melbourne spoleto festival...melbourne spoleto festival, but that name has been reduced by most...

Questions without Notice 20 September 1989 COUNCIL 533

Wednesday, 20 September 1989

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. A. J. Hunt) took the chair at 11.3 a.m. and read the prayer.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

MELBOURNE SPOLETO FESTIVAL The Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra Province)-The Minister for the Arts will

be aware that close to $20 million will have been spent since 1984 on the Melbourne Spoleto Festival and in promoting and associating the name Spoleto with the high quality international festival of the arts held in Melbourne. Since nearly $15 million of that amount represents public money and the Cain government is committed to contributing at least another $5 million to Spoleto, will the government guarantee that it will make every effort to ensure that the name Melbourne Spoleto Festival, which is owned and supported by Victorians, is not abandoned?

The Hon. E. H. WALKER (Minister for the Arts)-I am happy to respond to the question asked by Mr Birrell, but I am surprised it did not come from Mr Guest, who raised the issue with me yesterday, and also appeared to enjoy the ballet last night.

Honourable members interjecting.

The Hon. E. H. WALKER-Certainly; it was an excellent show.

The PRESIDENT-We enjoyed it here, too.


The Hon. E. H. W ALKER-The history of the name Spoleto in Melbourne goes back three of four years and it has now been built up into a fine festival. I hope honourable members are aware of the tremendous effort that has been put into the Spoleto Festival this year by those connected with it, such as Mr John Truscott, who is the artistic director and whose skill and imagination has meant that we have a fine festival both in our splendid facilities in St Kilda Road and out into St Kilda Road, where the public has enjoyed many days and nights of free street entertainment.

The upgrading of the fountains at the Art Gallery was a donation from Mr Ronald Walker, and a generous one at that. The Botanica display, including the flower boxes across Princes Bridge and the lighting of the trees, has been a success. Most of those features will remain in place permanently, and Victorians will enjoy the benefits of them for many years.

Spoleto is the name used for three festivals: the first originating in Italy; the second being established in a small town in South Carolina in the United States of America; and the most recent, the third addition to the series of Spoleto festivals taking place in Melbourne. Maestro Gian Carlo Menotti, who established the entire concept of the Spoleto festivals, was the artistic director and leader of the first three festivals in Melbourne. Melbourne has the capacity to continue to use the name Spoleto; legally it is possible to continue to use it. The government believes Spoleto, as it is presently and will in future years be staged, will be an important part of Melbourne's bid for the Olympic Games. It is important that Melbourne conduct a cultural festival at the time of the Olympic Games, and Spoleto is a festival of such quality and type that it would be a very fine basis for assisting Melbourne's bid.

534 COUNCIL 20 September 1989 Questions without Notice

The whole question is: should we continue to use the name? I have said that I am interested in public debate on the matter. My personal view is that it would be wise to move towards a name such as "Melbourne International Arts Festival" so that Melbourne is more strongly identified in the name. I know that this year it is still the Melbourne Spoleto Festival, but that name has been reduced by most people simply to the "Spoleto Festival".

As Mr Birrell pointed out, it has been built up over the years. I do not say that the investment of which he speaks is invested only in the name; it is invested in the festival itself. A change of name would not reduce the quality of the festival. The fact is that it is attached to Melbourne and has become part of Melbourne's cultural life in a way that I hope remains for many years.

I say publicly, and ask for comment, that I think a change of name is in order, but I am willing to hear from the public and from Mr Guest as to whether the name "Spoleto" should be kept.

RECYCLING OF NEWSPRINT The Hon. D. M. EVANS (North Eastern Province)-I direct to the attention of the

Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources a press report last week in which it was indicated that Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd, Australia's only producer of newsprint, is contemplating the possibility of a recycling plant producing newsprint from recycled paper and is looking at investing $60 million to $100 million in that project.

Given that the House strongly supported the basis of the motion encouraging recycling that was debated last week, what efforts will the Minister and his department make to ensure that every encouragement is given to Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd to proceed with the project, and particularly to have it established in Victoria and, if at all possible, in Wangaratta or Albury-Wodonga?

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources)Honourable members will be aware, because of a recent debate in this place on the subject of recycling, that several government departments and Ministries are interested in that topic-for example, the Local Government Department; the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands; the Ministry for Planning and Environment; the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources; and the Ministry of Education.

To my knowledge, the government has had no representations from Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd or any other company proposing the recycling of newsprint. If any industry or firm has such a proposition and is interested in locating such a plant in Victoria the government is interested in hearing from it. If Mr Evans has any information in that regard I look forward to pursuing that matter further with him and to meeting with any companies that he wishes the government to meet.

STATE TRAINING BOARD The Hon. B. W. MIER (Waverley Province)-Will the Minister responsible for

Post-Secondary Education advise the House whether, after two years of operation of the State Training Board, there are any indicators to demonstrate an improvement in efficiency and productivity in the technical and further education system?

The Hon. E. H. WALKER (Minister responsible for Post-Secondary Education)-I am pleased to respond to Mr Mier's question because the training area is a subject in which he has a great deal of interest.


I am pleased to advise the House of a 14 per cent increase in equivalent full-time student numbers between the 1987-88 and 1988-89 financial years; that is, the 14 per cent increase in numbers occurred between last year and this year. Meanwhile a reduction of 11·5 per cent in full-time employment numbers was recorded-in other words, the system has quite dramatically improved its efficiency or productivity with a significant increase in full-time student numbers and a significant decrease in staff numbers.

Those figures are based on statistics of the Department of Management and Budget and of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The productivity savings are due to the implementation of the 1987 T AFE teacher industrial agreement. I regard that as a good agreement. The implementation of productivity savings related to the 4 per cent second-tier wage decision has also had an effect.

Those gains are significant since there is no evidence of any drop in the quality of T AFE courses or the quality of teacher training-indeed, the opposite applies. When I visit T AFE colleges in the metropolitan area and throughout Victoria I am delighted at the excellent quality of courses and training. I pay tribute to the administration of the T AFE colleges and the teachers for their ability to improve the quality of courses and to sustain productivity.

However, there is a challenge in the future for the colleges to sustain those trends. There is a need to increase the number of training places in Victoria. Questions from honourable members in this place over the past several months have indicated that they and the public at large are concerned that, even though the government has quite dramatically increased the number of apprenticeship places, there are still not enough. I see honourable members nodding.

The government will be doing its very best to increase the number of places because the future of the Victorian economy is based absolutely on the quality of training across the board in certified and associate diploma courses and generally within apprenticeships.

The government is in the midst of appropriate award restructuring to create a doubling of the existing demand for training in as short a period as four years-that would not relate to first training but mid-career and follow-up training-because training through T AFE colleges and through the private providers will be at the heart of the government's capacity to manage an award restructure.

The State Training Board has a major challenge ahead. I consider that the Office of the State Training Board is highly efficient and well led. I compliment those involved in the entire system on its good performance over the past two years, resulting in an increase in student numbers, a decrease in staffing and a significant increase in productivity. The government looks forward to that office performing as good ajob in the future as it has in the past two or three years.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING The Hon. J. V. C. GUEST (Monash Province)-My question is directed to the

Minister responsible for Post-Secondary Education. Has the government attempted to influence Federal funding allocations to universities so that increases in student numbers will favour the proposed new university at the expense of universities such as Monash University being able to serve their natural catchment areas and take full advantage of their own amalgamation programs?

The Hon. E. H. WALKER (Minister responsible for Post-Secondary Education)Mr Guest's question goes to the issue of whether there will be a transfer of any places;


there has been talk about teacher training places being transferred from the eastern to the western suburbs. In other words, there has been a proposal that approximately 500 places would be transferred, essentially from teacher training colleges-Chisholm Institute of Technology, Victoria College and Hawthorn Institute of Education-in the eastern suburbs to the new university of technology that will have campuses at Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, the Footscray College ofTAFE and Western Institute.

A decision has not yet been made. The intention is that there could well be a transfer of that kind, partly because there has been an insufficient supply of places in the west all these years. If one examines the statistics, one discovers that the western suburbs have simply been undersupplied with tertiary places. Young people in the western suburbs who have wanted to undertake training of various kinds-especially teacher training-have, in their hundreds, had to move across to the eastern suburbs for their courses.

There is nothing wrong with that, and the colleges have done a significant job in that regard. We now believe one of the roles of the new university of technology will be to deliver more of what is required in tertiary education in the western suburbs of Melbourne.

A final decision has not yet been made. It is not a simple issue, and I am discussing the matter with various colleges and what will become university-based colleges in the future. I guess that is why Mr Guest mentioned Monash University, because it is possible that Victoria College will become an amalgamated part ofMonash University.

I hope there will be-and properly so-a transfer ofa significant number of tertiary places from the eastern suburbs to the new university of technology and campuses in the west so that young people in the western suburbs can undertake tertiary courses nearer to their homes.

MORTGAGE RELIEF SCHEME The Hon. R. A. BEST (North Western Province)-Will the Minister for Housing

and Construction give a commitment to the House that the current mortgage relief scheme will be restructured to provide real assistance to home owners in crisis in the form of direct relief grants instead of the current system of loans that serves only to drive struggling families further into the credit mire? Or does the Minister see it as a function of the government to plunge Victorian families further into debt?

The Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Housing and Construction)-As I said to the House on an earlier occasion, additional funds were provided by the Commonwealth government for mortgage relief. At present the Ministry is preparing some alternatives for me on ways in which those funds can be used.

I disagree with Mr Best that it necessarily follows that those funds should be used as grants. The purpose of providing mortgage relief is to assist people through situations of crisis-either family crises of some kind involving financial problems associated with employment or perhaps related to changes in financing generally. Those sorts of problems put families under stress. Bearing in mind the equity of providing assistance, I do not think that simply the provision of grants to people in those circumstances is the way to go.

Clearly the government has a role to play. It has recognised this in the past by providing assistance. It has also been recognised by the Commonwealth government because it has provided funds to ease people through such situations so that they are


not at risk of losing their family homes or the investments they have made by their work and effort.

I assure Mr Best that the situation is being closely examined at present. I have seen an early submission that set some alternatives for me in ways that we can fruitfully use those additional funds. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

STATE ELECTRICITY COMMISSION The Hon. R. S. IVES (Eumemmerring Province)-I direct a question to the Minister

for Industry, Technology and Resources. In the current economic climate it is obviously very important-indeed essential-that our industries export overseas. The same could be said of government utilities such as the Gas and Fuel Corporation and the State Electricity Commission. Will the Minister inform the House of the progress being made in the marketing of SEC skills and services overseas?

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources)Victorian utilities-in particular the State Electricity Commission of Victoria, the Gas and Fuel Corporation, the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works and the Rural Water Commission-have built up a degree of engineering expertise over their history. During the 1950s and 1960s the then State Rivers and Water Supply Commission expanded its activities and sought to undertake engineering activities outside Australia by doing contract work in Asia and, in particular, dam construction in Africa.

In the current economic environment it is of the utmost importance to encourage utilities to export their engineering skills, particularly to the Pacific Basin, and each of those utilities has sought presence in the People's Republic of China and South-East Asia.

I am pleased to indicate that the State Electricity Commission, as is becoming commonplace these days, has been successful in winning a contract in Indonesia to provide skilled personnel for the Indonesian Coal Mining Authority. The contract calls for the SEC personnel to operate and manage new maintenance workshops in a major coalmine in Sumatra for one year.

As a result of that association with Indonesia it is possible that larger contracts of a construction nature may, in turn, be awarded either to utilities or to Australian-based engineering companies. The government seeks to extend that association.

As well as managing these workshops in Sumatra, SEC people will be responsible for training Indonesian personnel. Obviously the experience our people will gain working in an international setting can only benefit the SEC's own operations and in particular will enhance Victoria's export potential in the management area.

The government looks forward to building on that Indonesian association and encouraging the SEC, as with other utilities, to resume, consistent with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade guidelines, activities in the People's Republic of China.

SUPPORT FOR PHARMACISTS The Hon. M. T. TEHAN (Central Highlands Province)-I direct to the attention

of the Minister for Health a question I asked her last week relating to what action the Minister had taken to implement Australian Labor Party policy in relation to the pharmacy profession. The Minister indicated in response to that question that she would speak about pharmacists either this week or next. Will the Minister explain to


the House why she has not yet spoken to pharmacists, given the degree of urgency in the matter if the Federal government changes come into effect later next week?

The Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Health)-As Mrs Tehan has said, I did say that I would meet with representatives of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia either this week or next week. I have an appointment in my diary to meet the ~ild's representatives on Tuesday next at 8.30 a.m. The Victorian Trades Hall Council rang me and asked if that appointment could be made earlier and, bearing in mind the sensitivity of the policy platform, I made every attempt to arrange that meeting earlier and, in fact, made an appointment for Friday of this week. That proved difficult for the guild, which preferred to keep the meeting at 8.30 a.m. on 26 September, which is when the meeting will occur.

STATE TRAINING BOARD The Hon. K. I. M. WRIGHT (North Western Province)-The Minister responsible

for Post-Secondary Education is aware that the government is contemplating legislative changes to technical and further education colleges. As background, I indicate that the Sunraysia College of TAPE has expressed concern to me that one such change would involve, in effect, the majority of nominations to a TAPE college board being government nominations, and I share its concern. Will the Minister assure the House that these concerns will be sympathetically considered in any final draft of the proposed legislation?

The Hon. E. H. WALKER (Minister responsible for Post-Secondarr. Education)These matters are being sympathetically dealt with. I shall make avallable copies of the discussion paper that has been current for the past couple of months. The draft legislation has been available since last week.

It is my intention to introduce a significant Bill relating to the State Training Board because, as Mr Wright mayor may not realise, the board was established by regulation some years ago and it is important that it have a proper legislative base. At the moment three Acts of Parliament and regulations provide the basis for that organisation.

I do not know what Mr Wright's specific concerns are. I am happy enough to speak with him about them, but I shall make available to him one or two documents that may give him an explanation in response to the question he asked.

COMMON EQUITY RENTAL COOPERATIVES The Hon. C. F. V AN BUREN (Eumemmerring Province)-The question I ask

relates to a matter of great importance to the community at large, particularly to the people of the province I represent. Announced in the State Budget was the provision of$12 million for common equity rental cooperatives. Will the Minister for Housing and Construction provide details to the House of how the funds will be spent so that all honourable members will know what is happening in the provinces they represent?

The Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Housing and Construction)-As I have said before, I believe cooperatives are an important way of providing housing. Providing housing in itself is important, but the ability for people to have control and a sense of ownership is crucial to the success of the provision of housing.

In the case of cooperatives, the people involved do not own the houses individually, but, as the name suggests, they hold the value or equity in common; thus the name common equity rental cooperatives. During the last State election campaign funding


was promised for the program and, as Mr Van Buren said, the Budget allocates $12 million for that purpose.

I am pleased that, following submissions, I can now announce that $12·8 million will be allocated for 21 new cooperatives, which will provide at least 180 new houses. That will take the total number of cooperatives since the program commenced to 40 with a total of 302 properties.

Of the 21 cooperatives, honourable members should be aware that 11 are to be in the metropolitan area and 10 are to be in the country, so it is a widespread program. Within the next four years some 80 additional cooperatives should be commenced.

In terms of financing, 60 per cent of the funding is provided from government sources and 40 per cent by the private sector. It is another example ofajoint venture where there is a gearing of State money to achieve the best possible result. As a reflection of two sources of funding, 60 per cent of the people participating in cooperatives must be eligible for public housing while 40 per cent can be chosen without that requirement. That is an advantage in terms of providing a mix of people in a particular housing area. The houses do not have to be in one development but can be, and usually are, spread through a neighbourhood or region.

The current criterion is that a minimum of seven families must participate in a program, with a maximum involvement of twenty. On the evidence of the success of those cooperatives that have involved almost twenty families, consideration is being given to allowing the cooperatives to increase their numbers beyond twenty. I hope that is successful because it is a good way of providing homes for people. The common equity rental cooperatives are a successful initiative of the Cain Labor government.

BOX HILL HOSPITAL The Hon. G. H. COX (Nunawading Province)-Is the Minister for Health aware

that the Box Hill Hospital has closed two of its six critical care beds? Does the Minister know this emergency hospital services 20 per cent of the Victorian population? Will the Minister inform the House why she has allowed the closure of beds to occur?

The Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Health)-I presume that the Box Hill Hospital is making some chan~es to its practices, in line with its health service a$feement. I am not aware of the detaIls of the changes that have been made at the hospital. I shall find out those details and get back to Mr Cox with the hospital's explanation.

NATIONAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF GERONTOLOGY AND GERIA TRIC MEDICINE

The Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE (Geelong Province)-I direct a question to the Minister for Health regarding the National Research Institute of Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine based at the Mount Royal Hospital, Parkville. I have been asked by the Grace McKellar Centre for Rehabilitation and Extended Care to determine whether some support can be forthcoming from the government. I understand the research that is carried out there is very important in the area of health care for the elderly. There is some concern that funding is becoming scarce. Is the Minister aware of that? If not, will she investigate the matter to see whether the institute can be assisted in some way by the government?

The Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Health)-I am aware of the work being done by the National Research Institute of Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, and by Professor Helme in particular. I am also aware of the undersupply of gerontologists,


both in Australia and worldwide. I acknowledge that there is a need for some funding there. Certainly officers within Health Department Victoria are seeking to identify some sources from which that funding might come. When that exercise is done, I shall provide Mr Mackenzie with some details.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT The Hon. LICIA KOKOCINSKI (Melbourne West Province)-The Minister for

Local Government will be aware that one of the critical factors that distinguishes successful organisations from mediocre ones is the efficient and productive management of human resources-or what used to be called personnel management. Will the Minister advise the House what action is being taken to address the important human resource management provisions, including equal employment opportunity provisions, in the Local Government Act?

The Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Local Government)-I am not surprised that Ms Kokocinski has asked a question about these matters, because I know they are of long standing interest to her. On 1 November of this year certain sections of the Local Government Act will come into force that will have an impact on the way in which local government responds to the requirements of its ratepayers. On 9 and 10 November a conference will be held in Ringwood to be or$anised by the Local Government Department, the Municipal Association of Victona and the Institute of Municipal Management, which will address the very important question of human resource development in local government. The conference will be called "Putting People First". Some of the issues to be covered at that conference include equal employment opportunity, which concerns the specific matter raised by Ms Kokocinski; human resource development in rural Victoria which, as honourable members will know, is of major concern to local government in those parts of the State; and the very important issue of occupational health and safety.

As I have informed the House, a tripartite advisory committee on human resource development has been established under the chairmanship of Mr Neil Cole, the honourable member for Melbourne in the other place. That committee will report to the conference on its investiptions, included in which will be the reports of four important subcommittees whIch have been very active and which have brought into the debate almost every player in the local government community. Certainly I am looking forward to hearing the reports of that advisory committee.

At the conference I shall launch a booklet that will assist local government in the implementation of equal employment opportunity provisions. The booklet will assist local government by providing guidelines for that area of activity.

A number of other major issues will also be addressed at the conference and a significant number of delegates from local councils throughout the State will attend. I am looking forward to the conference enhancing the development of human resource management in local government.

KENSINGTON ORDNANCE SITE The Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern Province)-Will the Minister for Housing

and Construction give the House a categorical assurance that an allocation of approximately $10 million will be made from this year's Budget for the necessary flood mitigation work on the Maribyrnong River so that the development of 1000 housing blocks on the Kensington ordnance site can proceed?


The Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Housing and Construction)-This matter is the subject of discussions between the State and Commonwealth governments. I hope a favourable result can be reached that will permit that land to be used for housing purposes. Adjoining areas have been successfully developed. An example is the development at Lynch's Bridge, which is a good example ofa successful joint venture between the government and the private sector.

I should certainly like to see that type of development continue, but at the moment this matter is subject to discussion between the Federal government and the State government and I shall not be making any comments at this time that could prejudice the outcome of those discussions.

CHILDHOOD INFECTIOUS DISEASES The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Jika Jika Province)-As the government's

representative on the committee of the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund-UNICEF-and as someone with children, I have an enduring interest in the well-being of children and I ask the Minister for Health what measures she is taking to protect children in Victoria against childhood diseases.

The Hon. C. J. HOGG (Minister for Health)-So successful was the immunisation program during the 1950s and the 1960s that many parents these days seem to believe childhood diseases such as measles and mumps and even rubella no longer exist. The price for their not existing is obviously vigilance and continued emphasis on immunisation programs.

I should like to direct to the attention of honourable members a number of new initiatives recently introduced in Victoria to protect children against those diseases. In July this year a new vaccine which protects children against measles, mumps and rubella was introduced. The National Health and Medical Research Council recommends the elimination of rubella and the reduction of the congenital rubella syndrome. This has resulted in the Victorian government introducing a combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine which will protect children against these unnecessary diseases. That is the MMR vaccine, and it will be given to children as a matter of course when they present for immunisation.

Even more significantly, new provisions within the Health (General Amendment) Act 1988 will ensure that children entering prep school from 1990 will require an immunisation status certificate when commencing their schooling. Cooperation from local government, the Municipal Association of Victoria, the Victorian Institute of Health Surveyors, the Ministry of Education, the Catholic Education Office, the Association of Independent Schools of Victoria and the Victorian Teachers Union has enabled the Health Department Victoria to pilot this new program and to develop suitable procedures.

The pilot programs were conducted in the following localities: the Shire of Bulla, the Shire of Maf£ra, the City of Heidelberg and the City of Hawthorn. The extensive evaluation of the pilot programs will enable a smooth lntroduction of this extremely important program in Victoria. In addition to the background and resource material, Health Department Victoria will be working with the MA V to provide the necessary assistance to ensure successful implementation of this scheme.

Victoria will be the first State in Australia to introduce the school entry immunisation certificate program and to develop and implement a standardised data collection system which will monitor immunisation rates in Victoria and enable the health department's public health officers to target areas of greatest need.

542 COUNCIL 20 September 1989 Petitions

These new initiatives will lead to the control, if not the eradication, of the childhood infectious diseases poliomyelitis, diphtheria, tetanus, measles, mumps and rubella, and will place Victoria at the forefront of the other States in implementing public health measures to control childhood infectious diseases.

PETITIONS Physiotherapy education

The Hon. HADOON STOREY (East Yarra Province) presented a petition from certain citizens of Victoria praying that the government authorise the relocation of physiotherapy education to the University of Melbourne by the commencement of the 1990 academic year. He stated that the petition was respectfully worded, in order, and bore 3959 signatures.

It was ordered that the petition be laid on the table.

The Hon. HADOON STOREY (East Yarra Province) presented a petition from certain citizens of Victoria praying that the government take action to reconsider its decision to amalgamate the department of physiotherapy with La Trobe University. He stated that the petition was respectfully worded, in order, and bore 6 signatures.

It was ordered that the petition be laid on the table.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION The Hon. M. A. LYSTER (Minister for Local Government) (By leave)-On

5 September in answerin~ a question without notice from Mr DaVIdson regarding municipal boundary inqUIries, I said it is my intention to act only if I have to act and if I have the support of the affected council.

Because I would not want any misconstruction of my words I emphasise that "community" should replace the word "council". I reiterate the government's policy on municipal boundary changes: such changes would proceed only with local support.

GOVERNMENT MISMANAGEMENT The Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra Province )-1 move: That this House condemns the Cain government for conspiring to coverup or manipulate the truth

about its mismanagement ofthe State.

The Cain government is engaged in a sophisticated program to coverup or manipulate the truth about its mismanagement of this State. In particular it is endeavouring to ensure the public does not know the full truth about its financial mismanagement throughout Victoria.

In this motion today I wish to canvass three areas of concern for all Victorians: firstly, the Cain government's determination to gag independent umpires such as the Auditor-General and the coroner; secondly, the government's determination to stop public access to documents and files by creating a wall of secrecy around government departments and Ministers or by simply shredding or losing documents that should be in the public domain; and, thirdly, the government's determination to distort any interpretation of the truth through its use of expensive opinion polls and its use of a record expenditure offunds to prop up a media unit.

Without any stretch of the imagination, the activities of the Cain government pose a serious threat to the public interest as it decreases or interferes with legitimate

Government Mismanagement 20 September 1989 COUNCIL 543

scrutiny of the Cabinet and the bureaucracy. These concerns are shared by a number of commentators, especially the Auditor-General.

However, it is important for the House and the public to focus on the overall program that ensures that the Cain government is not subject to proper scrutiny.

I wish to analyse each of those issues by looking, firstly, at a number of policy issues and, secondly, at the activities of certain departments and the control exercised over people like the Auditor-General and the State Coroner.

Firstly, I discuss the issue of Work Care. In doing so, I refer to a document released to me under the Freedom of Information Act by the State government Accident Compensation Commission on Monday. Copies have been circulated to each of the parties.

The document is in a form which can be printed in Hansard and I have spare copies for any member, of course. I seek leave to have the document incorporated in H ansard.

Leave was granted, and the document was as follows:

STRICfL Y CONFIDENTIAL

for addressee only

MEMORANDUM

To: Jim Clark, General Manager-Claims/Levy Division

Dick Scotton, General Manager-Policy and Planning

Ben Paki, General Manager-Review Division

From: John Markley, Managing Director

Date: 20 January 1987

Subject: Brief for Chairman-proposed appointment with Premier 22/1/87

Please advise me by noon 21/1/87 any comments you have on the attached. It is very important that the chairman is-

fully and

accurately

briefed for his meeting.

JOHN MARKLEY

Managing Director

attachment

1. SCHEME OBJECfIVES

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION

To pay compensation to injUred workers promptly.

To collect levies efficiently.

These two objectives are being met with very rare (less 2 per cent) exceptions.

There is a problem in reimbursing employers. We are proposing to pay employers direct from ACC on a fortnightly basis from July 1987.

Page 2

2. CLAIMS AGENTS

Nine claims agents' results in:

2.1 nine different computer systems

2.2 nine different operational standards

544 COUNCIL 20 September 1989 Government Mismanagement

2.3 nine different interpretations of statutory obligations and ACC directions.

We have established our own internal claims agency mainly as:

2.4 a test bed for new computer systems

2.5 an indicator of economic costing

2.6 an example of how efficiently a claims agency can be run.

I t also serves a role in:

2.7 preventing claims agencies from using their apparent strength

2.8 receiving portfolios forced on the commission e.g. self insurers no longer eligible as such.

Clearly, this is a significant advantage in negotiations with claims agencies.

Page 3

2.9. The remuneration system for claims agents based on their current three year contracts expiring 31/8/88 is most unsatisfactory: There is a fee for every claim file opened. No other effective fees are payable for claims management. There are, therefore, no incentives for the proper management of claims; indeed, the reverse is true.

We propose to break those contracts at 31/8/87 and install a system broadly based on:

2. 10 no fee for opening a file

2.11 a management fee for each case which decays below actual cost after x weeks

2.12 a relatively substantial fee for closing a claims file (with no fees at all for reopening).

Whilst it is extremely difficult currently to force efficiency from claims agents, we are using every possible avenue allowed by the present grossly deficient contracts:

2.13 at least four detailed audits each year including financial and claims transactions

2.14 the imposition of substantial fines for "negligence" as defined in the contracts

2.15 the threat of termination on six months notice.

However, for the next six months, we have to accept that we are in a relatively weak position since it would be very difficult indeed to absorb within ACC the whole of anyone claims agent's operations.

Page 4

3. FINANCIAL VIABILITY

3.1 The levy rate is 10 per cent less than forecasts which costs us $60 m. 1986-87.

3.2 Claims paid are 10 per cent higher than the highest forecast which costs us $26m. 1986-87.

3.3 The number of claims is 21 per cent above forecasts.

3.4 The estimated outstanding claims (i.e. liabilities on claims already incurred where payments must be met in future years) is significantly above forecasts. While there is room for differences of view, the relevant officers of the commission would be unable to accept that the outstanding liabilities of the commission were less than $200m. above forecasts.

This view, we believe, would be shared by two of three consulting actuaries associated with the commission.

3.5 Investment return rates are double those forecast; however, actual investment income is significantly affected by the drain on funds by excess claims.

3.6 Expense rates are not dissimilar from those forecast. However, the forecasts made no provision for "authorised expenditure" on ACT, V ARC and DOL (OHS).

3.7 The board of ACC has generally refused-

*proposals to increase levies

*proposals to control claims payments

See Section 6.


3.8 The commission has persistently warned appropriate authorities of the perceived financial problems faced by the commission:

Page 5

*Financial statements to the board

*Two meetings with Dr Sheehan

*Two meetings with Mr Jolly

*Meeting with Mr Brouwer

*Numerous meetings with DMB personnel

* Actuarial and statistical reports:

Trowbridge Tillinghast

ACC statistician

ACC general managers

to board and DMB.

There has been little action as a result. Indeed, such warnings have been treated in most cases (but with notable exceptions) with scepticism.

Page 6

4. PROPOSALS TO ENHANCE VIABILITY

4.1 Levies

4.1.1 ACC has designed a range of rates, 25, within the existing permitted limits ()'57 per cent to 3·8 per cent which can be used readily to obtain an average rate in excess of the current rate of2·2 per cent.

4.1.2 A rate of at least 2·45 per cent is required to meet the required objective of 2·4 per cent average over 10 years.

4.1.3 It is the view of relevant commission officers that a rate of 2·4 per cent for 10 years is markedly deficient to meet current and forecast liabilities.

4.1.4 Legislative proposals have been specified separately to penalise the small minority of employers who delay their payments unreasonably.

4.1.5 Urgent legislation is being proposed to the ACC board, 23.1.87, to overcome a serious adverse decision by a conciliator in

Worski v. A CC (under appeal)

which could seriously damage ACC levy income.

4.2 Claims

4.2.1 Proposals to ensure the proper management of claims by claims agents have been specified in section 2 above.

4.2.2 Rehabilitation is discussed in section 5 below.

Page 7

4.2.3 Prevention is expected to produce significant results commencing in the second half of calendar year 1987. There is the closest effective cooperation at all relevant staff levels between ACC and DOL (OHS).

4.2.4 A comprehensive survey of 300 claims exceeding 52 weeks in benefit is currently being conducted to establish profiles of such claimants including (but not limited):

sex, age, marital status

type of injury

occupational group

effectiveness of rehabilitation

incidence of medical review

degree of incapacity.


4.2.5 Separate less extensive surveys are being conducted to examine:

·the current use of medical review (s. 123)

·the possible use of medical review boards

*the effect of partial disability provisions particularly s. 94 and s. 94 (5).

4.2.6 The commission has appointed a special investigator (20.1.87) who will install sophisticated computer system (in co-operation with MAB) to detect fraud and abuse by claimants and by those persons authorised to sign certificates of incapacity.

4.2.7 Legislation proposals have been made in a separate report to remove the current anomalies arising from the application of s. 100, Indexation, which in some circumstances can provide a claimant with a weekly benefit in excess of his previous wage.

4.2.8 Legislation proposals have been made in a separate report to ensure much greater control over the categories of persons who can sign certificates of incapacity (s. 133).

Other proposals under this section, included in the same report, are designed to:

Page 8

4.2.8.1 remove the abuse of the "28 days notice" provision

4.2.8.2 allow the commission to challenge certificates of incapacity

4.2.8.3 permit the commission to suspend payment of weekly benefits for good cause.

It is proposed also to require a claimant to declare whether or not any other authorised person has refused to issue, or has withdrawn, or terminated, any certificate of incapacity.

4.2.9 Legislation proposals include provisions to remove significant disincentives to return to work.

4.2.10 Proposals are being prepared for referral to the Federal Commissioner of Taxation to remove the penal tax rate of 61 per cent on payment of partial incapacity benefits.

Page 9

5. REHABILITATION

5.1. V ARC philosophy appears to be oriented strongly to social welfare.

5.2. VARC has consistently avoided proposals designed by ACC to measure cost effectiveness of rehabilitation procedures.

5.3. VARC denies that ACC has any co-ordinating role in WorkCare (a view strongly supported by lan M. J. Baker). See section 7.

5.4. As a result of the above three situations and to avoid conflict between WorkCare agencies, the commission has attempted, quite successfully, to distance itselffrom any operation which involves VARC. The outcome has been that in the last six months relationships between ACC and V ARC have improved very markedly.

5.4.1 The commission is now involved in only two areas of operation of V ARC:

5.4.1.1 referrals of cases for rehabilitation,

5.4.1.2 cheque drawings for providers.

5.4.2. The commission has designed efficient systems for these two operations and is strongly urging V ARC to assume full responsibility.

5.4.3. When V ARC does absorb these two operations it will totally control all aspects of rehabilitation.

5.5. V ARC has refused to advise the commission when an injured worker offered rehabilitation declines the offer. V ARC has suggested we should use investigators to obtain such information. As a result, ACC is unable to carry out the full requirements of s.112.

Page 10

5.6 V ARC has provisionally agreed to flag our system to indicate when a person is on rehabilitation and when that treatment finishes.

5.7 It is the view of relevant commission officers that V ARC is a significant cost to the system and that this is most unlikely to change in the forseeable future.


5.8 VARC has power to authorise ANYBODY to sign certificates of incapacity. It is our view that this authority has not always been wisely used. There is some evidence that certificates have been issued where the real problem, after resolution of the injury, has been a failure to obtain employment.

5.9 See section 7-Co-ordination of Work Care Agencies.

Page 11

6. ACCBOARD

6.1 Given the tripartite composition of the board (employers, union, government) it is inevitable that agreement to controversial proposals will not always be attained.

6.2 However, of the 12 members, 5 form a cohesive pressure group effectively controlling key decisions, such decisions generally against the recommendations of the chairperson and the managing director.

6.3 The most notable examples are:

6.3.1 Nicolosi-a direction to the commission to pay weekly benefits for injuries (including those sustained before 1/9/85) if the 21-day limit is exceeded. This was in direct conflict with Counsel opinion commissioned by the board.

6.3.2 Levies-a refusal to increase certain levy rates (supported in that refusal by DMB) against the strong recommendations of the chairperson and the managing director.

6.3.3 Valuation-a refusal to accept any valuation above a minimum figure (supported in that refusal by DMB) against the strongest possible recommendations of the chairperson and managing director.

6.3.4 Annual Report-the removal and alteration of significant material recommended by the commission as necessary to fully inform the public.

6.3.5 RAIFU-a case which gave the commission power to challenge certificates of incapacity. There is significant hostIlity to the use of this power by ACC and it is to be discussed for the third time in 5 meetings on 23/1/87.

Page 12

6.4 There has apparently been some concern that ACC is not using the administrative powers it has to exercise greater control over claims.

Given:

6.4.1 the present composition and disposition of the board.

6.4.2 the total inadequacy of the agreements granted to claims agents

this concern is unwarranted. Indeed, the commission has used not only whatever powers are available to it but also many which could be challenged, certainly by the board, to keep claims and claims costs under control.

These efforts are in many cases frustrated by:

• interference at board level

• undue pressure from DMB.

This was nowhere more apparent than in the combined efforts ofDMB and a faction of the board on:

revision oflevy rates

acceptance of the Szuch valuation

in both cases frustrating the commission and which will prove to be costly in both monetary and political terms.

6.5 It is becoming increasingly clear that this same scenario is being used to force the commission to use W. Szuch for the annual valuation, 30/6/87. This is in spite of the fact that the valuation 30/6/86 by Mr Szuch is increasingly being shown to be quite incorrect. The antagonism towards the commission's appointed actuaries, Trowbridge Tillinghast, appears to be based on the fear that their valuation at 30/6/86 may well prove to be sound, throwing considerable doubt on W. Szuch's valuation and the original costings. It seems quite apparent to the chairperson and to the managing director that Mr R. Cumpston, a board member and author of Volume 2, Costing WorkCare, holds a firm view that:

Page 13

• the original W orkCare costings were wrong


• that the valuation 30/6/87 by W. Szuch is wrong

• that the levy rate is too low, possibly by a factor of more than 3 times.

Mr Szuch does not appear to be independent from strong influence from DMB. The commission would find it difficult to accept that work by Mr Szuch would be entirely objective. In these circumstances it seems possible that if the commission is compelled to use a valuation by Mr Szuch at 30/6/87 there will be significant problems:

• for the board

• for the Auditor-General

• for the chairperson

• for the managing director

in the finalisation of the wording of the annual report and its certification.

6.7. The valuation report 30/6/86 and a subsequent management report from Trowbridge Tillinghast have proved to be of immense value to officers of the commission, not the least to recommend those statistics which should be kept to ensure objective and accurate reporting of financial results. It is our strongly held view that Trowbridge Tillinghast have shown themselves to be:

• objective

• independent

• accurate. We are unable to make that statement in respect of Mr Szuch.

Page 14

7. CO-ORDINATION OF WORKCARE AGENCIES

7.1 The Act provides that the Accident Compensation Commission shall:

" ... manage the accident compensation scheme as effectively, efficiently and economically as is possible ... " s. 19 (a)

" ... ensure a co-ordinated approach in the implementation of the accident compensation schemes ... " s. 19 (c).

Initially the commission assumed that to mean that the commission should manage and co-ordinate the three WorkCare agencies:

We accepted that the wording was not intended to include the tribunal.

However, one of the architects of the scheme insisted that this interpretation was incorrect and the emphasis was on the word:

"compensation"

as distinct from:

"scheme"

and, therefore, the commission was restricted to "co-ordinating" and "managing" compensation.

7.3 Mr Baker advised the commission that the Treasurer required the removal from the draft annual report the reference to the commission being" ... the fulcrum of the scheme ... " in spite of the fact that this is specifically referred to in the government statement of 1 August 1985.

In view of these strongly made statements coming from the Treasurer's representative on the board, supported by the other four members of his group, the commission, in the last 6 months, has been diffident in pursuing what we believe:

Page 15

• is the clear intention of the Act

• was the clear intention in the government statement.

7.5 Nevertheless, it remains the commission's view that overall co-ordination and management of the whole WorkCare scheme should be vested in a single body and the most appropriate body is the Accident Compensation Commission.


We take this view because:

• the other two agencies V ARC and DOL (OHS) are narrowly specialised

• ACC has the overall financial responsibility

• DMB would be unable to control the day to day operations of Work Care.

Consideration should be given to including in the overall authority

self insurers

the tribunal-to the extent that it is possible.

7.7 Co-operation between the commission and

• DOL (OHS) is excellent in every aspect

• self-insurers is good but limited in scope

• tribunal is improving considerably

• V ARC is very good but extremely limited.

7.8 In case it should be thought that the commission's motives are to accrue to itself significant extra powers, it should be stated:

Page 16

• the seven executive managers are already working very long hours and would not welcome yet another burden

• the managing director would be reluctant to assume responsibility for V ARC without full and complete authority since it needs, in his opinion, complete restructuring

• the board would be required to meet at least twice as often.

7.9. It is the view of the commission that the persistent interference ofDMB in WorkCare agencies is counter-productive. The commission is quite willing to take responsibility for any of its actions where it has full control of those actions. Currently this is not the situation.

7.10. The above statements, etc., are made as requested by the chairperson and others in the interests of the future of the WorkCare scheme and not in the sole interest of the commission.

REFERENCES

PARAGRAPH REFERENCE DATE NUMBER

3.1 Statistical Report December 1986

3.2 Financial Statements December 1986 Vol. 3 WorkCare Costing

3.3 Paper by Policy and Planning January 1987

3.4 Valuations Tillinghast June 1986 Burke June 1986

3.5 Financial Statements December 1986

3.6 Financial Statements December 1986

3.7 Board Agenda/Minutes May 1986

3.8 Numerous records Numerous

4.1.1 Paper Policy and Planning January 1987

4.1.4 Review papers January 1987



5.2 Subject File Various

5.4.2 Subject Files Various

5.5 Correspondence Various


5.8 S.99

6.3 Attached summary Various

6.4 Subject Files Various Board Minutes (attached)

6.5 Board Minutes December 1986

The Hon. M. A. BIRRELL-The document that has just been incorporated into H ansard is like a loaded gun pointing at the head of Cabinet. It outlines for the first time that the Premier, the Treasurer, and senior public servants knew about the WorkCare mess but kept it from Victorians, in particular from the media.

The document is a unique catalogue of how John Cain, Rob Jolly, and senior government officials were advised of WorkCare's financial problems but failed to act. Every chapter of the document-which is marked "Strictly Confidential" -points at the Cabinet and the fact that there was a conspiracy to ensure that neither the truth about WorkCare nor the costs it was forcing on all Victorians were known.

I refer firstly to the history of the document. I sought access to a document written by Mr Markley, the Managing Director of the Accident Compensation Commission, under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. I wrote to the ACC on 21 July 1989 and asked for a copy of the confidential memo that I was aware existed; that memo provided advice to the Premier on the problems associated with WorkCare.

The response of the government to my request was an outright lie, an attempt to deny access to the document by denying it even existed!

In a letter to me dated 24 August 1989, Mr Ernest Bennett, the general manager of finance of the A CC, said this:

Re: Freedom of Information request

I refer to your access request letter received 21 July 1989 ...

In regard to the memo by Mr J. Markley, I advise that after a thorough and diligent search, department officers are unable to locate or identify any information or documents relevant to your request.

It was a lie! He said the document did not exist but I knew it did. Pressure was put on the ACC, then the commission came back and said, "Yes, we have found it; it did exist". One of the public servants said subsequently that he had known of its existence but did not draw it to my attention.

Now the document is public. The document is a stinging indictment of the failures of the Premier, the Treasurer, and heads of senior departments, including the Department of Management and Budget, in what it exposes.

Victorians will be outraged when they read the document and hear of its conclusions; they will be outraged that the Premier and the Treasurer conspired to ensure that the problems of Work Care were not brought to the attention of the public.

The document does not indicate merely that there were problems; it indicates that the problems were drawn to the attention of the hipest officials in this State. It indicates also that, before it was presented to Parliament, the annual report of WorkCare was doctored by the withdrawal from it of essential information so that Victorians were not informed about the true state of Work Care.

The words in the memorandum are not the words of the Liberal Party; they are not the words of the critics of Work Care; they are the words of the overlords of Work Carethe Accident Compensation Commission.

Consistent with following the path of secrecy and distortion, the government tried to say that the memo did not even exist! Fortunately, honourable members have the


document and I want to spend some time in looking at this first example of a coverup. I intend to go through the document in some detail.

Page 4, paragraph 3.8 of the report by the managing director of Work Care states: The commission has persistently warned appropriate authorities of the perceived financial problems

faced by the commission. Page 5 of the report lists the people it warned. Two meetings were held with Dr Sheehan, two with the Treasurer and one with Mr Brouwer. The conclusion as a result of those meetings between those senior officers of Victoria was that WorkCare was bleeding the taxpayers dry. The conclusion states:

There has been little action as a result. Indeed, such warnings have been treated in most cases (but with notable exceptions) with scepticism.

That was the response of the Treasurer and Dr Sheehan: they are the architects of WorkCare.

It is all part of the consistent plan of the government not to deal with the underlying problems of the State but to ensure that scrutiny of or publicity about those underlying problems does not take place-a cover-up. It is a government that is clearly working to a short-term electoral agenda for itself rather than a long-term economic agenda for Victoria: cover it up; keep the truth from the media; smother the documents; deny that they even exist, when in fact the documents are like a loaded gun pointed at Cabinet's head.

Mr Markley, the managing director of WorkCare, wrote this memorandum for a briefing with the Premier because he wanted to be frank and honest; he knew the problems of the WorkCare system. The government's response was one of secrecy in an attempt to distort the truth. The document shoots a lot more bullets than those I have already referred to. Not only do the senior officers of the State know how bad WorkCare is, but they treated that information with scepticism. The document records the fact that there has been a deliberate attempt by the government and the Department of Management and Budget to interfere with the operation of WorkCare and to stop the public from knowing what was going on.

Page 11 of the memorandum states: Annual Report-the removal and alteration of significant material recommended by the commission as

necessary to fully inform the public.

What confidence can one have in any annual report from the Accident Compensation Commission? Parliament insisted that there be an annual financial statement from WorkCare to this House as a means of reporting to all Victorians, but the report was doctored on the advice of the Treasurer before it was presented to Parliament.

It is clear from the document that a group on the board of the Accident Compensation Commission was acting under strict guidance from DMB and the Treasurer. It is a disgrace that the Treasurer could tell the public that there were no problems when the honest truth was that he endeavoured to stop the public from knowing that the problems existed. The annual report was doctored.

Is it any surprise that the opposition parties say that in any future WorkCare legislation they will insist on detailed and honest reporting mechanisms because of the lies that have been exposed by the most senior public servant running WorkCare?

Mr Markley reports on how five of the twelve members of the Accident Compensation Commission board-they were five colleagues of the Treasurereffectively controlled the key decisions, generally against the recommendations of the chairperson and the managing director. He states:

There has apparently been some concern that ACC is not using the administrative powers it has to exercise greater control over claims.


This was a concern about whether the claims had got out of hand. He continues: ... this concern is unwarranted.

But he explains what the problem was: These efforts are in many cases frustrated by

*interference at board level

*undue pressure from DMB

This was nowhere more apparent than in the combined efforts ofDMB and a faction of the board on:

revision oflevy rates

acceptance of the Szuch valuation.

This is the real sting, because DMB worked out that if it lied Victorians may discover about the costing of WorkCare and how it deliberately misled Victorians about how WorkCare was functioning, but it had a problem in that the actuaries would tell the truth. What was the answer to that? To deal with the underlying problem exposed by the actuaries who reviewed W orkCare, the government changed the actuaries! That is what the document reveals for the first time.

This matter was hinted at by the Auditor-General in his second report for the year 1985-86. In that report the Auditor-General makes it clear that there was another valuation that came through from a different actuary, but that was just a signpost. The Opposition did not know about it, although the honourable member for Brighton in another place apprehended that another valuation had been imposed. But this memorandum provides the truth.

The government did not like the actuaries' valuation of Work Care because it pointed out that WorkCare was going down the tube. Instead, the government imposed its own actuary on the Accident Compensation Commission.

Page 12 of the memorandum states:

It is becoming increasingly clear that this same scenario is being used to force the commission to use w. Szuch for the annual valuation, 30-6-87. This is in spite of the fact that the valuation, 30-6-86, by Mr Szuch is increasingly being shown to be quite incorrect. The antagonism towards the commission's appointed actuaries, Trowbridge Tillinghast, appears to be based on the fear that their valuation at 30-6-86 may well prove to be sound, throwing considerable doubt on W. Szuch's valuation and the original costings.

The Department of Management and Budget realised it would be exposed and imposed its own actuary on the commission because the original costings would be shown to be untrue. The memorandum continues:

It seems quite apparent to the chairperson and to the managing director that Mr R. Cumpston, a board member and author of Volume 2, Costing WorkCare, holds a firm view that:

*the original W orkCare costings were wrong

*that the valuation 30-6-87 by W. Szuch is wrong

*that the levy rate is too low, possibly by a factor of more than three times.

One could not have a more telling condemnation than that! The government knew; it was told by its actuaries. Its response was not one of being interested in modem money management and the long-term economic prosperity of the State; it was the response of an organisation scared of exposure and scrutiny, so it decided to cover it all up.


Mr Markley's views on Mr Szuch, the actuary from the Department of Management and Budget who had to report on WorkCare for the public, were:

Mr Szuch does not appear to be independent from strong influence from DMB. The commission would find it difficult to accept that work by Mr Szuch would be entirely objective ...

It is our strongly held view that Trowbridge Tillinghast have shown themselves to be:

*objective

*independent

*accurate

We are unable to make that statement in respect ofMr Szuch.

Mr Szuch's credibility is in tatters; but he is the government's man, he is the person the government wanted to inform Victorians on how WorkCare was going.

The bullet has been fired and it is on its way. The memorandum lets us in on the action; it tells us something about W orkCare and explains how the government went out of its way to try to cover it up. But that is not all.

Some honourable members, and particularly commentators in the public arena, have been concerned about the activities of the Victorian Accident Rehabilitation Council arm of W orkCare. This is what the Accident Compensation Commission thinks of the council: .

V ARC philosophy appears to be oriented strongly to social welfare.

V ARC has consistently avoided proposals designed by ACC to measure cost effectiveness of rehabilitation procedures.

Quite clearly, these are the concerns that have been raised by a number of individuals outside WorkCare. It is now found that these concerns are the subject of lucid debate within WorkCare. What is the conclusion? Mr Markley was a man who was concerned about Victoria and about WorkCare; he left WorkCare amid glowing praise. The Opposition has copies of letters from the Treasurer and the Chairperson of the Accident Compensation Commission. That man did not leave under a cloud when he resigned as managing director; he resigned with the strongest recommendation from the government as being a person who had served it well.

It can be understood that one of the reasons he resigned was that he was so bitterly depressed about the attitude of the Cain government. At page 16 of the document he summarises his philosophy, and that of the ACC, of which the community was not aware until now:

It is the view of the commission that the persistent interference of DMB in WorkCare agencies is counterproductive. The commission is quite willing to take responsibility for any of its actions where it has full control of those actions. Currently this is not the situation.

In other words, WorkCare was a mess largely because the Department of Management and Budget had interfered in such a way as to make that outcome inevitable. The final paragraph states:

The above statements, etc, are made as requested by the chairperson and others in the interests of the future of the WorkCare scheme and not in the sole interests of the commission.

That speaks for itself. This case is perhaps the best example of activities clouded in secrecy that are now being exposed, and about which the government is interested only in covering up.

I move to the second area of my concern, namely the Cain government's deliberate attempts to gag independent umpires in Victoria. Two come readily to mind-the Auditor-General and the coroner. Both officers are appointed to act as independent


individuals and to provide an overview of certain activities within Victoria. That clearly offends the style of government adopted by the Premier.

It is worth discussing in particular the coroner's position, which has had very little publicity. The Office of Corrections took legal action in the Supreme Court to stop the coroner from proceeding with his diligent investigations into the tragic deaths of prisoners at Jika Jika in Pentridge Prison. The coroner was doing that in the public interest but the government's response was to litigate to stop that man from making his inquiries, and to forbid the independent umpire from making a judgment.

Link that with the government's behaviour in trying to muzzle the Auditor-General, and again the consistent pattern is evident: anyone out of line or anyone who does not mouth "Cainspeak" is regarded as being a threat to the electoral prospects of the government.

An Honourable Member-Paranoia.

The Hon. M. A. BIRRELL-It is paranoia and it is against the public interest.

Those independent people can protect the public from abuses of power, and from mismanagement and waste. We can rely on the media; we can rely on Parliament; but certainly we have to rely on those watchdogs! In each case, the government has tried to muzzle the watchdogs. The Auditor-General has been under question for performing value-for-moneyaudits. Also, the government has refused him access to State Taxation Office documents and to Stamp Duties Office documents, against all precedents; the withdrawal of that documentation has impeded the Auditor-General's effectiveness.

That has been done in conjunction with attacks by the Premier and the Treasurer on reports of the Auditor-General. The community must stand up for those independent watchdogs and ensure that they receive a full view of matters presented to them. In particular, the behaviour taken a~inst the coroner was the low-water mark in ensuring prevention of an effective reVIew of Cabinet and bureaucracy.

I further point to the cover-up mentality of the government, and particularly the attempt to manipulate the views presented to the public; I give a number of examples.

Honourable members will be aware of my interest in discovering how much money has been used on public opinion polls done in secret by the government, and designed to find out what today's flash issue may be, with the objective of turning that into a government statement.

Recent freedom of information documentation provided to me discloses a rather chilling expose of how far that has gone. The opinion polls done by the government at the community'S expense are part of the idea of either distorting or covering up the truth, or massaging the message, based on short-term whims. The Premier has claimed-and I believe it is to be untrue-that this is done to provide extra information for the communit¥ about delivering services and programs. I therefore query how the Premier can justity spending public money on behalf of the Australian Labor Party during the last election campaign!

One becomes rather hardened in this job, but it genuinely surprised me when, under the freedom of information provisions, recently the Opposition received a copy of a requisition of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, personally authorised by the Premier, four days before last year's election was called, fo~ the expenditure of $400 000 for opinion polls. The polls were done during the election campaign and were used by Mr Peter Batchelor to assist the ALP in the State election. In particular, $387800 was paid to ANOP Research Services Pty Ltd, which happens to be the ALP's opinion poll firm.

Government Mismanagement 20 September 1989 COUNCIL

The Hon. T. C. Theophanous-What was the poll?

The Hon. M. A. BIRRELL-In particular:

555

... to conduct four studies comprising interviews among a representative sample of Victorians to survey their attitudes to various public policy issues as directed by the Premier ...

That quotation is from the requisition to which I referred.

That poll was commissioned four days before the election was called-in other words, at a time when the Premier knew damn well that the election was to be called, and when he knew very well that under the Westminster tradition, no policy decisions are implemented during an election campaign because the government effectively turns into a caretaker government during that period. Its policies as a political party have nothing to do with various programs, but the Premier dared to waste the taxpayers' money on a purely political expenditure to assist his party to gain power.

I regard that as the most disgraceful episode of which I am aware in the misuse of public funds because it was so brazen and gross.

The Hon. T. C. Theophanous-What public policies?

The Hon. M. A. BIRRELL-Why does Mr Theophanous not ask the Premier or, more likely, the person who received the polls-Peter Batchelor? Those polls were used simply for political purposes. Money was given to ANOP Research Services Pty Ltd four days before the election was called; at the same time, it was conducting interviews paid for by the ALP on similar topics. That was the lie of the government when I started looking at the opinion polls, and extracting information.

One might say, "They do not ask any questions that are political." However, they do ask such questions because people who have been polled rang me, knowing my interest in opinion polls. I want to tell the House about information provided to me by some members of the Brighton Bowling Club. Those people were approached and told, "We do not have enough people over the age of 65 years for the poll we are conducting for the government; will you participate?". They participated; in particular, Mr Herbert Harrison, Mr Geoffrey Nichols and Mr John Sedgewick were among 25 members of the Brighton Bowling Club who were polled by the government's pollsters.

The Hon. T. C. Theophanous-Careful whom you name!

The Hon. M. A. BIRRELL-Those individuals are happy to go public and provide statutory declarations ifnecessary. They were asked as part of the poll, which was paid for by the taxpayers and commissioned under the personal signature of John Cain, how they would vote. There were questions about whether trains should run uphill and whether water should run downhill, but the bottom line was: what is your political persuasion and how are you going to vote?

It is our money! I regard that as corrupt, and an utterly improper use of public funds. Four days before the last State election the Premier commissioned $400000 worth of opinion polls and, as part of the process, ANOP asked people: how are you going to vote and, in particular, what is your view on this issue ifloU are a supporter of or associated with the Labor Party or if you are a supporter 0 or associated with the Liberal Party?

Could one have a clearer example of distortion of the truth than the Premier going through this process of spending taxpayers' money to find out the views of people and pretending that the announcement based on it had anything to do with the long-term interests of the State? Clearly one could not. The activities revealed under the freedom of information provisions-and much more will be coming soon-demonstrate that


the Premier has a low standard when it comes to ethics. That personal standard is one we need to expose as part of this debate.

There is a more celebrated involvement concerned with manipulation and the spending of taxpayers' money; I refer to the Government Media Unit.

I do not want to talk up the media unit because every time I do so Ministers say to me, "It is okay for you to say that, but I find it hard to get anything through that crowd of clots!" I am concerned about the amount of money being spent on the media unit; the government knows it is worth while spending money on the media unit to feed material to journalists.

In 1982-83 the media unit cost this State $472 000. Now that figure has more than doubled to the point where we-the taxpayers-are spending almost $1 million every twelve months to pay for the Premier's media minders. It is an extraordinary amount of money. Honourable members should just let the figure run through their minds: $1 million every twelve months.

The HOD. G. H. Cox-They won't spend it on hospitals.

The HOD. M. A. BIRRELL-The government will not spend it on hospitals, extra police, or extra open space as part of its conservation strategy. It will, however, spend it on the media unit. One should add to that amount the cost of the opinion polls, which on average cost about $2 million. It is our money.

Since 1982-83 the media unit has received a 100 per cent increase in its funding allocation. Can the health, education and transport Ministries claim such closeness to the purse strings and such influence? Certainly not. The Premier says, "We need more journalists because the image is becoming poor; buy another journalist and put him on the staff and hope it helps".

Is there a bottom line? There is; if one does not deal with the underlying issues, it does not matter about the message of the media minders one employs, the public will discover the truth. Mr Markley understood the truth of WorkCare and, through the document to which I referred earlier the truth has been exposed. The opinion polls and the media unit will not help the government to distort the truth, but they will cost an arm and a leg in the process.

There are other matters on which I shall conclude as part of the overview of the government's manipulation of the truth to hide its mismanagement.

I refer to sensitive State documents and access to them. There is one fairly blunt way the government acts: it destroys documents that should be in the public domain. It shreds them. We saw that with WorkCare. I received a letter in respect of Work Care that advised that the document I sought did not exist. It did exist. The letter was a lie. Fortunately I pursued the matter and we got the document. How many others have honestly read some of the letters and believed them? I am one who reads letters from senior departmental operatives and likes to think they contain the truth. One's first response should not be, "They're lying again" .

The government's alternative to losing a document is simply to shred it. Honourable members should try to get the Youth Guarantee document that the Auditor-General wanted. Once again the Auditor-General was foiled in his attempts to expose the problems of the Youth Guarantee because the Department of Labour shredded the documents so that he could not have access to them. To compound the felony, the documents were replaced with manufactured documents that the department then pretended to the Auditor-General were the originals.


Richard Nixon would have been proud of that type of behaviour, but it is not the standard we want in this State.

The Hon. T. C. Theophanous-He was a conservative!

The Hon. M. A. BIRRELL-The government is taking up his values, which we condemn.

What about Mr Nordlinger? A report was written about why he was sacked by the Premier. What happened? The report was shredded. No-one could get the document; and it does not exist now. The public servants who wrote it confirmed that it did exist. That document went through the shredder because that is the blunt instrument that was used.

The Hon. B. A. Chamberlain-It is a sharp instrument.

The Hon. M. A. BIRRELL-Those instruments may be sharp or blunt, but there are also legal instruments; the government simply takes one to the courts. The Sun and the Herald, which exposed the Nunawading re-election and Continental Airlines Inc. issues through the freedom of information provisions, were taken to the courts for months by the government. As usual, they won in the end. The government has also done it to me.

The government is prepared to spend tens of thousands of dollars of public money to try to run a legal argument so that it can justify its activities. It cannot justify its activities and, in fact, by its very actions, it has wasted more public money in the pursuit of the cover-up.

In one case in which I appeared the judge was forced to reach the conclusion that the Cain government used public money to try to stop me getting information. His Honour, Judge Rowlands, said in his judgment on 26 June 1986 that I was: ... stepping into a maze in which the financial ruin of a myriad of possible appeals awaited at the whim of those who fund their enthusiasm for the fray, not from their own purses, but from the long purse of government.

It is a tactic of the government. It either shreds documents or loses them. If the person wanting the document is prepared to fight to try to get it, the government litigates to the point of obsession. The government has lost every time. But it is our money. On one case alone the government spent $100 000 before the High Court said, "Release the document" and the government was forced to do so.

The most recent case I conclude on concerns the Victorian Economic Development Corporation. What was the government's tactic in that case to cover up and not allow the truth to come out? It introduced secrecy regulations. The government said, "You made an Fol request about the VEDC but, in the dead of the night, the documents were transferred to the Rural Finance Corporation and it is not covered by Fol so the documents cannot be accessed". What a sham! The Law Institute of Victoria, community legal centres and anyone with an interest in open government and the legal principles that underpin open government regard it as a concoction and abuse.

However, we had to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, every day appearing against a Queen's Counsel being paid about $4000 a day, barristers being paid about $2000 a day, and twelve public servants. What happened? We won. The government was distorting the law and the Premier demonstrated his low ethics. After winning the case what did we get? We got a large chunk of the story about the VEDC that had been covered up.


The Hon. G. H. Cox-Not all of it!

The Hon. M. A. BIRRELL-But we will. What happens with this game is that one learns that perseverance pays off. The document that I have obtained, which, of course, was of considerable interest, indicates how the Premier and the Treasurer had been advised on the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, just as with WorkCare, but kept the information from the public. The document shows that they talked about the VEDC panic in the lead-up to the last State election. The document was debated publicly in August 1989 and proves that at least there is one mechanism which forces scrutiny of the government and it is called freedom of information.

I am concerned that the foundations of our Parliamentary system, the ancillary mechanisms that are used to scrutinise Cabinet and the bureaucracy-people like the Auditor-General, the coroner and others-are under attack. It is in the long-term interests of the State that all of those instruments be viable and vibrant.

The information that I have tabled during this debate indicates that those people are not just under attack but that, to a certain extent, the Premier has been successful in covering up the truth. It is only through this type of motion that the Opposition can expose the Premier and his behaviour and call him to account.

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western Province)-The motion moved by Mr Birrell is a most serious charge against the Cain administration. I congratulate Mr Birrell for the case he put and the facts he cited to support that case. I also congratulate him on the way in which he has, terrier-like, pursued the government under the Freedom of Information Act.

Perhaps the most fundamental role of Parliament is to review and reflect on the stewardship of government. That has to be its primary character. I welcome the opportunity of participating in the debate and of contributing to the message that this debate will send to the people of Victoria.

The Hon. B. T. Pullen-From Queensland?

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-That is an interesting aside from the Minister and I shall come back to it. The verdict will be not that of government or the Government Media Unit, but the verdict of Parliament; and it behoves all honourable members, as elected representatives in this place, to think carefully through the issues Mr Birrell has put before the Chamber.

The Hon. B. T. Pullen-Is Bjelke-Petersen coming to campaign in Victoria?

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-Ifthe Minister is patient I shall reply to his interjection. There are three elements to the charges levelled b¥ Mr BIrrell. The first. is mismanagement. It is a sign of the times that VIctorians almost take the mismanagement of the government for granted: it has been so obvious for so long that it is almost expected. There is example after example of gross mismanagement, but there is worse to come because the charge is more serious. The motion is about consistent attemps to cover up that mismanagement, subterfuge, camouflage and concealment. Worse still is another element to the charge: that the heads of government have conspired to cover up the mismanagement of the Cain administration. There can be no more serious charge than conspiracy in respect of an elected government. It is a breach offaith with the electors of Victoria.

I shall add some examples to those cited by Mr Birrell where it is clear that there has been cover-up, manipulation and conspiracy. First, it is important to catalogue briefly the extent of this mismanagement, because it puts this debate in proper perspective. The opposition parties are not talking about peanuts but about hundreds of millions of dollars of Victorian taxpayers' funds squandered by the government.


The charge is not challenged. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been squandered by the government, and silence is the response! There is no argument.

The transport sector has suffered massive losses year after year. That is perhaps the best example of the cover-up. All honourable members will recall how the transport sector debt was surreptitiously shifted and centralised in the name of better management. The effect was to conceal the true picture of the transport sector debt.

WorkCare is another classic example of the Cain maladministration. I do not intend to go through that issue in detail because it is being debated currently in the House. WorkCare has amassed unfunded liabilities at the rate of $1000 million a year. For the benefit of Mr Theophanous I am prepared to take up his continual inteIjection, "Do you understand what an unfunded liability is?". I am happy to debate that issue with him.

Through the mismanagement of the government, compounded by the cover-up now revealed by the document tabled by Mr Birrell, Victoria has continued to amass unfunded liabilities of $1000 million a year. The Victorian Economic Development Corporation is another example of maladministration. It is not disputed that blue sky projects have turned out to be pie in the sky. I shall say more about the VEDC later.

In his latest report to Parliament the Auditor-General referred to the Victorian Investment Corporation. I rest my argument in this respect on one sentence in the report where, at page 23, item 3.29, the Auditor-General says:

On 30 June 1989 the government sold its equity in the Victorian Investment Corporation Limited (VIe), which cost the State $25·5 million, to a subsidiary of the State Bank for a nominal amount of$10.

What a brilliant deal! The corporation cost the Victorian taxpayers $25·5 million and the government has blown the lot. The carcass has been sold for $1 O! What did the State Bank do with the $1 O? Perhaps it spent the money on Mars Bars!

Tricontinental Corporation Ltd has lost more than $100 million in the most extraordinary circumstances and to the extent that the loss, when incorporated into the State Bank's balance sheets, caused the bank to record a loss-the first time in a very proud 143-year history the State Bank recorded a loss. Tricontinental Corporation Ltd and the National Safety Council of Australia (Victorian Division) were the primary contributors to the loss of the State Bank.

The Budget sector debt has more than doubled under the Cain administration. It is now in excess of $25 billion. There is a cover-up of the interest incurred on that debt. I shall speak later about that issue.

The record of the Cain government is dreadful; it is the most appalling record that one could imagine; it is a scandal. That is bad enough in itself, but the motion raises the issue: has the government been honest in reporting the true picture to those in the community to whom it is directly responsible? Has the government been honest with the Victorian electors? Of course, the answer is no. There are classic cases of cover-up and conspiracy.

I shall go through the evidence, including that astounding document produced by Mr Birrell. It is clear that the government has consistently cooked the books. I can recall some examples of that. For instance, the government double counted on library funding for municipalities and then told the community that it was increasing its financial support for libraries. The government rearranged the date that interest falls due on much of the debt that I have outlined. It has deferred the payment of interest to the next financial year in order to present a better picture to Victorians. There have


been deliberate and substantial omissions relating to the Victorian Economic Development Corporation-example after example where the books have been cooked.

I level that charge at the government and I do so in the knowledge that anyone of those examples would simply not be tolerated in the corporate world. Those responsible for such action would have charges brought against them.

Honourable members then learnt that the government was not content with thatthe government wants to nobble all the arbitrators, and Mr Birrell referred to that. There is no more serious crime than this government's attempt to nobble the AuditorGeneral. The arbitrator upon whom we are supposed to rely is bearing the brunt of this government's duplicity. The government has set out to nobble him, and honourable members have now learnt that the Auditor-General has been denied access to crucial records. In other words, he is simply not being allowed to undertake his major responsibility.

The Hon. R. A. Best-Take the whistle away from the umpire.

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-The government has taken the umpire off the field. That is a serious charge and I look forward to the day when this Chamber will have the chance of debating the expansion of the Auditor-General's role because it is extremely important. Honourable members are told that the Auditor-General does not even have the right to conduct efficiency audits. How dare he become involved in a judgment as to how well the funds of this State are being administered! What is his role ifhe is not allowed to encroach upon the subject of efficiency?

The third issue I wish to mention is the attempt of this government to frustrate the operation of the Freedom of Information Act. That is the ultimate irony because this government is supposed to be the champion of open government. It was this government which introduced the Freedom of Information Act that is now causing so much heartburn to it.

Through the use of a regulation the Premier has attempted to give himself the power to determine which documents qualify as Cabinet documents and therefore become exempt under the Freedom of Information Act. In other words, the Premier has said, "Trust me, I shall exclude only those documents that are too sensitive for release". Given the evidence put before the House today, who in his right mind would trust the Premier? That is the same man who has been involved in cover-up after cover-up.

The government has gone to the Full Bench of the High Court to protect its freedom of information defence to stop the release of opinion polls, for goodness' sake. I heard someone say that the government is paranoid; it certainly has a phobia about opinion polls, and I am intrigued by the evidence brought by Mr Birrell that an opinion poll was commissioned by the government just four days before the announcement of the last State election.

The next charge I level is that the government has stooped to the point where it is prepared to doctor reports before they are lodged with the ultimate arbiter-the Parliament of Victoria.

The Hon. G. H. Cox-Deception!

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-It is deception and fraud. The government has gone out of its way deliberately to conceal the facts. The government even changed its own actuary: it did not like what its actuary was saying about WorkCare so it changed him. If one does not like the message, one shoots the messenger and replaces him with someone who will say what one wants. What low-down deception!


Time and again, as Mr Birrell pointed out today, the government is content to use the shredder. Ifa document is embarrassing, it goes through the shredder never to be seen again, and the government has been caught out time and again. Worse still is that it is now clear that the government was prepared to bring forward the date of the State election simply to conceal some embarrassing facts from the Victorian electorate. The government did not like the news; it was unpalatable and unsavoury, so the government brought forward the State election.

I shall refer to the Victorian Economic Development Corporation because that is a further classic example of everything that is rotten about the government. Examples of the operations of the corporation show just how low the government is prepared to stoop. It is appropriate to talk about the VEDC because in the past few days honourable members have learnt that the Rural Finance Corporation, which was required to adopt the mongrel child-the VEDC-is to be granted a further $25 million from the public purse as a sweetener. Honourable members should recall how much has been involved in the sweetening process. I remind honourable members that the VEDC was given a seeding ~ant of $32·5 million. That money has been blown. When the transfer of the operatIons of the VEDC to the Rural Finance Corporation took place, the $overnment wrote off $20 million of liabilities. On my calculations, that is $52·5 millIon. The government then decided that the Rural Finance Corporation was getting it tough and converted $40 million of debt to equity. That is $92·5 million. Honourable members are now told of an additional $25 million being granted to the corporation, which amounts to $117·5 million being blown for all time.

I was intrigued to read in the Budget Papers that the Treasurer of this State believes the cost this year will be $5·1 million. I would like to know who the Treasurer's financiers are. If the Treasurer can get capital of $117·5 million at an annual cost of only $5·1 million, he is not simply a great Treasurer but also a magician and a genius! The fact is that the $5·1 million does not take into account the loss incurred by the Rural Finance Corporation due to the transfer to it of the VEDC.

Over the life of the Rural Finance Corporation, formerly known as the Rural Finance Commission, Victoria has been receiving an annual return. That fact has been completely ignored by the Treasurer and I say that the $5·1 million quoted in the Budget Papers is deliberately misleading. I make that charge knowing full well what it means.

When the Premier announced the decision that governments in Victoria should run for four years, it was claimed that it was necessary for the practicalities of legislative programs. The Premier consistently said that the government would run its full fouryear term. I ask honourable members to think back to 1988 when the same Premier announced an early State election. Not only did the Premier announce that the· election would be held early, but also he announced the date of the election right in the middle of the Budget debate in the Parliament. Parliament rising in the middle of the Budget debate had never before been heard of.

The Hon. Robert Lawson-We know why, don't we?

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-It was an extraordinary decision, and all honourable members knew it. We all knew at the time that it had something to do with the Victorian Economic Development Corporation; we knew something was about to break and that there was undue haste about the Premier's decision. Our concerns of that time have since been confirmed.

The government did not believe it could keep the lid on the VEDC disaster and that was the factor driving the government. It is interesting to reflect on events as they unfolded. Honourable members have been informed that in June 1988 the DirectorGeneral of the Department of Management and Budget was advised that the losses of

Session 1989-19


the VEDC for the year ended 30 June 1988 were expected to fall somewhere between $14·9 million and $60·4 million. It is also interesting that, at the same time and for months after that advice was given, the Treasurer and the Premier consistently maintained that there were no problems with the VEDC. In fact, the Premier went on the public record saying that even if a loss were returned it would not be any more than $10 million. That gross understatement was made many weeks after the Victorian Economic Development Corporation board meeting at which Dr Sheehan was advised of the range of the expected loss. We are asked to believe that the Treasurer did not know. If that was the case, we are also asked to believe that Dr Sheehan did not go back to the office and tell the Treasurer that they were in trouble because the projected loss would be somewhere between $14 million and $60 million.

If the Treasurer did not know of the size of the expected loss, one wonders how it was that he was astute enough to exclude an estimate of the expected dividend from the Budget that was brought down in the middle of August last year. Up until that time the VEDC had been paying a handsome dividend. Yet no estimate on an expected dividend was included in the 1988-89 Budget. Honourable members were also asked to believe that the representative of the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources who was at the board meeting when the estimates of the projected loss were announced did not tell the Minister, so that both the Minister and the Treasurer were walking round with the false impression that everything in the garden was rosy!

The Hon. W. R. Baxter-How could they?

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-Indeed, how could they? IfDr Sheehan did not tell the Treasurer about the projected loss and if the representative of DITR did not tell the Minister, why have those officers not been sacked? Yet, insult was added to injury. At that meeting Dr Sheehan said to representatives of the VEDC, "I know you are in trouble but I think the way out of it will be to give you $30 million out of the public purse to tide you over." Dr Sheehan must have a cheque book the size of which I cannot comprehend ifhe is able to pull $30 million out of the air! Dr Sheehan told the VEDC board that it could expect to be paid by the end of September. That is a fact, because it is contained in the minutes of the VEDC board meeting-and no honourable member on the government side of the House has disputed that.

Is the House still expected to believe that the Treasurer did not know? But ifhe did know, and if the $30 million was offered, why is Dr Sheehan still in the employ of the Department of Management and Budget? Mr Jolly testified before the Estimates Committee that he did not know of the precise figure at the time the commitment was given by Dr Sheehan: he admitted that an offer was made, but he said he did not know the size of it. Ifhe were any sort of Treasurer, he should have asked--

The Hon. M. T. Tehan-"How much? Find out!"

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-He should have asked, "How much are we up for?" But he says he did not; and I find that intriguing.

No allowance for that commitment was included in the Budget Papers, bearing in mind that the commitment was made in June and was to be met between 1 July and 30 September 1988. How interesting that no mention was made of it in the Budget. When the Treasurer was asked why that was so, he said that the government had already taken the decision to transfer responsibility for the Victorian Economic Development Corporation to the Rural Finance Corporation. That was before the Budget was tabled; and it was the Treasurer's explanation for not including the $30 million in it. How interesting!

After the October 1988 election both the Treasurer and the Premier said consistently that they did not decide to transfer responsibility for the Victorian Economic


Development Corporation to the Rural Finance Corporation until after the date of the election. But they knew seven weeks before the election that the control of the VEDC was to be transferred to the RFC. The government has been caught in its own web of deception!

It is clear that by 30 June 1988 the Premier, the Treasurer, Dr Sheehan and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources knew that the loss incurred by the VEDC could amount to $60·4 million, and they conspired to conceal it. The conspiracy involved transferring control of the VEDC to the Rural Finance Corporation, one of the attractions of which was that the operations of the corporation were exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. All of the officers who are in the best position to talk about the problems being faced by the corporation as a result of the transfer of the VEDC have been required to sign a secrecy agreement. How intriguing! Officers in other major government instrumentalities are not required to sign secrecy agreements.

It is a matter of record that the VEDC board was told to go easy on its delinquent debtors so as to avoid any further adverse publicity. The then Chairman of the VEDC wrote to the Minister and said, "I'll take whatever flak I can. I'll be the sacrificial lamb". For those reasons, with undue haste the Premier decided to hold an early election on 1 October. Honourable members should realise the significance of that date, because it is now apparent that the election date had a great deal to do with the demise of Wall ace International Ltd.

Honourable members should recall that the Victorian Economic Development Corporation lent Wallace International Ltd $10·75 million, which presumably was secured. Because that was not enough it was decided to float the company and the government chose, through the VEDC, to convert that $10·75 million secured accommodation into a $15·25 million equity and unsecured accommodation-an extraordinary decision! Of course, when Wallace International Ltd was floated it became subject to the rules of the Melbourne stock exchange, one of which is that reports to the end of the trading year must be released by the end of the following September-and that gives an indication of why 1 October was the key date.

The company report was delivered to the stock exchange at 4 p.m. on Friday, 30 September, right on the deadline. Inadvertently it became lost in the pile of other reports that also arrived on the deadline. The prospectus released by Wallace International shows it had been expected that for the financial year ending 30 June 1988 it would show a profit of$850 000. Unfortunately, Wallace International Ltd did not quite make that target! When the report was released on the following Monday morning it revealed that that expected $850000 profit had been turned into a $7·2 million trading loss. As well, it revealed a $10·2 million extraordinary loss-in other words, the losses amounted to $17·4 million. So the projection was just a little out!

Had that news hit the streets when it should have-under normal circumstancesmany Victorians are convinced that the outcome of the election would have been different. In times when the outcomes of elections can be decided by less than 1 per cent, that news could have been a telling blow.

The Hon. W. R. Baxter interjected.

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-We recognise that, Mr Baxter, but guess what: so does the government. That is why 1 October was chosen as the date for the election.

The Hon. W. A. Landeryou-Is that all?

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-The government only squeezed in. Mr Landeryou must be very proud that the government won the election by resorting to those tactics,


which represent a new low in government standards as well as a fundamental breach of the trust of Victorians.

The government has tried to rationalise the increase to $25 billion in the Budget sector debt by referring to the debt level "in real terms" and comparing it with nonfarm gross domestic product.

The Hon. T. C. Theophanous-What is the debt being used for? That is what you have to ask.

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-Government members refer to the growth in the economy and to the growth in the population--

The Hon. W. A. Landeryou-The growth in jobs.

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-All of those things are supposed to justify the increase in Budget sector debt.

The one thing the government has not been able to explain away is the explosion in the level of cost of interest. It has blown out and there is no dispute on that, so the government has reverted to new tactics. When all else fails, go back to the cheating. That is the simple way around it. Cheat!

Until last year's Budget, we had a chart which purported at least to show what the cost of interest was, but it did not ring true because, when the cost of interest was compared with what the government said the debt was, the interest level was too low. I have said in this House before that I would love to have met the financiers producing that interest cost. It was almost half the rate of that which applies to housing loans being suffered by many Victorians.

Then we learnt that there was to be restructuring of the debt and that, because the debt was to be restructured, we could expect a change in the impact of the interest. It became obvious that the interest charges were being deferred. I put several questions to the Treasurer before the Estimates Committee. The response we got from the Treasurer, which is now part of a public document, said among other things, that there have been shifts in accruals outstanding at the end of each financial year. The response disclosed very substantial accruals of interest: at the end of the year 1986-87, $247·9 million of interest was due but unpaid. Twelve months later at the end of the year of June 1988 that had increased to $323 million. We now learn by reference to the Auditor-General's report recently tabled that at the end of June 1989 the level of accrued interest unpaid has climbed to $353·9 million. The interest charges have been quite deliberately understated in the Budget documents.

Worse still, the debts have been restructured simply to achieve that outcome. This government talks about accrual accounting and says that is the way to go and yet we have an accrual accounting that shows the Budget in a worse light than the government would wish, so it goes back to the cash system which it deplores and describes as archaic but which is useful when it serves the government's purpose.

The accruals of interest were not disclosed in the Budget but in the Treasurer's statement, which was released some time after. The Treasurer said in his response to the Estimates Committee that it was not possible to predict accruals and what we were asking was unfair or impossible. As recorded in the Estimates Committee report on the 1988-89 Estimates of Receipts and Payments, of May 1989, at page 71, the Treasurer states:

The current year effect cannot be estimated at this point of time.

That is an interesting comment. He is saying that the government cannot include in the Budget how much interest will be outstanding at the balance date.


As the Treasurer, he must know what the stock of debt is at any particular time. If he does not know, he should know. That is fundamental. He must also know what the interest charge is to be, and he does. That is clear because he includes it in the Budget document. He says, "This is what we will be paying for this year."

He then goes on to say, "But I cannot tell you how much of it is to be deferred". That is nonsensical. If he can work out how much he intends to pay and include that in the Budget document, all he has to do is look at the reciprocal or the first calculation he did and there is the accrual for all to see. He cannot do it when it suits his purpose not to do it.

He says he cannot do the accrual compilations but, turning to Budget Document No. 3 and the chart which appears on the flyleaf, there is a footnote on income receipts-the footnote includes accrued interest of$10·3 million. The Treasurer cannot calculate the accrued portion when it relates to an expense, but he can do it when he relates to an income. Very clearly, the Treasurer has gone to some trouble to deliberately conceal the true cost of interest. It is simply not acceptable.

The recommendation of the Estimates Committee appears at page XV and it says: Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that a table be included in Budget Paper No. 2 (Budget Strategy and Review) which sets out debt charges to reveal:

(i) the interest charges met from both recurrent and works and services appropriations;

(ii) interest charges accrued but not paid as at the balance date; and

(iii) principal repayments met from both recurrent and works and services appropriations.

One of the things disclosed by the Treasurer's letter was that in fact the chart including the Budget document was deficient in another aspect because there was also interest charged against capital. In fact the Auditor-General has something to say about that.

We now learn that there is no less than $123 million of interest charges funded from capital receipts. The first law of accounting says one does not use capital to meet recurrent expense. There is only one direction that an enterprise goes after following that line of logic and that, very clearly, is down the gurgler. The Auditor-General's report states that there is $123 million of interest charged against capital in the current year.

What has been the Treasurer's response to the request from the Estimates Committee that those interest charges should be catalogued and clarified and included in the Budget documents? We have no formal response other than what I referred to in the Budget documents. Yet the chart which was included last year, flawed though it was, has been taken out of the Budget documents completely. That is the Treasurer's response: further cover-up. Now we find that there are simply no details provided in respect of interest on the Budget sector debt-none at all. What has happened is we have gone backwards in terms of disclosure. I say to the House that Victorians are entitled to better. They are entitled to be told the true state of Victoria's finances. This government has a very sad and sorry record. Very clearly, it has been caught out. There has been cover-up and deception and conspiracy at the top; in fact, the three "cons": connivance, contrivance and conspiracy. That will be part of the epitaph of this government.

I look forward to the responses of the government side. We will get the same old tirade about what is happening somewhere else-Queensland or New South Wales. In other words, if one can establish that somewhere else is wrong, two wrongs somehow make it right. We want to hear about what is happening in Victoria. We want some answers to the charges consistently levelled in this place. Or will we have a tirade of


what happened ten or fifteen years ago? Let us hear what government members have to say about the very serious charges which have been levelled at the senior members of the government.

That highlights the fact that until now the government has had no defence and it has sought to compound the felony by further camouflaging the way in which the defence is mounted. The government stands condemned in this instance as it has on many other instances. I look forward to someone from the government side rationalising the extraordinary litany of deception and duplicity outlined in the document tabled by Mr Birrell. The National Party wholeheartedly supports the motion.

The sitting was suspended at 1 p. m. until 2. 3 p. m.

The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Jika Jika Province)-The Opposition has a~ain come into this House with a set of trumped up charges, misrepresentations, distortIons of the truth and false conclusions. Mr Hallam regurgitated his old speeches on the Victorian Economic Development Corporation.

There is no basis for supporting the motion moved by Mr Birrell. He presented a document which he received through freedom of information and proceeded to criticise the government for not being open. Where was freedom of information when the Liberal Party was in power? There was no freedom of information. One could not obtain a document, as Mr Birrell did, during the term of the previous Liberal ~overnment. One is able to obtain such a document now because the Cain government IS an open government and has enshrined in legislation the concept of freedom of information. Freedom of information is an initiative of the Cain government; it was not an initiative of previous conservative governments.

Mr Birrell made great play of the idea that he had been informed that the document he presented did not exist. The letter he read to the House stated that the document was unable to be found. It does not take much logic to understand the difference between being able to find a document and a document not being in existence. Why should Mr Birrell misinterpret and distort the position? He should have said honestly that this was the letter he received and that is what it states.

Mr Birrell also made great play of the idea that the government was trying to muzzle the Auditor-General and the coroner. No-one said that apart from Mr Birrell.

The Hon. R. M. Hallam-I said it!

The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS-Mr Hallam said it and Mr Birrell said it but no-one else said it. Are the newspapers saying it? No.

Honourable Members-Yes!

The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS-Are people in fact being threatened? No. I know something about the situation with the Auditor-General because I am a member of the Economic and Budget Review Committee that examined the question of valuefor-money audits in a comprehensive way. The committee came up with a set of conclusions and a set of recommendations to the government that would increase the powers of the Auditor-General with respect to value-for-money audits.

Not only are the recommendations of that committee to give effectiveness and efficiency powers to the Auditor-General but they also include those effectiveness and efficiency powers in the case of both systems-orientated audits and results-orientated audits. For honourable members who are unfamiliar with that, it would mean that Victoria's Auditor-General would be the only Auditor-General in Australia who would have this power if it were to be granted.


A paper of the Public Accounts Subcommittee of the Economic and Budget Review Committee relating to systems-orientated and results-orientated value-for-money audits states:

Critical to the debate on VFM auditing is the distinction between systems-oriented VFMs and resultsoriented VFMs. Results-oriented VFMs actually seek to judge programs or activities in terms of all or some of the three criteria of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In other words, results-oriented VFMs are concerned with the questions "has this program-activity achieved its intended results?" and "has it done so in the least-cost manner?"

The recommendation of the Economic and Budget Review Committee is that both those functions be pursued by the Auditor-General and that this occur in all three areas of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. So much for the notion that the government is attempting to nobble the Auditor-General.

I say in passing that I was not of the view that the committee should go so far as it has gone in recommending such wide-sweeping powers be given to the AuditorGeneral. My view was that Victoria should have adopted the Commonwealth system which allows for effectiveness and efficiency audits but which restricts those to systemsorientated value-for-money audits and does not extend them to results-orientated value-for-money audits. Nevertheless the committee came up with the recommendation that both should be allowed in terms of the powers of the AuditorGeneral.

Mr Birrell went to great pains to criticise the use by the government of opinion polls. He criticised the use of taxpayers' money for this purpose which he claimed was inappropriate in some way. The facts are that from time to time every government worth its salt will embark on opinion polling or surveying in order to _gather information; it is part of the intormation-gathering process which is critical to effective government.

The Hon. M. A. Birrell-Why keep the results of the polls secret?

The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS-I was appalled to hear Mr Birrell question the integrity and professionalism of Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls when he suggested that, simply because that organisation was conducting private polling for the Labor Party, it could not professionally and with integrity conduct polls on behalf of the government. Attitude studies are an important means by which the government discovers what electors generally and constituents in particular think.

The Hon. R. M. Hallam-And, obviously, how they will vote!

The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS-Mr Birrell mentioned a number of individuals who had come to him and expressed a view of dismay regarding a particular question asked in a poll. However, he did not elaborate on whether the poll about which the individuals were concerned was the same as any of the four polls to which he referred earlier in his speech. There was no suggestion that that was the case; the poll about which concern was expressed might have been a completely different poll for all honourable members know.

In any case, many opinion polls will ask a question relating to the political or party preference of individuals. The question is standard. In my experience over many years of not only conducting opinion polls but also formulating questions for opinion polls at La Trobe University, it was standard practice and procedure to include a question about which political party preference the individual might have. The purpose of obtaining that information was not to use it to influence people's votes but to undertake adequate social analysis.

When I was at La Trobe University, I conducted two major studies. One related to ethnic issues and the other was concerned with a local study in the Northcote area. In


both cases, despite the fact that what was of interest related to the types of value structures individuals had and how they had attained these values--

The Hon. Rosemary Varty-What did you base it on, Dr Kemp's work?

The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS-The question was asked as to what was the preferred political party. That was done in order to build a causal model in which political preference is one of a number of variables used to explain how people have formed values. One need only ask Dr Kemp, a leading member of the Liberal Party--

The Hon. Rosemary Varty-It was his work you used!

The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS-One need only ask Dr Kemp about the value of using the question relating to political preference when undertaking major studies to be told that that question is an essential component of determining attitudes and of understanding how attitudes are formed and that it is a legitimate component of this kind of social surveyor study of people's attitudes. There is no basis to the claim that asking such a question is an attempt by the government to use the polls for its own political purposes.

The Hon. R. M. Hallam-Why not make them public; why all the secrecy?

The Hon. G. H. Cox-Tell us the interesting bit!

The Hon. K. M. Smith-Come on-how come the ALP paid for it?

The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS-Mr Birrell referred extensively to the document he had tabled. When one examines page 11, point 6.1, the following statement can be seen:

Given the tripartite composition of the board (employers, union, government) it is inevitable that agreement to controversial proposals will not always be attained.

The Hon. Rosemary V arty-What does that prove?

The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS-What is wrong with that? The statement indicates merely that recommendations derived from this board will not always be unanimous; they will not always be the opinions of every member of the board; they will be arrived at in a variety of ways.

Are members of the Opposition suggesting that whenever such recommendations come to the government the government must always accept the recommendations despite the fact that there may be a variety of views and opinions expressed by members of the board?

The Hon. R. M. Hallam-Are you saying that explains why they changed the report? Go on and read down page 11 to where it is indicated that they changed the report!

The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS-At point 6.3 and further down, the information is noted that what appears is therefore the opinion of a number of members of the board; it is not necessarily the opinion of all the members of the board.

The Hon. R. M. Hallam-Do you deny that the report was changed?

The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS-Ifyou are referring to 6.3.4--

The Hon. R. M. Hallam-Yes, I am. Do you deny the report was changed?

The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS-It does not say "changed"; it says, "the removal and alteration".

Government Mismanagement 20 September 1989 COUNCIL

The Hon. G. R. Craige-Okay, read it again!

The Hon. Rosemary Varty-" ... of significant material ... "

The Hon. G. R. Craige-It is not a change?

569

The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS-That was a recommendation. In the preparation of any report, a recommendation may be made by a group of divided individuals that something be included or something not be included in a report; it is not always the case that there will be complete agreement. That is my point. To characterise that statement as indicating somehow that no report should ever be altered when it is made by a group of people, whether it is a minority report or a majority report---

The Hon. R. M. Hallam-" ... recommended by the Commission ... "-this is not a minority report!

The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS-I make the point that is made at page 16 of the document, where it says, at point 7.10:

The above statements, etc., are made as requested by the chairperson and others in the interests of the future of the WorkCare scheme-

which is fair enough: they have a view that it is in the interests of the W orkCare scheme-

and not in the sole interests of the commission.

The point is that those statements are made by the chairperson; they are not made by every member of the commission. The view is expressed by an individual or a number of individuals who are members of the board.

The Hon. R. M. Hallam-It is the view expressed by the chairperson and the managing director.

The Hon. G. R. Craige-Not the office boy!

The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS-The Opposition has been involved in the process of modifying and fixing up the difficulties with WorkCare. Members of the Opposition were involved in the WorkCare Committee chaired by the current Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs and they were involved at every stage of the development of the examination of the genuine problems that the government is facing with WorkCare.

The Hon. Rosemary V arty-The things we would have modified were not accepted.

The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS-Let me say this: whereas WorkCare certainly had and has many problems which are being addressed in the Bill that will be debated later, the fact is that, if honourable members consider what Victoria had before WorkCare, during the time--

The Hon. Rosemary Varty-Come on!

Honourable members interjecting. The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS-What we had before WorkCare was a system

of rorts, a system people lived off. More than 50 cents in the $1 went to medical and ancillary professionals under the old system. That was the case prior to the development of Work Care; it was a system where rehabilitation was non-existent. People experienced long delays in obtaining payment. Often people would have to wait many years before receiving a lump sum payment, and during that period they had to exist on a pittance from social security. It was a system that cost Victorian industry dearly, with many key industries having to pay exhorbitant premiums to private insurance companies.


One only has to ask employers what they think of WorkCare and the savings they have experienced. The savings by employers under W orkCare have been an important aspect of Victoria's economic revival and in reducing costs to employers: I was going to say "Victoria's economic miracle", but I restrained my enthusiasm.

Victoria had a system that discriminated against disadvantaged groups, in particular migrants and women. I shall quote a study by J. Blackett-Smith and A. Rubenstein entitled Unlucky Dip: A Study of Discrimination in the Victorian Workers Compensation System. That study points out the discrimination suffered by womenmigra.nt women in particular. It states that the average claim for Australian-born men suffering--

The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western Province)-Mr President, on a point of order, the motion before the House, although broad in relation to the issues raised by Mr Birrell, is specific about W orkCare and how the system has been covered up and how the true running of WorkCare has been obsured by various mechanisms. Mr Theophanous is not defending W orkCare; he is in the process of statin~ how the previous workers compensation system worked against the interests of certaIn people, such as women and the migrant community. What he is saying is irrelevant to the issue of whether the truth has come out or whether there has been a cover-up. What the honourable member is saying is more appropriate during a second-reading debate in relation to proposed legislation that is before the House.

The Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Housing and Construction)-On the point of order, Mr President, Mr Birrell introduced the motion on the question of Work Care. Although the proposed legislation is before the House, by innuendo Mr Birrell suggested there was somethin~ to be covered up. All Mr Theophanous is doing is addressing the question at that basIc level, and is by inference relating it to the motion.

The Hon. R. I. KNOWLES (Ballarat Province)-On the point of order, Mr President, Mr Theophanous is talking about the pre-WorkCare system, which is totally irrelevant to any suggestion made by Mr Birrell about a cover-up. Mr Birrell was specific in his argument about the cover-up of certain decisions and actions of the government. Mr Birrell did not criticise WorkCare as such during his contribution to the debate, but criticised the government for the way it covered up the issue. It is out of order for Mr Theophanous to be arguing about a system that operated prior to 1985.

The PRESIDENT -Order! On the point of order, the motion contains three issues: it deals with covering up or manipulation of truth; it deals with an alleged conspiracy for that covering up; and it deals also with the question of mismanagement of the State. Obviously the remarks made by Mr Theophanous are irrelevant to the first two issues, but his remarks have a vague relevance to the third issue if he is seeking to prove there has been no mismanagement. If there is no mismanagement there cannot be a cover-up of mismanagement.

It is vague, but the honourable member has made his point on the comparison between workers compensation and W orkCare; I ask the honourable member to come back to the main issues of the debate.

The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Jika Jika Province)-For the benefit of the House, I shall provide the figures that I was about to provide before the points of order were made. The figures are as follows: for Australian-born men, $27 500; migrant men, $25 000; Australian-born women, $20 000; and migrant women, $17 000.

I could talk about the important social development and reform that has taken place under WorkCare and how it has changed the capacity of workers to receive justice when they are injured and have to be looked after, but that is to be the subject of


debate later this day and I shall restrict my remarks to the claims of the opposition parties.

Mr Hallam made some remarks about the unfunded liabilities of Work Care, which was part of point 3 of the President's ruling on the points of order. I am surprised that people continue to talk about the $4·2 billion as an unfunded liability and suggest that the figure has somehow been covered up by the government. The real issue on WorkCare is the question of cash flow. No insurance company could remain in existence ifit had to payout its total unfunded liabilities. Unfunded liabilities represent a projection relating to how much it would cost if all of the eventual claims came to fruition and had to be paid out. It is nonsensical to retain that amount of money in reserve for those purposes.

The government is the most open $overnment in the history of Victoria; it has put into place freedom of information legtslation that makes it the most open in Victoria's history; it is the best economic manager in the history of Victoria; it is the most socially carin~ government Victoria has ever had; and it has the best program budgeting and accountIng procedures that any government in Australia has ever had. The government has shown that it is open and can deliver to the people of Victoria.

The Hon. REG MACEY (Monash Province)-The House has not heard a single argument from the government side as to why the motion before the House should not be carried overwhelmingly. I repeat that motion:

That this House condemns the Cain government for conspiring to cover up or manipulate the truth about its mismanagement of the State.

That evidence has been demonstrated overwhelmingly and unequivocally: it has been documented and proven by Mr Birrell. Additional information has been provided by Mr Hallam to insert the final nail into the lid of the coffin of this dis$1'aceful and despicable government that has had control of the purse strings ofVictona for far too long.


The Hon. REG MACEY -The document gives proof to the warnings that have been placed on the public record by the Opposition since WorkCare was born. That le~slation was forced on the Victorian public without any government mandate and WIthout the will of the people being considered. The votes of Victorians at the election immediately following the despicable action of the Cain government to push on with the legislation demonstrated that Victorians do not want the government to have an absolute power in this State, or to have an absolute power in this House; and Victorians showed their wisdom.

The Hon. Licia Kokocinski-The histrionics continue! That is why we are in government!

The Hon. REG MACEY -The Opposition will get there sooner than you think.

The document issued by the Managing Director of the Accident Compensation Commission has been white-anted, if you like. No account of it has been made by Mr Theophanous, who is not one of the government front-rankers; one of the government's heavyweights-where are the rest? Where is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources whose comments the House hears time and again when he seeks to denigrate honourable members on this side?

The Hon. Rosemary Varty-He's not game.

The Hon. REG MACEY - He has not demonstrated the benefit of his Master of Business Administration qualification; he does not have the courage to be in the


Chamber to attempt to justify the unjustifiable, as it is with this document. The case has been made overwhelmingly. But obviously Mr Theophanous did not listen earlier; it may help the next speaker on the motion from the other side to concentrate on the issues because that has not been done so far.

The document to which I refer is dated 20 January 1987; it is from Mr Markley, Managing Director of the Accident Compensation Commission. In that document he warned of what would lead to the result that Parliament is now attempting to correct on behalf of Victorians-a $1000 million a year debt accruing not only to Victorians today but also to future generations. At page 4 of the document, paragraph 3·8 states:

The commission has persistently warned appropriate authorities of the perceived financial problems faced by the commission: ...

That fact has not been analysed by Mr Theophanous; perhaps the Minister for Housing and Construction may have a go at that because nothing has been put to convince the Opposition or any other reasonable person that the motion should not be carried.

The Treasurer has been indicted by the document. The motion calls for the condemnation of the Cain government but there is no doubt that the first action of the Cain government in response to the release of the document should be the immediate sacking of the Victorian Treasurer. It is clear that in addition to the other documented accusations that can be made against the Treasurer and his mismanagement, this document discloses that at two meetings with the Mana$ing Director of the ACC the problems that were occurring were highlighted; and that httle action had been taken as a result. Whatever is said by the Treasurer, he must accept responsibility for being one of those who treated the recommendations with scepticism.

The Hon. T. C. Theophanous-Are you going to give Mark Birrell's speech?

The Hon. REG MACEY -Mr Theophanous, in his speech, ignored the key factor about the alteration of the annual report, and about the removal and alteration of significant material. The House should be aware that apparently important and significant members-perhaps "insignificant" members, it would appear-of the Parliamentary Economic and Budget Review Committee do not know the difference between material that is significant and that which is not significant.

The Hon. T. C. Theophanous-What you are saying is not significant, that's for sure!

The Hon. REG MACEY -The report responds to some concerns expressed in Parliament and in the public domain during 1986. The managing director refers to a: · .. concern that ACC is not using administrative powers it has to exercise greater control over claims.

The document further points out that the concern is unwarranted and that: · .. the commission has used not only whatever powers are available to it but also many which could be challenged ... to keep claims and claims costs under control.

The document further states: These efforts are in many cases frustrated by interference at board level and undue pressure from DMB.

The document then makes a prophetic statement that should haunt the government; it states: · .. in both cases frustrating the commission and which will prove to be costly in both monetary and political terms. .

Sadly, the "monetary terms" are there to be seen with the costs to be borne by present Victorians and those of future generations. As to "political terms", much satisfaction will be provided to the Opposition when it returns to government. It will have to


correct the mismanagement and address the debts of the present incompetent, devious and manipulative government; but, in the meantime, the costs of the government's maladministration must be borne.

The sensational revelation about the alterations in the annual report, referred to as "significant problems" in the document, should be stated for later speakers to the motion who, I hope, will do better than Mr Theophanous.

The Hon. T. C. Theophanous-I hope the next one from your side will do better.

The Hon. REG MACEY -The report refers to Mr Szuch as one who: ... does not appear to be independent from strong influence from DMB.

It makes a number of remarks suggesting that: ... there will be significant problems for the board, for the Auditor-General, for the chairperson and for the managing director in the finalisation of the wording of the annual report and its certification.

The annual report is the report of a body acting on behalf of the citizens of Victoria. As has been pointed out, if this had been done by a public company all the powers, legal strictures and measures available to this government or any government would have fallen upon the heads of the directors. In this case it was done by an organisation that had no mandate, as I said, to be established in the way it was in the first place.

Sadly, the Companies Act cannot be brought into play to bring those responsible to account for the fraudulent activity that has been carried on by the Cain government.

In conclusion, historians, students and citizens of the future, who will be responsible for paying the huge cost of this government's mismanagement, will reflect on the issue. It reminds me ofa famous poster produced during the Great War that has been reproduced a number of times because of its historical significance. It depicts a child sitting on the knee of a middle-aged man and the caption reads, "What did you do during the Great War, Daddy?" A similar question will be asked of honourable members opposite and especially the Ministers who took part in the decisions and deliberations that led to the huge debts faced by the citizens of this State. The generations of the future will be asking what Ministers and the Cain government did to attempt to protect them from the debts that have been loaded on their shoulders. That question is going to be very difficult to answer for the members of the Ministry who are honest. I wonder how many of them are.

There is no doubt that the motion should be carried. In the wider community there is a growing understanding of the sheer financial incompetence, dishonesty, manipulation and cover-ups of the government. Fortunately many of the cover-ups have been revealed for the benefit of Victorians, thanks to the persistence of the Leader of the Opposition in this place.

The arguments put forward will at least lead some to consider the situation. If I were trying to do the right thing by the citizens of the State, I would be seeking to persuade the House to take stronger action shortly when the opportunity occurs. I make no threat, nor am I in a position to do so, lest I be misrepresented. However, the feeling in the province I represent is that the government has run its course. It has had its day, and the motion, at the very least, should be carried.

The Hon. B. T. PULLEN (Minister for Housing and Construction)-The motion is typical of the Wednesday motions that the Opposition sometimes pulls out. If anything, it is just a tired old motion recycling claims; it is the same old rhetoric that we could have heard at any time.

A number of points were attempted to be made, three of which deserve answering. I refer, firstly, to the independence of the Auditor-General and the coroner. It is totally


specious to suggest that the independence of the Auditor-General has been put in question in any way. Recently the Premier foreshadowed that proposed legislation concerning effectiveness and efficiency audits will be introduced to clarify the situation.

Victoria has a fiercely independent coroner who takes his job extremely seriously and is involved in examining a number of matters of importance. To suggest that he is not carrying out his role with complete independence is an unnecessary slight on his character.

The other point that requires comment concerns access to information. It is clear that, in the seven years of the Labor government, more information has been provided, without doubt, than in the previous 27 years of the Liberal government. The freedom of information legislation provides access to information that is unparalleled. At times the provision of information creates difficulties and allows for criticism, but any government that cannot stand that criticism does not deserve to be in government. I defend the legislation the Labor government introduced, which, in 27 years, no Liberal government saw fit to introduce.

The Labor government ought to receive royalties from Mr Birrell since most of his speeches are provided by it in the form of freedom of information material that he strings together. I refer to the document which was tabled and about which such a lot was attempted to be made. The document from Mr John Markley dates back to January 1987. Just to clear the record in relation to Mr Markley's views, I shall quote from the comments that appear in the 1987-88 annual report of the Accident Compensation Commission under his signature:

The Accident Compensation Commission is successfully meeting the challenge presented by the government's WorkCare review package of July 1987. The greatly improved claims experience of the scheme is the measure of that success.

At this time last year WorkCare's key financial objective of achieving full funding at 2·4 per cent of remuneration appeared seriously at risk. The government's review package set out a legislative and administrative program designed to once again put the scheme within reach of that objective by greatly increasing return to work rates and tightening the conditions for initial or continuing compensation.

One has to set that man's view in June 1987 against his considered view in June 1988. In the same report, Mr Ronald Sackville states:

As this report makes clear, the most significant and welcome change during 1987-88 has been the substantially improved financial performance of WorkCare. All the major indicators suggest that the current trend towards persistently high levels oflong-term claims has been checked.

We all realise now-and the government is not denying it-that there are problems with the administration and operation of Work Care. It is the reason we have proposed legislation before Parliament. It is wrong to say that, because material was provided at different times and because there were different opinions about an extremely complicated issue, the government had somehow hidden the matter.

In relation to the third point, the use of the Government Media Unit and polling by the government, it is my belief that the number of press secretaries employed in the Government Media Unit is comparable with the number of press secretaries previously used by governments, but is allocated separately and is not out of kilter with support provided by governments in effectively putting their views across to people. There is no need for the Opposition to cast slurs against the government simply because it is better able to coordinate its views and to express them in a non-contradictory fashion.

As indicated by Mr Theophanous, any government that wishes to have objective assessments of the way its programs are perceived by the community and interest groups must engage in polling and analysis. It is appropriate for this and other governments to do that.


Mr Hallam raised a number of points during the debate. Generally his comments are sincere, but it is ridiculous for the National Party, and Mr Hallam in particular, to act in a pious manner when they have the spectre of the former Premier of Queensland, Sir 10hannes Bjelke-Petersen, hanging like a cloud over their heads.

The Victorian government is honest and the Premier is acknowledged as an honest Premier. The government's processes are open and are of a standard that other governments in this country aspire to.

The government rejects the motion.

The Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra Province)-The government's response has been adequately portrayed because the only honourable members who responded to the motion were lightweights.

Where is the Leader of the Government in the defence of his government in this House? The Opposition is condemning the government in the most stringent terms and the Leader does not even join in the debate! Where is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources? He is the Minister responsible for treasury matters in this Chamber, but he too has been absent. The Opposition asked for the organ-grinders but gets the monkeys!

The government led its defence of the motion with Mr Theophanous. Come on! Mr Theophanous is a member of a backbench that even the Australian Labor Party is embarrassed about-this retirement ground for Labor hacks and has-beens. Mr Theophanous's contribution was lightweight even by his own standards. He had the temerity to say that it was only my belief that the Auditor-General was under attack. Mr Theophanous missed the point. The Auditor-General himself believes he is under attack.

In case Mr Theophanous did not read the Age of 3 May this year, I remind him that the Auditor-General went public with his concerns about the actions of the Cain government, saying:

The arrangements being imposed could be seen as an attempt to impinge on my authority and even to censure my reports to Parliament and to curtail the future operations of my office.

So at least one other person agrees that he is under attack, the Auditor-General himself. More than that, the New South Wales Auditor-General came out in support of his colleague in another State. The Australian newspaper was forced to write an editorial on the matter, as did the Age, but Mr Theophanous would not have read those articles, mixing as he does in his highfalutin circle.

The king hit, of course, was the response of the Minister for Housing and Construction. It was the sort of response that makes one quake. The Minister said that the government introduced freedom of information. Freedom of information exists despite the Cain government. The community knows damn well that without the vigilant activities of the Opposition there would be no Freedom of Information Act. The government introduced amendments to kill the effectiveness of the Act two years ago. The Premier tried to neuter the legislation. The Opposition rejected the legislation because the Opposition supports open government.

The Hon. R. J. Long interjected.

The Hon. M. A. BIRRELL-As Mr Long says by way of interjection, the Premier then tried to restrict the effectiveness of the legislation in another way. I had to appeal to the High Court of Australia to fight for the principle of freedom of information, which the Premier says he applauds. The leading submission I used during that case was the words of the Premier himself in support of his own legislation, legislation that he has now turned against.

576 COUNCIL 20 September 1989 Distinguished Visitor

The Minister for Housing and Construction said that the Auditor-Geneml can do value-for-money audits. Of course he can, despite the efforts of the government to stop him and despite the efforts of the man who shares the Premier's office, the Solicitor-General. The man who works in tandem with the Premier, the SolicitorGeneral, tried to tone down the reports of the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General was allowed to do value-for-money audits only because he stood up for his rights.

The Minister says that the State Coroner is fiercely independent. Of course he is. One would need to be if one were under so much attack from the government. The only reason that the State Coroner conducted his inquiry in10 the tragic deaths at Pentridge Prison was that he won a court case that empowered him to do so.

That is what people have to do in Victoria to prove they have rights: they have to defend their rights because they are constantly under attack by the government.

The Leader of the House made no response to the charges levelled against his government. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources did not respond. The monkeys responded and not the organ-grinder. The motion will pass.

The House divided on the motion (the Hon. A. J. Hunt in the chair).

Ayes 23 Noes 17

Majority for the motion

AYES MrAshman MrBaxter MrBest Mr Birrell Mr Chamberlain MrConnard MrCox MrCraige Mrde Fegely MrEvans MrGuest MrHallam MrKnowles MrLawson MrLong MrMacey Mr Miles Mr Smith Mr Storey Mrs Varty MrWright

Tellers: Mr Skeggs Mrs Tehan

Mr Hall PAIR

I

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

6

NOES Mrs Coxsedge MrCrawford Mr Davidson Mrs Hogg Mr Ives Ms Kokocinski Mr Landeryou Mrs Lyster MrMler MrPullen MrSgro Mr Theophanous MrVan Buren MrWalker MrWhite

Tellers: MrKennedy Mrs McLean

MrHenshaw

The PRESIDENT -Order! My attention has been drawn to the presence with us this afternoon of a distinguished member of the Upper House of Westminster. I welcome Lord Onslow, Earl of Onslow, and on behalf of all honourable members I

Accident Compensation Bill 20 September 1989 COUNCIL 577

trust that his visit with us to Parliament in Victoria and his stay in Australia will be both pleasant and fruitful.

Honourable Members-Hear, hear!

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION (GENERAL AMENDMENT) BILL The debate (adjourned from the previous day) on the motion of the Hon. D. R.

White (Minister Assisting the Treasurer) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE (Geelong Province)-I am pleased to participate in the debate on this Bill because WorkCare is creating an enormous amount of concern throughout the Victorian community. It is a pity that honourable members are meeting to discuss the Bill under the current circumstances. We are considering a complicated piece of proposed legislation designed to reform WorkCare, to try to solve some of its problems and to overcome some of the difficulties that have become apparent.

When the Accident Compensation Bill was introduced into Parliament in 1985, it was a world first and was the greatest piece of reform legislation with regard to the compensation of workers. There is no doubt that the underlying philosophy of the WorkCare scheme revolves around the compensation of the workers of this State to allow them to live with some dignity in the event of their being unable to work as a result of injuries sustained on the job. It was not easy to create such a scheme and the legislation broke new ground.

I shall not go through the old workers compensation scheme because enough has been said about that already, but I do not believe anyone would wish to return to that system. An enormous amount of work went into the preparation of the WorkCare scheme.

I shall take up several of the points made by members of the Opposition. It is a pity that Mr Lawson is not in the Chamber because I wish to take issue with a point he made yesterday. However, other honourable members have also made the point that it was a terrible thing for the Labor Party government in 1985 to have passed legislation through this House. Members of the Opposition appear to believe that was unspeakable.

For three years I sat in this Chamber as a member of the Labor Party Opposition and I saw what happens when a government has control of both Houses. I remember how legislation was railroaded in the days of the then Liberal government. At that time there was no discussion among party Leaders about what amendments would be accepted. The then government did not bother to speak with the then Opposition. If a member of the Opposition had a decent amendment that would improve legislation, the Ministers at the time would laugh at him. Members of the Opposition should not talk to me about the Labor Party railroading legislation through this House. Prior to the election of the Labor Party, I sat here night after night humiliated by the Ministers at the time laughing at me.


The Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE-Don't let's talk about abuse of this House! I have seen this House ·abused more often by members opposite than by members of the Labor Party. Honourable members opposite should never forget that the Labor Party has never had an absolute majority in the House. I take exception to honourable members who say that the Labor Party used its numbers to railroad that legislation through the House.

The Hon. R. I. Knowles-They did!

578 COUNCIL 20 September 1989 Accident Compensation Bill

The Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE-I take it as a personal affront that it is,suggested that I abused the integrity of the House when I held the office of President. That is what you are saying! .

The Hon. B. A. Chamberlain-You're the precedent.

The Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE-I shall tell the House why I voted as I did at that time. If honourable members opposite believe I abused the integrity of the House, they are simply wrong. I took my position as President seriously. IfMr Smith, who is interjecting, is interested, he should listen to what I am about to read-especially because he was not here at the time I exercised my casting vote. This is the explanation I gave to the House on that occasion-and it will prove that I took my position as President very seriously.

I listened to every word of the debate on the Accident Compensation Bill. When I was not in the House I listened to it on the speaker in the President's room. When it comes to a casting vote, all Presidents are obliged to keep the debate going in the hope that matters of dispute will be resolved by all parties; and, if necessary, to exercise that casting vote only on the third reading of the Bill. I shall read to the House an extract of my remarks at the end of the debate on the motion for the third reading of the Accident Compensation Bill, which appear in Hansard of 24 July 1985 at page 80:

Order! The result ofthe division is Ayes 20, Noes 20. The vote is tied. Therefore, it devolves on me to give a casting vote. Before doing so, I shall make some comments.

This is not a position in which a Presiding Officer likes to find himself. It is a position where one vote will pass reformation legislation with far-reaching consequences. Nevertheless, I have listened closely to the debate, both in the second-reading and Committee stages.

In my own experience as a tradesman, an employer of labour and as a member of Parliament, there is one issue which in my view has created a significant number of problems in Victorian society: workers compensation. As an employee in the late 1940s and early 1950s, I saw a vast number of my fellow workers cut down in the prime of life through lack of safety and other reasons. Although we enjoyed the safety measures that were introduced, they were restricted to a certain degree and accidents were still far too numerous. Even though some of those workers lost limbs or their health, compensation paid to them was a pittance. Some improvements, admittedly, have been made since then, but this issue has been a bone of contention for a long period.

As an employer, I have been fully aware of the constraints placed upon the employment of labour because of the high cost of workers compensation. Members of Parliament encounter a large number of constituents who come into their electorate offices as a result of problems associated with workers compensation.

Workers compensation is an area that has required long needed reform for a considerable time. The Bill, as was pointed out by the Opposition, was introduced after an enormous amount of discussion and the Opposition was in general agreement with the principles espoused in the measure. There appeared, however, to be differences in several areas. One was a philosophical difference about the Accident Compensation Commission whereby the government, being a social democrat government, held a different view from the opposition parties and that difference endured along the line.

However, Victorians have voted on two occasions for a government of this political persuasion.

Taking into account the other arguments, I believe some of the matters raised by the Opposition were valid concerns.

This is crucial, ifMr Smith is interested: One cannot expect proposed legislation of this magnitude and length to be perfect. It is my hope-and I

am sure it will occur-that the government will take on board some of the valid and genuine concerns raised by the Opposition during the debate ...

The Hon. Rosemary Varty-And they didn't!


The Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE-I am not ar~uing about that; I am quoting from what I said at that time. I shall take up that inteIJection shortly. I continued: ... and will also monitor the progress of the legislation when it is passed.

For those reasons and because I believe the proposed legislation is not only long overdue but also will be beneficial to Victorians, I cast my vote with the Ayes. The Ayes therefore have it.

I am not ashamed of that exercise of my casting vote-and I never have beenbecause I cast it with a clear conscience. I believed, and I still believe, that the legislation was the right legislation. Certainly, as I said in those remarks, the legislation needed to be monitored and the government should have taken account of matters raised by the Opposition. If the ~overnment has not done that, that is another issue. I am simply talking about the decIsion I made at the time.

No doubt, Mr President, you will remember the remarks that you made during the debate on the Accident Compensation Bill. Sir, you will remember that I had been President for only a short time. I remember that, during your speech, I gave permission, for the first time, for material to be incorporated into H ansard. During your speech you referred to a very interesting document that you asked to be incorporated, and it can be found on pages 17 and 18 of Hansard of23 July 1985.

Mr President, you carried out research of your own on a number of matters concerned with the Bill-it was your own work, not the work of the Liberal Party or of an assistant. You interviewed people from all of the groups who were concerned with W orkCare in order to find out their attitudes to it.

Reference was made to the Cooney report and to the stances taken by the ~overnment, the Opposition, trade unions, business groups and insurers. Various Issues were raised with all those groups, the first of which concerned whether the status quo should be preserved-that is, the old workers compensation scheme. All six groups said no; when asked whether there should be a reduction of costs, all six groups said yes. All six groups said that the level of benefits should be maintained, although the response of the unions was "at least" and of business groups "largely". When asked about the need for security for the future through a fully-funded system, all six groups said yes; asked if WorkCare should emphasise accident prevention and workplace safety, all six groups agreed; when asked about the need to provide incentives to upgrade safety management through a range of bonuses and penalties, all six groups agreed.

When asked whether W orkCare should increase emphasis on rehabilitation rather than compensation, all said yes. All six groups said yes to a reduced role for lump sums, with a qualified yes from the unions and a qualified yes from insurers. Asked whether WorkCare should provide a wider scope for self-insurance, all groups answered yes, although the union movement expressed reservations. When asked whether stamp duty on premiums should be abolished, all of the groups said yes. All of the groups agreed that the supplementation fund levy should be abolished and that an attack should be made on the evasion of premiums. As for the need to attack claims abuses, all six groups said yes, although the unions' response was a qualified yes. All six groups agreed that the statistical database shoud be improved and that WorkCare should include machinery measures to expedite the resolution of disputed claims, including the use of conciliators, compulsory conferences and the exchange of medical evidenceexcept for qualified agreement from the unions on that latter point. And all six groups agreed that WorkCare should reduce legal and administrative expenses.

Mr President, your research showed that there was widespread support for what the government was doing and that there was a general agreement, in principle, for the Bill. However, certain areas needed to be addressed, and the Opposition moved amendments to deal with them. Clearly, there was a general acceptance of the scheme.


There is no doubt in my mind-and in the minds of other honourable membersthat the scheme has serious problems. Had the government attempted to deal with these problems earlier by monitoring W orkCare and by taking heed of the concerns expressed during the debate, WorkCare may not have been in the mess that it is now in. To its credit, the government has tried to reform the system to rid it of its faults. I do not think it is unusual that the legislation is before the House for a third time, because it is extremely complicated. Unfortunately none of us had the luxury of hindsight to allow us to see how the Accident Compensation Bill would affect people in the work place.

Unfortunately, we cannot foresee how the workers will respond, how the management fraternity will respond, and how the union movement and the vast number of people who are involved will respond. One cannot know that until this type of legislation starts to work. We have found things which have been rather surprising and we have tried to bring about changes and reforms to cover some of these policies.

It is all very well for the opposition parties to sit there and criticise. That is their role-I understand that-but if they are going to criticise, I should like them to be a bit more positive. If they believe they are ready for government, let them bring an alternative system to this House and say that it has the support of the union movement, of the Victorian Employers Federation, the Chamber of Manufactures, the medical fraternity, and so on. Let them come here-as the former Leader of the Opposition in this place, the Honourable A. J. Hunt, came into the House when the original Bill was being debated on 23 July 1985 with the document he had prepared, and which he tabled in the House, containing an analysis of the position of the Cooney report, the government, the Opposition, unions, businesses and insurers-and show that they have the support of all those people. The opposition parties might then be able to earn the respect of the people of Victoria.

It is no good Opposition members coming here and saying, "I told you so", and taking a holier-than-thou attitude. It is all very well for the opposition parties to say, "If we had won the Nunawading Province in the election this would not have happened". I do not go along with that at all. That is an argument I cannot accept.

Some of the actions Liberal governments took left much to be desired. Liberal governments lost sight of the basic thrust of workers compensation legislation. What must be paramount and what makes the W orkCare legislation head and shoulders above every other measure is that it provides workers with proper compensation when injured in the course of duty so that they can live with dignity. This must be maintained at all times.

What the previous Liberal government tried to do-and fortunately it had second thoughts-was to reduce some of those benefits. That is where I believe it went wrong. It took account of what the union movement said and what it said was this: "All right, we know there are people rorting the system. We will not argue with that". The union movement has never denied that the system has had a whole range of leaks. It was not only the activities of workers, of course; there are rorts throughout the medical profession, the administration area, and so on. The union movement said, "Stop it all, get some legislation that will do that, but do not reduce the benefits you are paying to the workers".

The trade union movement is all about protecting their rights. That is why the Labor government in its wisdom listened to what the union movement had to say and why the rights of the workers are now protected. It is up to Parliament to ensure that rorts are stopped. The Bill that is the cause of our deliberations today will plug those gaps and make the system work more effectively.


It is a disgrace, in my view, that we are playing with this complicated legislative measure and pushing it through in this way. Its magnitude and its financial implications will affect every taxpayer in the State, as Mr Hallam pointed out quite graphically. It is of such huge proportions that we should not be playing political games with it and calling each other names. We ought to be sitting around this table for a long time trying to work our way through it in a spirit of good will in order to make the legislation work. It is far-reaching; it is a world leader in legislation. We should have a system we can be proud of. I believe the basics are there and the government is trying to move in the right direction.

I also believe that some of the amendments which have been put forward by the Opposition are worthy of very serious consideration by the government. That is how it oUght to be. I wanted to make those few points because no-one wants to go back to the old system. We must make this one work.

I have been in the work force for 40-odd years. I started in 1949, two months after my fifteenth birthday, and went straight on to building sites. I have seen the awful thIngs that happened in those days immediately after the second world war. Nobody would believe the conditions in which people worked on building sites in those days. The builders labourers took home a pittance in pay and the conditions they had to work in were unbelievable. There were no such things as scaffolding inspectors, safety officers or hard hats. By the time you finished, if you had not had a few stitches in your head you must have led a very sheltered life. It was commonplace to see people carted off the job. The ambulance would be called to the site and workers would be taken away. They were terrible days and we have come a long way since then. It has been a long, painstaking effort to try to improve conditions for workers and that is the area we must emphasise because I believe accident prevention is the key to the success of this legislation.

Unfortunately we live in an industrial situation which is largely inherited from the old British system where even today we have a "them and us" mentality between the employers and the employees. There is still distrust between these two groups. Very few firms, if any, have industrial democracy with workers on their boards. Those that have could be counted on one hand. How many firms employ an industrial psychologist? None, I understand. They are common overseas. The psychologist studies and tries to improve the workplace so that the workers enjoy it rather than dreading the boring, repetitive work which makes them look forward to that knock-off whistle.

These are the issues Parliament must take up. We have to prevent, but we also have to change attitudes between the employer and employee. For too long that division and distrust has been there and it must be eliminated, but we cannot do it by example. It goes much further than that. We have to work extremely hard to achieve that cooperation between employer and employee initially and we have to see that preventative measures are taken; for example, young people coming into the work force must be educated in safety procedures and it must be drummed in so often that safety becomes second nature.

Recently a young apprentice at the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd plant had his arm ripped off. What a terrible thing in this day and age! The lad supposedly had had only a few minutes instruction before going into the work force. These terrible things are still occurring, and they should not. We must attack and come to grips with all these issues. We must sit down and say, "We just have to get this thing working." It is too big an issue to be fighting over in one day of Parliament. We should sit down and discuss this for a couple of weeks. It is that complex. I believe the people with the ability to solve these problems are here. All that is needed is a commitment.


I appeal to honourable members on both sides of the House to forget about party political point-scoring and try to make this proposal work. I am prepared to listen to what the Opposition has to say in debate and to consider the amendments it proposes in the same way as I am prepared to listen to government speakers. I have one small amendment that I shall be asking honourable members to support.

As I said, it is a pity that more time is not available for debate and that the Bill is being rushed through. Parliament could have sat next week. I understand that 1 October is the deadline, for some reason that the Minister Assisting the Treasurer may be able to explain.

I look forward to participating in the Committee stage. I support the Bill. It has been supported in principle by a whole range of people. Honourable members have the expertise and the knowledge to make it work. All that is needed now is the will.

The Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern Province)-WorkCare has concerned me from the day it was first set up. One would have to have some concerns, especially when one is out in the big wide world and not locked away in Parliament where the decisions are made. People outside Parliament can see the way that WorkCare has fallen apart and reached a situation where it has unfunded liabilities of some $4200 million. It is a disgrace that it has been allowed to reach that position.

I take up a point made by Mr Mackenzie about his position when the WorkCare legislation was passed. He has just pleaded with Parliament not to rush into making decisions. He said that honourable members on both sides of the House should listen to each other and go about this in a quiet and gentle way. One needs only to reflect on the situation in 1985 when the Labor Party had control of the House-it had the numbers and it had the President. Mr Mackenzie felt that I had in some way picked on him, but it was his decision that caused this to happen.

I have thought about it a little more and taken into consideration Mr Mackenzie's position and the precedent he set. He went with what was not a majority view but a tied view; he went against the precedents that had been set.

A former Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr George Thomas, in his book George Thomas, Mr Speaker, dwelt on this situation at length and discussed the Denison ruling. On 27 May 1976 he had to rule on the fate of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill where the vote was tied 303 all. That was similar to the situation in this Parliament in 1985 where the vote was 21 all. Mr Thomas said:

Denison had ruled that ifit was a second reading (this is a general debate on the merits of the Bill; the first reading is just a formality), he would vote in favour, to give the House time to look at it again. If it was in Committee (where the Bill is subjected to detailed scrutiny) and there was a tie, the Chairman should vote to keep the Bill as it was before it came to the Committee. At the report stage in the House, the Speaker would vote to keep it as it left the Committee. But if it was the third reading, ...

It was at that stage that Mr Mackenzie cast his vote-... the last chance the House had to consider the Bill, and the House failed to give it a majority, the Speaker would go against it and the Bill would fail to pass. This last principle applied to motions, too. Denison had taken the very sensible view that it was not up to the Speaker to make up the House's mind for it.

Mr Mackenzie went against what I consider to be a principle. The arguments put forward by the Liberal Party-the Opposition at the time-have now proved to be correct. Those were the arguments that you, Mr Mackenzie, did not give the Opposition the opportunity of putting across because you used your casting vote. No opportunity was given to the Opposition to debate the matter fully. However, it is recorded in Hansardthat all the things that the Opposition said would go wrong have gone wrong.


You would not listen to us then but now you are pleading that we should debate this issue over a longer period of time. You have had your chance, Mr Mackenzie.

The PRESIDENT-Order! Mr Smith should address his remarks to me and not to any other person.

The Hon. K. M. SMITH-Mr President, WorkCare is a disaster. Unfortunately, it is the people of Victoria and the employers of Victoria who will have to pay for it in hard dollars. I make it clear that the Opposition has no problems with the genuinely injured workers being looked after and rehabilitated. Unfortunately honourable members on the other side of the House relate everything to one word-"worker". Not once in any contribution to the debate from government members has consideration been given to employers-those who have to pay and those who want to employ good staff who will continue to work day after day and be well paid for it.

I wondered why government members took that attitude. In fact, I became curious about honourable members opposite and whether they had any experience in running businesses. I looked through the Victorian Parliamentary Handbook for the entries of members who were in Parliament at that time. They should be listed because they should have this resting on their shoulders for a long time. Mrs Cox sedge is an artist. Mr Crawford was an official of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia-not an employer. Mr Henshaw is a scientist-not an employer. The Minister for Health, Mrs Hogg, was a teacher-not an employer. Mr Kennedy was a company representative and photographer-not an employer. Mr Landeryou was from the Federated Storeman and Packers Union of Australia-he also has some involvement in business so he is a little on the other side of the ledger.

An Honourable Member-And a millionaire!

The Hon. K. M. SMITH-Yes, that should be on the record. Mrs McLean was an arts officer with the Australian Council of Trade Unions-not an employer. Mr Mackenzie, as he has already admitted, is a plumbing contractor, so he is an employer. So far two honourable members are on the right side of the ledger.

Mr Mier was an official of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia and an ALP officer. The Minister for Housin~ and Constructlon, Mr Pullen, was an administrator with the Commonwealth PublIc Service-certainly not an employer. Mr Sgro was a painter and decorator-he is on the other side of the ledger; three so far. Mr Van Buren was an organiser with the ALP. The Minister for the Arts is an architect, and he may have employed people. His old company seems to be employing a lot of people to do a lot of government work. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources, Mr White, was an audit clerk and research officer to the former Victorian Leader of the Opposition.

One must wonder about the sort of experience the ~overnment members who have made decisions on WorkCare have had in running buslnesses or knowing what business is about. It is a disgrace that the government members have allowed this State to be placed in its current position. The failure of Work Care rests on the shoulders of those people on the government benches.

Wo~kCare was doomed to failure. It has failed in four of its five objectives. The first was to reduce the incidence of claims-it has more claims now. It has failed to provide effective rehabilitation. It has not reduced the cost of accident compensation to the Victorian community; it has increased it. It has not provided efficient administration of claims; the chief executive of the scheme, Mr Marldey, has admitted that it has lost control of the administration of claims.

The only objective in which W orkCare has not failed is in the provision of suitable compensation for injured workers; they have done pretty well out of the scheme.


Unfortunately, it has been not only the workers who have done pretty well out of it but also just about everybody who wanted to rort the system has done well out of it.

I refer to some of the rorters of the WorkCare scheme, and there are plenty of them. As I said, not just the workers have rorted the scheme but also doctors, physiotherapists, chiropractors, administrators and claims clerks have rorted it. All kinds of people have rorted the scheme and some people have become millionaires.

Unfortunately, I am one of those who are paying for the scheme, as are all honourable members. It is wrong, and honourable members should seriously consider it because the dollars are coming out of the pockets of the Victorian public, including ourselves, to pay for the maladministration of Work Care.

The Hon. R. A. Mackenzie-The employers have done well out of it, with $1·5 billion less in premiums to pay!

The Hon. K. M. SMITH-I invite honourable members to consider what employers have got out of the WorkCare scheme. We should forget about employers in the building and transport industries because their claims and levies may have gone down, but I invite honourable members to consider the people who employ office staffclerks and people working on computers-and what their levies will have increased by. Some of them will pay 400 per cent more than they paid.

The Hon. R. A. Mackenzie-You don't know what you are talking about-it is $1·5 billion less.

The Hon. K. M. SMITH-As I said previously, an employer wants somebody who will come to work, who is prepared to work, who is fit to work.

The Hon. W. A. Landeryou-And shoot all those who are injured!

The Hon. K. M. SMITH-An employer just wants a person who can be trusted to come to work and to work well. Employers do not want to rip off the system, but certainly they are entitled to make a profit.

The Hon. B. W. Mier-The employee wants that from an employer, too.

The Hon. K. M. SMITH-Honourable members should consider the claims that have been lodged and ask why so many have been lodged. It is unfortunate that Ms Kokocinski is not in the House. Yesterday she spoke of her visit to an abattoir where she could hear a clunk every 30 seconds. She said she discovered that the clunk was caused by meat hooks dropping from a conveyor belt onto the ground. Ms Kokocinski indicated that it was the employer's fault that the hooks were falling from the conveyor belt; it was not the employer's fault. If I were working in the abattoir and saw meat hooks falling onto the ground, I would want to know why and I would try to stop them from falling.

The Hon. W. A. Landeryou-My advice is that after this speech you had better stay away from abattoirs!

The Hon. K. M. SMITH-The people in that situation obviously did not have enough brains to give enough thought to doing something about it.

Time and again Mr Van Buren has mentioned the hole in the floor of a printing works where he was working. He has said that the boss would not fix the hole. I wonder what Mr Van Buren was prepared to do? Was he prepared to fix the hole? Let us get a bit of employer and employee working together, instead of just neglecting things like the hole and letting people fall into it! It is unfortunate that Mr Van Buren did not fix the hole, as he might have stopped a few claims being lodged. Again, Mr


Van Buren is anti-employer; he is all for the worker. The employer pays the wages and you have to--

The Hon. C. F . Van Boren-The worker produces the goods. Who makes the profit-the worker!

The Hon. K. M. SMITH-Members on the government benches may wish to be socialist; they may wish to have this State run by the State, but I do not. I want a free enterprise system where the employers are employing the staff and are paying the wages and where there is a good community working together but not paid for by the State. Honourable members must start thinking a little in that direction and must begin to respect the rights of employers instead of continually trying to put them down.

The Hon. C. F. Van Boren-The workers have some rights.

The Hon. K. M. SMITH-WorkCare was to be an improvement on the old workers compensation scheme. Everyone welcomed that opportunity because the old scheme was not working properly. However, what the government came up with was not good enough. The warnings given to the government by the Opposition about what would happen have proved to be correct. The Opposition indicated that members of the government did not know how to run a business or how to organise one properly.

WorkCare was not the only scheme that was introduced at that time; the government also introduced a new scheme of occupational health and safety. That issue will be debated at some time in the future so I shall not refer to it now.

The Opposition asked what WorkCare would do for the employers, those who pay the levies. One need only delve into the newspapers to obtain the answer to that question. I refer to an advertisement that appeared in the Age when the Treasurer had Mr Halfpenny hanging around his neck, saying, "We want some sort of back-off by this government". The heading of the advertisement is "The newspapers have been full of bad news on WorkCare". Then appears:

Here is the good news ...

WorkCare has the best system of benefits in Australia. Our reforms will ensure that we keep it that way.

It has been great, everybody has rorted the system! The advertisement continues: Your employer (not the taxpayer) pays for WorkCare through a levy. That levy is going up an average

of 43 per cent.

The advertisement is for the workers; it does not matter about what is happening to the poor old employer who is paying an extra 43 per cent on top of what he paid before. It does not matter about the small businessman who will be put out of business by the increased levy; it does not matter that there are those who rort the system and bludge within it.

WorkCare has provided more benefits for the workers. The advertisement does not mention the employers, particularly the small business people, who will have to face higher levies and have to pay more for the first week's wages and an increase in their contributions to medical expenses.

The advertisement points to the Treasurer doing a great favour for the workers. Unfortunately, he seems to have forgotten the poor old bloke who has to pay the bills, the poor old employer who cannot get people to work for him because they are rorting the system.

The Hon. C. F. Van Boren-What about New South Wales; what is Greiner doing there?


The Hon. K. M. SMITH-I refer to the brochure entitled WorkCare. How the changes will affect you.

I would leave, too, as is Mr Theophanous-don't stick around!

The brochure is biased against the employer. The first question asked in the brochure is:

Why are changes necessary?

The answer given is that: WorkCare's current problems are wide-ranging. They include:

a level of employer premiums that is too low to finance the scheme-

Do not worry about the rorting, just that the employers are not paying enoughinsufficient penalties on employers who have unsafe work practices and who do not help their injured

workers return to work-

The poor old employer cops it again-... a cumbersome, legalistic and very costly system for resolving disputes about claims.

It is all about the employers; they have to pay.

The next question asked in the brochure is: How much more will employers have to pay?

The answer is: up to 43 per cent! Again, the government is saying, "Let us get stuck into the employers". This is the workers' pamphlet; no such pamphlet was written for the employers.

Another question asked in the brochure is: Are workers' benefit levels being reduced?

The answer is: no, they are just being made better for workers.

The next question is: What protection exists for low-income earners with families to support?

The answer is: plenty; they are still being looked after; it is just the employer who has copped it again.

The pamphlet makes no mention of employers apart from the increase in the levies they will pay.

The next question is: What is being done to make employers offer jobs to injured workers?

If an employer has a good worker who has been injured, there are no problems so far as that worker's employment is concerned. Unfortunately, the biased pamphlet that has been sent to workers is a try-on to get support for changes to the WorkCare system and it is biased towards the worker. What has been done about the abuse of the scheme? The pamphlet uses the words: ... fraudulent activity and other abuses of the scheme by doctors, lawyers and rehabilitation providers.

What has been done about them? There is nothing in the pamphlet about the workers who have been rorting the system. We all know they are there.

The Australian Small Business Association wrote to its members throughout Victoria asking businesses what problems they were having with WorkCare and their employees.


I have a few case studies from which I shall quote. The first concerns Plyboard Distributors Pty Ltd:

An employee worked for one and a half days and has been on WorkCare for six months.

Straightaway the employee has done well: This worker was sacked after two attempts to get him back to work. The worker was to commence work

on light duties on the 27.7.87. To be reviewed by the specialist a few days later. The worker did not start work.

The employee was not required to return to work after six months of bleeding the system dry. The case study continues:

The specialist gave the worker another certificate to continue light duties, but again the worker did not start work, he did not report to WorkCare rehabilitation or the employer.

After six clear working days the worker was sent a letter suggesting that he had abandoned his job.

The worker claimed he had been unfairly treated and went to a general practitioner and was given a further certificate for time off work, and back to rehabilitation.

The company decided to give the worker another chance, on the basis oflight duties for 2 hours per day.

The worker was due to start on the 14.9.87 but did not turn up for work. He had not reported to the company or WorkCare and had been skipping appointments.

The Hon. C. F. VAN BUREN (Eumemmerring Province)-Mr President, on a point of order; Mr Smith is quoting from a document and has not mentioned the name of the company. That company has named a worker who has been sacked and I should like to know the source of his quote.

The PRESIDENT -Order! On the point of order, many honourable members from time to time receive information in confidence, the source of which they would not dream of disclosing, particularly when that might leave the company or individual concerned open to discrimination or other actions. All I can do is ask Mr Smith to give his assurance that the document from which he is quoting is genuine information supplied to him in confidence. If it was not supplied in confidence but supplied to be used openly, of course Mr Smith is perfectly entitled to give the full source.

The Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern Province)-The information was not supplied in confidence and the name of the company is Plyboard Distributors Pty Ltd. The second company is Kimcan Investments Pty Ltd. Sandra Hall, a director of that company, states:

An employee claimed to have suffered a back injury while at work, and as a result was absent for one week. Under the current legislation, I am liable to pay the first five days' wages and the first $269 of medical expenses.

A WorkCare claim was lodged and our company disputed liability. The company felt entitled to dispute the claim, because there was no report of an injury; there was a safety representative on the shift, and it was the instruction given to all employees to report all accidents.

Once again an employee has been supported. The employers had to pay that worker. It may have been a sporting injury case that was talked about earlier, but the employer had to payout to support another one of these people who continue to rort the system.

The third company is Comalco Pty Ltd, which states: A definite decision has been made by the company to stop further growth, and have begun procedure to

wind down the operations. The main contributory factor for this decision is the WorkCare dilemma.

An example is an employee who put in a claim for a fraudulent back injury. In an attempt to make WorkCare realise that this claim was fake and needed urgent attention, this company withheld the payments that were due to the worker.


As a result, this company has had legal proceedings taken against it for criminal theft. A court case resulted in the finding that the claim was fake but payments would continue until an appeal could be heard.

The appeal was upheld and the commission is paying the worker direct.

The fourth company is Glen Waverley Dry Cleaners, which states: An employee made WorkCare claims in April 1986 and October 1987 for back injuries. The worker

returned to work on full duties in November having been cleared by the doctors.

This worker worked until 25 November 1987 when he was terminated for theft of company property and misuse of a company vehicle.

This worker was very bitter towards the company for his dismissal and as a result he confided in other employees that he was working in a cash part-time job while on WorkCare. The employees that he confided in did not share the same philosophy as the dismissed worker, that being "workers against owners", and consequently the company was informed about the cash jobs.

These workers are rorting the system time and again.

The next matter is reported in the Herald of 11 August 1989 under the heading "WorkCare a worry on both sides". It states that Mr Ballantyne has spent countless hours and dollars opposing claims. Mr Ballantyne, the managing director of a Braeside clothing manufacturer, Apple Apparel, claims he has been plagued by fraudulent claims since WorkCare began. The article states:

"My staff and I have spent countless hours and dollars opposing claims which we believe to be fraudulent", he said.

With a weekly premium of $2947, Mr Ballantyne says "WorkCare is a heavy burden. Any rise in premiums could cripple his business," he says. "An increase would make me look offshore."

Many businesses are looking to go offshore because of what WorkCare is doing to them. It is putting them out of business because the government and WorkCare have allowed this fraud to continue. The companies have denied some of the claims, yet WorkCare has not acted on them. That is why WorkCare is $4200 million down the drain.

Premier Halfpenny and some of his commo mates at the Trades Hall Council have put pressure on the government to back down on WorkCare claims and changes to WorkCare. During the Committee stage of the proposed WorkCare legislation the opposition parties foreshadow a number of amendments. In debate during the Committee stage honourable members will understand why the proposed changes have been made and how much pressure Premier Halfpenny has put on the so-called Premier and the Treasurer of the State. The Premier high tailed it overseas because he did not have the courage to stand up to it. Unfortunately, the socialists control the caucus, the Cabinet, the Premier and his lot; they are the ones who have made WorkCare a failure, who have proven that WorkCare will not work under a socialist system. They are the ones who have imprinted in the minds of all Victorians the fact that if Victoria becomes a socialist State the rest of the State will go like WorkCare, down the drain in a big way. Socialism does not work. The government tried it with WorkCare and has failed.

The WorkCare brochure is magnificent; 8000 copies were printed by the big budget, big spending WorkCare board. The board consists of a wonderful group of people who love spending employers' money. Employers are the ones who are paying the premiums. The brochure has photographs of the board members, particularly Mr Halfpenny, who has convinced the government to make changes to WorkCare.

John Halfpenny's photograph is in that brochure; was it worth spending $88 388 or $11.10 for each brochure for that lot of rubbish that came out about eighteen months after the annual report should have arrived? That brochure stated how wonderful


WorkCare was when the government and the Accident Compensation Commission knew it was going down the drain, as the freedom of information documents have disclosed. The people at the Accident Compensation Commission knew they were heading out the back door, yet they had the damned cheek to spend $88 000 of employers' money on this rubbish; trying to pad themselves up, to show themselves to be a legitimate group of people. It is rubbish because they are not; they are shameful people and the government that appointed them to the board of Work Care will suffer because the Opposition will continue to remind Victorians about the government of this State.

Those people have no idea about running a business, as I have already proved to the power brokers here who made the decision on W orkCare. Mr Mackenzie was President of the Legislative Council in 1985 and he gave the casting vote for the original Bill to be passed by the House. It was he who made the decision to let the Bill pass. Today, Mr Mackenzie-and I would hang my head too, Mr Mackenzie-has pleaded with the government to give Parliament more time; yet he did not give the Opposition any time in 1985 to plead its case. Now, the opposition parties have been proven right.

In this debate the Opposition has shown the House that there is a right way to go. When it gains government after the next election, when this government is thrown out of office for its shameful administration of Victoria and for the shameful waste of taxpayers' and employers' money, and the opposition implements its scheme, it will be shown to work. It will be shown that WorkCare can operate properly; that will be done by the Liberal government. At that time the Liberal Party will ensure that the genuinely injured people of Victoria are properly looked after-not in the way the Labor government has done, by looking after the rorters and bludgers.

The Hon. JOAN COXSEDGE (Melbourne West Province)-The labour movement regards the protection of workers' health and safety as a major industrial, social and political issue. That is why I am pleased to participate in this debate. Through their unions, Victorian workers have demanded a new approach to the design and organisation of work and technology to reduce the appalling toll of occupational injuries and diseases. They are saying that the daily maiming and daily killing must stop; I am not talking about the daily maiming and killing of employers, but of ordinary workers. I was pleased to read in today's newspaper that fines for breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act will be substantially increased. That is a very positive action.

As honourable members know, WorkCare was introduced in 1985 to replace the old workers compensation scheme. Workers were pleased to see the change because there were many bad features in the old system. I used to see quite a number of my constituents who were caught up in the old system and who were seeking help so I was fully aware of the flaws in that system. It is fair to say that a basic thrust of Work Care was to reduce the cost to employers of workers compensation. For example, under the old workers compensation system, premiums in the building industry cost employers about 27 per cent to 35 per cent of the payroll.

That figure rose to as much as 40 per cent in the meat industry. Employers in the glass manufacturing industry were forced to pay 110 per cent because of the high risk to workers involved in that industry. Under the old scheme, employers had to kick in make-up pay-that is the difference between the low weekly payments of those days and the worker's weekly wage.

The Hon. Rosemary Varty-They still do.

The Hon. JOAN COXSEDGE-Up to now employers have only had to make up the difference between the 80 per cent under WorkCare and the worker's weekly wage,


which is a hell of a lot of saving to employers, despite all the rhetoric from the other side!

Today's Age newspaper contains a good article in which it is stated that employers have saved $1500 million on WorkCare claims. I suggest you ought to acquaint yourself with that, Smithy-Mr Smith!

The Hon. ROSEMARY V ARTY (Nunawadin~ Province)-On a point of order, Mr Deputy President, honourable members in thIS House have been instructed that all honourable members should be referred to by their correct names and titles.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (the Hon. K. I. M. Wright)-Order! On the point of order, that is correct; as I heard Mrs Coxsedge; she very quickly corrected herself.

The Hon. JOAN COXSEDGE (Melbourne West Province)-I do accept the point of order; that just spilled out, and I am sure Mr Smith will understand why.

When WorkCare was introduced, the premiums were reduced on average to 3·8 per cent, rising to 5 per cent. Many people were concerned that this new levy was set far too low and that the scheme would go broke. The recommendations before the House today increase the levy by 43 per cent-that may seem to be significant but it is worth rememberin~ that the figures come from a very low base to begin with. Different levies will be applied for different industries, with some cross-subsidisation of high-risk industries by low-risk industries. Those in the worst industries will face surcharges that will lift their premiums. If they have a lousy track record, why should they not have their premiums increased? The maximum will still be only a little more than 7 per cent, which many believe is still not high enough.

The Hon. Rosemary Varty-It's double what others were paying before.

The Hon. JOAN COXSEDGE-It is insignificant compared with what others were paying. Since WorkCare was introduced, there has been an escalating attack on injured workers, including a systematic campaign in the media and by others to portray all injured workers as bludgers, frauds and rorters. I suppose it was inevitable in that climate that when the cost of Work Care blew out-as it had to-injured workers and their dependants copped the blame. The emphasis was placed on reducing the pay-out to workers, with little being said about the increased scope for professional reporting.

Looking after injured workers should be the job of employers, especially in workplaces where safety is very poor or non-existent. There are still plenty of those establishments around, unfortunately, but we know it will not happen so governments have to step in and fill the gap, or fill the gaping hole. At least employers with the worst accident records and the poorest working conditions will be financially penalised-and that is a good thing.

The Hon. K. M. Smith-We agree.

The Hon. JOAN COXSEDGE-As an aside, I also want to raise the subject of working time lost through accidents compared to time lost because of industrial action such as strikes. I raised this question when I first spoke in this House, ten years ago this month--

The Hon. R. I. Knowles-It seems longer.

The Hon. JOAN COXSEDGE-That reference was contained in what was quaintly called, in those days, my "maiden speech". My reference referred to facts stated in Rydges-scarcely a left-wing journal! At that time I said:

According to a recent article dealing with time lost at work, industrial disputes barely rate as a cause. As a percentage of total absences, disputes account for only 5·5 per cent or one day for every nineteen lost


through various sicknesses and industrial accidents, many of which are avoidable. These account for 58 per cent or ten times the amount lost through strikes.

Those are interesting statistics when we hear so much from the other side of the House and its supporters about the terrible damage being done to our economy through industrial action.

Under the old workers compensation scheme injured workers had a choice of either accepting compensation under the Act or going to the civil courts. I know, from speaking to constituents and others in the labour movement that, in most cases, although the civil pay-outs were much higher, workers simply could not afford to wait for the cases to come up, which could have taken quite a number of years, and were forced to accept the more restricted pay-outs under the workers compensation scheme.

Over the past few months, as all honourable members are aware, there has been a very public-and rather painful-debate on this issue in the labour movement. Therefore, it is probably a good idea to stand back a bit and take stock of where we are going. This applies especially to members on the other side of the House. We need to think about the broad principles and priorities that must form the basis of such a system, principles too often submerged by outside pressures and political expediency.

So whom or what is a workers compensation scheme for? The answer must surely be: for the workers, and obviously they must have access to comprehensive insurance protection against loss of wages due to injury ot illness incurred as a result of the work in which they are engaged.

But what does that mean in practice? The system should provide fair and comprehensive procedures for assessing workers' health and determining their capacity to work. Obviously a number of factors are involved; psychological as well as physical and social factors, and these cannot be narrowed down to the physical loss of a limb. Given the complexity of this and other issues, it is most essential that medical panels be made up of independent members who are not subject to political pressure.

Furthermore, it is essential that workers must be aware of their rights and how to go about achieving them. They should not be bamboozled by bureaucratic overkill or numbed by so-called expert jargon. If one looks at the maze of bureaucracy and endless hurdles surrounding our Accident Compensation Commission, one realises we still have some way to go.

I get the feeling that the system still looks after too many middle-class bureaucrats and gives them jobs, status and a sense of power. Where do workers fit into all of this? Remember, the vast majority of victims of accidents or illnesses are working-class people-factory workers, labourers and tradespeople-who simply do not have the same access to the language, the privilege or the rituals that go with it. In many cases they are from non-English speaking backgrounds, which puts them at a further disadvantage. In all cases their disability has been the cause of physical and mental trauma. They certainly should not be made to suffer further by long, drawn-out and often unnecessary bureaucratic procedures.

It is, therefore, absolutely essential that procedures should be as simple and streamlined as possible, which will also have the effect of keeping costs down. Few honourable members on this side of the House have too many illusions about living in a so-called equal society; when it comes to our courts, workers are often at a considerable disadvantage in terms of their understanding and their ability to use the system. They just simply do not have the resources-and they certainly do not have the money.

I therefore believe it is important that our workers compensation system has a provision for workers to get legal advice and, when appropriate, adequate


representation when appearing before the appeals board. At present some 50 per cent-it might even be higher-of Victorian workers do not belong to any union. Consideration needs to be given to that.

The workers compensation system must be a lot more than simply a way of recompensing workers for injury or illness in the course of employment. It must also protect the well-being of all workers by keeping a close check on safety standards in the workplace. Employers can reduce the cost of workers compensation by keeping the numbers of injured workers down by cutting out unsafe work practices. I am not just talking about economics; I am talking about protecting the community as a whole against such unsafe work practices.

As a recent discovery of high lead levels in soil at Ardeer shows, unsafe industrial practices flow over into the community, not only because of the impact on workers themselves, but through the destruction of our environment.

There is a very fundamental issue at stake here: the enforcement of moral codes regarding people's health and livelihood. I do not believe it is fair to assume that because workers receive the so-called benefits of workers compensation they should have to be responsible for its economic operation. Systems may be easily rorted-that is true; and no-one denies that-but the answer surely is not to pick on the ones who are the victims and turn them into scapegoats.

I refer to a book written by Mr John Mathews entitled Health and Safety at Work. John Mathews was the head of the ACTU-VTHC Occupational Health and Safety Unit from its inception in 1981 to 1984. Towards the front of the book in the chapter entitled "Social Context" under the heading "Overview" it states:

Chapter I discusses the ideas that safety representatives will frequently encounter. These attempt to lay the blame for accidents at work (and even for diseases that are contracted through work, on the workers themselves. At a superficial level these ideas are inSUlting: they imply that workers are stupid, lazy, and incapable of understanding their own best interests in avoiding injury and disease. But at a deeper level they are much more dangerous; they effectively hinder the focusing of attention on the real underlying causes of accidents, namely the conditions of work and quality of the working environment.

He goes on with a lot more detail about that. We must look at the responsibility of employers to provide safe workplaces, to ensure sound work practices and to ensure that they do not employ injured workers who are not fit to return to work. We need to look at doctors, and their charges certainly. We need to look at the composition and power given to medical boards who make vital, far-reaching decisions regarding workers' health.

And finally we all have to ask ourselves-especially honourable members opposite: how far do we believe the State should go in providing its citizens who suffer workrelated injuries or disease with the care that is their basic right?

The Hon. B. A. E. SKEGGS (Templestowe Province)-Ifever there was a case for a Royal Commission into the machinations of government, one has only to examine the management of the W orkCare scheme by the State government to realise that this is it.

The statistics are worth repeating. WorkCare has accumulated $4200 million in unfunded liabilities. Information has been withheld from public scrutiny. It is a coverup of the worst kind. The government has taken a long time to introduce its proposed amendments but, because of trade union demands, they fall a long way short of rectifying the deficiencies in the scheme.

Any other government would have resigned if it had presided over such financial mismanagement and after such monumental losses had been disclosed. The proposed amendments will, at best, only buy time for the government, because the scheme is


doomed. WorkCare should be scrapped and replaced by a new scheme. The Liberal Party has already outlined its scheme, the workplace compensation plan.

The WorkCare scheme was ill-conceived from the start, because the ~overnment rushed to introduce radical legislation during its temporary majority in this Chamber. During that short period three of the most draconian measures of the Cain government were rushed through Parliament. In the government's rush to ap'pease the trade union movement, it ignored actuarial warnings on the economic viabIlity of the scheme and left the potential claims section wide open to abuse and opportunities for fraudulent claims, which have been the history of this unfortunate scheme.

Mr Birrell has revealed today that the government had advance knowledge of the true economic projections of WorkCare and laid a smokescreen to cover up public exposure of the actuarial realities of the scheme. Indeed, many honourable members are now in a state of shock after hearing about the cover-up, which is without parallel in the history of the State.

Information about the actions of the Cain administration towards the AuditorGeneral and the State Coroner are prime examples of information that should have been made available to the Opposition, the Parliament and the public.

The report of the Managing Director of the Accident Compensation Commission, Mr John Markley, of 20 January 1987, was obtained by Mr Birrell under freedom of information. That report proves that key levels of management of the Accident Compensation Commission and the government received actuarial facts about the true position of WorkCare in 1987, but only now is action being taken to stem the escalating losses that are unparallelled in this State.

The government's measures do not go far enough. Mr John Trowbridge, the Accident Compensation Commission's consulting actuary for the past three years, said that the government's measures will serve as a holding position only and that the Department of Management and Budget costings are unlikely to be achieved because the track record of previous reforms is not encouraging.

Mr Trowbridge did not accept the Treasurer's statement of23 June indicating that the new provisions could achieve a 27 per cent reduction in the duration of claims. Mr Trowbridge said that 10 to 15 per cent would be more reasonable. He also said the government's claims that these measures would reduce medical and legal costs by 12 per cent are unlikely to be achieved and that the aim to achieve a 10 per cent saving In administrative expenses is virtually impossible to fulfil.

Mr Trowbridge also said that, if the new impairment test does not put as many as 70 per cent of claimants on reduced benefits, the financial performance of WorkCare will continue to deteriorate. That is the gloomy prospect faced by Victorians. Mr Trowbridge says that the effectiveness of the impairment test is now in doubt following the changes accepted by the Treasurer since his original announcement on 23 June.

If the government had any concern for the well-being of small and medium businesses it would have confined eligible claims under WorkCare to those ~enuinely sustained in the workplace. The end result for employers is a cri~pling hike In WorkCare levies, which will cause many small employers to reduce staff, cause job redundancies and, in some cases, force the closure of small businesses.

People involved in the delivery of community health care are most upset at the proposed changes to the scheme. I refer the House to a letter that I received on 2 August 1989 from the Acting Administrator of the West Heidelberg Community Health and Welfare Centre which says:

The board of management and staff at the West Heidelberg Community Health Centre wish to register their concerns regarding the government's proposed changes to WorkCare and the detrimental effect on low-income earners of the West Heidelberg community_

Session 1989-20


We are particularly concerned with the following issues:

1. The proposed change to reduce benefits after twelve months from 80 per cent of pre-injury wage to 60 per cent. This has a potentially devastating effect on low-income earners who are already experiencing difficulty in meeting their basic needs due to lack of financial resources and stability.

2. The proposed impairment test which does not acknowledge the overall effects a particular injury might have on workers' quality oflife and capacity to work in their usual occupation.

3. The removal of legal representation will mean that less articualte workers in this community will be discriminated against.

4. The proposed government medical assessment contradicts the entire basis of having a local, responsive community health service and will mean the real impact of a worker's injury will not be acknowledged.

Workers injured in the legitimate course of their duties deserve every protection. The incidence of claims from weekend sports injuries and other claims that are totally unrelated to the workplace has dragged the scheme down.

Most medical practitioners are responsible when issuing initiating certificates, but a few have been all too ready to issue initiating certificates at the behest of patients. The chiropractic and osteopathic professions do not receive any justice under the scheme. Why should chiropractors not be granted the right to issue initiating certificates, as do general practitioners? Chiropractors and osteopaths were registered in 1979 and represent an important arm of primary medical care, which is recognised internationally.

The Hamer government amended the Workers Compensation Act to include registered chiropractors and osteopaths in the definitIon of medical services. Subsequently it was decided that certificates issued by chiropractors and osteopaths would be accepted for the purposes of workers compensation. Unfortunately, the Cain ~overnment has reneged on that undertaking and chiropractors can no longer issue Initiating certificates.

Chiropractors have been the subject of extensive inquiries. All inquiries have verified that chiropractors carry out diagnosis and therapy of spinal biomechanical disorders at a sophisticated and refined level. The chiropractic profession is a respected profession. The Chiropractors and Osteopaths Registration Board of Victoria comprises two chiropractors, one osteopath, three medical practitioners and an independent chairman. They have the important duty of fully assessing the Phillip Institute of Technology School of Chiropractic education course. The graduates from that institute have been accepted worldWide for the very high standard of their training.

The government has passed up the opportunity of givin$ a respected arm of medical care just rights to issue initiating certificates and, in so dOIng, has inconvenienced the public. People in need of chiropractic care are forced not only to attend the chiropractor, but then to ~o to the medical practitioner to obtain an initiating certificate, at double the cost. ThIS is an inconvenience and a nuisance to the general public but, above all, it denies chiropractors the basic right which they so richly deserve of issuing initiating certificates, just like any other medical practitioner.

I appeal to the government and Parliament in general to review even at this late stage the failure of the Bill to recognise the chiropractic profession adequately. During the Committee stage I hope something can be done to recognise the certificate rights of chiropractors.

The measure before the House is a late adjustment to what has been a disgraceful failure of the government to balance the protection of workers with the protection of the economy of this State. Too many people have rorted the system; too many people have been irresponsible in their approach to the management and overvIew of WorkCare and to WorkCare legislation.


The scheme should be scrapped; a new scheme should be introduced not only to give justice to the injured worker but also to guarantee a fair go for people involved in small and medium sized businesses. They are the people who will pay, just as the people of this State will pay grievously as a result of the lateness of the corrective measures to this doomed scheme.

The Hon. G. R. CRAWFORD (Jika Jika Province)-Although I do not want to deal in detail with the old workers compensation scheme, the predecessor to WorkCare, it is necesary to direct attention to that system because members of the Opposition have said much about the additional costs of the increase in the levy outlined in the Bill and how they will affect employers. That is nothing new. Workers compensation is a most involved and complex Issue. Many people from different sectors of the economy push their own barrows with regard to workers compensation and many factors cut across achieving a system that is administered more efficiently than is currently the case.

A crisis developed within the previous workers compensation system. Employers in the building industry were paying premiums of approximately 40 per cent of payroll. That is considerably more than they will be called upon to pay under the provisions in the Bill.

There were a number of problems with the old system, such as the fact that the system was overlegalised to the extent that more than half of every dollar spent on workers compensation was absorbed in legal and medical costs. There was also the problem of lump sum payments because workers had difficulty in administering and ulitising those payments.

In order to overcome all the problems of the old system, the concept of WorkCare was developed. Members of the Labor Party and the trade union movement wholeheartedly support the concept of the WorkCare system. From the word go we recognised that the introduction of a new scheme would, of necessity, have teething problems and that the scheme would have a number of weaknesses and defects that were not envisaged at the time of its drafting.

At the time the W orkCare legisation was introduced to Parliament the Treasurer said that within eighteen months amending legislation would be presented to overcome the shortcomings of the original legislation. That is nothing new; that has been the practice for years when legislation containing a new concept has been passed. A good example is the Building Control Act to which a number of amendments have been made.

The trade union movement and the Labor Party are as one in terms of their support for the concept of W orkCare. Likewise, members of the Labor Party and trade union movement are concerned about the rorts that have been occurring across various sectors. We do not accept the concept put over by many people that the workers are the only rorters of the system. Workers are mere amateurs compared with the rorts of private insurance companies, doctors and other professional groups under the previous system. Workers have a long way to go to catch up with professionals in that arena.

As I said before, the Labor Party and the trade union movement recognised from the beginning that changes would be needed to the WorkCare scheme. In that regard, there is no Question about their support for legitimate propositions desi~ed to tighten the administration of the system to make it work in a more benefiCial way and to eliminate rorts by any sector of the community.

The object of W orkCare is to protect and to look after the economic interests of injured workers and to ensure that they get a fair go. I am opposed to anyone doing anything to cut across that, and I shall do whatever I can to eliminate and prosecute


such people. There is general recognition that the current system is not perfect and that it requires changes to be made to its administration and operation.

I do not usually agree with Claude Forell, but I happened to come across an article written by him in the Age of Wednesday, 20 September, which states:

The public and Parliamentary debate over WorkCare has become distorted by an obsessively exaggerated concentration on the scheme's costs (to employers and the community) and benefits (to injured and disabled workers).

Employers are angered by the higher levies they will have to pay under the restructured scheme. They and their political allies assert that these added costs could drive some companies out of business or interstate, or force them to increase prices.

The short, sharp and truthful answer to this scare mongering is that the highest levies will be paid by employers with the worst accident records, poorest working conditions, lowest staff morale and most incompetent managements.

Ifsome go broke or price themselves out of the market, that would be good riddance. Employers should also remember that they have saved $1500 million in premiums since WorkCare replaced the previous system four years ago.

I shall not read all of the article, but it goes on to say: WorkCare is-and should be seen to be-a fascinating measure of the comparative health, safety,

morale and working conditions not only of different industries but of different employers and workplaces within the same industry.

Those differences are both profound and widespread. One factory may generate three or four times as many compensation claims as its neighbour with a similar range of products and similar mix of workers. In most cases, such disparities are not coincidental; they are a gauge of managerial competence and employer-employee relations in the individual workplace.

Instead of complaining about higher levies to what had been-despite the rorts and poor administrationa grossly underfunded scheme, employers should realise that they themselves can influence the amount they will pay under the reforms now before Parliament.

The private sector groups with the worst records for compensation claims are the meat and clothing, textile and footwear industries. In the hazardous and unpleasant meat industry, four big employers with the worst records accounted for 25 per cent of all compensation payments over nearly three years, but represented only 5 per cent of the industry's workforce as measured by payroll.

Five others, employing 15 per cent of the workforce, took another 26 per cent of all payments. Yet the 20 best performers, employing 24 per cent of the work force, accounted for only 7 per cent of payments.

The differences are even more dramatic in the clothing industry, which is often characterised by lowpaid, boring, repetitive work, mostly by women. Comparing only large manufacturers with annual payrolls of$10 million or more, the 40 worst employers-IO per cent of the workforce as measured by payrollsaccounted for 27 per cent of payments while the 40 best generated only 0-6 per cent.

There are also striking disparities ill the public sector. Municipal councils vary enormously in the number of people they employ, but the worst performers in proportion to their payroll have cost WorkCare seven times as much in compensation payments than the best performers.

Mr Forell has more to say about WorkCare in the article; but what I have read to the House presents a balanced picture. All honourable members recognise that there are problems with WorkCare and that the scheme is not working as efficiently and as effectively as we all would hope. There is no magic formula to solve the problems. Simply, it is a matter of havin~ the system and putting in place the reforms that are needed to overcome the adminlstrative difficulties.

Mr Deputy President, I am sure I will not be popular for saying so, but when WorkCare was introduced in 1985 a number of mistakes were made, mistakes that the government was warned about and advised against by the Trades Hall Council. They included:

1. The employers levy was too low at 2·4 per cent average. In fact it never reached 2·4 per cent.


2. The range of the employers levy was set too narrowly-·06 per cent to 3·8 per cent. Employers in high-risk industries were given a positive incentive to give up any pretence of supporting health and safety.

3. Although the Accident Compensation Commission was set up to administer the scheme, most of the day-to-day running of the scheme was given to private insurance companies over which the Accident Compensation Commission had no direct control.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (the Hon. K. I. M. Wright)-Order! Are they your own views, Mr Crawford?

The Hon. G. R. CRAWFORD-They are certainly my own views, Mr Deputy President. I should not be stating them if they were not-you can accept that for sure. Otherwise I would be wasting my time! Fourthly:

The legislation was inadequate to allow recovery of money owed by old insurers. This amounts to about $600 million.

In the four years WorkCare has been in operation, the Accident Compensation Commission has collected very little of the money owed to it by old insurers. Initially that was because the legislation was deficient; but since the legislation has been changed, there has been procrastination. Even as between the State Insurance Office and the Accident Compensation Commission hundreds of millions of dollars are involved.

I have some notes about cross-subsidisation, but that topic has been adequately dealt with by a number of honourable members. It should be realised that, although some work has been done in the area of the rehabilitation of injured workers, much more needs to be done to ensure that rehabilitation is provided more effectively and efficiently than it is at present.

The government has been faced with the need to amend the Accident Compensation Act. The Treasurer proposed reforms that were largely the work of his advisers in the Department of Management and Budget; and those proposals were a cause of concern within both the Labor Party and the trade union movement. In particular, the proposed introduction of medical panels and the appeals board was seen by the trade union movement as likely to deny injured workers their rights under the Act. Rightly or wrongly, those proposals were seen as being contrary to the interests of injured workers.

As a result, representations were made by Labor Party members and the Trades Hall Council to individual Ministers and to the Cabinet. I commend John Halfpenny for the role he played in the negotiations that took place. I wholeheartedly support the stand of the Victorian Trades Hall Council in seeking to protect the right of injured workers to compensation. That was the key to the differences of opinion between the trade union movement and the Ministers concerned with the drafting of the Accident Compensation (General Amendment) Bill.

There was some concern that the Treasurer did not seem to be prepared to accept the views, appreciate the concerns or understand the problems that many practitioners in the compensation system could see in the original package of proposals. I am critical of the fact that the Treasurer ignored so much experience and knowledge.

However, after a very long time there were settlements of two points and my understanding of the situation is that there was a coming together of the points of view how the medical panels and the appeal board would operate, which resulted in an agreement which the Trades Hall Council believed would meet its concerns.

The Hon. J. G. Miles-So that Halfpenny wouldn't revolt!

The Hon. G. R. CRAWFORD-Never mind that baloney about Halfpenny! He did not make the decisions. The decisions were made by the Trades Hall Council and were unanimous. You would not even know that. Hundreds of people, including ordinary workers-not just t~ade union officials-unanimously made these decisions.


It was not Halfpenny. Mr Miles can throw as much muck as he likes. All he does is show his own ignorance.

The Hon. J. G. Miles-Thanks for the information!

The Hon. G. R. CRA WFORD-There is still a great deal of apprehension among workers and the trade union movement as to how these amendments will operate. There was an agreement which has been read out by members opposite. I also have a copy of the letter from Mr Halfpenny. It did not fall off the back of a truck; it was given to me by the secretary of the plumbers union.

What the Trades Hall Council has said is that there is a settlement on the matter in the centre of the dispute. I have mentioned the operation of the medical panels and the appeals board and there is the outstanding matter of the impairment test. On that subject I believe the workers and the trade union movement and the members of the Labor Party are operating on the basis that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Either there will be a proper and suitable test that can be applied or, if there is not agreement on that, obviously the fears of the workers and the trade union movement will become a reality and that factor will deprive injured workers of their entitlements under the Act. These things will have to be worked through.

To demonstrate that there is still much apprehension, the employers in the building industry, as a result of the building unions' concern about it, have now agreed to increase the make-up pay to top up compensation payments from full pay for a period of 26 weeks in the year to a period of 52 weeks in the year. This is just for a little bit of insurance.

The Hon. Rosemary Varty-A little bit?

The Hon. G. R. CRA WFORD-I support the Bill because I believe it is essential to increase the levy and thereby increase the funding for the scheme but there has to be an ongoing review of the administration and the operation of the W orkCare scheme, firstly, to eliminate rorts by some persons of all sections involved-doctors, rehabilitation clinics, insurance companies, workers and employers-and, secondly, to protect the rights of injured workers and ensure that the level of benefits set out in the Act does flow through to all injured workers in Victoria.

The Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra Province)-I wish to make a brief contribution to this WorkCare debate.

It will never be forgotten that the only major piece of legislation that has ever passed through this House when the Labor Party controlled it is the W orkCare legislation. There could not be a single more important example of how dangerous it is to allow the Labor Party to control the Legislative Council.

The Hon. Rosemary Varty-Hear, hear!

The Hon. M. A. BIRRELL-It is a financially disastrous piece of legislation that was forwarded during a brief period of time when the ALP had the numbers. This was quickly corrected by the electorate but we have the legacy of Work Care with us to this date.

WorkCare is a financial legacy that will haunt future governments, particularly nonLaborgovernments, because they will have to deal with the unfunded liabilities and the difficulties the current system is imposing on industry and employment.

WorkCare, as a concept, has failed and must be replaced. The Liberal Party has made it clear through its lead speaker on this Bill that it is not interested in, nor is there the capacity, to fix up the government's mess through this proposal. It wants a totally fresh scheme as has been outlined by the honourable member for Hawthorn in


another place-a fresh scheme that realises that the current costs of the unfunded liabilities cannot be tolerated by Victoria.

I was impressed by the remarks of a judge who had to look at W orkCare and try to assist some litigants to get through the WorkCare mess. What a comment it was on how badly the government had drafted this legislation originally in 1985! Judge Leo Hart, who is a well-respected member of the legal profession and who uses modest language that one can understand, in the County Court in December 1988, sitting in Geelong on the case of Jackson v. Wellbridge, passed the following comments:

It is probably unwise to assert confidently that section 135 of the Accident Compensation Act is the most poorly drafted piece of legislation I have ever seen-but it is certainly on the short list for that accolade.

The frustration he went through in trying to dispense justice when dealing with legislation that could not properly be read let alone understood is evident in those words. Here was a judge who was trying to help someone but found the legislation was not even readable. He went on:

The conclusion that the draftsman and/or the legislature is sloppy and slipshod is naturally a conclusion that I would be reluctant to draw.

It is a conclusion, however, which, ifever the words ofa statute justify it, may be justified in this statute.

This is one small example of one judge commenting on the Act that we have been asked to amend but it is a judgment that was important because it outlined the failure of Work Care. The failure of Work Care is the failure to give justice to workers. That is something that the government is reluctant to talk about. The government does not want to recognise that its own scheme has failed to do what it hoped to do for employees. The Opposition is just as conscious that it is bankrupting the State and harming the interests of employers.

The Australian Chamber of Manufactures surveyed its members on WorkCare. In a letter to me of 18 July 1989, Mr Ken Crompton, director of the Victorian division of the chamber, said that the survey had shown that:

Almost eight in ten people surveyed believe the WorkCare system is not working well, and that it needs changes.

The main concerns are that the system is costing too much, too many people are taking advantage of the system by being dishonest and that the system itself allows cheats.

The scheme does; it has failed; it must be replaced.

The Opposition will move a number of key amendments at the Committee stage. These amendments are designed to ensure that in future we know the truth about WorkCare rather than the concocted nonsense that has been put forward by the Treasurer on previous occasions.

As the document from Mr Markley, the Managing Director of the Accident Compensation Commission, which I tabled in this House this morning, stated, we have not been told the truth about WorkCare. The Opposition's amendments will ensure that in future we receive regular reporting. More importantly, the amendments make it clear that we are not interested in tinkering with the government's discredited scheme; we want a complete replacement and in government we will provide it.

That replacement will take on board many of the representations that have been made to us by a variety of groups, be it the Australian Chamber of Manufactures, the Australian Chiropractors Association, Victorian Branch, or dozens of other employers, employees and commentators. We will act on their concerns through our policy, and there will be a clear choice between the Opposition and the government at the next

600 COUNCIL 20 September 1989 Prices Bill

election on this issue, a choice that will be in the Opposition's favour because its policy deals with the underlying problems.

I conclude by saying that the Opposition will allow the Bill to proceed to the Committee stage. We make it clear that we are taking that action so that we can amend the Bill. Our position in the second-reading vote should not be seen in any way as an endorsement of the WorkCare scheme. It should not be regarded as our acceptance of the Bill as a solution to the problems of WorkCare. We want to go to the stage of moving amendments; that is why we will allow the Bill to proceed to the Committee stage.

By allowing the Bill to pass this stage, we pass no judgment other than one of criticism on the people who thought up W orkCare, its current administrators and those who seek to defend it now. We want to replace the whole scheme. However, in the short term we are prepared to move some amendments which at least move it in the right direction.

The PRESIDENT -Order! I observe that proposed new section 51 enlarges the exclusive jurisdiction of the Accident Compensation Tribunal. In doing so it clearly reduces the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the second and third readings of the Bill are required to be passed by an absolute majority. Therefore I ask that the bells be rung to enable me properly to ensure that that is the position.

The required number of members having assembled in the Chamber-

The motion for the second reading of the Bill was agreed to by an absolute majority of the whole number of the members of the House.

The Bill was read a second time, and it was ordered that it be committed later this day.

PRICES BILL The debate (adjourned from the previous day) on the motion of the Hon. M. A.

Lyster (Minister for Local Government) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western Province)-The Bill is a cynical exercise. It is a deliberate attempt to hoodwink the public of Victoria. The Minister for Prices has gone on record as saying that the objectives of the Bill are to promote price constraint and reduce inflation. The cynical part is that the Minister knows that it will not work. At least, he should know because he is meant to be the Minister for Prices.

The Minister regards the Bill as an opportunity of pushing his own barrow. He has portrayed the retailers in this community as racketeers and cheats responsible for excessive and unjustified price rises and he portrays the consumers of this State as poor, downtrodden people in need of protection. It is obvious from the way in which he portrays both sides of the trade that he has never been involved in it. I can say after several years experience in the retail trade that the consumers of this State are sharp. It is an insult to suggest they are in need of protection.

Against that background the Minister for Prices is riding in on his white charger as the great protector. He speaks about a long-running fight with retailers. In fact, he goes out of his way to promote the fight. I think he has invented the fight because when one speaks to the retailers of this State-as I have done-one finds that they do not know the fight is taking place. The Minister really is a heavyweight: his opponent does not know about the fight! He invents a fight with the retailers to bolster his own ego.

Prices Bill 20 September 1989 COUNCIL 601

The Bill does not deserve to be treated seriously and, as the House may have gathered, the National Party opposes it. The Bill seeks two new powers to be granted to the government. The first is the power to establish maximum prices for specific goods and the second is to regulate the way in which prices are to be displayed.

At the risk of giving the Prices Bill greater credibility than it warrants, I shall explain how the Bill seeks to grant powers to the government.

I refer firstly to maximum prices. Clause 4 provides for the appointment of a Prices Commissioner "for such term and subject to such conditions" as the Governor in Council deems appropriate.

The next step in the process is the establishment of prices review panels. Clause 6 ( 1) provides that:

If the Minister is satisfied that the price of a class of goods ... is excessive ... the Minister may recommend to the Governor in Council that a Prices Review Panel be established to consider and report on the price of that class of goods.

Clause 6 (3) provides that: The panel shall consist of

(a) the Commissioner ... and

(b) a person appointed by the Governor in Council who is knowledgeable about the industry-

whatever that means-" . and

(c) a person appointed by the Governor in Council who has a sound appreciation of the interests of consumers.

The only nominees are those of the government. In effect the prices review panels will be captive; the Bill proposes the establishment of a kangaroo court.

Worse is to come. Clause 6 by subclauses (4) and (5) provides that: If the Minister so recommends ... A member of a panel ... is appointed ... with such entitlements to

remuneration and travelling expenses as the Governor in Council determines.

So that the prices review panels will not only be engaged in a futile exercise but also will be an expensive operation. I shall return to that issue because it represents one of my fundamental objections to the provisions of the Bill.

Clause 7 provides that: A panel-

(a) may undertake such investigations as it thinks fit ... and

(b) may appoint a person to make enquiries ... and

(c) may request a public statutory body to provide to the panel any information or document relevant. .. and

(d) may ... request the manufacturer or seller to give information or produce books ... relevant to the investigation.

What quaint terminology: the panel "may request" that information! How could anyone receiving that request refuse to comply with it, particularly when that party would be well aware that the decision made by the panel might lead to an arbitrary fixing of prices?

Incidentally, clause 10 (3) provides that the commissioner, who is the chairman, "shall have a casting vote" in each case.


Clause 11 contains the provisions relating to the reports of prices review panels, which may recommend a maximum price. Clause 11 (2) (a) provides that the maximum price may apply to goods sold:

(i) by manufacturers in Victoria;

(ii) by producers in Victoria;

and by wholesalers and shopkeepers in Victoria. The maximum price may pertain to particular classes of goods for a specific period over the whole or any part of Victoria.

Enormous powers will be $1!lnted to the prices review panels, including a declaration of maximum prices, as proVIded by clause 12. The declaration may relate to the goods or class of goods listed in clause 12 (2) as follows:

(a) to differences in the quantity, quality, volume or description ... or

(b) to different forms, conditions, terms or localities of sale; or

(c) to the whole or any part of Victoria; or

(d) to shops or shops or a particular class; or

(e) to a specified period ... or

(f) to any other condition or circumstance.

These are all at the discretion of the panel and represent extraordinary power, although the government has indicated that it wants simply to restrain inflation.

The penalties are extraordinary. Clause 15 provides that: If goods are sold-

(a) for a price exceeding a maximum price specified ...

that person, or the occupier of that shop, is guilty of an offence.

Penalty: For a first offence, 50 penalty units;

For a second or subsequent offence, 100 penalty units.

We are talking about a penalty of$5000 for a first offence and $10 000 for a second or subsequent offence.

The Bill provides price control at the whim of a Minister who is prepared to invent a fight with retailers, so it is little wonder that the retailers of the State are not thrilled at the prospect of the Bill being passed.

I turn to consider the question of price control. Will it work? That is the simple question honourable members should be considering. I refer to the evidence. Firstly, I invite honourable members to consider what has happened to the Prices Justification Tribunal which was established in the early 1970s with the lofty aim of effecting price constraint. That was its sole purpose. The body has since been wound up on the ground that it failed to meet its fundamental objective.

The evidence shows that the Prices Justification Tribunal in fact exacerbated the inflationary spiral because it introduced a cost-plus mentality. Producers had to prove that their costs had increased before they could be granted approval for a price increase. So the inflation component became institutionalised; it was built into the system. The competitive price control effect of the market itself was diminished; in fact, it was totally ignored. A strict relationship between costs and prices was assumed; improved methods or improved efficiencies were ignored as possibly lowering the cost drag on prices.

On the basis of the evidence of what happened to the Prices Justification Tribunal, price control does not lower inflation. Price control causes inflation to be built into


the price structure. The Prices Justification Tribunal is a good example of exactly where we should not go in respect of price control.

The Hon. R. A. MacKenzie-It was never allowed to work by the Federal Liberal government.

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-The Prices Justification Tribunal is the first example of what we should not do.

I turn to the experience of this government. From 12 March 1987, price control was exercised in this State under the Grocery Prices Act 1987, which applied to the food trade. The issues involved in the Bill were hotly debated in the National Party room at that time; I remember the debate well. Ultimately, the National Party agreed to a trial of the legislation for twelve months; a sunset clause was inserted into the Bill.

The Minister for Local Government, representing the Minister for Prices, continues to state that Melbourne food prices were held down within the 6 per cent target applied under the Grocery Prices Act. In fact, the second-reading speech notes suggest that that increase was held within half of the 6 per cent target.

It is interesting that the second-reading speech notes indicate that it is conceded that prices around Australia slowed down during that year. In other words, it is conceded that it is impossible to isolate the factors involved in the Victorian situation. In addition, there is the problem of measurement of any price shift, of which I have spoken before. When the price peg document associated with the Grocery Prices Bill appeared in the metropolitan daily newspapers, it listed 170 grocery lines, each with two prices. The first price was titled the "typical" price and the other price was the "lowest" price. In many cases, the variance between the typical price and the lowest price was greater than the 6 per cent target.

I have quoted the figures before and have now checked them. I refer to some of them. The first is Arnotts Family Assorted Biscuits, which had a typical price of $2 and a lowest price of$I.85, which was a variance of8 per cent. The next price was for a 750-gram pack ofWeetbix, which had a 14 per cent variance; eggs had an 11 per cent variance; Meadow Lea margarine-one of the most fashionable of loss leaders-had a margin of 10 per cent between the typical and lowest prices.

The results over the twelve-month period were dramatically affected by the prices that were chosen as the starting point; the comparison was influenced by the prices chosen. Did we compare the highest with the lowest? Did we take into account that some may have been weekly specials or loss leaders? It is impossible accurately to assess the shift in the prices on the basis that was attempted. It would be just as simple to manipulate the effect after the exercise had closed to show that prices had increased by more than the amount claimed. I submit that that was precisely what took place.

There is no evidence to support the contention that the prices peg had any impact on prices. Even if the government can convince the public about the 170 items chosen to be in the basket, what about the other lines? The average supermarket carries 10 000 lines, yet the basket relates to 170 lines. Even if it were conceded that there may have been an impact within the basket, would anyone in this place argue that the retailers were not able to adjust prices outside the basket to make up any difference? Of course not!

I note in the second-reading notes that were supplied when the Bill was originally introduced in the other place the claim that Victoria's prices peg is a model that is often pointed to by those in other States who are attempting to restrain prices. That comment is not repeated in the second-reading notes that are now before the House. Someone must have told the government and the Minister for Prices about the


dreadful mistake they made. I do not dispute the claim; Victoria's prices peg is a model that is looked at by other States, but they use it as an example of why one should not proceed with price control-rather the reverse.

The Hon. R. A. Mackenzie interjected.

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM - I shall come to that. Tasmania conducted a prices inquiry in the form of a Royal Commission, the results of which were published in March this year. The commissioner took evidence under oath from industry, consumers and other parties. The inquiry was held over four months and among its conclusions that should be noted is:

The Victorian prices peg program, which appeared to have the necessary criteria for theoretical success, has had, at the empirical level, no noticeable beneficial effect on relative food prices in that State.

That is what the Tasmanians thought of Victoria's system: no empirical evidence at all. So much for the claim that Victoria is leading the way. I now understand why the government has deleted that claim from the second-reading notes.

Another finding of the Tasmanian Royal Commission states: While price controls may seem to be an obvious response to excessive prices, they are fraught with

theoretical and practical difficulties.

Among the findings was the one I have just outlined regarding the measurement in the shift of prices, which states:

Whilst the board is of the view that full scale price monitoring programs are not cost effective, it is undesirable if the only remaining alternatives are politically inspired and/or well-meaning but amateurish price comparison surveys such as have gained prominence in recent years.

There is no doubt which example the inquiry is citing. It was a direct shot at the futile attempt in Victoria, again clear evidence of what other States think of Victoria's failed attempt. No other State in Australia has price control.

If the House wants further examples, honourable members have only to turn to New Zealand's experience in the early 1980s. That experience demonstrated the futility of price control. The conclusion drawn by the New Zealanders was that price freezes are almost invariably followed by price breakouts.

The government cannot sustain the argument that price control is justified by empirical evidence because there is none. I refute the claim in the second-reading notes; the Bill is a cynical exercise motivated on party political lines. I go further and say that substantial costs would be associated with the bureaucratic infrastructure that would be required under the Bill to overview price control.

The mechanism advocated by the government would be costly and would necessarily add to the pressure on prices. We would see the reverse effect to the one the government claims is its objective.

If the government were genuine in its endeavours to restrain prices, the most practical strategy would be to allow the market to operate without interference. If the government were genuine, the appropriate measures could be arrived at in discussions with retailers about how the industry operates and how it could be aided by relief from bureaucratic control.

As I have done on previous occasions, I put it to the House that the best price control measure is competition itself. The consumers have a watchdog operating on their behalf; that watchdog is already in place, and it is the other traders. They monitor prices very carefully, particularly in the food trade. It is ironic that the government consistently targets the food trade for price control ventures because the food sector is more competitive than any other sector. There are weekly specials and loss leaders.


How long can a trader sell articles at a loss? That is a common practice in the food trade. Apart from that, across the entire trade margins are so small that if the entire average profit margins were offered as an incentive to potential customers there would not be many who would bother to follow them up. Margins are extremely small.

The Hon. D. M. Evans-Only 1 or 2 per cent.

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-Yes 1 or 2 per cent. It is ironic that the government should choose the food industry because the customer shops regularly and is in a good position to monitor price shifts. Weekly shopping habits give the shopper the opportunity of seeing what is happening with price shifts. I resent the implication that shoppers are stupid and are being ripped off by avaricious traders. That is not only ridiculous, it it also insulting to the average shopper.

I debunk the other mythological arguments that the government continues to employ; the first being that retailers set excessive and unjustifiable prices. The first component of prices is the profit margin, the difference between the buying price and the selling price. I admit there is not a retailer worth his salt anywhere in the world who would not seek to maximise the difference between the buying and selling prices. The second component relates to the unit sales volume. I concede there would not be a retailer who does not wish to maximise sales volume. However, in a competitive market those two factors are directly and inversely related. As the margin is increased the trader can expect the sales volume to decline, or vice versa. If the margin is reduced, the expectation is that sales will increase. Each trader makes a value judgment on what margin will achieve the optimum profit, recognising that any shift in the margin must produce a shift in turnover, and that has to be assessed in the long term.

In addition, a shift in sales volumes must have an impact on costs. It is a very complex process to set prices. Superimposed over that is another factor, namely, what is happening with competitors because it is a brave but stupid man who sets his prices in ignorance of his competitors' prices. Therefore, it becomes a complex process. No trader acts in isolation; the most valuable watchdog is the competitor.

In summary, prices ruling in the market are simply an amalgam of the assessment which each trader makes of all those factors; it is not something that is arbitrarily shifted each day but evolves over a long time, and takes into account the factors pertaining over time.

Another myth is that price control should be offered as some sort of quid pro quo; an offer of some reward for wage restraint. That is an interesting argument but fails to take into account the fact that wages are built into the cost structure and that is considered when prices are set. It is already there, and part of the background against which a prices policy is determined.

It is nonsensical to argue that wage restraint should be rewarded by price control; those who argue that way simply do not understand the real world or have chosen to ignore that practical reality.

I do not swallow that price control should be some reward for wage restraint because the inherent flaw in that argument is that those who want to have control of both seek to have wages controlled to a minimum and prices controlled to a maximum. That is delightful logic if one happens to be on one side of the equation but if one steps back and looks at it in the cold, hard light of day it can be seen as absolute nonsense. So much for the logic of reward!

The third myth is that price control should be offered as some sort of reward because the government has controlled its prices. I have heard that argument on several occasions and it really is extraordinary. The government is saying to the business


sector, "We have held our charges down and now you should do the same". That is kindergarten economics and I should not acknowledge it or give it the merit that the government pretends it is entitled to. Even if one accepted that there were some sort of logical base to that argument-which there is not-it is interesting to have the government-which is a price monopoly, and which has no competition-say, "Whatever we do should flow to the private sector and should have some pull on prices which are set in a highly competitive sector". I do not accept the first part of the proposition.

I refer now to the claim that government charges have been held down: that is interesting because on several occasions in this House I have said that the Budget documents do not sustain those claims. The best reference I can provide is to taxes, fees and fines-table 3.1 in Budget Paper No. 2. That table reveals that the government expects taxes, fees and fines to increase by 9·3 per cent in 1989-90. It is the same government which says, "We predict and expect an inflation level of 7·3 per cent; therefore, built into that prediction is an increase of 2 per cent in real terms.

The Hon. R. A. Mackenzie-New taxes.

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-Perhaps they are new taxes but the government says, "We have controlled our charges, you and the private sector should do the same". It does not have the first part correct because clearly there has been no restraint. The government does not have a single valid argument for price control. Price control will not work in that form. I suggest to the House that the reverse effect will apply, in that control will add to the inflationary pressures. On those grounds, the National Party rejects the concept contained in the Bill.

I turn to the second arm of the Bill, and to the manner of pricing of goods. The provisions stipulate that, if the Trade Practices Commission approves a code of practice relating to the marking of prices of goods and the particular means for marking of goods, the Minister may proclaim the code as one applying for the purposes of that provision in the Bill.

The Bill also provides that, if the Director of Consumer Affairs is satisfied that the occupier of a shop repeatedly has failed to comply with that code of practice, the director may take the steps specified in the notice to comply. In fact, he may issue a notice in writing to the occupier, directing the occupier to take such steps as are specified in the notice. An apparent failure to comply with that notice will bring out the big stick, the penalty, which is 50 penalty units-$5000! It does not provide "up to 50 penalty units" but a penalty of 50 units.

In addition, regulations may require the display of prices of goods of a prescribed class if the goods are offered for sale in prescribed areas. Price marking procedures are to be controlled. Even though the government is apparently now prepared to recognise the wisdom of a national code-because until now it has been talking about going it alone at the State level-the aspects of the Bill are even more specious than price control.

In seeking the control of item price marking, there is the simple objective of forcing stores which employ bar code scanning to revert to the individual price marking of goods. That is what it is all about; there is no other objective; only to force the scanning stores to revert to individually marking line items. That is incredibly stupid and a sop to the consumer groups that have been advocating individual price marking.

Those groups are not representative of the community. The direction of the Bill is even more astounding because the Minister continues to tell the retailers that individual price marking is not an issue; he says it is dead as an issue but that statement is made


only when talking to retailers. When talking to pressure groups and to minority groups, he changes his tune.

The Hon. G. R. Craige-Like the wind.

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-Like the wind. It is a logic of convenience in terms of to whom he is talking and what line he takes. I ask the House to consider why any retailer would incur the huge capital outlays involved in the installation of scanning equipment. Why would any retailer contemplate that massive outlay if it were not simply to gain a competitive edge over the rest of the trade? Scanning is clearly more efficient. There is no argument about that.

The Hon. R. A. Mackenzie-What about the profits?

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-Mr Mackenzie is missing the fundamental objectiveand that is that the system is more effective and efficient. Whether that is reflected in reduced prices or increased profit is an arguable point. The facts are that retailers undertook massive capital outlays because the system is more effective. If retailers were to be forced back to individual price marking, scanning would be killed stone dead overnight. There is no doubt about that.

If we forced retailers to deny the efficiency gains and to employ staff to price mark all the goods individually, scanning would be dead overnight, Just on labour costs alone.

It is absolutely ridiculous for the government and the Minister for Prices to tell the industry it should turn its back on the bravest, boldest and most important advance in technology for generations. If we forced retailers back to individual pricing of the articles they sell, it would involve an additional cost tier in the operation that would ultimately be passed on to consumers and prices would $0 up. So, the Minister would force on the industry higher costs and higher prices which would have to be met by the very people he says he wants to protect. That is the logic the Minister is advancing. There is an obvious solution for those customers who do not like scanning; no-one has to go to a store that uses scanning.

The Hon. R. A. Mackenzie-I don't.

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-I am delighted to hear it! Those customers have ample opportunity of doing something about it. They do not have to patronise the stores that employ scanning; they can exercise their choice.

It is absolutely ridiculous and insulting to suggest that customers do not have a choice. It is absolutely absurd for the government to advocate that all stores should be forced to go back to individual price markingjust to appease a few vocal customers.

Perhaps the best argument is provided by the highly respected Nielson marketing research group. An independent survey conducted by the group established that scanning checkouts are more accurate than their non-scanning counterparts. It should be noted that the funds for the Nielson survey were provided jointly by the Retail Traders Association of Victoria, the Australian Product Number Association, and the State government. The government kicked funds into the survey. The carrying out of the survey and its methodology were agreed to be impeccable and thus acceptable to all parties. Is that not amazing? The government contributed to the cost of the survey by a body beyond reproach and the Minister approved the funding; yet the Minister then turned his back absolutely on the findings of the survey.

The survey established that where errors in computations occurred, there were more "unders" than "overs". On top of that the details of the survey are worth putting on the record. Some 19 900 items were purchased from 78 supermarkets. No specials


were included; the goods were purchased in the normal way by trained researchers who acted anonymously. The stores found out about the survey only after the event.

There can be no doubt that it was a genuine and valid survey. It established that there was a net undercharging for both scanning and the traditional checkout operations. It is also established that scanning was decidedly more accurate. It is interesting to note that the Minister for Prices acknowledged the authenticity and integrity of the survey but totally ignored its findings in order to maintain his role as the great protector. How pathetic!

The Minister's opposition to scanning, which he trots out when he speaks to the consumers, is illogical. He knows that forcing retailers to revert to price marking will kill scanning, and thus lead to price increases. He knows that; if he does not know that, he should not be the Minister for Prices.

The Minister for Prices knows-or he should know-that shoppers have accepted scanning. They have voted with their feet, in the most obvious way-they have patronised the stores that employ scanning. If the Minister does not know that, there is no hope for him. If that were not the case and consumers were not accepting scanning, the obvious question would be: why is scanning spreading throughout the retail trade?

Even if the retailers were Shylocks-as the Minister likes to portray them-would they continue a system that consumers did not accept? Of course not. They would go broke if they did so. That is the simple logic of the issue.

The Minister for Prices should know that it is a fallacy that stores using manual registers have all their goods individually price marked. That is the inference-we should force stores away from scanning because, if they return to the previous system, consumers will have each article individually price marked. That is nonsense. From years of experience I can tell the House that many lines-particularly in the food trade-are not marked; namely specials and loss leaders. Other goods such as bread, milk and so on, are not individually price marked.

The Minister for Prices should also know that scanning provides an itemised list detailing the products sold and enables consumers to verify purchases. The proof of that is that one sees shoppers coming back with lists provided from previous shopping expeditions. That is the best testament to scanning. They trot into supermarkets with details taken directly from the register of what they purchased the previous week. That gives precise details of each purchase and provides shoppers with the best possible opportunity of comparing prices. The Minister for Prices must know--

The Hon. D. M. Evans-Don't assume he knows anything.

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-The Minister should know that the manual cash registers that he now suggests we should revert to, in most cases, give price alone, with no description whatsoever. When they get home most people have enormous difficulty trying to reconcile their purchases with the charges on the cash register list.

The Minister should know, too, that the traders of this State are so confident in the scanning system that, from its very introduction, they have been prepared to hold out an offer to all and sundry that, whenever a customer finds that he or she has been overcharged, the item will be provided free of charge.

The Hon. R. A. Mackenzie-Big deal!

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-What more could one ask for? What more genuine demonstration could be provided by the traders? If consumers find something wrong


with the prices, the items will be provided free of charge. That is how confident the retailers are about scanning.

I have a close friend who runs a substantial supermarket in a provincial city of Victoria. He has 5000 customers through his store each week and carries 9500 lines. A price check of each of those lines is conducted every week. He has on average five challenges each week. Invariably it turns out that a wholesaler has not advised him of a price shift. I am intri~ued that the government sees fit to implement a code of practice, because I have In my possession a notice that has been shown prominently in Hooper's supermarket ever since scanning was introduced. It states:

SSW guarantee to all its customers that it will charge a customer the price displayed on the shelflabel in front of the goods. In the event that a customer is charged more for an item, we guarantee to refund to the customer the total price charged for that item.

The proprietor of that supermarket did not need a code of practice to tell him that was the appropriate way to go. He had implemented a code long before he heard about a code practice. My friend has a very successful business to substantiate that his investment in scanning technology was a good investment.

The obvious conclusion one draws is that the scanning of prices is accurate and accepted by retailers; that it is cost effective; that it helps to reduce prices; and that customers are happy with it. The National Party is not prepared to support any action that would turn the clock back to inefficient technology and stop improved efficiencies in the distribution process.

The final aspect of the Bill I wish to discuss is the provisions relating to scalping which have the intention of preventing the resale of any ticket for a higher price than the proclaimed price. I am not sure what is meant by "the proclaimed price". Scalping has become part of the Victorian scene, particularly in respect of major sporting events. The Bill provides a penalty for a first offence of twenty penalty units, $2000, and a penalty of 50 units, $5000, for a second or subsequent offence. It is going for the king hit. It then provides for a penalty of ten units in respect of the advertisement of an offer to treat in respect of scalping. There may be some logic in that small penalt)', but, if there is, I should be pleased to know what it is. I ask the Minister to explaIn why the penalty for advertising is only half the penalty for the first offence of scalping.

The National Party has some sympathy with the government's objective relating to scalping, but scalping would not exist without a willing buyer and a willing seller. There is no contract unless there are two parties who wish to treat. Would the Minister explain what it is about scalping that is a major crime?

The issue would be overcome more practically by correcting the selling arrangements undertaken by the original vendor. It is the responsibility of the original vendor. If the Minister for Prices is concerned about someone taking a super profit, he should do something about the arrangements he invokes in respect of the original sale. I am concerned about that provision because I do not believe the measure will fix the problem.

Why does the government not use mechanisms that are already in place? If, as we are told, the government is concerned about scalping in respect of the forthcoming football finals, why does it choose not to have the Melbourne City Council invoke the regulations already in place? I refer the House to City of Melbourne regulation No. 180 which relates to, among other areas and reserves, Princes and Yarra parks. Clause 24 states:

No person shall hawk, sell or offer or expose for sale in the reserves, or any part thereof, any article, confectionery, cordial, fruit, goods, merchandise or tobacco or anything whatsoever or solicit or gather money therein, without the authority, in writing, of the committee first obtained.


The government already has a mechanism in place to prevent scalping.

I refer to a further regulation which is even more interesting, in the light of the interjection of Mr Mackenzie a few moments ago, because it bears his signature as the then Minister of Lands. City of Melbourne regulation No. 191 states in part:

24A. If any article (not being food, confectionery, cordial, fruit, goods or merchandise of a perishable nature) offered or exposed for sale in the reserves without the authority of the committee is not removed within fifteen minutes after notice oral or written given by a member of the police force or by a person either specially or generally authorised by the committee then such member or person may without warrant seize, remove and detain the article.

The Hon. G. R. Craige-Who signed that regulation?

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-The Hon. R. A. Mackenzie, Minister of Lands.

The Hon. D. M. Evans-Not the same Mr Mackenzie?

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM-Yes, the same Mr Mackenzie. The government could use a mechanism that is already available to it to solve the problem.

It is clear that the scalping provisions of the Bill have been inserted as a sweetener. I do not accept the sweetener, and I do not accept the other provisions of the Bill because they are very sour. The National Party will reject the Bill in its current form. If the government introduced a Bill relating solely to the practice of scalping, the National Party would consider that Bill, but I give no undertaking.

As I said earlier, the National Party has some sympathy with the problems of scalping as outlined by the Minister, but it is not prepared to accept the Bill in its current form. On those grounds the National Party opposes the Bill in its entirety.

The House divided on the motion (the Hon. A. J. Hunt in the chair). Ayes 17 Noes 22

Majority against the motion

AYES Mrs Coxsedge MrDavidson MrHenshaw MrsHogg MrKennedy Ms Kokocinski Mr Landeryou MrsLyster MrsMcLean Mr Mackenzie MrMier MrPullen MrVanBuren MrWalker MrWhite

Tellers: MrCrawford Mr Theophanous

5

NOES MrAshman MrBaxter MrBest Mr Birrell Mr Chamberlain MrConnard MrCox MrCraige MrdeFegely MrHallam MrKnowles MrLawson MrLong MrMacey MrSkeggs MrSmith MrStorey MrsTehan Mrs Varty MrWright

Tellers: MrMiles MrEvans

Business of the House 20 September 1989 COUNCIL

Mr Ives MrSgro

PAIRS

I

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

MrHall MrGuest

611

The PRESIDENT -Order! Honourable members will be aware that the remainins business of the House relates to the Accident Compensation (General Amendment) Bill. Because of the fact that when the Bill was debated in the other place one set of amendments was dealt with and others were not, there has needed to be an extensive redrafting of the remaining proposed amendments. Further, since the clean copy of the Bill became available, extensive revision to references has been made. That work has now been completed and proposed amendments are currently being printed. It is expected that they will be available by 8 p.m. Therefore, I shall resume the chair at 8 p.m. or, if the proposed amendments are not then ready, as soon thereafter as the bells ring.

The sitting was suspended at 6.7 p.m. until 8.3 p.m.

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION (GENERAL AMENDMENT) BILL The House went into Committee for the consideration of this Bill.

Clause 1 was agreed to.

Clause 2

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-At the conclusion of the second-reading speech a request was made for an explanatory memorandum, because the numerous amendments that were proposed in the other place were, as I understand, agreed to without debate. In view of that, I seek leave of the Committee to distribute explanatory memorandums for the benefit of honourable members.

The CHAIRMAN (the Hon. K. I. M. Wright)-Order! Leave is granted.

The Hon. G. B. ASH MAN (Boronia Province )-1 move: 1. Clause 2, line 5, omit "sub-sections (2) and (3)" and insert "this section".

This amendment will omit proposed subsections (2) and (3) and will alter the proclamation dates.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-The effect of the amendment will be to remove the flexibility in the commencement of the provisions of the Bill. The government has given consideration to that, in conjunction with other interested employer and employee parties.

In view of the fact that it reduces the flexibility that is currently in the Bill, the government does not oppose this amendment; it does not in any way undermine the major features of the legislation.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-I indicate support for the amendment because it is similar to the amendments I wanted to propose on behalf of the National Party. I shall not adopt that course because this amendment goes to the same end. However, it should be recalled why the Opposition and National Party find it necessary to move in this direction. It is simply because we have had some unfortunate experiences in the past where amendments to legislation have been made by the Upper House which have not come into operation because ofa contrivance by the government in selectively proclaiming sections of Acts. While one would accept


the logic of the argument for giving government flexibility in the proclamation of Acts, that cannot be sustained if governments are going to use that method to avoid the intent of Parliament. We have seen that occur in the past and it has been necessary, therefore, for this amendment to be proposed.

We take on board the desire of the government to have the new levies in place by 1 October; clearly, other sections of the Act such as the formation of medical panels and the like could not possibly be ready by that date; hence this mechanism which is being proposed. I support the amendment of Mr Ashman.

The Hon. ROSEMARY V ARTY (Nunawading Province )-1 also speak in support of this amendment. We have a classic example at present where amendments that the Opposition made in legislation regarding brothels were never proclaimed. Now the City of Camberwell has a matter currently before the courts relative to a by-law that the city has made. That case is a classic example of where the will of Parliament has been frustrated by certain amendments not being proclaimed. 1 certainly support my colleague and Mr Baxter.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I move: 1. Clause 2, line 6, omit "and (3)" and insert "(3) and (4)".

For the benefit of the Committee, I wish to indicate that there are a number of government amendments. Amendments Nos 6, 8, 10 to 27 all relate to proposed section 97 A which is designed to prevent double dipping by claimants under both the Accident Compensation Act and the Workers Compensation Act at the same time in respect of the same injury. The central part of this proposal is contained in amendment No. 10 and the other amendments are consequential.


The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-I shall not proceed with amendment No. 2 standin~ in my name because 1 believe that aspect is catered for by the amendment the CommIttee has just carried in respect ofMr Ashman's amendment. I believe the first amendment of mine which now becomes relevant is No. 6.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I move: 2. Clause 2, after line 7, insert-

"( ) Section 4 (1) shall be deemed to have come into operation on 30 July 1985."

This amendment is consequential.


The Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia Province)-I move: 2. Clause 2, after line 7, insert-

"( ) Sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 28 come into operation on a day to be proclaimed.

( ) Sections 11 and 16 come into operation on 1 January 1990."

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-The effect of Mr Ashman's amendment is to insert a whole series of sections in the Act that must come into operation on a date to be proclaimed. The reporting requirements are linked to the levy date introduction. The government does not oppose that amendment.


Accident Compensation Bill 20 September 1989 COUNCIL

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I move: 3. Clause 2, line 8, omit "27" (where first occurring) and insert "28".


The Hon. G. B. ASH MAN (Boronia Province)-I move: 3. Clause 2, line 8, omit "27" (where first occurring) and insert "36".

613

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-This amendment is consequential, as is my next amendment, following the insertion of additional sections that resulted from the previous two Liberal Party amendments. The government does not oppose the amendments.


The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I move: 4. Clause 2, line 10, omit "27" and insert "28".


The Hon. G. B. ASH MAN (Boronia Province)-I move: 4. Clause 2, line 10, omit "27" and insert "36".

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted as was clause 3.

Clause 4

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I move: 5. Clause 4, after line 1, insert-

"4. (1) In section 4 (2) of the Principal Act-

(a) after "Part I or Ill" insert "or section 97 A"; and

(b) after "those Parts" insert "or that section".

This is a consequential amendment to amendment No. 10.

The Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia Province)-The amendment proposed by the Minister is linked to amendments 8, 9, 10 and 27 standing in the Minister's name. These are the clauses that relate to double dipping and purport to prevent double dipping from workers compensation to WorkCare. There has been some discussion with the government on this and we have had some representation from the insurance industry. We believe it is possible for the injured worker to obtain payment from both schemes. The Opposition rejects this amendment and the implications of the clause that go with the amendment.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-I join with Mr Ashman in opposing this amendment and subsequently the others with which it is connected. I believe this is the classic double dipping mechanism which would enable people to get benefits for which they certainly are not entitled. I understand a good deal of negotiations have taken place over the past few days with a view to having matters rectified. Agreement has not been reached. If it had been, perhaps provisions along these lines might have been acceptable but, as agreement has not been reached, it seems the status quo should remain pending some future resolution of any problems which might exist in this particular aspect.

The Hon. G. R. eRA WFORD (Jika Jika Province)-I do not understand precisely the situation with these amendments. However, the term "double dipping" concerns me because I understand a move was made by the insurance companies to include an


amendment that would take away from workers rights they already enjoy. If I am wrong in that, someone can correct me.

Insurance companies have unloaded most of their claims from the old Act on to the new Act and I should like to know when they will honour their commitment to pay the $600 million that we have heard so much about. Insurance companies have shed a lot of crocodile tears about W orkCare and so on but I should like to know when they will pay that $600 million.

With relation to a worker injured under the old system, he or she was able to receive compensation when that disability recurred and rendered that worker unable to work. I understand an amendment is proposed that would provide that a worker having another accident and claiming compensation under W orkCare would wipe out whatever entitlement he or she would have had for a recurring injury under the old system. If a worker had a bad leg and every now and then had to go on compo because of that but then injured an arm and claimed compensation under W orkCare, that would automatically wipe out his or her entitlement for the bad leg under the old system. I should like to know if that is right.

The Hon. R. I. KNOWLES (Ballarat Province)-The Opposition is delighted that Mr Crawford is actually supporting the stance of the Opposition by opposing the government's amendment. It has been a fascinating expose and the Opposition looks forward to Mr Crawford's support when the division is called.

The Hon. B. W. MIER (Waverley Province)-Mr Chairman, it would be helpful to the House if the mover of the amendment could actually explain to the Chamber what is intended.

The CHAIRMAN-Order! It is the Minister's amendment.

The Hon. B. W. MIER-Irrespective of who moved it.

The CHAIRMAN-Order! I explain to the Committee that we are currently debating the Minister's amendment No. 5 to clause 4.

The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western Province)-This is an extraordinary situation where the Minister proposes an amendment and Mr Mier wants it explained. Mr Crawford is opposing the amendment. The Chamber is entitled to an explanation so that Mr Crawford can understand whether his fears are founded by what the Minister is proposing.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-It is correct that certain discussions have been held with the honourable member for Hawthorn in another place about the issue of double dipping. It is of concern to the government that agreement has not been reached on this matter.

As Mr Ashman said in Committee, the amendments are consequential on matters relating to sections 3B and 3C and would require liability under the Accident Compensation Act as well as the Workers Compensation Act so that the worker would need to elect the Act under which compensation would be sought. The worker's right in respect of compensation under the other Act would be extinguished.

The government is concerned that one of the worker's rights to elect to take action would be removed. This amendment, which is one of the consequential amendments, should be allowed to proceed because agreement has not been reached between the Opposition and the government. The Opposition has said that it intends to seek a division on this matter. It remains an unresolved matter, therefore, a divison will be called for and the outcome of that division will be reported to the Assembly accordingly.


The Hon. B. W. MIER (Waverley Province)-I understand that a worker would elect the system that he or she regarded to be most beneficial. However, I know of a worker who contracted silicosis from working in a foundry some twenty years ago and is still suffering from that disease. He would prefer to remain covered under the old system but must now choose between the old and the new system. Must he formulate a new claim under the new system or simply sever all entitlement from the old system? I do not understand that.

The Hon. G. R. CRAWFORD (Jika Jika Province)-I wish to clarify my position. I do not support double dipping for the one incident. My concern is with preserving what rights a worker might have under the old Act.

The Committee divided on Mr White's amendment (the Hon. K.. I. M. Wright in the chair).

Ayes Noes

Majority against the amendment

AYES MrDavidson MrHenshaw MrKennedy Ms Kokocinski Mr Landeryou Mrs Lyster MrsMcLean Mr Mackenzie MrMier MrPullen MrSgro Mr Theophanous MrVanBuren MrWalker MrWhite

Tellers: Mrs Cox sedge MrCrawford

MrHall MrsHogg

The clause was agreed to.

Cla~se 5

PAIRS

I

17 21

4

NOES MrAshman MrBaxter MrBest Mr Birrell MrConnard MrCox MrCraige Mrde Fegely MrEvans MrHallam MrLawson MrLong MrMacey Mr Miles MrSkeggs MrSmith MrStorey Mrs Tehan Mrs Varty

Tellers: Mr Chamberlain MrKnowles

MrGuest Mr Ives

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province )-1 move:

6. Clause 5, page 3, lines 36 and 37, omit "could possibly have been" and insert "was".

Amendment No. 6 is linked with one of the vital issues of Work Care, one that has led to the accumulation of unfunded liability with such rapidity. It concerns the definition of "injury" and how wide that definition is; by association, it concerns the definition of what is a "medical question".


Clause 5 seeks to insert a definition of "medical question" so that the medical panels which will be established by subsequent provisions of the Bill have a base from which to operate.

The view of the National Party is that the definition of "injury" is far too broad and can lead only to further rorts, frauds and rackets in the W orkCare system, with benefits being paid to people who are not strictly entitled to them.

Honourable members must bear in mind the comment made by the Leader of the Opposition in another place six or seven weeks ago that the proposed legislation would have the support of Parliament and the Opposition only if it addressed the question of controlling the outflow of funds from the WorkCare scheme. The proposed amendment is one of those fundamental amendments that address the vital question of the financial viability of W orkCare because, unless there is a reasonable definition of both "medical question" and "injury" -so that "injury" can be interpreted only to mean those injuries which are sustained in the workplace and not injuries which are sustained elsewhere but which may be aggravated by a worker's occupation-we are moving well away from the true concept of workers compensation.

Clause 5, as presently worded, contains the following definition: "Medical question" means-

(b) a question whether a worker's employment could possibly have been a contributing factor to an injury or alleged injury, or to a similar injury, other than a question whether the worker's employment was in fact such a contributing factor;

I contrast that definition with the effect of accepting both amendments Nos 6 and 7 that have been circulated in my name. Those amendments both apply to paragraph (b) and they go to the same issue. I take amendment No. 6 to be the test; if it is not successful, I will not proceed with amendment No. 7, although my support for it will be in no way diminished.

The effect of accepting my amendment, which would omit the words "could possibly have been" and insert "was", would be that paragraph (b) would read:

"Medical question" means-

(b) a question whether a worker's employment was a contributing factor to an injury ...

The effect of the amendment would be to clearly restrict the definition of "medical question" to something that had happened at work, that was directly attributable to the worker's employment, to the job that he did, to something that happened in the workplace. The current definition is too wide; it could lead to a loose interpretation and under the Bill injuries which were not sustained in the workplace could well be deemed to be covered by WorkCare.

That is not the intention of the National Party; I do not believe it is the intention of the Opposition; I do not believe it is the intention of Parliament. It certainly is the intention of the Trades Hall Council. Honourable members know that that organisation wants WorkCare to be a system of social benefit payments by which everyone can get onto the gravy train. The Trades Hall Council has attempted to amend the legislation in every possible respect so that every contrivance can be used to get people onto the system even when they do not deserve to be on it.

I believe the amendment is reasonable; it clearly sets out what is a medical question. There can be no confusion.


The CHAIRMAN-Order! I ask honourable members for their tolerance. There are four sets of amendments and it is difficult to keep track of them with numerous interjections. I understand there will be interjections, but I request honourable members to exercise tolerance.

The Hon. G. B. ASH MAN (Boronia Province)-The amendment moved by Mr Baxter seeks substantially to change the definition. The Liberal Party does not intend to support that substantial change to the Bill. Although the Liberal Party accepts the proposition that has been put, it is not an amendment the Liberal Party supports.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-As the Liberal Party has indicated, the impact of Mr Baxter's amendment is to narrow the definition of "injury". The government does not support the narrowing of the definition as explained by Mr Baxter. It is one of the threshold issues of Work Care and has been debated over many years, both in the 1985 lesislation and in subsequent amendments, and it was consIdered at length in negotiatIons with employers and the Trades Hall Council in reaching a settlement with all parties on this issue.

It was made clear at the outset of the discussions and throughout them that there would be no change to the definition of "injury".

The Hon. M. T. TEHAN (Central Highlands Province)-While confirming the spirit in which the amendment has been put, as the Liberal Party has enunciated in the second-reading debate, it believes the whole of the proposed legislation is flawed. The system is flawed legislatively, flawed administratively, flawed financially and flawed psychologically, and no ad hoc amendments to the Bill can redeem the scheme.

WorkCare is not workable, and it is not possible for the Liberal Party to support amendments that take small pieces out of the Bill in an attempt to remedy the situation. WorkCare cannot be remedied in this way. For that reason, the Liberal Party cannot accept bandaid amendments-the major amendments dealing with accountability aside-to try to redress what the Liberal Party believes is a totally flawed scheme. The Liberal Party does not support the amendment.

The Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE (Geelong Province)-The amendment should not be supported because medical science is not an exact science. It would often be hard for any medical practitioner to say precisely how a particular injury or problem was caused. It is hard to put a precise definition on "injury". The Bill is about the protection of the worker so that the worker's rights are catered for and that no-one with a genuine injury is not catered for.

It would be hard to operate provisions of the Bill if the clause were worded in a more precise manner. When dealing with medical science one cannot be as precise as the amendment moved by Mr Baxter suggests. There is always an element of doubt, and if that element of doubt exists the benefit should go to the injured person.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-I say to the Minister Assisting the Treasurer that, unlike the government, I am not dictated to by the Trades Hall Council. The THC should not be running this State; Spring Street runs Victoria, not Lygon Street, and the Minister's excuse is that the Trades Hall Council will not accept this sort of amendment. I could not care less what John Halfpenny thinks; he stood for election to the Federal Parliament as a senator but was rejected.

The Hon. C. F. VAN BUREN (Eumemmerring Province)-On a point of order, Mr Chairman; I do not know what John Halfpenny has to do with the amendments we are debating.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-On the point of order, Mr Chairman; it has a lot to do with the amendment because John Halfpenny is the


Secretary of the Victorian Trades Hall Council and it is that council the Minister has given as the reason for not accepting the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN-Order! There is no point of order. I understand that other honourable members had earlier raised the name ofMr Halfpenny, and I take it Mr Baxter is responding to that. I suggest that Mr Baxter should not continue with that aspect of the debate.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-In that election Mr Halfpenny was the candidate and was widely tipped to win by commentators who said that things were running Labor's way in Victoria and that it would win three Senate seats. That did not happen; the people specifically rejected Mr Halfpenny. That is why I do not take orders from Halfpenny in Lygon Street.

I express disappointment at the remarks made by Mrs Tehan, but I accept her view that W orkCare IS flawed and is difficult to remedy. I do not believe that absolves the National Party from its responsibility to do its best to ensure that the amendments which are open to it are inserted in thIS Bill to stop the rorts, the rackets and the fraud that is going on under WorkCare. My amendment goes some way into reining in that sort of activity. It does not make the situation perfect-one cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear; we all know that-but we have a responsibility to make amendments that go some way in that direction.

The CHAIRMAN-Order! I take it that Mr Baxter will not move amendment No. 7 standing in his name?

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER-No, Mr Chairman, it goes to the same issue and to some degree is consequential. I shall not test the Committee on it.

The amendment was negatived, and the clause was agreed to.

Clause 6 The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western Province )-1 refer the Minister to page

8 of the Bill, proposed new section 5A (7) (d), line 39, which relates to the rate applicable to the age or stage of the worker for the time being.

In normal parlance one might talk about the "age" and "sta~e" of a person; but it is not a reference that has appeared previously in any legislatIon. I ask the Minister Assistin~ the Treasurer to clarify what is meant by the "age or stage" of someone; does the MinIster mean the stage that a worker may reach-a foreman or a leading hand? The Committe needs to know what is meant. The next two lines introduce the same concept. What is meant by the "stage of the worker"?

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-This may test the patience of the Committee as to knowledge of the words used. The Bill is rather technical because of the complex issues. If Mr Chamberlain has any questions of a technical nature, I should be grateful for some notice.

Proposed subsection (7) provides: Despite Division 2 of Part IV, for the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (6), if, at the time of the injury, the worker was-

(a) under the age of21 years; or

(b) an apprentice; or

(c) employed under a contract of service under which he or she is expressly required to undergo any training, instructions or examination for the purpose of becoming qualified for the occupation to which the contract of service relates-

and, in terms of his or her employment, the worker would have been entitled at subsequent stages to increments in earnings, the worker's pre-injury average weekly earnings shall be calculated-...


If that is read in context with reference to Mr Chamberlain's point, where it says: ... (d) until the worker attains the age or stage ...

619

the government is referring to a circumstance such as when a person is undertaking an apprenticeship, and a stage is reached in that apprenticeship where an automatic increase in entitlement occurs. Therefore, one is saying that, during the course of considering this W orkCare circumstance, where the salary that an individual earns is a product of his age or the stage at which he is at in the apprenticeship, then the word "stage" refers to an automatic or periodic point; a point where the individual is automatically entitled to an increase. Therefore, the compensation entitlement should have regard to that.

The Hon. R. J. LONG (Gippsland Province)-To take that a sta~e further: I point out to the Minister that words have been omitted in that second lIne. At present, it states: ... until the worker attains the age or stage or would, but the injury, have attained the stage ...

I suggest it should have been "attained the age or stage"; unless one inserts the word "age", the worker is being restricted.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I thank Mr Long for his guidance. It may well be that, given the juxtaposition of the words that have preceded and/or followed it where the word "stage" is used in conjunction with "age", he has a point which the Committee should consider. I do not seek the indulgence of the Committee to move an amendment at this point.

The Hon. B. A. Chamberlain-You will recommit it later this evening?

The Hon. D. R. WHITE-In response to what the Chairman earlier indicated with respect to the work that the Clerks are doing, I foreshadow that, even on a clause the Committee has dealt with, and where Mr Ashman and I have moved amendments, the Committee should examine the juxtaposition of the words of the amendment. Even though that is being supported, the Clerks may find it confusing and want the clause recommitted.

If, on further advice, I find that Mr Long's point is correct, and the word "age" should be read in conjunction with "stage", at the end of the Committee stage the indulgence of the Committee may be sought to recommit that clause.

The CHAIRMAN-Order! Following the comments of the Minister, it will be necessary in any case to recommit clause 2, in view of the amendments expected to be made to the Bill.

The clause was agreed to, as was clause 7.

Clause 8

The Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia Province)-I move: 5. Clause 8, page 18, line 12, after "6" insert "or 6A".

Amendments No. 5 to 37 listed in my name relate to the reporting provisions for the tribunal, the appeals board and the medical panels. The changes also provide for the president to report, rather than a tribunal reporting, so that a person has the responsibility for the reporting.

The proposed provisions are detailed, so I shall not go through them at length. They outline the requirements for quarterly reporting and the publication of reports and deal with the failure to submit reports, and they pick up the appeals board, the tribunal and the medical panels.


Amendment No. 5 is one of the key amendments to be proposed by the Opposition. It relates directly to what the Opposition believes should be far more accountability for the Accident Compensation Commission and/or those bodies that fall within the Accident Compensation Act.

Clearly, the Opposition has demonstrated throughout the second-reading debate on the Bill the problems relating to mismanagement 01 the WorkCare scheme. The House heard about fraud; honourable members discussed actuarial statements, and referred to the accounting provisions and the broad management of the scheme. The Opposition seeks to provide Parliament with the opportunity of reviewing and of having an ongoing review. It also seeks that the operations of the WorkCare scheme-which at this stage has unfunded liabilities of $4200 million-should be closely controlled.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-Mr Ashman's amendment No. 5 reintroduces a requirement, the impact of which is that the proceedings before the tribunal may be conducted in private. It is one of a number of amendments relating to accountability and to procedures before the tribunal. The government does not oppose the amendment.

The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western Province)-The nature of the amendment is important and the Committee should be aware of what is proposed. If one examines the issues debated in the House by Mr Birrell earlier today, one realises that it is vital to have a free flow of information to the public on such an important issue.

A variety offigures have been floated in terms of the WorkCare unfunded liabilitiessomewhere between $4000 million and $5000 million. The scheme could bankrupt Victoria. It is important that, through Parliament, the Victorian public is informed on a regular three-monthly basis exactly how the scheme is operating and that the reports be accompanied by actuarial advice on figures that become available.

The public has not previously had that information because the information has been a long time behind the event. Consequently, decisions may need to be taken about adjustments to the scheme or action to amend the legislation; and other problems that may arise could be missed. This and subsequent amendments in relation to clause 8 are most important.

I am pleased that the government has accepted the amendment because it is in the public interest that there be absolute, frank and full accountin$ on these matters. That has not occurred to date. This amendment, and those follOWIng, will give the public the opportunity to receive that information.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-I support the amendment for the reasons outlined by Mr Ashman and Mr Chamberlain.

The amendment is of great importance, particularly bearing in mind the history of WorkCare since its inception. There needs to be greater accountability in respect of the functionin~ of WorkCare in the public arena, and the amendment goes towards providing the Information more regularly so that a better overview can be had both by Parliament and the people.

It has been a sad story up to date. The material will now be required quarterly, which will certainly improve the efficiency of the organisation.


The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province )-1 move: 11. Oause 8, page 23, lines 25 and 26, omit paragraph (a) and insert-

"(a) if the Tribunal considers that there is a medical question, the Tribunal must refer the medical q\ Medical Panel for an opinion or for a second opinion; and"


The amendment attempts to improve the operation of the medical panels. If the Bill as presented proceeds, the medical panels will really be something of a joke. They will be sitting there in limbo with not necessarily much to do at all unless the tribunal or the appeals board decides to send someone off to them, on a whim more or less.

I have taken the view-and I took the same view when I was a member of the WorkCare Committee, and have long held it-that there is a place for medical panels but there needs to be some commonality of diagnosis, particularly when the nature, extent and duration of the injury is under dispute.

I consider that there needs to be some disinterested body, so to speak, reviewing the case and providing an opinion. That is what can be achieved if the medical panels are permitted to operate efficiently. But, as the Bill is presently worded, medical panels will not necessarily have medical questions referred to them. It will simply be the decision of the tribunal, say, in a particular case. The amendment takes away that option and makes it mandatory-if a medical question arises and the tribunal considers it to be a medical question-to refer it to a medical panel for an opinion or a second opinion.

The amendment brings the medical panels system into play. The panels system is generally supported, but unless an amendment along these lines is carried it will not necessarily work.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-The government opposes the amendment for two fundamental reasons. The first is that the concept of a medical panel is that it is designed to assist the appeals board and the tribunal in resolving areas of medical dispute where there is an employer medical opinion and a worker medical opinion.

A medical panel is designed to attract leading practitioners in medical practice-be they physicians or surgeons. That is not an easy thing to accomplish, as one realises if one considers the situation of a practitioner who may be at the peak of his or her medical career-perhaps practising in an operating theatre and saving people's lives on a day-to-day basis, or perhaps conducting open heart surgery-and his or her likely reaction to a request such as "Hang on mate I can make you a better offer; I can take you to the W orkCare tribunal and offer you a better quality of existence". We will not get those people.

We want medical panels to be effective. For them to be effective we must attract people at the peak of their careers. To attract people at the peak of their careers one should use their services sparingly to resolve issues of medical difference, not use their services in a cavalier fashion. We can attract people of calibre to the medical panels only if we point out that their services will be used sparingly and only to resolve issues of medical dispute.

The second reason for opposing Mr Baxter's amendment is that he is asking the medical panels to resolve issues that are clearly the responsibility of the appeals board and the tribunal and are issues beyond medical questions. Once again, that would entail attracting people who are eminent in the medical profession and asking them to resolve issues that are not simply of a medical nature. We have confidence that the people appointed to the appeals board and the tribunal will have the capacity and discretion to know when to use a medical panel.

What we are seeking to achieve in establishing a medical panel that is used on a discretionary basis is to reduce to a minimum the capacity of employers, employees or lawyers shopping for medical opinions, because at the end of the day one has an eminent medical practitioner reaching a view about the quality of medical advice that


has been tendered to the appeals board or the tribunal. The medical panel is important but, for the reasons expressed, the government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. G. B. ASH MAN (Boronia Province)-For similar reasons to those expressed in relation to amendment No. 6 moved by Mr Baxter, the Opposition does not support the amendment. The Opposition believes WorkCare is fundamentally flawed and making minor amendments will not resolve the difficulties; the scheme will continue to blunder along as it has for the past four years.

If the Opposition were to support minor amendments such as this it would be looking at moving many hundreds of amendments, and it is not the Opposition's role to run the WorkCare scheme for the government.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-I have listened with interest to the contributions of the MInister and Mr Ashman. I do not accept either of their arguments in the sense that if the medical panels are to be restricted only to the most eminent people in the State we are clearly not going to have many medical panelsand the Minister admits that by saying they will be used sparingly.

That goes back to my original contention that the medical panels will not be used much at all and their establishment is a ploy. I should have thought there would have been great scope for having a range of medical panels and a further panel with a different composition could have been consulted on a more regular basis.

Clearly, if it is only the most eminent people who are to be appointed, most will be too busy to accept appointment. I agree on that point. They will not want to go tripping off to the Accident Compensation Commission because that is not what they see their role in life to be.

I dealt with Mr Ashman's remarks previously. I maintain that we have a responsibility to do our best to make the legislation workable.

The amendment was negatived.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-I shall not proceed with amendments Nos 12 to 14 because they deal with matters similar to those with which the Committee has just dealt, although in a slightly different context. Clearly, because of the view expressed by the Opposition, I am wasting my time. I do not see them as crucial amendments on which I should take up the time of the Committee.

The Hon. G. B. ASH MAN (Boronia Province)-I move: 6. Clause 8, page 25, lines 6 to 8, omit proposed sub-section (7) and insert-

"(7) For the purposes of Divisions 6 and 6A of Part IV, the service ofa notice of intention to appeal and the lodging of an appeal-

(a) by a person under Division 6: or (b) by a person other than the Commission or a self-insurer under Division 6A-

do not operate as a stay of a determination of the Tribunal or of the liability of any contributor within the meaning of Division 6A to make such payment as is, or payments as are, determined to be payable."

I shall not elaborate on the amendment. The comments made in support of amendment No. 5 are applicable to all the amendments standing in my name through to amendment No. 37.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-The government accepts that the amendment is consequential and also relates to issues of accountability. Agreement has been reached between the honourable member for Hawthorn in another place and the Treasurer in respect of the amendment, which has a relationship to the


substantive amendment to clause 12 that will be dealt with later, and about which agreement has also been reached.


The Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia Province)-I move: 7. Clause 8, page 30, line 29, after "The" insert "President of the",

8, Clause 8, page 30, line 40, omit "Tribunal" and insert "President",

9. Clause 8, page 31, after line 6, insert-

"(d) include statistical information for the year about questions and matters referred to the Tribunal; and

(e) include information for the year about numbers and classes of members and staff of the Tribunal; and".

10, Clause 8, page 31, line 7, omit "(d)" and insert "(f)",

11. Clause 8, page 31, lines 30 to 35, omit proposed sub-sections (5) and (6).

12. Clause 8, page 31, line 36, omit "(7)" and insert "(5)",

13. Clause 8, page 31, line 37, omit "Tribunal" and insert "President",

14. Clause 8, page 31, after line 39, insert

Quarterly report

"69A. (1) The President of the Tribunal must, in respect of each quarter ending on 30 September, 31 December and 31 March, prepare a report containing-

(a) a report of its operations during the quarter; and

(b) financial statements for the quarter.

(2) The President must submit each quarterly report to the Minister-

(a) within one month after the end of the quarter in respect of which the report was prepared; or

(b) if the report is not available within that time, as soon as it is available.

(3) The report of operations must-

(a) be prepared in a form and contain information determined by the President after consultation with the Registrar to be appropriate; and

(b) include a full report of money borrowed during the quarter indicating the purpose of the borrowing and details of the expenditure of that money; and

(c) include a full report of the Registrar's investments under section 131 during the quarter and an independent assessment of the return of those investments; and

(d) contain any further information required by the Minister.

(4) The financial statements must-

(a) contain information determined by the Treasurer to be appropriate; and

(b) be prepared in a manner and form approved by the Treasurer, and

(c) present fairly the results of the financial transactions of the Tribunal during the quarter to which they relate and its financial position as at the end of that quarter; and

(d) be signed by the principal accounting officer (by whatever name called) of the Tribunal and by the Registrar who must-

(i) state whether in their opinion the financial statements present fairly the results of the financial transactions of the Tribunal during the quarter to which they relate and whether they sufficiently explain the financial position of the Tribunal as at the end of the quarter; and

(ii) state whether at the date of signing the financial statements they were aware of any circumstances that would render any particulars included in the statements misleading or inaccurate and if so particulars of the circumstances; and

(e) be audited as required by section 70 ....


Publication of reports

"69B. (1) The Minister must, within 14 days after receiving a report under section 69 or 69A, cause a copy to be given to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the President of the Legislative Council.

(2) The Speaker and the President must cause to be given to each member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council, as the case requires, a copy of each report under section 69 or 69A.

(3) A report under section 69 or 69A, upon its receipt by the Speaker or the President, is deemed to have been published by order or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council, as the case requires."

Failure to submit a report

"69C. If the President fails to submit a report to the Minister in accordance with section 69 (2) (a) or 69A (2) (a), the Minister must cause each House of Parliament to be advised of the failure and the reasons for it.".

15. Clause 8, page 31, line 41, omit "section 69" and insert "sections 69 and 69A".

16. Clause 8, page 31, lines 43 to 45, omit proposed sub-section (2) and insert

"(2) The Auditor-General-

(a) has in respect of the audit of the financial statements all the powers conferred on the AuditorGeneral by any law relating to the audit of the public accounts; and

(b) may conduct any audit or examination he or she considers necessary to determine whether the Tribunal is achieving its objectives and doing so economically and efficiently and in compliance with this Act." .

17. Clause 8, page 32, line 11, after "section" insert "or section 69A".

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-As Mr Ashman has indicated previously, these amendments relate to accountability. For example, amendments Nos. 7 and 8 may unduly favour the Accident Compensation Commission, and it is suggested that the amendment establishes the responsibility of the President of the Accident Compensation Tribunal in respect of providing reports.

Amendment No. 9 is the first of the provisions requiring additional information in the annual report of the tribunal.

Amendment No. 10 is consequential on amendment No. 9 and relates to the annual report. Amendment No. 11 would remove the requirement that the annual report of the tribunal be laid before Parliament before the expiration of fourteen sitting days. That is part of the approach that would have the annual and/or quarterly reports of the tribunal provided to the Speaker and the President and distributed to honourable members outside the sitting times of Parliament.

Amendment No. 12 is consequential upon amendment No. 11. Amendment No. 13 again provides scope for the president of the tribunal in reporting, as I indicated earlier, in respect of amendments Nos. 7 and 8. Amendment No. 14 inserts a proposed section requiring quarterly reports to be provided to Parliament. These reports concern the operation and financial matters of the tribunal and the amendment specifies matters that are to be included in those reports. The Minister must cause a report to be provided to the Speaker and the President within fourteen days after receiving that report. There is a requirement that the reports be provided within one month of the end of a quarterly period or as soon as possible thereafter.

It is likely that the one-month period may be exceeded. Having made that remark, I point out that there may be some difficulty with respect to the fourteen-day period or the one-month deadline. I make it clear to the Committee that, as these amendments relate to reporting issues about which there have been discussions between the government and Opposition, the government does not oppose them.


Amendment No. 15 is a consequential amendment requiring the Auditor-General to audit reports. Amendment No. 16 ensures that the Auditor-General has power to audit reports and also gives him the power to conduct what are, in effect, performance audits. Amendment No. 17 is a consequential amendment again relating to the AuditorGeneral's audit of the tribunal's accounts and provides for payment for the audits by the tribunal. The government does not oppose those reporting provisions.

The amendments were agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN-Order! Mr Baxter will probably not proceed with amendments Nos 15 to 36 standing in his name.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-That is not exactly correct, Mr-Chairman. I propose to move amendment No. 16 next and it will depend on the result of that amendment where I will go from there. I move:

16. Clause 8, page 37, lines 14 and 15, omit proposed sub-section (7).

Proposed new subsection 7 specifies that the board must give the applicant a copy of the employer's submission. This provision is yet another example of the unevenness as between employers and employees in the Bill. There is a requirement that the board forward a submission from the employer to the employee, but no corresponding requirement in the other direction. That is grossly unfair and again reflects the antiemployer bias of the government, as expressed by Mrs Coxsedge, Ms Kokocinski and Mr Mier recently.

The proposed new subsection should be omitted and its omission will not prevent the board, at its discretion, from giving the employer's submission to the employee if it is deemed, on individual occasions, to be appropriate. I fail to see why the board should be compelled to pass on that information on every occasion.

The Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia Province)-The Liberal Party will not support the amendment for the same reasons that I gave to the Committee regarding rejection of earlier amendments. The amendment tinkers at the edge of the problems with WorkCare, and minor amendments such as this will not resolve them.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-The government is concerned that, where a review is being conducted-which, in effect, means that a case would go before the appeals board or the tribunal to take a person off WorkCareit is not unreasonable that the person whose circumstances are at risk should be entitled to know what the case being made out is as to why he or she will no longer be on WorkCare.

As a matter of natural justice it is right for the employee to have information regarding the case that is to go before the appeals board. It is clear that the National Party, in putting forward its argument, does not appreciate that the setting in which the appeals board will conduct its proceedings will be of a non-adversarial nature. The chairman of the board will have access to both the Accident Compensation Commission's material and the employee's material. The hearing will not be of an adversarial nature in which advocates will make out a case. The appeals board, with the benefit of the information before it, will reach a view about what the· outcome should be without the hearing becoming an adversarial court setting. Therefore, the employer or the commission will not be disadvantaged because the decision-making process will be in the hands of the appeals board.

By way of contrast, when the matter comes before the tribunal, the various parties are entitled to representation and will have the full knowledge and detail of what has previously occurred before the appeals board. It is not unreasonable that the employee should have some knowledge of the case to be made out as to why he or she should be

Session 1989-21


off WorkCare. The parties are not decision-makers in this case; they are placed in the circumstance, before the appeals board, where the worker has to provide information and respond to questions. That is part of the process of assisting the board in making a sensible and just decision on behalf of the parties who are in dispute. For those reasons the government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-Again I find myself at odds with the arguments advanced by the Minister and Mr Ashman. The Minister has made it perfectly clear that employers have few or no rights at all. He also gave the impression that the only person who can lose anything when appearing before the appeals board is the employee. That is not true. It could well be that an employer loses the case, but the employer is not treated on the same basis as the employee. I do not accept the Minister's argument.

Mr Ashman asserted that the amendment is simply tinkering at the edges. I have two things to say about that: firstly, if the amendment is tinkering with the edges and getting nowhere, why is the Opposition not proposing fundamental changes to correct the flaws in this clause? Secondly, the comments ofMr Ashman remind me of someone confronted by a bush fire who does not put out the fire at the edges because the fire is raging at the front. If one does not do that, the damage is all the greater. Ifwe do not do what we can now, the situation will get worse.


The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-I move: 25. Clause 8, page 37, line 36, after "agrees" insert "but may not put forward any form of legal

argument or presentation".

The Minister supported the intent of this amendment in remarks he made on a previous amendment I moved. Amendment No. 25 adds certain words to proposed section 71 I (15), which currently reads:

An applicant who meets with the Full Board may be accompanied by another person, who may speak to the Board ifit agrees.

My amendment proposes to add the words: but may not put forward any form oflegal argument or presentation.

Honourable members just heard the Minister say that the Bill does not provide for an adversarial situation. I accept that that is the intent of the government, but it must be remembered that the amendment is similar to a change proposed by the Trades Hall Council.

When the Bill was introduced into Parliament, it provided that persons appearing before the appeals board were not to have any representation. That did not suit Mr Halfpenny, so the situation currently set out in the Bill was decided upon. As presently worded, the proposed subsection will lead to an adversarial system unless the representatives who accompany workers appearing before the appeals board are prevented from launching offinto some type of legal argument. The current provision is likely to produce some type of de facto legal representation.

If there is to be legal representation-I am not saying I am necessarily opposed to that-let it be on a proper basis so that it is not done through the back door, which will be the result if this provision is agreed to.

As the provision is presently worded, a worker will be allowed to have someone else present his case. That may lead to a de facto adversarial situation. Unless a person is prevented from doing so, he could present a legal argument on behalf of a worker.


Gradually, that will lead to an adversarial system, which may not be desirable. The words proposed in the amendment clearly set out the intent of the Bill.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-The intent of the provision regarding the appeals board is clear. Proposed section 71 I (15) currently provides that:

An applicant who meets with the Full Board may be accompanied by another person, who may speak to the Board if it agrees.

The circumstances exist where a person, because of ethnic background, age or infirmity-which applies to a former Premier in another State-might require assistance to put forward a rational, cogent argument. It is quite clear that it is at the discretion of the appeals board to decide whether a person can be accompanied by someone in order to present his case to assist the board in its deliberations and to ensure that the individual, who may feel unable to do justice to his case, will have his case put forward in an appropriate manner. That is the spirit and intent of the provision. It avoids an adversarial setting. The government believes it is sufficient to rely on the discretion and judgment of the chairperson of the appeals board and that the words proposed by Mr Baxter are unnecessary.

The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Jika Jika Province)-I wish to make a couple of points about the amendment. The provision being discussed is extremely important to ethnic communities. It was inserted in the Bill following representations from a number of people, including myself. In an earlier discussion today, I pointed out how difficult it is for migrants to appear before the appeals board and how easy it is for them to be discriminated against, and that applies especially to migrant women.

Proposed section 71 I (15) allows for a person of non-English speaking backgroundor someone who can speak English but for some reason or other may be unable to present a case in an articulate way-to be accompanied by someone who is able to speak to the appeals board on his or her behalf. The amendment proposed by the National Party would place an unfair and unnecessary burden on the person accompanying the worker concerned.


The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-I move: 30. Clause 8, page 38, lines 4 and 5, omit paragraph (a) and insert-

"(a) if it considers that a medical question has arisen, must refer the medical question to a Medical Panel for its opinion; and".

This amendment is similar to an amendment I moved earlier, but it goes to the matter of medical panels. It is the view of the National Party that if a medical question arises, it should be referred to the medical panel. I see no reason why there should be endless argument about a medical question. If such a question arises, an opinion from the medical panel should be sought. Surely that is the reason the panel will be appointed. The remarks I have made are in addition to the remarks I made with regard to a similar amendment I moved earlier.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I take exception to the fact that the amendment requires a medical question to be referred to the medical panel because that reduces the discretion of the appeals board to deal with what may be a minor issue in respect of various medical opinions.

There should also be a capacity to have certain types of medical people on the appeals board, depending on the constitution of it from time to time. That should be left to the discretion of the appeals board which has the initial responsibility for


adjudicating on those issues. Appeals board members should be given some discretion in their efforts to reduce to a minimum the number of cases referred to the tribunal.

In addition to the reasons that have been canvassed-which still hold in this casethe government opposes the amendment on the additional ground that it would unduly restrict the capacity of the appeals board to exercise discretion in dealing with the issues that are before it.

The Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia Province)-The Liberal Party has adopted a certain strategy during its negotiations on the Bill. As a result of those negotiations, the government has backed down substantially on certain matters. I have no instructions from the party room about this matter. It is an issue that will be dealt with fully in our policy document.

The Hon. LICIA KOKOCINSKI (Melbourne West Province)-I wonder whether Mr Baxter appreciates that, if the Committee were to agree to his amendment, it might have the effect of encouraging people unrealistically to put forward any types of medical matters to the board. If the amendment were agreed to an injured worker could put up any type of medical argument at the last minute, which would have to be referred back to a medical panel for its consideration, thus prolonging many cases unnecessarily.


The CHAIRMAN-Order! Mr Baxter's amendments Nos 31 to 35 appear to be consequential. I invite him to move his amendment No. 36.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province )-1 move: 36. Clause 8, page 39, line 28, after "worker" insert "if the Appeals Board on a review does not affirm

the decision ofthe Commission or self-insurer or the Board decides that costs are so payable".

This amendment goes to the heart of one of the matters that the Chamber has spent a good deal of time debating-that is, the blow-out of costs. I suggest the addition of some words to proposed subsection 71 K (1), which provides:

In accordance with the regulations, the Commission or self-insurer, as the case may be, must pay the reasonable costs, not exceeding the relevant prescribed amount, in respect of costs of case preparation incurred by the worker.

This is an open invitation to workers to take matters to the board and to spend considerable sums in preparing their cases, because whether they win or lose they will be reimbursed. What a gravy train! The commission will be paying out costs all over the place because of the incentive given to workers to take cases before the board at no cost to themselves.

Honourable members have seen many instances where there has been no accountability as to costs and no personal responsibility for meeting the costs that are incurred. Unfortunately, people have a tendency to make a welter of such invitations. That has happened with WorkCare and with the Transport Accident Commission, for example. It seems to be a quirk of human nature that that happens if the hip-pocket nerve of the person involved is not affected.

We have talked about rorts, rackets and frauds. The proposed new subsection as it stands is an open invitation to such behaviour. I propose that, at the end of the proposed subsection that I quoted, the following words should be added:

if the Appeals Board on a review does not affirm the decision of the Commission or self-insurer or the Board decides that costs are so payable.

In other words, if a case were lost the worker involved would not be reimbursed unless the board made a decision to that effect based on the facts of the particular case; and


nothing could be fairer than that. Simply put, if the amendment were agreed to, there would be no provision for automatic reimbursement. The board would have to consider each case on its merits. If a case is won the worker involved ought to be reimbursed; but if a case is lost consideration should be given to whether reimbursement is justified. If that does not occur the gravy train will roll on!

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-Mr Baxter's remarks should be put in context. At present, there is both an arbitration setting and a tribunal setting. It is correct to say that, under the existing legislation, it is possible for an injured worker or an injured employee who is unsuccessful in the arbitration setting to remain on WorkCare benefits while appealing to the tribunal. One of the major changes that will be made to the Act will be to delete the right of an employee or worker to remain on W orkCare benefits while appealin~ from the appeals board, which is the successor of the arbitration setting, to the tnbunal. Under the Bill that major concern of both employers and the Accident Compensation Commission will be removed. Such an injured worker will suffer a significant reduction in benefits as a result of that major change.

It would not be appropriate to take the step proposed by Mr Baxter. The government established an appeals board of a non-adversarial nature to deal expeditiously with disputes involving the ACC, employers and workers. The reason for taking a case before the appeals board in the first Instance is clear: where there has been a dispute and the ACC considers that there is a case for not allowing the worker or employee to go on to WorkCare benefits. In that context it is not unreasonable for a worker or employee to be able to put forward a case.

Where there is no capacity to filibuster, where costs are kept to an absolute minimum and where there is no benefit of a financial nature to be gained by an employee or worker in delaying such cases, there is no prospect of a gravy train situation occurring. The possibility of a gravy train situation, in the terms alluded to by Mr Baxter, could occur only if, after losin~ a case before the appeals board, an employee or worker were able to appeal to the tnbunal and remain on WorkCare benefits while the case was being appealed. As I said, that matter has been dealt with in the Bill.

It is the government's view that Mr Baxter has not made out a case and that his amendment should be opposed.

The Hon. R. J. LONG (Gippsland Province)-I have some sympathy with Mr Baxter's amendment; and I had difficulty in following the Minister's reasoning.

As the proposed new section reads, the costs of any cases heard before an appeals board are payable by the commission. Mr Baxter was correct in describing the provisions as a gravy train. If I were a worker--

The Hon. Joan Coxsedge-You wouldn't know what that meant!

The Hon. R. J. LONG-I wouldn't be too certain about that! If I were a worker and lost my case I would immediately appeal to the appeals board because my costs would be paid.

The reason I find it difficult to support Mr Baxter's amendment is simple: the Opposition believes there is no known way that WorkCare can be fixed up. If we started amending it, the process would never end. We would have to rewrite the Act. We made a conscious decision and we will not adopt that course. I hope we are getting into the policy-making part of this subject we will make provision for this sort of thing and adopt Mr Baxter's suggestion.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-One further point in response to Mr Long is that when dealing with the issue of costs, the conventional


wisdom when one talks about costs before a tribunal such as an appeals board is to imagine there is some open-ended commitment by the Accident Compensation Commission to a whole range of legal costs which might be incurred as a result of a case coming before the appeals board. I repeat: the case before the appeals board is non-adversarial. Lawyers will not be appearing before the appeals board in an adversarial setting.

The only costs which can be rightly incurred and accounted for are the costs involved in preparing documentation to be submitted to the appeals board and reasonable overhead costs incurred in preparing that documentation to assist the worker in the case that occurs before the appeals board so that the notion of costs is very restricted and limited. It does not in any way benefit the individual worker-that is, there is no incentive for the individual worker to seek to bring cases before the appeals board unnecessarily or, for the reasons I expressed earlier to seek any delay in a case being heard before the appeals board.

The Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia Province)-This amendment is one of many thousands that would be required to rectify the woes of W orkCare. It is certainly an issue that has been addressed by our party and it is a matter that has been dealt with in some detail in our policy document, but it is not a matter we believe we should proceed with today.

The amendments that are being moved by the National Party are all very worthy but do not address the real overall problems of Work Care; that is, the need for a totally new scheme. Some of the amendments we could liken to conducting cosmetic surgery on Frankenstein. It is a little too late and it is rather useless.

The Hon. LICIA KOKOCINSKI (Melbourne West Province)-In addressing myself to Mr Baxter's amendment No. 36, I state that the key word in subsection (1) of proposed section 71 K under the subheading of costs is "reasonable". I am wondering whether certain members of the National Party have difficulty in the concept that the appeals board has the ability to determine what is reasonable. I should have thought that any person who has a legal background-and I do not-would think that "reasonable" has a fairly standard definition. If someone who came before the appeals board to claim costs of, say, $500, for a case in which others in similar cases previously had claimed costs of$50, I am sure the appeals board, like any appeals board, would certainly be able to determine what is reasonable and what is unreasonable and make a determination accordingly.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-I wish I could share the Minister's confidence that this will not lead to greater costs being paid out from the le'V"y fund by the commission because of excessive use of the appeals board because there is no restriction or barrier to costs but I do not share that confidence. The proof of the pudding is what we have seen in the past five years since W orkCare came in. Certainly, this is a changed mechanism but I believe the effects will be just the same.

In regard to what Ms Kokocinski said, yes, the concept of what is reasonable is a fairly well-established legal tenet but it is not exactly relevant to my amendment, which was trying to rein in the circumstances in which costs could be paid.

I am gratified to have the moral if not full support of Mr Long and Mr Ashman on the amendment. I am pleased to have it on the record that they support what I am attempting. It is just unfortunate that we have a fundamental difference on the way to go and which is the best way to achieve our purposes.

I say again that I believe I have a responsibility as a member of this Parliament, having been elected to the Parliament, to attempt to reflect as best I can my honestly


held convictions. I believe that is my duty. If it were not, there is little point in my coming here. I might as well--

The Hon. D. R. White-Put in an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act!

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER-Ifmembers of Parliament are not going--

The Hon. D. R. White interjected.

The CHAIRMAN-Order! The honourable gentleman will desist from interjecting and allow the Leader of the National Party to continue.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER-The Minister is a bit touchy about Fol because he has had a somewhat cutting day. He was not even here to defend the government--

The Hon. D. R. White-How could I feel the pain if I wasn't here?

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER-It was one of the best attacks on a government that I have heard, and the senior Minister of the government was not even here to defend the government. Clearly, the government was caught out, so the Minister is a bit touchy about Fol.

It is my duty to do my best to amend this proposed legislation. If it were not, it would be a waste of time my being here.


The Hon. G. B. ASH MAN (Boronia Province)-I move: 18. Clause 8, page 42, line 2, after "The" insert "Chairperson of the".

19. Clause 8, page 42, line 6, after "The" insert "Chairperson ofthe".

20. Clause 8, page 42, line 13, after "the" (where first occurring) insert "Chairperson of the".

These amendments make the chairperson responsible for the preparation of annual reports rather than the board. This will prevent the board unanimously deciding for any reason not to present their reports; the chairperson is now the person on the board who is responsible for the delivery of those reports.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-These amendments make the chairperson of the appeals board responsible for the provision of reports in relation to issues of accountability. The government does not oppose amendments Nos 18, 19 and 20 moved by Mr Ashman.


The Hon. G. B. ASH MAN (Boronia Province)-I move: 21. Clause 8, page 42, after line 14, insert-

"(b) include statistical information for the year about decisions reviewed by the Board; and

(c) include information for the year about numbers and classes of members and staff of the Board; and".

These two proposed paragraphs provide for additional information to be supplied in the report. They are self-explanatory, if the Minister cares to read them.


The Hon. G. B. ASH MAN (Boronia Province)-I move: 22. Clause 8, page 42, line 15, omit "(b)" and insert "(d)".


24. Clause 8, page 43, line 1, omit "(7)" and insert "(5)".


25. Clause 8, page 43, line 2, after "the" (where first occurring) insert "Chairperson of the".

These are consequential to previous amendments.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-For the reasons explained earlier, these amendments, which are consequential upon Mr Ashman's amendment No. 21, relate to the Opposition seeking to include in the annual report both statistical information about decisions reviewed by the board and information about the staff of the board.

The amendments specify some of the features of what should occur in the report and relate again to the issue of accountability. As they are consequential amendments, the government does not oppose them.


The Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia Province)-I move: 26. Clause 8, page 43, after line 4, insert-

Quarterly report

"71PA. (1) The Chairperson of the Appeals Board must, in respect of each quarter ending on 30 September, 31 December and 31 March, prepare a quarterly report containing-



(2) The Chairperson must submit the report to the Minister-




(a) be prepared in a form and contain information determined by the Chairperson after consultation with the Registrar to be appropriate; and

(b) include statistical information for the quarter about decisions reviewed by the Board; and

(c) include information for the quarter about numbers and classes of members and staff of the Board; and




(b) be prepared in a manner and form approved by the Treasurer; and

(c) present fairly the results of the financial transactions of the Board during the quarter to which they relate and its financial position as at the end of that quarter; and

(d) be signed by the principal accounting officer (by whatever name called) of the Board and by the Registrar who must-

(i) state whether in their opinion the financial statements present fairly the results of the financial transactions of the Board during the quarter to which they relate and whether they sufficiently explain the financial position of the Board as at the end of quarter; and

(ii) State whether at the date of signing the financial statements they were aware of any circumstances that would render any particulars included in the statements misleading or inaccurate and if so particulars ~f the circumstances; and

(e) be audited as required by section 71Q.".


"71 PB. (1) The Minister must, within 14 days after receiving a report under section 71 P or 71 PA, cause a copy to be given to the Speaker ofthe Legislative Assembly and the President ofthe Legislative Council.


(2) The Speaker and the President must cause to be given to each member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council, as the case requires, a copy of each report received under section 71P or 71PA.

(3) A report received under section 71P or 71PA, upon its receipt by the Speaker or the President, is deemed to have been published by Order or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council, as the case requires ....

Failure to submit report

"71PC. If the Chairperson fails to submit a report to the Minister in accordance with section 71P (2) (a) or 71PA (2) (a), the Minister must cause each House of Parliament to be advised of the failure and the reasons for it."

This detailed amendment relates to quarterly reporting, the publication of reports, penalties for the failure to submit reports, and to the appeals board.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-As the Committee is aware, the amendment introduces a parallel quarterly requirement for the appeals board with specified items to be reported upon, the auditing of reports and so on. It mirrors what has been requested to apply to the tribunal and the government does not oppose the additional reporting requirements as they relate to the appeals board.


The Hon., G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia Province)-I move: 27. Clause 8, page 43, line 6, omit "section 71P':' and insert "sections 71P and 71PA".

28. Clause 28, page 43, lines 8 to 1 0, omit proposed sub-section (2) and insert



(b) may conduct any audit or examination he or she considers necessary to determine whether the Appeals Board is achieving its objectives and doing so economically and efficiently and in compliance with this Act.".

29. Clause 8, page 43, line 22, after "section" insert "or section 71 PA".

Amendment No. 28 makes provision for the Auditor-General to audit financial statements and to have all the powers conferred on the Auditor-General by law relating to the audit of public accounts.

The Auditor-General may conduct an audit examination as he or she considers necessary to determine whether the appeals board is achieving its objectives and doing so economically, efficiently and in compliance with the Act.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-Amendment No. 27 deals with the auditing of the appeals board's financial statement and the requirement that the Auditor-General shall do so, as amended by the amendment, gives the AuditorGeneral powers to conduct audits for finance and performance.

Amendment No. 29 requires the appeals board to meet the cost of the Auditor-General's audit. The government does not oppose the amendments.


The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province )-1 move: 37. Clause 8, page 43, line 32, after "medical practitioners" insert ", chiropractors and osteopaths or

physiotherapists" .

In dealing with amendment No. 37, I seek the indulgence of the Committee to foreshadow my amendments Nos 38 to 43 and to debate them simultaneously because the issues are all connected and depend on the result of amendment No. 37.


I am firmly of the view that the medical panels to be established under the Bill will be deficient unless the amendments I propose are adopted by the Committee. I invite the Committee to consider for a moment how it is proposed to appoint the panel. For that it is instructive to consider proposed section 72 (2) on page 43 of the Bill, which states:

(2) For the purpose of constituting Panels, there shall be a list of members consisting of medical practitioners appointed by the Governor in Council on the nomination of the Minister made after taking into account any recommendation of a committee comprising a medical practitioner nominated by the Minister, the nominee of the Victorian Trades Hall Council and the nominee of the Victorian Congress of Employer Associations.

That means a committee of three, presumably chaired by the medical practitioner nominated by the Minister, with the other two being nominees of the Trades Hall Council and the Victorian Congress of Employer Associations.

I reject that concept because it is likely to lead to a search by the Trades Hall Council for a list of names of tame-cat medical practitioners that it can nominate and recommend for appointment to the medical panels, medical practitioners who would be likely to give the decisions that it would want. That is likely to lead to the employer associations seeking out medical practitioners that it believes are hard line and likely to take a harsh view of matters put before the panel.

It is not desirable in appointing a medical panel to have two diametrically opposed interests represented on the recommending committee. The third medical practitioner would be the one in the middle and would experience much difficulty. Clearly this is a Trades Hall Council recommendation because it would want the opportunity of nominating medical practitioners to the panels. To have any hope of getting that, of course, it had to agree to the Victorian Congress of Employer Associations having the same right. However, the end result is that the THC gets its way; it gets tame-cat medical practitioners on the panel. That provision should be rejected.

I go further than that and propose that the people on medical panels should extend to other practitioners as well as medical practitioners. It is only fair and reasonable that chiropractors and osteopaths should be on the list of names eligible for selection to medical panels, bearing in mind that some 30 per cent of workplace injuries are musculo-skeletal. Whether they are subsequently appointed to medical panels remains to be seen and that is somewhat dependent on a subsequent amendment that I shall propose later.

Similarly I thought it would be useful for physiotherapists to be represented on the list of names from which the medical panels might be chosen-not that I anticipate a particularly heavy role for physiotherapists, but they do play a lar~e part in rehabilitatIon under WorkCare and it might be opportune on occasIons for a physiotherapist to be on a medical panel.

Mrs Tehan interjected: what about dentists? One has to draw the line somewhere. Very few workplace injuries that would relate directly to teeth would not in the first instance have been dealt with by a medical practitioner. I am certainly not opposed to including dentists in the list of names from which medical panels would be selected. I am not opposed to having podiatrists, as Mr Lawson interjects, on the list of names from which medical panels would be drawn.

However, in terms of having a nominating committee it seemed to me that a fiveperson committee was appropriate and, the fifth person, as mentioned in my amendment No. 38, would appropriately be a surgeon from a panel of names submitted by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Clearly sur~eons have significant input into this area. Honourable members may recall the eVIdence given by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons to the WorkCare Committee which was extenSIve


and at times somewhat at odds with the evidence given by the Australian Medical Association witnesses. I believe surgeons have a place on the committee.

I propose that the committee that appoints or recommends the list of names is expanded to include two medical practitioners, a surgeon, a chiropractor and osteopath and a physiotherapist.

A few nuances need to be noted. My proposal is that they be appointed by the Minister from a panel of names submitted to him. That is a well-established mechanism in this State. Panels of names need to be submitted to a range of Ministers for appointment to a variety of boards, whether it be the Grain Elevators Board or whatever. There is nothing new about the concept and I suggest that a medical panel be appointed from a panel of five names submitted by the Australian Medical Association and from a panel of three names submitted by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Those bodies are both-especially the AMA-what might be termed the trade union bodies of those professions.

In order to be perfectly clear and have a suitable person appointed, I suggest that in the case of the chiropractor and osteopath and the physiotherapist, they be appointed from a panel of three names submitted respectively by the registration boards of the two professions because there are less well-established professional associations covering those professions, and it seems to me the proper course is for the registration boards of the two professions each to submit a panel of three names respectively.

Clearly the purpose is that the committee make recommendations to the Minister of suitable persons to appear on the list of those from whom the Minister will choose the members of the medical panel. The members of the committee will not make direct appointments to the medical panel; the menlbers will simply make recommendations for inclusion on the list from which the medical panels will be drawn. One could not be fairer than that.

If a worker appearing before a medical panel is currently under the treatment of a chiropractor or an osteopath, my amendment No. 37 will allow a member of that profession to be included in the composition of the medical panel.

The Bill provides for medical panels consisting of up to three medical practitioners. Quite clearly, they could be two medical practitioners and a chiropractor if the worker were currently under treatment by a chiropractor. It would be reasonable and fair to have such a provision included in clause 8.

A number of consequential amendments will need to be made to remove "medical practitioners" and insert "chiropractors and osteopaths or physiotherapists", but I need not canvass that aspect at any length. I have made out a sound case for having the list recommended to the Minister by the committee broadly based so that it does not suffer from the defects from which the committee proposed will suffer, that is, a committee that will be comprised of two conflicting interest groups. I do not see how the currently proposed committee could work in practice.

In order that the Committee test my concept, it is necessary to remove from clause 8 "medical practitioners" and insert "chiropractors and osteopaths or physiotherapists". If members of the Committee have regard to the Bill, they will see the effect of that. The Bill presently talks about "a list of members consisting of medical practitioners". The list need not include all or any of the group which I seek to have included. It is open to the Minister to decide, on the basis of the list provided to him, whether appropriate personnel should be included on the medical panel.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-The purpose of establishing the medical panel is to deal with issues of medical dispute, issues about


which there is conflict in regard to a medical opinion of the Accident Compensation Commission or a medical opinion provided by the worker to the appeals board or to the tribunal. The medical panel will deal with issues of dispute in respect of medical opinion.

It is the government's view that the requirement that the members of the medical panel should be medical practitioners ought to stand and that no sufficient argument has been led by Mr Baxter to change that requirement. In the second-reading speech, I indicated-as I indicated earlier this evening during the Committee debate-that it is the intent of the government to seek advice on having access to people who are preeminent in the field of surgery and also those who are practising as physicians. Already the government has made some contact with leaders in the medical profession. They are prepared to assist in providing names to attract people who are pre-eminent in their fields to the medical panel. In doing so, the initiative for the introduction of names of individuals to be appointed to the medical panel will come from the medical representative. There will be an opportunity for employers and employee organisations to reflect on the names that have been submitted.

It is not proposed, as Mr Baxter suggests, that the employer organisations or the Trades Hall Council be asked to identify and suggest names of doctors pre-eminent in their professions.

The Hon. W. R. Baxter-I bet they will use their veto, though!

The Hon. D. R. WHITE-It is proposed to attract people pre-eminent in their field, on advice from the medical profession. Therefore it is the government's view that the consequences Mr Baxter has in mind will not arise.

The government looks forward to employers and the Trades Hall Council contributing in the spirit in which' the proposed section has been designed for the establishment of the medical panels. Obviously the government is seeking to have people who are pre-eminent in their professions.

I hasten to add that today a large number of people are practising in the Victorian community and the government can draw upon that large group to establish medical panels. For those reasons, the government opposes the amendment proposed by the National Party.

The Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia Province)-The proposed amendment really applies only a very small bandaid to the haemorrhaging system and goes no way towards addressing the major problems.

The Hon. D. M. EVANS (North Eastern Province)-I support the amendment moved by my colleague Mr Baxter, particularly so far as it relates to the inclusion of chiropractors. I was interested to hear the arguments advanced by the Minister Assisting the Treasurer relating to the medical panel having medical representatives on it. The Minister should be aware-as I am sure he is-that considerable dispute has arisen over a long time, regrettably, between the medical profession, which regards itself as pre-eminent in qualification and status, and those who practise in the field of chiropractic. The medical profession does not appear to recognise the real value that a chiropractor can be to an injured person. A substantial number of people who have work-related injuries and are subject to WorkCare claims-particularly claims that are long term or of a recurring nature-are suffering from back injuries.

It happens that at the moment I have a back injury. At 8.30 tomorrow morning I am going to consult a chiropractor. Based on experience, I can assure honourable members that when I next appear in the Chamber I shall be perfectly well again.


As I said, chiropractors are of value to the community generally and to injured workers in particular. Given the diversity of opinion between chiropractors and members of the medical profession and given that there is not proper respect in some medical areas for chiropractors as professional people who can carry out a task of some value, it is essential that Mr Baxter's amendment be supported.

I was interested to hear Mr Ashman's comment, that the amendment will be only a bandaid measure. Many people who go to a doctor and receive expensive services would be just as well off and just as fit in the end if they simply applied a bandaid. Perhaps a bandaid is needed tonight.

I strongly support Mr Baxter's amendment.

The Hon. B. W. MIER (Waverley Province)-In commenting on Mr Baxter's amendment I point out a number of factors relating to the concept of the proposal before the Committee, as I understand it.

Under normal circumstances one could have wholehearted support for Mr Baxter's comments. Unfortunately, because the system is in financial trouble, as well as a need to increase the premiums there is a need to tighten up the reins on things.

My understanding of the provisions relating to medical panels is that those panels have been designed solely to create a situation under which the volume of claims will be reduced. If Mr Baxter's measure were adopted, a new latitude may be adopted to the whole concept of claims: they may be treated more democratically and sympathetically.

Medical panels are designed to reduce the flow of claims. I am led to believe that the union movement understands that. I do not support Mr Baxter's amendlnent, although I am sympathetic to what he has said; it is absolutely correct.

The Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE (Geelong Province)-I support Mr Baxter's amendment. I am surprised that the government does not support the amendment because it has a long record of supporting chiropractors and osteopaths. In 1979, when in opposition, the then honourable member for Brunswick in another place, the present Minister for Planning and Environment, introduced a private member's Bill, and in this Chamber I raised the issue of the registration of chiropractors and Osteopaths. We argued hard and long for the setting up ofa proper registration board.

As Mr Baxter pointed out, chiropractors and osteopaths deal with more than 30 per cent of WorkCare problems. That 30 per cent represents one of the worst and hardest problems in the world to remedy. It is hard for a doctor or any medical practitioner to understand and make a diagnosis about back problems, which is what chiropractors and osteopaths specialise in. I hope honourable members who oppose Mr Baxter's amendment are not people who still believe, as another generation did, that chiropractors and osteopaths are second-rate performers in medical science-it is a specialist field.

A number of submissions were placed before the government-and a number of reports have been made in different parts of the world-and the best of the reports, to which I shall refer, is that of the New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry into Chiropractics. In summary, the principal finding was that:

Modem chiropractic is far from being an "unscientific cult".

Chiropractic is a branch of the healing arts specialising in the correction by spinal manual therapy of what chiropractors identify as biomechanical disorders of the spinal column. They carry out spinal diagnosis and therapy at a sophisticated and refined level.

Chiropractors are the only health practitioners who are necessarily equipped by their education and training to carry out spinal manual therapy.


That is strong supportive evidence of the role chiropractors and osteopaths play.

For a chiropractor or osteopath to become re~stered, he or she must attend four and a half years of schooling and after completIon of that schooling must perform field work for a time equal to the number of hours of practical work that a medical student must undertake before graduating.

Mr Baxter's amendment is worthy of support. I had discussions with the Trades Hall Council yesterday and it supports Mr Baxter's amendment allowing chiropractors and osteopaths to be on a medical panel. That is another reason why I am surprised that the government is not supportin~ the amendment. The additional expertise would be an important advantage to a medIcal panel.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-I thank Mr Mackenzie for his support and endorse his remarks. It is about time chiropractors and osteopaths were given the status in Victoria that previous decisions of Parliament should have provided them with. They are now registered as a consequence of the extensive inquiry conducted by a committee comprising members of Parliament and chaired by a former member of this place, Mr Ward.

Chiropractors and osteopaths have a sound record and should be included on the list of persons appropriate for appointment to medical panels because they are, to all intents and purposes, equal partners in the W orkCare system.

Some 30 per cent of workplace injuries concern musculo-skeletal injuries, which WorkCare is expert at handling. In 1986 back injuries accounted for 30 per cent of the total compensation payment by the State Electricity Commission of Victoria. That is a sound statistic illustrating the incidence of these sorts of injuries. The records show that apart from the common cold, low back pain causes the largest loss of man-hours.

Clearly the injuries with which chiropractors and osteopaths traditionally and customarily deal are significant in the WorkCare system. According to WorkCare data, the average expenditure on back claims is $4600, representing a total annual cost to WorkCare of more than $150 million. That is extraordinary and justifies some input from chiropractors and osteopaths on the medical panels, which is why I moved the amendment.

I appreciate Mr Mier's tacit support. I did not think I would live to see the day when Mr Mier would claim that I was too soft on workers. He has traditionally taken the view that I am a worker basher. Of course that is not true. I believe in even-handed treatment for the employee and the employer. By the same token, I believe in similarly even-handed treatment for the various branches of the professions that deal with injured workers, and that includes chiropractors and osteopaths.

The Hon. B. W. MIER (Waverley Province)-The effect of the concept of medical panels on the whole scheme will be to slow down and reduce the number of claims, and the concept of medicos determining the disability of an injured worker is one that has been the subject of a number of reviews, comments and debate in Parliament over many years.

The first form of workers compensation insurance goes back to 1938.

The CHAIRMAN-Order! Mr Mier is talking about the principle of clause 8; it would be better if he spoke about that matter after the amendments have been dealt with.

The Hon. B. W. MIER-I shall come to the amendment. I simply point out that in 1938 the concept of a medical panel as such determining the degree of a worker's injury was debated. It is possibly the wrong way to go, but this sort of decision has


been upheld on a number of occasions when the concept of workers accident insurance has been debated in this place.

The CHAIRMAN-Order! Mr Mier has spoken to the amendment. I shall give him the call on clause 8 when the amendments have been dealt with.

The Committee divided on Mr Baxter's amendment (the Hon. K. I. M. Wright in the chair).

Ayes Noes


AYES MrBaxter MrHallam Mr Mackenzie

Tellers: MrBest MrEvans

MrHall PAIR

I

5 31

26

NOES MrAshman Mr Birrell Mr Chamberlain MrCox Mrs Coxsedge MrCraige MrCrawford MrDavidson MrdeFegely MrHenshaw MrKennedy MrKnowles MrLawson Mrs Lyster MrsMcLean MrMacey MrMier MrMiles MrPullen MrSgro MrSkeggs MrSmith MrStorey MrsTehan Mr Theophanous MrVanBuren Mrs Varty MrWalker MrWhite Tellers: MrConnard Ms Kokocinski

Mr Landeryou

The Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia Province)-My proposed amendment No. 30 provides for the inclusion of statistical information for the year during which matters are referred to the panels, and includes information about the number and classes of members, and staff of the panels.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-Subject to your ruling, Mr Acting Chairman, I am quite happy for Mr Ashman to move amendments Nos 30 to 37 standing in his name, which all deal with clause 8; I seek the guidance of the Committee. For the benefit of the Committee, I point out that the clause relates to the reporting requirements of appeal panels.

The government is not opposed to Mr Ashman's amendments Nos 30 to 37 inclusive.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (the Hon. Robert Lawson)-Order! I believe the arguments relating to amendments 30 to 37 have already been canvassed. If he so desires it is in order for Mr Ashman to move amendments Nos 30 to 37 inclusive.

The Hon. G. B. ASH MAN (Boronia Province)-I move: 30. Clause 8, page 49, after line 22, insert-

"(b) include statistical information for the year about medical questions referred to the panels; and

(c) include information for the year about numbers and classes of members and staff of the Panels; and".

3l. Clause 8, page 49, line 23, omit "(b)" and insert "(d)".



34. Clause 8, page 50, after line 13, insert

Quarterly report

"72LA. (1) The Convenor of the Medical Panels must, in respect of each quarter ending 30 September, 31 December and 31 March, prepare a quarterly report containing-

(a) a report of the ,operations of the Medical Panels during the quarter; and


(2) The Convenor must submit the quarterly report to the Minister-




(a) be prepared in a form and contain information determined by the Convenor after consultation with the Registrar to be appropri~te; and

(b) include statistical information for the quarter about medical questions referred to the Panels; and

(c) include information for the quarter about numbers and classes of members and staff of the Panels; and




(b) be prepared in a manner and form approved by the Treasurer; and

(c) present fairly the results of the financial transactions of the Medical Panels during the quarter to which they relate and the financial position of the Fund as at the end of that quarter; and

(cl) be signed by the principal accounting officer (by whatever name called) of the Panels and by the Registrar who must-

(i) state whether in their opinion the financial statements present fairly the results of the Registrar's financial transactions during the quarter to which they relate and whether they sufficiently explain the financial position of the fund as at the end ofthe quarter; and

(ii) state whether at the date of signing the financial statements they were aware of any circumstances that would render any particulars included in the statements misleading or inaccurate and if so particulars of the circumstances; and

(e) be audited as required by section 72M.".


"72LB. (1) The Minister must, within 14 days after receiving a report under section 72L or 72LA, cause a copy to be given to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the President of the Legislative Council.

(2) The Speaker and the President must cause to be given to each member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council, as the case requires, a copy of each report received under section 72L or 72LA.


(3) A report received under section 72L or 72LA, upon its receipt by the Speaker or the President, is deemed to have been published by Order or under the authority ofthe Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council, as the case requires."


"72LC. If the Convenor fails to submit a report to the Minister in accordance with section 72L (2) (a) or 72LA (2) (a), the Minister must cause each House of Parliament to be advised of the failure and the reasons for it. ...

35. Clause 8, page 50, line 15, omit "section 72L" and insert "sections 72L and 72LA".

36. Clause 8, page 50, lines 17 to 19, omit proposed sub-section (2) and insert



(b) may conduct any audit or examination he or she considers necessary to determine whether the Medical Panels are achieving their objectives and doing so economically and efficiently and in compliance with this Act ....

37. Clause 8, page 50, line 31, after "section" insert "or section 72LA".


The Hon. B. W. MIER (Waverley Province)-Thank you, Sir, for giving me the opportunity of making the comments I attempted to make earlier. Apart from supporting the sentiments expressed by Mr Baxter in respect of the composition of medical panels, I was attempting to point out the reality that has existed for many years in this State and in a number of other States; that is, the concept of a medical panel actually being the final arbiter in determining the degree of injury of the worker. The first form of accident insurance was implemented in this State as long ago as 1938. I understand it was introduced by a Country Party government and improved upon some years later by John Cain, Sr.

The concept of that determination was not left with medicos; it was accepted principle-and, as I said, always has been-that medical practitioners or experts in the medical field should not be the final arbiters in determining the degree of injury or disability incurred by workers. The matter should be determined by an independent authority and the worker pursuing a claim should be entitled to retain his legal rights.

Over the years these matters have been determined by tribunals which give workers the opportunity of presenting their cases with the assistance of legal representation. As most honourable members would have realised over a number of years, I have not necessarily been an advocate for the legal profession in this place. But, nevertheless, one reaches a stage where people's legal rights must be preserved.

I tend to believe when it is left to a panel of medical practitioners to arbitrate-and I mean arbitrate-on the condition of an injured worker, those legal or common-law rights are denied. Irrespective of the composition of the panel-whether it includes dentists, optometrists or chiropractors-the final decision should be determined by an independent authority. That independent authority should be a commission or tribunal established on the basis of enabling the plaintiff or the injured worker the opportunity of retaining full legal rights and representation to pursue the claim.

As it currently stands, I do not believe the Act enables that to occur and, although I sympathise with Mr Baxter about the composition of medical panels, I believe the composition of medical panels is not in the best interests of the Act; the panels are designed wholly and solely to reduce the flow of claims and, in turn, reduce the financial drain on the system.


The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western Province)-I have a number of questions concerning clause 8, and they involve pages 18 to 72 of the Bill. It might be better to deal with them one at a time, otherwise they might be incomprehensible. Proposed section 53 which appears at page 18 of the Bill outlines the manner in which the tribunal comes to its decisions and states:

The Tribunal ... must be guided by the real justice of the matter before it having regard to the objects of this Act, and must act according to equity and good conscience without regard to technicalities or legal forms; and ... is bound by the rules of natural justice; and ... is not required to conduct any proceedings in a formal manner.

Some of those elements, such as the last one, are straightforward. However, what is the difference between "natural justice" and "real justice"? In respect of the rules of natural justice, one such rule is the right to be heard. Does it also mean, in this instance, the right to be represented? Perhaps the Minister could speak also about the concept of "good conscience". What does that mean in the sense of the tribunal arriving at decisions?

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I did not contemplate that we would be diverting into the area of jurisprudence especially for the benefit of Mr Chamberlain. The tribunal has been operating in a reasonable form. It is not an area where the government has sought to make substantial wholesale changes. It has, by way of contrast, abolished the arbitrators and put the appeals board into effect.

It is proposed that people would have the right of legal representation before the tribunal. It is clear that current practice with the current legal practitioners-the president of the tribunal is Mr Justice Higgins-will continue and the current practices of the tribunal will continue.

The Hon. B. A. Chamberlain-These are new concepts.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE-The government is not seeking to do anything more than clarify the situation and seek a continuation of the current operation of the tribunal. It is not seeking substantial changes in the practice of the tribunal. It is my understanding that the words do not significantly depart from the manner in which the tribunal is currently being conducted. I do not believe the words Mr Chamberlain referred to in any way constrain the tribunal in its current method of operation.

The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western Province )-Proposed section 59 on page 21 of the Bill gives the tribunal the right to make orders as to costs. Proposed subsection (3) states that a presidential member may review costs taxed by the registrar under proposed subsection (2).

Normally costs are taxed in accordance with a particular scale. The Bill gives the presidential member the power to review costs, but no criterion is suggested. There is no basis on which someone could apply to a presidential member to review the costs or reason given why the presidential member could do so on his or her own account. The same question could apply to proposed subsection (11) on page 23.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-In the extensive deliberations the government had on WorkCare and in respect of the role of the various organisations that make up the Accident Compensation Commission and the WorkCare system, it was indicated that it is not proposed to depart substantially from the tribunal's method of operation, including the awarding of costs.

As Mr Chamberlain correctly states, that is a matter for the tribunal and registrar to consider. If Mr Chamberlain is seeking further advice on how the system will operate I shall seek more advice on his behalf from the registrar and the president of the tribunal and communicate with him. The government did not consider it necessary to


lay that down in the Bill, especially as it has confidence in the way the tribunal is currently conducting its operations.

The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western Province )-Proposed section 71 establishes the WorkCare Appeals Board. Proposed subsection (3) states:

The senior members must be

(a) legal practitioners; or

(b) graduates in law; or

(c) persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, have sound knowledge of the law relating to the compensating of workers for work-related injuries.

It is possible that a legal practitioner or a graduate in law may have no knowledge of the law referred to in proposed subsection (3).

I direct the Minister to a number of other Acts of Parliament that have a requirement for someone to be a legal practitioner of five years standing. This provision may allow a graduate just out of law school to be appointed a senior member of the appeals board. The Minister may consider including this stipulation. I do not suggest that the Committee amend the proposed subsection at this stage, but I wonder whether the omission of that stipulation was an oversight.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-Mr Chamberlain directs the Committee's attention to proposed section 71 (3), which states:

The senior members must be

(a) legal practitioners; or

(b) graduates in law; or

(c) persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, have sound knowledge of the law relating to the compensating of workers for work-related injuries.

Appeals board hearings will not be held in an adversarial setting. People likely to be contemplated for selection as senior members will be people who have currently performed as arbitrators but who may not be legal practitioners. They may have lifelong professional experience in this area of the law and may be appropriate for consideration as senior members. It is also more than likely that the president or chairman of the appeals board may be a senior practitioner.

Clearly, the failure of senior members of the board to perform effectively may lead to an excessive number of appeals coming before the tribunal; the president of the tribunal, as well as the chairman of the appeals board, would have regard to that fact. The government is seeking to enable people who have been arbitrators, as one category, and perhaps others, to be considered for appointment as senior members of the appeals board.

In the context of those senior members being capable of carrying out their task with an effective professional knowledge of this area of the law, it is not contemplated that a new graduate in law-unless that person is a mature law graduate with substantial other experience-will be appointed as a senior member of the board.

The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western Province)-Proposed section 71B (3) states:

The Governor in Council may remove or suspend a member from office ifin the opinion of the Minister the member-

(a) becomes incapable of performing the duties of the office; or


(b) neglects to perform those duties.

Proposed subsection (5) states: The suspension of a member does not affect any entitlement of the member to be paid remuneration

and allowances.

If a person is incapable of performing his duty he may be suspended, yet proposed subsection (5) appears to say that the person may continue to be entitled to remuneration and allowances. It is possible that the proposed subsection is meant to be limited to remuneration and allowances that have been earned prior to suspension, but it does not say that.

There seems to be an anomaly in the proposed provision. A person may be suspended by the Minister because he has neglected to perform his duties, yet is still entitled to be paid remuneration and allowances.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I accept that the words in proposed subsection (5) may seem ambiguous. I would take those words to have the meaning indicated by Mr Chamberlain: namely, that if the person was suspended certain entitlements such as superannuation or long service leave that had been built up over a period would still be paid to that person. However, it is possible that the interpretation may be other than that. I shall seek advice and give further consideration to the matter-hopefully, later in the Committee stage.

The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western Province)-Proposed section 711 (15) deals with the review of decisions and states:

An applicant who meets with the Full Board may be accompanied by another person, who may speak to the Board if it agrees.

It is a curious provision. It does not say that a person is entitled to have someone speak on his behalf. A person may be accompanied by someone who may speak to the board, but the provision does not say that that person may speak on behalf of the applicant.

It is a restrictive provision and it could be argued that a person may be accompanied by a lawyer and ask the board for the lawyer to speak on his behalf because he has trouble expressing himself. I ask the Minister to explain the government's intention in relation to the provision.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-The Committee examined that issue earlier when debating an earlier amendment moved by Mr Baxter. The appeals board will be conducted in a non-adversarial way. It is proposed that, when the Accident Compensation Commission and employers have reached a view that a person should no longer be on WorkCare, they will prepare documentation. The cost of preparing that documentation will be paid by the commission and the material will be submitted to the appeals board. In addition, the worker's costs for preparation of documentation will be paid for and such documentation will also be presented to the appeals board.

The only other person present with the worker at the board hearing will be an adviser to assist an individual who may feel intimidated by the setting of the board, or who may, because of a language difficulty or an infirmity, or because of injury or age, have dIfficulty in doingjustice to the questions put by the board. The provision is designed to produce the setting that was first sought but not achieved in respect of arbitration hearings under the Accident Compensation Act.

The government is saying that the adviser is not deemed to be an advocate but rather a person who may assist an individual who appears before the appeals board;


and that person may, from time to time, assist the board by responding to questions that are put by the board to the employee who may, for reasons such as I have expressed, have difficulty in responding directly to questions asked by the board. That is the reason why the government acceded to the argument that an individual appearing before the board should be entitled to some assistance without resorting to an adversarial setting.

The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western Province)-Proposed section 73 deals with the establishment of the complaints investigator. Proposed subsection (2) says that the complaints investigator shall hold office for a period not exceeding five years. Proposed subsection (7) allows the Governor in Council to remove the complaints investigator from office at any time, but there are no criteria for so doing.

Proposed subsection (9) says that the office shall become vacant in certain circumstances and refers to bankruptcy. The circumstances could arise where a complaints investigator, acting like an Ombudsman, is vigorously pursuing a complaint made to him and he becomes inconvenient to the government. Under proposed subsection (7) the Governor in Council may get rid of that person without any investigation or criteria.

Proposed section 73 (9) may deal with a situation where a complaints investigator is guilty of dereliction of duty, but it appears that there should be some type of independence for a complaints investigator.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I do not accept that a complaints investigator should be seen in the same light as an auditor or as an Ombudsman, but it is fair that he should have some degree of independence. I am happy to watch the practices of the complaints investigator and to take steps to preserve the integrity of that office. I am certain the government, the Opposition, the media, the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General will all have regard to the application of proposed section 73 (7). I take note of the points made by Mr Chamberlain.

The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western Province)-Proposed section 93A sets the amount of compensation payable when a worker is entitled to weekly payments. I ask the Minister to explain the meaning of proposed subsection (2), which states:

The weekly payment under this section to a worker who has current weekly earnings must not exceed the amount of the weekly payment to which the worker would be entitled if the worker had no current weekly earnings.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-To make sense of that provision it is necessary to put it in context. Proposed section 93A states:

Unless section 93B applies, a worker is entitled, subject to and in accordance with this Part, to weekly payments while incapacitated for work at whichever of the following rates is applicable:

(a) if the worker has no current weekly earnings, the rate of-(i) 80 per centum of the worker's pre-injury average weekly earnings; or

(ii) $506-

whichever is the lesser;

(b) if the worker has current weekly earnings, at the rate, subject to sub-section (2), of-(i) where the worker's pre-injury average weekly earnings were $633 or less, 90 per centum of the

difference between those earnings and the worker's current weekly earnings; (ii) where the worker's pre-injury average weekly earnings were more than $633, $569 less 90 per

centum of the worker's current weekly earnings.

The words that cause Mr Chamberlain concern in proposed subsection (2) are: "if the worker has no current weekly earnings". The application of that phrase must be seen in the context of the provisions I referred to earlier, namely, if a worker has no current


weekly earnings, he receives 80 per cent of his pre-injury earnings or $506. The purpose of proposed section 93A (2) is to deal with the circumstances ofa worker who has current weekly earnings and it provides that such a person will not, under the WorkCare scheme, receive more than what is set out under proposed section 93A (1) (a).

The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western Province)-Proposed section 97 (3) states that if the Accident Compensation Commission or the self-insurer decides that the incapacity is likely to be of a permanent nature, a worker who ceases to reside in Australia is entitled to receive at quarterly intervals the amount of weekly payments accruing during the preceding quarter if the worker proves in the prescribed manner and at the prescribed intervals his or her identity.

If the commission receives a medical certificate from Liechtenstein, for example, saying that Joe Bloggs, who was identified as the worker, is still incapable of working, how is it possible for that provision to be tested? It appears that anyone who falls into that category would be well advised to go overseas to somewhere like Liechtenstein or Monaco so that they can receive payments for life. Once they are out of the State's jurisdiction, they are beyond recall. I ask the Minister to comment on that.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-The government is prepared to have regard to arrangements made by the Federal Department of Social Security in regard to circumstances where people are entitled to a range of benefits while not residing in Australia.

The Hon. B. A. Chamberlain-This is basic medical evidence.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE-I understand the point, but some social security benefits are also dependent on medical reasons, and the Department of Social Security conducts checks from time to time.

The government will have regard to the point Mr Chamberlain has made and will determine the capacity of the Department of Social Security to meet the concerns expressed by Mr Chamberlain. I shall ask the Accident Compensation Commission to communicate a response to the honourable member.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (the Hon. Robert Lawson)-Order! I point out to the Committee that the remarks Mr Chamberlain has made about proposed sections 93A and 97 (3) relate to clause 10 and not to clause 8, with which the Committee is currently dealing.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to, as was clause- 9.

Clause 10

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-I move: 44. Clause 10, page 54, lines 26 and 27, omit", or is materially contributed to by,".

I dealt with this matter to some extent earlier, but I particularly want to emphasise it on this occasion. This amendment will be a test for a series of proposed amendments where the words "or is materially contributed to by" appear in the Bill. It goes to the fundamental issue of whether any attempt will be made to rein in the easy access to benefits.

The words "or is materially contributed to by" open the door for workers compensation to be payable for a series of injuries that may be sustained outside the


workplace and because of the interpretation of those words, the injuries may come within the scope of the Bill.

People receive WorkCare benefits for injuries that have nothing to do with the workplace. As a consequence of the huge blow-out in unfunded liabilities the promise that levy rates would be held to 2·4 per cent for at least five years has been broken; and the commitment to the scheme being fully funded within ten years has been abandoned. Those problems have arisen almost directly because the definitions in the principal Act are too broad-and this Bill in no way addresses the problem. If my amendment were agreed to, the proposed new section would read:

If a worker's incapacity for work results from an injury which entitles the worker to compensation ...

That would make the definition clear. Benefits would not be paid for an injury that was sustained somewhere else, even though it affected the worker's capacity to work. Why should an employer be responsible if an employee sustains an injury on the football field, while at the beach or while mowing the lawn? At present if such injuries affect a worker's capacity to work the employer and, in due course, the Accident Compensation Commission are deemed to be responsible and the worker may draw workers compensation benefits. If such a social welfare system is allowed to be established, the scheme will shortly be utterly bankrupt. Not even the 40 per cent increase in levy rates that the Bill proposes would meet such outgoings. We must grasp the nettle, despite what the Trades Hall Council might say, regardless of the arguments that were advanced in 1985 and despite the threat of industrial action such as occurred while the Bill was being drafted.

The need for tighter definitions has a long history. When I was a member of the other place the then honourable member for Brighton, Sir John Rossiter, had responsibility for workers compensation matters. I recall that in 1975 amendments were made to the 1958 Act-the Workers Compensation Act-which affected the definition of "injury". Indeed, the then Liberal government made a couple of stabs at it: the first attempt at amending the Act did not work; and the second amending legislation proved to be too restrictive. No honourable members would want to see the definition of "injury" tightened up too much; certainly that is not what I intend.

In due course, the then Liberal government arrived at a satisfactory amendment of the Workers Compensation Act that gave injured workers a fair go but did not open the door for workers injured outside the workplace to receive benefits as easily as they do at present.

To those who ask for proof that injured workers have too easy access to WorkCare benefits, one has only to point to the startling statistics quoted by Mr Ashman last night. In relative terms, there are five times as many workers receiving workers compensation benefits in Victoria as there are in New South Wales. That is graphic proof that injured workers in Victoria have too easy access to workers compensation benefits. The New South Wales workers compensation scheme has not been described as inequitable or too tough; instead it was held up by Mr Ashman as being a scheme of considerable merit-and I agree with him. At present injured workers receive benefits too easily because the definition of "injury" is too broad. The removal of the words "or is materially contributed to by" would not impose an unfair burden on genuinely injured workers, but would restrict the payment of benefits to workers who sustain injuries only in the workplace.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-It is not stretching things too far to say that Mr Baxter is proposing, through another device, to reintroduce a matter that has already been dealt with effectively by the Committee-that is, that the definition of "injury" is far too wide. That was the spirit in which the Committee


commented on and dealt with an earlier amendment. By proposing this amendment Mr Baxter is talking to proposed section 93, which provides:

If a worker's incapacity for work results from, or is materially contributed to by, an injury which entitles the worker to compensation, the compensation shall be in the form of weekly payments subject to and in accordance with this Part.

The amendment seeks to limit the capacity for weekly payments to be made by narrowing the definition of "injury". For reasons that the Committee dealt with at some length at an earlier stage, the government is opposed to narrowing that definition.

The Hon. G. B. ASH MAN (Boronia Province)-The essence of the amendment was dealt with by the Committee when it debated Mr Baxter's amendment No. 10; and it is also similar in intent to other amendments that have been debated. The amendment does not address the real problems of Work Care-which is haemorrhaging seriously-and it is only a minor bandaid measure.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-Although the matter is ancillary to that dealt with in clause 5 concerning the definition of "medical question", the amendment deals with a separate issue. As Mr Ashman said, this matter was covered in clause 5, but I did not have an opportunity of speakin~ at that time because of inadvertence on my part. Mr Chairman, you put the questIon before I had the opportunity of catching your attention.

The Hon. D. R. White-He was asleep!

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER-It is all very well for the Minister to make such allegations, but he needs to be reminded of the complexity of the Bill, which was made even greater by the government's decision not to deal fully with amendments in another place, thus putting the Committee in the situation it is in tonight.

The Hon. D. R. White-Which we're quite capable of handling!

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER-I agree that this Committee is more efficient than the Committee in the other place. Nevertheless that does not detract from the complexity of the issue.

I want the matter tested on this occasion. I simply endorse the remarks I have made. If we are to control the growth in the unfunded liability of WorkCare, there must be some restriction of access to benefits. In short, I believe my amendment shows the appropriate way to go.

The Committee divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr Baxter to be omitted stand part of the clause (the Hon. K. I. M. Wright in the chair).

Ayes 34 Noes 4


AYES MrAshman Mr Birrell Mr Chamberlain MrConnard MrCox Mrs Cox sedge MrCraige MrCrawford MrDavidson Mrde Fegely MrGuest

30

NOES MrBaxter MrHallam

Tellers: MrBest MrEvans

Accident Compensation Bill

AYES MrHenshaw Mrs Hogg MrKennedy MrKnowles Ms Kokocinski MrLawson Mrs Lyster Mrs McLean Mr Mackenzie MrMiles Mr Pullen MrSgro MrSkeggs Mr Smith MrStorey Mrs Tehan Mr Theophanous MrVanBuren Mrs Varty MrWalker MrWhite

Tellers: MrMacey MrMier

Mr Landeryou

20 September 1989 COUNCIL

PAIR I

NOES

MrHall

649

The CHAIRMAN-Order! Does Mr Baxter intend to proceed with amendments Nos 45 to 48 standing in his name?

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-No. However, I maintain my stance that those same words should be removed but the Committee has decided otherwise on the test case, my amendment No. 44. I regret the decision because I think the employers of this State will pay very dearly.


"(7) If, in respect of a period, a worker is entitled to compensation under this section and there is a liability under the Workers Compensation Act 1958 to pay compensation to that worker in respect ofthat period, the worker must, by notice in writing to the Commission elect to receive compensation under this Act or that Act and, on the making of such an election, the worker's right to compensation in respect of that period under the Act to which the election does not relate is extinguished.".

This section relates to a situation which may result in a person being able to obtain a double payment for an injury, which is clearly not contemplated. I believe the government agrees with the principle of this amendment.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-To some extent this issue has been tested in an earlier clause where there were two issues of concern and there was some confusion among members of the Committee at that stage. One was in regard to double dipping and, of course, the government does not condone that. It did indicate that under the current legislation there is a capacity for an individual to reserve the right as to which Act that person will be treated under, whereas an earlier amendment on which the Committee divided forced the individual to elect under which Act the person would be dealt with.

The government has pursued this matter at some length with the honourable member for Hawthorn in another place but it has not been able to convince him to drop


amendment No. 38 proposed by the Liberal Party. The Treasurer, therefore, has indicated that the government will not oppose this amendment, especially in view of the fact that there was already a test of the matter by way of a division. But he would like a commitment from the Opposition that it will agree to an amendment next year if this change badly affects injured workers who are forced by this amendment to elect which Act they are treated under and, as a result, it is to their disadvantage.

The Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia Province)-I note the comments of the Minister and I give him an assurance that so long as the principle remains the Liberal Party is prepared to consider amendments in the future in the light of experience that might eventuate.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I thank Mr Ashman for those comments.


The Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia Province)-I move: 39. Clause 10, page 56, line 17, after "93c." insert "(I)".

40. Clause 10, page 57, after line 2, insert-

"(2) If, in respect of a period, a worker is entitled to compensation under this section and there is a liability under the Workers Compensation Act 1958 to pay compensation to that worker in respect of that period, the worker must, by notice in writing to the Commission elect to receive compensation under this Act or that Act and, on the making of such an election, the worker's right to compensation in respect of that period under the Act to which the election does not relate is extinguished.".

These relate to the same issue of double dipping and require no further elaboration.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-Likewise the government treats these amendments as consequential.


The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I move: 7. Clause 10, page 61, line 27, after "section" insert "94,".

The Opposition's amendment No. 42 clarifies the meaning of current weekly earnings. The government's amendment ensures that make-up pay is added to WorkCare payments before the compensation supplement is assessed. That is the purpose of the amendment.


The Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia Province)-I move: 41. Clause 10, page 61, line 34, after "nature" insert "; or".



"(c) by way of accident make-up pay under any industrial award or agreement or arrangement. ".

This is a consequential amendment.


The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I move: 8. Clause 10, page 62, lines 11 to 18, omit proposed sub-sections (5) and (6).



These amendments relate to the issue of double dipping and to matters that effectively have been tested by the Committee. The Opposition has stated it is opposed to amendments Nos 8, 9 and 10.

Although the government will formally move those amendments, it does not seek to divide on the issue.

The amendments were negatived.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I move: 10. Clause 10, page 62, after line 22, insert-

Limitation on compensation under former Act and this Act

'97 A. (1) Where, in respect of a period in incapacity for work, whether or not arising from the same injury-

then-

(a) an employer is liable to pay weekly payments to a worker under the Workers Compensation Act 1958; and

(b) the worker is entitled to weekly payments under this Act-

(c) the employer's liability to pay weekly payments under the Workers Compensation Act 1958 in respect of that period is reduced by the amount of weekly payments received by the worker in respect of that period under this Act; and

(d) the worker's entitlement to weekly payments under this Act in respect of that period is reduced by the amount of weekly payments received by the worker in respect of that period under the Workers Compensation Act 1958.

(2) Where, in respect "of the death ofa worker-

then-

(a) an employer is liable to pay compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1958; and

(b) a person is entitled to compensation under this Act-

(c) the employer's liability to pay compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1958 in respect of that death is reduced by the amount of compensation paid in respect of that death under this Act; and

(d) the entitlement to compensation under this Act in respect of that death is reduced by the amount of compensation paid in respect of that death under the Workers Compensation Act 1958.

(3) If-

then-

(a) there is a liability to pay compensation under section 11 of the Workers Compensation Act 1958 in respect of an injury that is a partial loss (other than of hearing), paralysis or impairment ofa part of the body or of the mental powers ("the first injury"); and

(b) the worker may be entitled to compensation under section 98 of this Act in respect of an injury that is a further loss, paralysis or impairment of the same part of the body or of the mental powers, as the case requires ("the second injury")-

(c) any liability to pay compensation under section 11 of the Workers Compensation Act 1958 in respect ofthe first injury is reduced by the amount of compensation received by the worker in respect ofthe second injury under section 98 of this Act; and

(d) any entitlement of the worker to compensation under section 98 of this Act in respect of the second injury is reduced by the amount of compensation received by the worker in respect of the first injury under section 11 of the Workers Compensation Act 1958.

(4) If compensation has been paid under section 26 of the Workers Compensation Act 1958 in respect of-

(a) the provision of an ambulance service, hospital service, medical service or nursing service within the meaning of that section; or


(b) burial or cremation costs-

any liability to pay compensation under section 99 of this Act in respect of that service or those costs is reduced by the amount so paid.

(5) If compensation is paid under section 99 ofthis Act in respect of-

(a) an ambulance service, hospital service, medical service, nursing service or rehabilitation service; or

(b) burial or cremation costs-

any liability under section 26 of the Workers Compensation Act 1958 in respect of the provision of that service or those costs is reduced by the amount so paid.

(6) Except to the extent that payments are made under the Workers Compensation Act 1958, nothing in this section affects the liability of a contributor under Division 6A or under an assessment under that Division or a determination by the Commission or Tribunal under section 129B (6)."


The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I move: 11. Clause 10, page 66, line 31, omit "1989" and insert" 1990".

Amendment No. 11 relates to the omission of" 1989" and the insertion of" 1990" and corrects an error in the application of the indexation provisions. If it had stood at 1989 it is possible that double indexation would occur, hence the move for the amendment.


The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I move: 12. Clause 10, page 69, line 15, omit "inquiry" and insert "injury".

This corrects an error in drafting.


The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-I move: I. Clause 10, page 70, line 36, after "medical practitioner" insert "or chiropractor and osteopath".

This deals with chiropractors and osteopaths and goes to the matter I dealt with in relation to the original Act in 1985 when I attempted to restore the rights to chiropractors and osteopaths of issuing certificates of incapacity. That right had been given to the profession in 1979 by the former Hamer ~overnment after registration of chiropractors and osteopaths came into being in this State and it remained in the legislation until it was removed in 1984 by the Cain government in an amendment to the then Workers Compensation Act 1958.

At the time of its removal it was almost underhand in that I did not pick it up at the time, nor do I think many honourable members did. It came as a bit of a surprise to both the profession and to honourable members that that action had been taken by the government because it was certainly taken without any consultation. As honourable members know, at the time I attempted to have it restored when the government had a temporary majority in this Chamber due to the Nunawading Province vacancy and, despite welcome support from members of the Opposition, I was not successful with the amendment.

Since that time there has been a good deal of discussion, representation by the profession and further consideration of the matter. Mr Mackenzie was especially instrumental in some of the discussions that have taken place in the past few days and it has come to my attention that there is widespread support from all sides of the House for the restoration of the rights that previously existed.


It is true that honourable members who have had correspondence and representations from chiropractors and osteopaths, and any who had the opportunity of speaking to those who attended at this building yesterday, could not help but be impressed by the sincerity of those members who were pressing what they believed was a legitimate claim and which I and others also believe to be legitimate.

From time to time it is alleged that chiropractors have been a little lax in the issuing of certificates and that they, in some respects, have been the cause of some of the blowouts in W orkCare funding in the past. If there is any evidence of that I should like to be presented with it because no-one has given me any hard data on that. I am sure the profession would take the view that if this amendment were passed and if any of its members in the future could be shown to be making a welter of the system and lssuing certificates which were not justified, the association would certainly have no qualms about striking off those people and denying them the right.

The profession has had somewhat of a torrid time in building its reputation. It has done that successfully and it certainly wants to maintain it. It would not stand for any activity by any chiropractor if it appeared-and I say "if' because I do not have any evidence, nor am I suggesting it is likely to happen in the future-that certificates are issued too freely.

I put forward a proposition to those who perhaps believed in the past that chiropractors issued too many certificates that in fact they might have been blaming the wrong people because on page 10 of the recently acquired document that Mr Birrell used to such telling effect against the government this morning, Mr Markley had this to say about the Victorian Accident Rehabilitation Council, an organisation about which I have been especially critical on occasions:

VARC has power to authorise anybody to sign certificates of incapacity. It is our view that this authority has not always been wisely used. There is some evidence that certificates have been issued where the real problem, after resolution of the injury, has been a failure to obtain employment.

I want that on the record because it appears to me that if that were going on-and Mr Markley says it was-we can take it there was certainly plenty of evidence that possibly the wrong people were being blamed. Chiropractors were being blamed for issuing certificates when in fact it was the VARC. I find it extraordinary that the principal Act and the Bill are so tight about who can issue certificates and restricts them to medical practitioners, yet somehow or other along the way V ARC obtained the authority or took it upon itself-I am not sure that it had the authority-to authorise anybody it liked to issue certificates.

I notice in the Bill that V ARC is to be given that authority in legislative form. Proposed section 114 (2) (a) states:

(2) A certificate of incapacity must-(a) be a certificate under section 104 or a certificate in the prescribed form given by a medical

practitioner or any person approved by the Council who is a provider of a rehabilitation service ...

It seems to me that that is where attention needs to be given if there is any thought of overservicing. The Committee can justifiably restore to the chiropractic and osteopath professions the rights they had prior to 1985. My proposed further amendment will restore some justice that was previously denied and I believe the measure has widespread support.

I thank Mr Mackenzie for his part in the negotiations that have led to my moving the amendment.

The Hon. R. A. MACKENZIE (Geelong Province)-In strongly supporting Mr Baxter again on this issue, I put before the Committee a commonsense argument. I


invite honourable members to consider some facts that have been gathered over a considerable period, not only in Australia but also from overseas experience. I refer to a study conducted in Wisconsin in America, which study has been quoted in a number of medical and chiropractic articles. The results of the study appear at page 9 of the submission to the Accident Compensation Commission prepared in May 1989 on behalf of the Australian Chiropractors Association (Victorian Branch). The results are as follows: THE WISCONSIN STUDY:

A study of workers compensation cases treated by chiropractors indicated that 85 per cent of all such cases did not seek or need additional services from a medical doctor.

Of the 15 per cent in this study who did have additional medical care charged against their workers compensation claims, a majority sought the medical care upon orders from their insurance carrier.

The next point is interesting: The average amount paid to chiropractors in this study was $115. The average paid to medical doctors

was $243-211 per cent more-

for treating the same complaints.

The next point is: In addition, the average indemnity (payment for time away from work) paid to those receiving chiropractic

care was $148; to those seeking medical care, $533-382·4 per cent more!

In other words, chiropractic patients went back to work-and stopped drawing compensation-a lot sooner than medical patients.

During the course of the second-reading debate honourable members heard two different arguments. On the government side, members of the Labor Party argued strongly in favour of getting workers back to work and looking after their conditions and well-being. On the other hand, the Liberal and National parties were interested in the cost factor, which they argued strongly. Their arguments were fairly based on the enormous costs involved.

The proposed amendment resolves around a simple argument. The use of chiropractors will not only be cheaper-which should suit the Opposition-but also will get the workers back on the job more quickly, and that should suit the government.

I refer to the 23 June statement of the Treasurer regarding WorkCare reforms, in which he said:

The next priority must be to restored injured workers to productive work as soon as possible.

That is what it is all about. As Mr Baxter said, a group of professional people have somehow had certain rights taken from them through the back door. The Committee has the opportunity of restoring those rights to chiropractors and osteopaths. They have been proven in studies conducted in Victoria by our Parliamentary committees as well as in studies conducted by the Federal Parliament to be professional people engaged in a particular area in the medical field and to be expert in and trained to do that particular work.

If there is any argument against Mr Baxter's amendment, I should like to hear it from both Mr Ashman and the Minister at the table. I ask that some logical explanation be given if Mr Baxter's amendment is not supported. The proposed measure is just commonsense. It will be of less cost to the governnment and it will achieve what the legislation is supposed to be designed for, that is, to get workers back into the work force in a productive capacity and offWorkCare. As I said, I should like to hear some logical arguments against what has been put to the Committee tonight.


The Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia Province)-The Liberal Party supports the right of chiropractors and osteopaths to issue certificates.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-The government does not oppose this amendment.


The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-I move: 49. Clause 10, page 70, line 37, omit "in" and insert "on".

Some honourable member might think that the proposed amendment demonstrates a pedantic view, and that argument may have some attraction for me as well.

The Hon. R. I. Knowles-You're not suggesting that your heart is not in it?

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER-No, but sometimes one's instructions lead one up odd paths.

If honourable members consider the evidence given to the WorkCare Committee, one of the problems that the Accident Compensation Commission was described as having related to the variety of certificates and the problem of having some commonality of terminology, with the same degree of detail being provided on certificates of incapacity. The WorkCare Committee recommended that those features be incorporated into the provisions concerning certificates of incapacity. If the ACC provided a common form to doctors and they were required to issue certificates using that form rather than using their letterheads or whatever, the process would be made simpler.

I take the view that that could be achieved by having the information in a form approved by the ACC, rather than the information being on a form, but to make the matter perfectly clear, I move the amendment.


The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-I move: 2. Clause 10, page 77, line 28, after "medical practitioner" insert "or chiropractor and osteopath".

The amendment again goes to the issue of restoring the rights of chiropractors and osteopaths. I will not recanvass the arguments I put a moment or two ago except to add one I omitted. If the rights are not restored to chiropractors and osteopaths, people wishing to be treated by chiropractors will need to go to a medical practitioner to obtain a certificate ofincapacity. Such a practice would clearly impose an unnecessary extra cost on the system. By and large, the same remarks apply as I made previously.


The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province )-1 move: 51. Clause 10, page 77, lines 41 and 42, omit ", or within such longer period (not exceeding three

months) after the suspension as the Commission or self-insurer allows,".

The amendment deals with benefits that have been stopped for some reason and provision is made for workers to make an application to supply a fresh certificate to have the matter reconsidered. There is no opposition to that, but proposed section 114 (4) states, in part: ... if within 28 days after the suspension, ...

I concur with the 28 days-... or within such longer period (not exceeding three months) after the suspension as the Commission or self-insurer allows ...


That is too long a period. If a person's benefits are suspended and he or she is a fit and proper person to have those benefits restored, surely within 28 days that person can make the appropriate application for restoration. To let the matter drag on for up to three months is providing another opportunity for inefficiencies to creep into the system, or worse, some sort of fraud. It is a relatively minor amendment, but it is another one of the amendments which will assist in keeping the cost blow-out manageable.


The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province )-1 move: 52. Clause 10, page 79, line 32, after "may" insert "at reasonable intervals".

The amendment is in some respects technical, but is aimed at providing the Accident Compensation Commission with reasonable rights vis-a-vis the employee as well as the self-insurers and the commission. We are likely to have an expanding number of self-insurers, but the Bill requires the commission not to force a worker to attend an interview more than once in any period of six months. The National Party takes the view that that is too long a penod-not in every case but in some cases. A process should be put in place for the commission or the self-insurer to interview workers who are on benefits at some regular interval, and a shorter period than six months, otherwise the opportunity is there for someone to remain on benefits for perhaps three, four or more months when that person is not so entitled. The amendment is one that tries to keep costs under control.


The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I move: 13. Clause 10, page 83, line 12, after "to" insert "the".

This is a drafting amendment.


The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western Province)-I direct to the attention of the Minister a matter contained in proposed section 109 at page 72 of the Bill which deals with claims for weekly payments. This particular proposed section concerns one of the weaknesses of the Act, which is perpetuated in the Bill. It states that within five days after receiving a claim an employer must accept or reject it. If the employer rejects the claim he must forward it to the commission and the commission, if it accepts a claim, must give written notice of its decision to the worker and to the employer.

As an example of such a case, one of my constituents, who is an impeccable Labor person, is an employer ofa few people at a quarry. He employed a man at that quarry for three months. That person worked for that period and left. Four months later the employer received a notice from the commission stating that a claim had been made for compensation and would the employer make his contribution towards the medical and weekly expenses of the employee.

The employer said, quite rightly, that no indication had been given to him about an injury and because of the compact nature of the business there could not have been an injury without his knowing about it. He asked the commission to fight the claim. He said that the claim was a bogus one. The next indication he received from the commission was a notification that the commission has admitted the claim.

This is a situation where an employee has given notice after an injury and the letter arrives months after the employee has terminated employment-clearly it is a


fraudulent case. The employer asked the commission to fight the case because if it did not eventually he would have to pay higher premiums.

Under the provision in the Bill, there is no capacity for employers' views to be taken into account. All it states is that if the employer rejects the claim he sends it on to the commission and the commission, if it subsequently accepts it informs the employer about it. The weakness with the provision is that there should be a capacity for the employer to insist that the commission fight the claim and to ensure that only legitimate claims are met.

Will the Minister consider the ~ave gap in the provision? Employers should have the right to resist fraudulent clalms strenously. If no provision is made, clearly a blow-out in claims will occur.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-The government wishes to continue with the current practice. It is concerned with any case such as the one to which Mr Chamberlain refers where he believes an inappropriate response was made. If it is possible to obtain details of that case, or any others, they will be ris.orously pursued by the government, and the Accident Compensation Commission will be more than happy to assist.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-I place on record that the National Party wishes to have a number of matters addressed, but is not able to do so because it is under the impression that the Liberal Party had intended to prepare amendments on those matters; but for reasons of which I am unaware, that course has not been adopted. I am concerned with proposed section 97 (1) at page 61 of the Bill which deals with the sums which can be taken into account when assessing the entitlement to compensation of a worker.

Proposed section 97 (1) (a) deals with any sum paid or payable under any contract of assurance or insurance, and proposed section 97 (1) (b) deals with any relief or sustenation fund. An additional subsection (c) should have been included which would have referred to accident make-up pay under any industrial award. It would have been of a similar nature and should have been treated in the same way.

To some extent it goes to the double dipping issue again because it allows people to have sums paid that should be taken into account but are not. The other aspect of it deals with the situation where someone has had his or her benefits reduced from 80 per cent to 60 per cent under proposed section 93B because the worker has been classified under the impairment test, or whatever procedure will be put in place from 1 January 1990 as a result of the tripartite committee that was set up following negotiations with the Trades Hall Council. That objective will not be achieved if persons who have their compensation reduced from 80 per cent to 60 per cent of weekly earnings are able to go out and demand from their employers make-up pay to CGver the difference.

If that is the situation, there is no incentive for injured workers to return to suitable work, depending on the nature and extent of the disabilities. If they are able to demand make-up p~y from the employers to bring them to where they would have been had they not suffered the reduction in benefits as provided for in the Bill-bearing in mind that it has been hailed by the government as the principal means of cutting back the outflow of funds from the Accident Compensation Commission, and as being a mechanism to have those long-term claimants either off the system or at least on reduced benefits--

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-On a point of order, Mr Chairman, I refer to Mr Baxter amendment No. 42 proposed earlier by Mr Ashman, which states:

42. Clause 10, page 61, after line 34, insert-"(c) by way of accident make-up pay under any industrial award or agreement or arrangement ....

Session 1989-22


Paragraph (c) contains the provision that I believe Mr Baxter was seeking to include. The Committee has dealt with this matter and has agreed to that amendment.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-On the point of order, I thank the Minister for drawing my attention to that fact because that goes to the issue I was raising.

The Hon. B. A. Chamberlain-It is getting fairly late in the night.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER-Yes, it is getting rather late. I am glad that has been taken up, and I commend Mr Ashman for proposing the amendment dealing with the matter of make-up pay.

The CHAIRMAN-Order! I uphold the point of order.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-I conclude my remarks by stating that the issue is addressed by the amendment that has been passed, although it is in a different form to that contained in the information before me.

The Hon. R. J. LONG (Gippsland Province)-I refer to the Committee proposed section 122, at page 86 of the Bill. That extends the period after injury during which an employer is required to provide employment for a worker from six months to twelve months; also, it provides some rather hefty penalties. I take it that subsection (2) is meant to be a let-out provision because it states:

Sub-sec~ion (1) does not apply if the employer shows that it is not practicable for the employer to provide employment in accordance with that sub-section.

I put to the Committee that it is always practicable for an employer to provide emplo~ent; after all, one could pay a person to do nothing. I assume that is "pracucable" .

I ask the Minister: what does "not practicable" in the provision mean? Why is it proposed to be extended from six months to twelve months, bearin$ in mind the tremendous difficulty it would cause to small business? It is completely Impossible for a small businessman to run a business and keep a position open for up to twelve months, waiting for a person to recover from injury.

In a perfect world we would like to be able to do that. Whereas this provision has gone on for six months and no-one has complained, why extend it to twelve months, or is this a sop to the trade union movement?

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-My response is in two parts: where it states that subsection (1) "does not apply if the employer shows that it is not practicable for the employer to provide employment in accordance with that sub-section", it deals with circumstances where a business may have only one employee, and deals with circumstances in which it may be impossible for commonsense reasons for that position not to remain available.

Secondly, the extension-to keep the job open for twelve months-is in keeping with the intentions of the government, employers and employees to do much more than has been done at present to get people on WorkCare back to work, particularly in the work environment in the metropolitan area. It provides greater opportunities for work to be done, and the government looks forward to that happening.

The government, employers and employees believe the current activities with respect to the return to work have been inadequate. This is part of the package to enhance the return to work.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to, as was clause 11.


Clause 12

The Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia Province)-I invite honourable members to vote against this clause. The provision in the Bill relates to the insurers' traditional arrangements for assessment, whereby assessments are made by assessors rather than by a tribunal. The Opposition does not oppose the method of streamlining, but the method proposed in the Bill exceeds previous arrangements with the industry.

I understand the ~overnment is planning to place further amendments to the Accident CompensatIon Act before Parliament in the autumn sessional period of 1990. The Opposition has been involved with the government and the insurance industry in consultation on this issue, and has facilitated discussions between the government and the insurers.

The Opposition is of the opinion that a satisfactory agreement will be reached and reflected in the proposed amendments to the Act to be placed before Parliament in 1990.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-The government introduces assessors in the Bill as part of a process of receiving contributions from previous insurers. It believes that would be more effective than the present scheme. As Mr Ashman indicates, the Insurance Council of Australia Ltd has not agreed to the proposal and the Opposition-and, I believe, the National Party, from remarks made by Mr Baxter-will seek to omit this clause.

The government will not refuse Mr Ashman's invitation.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-To set the record straight, Mr Ashman's invitation to the Committee is identical to my proposed amendment No. 60. The National Party is opposing the clause on exactly the same grounds as those outlined by Mr Ashman.

The clause was negatived.

The sitting was suspended at 12.1 a. m. (Thursday) until 12.23 a. m. Clause 13

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)- I move: 14. Clause 13, page 90, line 7, after "(iii)" insert "the".

The amendment corrects a drafting error.

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted, as were clauses 14 to 17.

Clause 18

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I move: IS. Clause 18, line 17, after "paragraph" insert "(c)".

The amendment corrects a drafting error.

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted.

Clause 19

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I move: 16. Clause 19, line 25, omit "or ought reasonably to know".

17. Clause 19, line 26, omit "(a)".

18. Clause 19, line 27, omit "; or".


19. Clause 19, lines 28 and 29, omit proposed paragraph (b).

20. Clause 19, line 34, omit "or ought reasonably to know".

21. Clause 19, line 35, omit "(a)".

22. Clause 19, line 36, omit "; or"

23. Clause 19, lines 37 and 38, omit proposed paragraph (b).

The amendments change the clause relating to the provision of false and misleading information and follow representations from the Victorian Bar Council.

The effect of the changes is that a provider or person must know that the information is false or misleading in a material particular. In the Bill at present the provision is "ought reasonably to know". The provision has also been amended so that no longer is omission of any matter a ground for an action.



Investigation of fraud

"248B. (1) The Commission may, subject to and in accordance with the regulations, inquire into and investigate activities carried on by any person or persons in the course of which the Commission reasonably believes an offence against section 248, 248A or 249 was or may have been committed.

(2) Upon commencing an inquiry or investigation under sub-section (1), the Commission must give notice in writing to the Chief Commissioner of Police of the proposed inquiry or investigation.

(3) The Commission must give to the Chief Commissioner of Police any information requested by the Commissioner and obtained by the Commission in the course of an inquiry and investigation under this section." .

Indemnity

"248C. If the Commission considers that an offence may have been committed against section 248, 248A or 249, the Commission may recommend to the Attorney-General that appropriate indemnities be offered for the purpose of enabling information to be obtained about the alleged offence.".

The amendment addresses investigation of fraud by the commission. It provides for the commission to inquire into and investigate activities by any person or persons where the commission reasonably believes an offence may have been committed.

It also provides for the Chief Commissioner of Police to be advised on investigations and for information to be provided to the Chief Commissioner of Police and for indemnities that can be offered for the purpose of enabling information against alleged offenders to be obtained.

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted, as were clauses 20 and 21.

Clause 22

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I move: 24. Clause 22, page 94, line 13, omit "made" (where first occurring) and insert "make".

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted.

Clause 23

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I move: 25. Clause 23, lines 22 to 24, omit "and not accepted, approved or rejected, and not deemed to have

been accepted or approved or rejected, and not deemed to have been accepted, approved or rejected before that commencement".


The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted, as were the remaining clauses.

New clauses

The Hon. G. B. ASH MAN (Boronia Province)-I move: 45. Insert the following new clause to follow clause 10:

Constitution of the Commission

'A. (1) In section 23 ofthe Principal Act-

(a) in sub-section (2) after "eleven Directors" insert", who shall be natural persons,"; and

(b) sub-section (4) and (5) are repealed.

(2) The members of the Commission holding office under the Principal Act immediately before the commencement of this section, unless appointed under section 23 of the Principal Act as amended by this Act, go out of office on the commencement of this section.'.

New clause A and the other new clauses I foreshadow refer to the constitution of the commission; the annual reports of the commission; quarterly reports; actuarial reports; the publication of those reports; the measures to be undertaken if those reports are not submitted as well; authorising the activities of the Auditor-General in the supervision and conduct of those audits; and procedures involving the reports.

The provision relating to the publication of reports is similar to the provision involved in the derecognition of the Builders Labourers Federation requiring that reports be made available to members of Parliament regardless of whether Parliament is sitting. The Opposition believes a similar clause should be included in the Bill, given the serious nature of the unfunded liabilities of WorkCare. It will provide the community with an opportunity of monitoring the progress of WorkCare and the progress of the amendments that will have been made this evening.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-The government strongly opposes the insertion of the new clause. The new clause would significantly change W orkCare because it would change the constitution of the Accident Compensation Commission. Historically, the spirit and intent of WorkCare is built on a tripartite model where the government, employers and trade unions are represented in the management of the W orkCare system, notwithstanding the difficulties that have occurred from time to time.

It is more than appropriate that the goodwill that had been built over many years is maintained. One of the features that led to the legislation being enacted in thIS form is a commitment by employer and trade union organisations, perhaps not shared as strongly by the Opposition and the National Party, that WorkCare ought to be a viable scheme.

It is also clear again, a view perhaps not shared by the Opposition and the National Party, according to their contributions during the second-reading debate and in Committee-that not only should WorkCare be viable, but that the premiums should be competitive. It remains the case-as occurred when there was a substantial reduction in premiums previously-that WorkCare premiums are cheaper than those under any previous workers compensation system.

It is also clear that the premiums that have been provided for employers were as a result of reforms attempted by the government. It is all right for the Opposition, after seven years, to contemplate at some stage in the future developing a policy on WorkCare, but it had 27 years in which to develop an alternative system of workers compensation in this State. One of the important issues before the Committee is the need to retain as a key feature of the WorkCare system the cooperation between employers and employees in the management of Work Care.


It is for those reasons that the government cannot accede to the Opposition's proposals that the tripartite nature of Work Care be abolished with the administrative reform that would diminish the cooperation built up over many years in the management of Work Care by employers and employees.

The Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Jika Jika Province)-I strongly oppose the new clause. As the Minister said, the WorkCare model involves significant tripartite arrangements that are in many respects similar to the successful tripartite arrangements that have operated under the accord.

The Opposition does not understand the way the government operates, which is by working through a consensus model. Such a consensus model can be achieved only if the relevant parties are adequately represented.

The new clause would not only terminate the existing membership of the board of the Accident Compensation Commission, but would make it possible for a Minister to replace any representative whom he wanted to replace. In fact, it could be possiblethis probably has not occurred to honourable members opposite-to exclude an employer representative as well as a trade union representative.

The WorkCare system involves a tripartite group of employers, unions and the ~overnment in partnership to provide the appropriate care for injured workers. That IS a fundamental philosophical underpinning of the proposed legislation, because WorkCare is a social reform.

The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western Province)-The Minister omitted to say to the Committee that the proposed amendment gives the Minister complete discretion to appoint members of the Accident Compensation Commission. The Minister, therefore, can still provide that tripartite mix that exists at the moment.

The Hon. B. W. Mier intetjected.

The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN-IfMr Mier does not trust his Minister, that is his problem. The amendment gives that discretion to the Minister, and the Opposition believes he should have that discretion. For the Minister to suggest that the Opposition is not interested in a viable scheme is nonsense. The viability of the scheme is what the Opposition has been on about since 1985. The Opposition pointed out to the government then that WorkCare would not be viable and it is still not viable. The Minister's throw-away remark that the Opposition is not interested in a viable scheme is palpable nonsense.

The Committee divided on the new clause (the Hon. K.. I. M. Wright in the chair). Ayes 21 Noes 17

Majority for the new clause

AYES MrAshman MrBaxter MrBest Mr Birrell Mr Chamberlain MrConnard MrCox MrCraige MrdeFegely MrEvans MrGuest MrHallam

4

NOES Mrs Cox sedge MrCrawford MrDavidson MrHenshaw Mrlves MrKennedy Ms Kokocinski MrsLyster MrsMcLean Mr Mackenzie MrMier MrPullen

Accident Compensation Bill

AYES MrKnowles MrLawson MrMacey MrSmith MrStorey Mrs Tehan Mrs Varty

Tellers MrMiles MrSkeggs

MrHall MrLong

20 September 1989

PAIRS

I The Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia Province )-1 move: Insert the following new clauses to follow new clause A:

Annual report of Commission

'B. In section 37 of the Principal Act-

(a) in sub-section (2), for paragraph (aa) substitute

"(aa) include a report on staffing;";

COUNCIL

NOES MrSgro MrWalker MrWhite

Tellers Mr Tbeophanous MrVanBuren

MrsHogg Mr Landeryou

663

(b) in sub-section (3) (a), after "contain" insert "an income and expenditure statement and such other";

(c) in sub-section (3) (c), after "end of that year" insert", including a comparison with the financial projections in the Commission's budget for that year";

(d) after sub-section (3) (c) insert-

"(ca) for the year ending 30 June 1990, include statistical information in respect of the year ending 30 June 1986 and each subsequent year ending 30 June, including the year to which the report relates;

(cb) for the year ending on 30 June 1991 and each subsequent year, include statistical information for that year and the two preceding years;";

(e) sub-sections (4) and (5) are repealed.'.

New sections 37 A, 37B, 37C and 37D inserted

C. After section 37 of the Principal Act insert

Quarterly report

"37A. (1) The Commission must, in respect of each quarter ending on 30 September, 31 December and 31 March prepare a quarterly report containing-

(a) a report of its operations during the quarter; and (b) financial statements for the quarter.

(2) The Commission must submit each quarterly report to the Minister-




(a) include a statement as to the extent to which the objectives of the Commission under section 19 were achieved by the Commission in that quarter; and

(b) include a report on staffing; and

(c) include any written directions given during the quarter to the Commission by the Minister under section 22; and

(d) be prepared in a form and contain information determined by the Board to be appropriate; and


(e) contain any further information required by the Minister.

(4) The financial statements must-(a) contain an income and expenditure statement and such other information as is determined by

the Treasurer to be appropriate; and (b) be prepared in a manner and form approved by the Treasurer; and

(c) present fairly the results of the financial transactions of the Commission during the quarter to which they relate and the financial position as at the end of that quarter and for the financial year up to the end of that quarter;

(cl) include a report, prepared on actuarial advice, comparing the results of the transactions during the quarter with the financial projections in the Commisison's budget; and

(e) include statistical information in respect of the corresponding quarter and year to date of the preceding year and for each quarter of the current financial year to the end of the quarter to which the report relates; and

(j) be signed by the principal accounting officer (by whatever name called) of the Commission and by the Chairperson and another director who must-(i) state whether in their opinion the financial statements present fairly the results of the

financial transactions of the Commission during the quarter to which they relate and whether they sufficiently explain the financial position of the Commission as at the end of the quarter; and

(ii) state whether at the date of signing the financial statements they were aware of any circumstances that would render any particulars included in the statements misleading or inaccurate, and if so, particulars of the circumstances; and

(g) be audited as required by section 38.".

Actuarial reports

"37B. (1) The Commission must, in respect of each period of six months ending on 30 June or 31 December, prepare an actuarial report.

(2) The Commission must submit each actuarial report to the Minister-(a) not later than the end of the period of three months after the six months in respect of which

the report was prepared; or

(b) if the report is not available on that date, as soon as it is available.

(3) The report must-(a) set out the actuarial reporting guidelines in accordance with which the report is prepared; and

(b) include at least two independent actuarial estimates of outstanding claims liability and unfunded liabilities as at the end of the period; and

(c) include a comparison of the data in the report with data in respect of the corresponding period in the last preceding year; and

(cl) disclose the assumptions on which the data in the report is compiled and the source of the assumptions. "


"37C. (1) The Minister must, within 14 days after receiving a report under section 37, 37A or 37B, cause a copy to be given to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the President of the Legislative Council.

(2) The Speaker and the President must cause to be given to each member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council, as the case requires, a copy of each report received under section 37, 37A or 37B.

(3) A report received under section 37, 37A or 37B, upon its receipt by the Speaker or the President, is deemed to have been published by order or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council, as the case requires."


"37D. "If the Commission fails to submit a report to the Minister in accordance with section 37 (lA) (a), 37A (2) (a) or 37B (2) (a), the Minister must cause each House of the Parliament to be advised of the failure and the reasons for it.".

Accident Compensation Bill 20 September 1989

Amendment of section 38

'D. In section 38 of the Principal Act, for sub-section (2) substitute


COUNCIL 665

(a) has in respect ofthe audit of the financial statements all the powers conferred on the AuditorGeneral by any law relating to the audit of the public accounts; and

(b) may conduct any audit or examination he or she considers necessary to determine whether the Commission is achieving its objects and doing so economically and efficiently and in compliance with this Act.".'

Reports of Tribunal

'E. (1) After section 78 (2) (ab) of the Principal Act insert-

"(ac) include statistical information for the year about questions and matters referred to the Tribunal;

(ad) include information for the year about numbers and classes of members and staff of the Tribunal;".'

(2) In section 78 of the Principal Act, sub-sections (4) and (5) are repealed.

(3) After section 78 (6) of the Principal Act insert-

Quarterly reports

"78A. (1) The Tribunal Executive must, in respect of each quarter ending on 30 September, 31 December and 31 March prepare a quarterly report containing-

(a) a report of the Tribunal's operations during the quarter; and


(2) The Tribunal Executive must submit the quarterly report to the Minister-



(3) The report of operations referred to in sub-section (1) (a) shall-

(a) be prepared in a form and contain information determined by the Tribunal Executive after consultation with the Registrar to be appropriate;

(b) include a full report of money borrowed during that quarter indicating the purpose of the borrowing and details of the expenditure of that money;

(c) include a full report of the Registrar's investments under section 131 during that quarter and an independent assessment of the return of those investments;

(d) include statistical information for the quarter about questions and matters referred to the Tribunal;

(e) include information for the quarter about numbers and classes of members and staff of the Tribunal; and

(j) contain any further information required by the Minister.

(4) The financial statements referred to in sub-section (1) (b) must-

(a) contain information determined by the Treasurer to be appropriate;

(b) be prepared in a manner and form approved by the Treasurer;

(c) present fairly the results of the financial transactions of the Tribunal during the quarter to which they relate and the financial position as at the end of that quarter; and

(d) be signed by the principal accounting officer (by whatever name called) of the Tribunal and by the Registrar and another member who shall-

(i) state whether in their opinion the financial statements present fairly the results of the financial transactions of the Tribunal during the quarter to which they relate and whether they sufficiently explain the financial position of the Tribunal as at the end of the quarter; and


(ii) state whether at the date of signing the financial statements they were aware of any circumstances that would render any particulars included in the statements misleading or inaccurate and ifso particulars of the circumstances; and

(e) be audited as required by section 79.".

PubUcadoDofrepo~

"78B. (1) The Minister must, within 14 days after receiving a report under section 78 and 78A, cause a copy to be given to the Speaker of the Legisative Assembly and the President of the Legislative Council.

(2) The Speaker and the President must cause to be given to each member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council, as the case requires, a copy of each report received under section 78 or 78A.

(3) A report received under section 78 or 78A, upon its receipt by the Speaker or the President, is deemed to have been published by Order or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council, as the case requires.".

Failure to submit repo~

"78C. If the Tribunal Executive fails to submit a report to the Minister in accordance with section 78 (2) (a) or 78A (2) (a) the Minister shall report or cause to be reported that failure and the reasons for it to each House of the Parliament."

(4) In section 79 of the Principal Act, for sub-section (2) substitute



(b) may conduct any audit or examination he or she considers necessary to determine whether the Tribunal is achieving its objects and doing so economically and efficiently and in compliance with this Act."

ConsdtudoD of the Council

'F. (1) In section 161 of the Principal Act-

(a) in sub-section (2) after "Directors" insert", who shall be natural persons,"; and (b) in sub-section (2), the words "of whom" and paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) are repealed;

and (c) sub-section (3) is repealed.

(2) The members of the Council holding office under the Principal Act immediately before the commencement of this section, unless appointed under section 161 of the Principal Act as amended by this Act, go out of office on the commencement of this section.'.

Annual report of Council

'G. (1) After section 176 (l)(a) of the Principal Act insert

"(00) a report in accordance with sub-section (2A);".

(2) After section 176 (2) of the Principal Act insert-

"(2A) The report referred to in sub-section (1) (00) must include-

(a) the number of applications received during the year for approval or registration as providers of rehabilitation services;

(b) the number of providers of rehabilitation services approved or registered as at the end of the year;

(c) the names and addresses of approved or registered providers as at the end of the year;

(d) the number of referrals for rehabilitation programs accepted during the year;

(e) statistical information about referrals during the year, including the number of referrals to providers of rehabilitation services operated by the Council and to providers of other rehabilitation services and the classes of persons by whom referrals were made;

(j) the number of persons accepted during the year for rehabilitation after assessment;

(g) the number of persons referred to the Council during the year for rehabilitation and toe classes of persons by whom they were referred;


(h) the number of rehabilitation plans approved during the year;

(i) statistics for the year about the period between submission of a rehabilitation plan and its approval and information comparing that information with the Council's aims;

U) the average cost of plans approved during the year and a comparison of those costs with costs of approval of plans during the preceding year;

(k) information about the number of rehabilitation referrals ended during the year and a comparison of that information with information in relation to the preceding financial year;

(/) information about the number of persons referred during the year for retraining and the costs of retraining programs;

(m) information about persons deemed unsuitable during the year for rehabilitation because the employer has not provided employment, the worker has accepted a suitable job or the worker has failed to participate in a rehabilitation program;

(n) information about the numbers of staff employed by the Council during the year."

(3) In section 176, sub-sections (4) and (5) are repealed.

New sections 176A, 176B and 176C inserted

'H. After section 176 of the Principal Act insert

Quarterly report

"176A. (I) The Council must in respect of each quarter ending on 30 September, 31 December and 31 March prepare a quarterly report containing-


(b) a report in accordance with sub-section (4); and

(c) financial statements for the quarter.

(2) The Council must submit each quarterly report to the Minister-




(a) include a statement as to the extent to which the objectives of the Council under section 158 and the functions under section 159 were achieved by the Council in that quarter;

(b) include a full report of money borrowed during the quarter, indicating the purpose of borrowing and details of the expenditure of the money;

(c) include an independent assessment of the return of investments made by the Council during the quarter;

(d) include any written directions given during the quarter to the Council by the Minister under section 169;

(e) be prepared in a form and contain information determined by the Council to be appropriate; and

(j) contain any further information required by the Minister.

(4) The report referred to in sub-section (1) (b) must include-

(a) the number of applications received during the quarter for approval or registration as providers of rehabilitation services;

(iJ) the number of providers of rehabilitation services approved or registered as at the end of the quarter;

(c) the names and addresses of newly approved or registered providers as at the end of the quarter,

(d) the number of referrals for rehabilitation programs accepted during the quarter;

(e) statistical information about referrals during the quarter, including the number of referrals to providers of rehabilitation services operated by the Council and to providers of other rehabilitation services and the classes of persons by whom referrals were made;

(j) the number of persons accepted during the quarter for rehabilitation after assessment;


(g) the number of persons referred to the Council during the quarter for rehabilitation and the classes of persons by whom they were referred;

(h) the number of rehabilitation plans approved during the quarter;

(i) statistics for the quarter about the period between submission of a rehabilitation plan and its approval and information comparing that information with the Council's aims;

U) the average cost of plans approved during the quarter and a comparison of those costs with costs of approval of plans during the preceding quarter;

(k) information about the number of rehabilitation cases closed during the quarter and a comparison of that information with information in relation to the previous quarter;

(/) information about the number of persons referred during the quarter for retraining and the costs of retraining programs;

(m) information about persons deemed unsuitable during the quarter for rehabilitation because the employer has not provided employment, the worker has accepted a suitable job or the worker has failed to participate in a rehabilitation program;

(n) information about the numbers of staff employed by the Council during the quarter.

(4) The financial statements referred to in sub-section (1) (c) must-

(a) contain information determined by the Treasurer to be appropriate;

(b) include information about the number of audits undertaken by the Council during the quarter and information about the outcome of the audits and the classes of persons in relation to whom they were undertaken;

(c) include information about accounts submitted for payment by the Council by providers of rehabilitation services and information about the period of payment of accounts, together with a comparison of those periods in relation to information for the preceding quarter;

(cl) be prepared in a manner and form approved by the Treasurer;

(e) present fairly the results of the financial transactions of the Council during the quarter to which they relate and the financial position as at the end of that quarter; and

(j) be signed by the principal accounting officer (by whatever name called) of the Council and by the Chairperson and another member who must-

(i) state whether in their opinion the financial statements present fairly the results of the financial transactions of the Council during the quarter to which they relate and whether they sufficiently explain the financial position of the Council as at the end of the quarter; and

(ii) state whether at the date of signing the financial statements they were aware of any circumstances that would render any particulars included in the statements misleading or inaccurate and ifso particulars of the circumstances; and

(g) be audited as required by section 177."


"176B. (1) The Minister must, within 14 days after receiving a report under section 176 or 176A cause a copy to be given to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the President of the Legislative Council.

(2) The Speaker and the President must cause to be given to each member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council, as the case requires, a copy of each report received under section 176 or 176A.

(3) A report received under section 176 or 176A, upon its receipt by the Speaker or the President, is deemed to have been published by Order or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council, as the case requires."

Failure to submit a report

"176C. If the Council fails to submit a quarterly report to the Minister in accordance with section 176 (2) (a) or 176A (2) (a), the Minister must report or cause to be reported that failure and the reasons for it to each House of the Parliament.".'


Amendment of section 177

'I. In section 177 of the Principal Act, for sub-section (2) substitute


669


(b) may conduct any audit or examination he or she considers necessary to determine whether the Council is achieving its objectives and doing so economically and efficiently and in compliance with this Act.".'

The new clauses were agreed to.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province )-1 move: 61. Insert the following new clause to follow clause 11:

Authorised agents

'ZA. After section 32 (8) of the Principal Act insert-

"(9) An employer may apply to the Commission to be appointed an authorised agent of the Commission in respect of claims made by workers of the employer.

(10) If the Commission refuses to appoint an employer under sub-section (9) or imposes terms and conditions of appointment the employer may apply to the Appeals Board for a review of the Commission's decision or of the terms and conditions ofappointment.".'

The new clause is aimed at providing a mechanism whereby some employers can apply to the Accident Compensation Commission for approval to be appointed as authorised agents of the commission in respect of claims made by workers of those employers.

It is a valid provision in that there has been a lot of difficulty with claims agents. Some of the larger employers have sufficient administration systems in place to deal with WorkCare claims, and there seems to be no reason why they cannot act as their own claims agents and deal directly with the commission.

Upon reading the new clause, honourable members will note that it is not an as-of-right provision; employers can become agents only with the approval of the commission. In other words, they cannot elect of their own volition to undertake activities of authorised claims agents. I suspect that the new clause will not apply to many employers, but it will be appropriate in some circumstances.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-New clause ZA provides that the Accident Compensation Commission, upon application by an employer, may appoint an employer as an authorised claims agent. A refusal to so appoint, or the imposition of terms and conditions, will entitle an employer to appeal to ~he appeals board.

In opposing the clause the government makes it clear that it supports greater involvement of employers in the operation of Work Care. The government has already encouraged greater involvement of employers in the provision of rehabilitation services, and there have been encouraging signs about the success of that involvement.

The government is also willing to consider the possibility of employers being authorised claims agents. The rights of injured workers would need to be protected and if it could be demonstrated that workers were protected, a greater involvement would be possible.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-I take it from the Minister's remarks that he is giving an undertaking that the new clause will be examined with a view to the government introducing proposed legislation of its own in the near future to achieve a similar objective. If that is the case, I shall not persist with the new clause.


The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-The undertaking is not so specific that the government will pick up the provisions of the new clause, but it will take initiatives to enhance the role of employers in this State.

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-I shall allow the Minister to have his way on the basis that he will take further action.

The new clause was negatived.

The HOD. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia Province )-1 move: 46. Insert the following new clause to follow clause 13:

New section 154A inserted

'1. After section 154 of the Principal Act insert

Reports by Treasurer on self-insurers

"154A. (1) The Treasurer must in respect of each financial year prepare an annual report on the financial and claims performance of each self-insurer.

(2) The Treasurer must cause a copy of the report to be given to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the President of the Legislative Council-

(a) not later than 30 September next following the financial year in respect of which the report was prepared; or

(b) if the report is not available on that date, as soon as it is available.

(3) The Speaker and the President must cause to be given to each member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council, as the case requires, a copy of each report received under this section.

(4) A report under this section, upon its receipt by the Speaker or the President is deemed to have been published by Order or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council as the case requires ....

The new clause will require more accountability in relation to self-insurers. It requires reports to be prepared and tabled in relation to self-insurance schemes.

The new clause was agreed to.

The HOD. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province )-1 move: 62. Insert the following new clause to follow clause 20:

ReplatioDS

'ZB. After section 253 (3) of the Principal Act insert-

"(4) Where, under sub-section (3), either House of the Parliament disallows any regulation, or any regulation is deemed to have been disallowed, no regulation, being the same in substance as the regulation so disallowed, or deemed to have been disallowed, shall be made within 6 months after the date of the disallowance, unless-

(a) in the case of a regulation disallowed by resolution-the resolution has been rescinded by the House of the Parliament by which it was passed; or

(b) in the case of a regulation deemed to have been disallowed-the House of the Parliament in which notice of the motion to disallow the regulation was given by resolution approves the making of a regulation the same in substance as the regulation deemed to have been disallowed.

(5) Any regulation made in contravention of this section shall be void and of no effect .... '

The new clause relates to the matter of regulations. Honourable members will recall that when the 1987 amending legislation was debated, an amendment was inserted in the principal Act, which has now become traditional, to allow disallowance of regulations by either House of Parliament. One would have hoped that that would be sufficient; however, unfortunately, this government cannot be trusted in the matter of regulations in the same way that it cannot be trusted in the matter of simultaneous or complete promulgation of the clauses of various Bills Parliament has agreed to.


Honourable members should recall the situation that applied when regulations were promulgated under the Firearms Act. The regulations were disallowed by Parliament, but, 10 and behold, the next day the Premier rushed in through the Executive Council a measure designed to have an identical impact as the regulation that had been disallowed by Parliament.

The new clause will prevent that contrivance being indulged in by the government. It provides that if a regulation is disallowed by Parliament a fresh regulation of similar intent cannot be promulgated until at least six months have elapsed. It will simply be a safeguard against a government that sometimes chooses to ignore the wishes of Parliament.

The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western Province)-Mr Chairman, you will recall that the Chamber struck a situation where, after our disallowing a regulation concerning firearms, only 4 or 5 hours later the regulation was reinstated by the government. The amendment proposes something similar to a practice of the Commonwealth Senate that has been in operation since 1932. The Opposition will support the amendment.

The new clause was agreed to.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I move: 26. Insert the following new clause to follow clause 22:·

Transitional provision-section 97 A

.. AA. (I) Section 97 A of the Principal Act as amended by this Act is deemed to have come into operation on the appointed day.

(2) Despite sub-section (1), a person is not entitled to recover an amount paid to a person under the Workers Compensation Act 1958 or the Accident Compensation Act 1985 before the commencement of this section, being an amount that, by reason of section 97A, the person was not liable to pay.".

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-Mr Chairman, on advice from the Clerk, because of a consequential amendment that has been the subject of consideration, my amendment has become redundant. I seek leave of the Committee to withdraw the new clause.

By leave, the new clause was withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN-Order! As a consequence of the decisions made by the Committee, the references in clause 2, as amended, are now inaccurate.

In order to simplify proceedings, I suggest to the Committee that it now reconsider clause 2 in its original form.

Clause 2 was recommitted.

The Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Boronia Province)-I move: That clause 2 in its original form be now amended as follows:

1. Clause 2, line 6, omit "sub-sections (2) and (3)" and insert "this section".

2. Clause 2, after line 7, insert-

"( ) Sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 29 come into operation on a day to be proclaimed.

( ) Sections 11 and 16 come into operation on 1 January 1990."

3. Clause 2, line 8, omit "27" (where first occurring) and insert "37".

4. Clause 2, line 10, omit "27" and insert "37".

These amendments are moved in lieu of the Minister's amendments because they are consequential on the adoption of new clauses and other amendments to the Bill.

672 COUNCIL 20 September 1989 Adjournment

The amendments were agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted.

The Bill was reported to the House with amendments.

The Hon. D. R. WHITE (Minister Assisting the Treasurer)-I move: That this Bill be now read a third time.

In doing so I shall refer to one matter that was raised by Mr Chamberlain. He expressed concern about a clause on which I was seeking further advice. The outstanding matters that he raised have been inserted in the existing Bill and will work in an appropriate way. The government believes there is no case for further amendments to be made.

I thank honourable members for their support during the complex Committee stage of the Bill, and in particular I thank the Chairman of Committees.

The PRESIDENT-Order! The question is: that the Bill be now read a third time. Honourable members will recall my previous advice that, in my opinion, the second and third readings of the Bill require an absolute majority. I therefore ask honourable members in favour of the third reading of the Bill to stand in their places so that I can determine whether there is an absolute majority.

I declare that the third reading of the Bill is carried by an absolute majority.

The motion for the third reading of the Bill was agreed to by an absolute majority of the whole number of the members of the House, and the Bill was read a third time.

ADJOURNMENT The Hon. E. H. WALKER (Minister for the Arts)-I move: That the Council, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, October 10.

The motion was agreed to.

The House adjourned at 12.57 a.m. (Thursday) until Tuesday, October 10.

Death o/the Hon. Kenneth Samuel Gross 10 October 1989 COUNCIL 673

Tuesday, 10 October 1989

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. A. J. Hunt) took the chair at 3.3 p.m. and read the prayer.

DEATH OF THE HONOURABLE KENNETH SAMUEL GROSS

The Hon. E. H. WALKER (Minister for the Arts)-I move:

That this House expresses its sincere sorrow at the death, on 2 October 1989, of the Honourable Kenneth Samuel Gross and places on record its acknowledgment of the valuable services rendered by him to the Parliament and the people of Victoria as a member of the Legislative Council for the Western Province from 1958 to 1976.

Although Ken Gross ceased to be a member of this House only relatively recently I cannot say that I knew him personally, but I certainly knew of him. In preparing a few comments to make today, I rang one or two of my contacts in the area where Ken lived to ask them about him and to get a sense of the man. I was delighted to find that he was held in very high regard. He was a grain and sheep farmer at Drung Drung, near Horsham, and my informants tell me that he was a great innovator in agricultural practice. He tried new crops and farming systems and he was, in the words of one of the persons I spoke to, a real leader in the farming community and a good farmer.

Ken Gross had a strong political following as a member for Western Province. One or two comments were made about his capacity to make strong relationships. As one person said, "You either loved him or you didn't love him"-actually, he put it a little differently-but he was a man who was forthright, which goes along with the notion of his being an innovator. He was regarded as a very good manager and chairman of meetings and a good representative of farmers. He represented their cause for many years in the Parliament and elsewhere.

He was appointed to the chairmanship of the Grain Elevators Board after leaving the House, and that appointment was somewhat controversial. I do not intend to go into the detail of that, but it is an interesting story. His appointment caused some tensions within what was then the Victorian Farmers Union, which is now the Victorian Farmers Federation. Some legal action was taken at one point, but as chairman of the GEB he handled the job extremely well. It was said to me that he was a person who brought modern management to the board. He made some quite dramatic changes, and he understood the need for real change. He was very good at explaining the functions and work of the GEB to growers across the State.

It was said of Ken that he could take good, hard decisions, and that speaks volumes about the sort of person he was. I know that other honourable members, particularly those from Mr Gross's party, want to make comments. It was a pleasure, in talking to one or two people who knew him well, to find that he had been a very good member of Parliament and a very good representative of his electorate. On behalf of government members I express our condolences to his wife, two sons and one daughter.

The Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra Province )-On behalf of the Opposition I join with the Leader of the House in expressing the sympathy of the House to the family of the late Honourable Ken Gross. Ken Gross was born on 4 November 1924

Session 1989-23

674 COUNCIL 10 October 1989 Death of the Hon. Kenneth Samuel Gross

at Horsham and died on 2 October this year, at the age of 64. He was a former longstanding member for Western Province. He was elected to Parliament in an excellent year, 1958, and represented the Liberal Party in the seat of Western Province.

His interests and concerns were considerable and included the plight of primary industry, for which he was an extremely strong advocate; agricultural matters, particularly agricultural science; road safety, including his concern to improve motor vehicle safety through a period of major reforms; and the education of young children. One sees, from looking through the speeches made by Ken in the Council and in numerous public forums, particularly in rural Victoria, that those topics came up frequently. He was a temporary Chairman of Committees in the Council and the Chairman of the Subordinate Legislation Committee.

Ken Gross was a farmer who was concerned about farming interests. His property, named Roseneath, east of Horsham, was founded by his forebears, who were pioneers in the Wimmera district. Ken was a former Vice-President of the Horsham Agricultural Society and was actively involved in the society long after he retired as vice-president. Ken gave long and distinguished service to local government, especially to the Wimmera shire. He was one of many members who served an apprenticeship in local government before entering the House. He was educated at the State primary and high schools of Horsham and was later trustee of the Horsham Kindergarten Association and Chairman of the Horsham State School Committee. The education of young children was one of his primary concerns.

Ken was a keen cricketer and a former Vice-President of the Horsham Cricket Association. It is clear, from reading of his achievements and the positions he held, that he was an eminent individual in Horsham. He was also prominent in many service clubs, such as the Horsham Apex Club, and his long service to that organisation was rewarded with life membership.

The Liberal Party recalls his contribution very well. Ken Gross actively pursued the interests that he outlined in Parliament and gave back much to his local community and political party. He represented both enthusiastically, especially constituents for whom he felt concern.

Ken Gross was Chairman of the Grain Elevators Board. Although there may have been some controversy about his appointment, the community had a great deal of respect for the work he did and his contribution won him praise well outside any political boundaries. He adopted a practical and businesslike approach to his demanding tasks. He travelled extensively within Australia and overseas to inspect grain handling facilities and built on that experience to improve Victoria's grain handling system. The responsibility for improving the GEB's bulk handling network in Victoria rested largely with him. In 1980 Ken Gross was appointed chairman of the grain handling improvement authorities, and his expertise in and vast knowledge of grain handling meant he was the best person for the job.

I regret that I did not know Ken Gross personally. From reading his background it is clear to me that he made a great contribution to this House, to Parliament and to the people of Victoria. My colleagues will be able to speak in more detail about his contribution to the agricultural industry in this State.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity of paying tribute, on behalf of my colleagues, to his work. On behalf of the Opposition I extend condolences and sympathies to the family of the late Honourable Ken Gross.

Death of the Hon. Kenneth Samuel Gross 10 October 1989 COUNCIL 675

The Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern Province)-I desire to associate members of the National Party with this condolence motion to mark the passing of the late Honourable Ken Gross. I knew him when I was a member of the other place in the early 1970s. Subsequently I had a good deal to do with him when he was Chairman of the Grain Elevators Board.

It is unfortunate that Mr Gross died at the relatively young age of 64 years. He served in this Parliament for some eighteen years, and in that time made quite a mark, particularly as a spokesman on primary industry. He retired or stepped down from Parliament at the again relatively young age of 51 years. Although there may have been some reason for his taking that step-something to do with redistribution-he was able to carve out another career as Chairman of the Grain Elevators Board.

Despite the controversy that may have attended his appointment to that position, he certainly made his mark. Ken Gross chaired the board in what can be described as difficult times, including some years of extremely high yield in Victoria when there was a surplus of grain and insufficient storage space. He was a key player in the establishment of the bunker system, which was used as temporary storage and certainly assisted the growers out of difficulty at that time. That system has proved to be a reasonably cheap means of safely storing grain for relatively short periods.

Ken Gross was also chairman of the board in the 1982 season, which was one of Victoria's record lows; a most serious drought in Victoria put a lot of growers under extreme financial pressure. The Leader o( the House noted that Mr Gross had a reputation for being a good chairman of meetings, and I can vouch for that. One reason was that he was a man of considerable physical stature. That is a useful attribute for a chairman of a meeting, but Ken Gross had other more important attributes, such as a sound grasp of the language and the facts, which also help in controlling meetings.

I recall attending a grain growers' protest meeting at Yarrawonga where Mr Gross was under attack for alleged actions and shortcomings of the board. Although at the conclusion of the meeting the growers may not have agreed entirely with the board's actions, they were at least assured and convinced that the chairman had a good grasp of the facts and that he was running the board and its facilities in a correct and proper manner. I believe he cleared the air considerably on that occasion and, as Mr Birrell said, he did so in many other meetings around the State.

The family of Ken Gross can be proud of his record in Parliament and, more particularly, as Chairman of the Grain Elevators Board. I record the condolences of members of the National Party and extend their sympathy to his family.

The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Western Province )-Mr President, I was pleased to join you last week at the Uniting Church in Horsham in paying tribute to Ken Gross for his service to Parliament and to the wider community. When I was a member of the Legislative Assembly I shared an electorate with Ken for three years. Subsequently I succeeded him as a representative of Western Province. At that time it was suggested, unkindly, by some people that Ken Gross was offered a job to make way for me in the Upper House because my Lower House seat had disappeared in the redistribution. I am flattered by that suggestion, but I can assure the House that I had to withstand a heavily contested preselection process to be eligible for election.

Ken Gross believed his eighteen years in public office had put him in a position where he could better serve in a practical way the rural community that he loved so much. In the three years I shared an electorate with him, Ken was a source of much


practical advice for me, as also was the late Don McKellar. They were two eminently sensible, practical, plain-speaking farmers. As a young member of Parliament I discovered that I was constantly being educated about how to look after the needs of a rural electorate.

As the Leader of the House said, during Ken's six years as Chairman of the Grain Elevators Board there was much change in the industry and a need to make some difficult decisions. At times those decisions proved to be controversial and unpopular, but Ken Gross never shied away from his responsibilities, which in that case were to have an efficient grain handling system. He constantly travelled the State to ensure that the message was conveyed to farmers. As Mr Baxter said, although those who met him may not have totally agreed with him, they could not argue with the way he handled the issues and himself.

Ken Gross was a practical farmer and he was never afraid of change. He was often experimenting with new crops, or crops new to the district, or new methods. The views he held on issues were strongly held. When he was chairman of the GEB I recall having a number of verbal stand-up fights about the way grain should be handled in the port of Portland. Ken had strong views, which he put well, and had the facts to back them up. He was a man who represented and worked for the interests of the wider Victorian community for 24 years, and any member of this House would be proud to look back on such a record of achievement.

After he left the Grain Elevators Board he retained his interest in the Liberal Party and worked actively for its advancement in that area of Victoria. He supported current moves for a much closer working relationship between the Liberal and National parties.

On behalf of my family, I wish to assure Ken's wife, Heather, of our thoughts at this time. I hope we can be of some assistance to her and her two sons and daughter in the years ahead.

The Hon. R. J. LONG (Gippsland Province)-I also desire to associate myself with this condolence motion. When I came to this Chamber Ken Gross was also a member, and we had both been members of an Apex Club, an association that we cherished. It is true that Ken had strong opinions. Nobody could say he was a yes-man. He would argue extremely long and willingly on any view that he arrived at, particularly on agricultural matters. I had some long debates with Ken Gross and I respected his opinion.

After he left Parliament he became the Chairman of the Grain Elevators Board. He came to lunch at Parliament House on many occasions and we would exchange views. Nobody could say he was afraid of making a decision and sticking to it, because he was a fighter of the first order.

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned his sporting prowess. He omitted to mention that he was an extremely good billiard and snooker player. For all the years he was here, he was the champion billiard and snooker player of this place. Of course, after he left I happened to follow suit to some extent. However, we had some interesting games of billiards.

I am extremely sorry that Ken Gross has left us. I express my condolences to his wife and family and I am delighted to have had the opportunity of knowing him. The world will be the poorer for his passing.

The Hon. HADDON STOREY (East Yarra Province)-I should like to be associated with the sentiments expressed by other honourable members. When I first became a member of this House I was placed close to Ken Gross. Although I was city born and

Death o/the Hon. Kenneth Samuel Gross 10 October 1989 COUNCIL 677

bred, he was very friendly towards me. He educated me on country matters. He was always forthcoming in explaining the House and how Parliament worked. He was generally friendly and helpful to a new member of the House, and I appreciated that.

I share the view that other speakers have already expressed: he spoke forcibly on those matters on which he felt strongly. He put his point of view clearly and often sucessfully. He was an excellent member of Parliament. He represented his constituents well and was always prepared to stand up and raise matters on their behalf.

My main memory of hiln is of somebody who readily and willingly. spoke to newcomers to this House and helped them on their path. I appreciated the friendliness and kindness he showed to me and I also appreciated all that I learnt from him about matters rural.

The Hon. R. I. KNOWLES (Ballarat Province)-I also wish to be associated with this motion. Ken Gross left Parliament at the time I joined it but I got to know him well through our mutual friendship with the late Don McKellar. Their friendship continued many years after Ken retired from Parliament.

My experience with Ken on a personal basis was that he was always keen to assist and help young members to understand their role in Parliament. As other speakers have said, he was forthright in expressing his views. The greatest contribution that I remember being made by Ken Gross was as Chairman of the Grain Elevators Board. He took that on at a time of enormous change. In fact, he led that change fearlessly. He had a clear understanding and vision of the changes that were required and he was not afraid of explaining to an often sceptical or hostile audience the changes that he thought needed to be undertaken.

Another great attribute of his was that he was never afraid of going anywhere in the State and explaining or defending the changes that he was espousing. Other speakers have conveyed their experience of his addressing meetings where people left perhaps not fully convinced but certainly understanding the reasons for the change. The improvements that he led in the grain handling system in this State will long stand as a fine testament to his leadership.

I also convey to his wife, Heather, and their family my condolences at his premature passing.

The Hon. R. S. de FEGELY (Ballarat Province)-I also wish to be associated with this motion. I did not know Ken Gross in politics but I certainly got to know him well after he left this place. Ken was straightforward, always spoke with commonsense and was ready to give advice whenever it was sought.

I remember the controversy surrounding his appointment to the chairmanship of the Grain Elevators Board. As primarily a wool grower, not a wheat grower, I was able to be objective. The feeling of some at the time was that his appointment was perhaps political. I am sure that feeling was proved to be wrong as time went by and people realised his value as chairman of the board and what he did for that organisation.

I had quite a deal to do with Ken when, as a member of the Liberal Party's agricultural policy committee, I was asked to put together a policy on the grain industry. Because the Liberal Party at that time was thin on the ground with wheat growers-I was a wool grower and minor wheat grower-only one person came to mind immediately, and I rang Ken and asked him for assistance. That assistance was forthcoming and Ken met with the committee on many occasions and helped formulate the policy. Ken was way ahead of his time, and he has since been proved correct. He pushed for deregulation of the wheat industry, which at that time was extremely


unpopular. He also had views about what should happen with the Australian Wheat Board, which I probably should not enunciate here because they would probably still be fairly unpopular in certain sections of the wheat industry.

Ken Gross was always thinking ahead and looking to the betterment of the industry and the betterment of his fellow farmers. He will be sadly missed in all sections of the industry, in his district and, of course, greatly missed by his family. He remained a strong supporter of the Liberal Party. Unlike other members ofParhament who retire and move right away from the political scene, Ken always kept a close involvement with the party and attended State councils as a delegate from his area.

At election time he would ring me every morning for a report on how things were going in our part of the world. He kept me on the ball because often there was not a lot to report from day to day. At 7.30 each morning he would ring and ask what happened yesterday and what was plan:ned for today.

He showed interest in his fellow man, in his party and in the betterment of this country for all Australians. He will be sadly missed, and I extend my sympathy to his wife and family.

The Hon. B. A. E. SKEGGS (Templestowe Province)-I add my tribute on the life of the late Honourable Ken Gross, whom I first knew when he was President of the Horsham Agricultural Society and I was a young commentator. I met him at the Horsham showground. At that time he was closely associated with the late Mick Mibus, who served in the Victorian Parliament as the Minister of Water Supply and Minister of Mines. Both Ken Gross and Mick Mibus were closely associated with the Horsham Agricultural Society.

In later years I got to know Ken Gross when I was a member of the Legislative Assembly and he was serving in this place, both representing the Liberal Party. He was a man of great integrity, upright and a strong advocate. He was a very effective lobbyist on matters he wanted to pursue, not only within Parliamentary circles but at large. He had a firm point of view and expressed that view with great conviction.

Ken Gross succeeded the late Honourable Keith Turnbull as the Chairman of the Grain Elevators Board. Ken, Mick Mibus and Keith Turnbull were great friends throughout their lives, not only as members of the Parliamentary Liberal Party but also in their pursuit of agricultural interests.

In succeeding the late Keith Turnbull as Chairman of the Grain Elevators Board Ken Gross carried on a tradition as a powerful advocate for the grains industries, and he served with distinction. We will remember Ken Gross for his long association with the Liberal Party, which he continued after he completed his service with the Grain Elevators Board. Ken was a member of the State council of the Liberal Party and pursued agricultural interests with the same firm conviction that he showed as a member of Parliament.

I join with other honourable members in expressing my sympathy to the family of the late Ken Gross.

The PRESIDENT-Ken Gross was a gentle giant. Contrary to the impression that has been given today, he spoke infrequently. When he did speak he spoke forthrightly and effectively. He was listened to. He was an exemplar of two rules which I commend to honourable members generally and to new members of this place in particular. He well understood that the attention one commanded was in almost inverse proportion

melbourne spoleto festival...melbourne spoleto festival, but that name has been reduced by most...

Documents