens.

A more recent example occurred in Echuca when aDr Win — a psychologist who is very highly trained inhis own country and who had practised in Australiawith the correct registration for some time — wassuddenly given an ultimatum that his registration wouldbe withdrawn unless he qualified by passing certainexams in Australia. Another recent example involved adoctor in Barham, just across the river from my



electorate, who for some time provided extremelyvaluable services to a wide area of the Riverina that hadbeen without a doctor. The South African-traineddoctor in question had a great deal of difficulty havinghis credentials recognised.

I do not necessarily dispute the need for highbenchmarks. However, I direct attention to the contrastbetween what those applicants had to go through andwhat is proposed in the bill. The bill proposes thatprovided the minister declares an event to be a specialevent within the meaning of the act, a person whomight not be qualified by any stretch of the imaginationin an Australian understanding of the term canadminister to a visiting team provided he or she isemployed, engaged or contracted by that team. Thatintroduces a low hurdle for the quality of the medicalservice that may be rendered.

It is all very well for the more cynical among us to say,‘If a team is prepared to accept medication and carefrom someone with flimsy qualifications, that is its ownfuneral’. It is necessary to be a little tougher than thatand to ensure that people being treated in thiscountry — —

An honourable member interjected.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER — Yes, perhaps that was aninappropriate analogy; I will rephrase it. It is incumbenton Australians to ensure that visitors to this country aretreated properly and adequately. The bill takes a fair biton trust and does not ensure that at all. The teams willhave to make those judgments for themselves.

I am also intrigued to discover there has been preciouslittle consultation with the various medical boards listedin the bill. It has been taken for granted that they willagree to the bill’s provisions. Bearing in mind that theirtraditional authority is usurped by those provisions, Ishould have thought some consultation between theboards and the current government might well beproposed.

I understand that the former government beganconsultation with them but that consultation was notcontinued by the current government. It is all very wellfor government members to come into this place andsay, as I have no doubt they will, that the legislation hadits genesis under the former government. That is true,but that is not to say that if the former government hadremained in office the legislation would have come tothis house in the form it takes today. The formergovernment, to its everlasting credit, had a mature andefficient backbench consultation vetting organisation. Ifbackbenchers were not happy, they said so or sent back

whatever they were reviewing. As a former minister Iwell know the lash of the backbench committee.

If the government had not changed on 18 September,the bill would have been substantially tightened up andmade much more specific than it is. It is simply notgood enough for the government to allege thelegislation emanates from the former government andtherefore any deficiencies it might have are the fault ofthe former government . The system was interrupted ortruncated and the legislation was not finalised.

One illustration of how the legislation could have beentightened up is in the definition of visitor. Thedefinition of a visitor in the bill is peculiar, as itincludes and encompasses a resident of Australia. It isdifficult to understand how a resident of Australia couldbe deemed a visitor for the purposes of the act, but thatis the definition. That matter may well have beenlooked at if the government had not changed.

Regarding that same definition, I am also concernedthat presumably someone who is a resident of Australiabut falls within the definition of visitor for the purposesof the bill can be treated by his or her usual doctor, towhom the person goes from time to time, and then seektreatment and the prescription of medication from avisiting medical practitioner. Surely there is room forconflict there. The visiting medical practitioner is ableto go a lot further than the Australian registeredpractitioner in prescribing medication to the samepatient. The bill is entirely silent on the circumstancesin that case. I flag the potential for a conflict arisingbetween an Australian registered practitioner whotraditionally and habitually treats a patient whoqualifies under the definition of visitor in the bill andsome visiting medical practitioner, who may haveexceptionally dodgy qualifications. I ask thegovernment to look at that conundrum.

In the area where I live, on the border atAlbury–Wodonga, a number of teams will be training,having come out early to acclimatise for the OlympicGames. In the midst of Albury–Wodonga medicalpractitioners there could be medical practitioners ofdoubtful qualifications treating people living in thecommunity — for six months, eight months or more.Again I can foresee difficulties. I do not want to soundas if I am jumping at shadows; I hope I am not. But thebill seems not to take those potential difficulties intoaccount.

Local pharmacists could be put under pressure todispense drugs they would not normally be entitled todispense, including narcotics, to visitors over a longperiod. All honourable members would know about the



monetary influence of drug-related transactions and thepotential for matters to get out of hand. There is thepotential for people to set up cosy little drug businesses:the bill does not address that possibility. Again, I do notwant to be jumping at shadows. One need only look atwhat is going on in Victoria regarding drugs to see thatthe risk of drugs is not addressed in the bill.

I do not want to proceed at length on the bill. Icongratulate the shadow Minister for Health in anotherplace on the manner in which he drew thegovernment’s attention to a range of potential problemsin the legislation and the need to tighten it. By the sametoken I am prepared to commend the Minister forHealth in the other place on taking on board the pointsmade by the honourable member for Malvern andgiving an undertaking to be very specific in declarationshe will make as Minister for Health in declaring eventsthat will come within the ambit of the act. He will notgive general orders or orders that last for an excessiveamount of time. That gives me reason to believe thelegislation is workable. It certainly gives me somereassurance.

I note that the shadow minister in another placeaccepted those assurances in good faith and did notpursue in committee a number of areas that heotherwise would have taken on board. The debate inanother place can be described as an illustration of theParliament working as it should. Legislation wasintroduced, examined by the opposition and found to bewanting in some respects. Deficiencies were pointedout and the minister took matters on board and gave therequired undertakings and assurances. On that basis theopposition will not oppose the bill.

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA (Melbourne West) —It is clear why the Health Practitioners (Special EventsExemption) Bill should be introduced and passed.Australia is very much a sporting nation — Australianslove sport. They love to watch it and participate in it,and they do so at all levels: national, international andelite.

Australians expect that the teams and athletes involvedin international sporting events will receive the best inhealth care and support from medical practitioners intraining leading up to events they are participating in, aswell as during and following the events. That is exactlywhat the bill ensures. It addresses the need for athletesfrom other countries, when coming here to participatein sporting or cultural events, to be confident that theyhave medical practitioners who will accompany themand be able to give them the support they require.

Another honourable member referred to the Joeys,Australia’s under-17 soccer players, who competed inthe world cup final in New Zealand. The Joeys areanother example of the many Australians whoparticipate in a range of international sporting events,whether they involve soccer, cricket, rugby, athletics,netball or hockey. The Joeys did a fantastic job in theunder-17 world cup, coming within a fairy’s breath ofwinning. I am sure I speak for all honourable memberswhen I say how proud we are of them. It is a shame wecannot do something about that penalty shoot-outprovision!

The purpose of the bill is clear. As I said, it affectspeople who come to Victoria to participate ininternational sporting events or cultural activities. Thebill will allow visiting health practitioners to providehealth care services for those competing in specialevents in Victoria without having to be registered understate law.

Victoria hosts an increasing number of sporting andcultural events and encourages overseas visitors tocome here to participate in them. Those visitors want toknow they have access to health support servicesprovided by health support personnel in whom theyhave confidence — in other words, their own healthpractitioners. That is because they have anunderstanding of the medical histories of theparticipants, the sports or cultural events they areparticipating in and the training regimes they undertake,and the types of complications or injuries that mightoccur as a result.

The participants also want to feel confident that theirhealth practitioners will be there to see them throughthose injuries or complications. The importance of thepsychological aspects of sporting performance isincreasing, and participants want to have with thempractitioners who will look after them in that regard.

As Mr Baxter has already pointed out, on 24 Novemberthe bill was examined in committee in the other place,after which it was passed with bipartisan support. Thebill was drafted under the instructions of the previousgovernment and then considered by the previouscabinet. Those members of the house who wereministers at the time know the history of the bill and theconsideration the previous government gave to it.

The bill is necessary because of a memorandum ofunderstanding the Victorian government entered intowith the Sydney Organising Committee for theOlympic Games (SOCOG). The memorandum, whichcontains the details of agreements relating to Olympicevents, was signed off by the previous government in



June. It requires the government to assist SOCOG inmeeting its obligations to the International OlympicsCommittee without impediment so that assurances canbe given that there are no national laws or provisionspreventing Olympic medical staff from giving medicalcare and treatment to athletes, officials and visitors ofthe respective Olympic teams while they are taking partin the Olympic Games. The government has given anundertaking that it will support SOCOG in its efforts tomeet the commitments it has given to the InternationalOlympics Committee.

As Mr Baxter said, the bill is required primarilybecause of the 2000 Olympic Games. Victoria will beinvolved in putting on events associated with thegames. For example, the soccer matches will be heldhere, and the state will play host to the teams training toparticipate in them. It will also play host to other teamsthat will use Victorian facilities to train for events thatwill be held in other states. Melbourne will also be thehost city for the Commonwealth Games in 2006 and forother significant events.

As I said earlier, the government encourages theholding of sporting and cultural events in Victoria suchas the grand prix, the Boxing Day test cricket, the rugbyand international athletics.

Hon. K. M. Smith — Women’s bowls.

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA — The honourablemember is right: I am sure Victoria hosts both nationaland international bowling events. The Werribeeequestrian centre, which is in my own electorate ofMelbourne West Province, is a nominated trainingfacility for the Olympic Games. It hopes to play host tosome of the contestants in the Olympic Games.

Other states have already enacted legislation to honourthe undertakings they have given to support SOCOG’smeeting its obligations to the International OlympicsCommittee. In 1997 New South Wales enacted theHealth Professionals (Special Events Exemption) Act,which ensured that the host state of the SydneyOlympic Games would be able to fulfil its requirementsby guaranteeing that no law or provision wouldpreclude overseas medical staff from providing medicalservices, medical care and treatment to the athletes andofficials of the competing teams. In 1998 Queenslandgave effect to similar legislation to meet its obligationsto SOCOG, and Western Australia has already passedlegislation to the same effect. The Victorian Parliamentneeds to pass the bill to ensure it complies with thecommitments the Victorian government gave in June.

The bill enables the Minister for Health to make aspecial event order, which will be published in theGovernment Gazette. The declaring of a special eventorder will mean that visiting health practitioners will beexempted from the offence provisions in the healthregistration acts and in the Drugs, Poisons andControlled Substances Act and its regulations. Underthe exemption from the health registration acts healthpractitioners will not be required to register with theregulatory boards covered by those acts. Clause 3 liststhe relevant health registration acts: the ChiropractorsRegistration Act of 1996, the Dental Technicians Act of1972, the Dentists Act of 1972, the Medical PracticeAct of 1994, the Nurses Act of 1993, the OptometristsRegistration Act of 1996, the Osteopaths RegistrationAct of 1996, the Pharmacists Act of 1974 and thePhysiotherapists Registration Act of 1998.

As a former registered nurse, I have had someexperience with the health registration boards. I was amember of the then Victorian Nursing Council, whichhas been superseded by the Victorian Nurses Board. Itwas responsible for not only registering nurses trainedin Victoria but also giving recognition to those who hadtrained interstate and overseas. So I have experienceand an understanding of the sorts of processes that mustbe gone through in seeking and being grantedregistration. I understand that the processes applying tothe other registration boards are similarly lengthy.

Given that Sydney will be hosting the Olympic Games,Australia needs to have in place a legislative frameworkthat ensures that teams coming to Australia toparticipate in sporting events associated with theOlympics are able to bring their medical practitionerswith them to provide the support they require. Thesame is true of the other sporting and cultural events towhich I have alluded.

Their exemption from the Drugs, Poisons andControlled Substances Act and its regulations willallow health practitioners to prescribe, sell and supplymedication in the course of providing health care to thevisiting team members for whom they are responsible.It is clear that the only offences visiting healthpractitioners would be exempted from under thelegislation are those contained in the health registrationacts and the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled SubstancesAct — that is, offences dealing with unlicensed practiceand/or the prescription, selling or supplying ofsubstances by persons not authorised to do so. Thereare also exemptions for visitors who are members of ateam or group that might be involved in a culturalevent.



Members of a team or group that is here to take part ina declared special event will also will be exempt fromthe offence provisions of the Drugs, Poisons andControlled Substances Act and its regulations. Theexemption relates to the possession or use ofmedication — that is, a drug or poison — where thedrug or poison has been prescribed or supplied by avisiting health practitioner. The bill proposes exemptingfrom the offence provisions people who are prescribedor administered medication by an authorised medicalpractitioner exempt under the bill.

The bill will also exempt from the offence provisions aperson licensed to supply or sell drugs or poisons —that is, such a person will not commit an offence if heor she sells or supplies designated scheduled drugs toan exempt visiting health practitioner. Similarprovisions will apply to pharmacists. A pharmacist willnot commit an offence when he or she fills out ordispenses a prescription written by a visiting healthpractitioner.

I take up a couple of the points made by Mr Baxter.Pharmacists do not prescribe medication; medicalpractitioners do that. Pharmacists simply dispensemedication — and only on prescription. The billexempts a pharmacist from being prosecuted for anoffence when he or she is presented with a prescriptionwritten by a visiting medical practitioner exemptedunder the provisions of the act. The only drugs that canbe prescribed by a visiting medical practitioner arethose set out in the schedules.

Hon. M. T. Luckins — Including narcotics andanabolic steroids?

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA — Yes, becausenarcotics are schedule 8 drugs and a medicalpractitioner can prescribe drugs set out under the Drugs,Poisons and Controlled Substances Act. A medicalpractitioner will be able to make a diagnosis, determinethat a certain course of treatment is required, write aprescription for it, have the medication dispensed andensure that the person who requires the treatment andmedication can have it. All parties will be protectedfrom the offence provisions of the act, whether it be theprescribing, dispensing or taking of medication.

The bill authorises health practitioners to provide healthservices to any visitor during a special event. AsMr Baxter said, a special event will be specified for adefined time. It will not go on forever; it will havedefined starting and ending points. When the Ministerfor Health makes a special event order, considerationwill be given to the required starting and ending timeson a case-by-case basis.

The bill also provides that a ministerial special eventorder will specify the exemption period and imposeconditions, restrictions or limitations on visitingmedical practitioners relating to the services they canprovide or the security or storage of the drugs orpoisons in their possession.

In conclusion, the government is seeking the passage ofa bill that will have the same effect in each state. Asimilar bill has been passed in other states so that theycan honour their commitments to SOCOG. We need topass the bill to honour our undertaking. The bill wasexamined in the committee stage in the other place,where it was passed with bipartisan support.

We should recognise the need to expedite the holdingof special events. We do not want any encumbrance ontheir being held in Victoria. We do not want themembers of an international organising committee whoare considering holding a special event in Australia tosay, ‘We won’t go to Victoria because it has noprovision allowing us to bring our own healthpractitioners or team. Let’s go to New South Wales orWestern Australia or one of the other states that has thenecessary legislation in place’.

It is important that we attract as many special sportingand cultural events as we can. Victoria is recognised asthe cultural heartland of Australia and manyorganisations and organising committees would belooking to Victoria to hold such events.

The encouragement and attraction of special sporting orcultural events to Victoria is a high priority of theBracks Labor government. The government wants toencourage their staging in Victoria for a number ofreasons. It wants people to visit Victoria and see whatthe state has to offer. It wants those special events to bethe catalysts that bring visitors here so they can beexposed to Victoria’s many other fine facilities andattributes. The government also wants to give peoplethe opportunity to enjoy the special sporting andcultural events. They will expose people to differentcultures and different ways of life, which is particularlyimportant for younger people.

Special sporting and cultural events attract tourists fromoverseas and interstate. Tourists coming to Victoria willencourage employment opportunities. I am sure thatonce the visitors get here they will be interested inseeing a lot more of Victoria. Apart from bringing inthe tourist dollar, holding special cultural and sportingevents also encourages the creation of the infrastructurefor various events — the building of stadiums, theatresand so on. As I said, special events are an importantpriority of the Bracks Labor government. It wants to



encourage visitors not only to Melbourne but also torural and regional Victoria.

Victoria needs this bill. It is important that Parliamenthonours the former government’s commitment to theSydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games.Parliament should also support SOCOG in thecommitments it has given to the International OlympicCommittee. I commend the bill to the house.

Hon. M. T. LUCKINS (Waverley) — I also placeon record my disappointment that the HealthPractitioners (Special Events Exemption) Bill has notbeen dealt with by a scrutiny of acts and regulationscommittee (SARC). I was proud to be a member ofsuch a committee for the last term of the previousgovernment. The bill, which in my opinion has beenhastily drafted and is deficient in many areas, wouldhave benefited from an examination by SARC under itsterms of reference. I urge the government to considercommissioning the parliamentary committees under theParliamentary Committees Act.

I refer the house to the Independents charter and thegovernment’s mantra of transparent, open andaccountable government. The previous governmentmay have given in-principle support to the bill; indeed,it is similar to legislation being enacted in otherjurisdictions around Australia for the reasons outlinedby the Honourable Kaye Darveniza. But legislation thatis deficient in as many areas as this bill appears to bewould not have passed inspection by a scrutiny of actsand regulations committee, the former Kennettgovernment’s policy and bills committees or the partyroom. Members of the former government would havebeen asking the questions that we are asking inopposition today, ensuring that the bill did what it wasprescribed to do with no adverse consequences.

The government has failed to consult with theprofessional bodies covered by the acts outlined inclause 3 of the bill. The opposition wrote to theChiropractors Association of Australia (Victoria) Ltd;the Chiropractors Registration Board of Victoria; theAustralian Dental Association, Victorian Branch; theDental Board of Victoria; the Australian MedicalAssociation, Victoria; the Medical Practitioners Board;the Nurses Board of Victoria; the Australian NursingFederation of Victoria; the Optometrists Association ofAustralia (Victorian Division); the OptometristsRegistration Board of Victoria; the OsteopathsRegistration Board of Victoria; the Pharmacy Guild ofAustralia, Victorian Division; the Pharmacy Board ofVictoria; the Physiotherapists Registration Board ofVictoria; the Podiatrists Registration Board; thePsychologists Registration Board of Victoria; the

Victorian Psychologists Association; thePharmaceutical Society of Australia, Victoria; and theAustralian Physiotherapy Association. At least theopposition had the decency to seek their opinions, giventhat they will be primarily affected by the operation ofthe bill.

Many of the replies received to the opposition’sinvitation to comment on the bill have raised seriousconcerns about how the bill will work in practice. Forexample, the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia asks:

How do pharmacists become aware of the ministerial order,who in fact is exempted or who is a visitor?

I shall focus on the sections of the bill that deal withthose questions today. The society also asks:

How accessible will the information be, for example, to anafter-hours pharmacist working late at night when thedepartmental offices are closed?

That question has not been addressed in the bill nor inanything I have heard or read of the debate in the otherplace. Another important question, which I shall detailfurther during the debate, has been raised by thePharmacy Guild of Australia. It asks:

What protection is provided to the local health professionalwho, with the best intent and professional practice, breaks thelaw or causes injury or death?

How does the Victorian pharmacist know the bona fides ofthe patient or medical practitioner they are trying to assist andare all pharmacies likely to be involved, or would the accessbe on a limited basis?

The Australian Dental Association also expressesconcern. The Australian Medical Association raises anumber of issues relating to almost every clause of thebill. The bill is broad, imprecise and ambiguous inparts.

The opposition has no trouble with the broad thrust ofthe bill, but standards exist in Victoria — standards ofcare for patients; standards to protect Victorianinstitutions such as hospitals and health care facilities;and standards to protect boards of professional medicalassociations. The opposition wants to ensure thatappropriate care is given to all patients in Victoria,regardless of whether they are visiting our shores or areresidents.

Victoria has strict registration requirements forprofessional medical practitioners, and the bill proposesto circumvent those standards. Although visiting healthpractitioners may be contracted by overseas teams andmay provide treatment only for visitors to Victoria fromoverseas, their qualifications and their standards may bemuch lower than the standards we would expect in



Victoria and Australia. In addition, the treatment thatcan be offered by professional health practitioners inAustralia is vastly different from that offered byequivalently named practitioners in other countries. Inthe United States of America chiropractors have theright to prescribe drugs, but Australian and Victorianchiropractors do not have that right or opportunity. Alsoin the United States optometrists can carry out surgery.Optometrists in Victoria are precluded from carryingout any invasive procedures at all.

In clause 5 of the bill, which outlines the meaning of‘visitor’, paragraph (a) is relatively clear. It states aperson is a visitor if:

the person is a resident of another country who is in the Statefor the purpose of —

(i) officially participating in a special event; or

(ii) preparing, training, practising, rehearsing oracclimatising for a special event;

However, paragraph (b) is unclear. It states that aresident of Australia is defined as a visitor if he or sheforms part of an overseas team competing in an event inVictoria. It provides that a person is a visitor if:

the person is a resident of Australia who —

(i) is in the State for a purpose referred to in paragraph (a);and

(ii) is a member of a group, the majority of the members ofwhich is comprised of persons referred to inparagraph (a) who are in the State for the same purpose.

My problem with that provision is that it is ludicrous tocall an Australian resident a visitor. I accept the reasonsfor the inclusion of the provision, but the terminologycould have been fleshed out more to ensure theprovision was clear. When one considers the standardsof health considered important by practitioners andVictorians in the provision of medical care to ourresidents, one realises that an Australian resident who ispart of an overseas team will or may receive treatmentfrom a visiting health practitioner who may havenowhere near the standard of qualifications orexperience required of an equivalent practitioner inVictoria. Therefore, the standard of care he or shereceives in Victoria may be lower than what is expectedor deserved.

Clauses 6 to 8 deal with the special events orders whichare to be published in the Victoria Government Gazette.One query that has not been answered is what happensif the event is to take place in only one state, yetrehearsals or acclimatisation activities occur in anotherstate? If the event is not Australia-wide and, therefore,

the participants and visiting health practitioners are notunder the umbrella of equivalent legislation in anotherjurisdiction, does the act exempt the visiting healthpractitioners from providing medical services to avisitor? For example, if the event is to be held in NewSouth Wales no special events order would have beenpublished in the Government Gazette, yet the visitormay have come to Victoria as part of his or her training.

Clauses 10 to 14 relate to the prescription rights forschedules 4 and 8 poisons under the Drugs, Poisons andControlled Substances Act. Schedules 4 and 8 drugsinclude narcotics, anabolic steroids and the drugs thatmask anabolic steroids. Controversy surrounds theprescription of those drugs to sporting professionals,particularly in the lead-up to the 2000 Sydney OlympicGames and other events. The controversy concernsallegations — proven, in many cases — of professionalsporting teams or individuals being prescribed drugs toenhance performance. To maintain Australia’s overseasreputation and credibility as a sporting nation we mustensure there is no hint of controversy surrounding anysporting or cultural event to be held in Victoria.

I am concerned that a visiting health professional canprescribe and obtain drugs, including anabolicsteroid-masking drugs, from Victorian pharmacies toenhance an athlete’s performance or endurance in anevent held in Victoria. As I asked earlier, who willnotify pharmacies of the exemption for a visiting healthpractitioner who prescribes the drugs for visitingcontestants? Given that the visiting health practitioner isexempt from the requirements of the Victorian andAustralian acts, how will a pharmacist know whetherthat person is bona fide and is authorised to purchaseprescribed drugs on behalf of a visitor?

Moreover, who will clarify who is defined as a visitor?We have such a multicultural community in Victoriathat one visiting health practitioner could prescribedrugs, including narcotics, to a Victorian or Australianresident from an ethnic background. It would bedifficult for a pharmacist to ascertain whether thatperson was a visitor and, therefore, exempt from theprovisions of the Health Act or whether the person wasan Australian resident and liable to prosecution becausea drug was to be supplied to a non-visitor. More checksand balances should be included in the bill to protectAustralians and overseas visitors.

The activities of visiting health professionals must bemonitored to ensure they do not treat non-visitors. Also,we must bear in mind that under clause 5 an anomalyexists whereby Australian residents may be describedas visitors.



The legislation is silent on the interaction betweenvisiting health professionals and Victorian healthprofessionals during their stay in our state. If a visitorwere to be admitted to hospital, who would beultimately responsible for his or her care? If somethinggoes wrong, who is liable for any claim of negligence?For example, if a visitor is admitted to a Victorianhospital or medical institution as a result of negligencefrom a visiting health professional, who will becomeliable for any action a visitor or health professional maytake against an institution in Victoria?

Professional sportspeople spend a good deal of timetraining to attain their optimum performance capacity.The sports in which they compete are generally theirlivelihood. If there were any opportunities for a personto take legal action against a Victorian institution orhealth professional without indemnity cover, that wouldput at risk the exemption of visiting international healthprofessionals from meeting the same registrationrequirements that Victorian health professionals mustmeet.

This may have been solved by including a section 85statement in the bill to indemnify not only Victorianmedical and registration boards but also our institutions.All the acts listed in clause 3 include section 85provisions that indemnify boards from action. Forexample, if information about a health professional whomay be deregistered in Victoria is transferred to anequivalent board in New South Wales, the board is notliable for any action taken.

I wonder whether a section 85 statement has not beenincluded here because the government is trying to avoidhaving the requirements for an absolute majority testedin both houses. I would hate to think that thegovernment was avoiding section 85 provisionsbecause of its minority position and its need to have thesupport of the Independents for legislation. I would hateto think that political problems may render the bill andsubsequent legislation ineffective because boards arenot protected from ultimate liability. The bill does notgo far enough in articulating the protection afforded forVictorians practising in the medical area.

Clause 12 relates to the prescribing of certain poisons.It states:

… a visiting health practitioner may only prescribe, write aprescription for or supply a Schedule 4 poison or a Schedule 8poison if authorised to do so by a special event Order.

That clause was brought to the opposition’s attention bythe pharmacy guild and the pharmacy board but it stillhas not been clarified by the government.

Clause 13 headed ‘Visiting health practitioner exemptfrom certain offences’ also needs clarification relatingto the liability of Victorian practitioners and Victorianinstitutions for a visiting overseas practitioner who mayhave contributed to the deterioration of the health of avisitor.

Clause 14 headed ‘Visitor exempt from certain drugoffences’ states:

A visitor does not commit an offence under the Drugs,Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 or anyregulations under that Act for possessing or using anySchedule 2 poison, Schedule 3 poison, Schedule 4 poison orSchedule 8 poison …

A visitor is exempt from our laws relating to anabolicsteroids that may be prescribed by a visiting medicalpractitioner. It is up to the sporting body to ensureperformance enhancing drugs are not taken by athletescompeting in Victoria.

Clause 15 deals with wholesale suppliers being exemptfrom certain drug offences. I query the intent of theclause. What happens to drugs which are purchased inAustralia and which are left over or still in thepossession of a visiting health practitioner? Can thosedrugs be taken overseas? Why should visiting healthpractitioners be allowed to bypass customs when theblack market for drugs in many countries is of realconcern?

Clause 18 is a waste of a paragraph because it does notadd anything to the bill. It reads:

This Act does not prejudice or affect the lawful occupation,trade or business of any person who is registered under ahealth registration Act.

That does not relate to any other aspect of the bill. It isclearly a contradiction of parts of the bill that have beendebated today.

Clause 19 provides that the Governor in Council maymake regulations relating to a special event or sportingactivity. I hope by the time the legislation receives royalassent a subordinate legislation committee has beenestablished by the government, as required by theSubordinate Legislation Act 1994, to ensure that theprovisions of the regulations are checked against theterms of reference of the subordinate legislationcommittee to ensure they are in keeping with thepriorities of the bill, but also to ensure some of theconcerns the opposition has with provisions of the billare picked up.

In conclusion, the bill has been hastily drafted and isvague and sloppy. However, the opposition does notoppose it. Opposition members hope there are no



adverse consequences resulting from the haste in whichthe bill was drafted, and look forward to the passage ofthe bill today.

Hon. E. C. CARBINES (Geelong) — I am pleasedto speak on the Health Practitioners (Special EventsExemption) Bill. Henny Penny, the sky will fall in if thebill passes! I am surprised opposition members areraising such issues and then claiming support for thebill. It is interesting. The bill deserves their supportbecause it seeks to simplify the process necessary for avisiting health practitioner to provide health careservices to a member of a group or team associatedwith a designated special event in Victoria. The bill ispractical, sensible and overdue.

The impetus for the bill is the Olympic Games whichAustralia will host in Sydney next year. Thousands ofhealth practitioners will travel to Australia with athletesfrom all nations competing in the Olympic Games.Victoria will host rounds of the Olympic soccercompetition and is ready and willing to offer itsavailable training facilities to other visiting Olympicteams and athletes.

Earlier this year — as the opposition well knowsbecause it was in government — the Victoriangovernment signed a memorandum of understandingwith the Sydney Organising Committee for theOlympic Games (SOCOG) which outlined theobligations to the International Olympic Committee(IOC). One obligation, of which the opposition mustsurely be aware, was to ensure that no national law orprovision would prevent Olympic medical staff fromproviding medical treatment to athletes and officials ofvisiting Olympic teams. New South Wales, Queenslandand Western Australia have already passed similarlegislation. The Health Practitioners (Special EventsExemption) Bill will bring Victoria into line with otherstates and allow it to meet its obligations not only to thenation but also to the international community as thehost of the Olympic Games.

Although the Olympic Games is the obvious impetusfor the bill, every year Victoria hosts special sporting,cultural and other events. Victorians like to call Victoriathe sporting and cultural capital of Australia. Under thattitle, visiting athletes, teams, individuals and groupshave been brought to the state many times. The bill willallow visiting health practitioners who accompanythose individuals to easily provide them with healthcare services. The bill will streamline the process sothey do not have to become involved in bureaucraticred tape.

The Women’s World Bowls Championships will beheld in Moama, just across the border from Echuca andabout which much discussion has taken place today.The championships will be held in New South Walesbut for the duration of their stay many women willreside and practise on bowling greens in Victoria. Whathappens if they fall or sprain their ankles? Do they haveto be rushed across the border to New South Walesbefore their medical practitioner can assist them? Howludicrous would that be! The bill will ensure thatnonsense does not continue. It will allow the Ministerfor Health to declare a special event in the GovernmentGazette and to specify the exemption period. It isimportant to stress to opposition members that therewill be an exemption period. It will not go on and onfor months and months as some honourable membersare trying to make out.

Visiting health practitioners will be exempted from theoffence provisions in two acts: the Health RegistrationAct and the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled SubstancesAct. Visitors who are members of a team or a groupvisiting Victoria as part of a declared special event willbe exempt from offence provisions relating to thepossession or use of a drug that has been prescribed forthem by a visiting health practitioner. The bill will alsoexempt pharmacists from offence provisions associatedwith the dispensing of such drugs under prescription.

The bill makes sense. It is practical and simplifies theprovision of health care services by visiting medicalstaff for visitors to Victoria who are participating in anevent designated special by the Minister for Health. Icommend the bill to the house.

Hon. J. W. G. ROSS (Higinbotham) — I ampleased to participate in the debate on the HealthPractitioners (Special Events Exemption) Bill. I wish toput on the record that the opposition does not opposethe bill. However, in response to what Ms Darvenizaand Mrs Carbines said about the opposition supportingthe bill, the fact that it has been debated and passed inthe other house, where some of its shortcomings havebeen noted, does not mean it has bipartisan support.Although it is the duty of any responsible opposition tolook at the detail of legislation and in the community’sinterest to advise and warn the government of anypotential consequences of its actions, that does notimply bipartisan support. I put on the record that theopposition does not oppose the bill.

I found another aspect a little alarming in thecontributions of both Ms Darveniza and Mrs Carbineson the purpose of the bill, which is to allow visitinghealth practitioners to provide health care services inthe state for special events without becoming registered



under state law. I was concerned to hear that eventssuch as world series cricket and women’s bowlingtournaments were being picked up in the net. My clearunderstanding is that in accordance with an undertakingto the Sydney Organising Committee for the OlympicGames the legislation is intended to cater for veryspecial events, such as the Olympic andCommonwealth games. I ask the government to whatextent it will extend the exemptions. I am alarmed atthe prospect of medical and other practitioners beingexempted from the provisions of state law for eventssuch as cricket, soccer and bowling. That is not theintention of the legislation.

Another point made by government members was thatthe process is a routine one of enacting legislationdrafted by the previous government. It is the height ofarrogance on the part of the government to presume thatthe former government would have introducedlegislation into either house of Parliament withoutgoing through an extensive process of consultation andsubmitting it to the former Scrutiny of Acts andRegulations Committee. It is completely unreasonableto claim the bill has bipartisan support because thegovernment is enacting legislation of the previousgovernment. The previous government would havedone things completely differently.

The purpose of the bill is to provide an exemption tovisiting health practitioners in two general areas: onerelates to the exemption of the provisions of registrationauthorities; the other relates to access to certain drugsand the ability to possess and sell such drugs. In eachcase the devil is in the detail. The approach to theregistration of health practitioners in this state protectsthe titles of practitioners. People cannot holdthemselves out to be dentists, optometrists or medicalpractitioners without being authorised to do so by theregistration authority. Assiduous attempts have beentaken to avoid specifying what each activity implies, sothe devil is in the detail.

I also make the point that a number of authorities willbe required to cooperate in the application of thislegislation, none of which has been approached in agenuine consultative fashion. I refer to practitionersregistered under the acts referred to in the bill —namely, the Chiropractors Registration Act, the DentalTechnicians Act, the Dentists Act, the Medical PracticeAct, the Nurses Act, the Optometrists Registration Act,the Osteopaths Registration Act, the Pharmacists Actand the Physiotherapists Registration Act. None ofthese practitioners has blanket authority to behave in anunlimited way. They are only able to prescribe drugs inaccordance with the lawful practice of their professionand in the exercise of their personal judgment and are

always accountable to their peers and the registrationauthority.

For example, dentists are able to prescribe any drug, butonly in the lawful practice of their profession. Thereforepractical limits are set on the prescription of, forinstance, drugs of addiction by dentists. Optometristsonly have access to drugs that may be active on the eyeand there is no suggestion that they have a blanketaccess to the drugs that I will mention later. However,without having consulted the registration authorities thegovernment will expect them to advise the minister instriking his special orders for special events on whatlimits to place on the practice of their professions andthe possession and prescribing of certain substances.

The Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act isstructured around a number of schedules that lend anelement of control to the potency and use of substances.The bill’s definitions contain references to a schedule 2poison and a schedule 3 poison. The substances —particularly schedule 3 poisons — are generallyconsidered to be items that can be obtained over thecounter at pharmacies, but pharmacists must exercisetheir professional discretion when dispensing them.Schedule 4 poisons are the ordinary restrictedsubstances that generally require written medicalprescriptions, and schedule 8 poisons are drugs ofaddiction.

An interesting dilemma has arisen. Under state law thepharmacist is the person who has absolute and finalaccountability for the supply of drugs and for the testingof doses against the British pharmacopoeia. If a visitingmedical practitioner exempted under an order issued bythe minister wrote a prescription that required a localpharmacist to dispense a substance that was clearlycontraindicated for a particular condition, or which hada massive overdose implied in its directions for use,who would be liable?

The legislation has a number of loose ends. It has notbeen through the proper consultative processes and hasnot been subject to the discipline of a scrutiny of actsand regulations committee. The opposition advises andwarns the government — not in a destructive sense butin the community interest — that given its implicationsthe legislation could be regarded in some senses asrather loose.

My colleagues on this side of the house have gone intothe fine detail of the legislation to such an extent that Ineed not go over the ground again. Suffice it to say thatopposition members do not oppose the bill but havesome concerns about its process. We will not bebranded with having been a part of the process; it is the

ADJOURNMENT


government’s legislation. Opposition members havedone their best to draw to the government’s attentionthe problems with the detail in and implementation ofthe bill on issues such as visiting medical practitionerswho are exempted from the Drugs, Poisons andControlled Substances Act. Problems may arise withorders made under the hand of the minister in aquasi-legal fashion in Victoria to purchase drugs inwholesale quantities and no consideration has beengiven to either the balance of unused substances or theobtaining of drugs for malicious intent and the ability totransport them to other states or countries.

To end that brief contribution, I state that the oppositiondoes not oppose the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for IndustrialRelations) — By leave, I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I will comment on some matters the Honourable BillBaxter raised in his contribution to the debate. Onequestion concerned Australian residents being deemedforeigners. I have been advised that could take placeonly on the basis that the resident was a member of ateam, the majority of which was made up of foreigners.It would not apply to someone residing in Australia andbeing a member of an Australian team.

Hon. W. R. Baxter — I understand that, but in thebroad sense that opens the door.

Hon. M. M. GOULD — I wanted to ensure thatwas clear. Mr Baxter has indicated he understands thesituation.

Mr Baxter also raised his concerns about the wide rangeof drugs that can be prescribed. I am informed that thedrugs that can be used by those practitioners must beaccredited by the International Olympic Committee(IOC) or the Commonwealth Games organisingcommittee. It is not open slather.

Hon. W. R. Baxter — What checks and balancesare on the committees in nominating those drugs?

Hon. M. M. GOULD — Mr Baxter would be awarethe International Olympic Committee is very concernedabout the misuse of drugs. I am advised that those drugscan be administered only if they have been

preaccredited by the IOC or, in the case of theCommonwealth Games, the organising committee.

Regarding whether practitioners may sell or distributedrugs outside the parameters of the order, I point outthat practitioners would be subject to the usualsanctions that apply to anyone breaching a Victorianlaw. Like everyone else, those practitioners could beconvicted under criminal offences legislation includingthe Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act.

Concern has been raised regarding provisions affectingpharmacists. It is anticipated that specified pharmacistsand wholesalers will be identified as being in control ofthe dispensing of drugs to foreign practitioners. Not anypharmacist but specific pharmacists will be involved.

Hon. W. R. Baxter — Will we have one inWodonga, because the Croatian team is training there?

Hon. M. M. GOULD — That is more than likely. Iam not in a position to say that will be the case. Ianticipate there would be specific pharmacists if that iswhere the team is located.

Customs laws regarding visitors leaving the countrywith drugs are not affected. The provisions ofcommonwealth laws will apply regarding inappropriatedrugs being smuggled out or leaving the country byother means.

I thank the Honourables Bill Baxter, Maree Luckinsand John Ross for their contributions, and in particular Ithank the Honourables Kaye Darveniza and ElaineCarbines.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

Remaining stages

Passed remaining stages.

ADJOURNMENT


That the house do now adjourn.

Small business and consumer affairs:departmental briefing

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — Iaddress my concern to the attention of the Minister forSmall Business and Minister for Consumer Affairs. On11 November I wrote to the minister in my capacity as

ADJOURNMENT


shadow minister for small business and consumeraffairs, seeking a briefing from her department. Could Ipossibly have that briefing?

Trucks: transport regulations

Hon. B. W. BISHOP (North Western) — I direct amatter to the attention of the Minister for Energy andResources, representing the Minister for Transport inanother place. The minister may well be aware thattransport regulations are about to come into placeregarding the height of trucks carrying containers —generally 40-foot-long containers.

My understanding is that the regulations are to addressbridge clearances, particularly around the metropolitanarea and the ports. The new regulations will see theheight reduced from 4.6 metres to 4.3 metres, whichwill require substantial investment from transportcompanies, sometimes to the tune of $200 000 topurchase step-deck, low-profile trailers to suit that typeof enterprise. Although that presents some difficultiesto transport companies, they are moving that way onloads designated to the metropolitan and port areaswhere there may be some lower bridges.

In many areas local transporters have been grantedexemptions in part to use 4.6-metre trailers where thereare no bridges, thereby saving a large capital expensefor those working in local areas. I understand thatrequired the gazettal of truck routes, the measuring ofloads, and driver training — provisions that wereadhered to and not seen as a problem. That provided asensible and practical solution to transporting loads inareas that did not have any bridge restrictions. Will theminister request that the Minister for Transport ensurethose sensible and practical exemptions continue?

Essential services ombudsman

Hon. ANDREA COOTE (Monash) — Last weekthe Minister for Energy and Resources stated that, inaccordance with Labor Party policy documentation, anessential services ombudsman would be established,although she could not guarantee that would be donebefore Christmas. I add that the existing EnergyIndustry Ombudsman (Victoria) has just released acomprehensive and objective annual report.

The essential services ombudsman would be given thepower to impose tough penalties on suppliers of energyin Victoria in the interests of supply to consumers. Notonly is supply in the interests of Victorian consumers;so, too, are maintenance, research and new technology.Can the minister assure the house that the powers shegives the essential services ombudsman, when that

position is established, will not be so onerous thatdistributors will be discouraged from continuing criticalresearch, maintenance and technological development?

Police: Murrumbeena station

Hon. M. T. LUCKINS (Waverley) — I raise amatter with the Minister for Sport and Recreation as therepresentative of the Minister for Police and EmergencyServices in another place. On 3 November, the first dayof the sitting of the house, I raised in the adjournmentdebate speculation about the closure of Murrumbeenapolice station. I quoted the honourable member forOakleigh, Ms Ann Barker, who, having promised thestation would not close, was reported in localnewspapers as stating she was not sure theMurrumbeena station would remain open under aLabor minority government.

There is speculation in the police force that the minorityLabor government will not sign the contract for the new24-hour Caulfield police station. I seek clarificationfrom the Minister for Police and Emergency Serviceson the future of not only the Murrumbeena policestation but also the proposed Caulfield station.

I also put on the record the fact that I am yet to receivea reply to the issue I raised for the attention of theMinister for Police and Emergency Services during theadjournment debate on 3 November.

Retail industry: trading hours

Hon. W. I. SMITH (Silvan) — I refer the Ministerfor Small Business to the fact that every month for thepast two years Victoria has led the nation in retail sales.The Victorian branch of the Australian RetailersAssociation believes part of the reason for Victoriadoing so well in retail sales is the deregulation oftrading hours. On Wednesday last week the HonourableTheo Theophanous signalled that he had great concernabout and did not support 24-hour trading for Victoriansmall businesses. Does the minister support the currentderegulated trading hours?

Schools: Boronia and Upper Ferntree Gully

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan) — I ask theMinister for Sport and Recreation to refer to theMinister for Education in the other place an issueaffecting the Boronia and Upper Ferntree Gullyprimary schools, which are in my electorate. A coupleof months ago the former Minister for Educationallocated $1.85 million from the education budget forsignificant and much needed capital works to providebetter facilities for the staff and students at the schools.

ADJOURNMENT


Boronia Primary School was to receive $1.2 million fornew classrooms, an art and craft room and a library.The Upper Ferntree Gully Primary School was toreceive $650 000 to upgrade its classrooms, its art andcraft room, and its staff and administration area.

I ask the minister to give the house an assurance that thefunding will still be made available to those twoschools. I also ask the minister when the funding willbe provided.

Casey: leisure centre

Hon. N. B. LUCAS (Eumemmerring) — I refer theMinister for Sport and Recreation — who apparently isthe minister not assisting the Minister for Planning! —to the situation facing the Casey aquatic and leisurecentre. I have on three previous occasions referred theminister to the Premier’s promise to grant $2.5 millionto the City of Casey for the project, but I have yet toreceive a reply. Under the heading ‘Survival of thefittest’ an article on page 1 of the Berwick News of25 November refers to a Canberra-based fitnessconsultant who has launched a competitive neutralityappeal against Casey council, claiming the project:

… could put surrounding gymnasiums out of business.

John Boland, of Kippax Pool and Fitness Centre, isquoted as saying that:

… council’s proposal does not comply with the principles ofcompetitive neutrality and the Trade Practices Act.

The article states further that Mr Boland maintains thathe has pursued cases in all the states and territories ofAustralia bar the Northern Territory and has not lostone. It further says that:

… he had already had one win in Melbourne, with an appealagainst the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre.

The business manager of the Melbourne Sports andAquatic Centre has advised me that, although he hasnot heard of Mr Boland, the matter has been raised withthe competitive neutrality complaints unit of theDepartment of Treasury and Finance, which has takenup the transparency of the costing processes, as well asthe issue of whether prices at the centre are fair. Iunderstand that not all the information necessary toachieve a win, as Mr Boland refers to it, has beensubmitted to the Department of Treasury and Finance.

That points to the potential problem of local councils —it could happen to any of the 78 — being frustrated intheir goal of developing major sporting facilities that insome cases will provide opposition for existing sportingand leisure centres.

I ask the minister what action the government intends totake to assist local councils across Victoria to developsuch facilities. I also ask the minister what action hewill take to facilitate the development of such centresby ensuring that councils do not get involved inunnecessary litigation as a result of noncompliance withgovernment requirements.

Minister assisting the Minister for Workcover:responsibilities

Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western) — Earlier today Inoted the fact that according to the VictorianGovernment Gazette of 20 October the HonourableMonica Gould had been appointed the Ministerassisting the Minister for Workcover. I asked theminister which of the specific responsibilities attachedto that ministry she accepted, and she effectivelysaid — —

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — You asked thequestion; you got your answer. It has to be a newmatter!

Hon. R. M. HALLAM — Why don’t you stopwhile you are behind? The minister said, in effect, thather responsibilities were restricted to those instances inwhich her assistance was sought from time to time, touse her words, by the minister in another place. Thatprompts me to ask whether her assistance has beensought by the Minister for Workcover on any occasionand what that assistance might have been?

In addition, will she explain to the chamber how herrelationship with the Minister for Workcover, theHonourable Bob Cameron, is different from herrelationship with the Premier, the Minister for Finance,the Minister for Arts and the Minister for Health, whomwe are told she represents in this chamber?

Ivanhoe East Primary School

Hon. C. A. FURLETTI (Templestowe) — I ask theMinister for Sport and Recreation to refer the matter Iraise to the Minister for Education in another place. InMarch I was approached by the president of theIvanhoe East Primary School council, who soughtassistance with funding to upgrade the school buildings,which had been left to deteriorate as a result of the$670-million school maintenance black hole thatdeveloped over the 10 years of the Cain–Kirnergovernments. My colleague the Honourable BillForwood and I inspected the school and were promptedas a result to make the appropriate representations toMinister Gude on behalf of Ivanhoe East PrimarySchool.

ADJOURNMENT


In September I was pleased to announce to the schoolcouncil president, principal and teachers at IvanhoeEast Primary School that the Kennett government hadcommitted $500 000 towards the long-awaited majorupgrade and as immediate funding to complete theschool’s master plan. Shortly after I made thatannouncement I was approached by one of the parents,who asked whether the commitment would stand if theLabor member for Ivanhoe were re-elected. I gave anassurance that, irrespective of who the honourablemember for Ivanhoe might be, the commitment wouldstand.

I have been advised that last week a portable classroomwas delivered to the school, making a total of12 relocatable classrooms on the site. The latestrelocatable has been placed on a play area — the onlyplace it could be put — thereby reducing the availableoutdoor space to such an extent that the school cannothold its outside assembly. The purpose of the $500 000commitment was to enable the building of permanentschool classrooms and additional facilities for the512 students. The government’s latest action seemsinconsistent with the promise of an imminent upgrade. Itherefore seek the minister’s assurance that,notwithstanding the change of government, thegovernment will honour the previous government’scommitment to fund the urgently required upgradewithin the promised time frame.

Women: rural bursaries

Hon. E. J. POWELL (North Eastern) — I ask theMinister for Small Business to refer the issue I raise tothe Minister for Women’s Affairs in the other place. In1997 the former coalition government established arural women’s leadership bursary scheme inrecognition of the lack of representation of rural womenin leadership positions on boards and committees. Thebursaries amount to $2000 each for 20 Victorianwomen. It has enabled them to undertake trainingcourses, and they can use the money to pay not only forthe courses but also for babysitting or travel expenses.

It is vital that rural women become members of boardsand committees as well as local, state and federalgovernments. Many of the women I have spoken to at anumber of seminars in country Victoria have told methat they want to be involved but they lack theconfidence and skills to do so. It is a vital program forrural Victoria. I seek the minister’s assurance that shewill not abolish the program but will continue fundingit and maybe expand it.

Liquor: icy poles

Hon. J. W. G. ROSS (Higinbotham) — I refer theMinister for Small Business to an answer she gave to adorothy dixer from the Honourable Jenny Mikakos on24 November in which she referred to alcoholic icypoles that contain 0.5 per cent alcohol and ask whetherthat is the same product mentioned in an article in theHerald Sun of the same day, which states:

Controversial alcoholic icy poles will go on sale next week,sparking fresh concerns over their appeal to children …

The world-first icy treats, spiked with rum, bourbon or vodka,contain 6.5 per cent alcohol and will sell for about $3 or $4each.

If it is the same product, did she get the answer to herown dorothy dixer wrong, and will she correct Hansardaccordingly?

Restaurants: smoking ban

Hon. B. C. BOARDMAN (Chelsea) — I raise forthe attention of the Minister for Small Business anothertopical issue relating to her portfolio responsibility. Irefer to the minister’s admission during question timetoday that in announcing over the weekend the proposalto completely ban smoking in restaurants the Ministerfor Health had not consulted her, or vice versa.

Given that the Minister for Health has singled outrestaurants, that the proposal has potentially seriouseconomic ramifications for restaurants — theoverwhelming majority of which are smallbusinesses — and that smoking is a legal and regulatedactivity that 20 to 25 per cent of restaurant patronsenjoy during their meals, what representations has theminister made to ensure that restaurants will not beeconomically disadvantaged by the implementation ofthe proposed policy?

GST: small business

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Jika Jika) — Idirect to the attention of the Minister for SmallBusiness an article in the Herald Sun of 29 November,which states that the federal government will allocate$230 million to assist small businesses with the cost ofimplementing the goods and services tax and that somesmall businesses will get more than the $200 that wasoriginally mooted. The government has supported thatfunding provision, but the opposition recently votedagainst it. However, the house will welcome theincrease in funds to small business.

Hon. M. A. Birrell interjected.

ADJOURNMENT


Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — My concern isthat the basis of the increase — —

Hon. E. C. Carbines — Mr President, on a point oforder, I am most concerned that you are allowingMr Birrell the opportunity to interject when he is clearlynot in his seat.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The honourablemember should be a bit careful. I heard no interjectionfrom Mr Birrell. If an interjection addressed across thechamber is aimed at a particular member — as sheseems to be implying — it is for that member to raisethat matter by way of objection before the Chair. Iheard no objection so there is no point of order.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — The article in theHerald Sun states that:

Many small business owners control several entities, each ofwhich can apply for a $200 voucher.

For example, one entity may operate the business, anothermay run a self-managed superannuation fund and a third mayoperate a trust to hand the business on to a child.

That means that in effect the same small business candouble dip and be granted several $200 GST shoppingvouchers.

The PRESIDENT — Order! Can Mr Theophanousrelate this to state government business?

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — Although thehouse — and certainly the government — welcomesthe increase in compensation for small business, is theminister aware of the new basis for calculating thecompensation to be given to small businesses to coverthe cost of implementing the GST, and will she makerepresentation to the federal government to ensure thatany compensation is provided equitably?

Rail: Geelong–Melbourne special fare

Hon. I. J. COVER (Geelong) — I raise a matter forthe Minister for Small Business, who is also responsiblefor consumer affairs and — as we learnt earliertoday — fair trading. The minister may care to take upthe matter with the Minister for Transport, but perhapsshe will give her own views on it as the Minister forSmall Business.

I refer to a summer special that V/Line is offeringGeelong people to entice them to travel to Melbourne.Groups of up to four people are being offered returnoff-peak travel to Melbourne for a total of $16 eachway. Geelong small business people, including retailersand business organisations such as the Geelong

Regional Retailers, are concerned that the offer willentice Geelong people to go to Melbourne to shop,resulting in money being taken out of the Geelongsmall business economy.


Hon. I. J. COVER — I think they would like togive me a one-way ticket to the government benches,actually, together with my colleagues on this side of thehouse!

I might point out that among them is Peter Landers, thepresident of the Geelong Chamber of Commerce, whowas reported in the Geelong Advertiser last week ashaving said:

There should be some sort of balance, where Melbourneresidents are offered the same deal to travel to Geelong.

I am concerned about regional Victoria being given thesame opportunities as metropolitan Melbourne. Theminister may be able to pass on this matter to theMinister for Transport and urge him as a matter ofimportance to ensure the deal is offered to Melbournepeople to come to Geelong to support its retail sector.

Hon. C. A. Furletti interjected.

Hon. I. J. COVER — Indeed, Geelong regionalretailers chairman, Hayden Spurling, also believes thedeal is discriminatory. That may well fall into MinisterThomson’s small business and consumer affairs role aswell.


Hon. I. J. COVER — I can go on.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The honourablemember has made his point.

Hon. I. J. COVER — It might help teach thegovernment how to give a fulsome contribution in thishouse! It might also help some honourable members tomake late bids for interjection of the year!

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — Is Mark coaching youfrom back there?

Hon. I. J. COVER — He is not coaching me atall — he is actually working me with a foot pedal.

Hon. G. R. Craige — Can he pedal harder?

Hon. I. J. COVER — Write that one down!

I ask the minister what action she can take to giveGeelong small businesses the same opportunities that

ADJOURNMENT


Melbourne businesses are being given with this offer. Ialso request that she ask the Minister for Transportwhat action he can take.

Responses

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister assisting theMinister for Workcover) — Mr Hallam asked about myposition as Minister assisting the Minister forWorkcover. As I have informed the house on a numberof occasions, the onus is on the Minister for Workcoverto delegate issues to me as he chooses from time totime. Mr Hallam would be well aware of the duties androles of ministers in this house representing ministers inthe other place on legislation and on the adjournmentdebate. The Minister for Workcover has called on meon one occasion to assist with discussions he had inestablishing a working party.

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy andResources) — Mr Bishop raised the issue of transportregulations pertaining to height limits, the way theyimpact on transport companies and, particularly, themovement of freight containers. That is clearly a veryimportant matter for ports. Such matters have beenraised by transport companies and a request has beenmade for an adjustment to height limits.

I am aware of the issue; it has already been raised withme. I have also been involved in discussions about itwith the Minister for Transport. I understand from himthat a timetable for these regulations and changes toheight limits was clearly laid down by the previousgovernment and that this is a matter of industryadjustment. As I have been requested to do so, I amwilling to raise with the Minister for Transport thematter of exemptions. However, based on the adviceI have received to date, it seems to me that the timetablefor the introduction of the changes is clearly set downand I am not aware of any proposals to change it.

Mrs Coote referred to the essential servicesombudsman, the establishment of which forms animportant part of Labor’s election commitment, and therecent report of the Energy Industry Ombudsman(Victoria), Ms Fiona McLeod. I received that report inmy office yesterday. I am advised that the report isbased on an assessment of the situation over the past12 months and relates to a total of just over 300 gascases that were received by the ombudsman over thatperiod. Apparently the analysis of those cases indicatessome concern about the trend in gas disconnectionscompared with electricity disconnections.

I am also advised that based on that small number ofcases the information and analysis should be regarded

as indicative at this stage. I look forward to a muchmore comprehensive report from the Office of theRegulator-General, which will be forthcoming shortly.Mrs Coote expressed concern that Labor’s commitmentto the establishment of the essential servicesombudsman would place onerous obligations on thedistributors and prevent them carrying out importantresearch and other activities. I have previously advisedthe house that when the relevant legislation isintroduced there will be ample opportunity forconsultation and debate, and prior to the bill’sintroduction there will be a great deal of consultationwith the industry. At this stage I do not expect that willbe an issue.

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for SmallBusiness) — Mr Forwood asked about his briefingfrom my department. He will be contacted shortly toarrange a time when he can conveniently meet with thedepartment.

Hon. Bill Forwood interjected.

Hon. M. R. THOMSON — I will go back and raiseit with the department.

Ms Smith asked about retail trading hours andderegulation. I see my role as representing the smallretailers. It is not my own personal beliefs that matterhere, it is the concerns of small retailers, and it is myjob to represent them in this place.

Hon. W. I. Smith — What does that mean?

Hon. M. R. THOMSON — Do you mean mypersonal view?


Hon. R. M. Hallam — You’re meant to be aminister of the Crown.

Hon. M. R. THOMSON — And I have aconstituency of small business retailers to represent,and that is what I will do.

Mrs Powell asked about the rural women’s leadershipbursary scheme. I shall raise that matter with theMinister for Women’s Affairs.

Dr Ross asked whether the alcohol content of alcoholicicy poles was 0.5 per cent or 6.5 per cent. Mydepartment informed me it was 0.5 per cent. I shall goback and check with the department and relay theaccurate measure back to the honourable member.

Mr Boardman asked me about the disadvantage tosmall businesses and restaurants as a result of smoking

ADJOURNMENT


bans. I would imagine that any ban on smoking wouldbe uniform and therefore not disadvantage anyrestaurant.

Mr Theophanous raised the question of the$230 million of assistance relating to GST complianceand the current ability of businesses to double dip andget more out of it. I shall raise the matter with thefederal minister with a view to ensuring that theassistance is shared equitably and that the fact is bornein mind that people have already expended moneys onmaking sure they are GST compliant.

Mr Cover raised the issue of one-way rail ticketsbetween Melbourne and Geelong. I remind him thatV/Line is now a private concern and it is not within thegovernment’s jurisdiction to determine what V/Lineoffers. However, it is only fair and reasonable that itshould honour its commitments. I shall refer the matterto the Minister for Transport in the other place.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport andRecreation) — The Honourable Maree Luckins referredto community speculation about the Murrumbeena andCaulfield police stations. I will direct her concern to theattention of the Minister for Police and EmergencyServices in the other place.

I will refer the matter raised by the Honourable AndrewOlexander about the Boronia and Upper Ferntree Gullyschools, and funding promised by previousgovernments, to the Minister for Education in the otherplace.

The Honourable Neil Lucas directed to my attention theissue of competitive neutrality in relation to the Caseyaquatic centre. That area will be of concern to all localand state governments as governments invest money invarious forms of infrastructure that are desperatelyrequired. I am sure people will raise the issue ofcompetitive neutrality in certain situations. Withoutspeculating on each of those cases, I believe eachwould need to be reviewed on its merits. That wouldbecome an issue for local and state governments. Itwould be necessary to carry out research through thefeasibility studies, and when the studies have takenplace the results would be factored into any equations.

The Honourable Carlo Furletti raised a matter aboutrelocatable classrooms at the Ivanhoe East PrimarySchool. I will direct that matter to the attention of theMinister for Education in the other place.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned 5.42 p.m

parliamentary debates (hansard) · was a gentleman, as indeed was arthur hewson. arthur won the...

Documents