Legislative Assembly 7 April 2022

Mr MORRIS (Mornington) (11:50): I am pleased to rise to make some comments on this alleged ports reform bill, the Transport Legislation Amendment (Port Reforms and Other Matters) Bill 2022.

It establishes Ports Victoria on a legislative basis. I understand it is currently an administrative unit. It defines some functions for Ports Victoria in terms of pilotage and towage, and it renames and, frankly, severely limits the port of Hastings—the current Port of Hastings Development Authority; it limits that enormously. There are some consequential amendments, and there are a number of random changes to other transport acts. Apparently the only common thread is the fact that they are associated with the Department of Transport (DOT), and that appears to be the ‘Other Matters’ referred to in the short title.

I am glad the member for Footscray says this is an important bill, because it is, but you would never know that from the way the government has approached this issue. This is a serious business.

The port of Melbourne puts through $26 billion worth of exports each and every year—$26 billion just of exports, not counting the billions and billions and billions of dollars of imports that go through that port. Yet the government is playing games. They are playing politics with an industry that is absolutely critical not only for trade but for the Victorian economy. It is a central part of the Victorian economy, yet the government is playing games with this whole issue.

They have a strategy that simply does not stand up. It does not stand up in any way at all. Then it says, in the second-reading speech, ‘The main purpose of this bill is to get on with the job of implementing commitments made in the response to the independent ports reform’. One of the dot points is:

Implements review recommendations in relation to local ports …

No, it does not. It does not go anywhere near doing that. So it is about playing games.

They claim that the government have accepted all 63 recommendations of the independent report. It might be more accurate to say they have not rejected any of the recommendations. When you read through the response document, it is clear they have not accepted them—support in principle or, ‘Yeah, that’s the right direction. We’re heading in that right direction’. That is not what is happening there.

Then we get to the briefing. Now, a few weeks ago I was very complimentary about a briefing the Attorney-General’s office organised for one of the justice bills. It was a thorough briefing and, as I mentioned at the time, conducted very effectively.

With this briefing unfortunately I was detained on committee business, and I was not able to attend. But I understand it was Friday afternoon at 1 o’clock, take it or leave it, and then access to the officers from the Department of Transport was either extremely limited or not available.

That is not acceptable in any way. This is not a rubber stamp. We are legislators. Any member of Parliament is entitled to be briefed properly on a bill and have access to the public service to get an honest answer, not filtered through the minister’s office—any member of Parliament.

For this sort of game to be played with the opposition, the principal alternate party in the Parliament, is completely unacceptable and should not happen.

I want to make some comments about the impact of this legislation on the port of Hastings. Clause 20 of the bill changes the current definition of the Transport Integration Act 2010. The current definition talks about facilitating:

… the development of the port of Hastings as a viable alternative to the port of Melbourne as a container port in order to increase capacity and competition in the container ports sector to accommodate future growth …

Clause 20 of this bill strips all that out so it is now:

… to manage, develop and operate the port of Hastings consistently with the vision statement and the transport system objectives—

which is already in the existing act. The minister’s press release goes on to say the change will be to:

… reflect its future role and open the potential for investment and development across a range of dry and liquid bulk trades.

In other words it will limit severely the opportunity for the port of Hastings to expand. It does not just limit it, it neuters this organisation. That is effectively what this legislation does. It neuters the port.

It is an endeavour, clearly, to promote the government’s harebrained Bay West scheme, which is a political fix. It is just a political stitch-up. It flies in the face of physical reality, of depths of water, of where trade is occurring, and it makes no economic sense.

The channels leading into the port of Geelong are 12 metres deep and 120 metres wide. The channel leading into the port of Hastings is 14.2 metres deep and 180 metres wide. It makes no sense to move a whole lot of sand out of Port Phillip Bay, with all the environmental damage that that includes, and starve Hastings of trade, in any other way than in a political fix—and that is exactly what this is. That is exactly what this bill is.

We know Infrastructure Victoria is an apologist for this government. Ministers and members will say, ‘Oh, but it’s independent’. It is not independent. There are some good people there, I do not doubt that for a moment, but their board is dominated by secretaries—secretaries whose job it is to do as the government directs, to follow the policy of the government—so to suggest that Infrastructure Victoria is providing independent advice is complete and utter nonsense.

There are some recommendations in the Independent Review of the Victorian Ports System relating to the need to protect land. Here we go—the need to ensure that there is not inappropriate encroachment on the boundaries of the port environs and to make sure the corridors are retained.

The reality is that the corridors and the land were established in Western Port in the 1970s. I am a former member of the Westernport Regional Planning and Coordination Committee. We reviewed that land and those corridors in the 1990s. They were again reviewed under the then Minister for Roads and Ports in the 2000s. All of that infrastructure is in place, yet it is being ignored by this government in a political stitch-up.

The next point I want to move to relates to local ports. Now, the story of local ports is a very sad one, and despite the Minister for Ports and Freight’s claims—I am delighted to see she is at the table—this bill does not implement the review recommendations in relation to local ports.

As the Age reported earlier this year, 19 piers and jetties are completely or partially closed in Port Phillip and Western Port. I have spoken recently about Fisherman’s Jetty in the Mornington harbour, which has been closed and, if it is left to the government’s own devices, probably will never open again.

The local community has stepped in and is seeking to open it. But the report made clear in terms of local port funding that none of the local ports operations are sustainable without funding administered by DOT and many of the local port assets are now approaching end of life—local port assets approaching end of life. 

Then we have the government response, which says absolutely nothing about funding despite a direct recommendation in the review of Victorian ports that funding for local ports needs to be addressed.

What is in the response—‘Oh, we’ll get to it. We need a funding formula’. Yes, we do need a funding formula, and we need it now, because the local ports framework talks about all the money they are spending—‘Oh, we’re spending $16.6 million to fund our local ports program’.

On $650 million worth of assets that is 2.5 per cent per annum, and the report acknowledges these assets are approaching end of life. So it is not like you are starting with brand new assets and you can work over 40 years, which is what the 2.5 per cent works out to, to deal with those.

The government’s own report has indicated these assets are collapsing, they are at their end of life, and this bill and this policy do absolutely nothing to fix that. 

There are a number of other changes in regard to the Tourist and Heritage Railway Act 2010, which I think are worthwhile changes, and there is an interesting one that extends to officers of the Victorian Fisheries Authority—or the CEO of the Victorian Fisheries Authority—the capacity to have delegation actions under the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987, which is interesting in this bill.

But this bill as it is presented is a total fraud.

Legislative Assembly 22 February 2022

Mr MORRIS (Mornington) (16:32): It is a pleasure to join this debate. I think the member for Oakleigh referred to this bill as a grab bag; I probably would not be quite that kind.

But you would have to say the workplace safety issues certainly do dominate it through the Accident Compensation Act 1985, the Dangerous Goods Act 1985, the Equipment (Public Safety) Act 1994, the Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation and Fire Services Legislation Amendment (Reform) Act 2019—parliamentary counsel really let themselves go on that one, didn’t they?—the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014, the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 and the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996.

I guess the two that really do not fit into that overarching theme of workplace safety are the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act changes and the Victims of Crime Assistance Act changes. I certainly have no problems with the changes that are proposed for both of those acts of Parliament, but I do question what the hell they are doing in this bill. It is in that sense, as the member for Oakleigh said, a grab bag.

Six acts basically cover the same area; the other two are just tacked on.

It seems to me that the only reason they are in fact there is that the minister happens to be in the same department. There seems to be no other logical connection at all.

I just make the observation that that really is a bad precedent, because clearly the minister who has management of this bill is across the workplace safety aspects, across those aspects of the portfolio, but—and this is not a criticism at all—it is just not practical for that minister to be across the detail of other portfolios to the extent required. I make the point that in the briefing that was provided to the member for Ferntree Gully and a number of us I asked a question about a particular piece of legislation and the people doing the briefing could not give that answer. I mean, they went off and found the answer and got the information for us, and I appreciate the briefing and I am not critical of the fact they could not provide the information, but the point I am making is that that inability to provide information arises from the fact that these two changes have been lumped in with a package of changes to workplace safety laws, and they in my view should not have been. But that is probably enough on that.

The changes proposed by part 2 to the Accident Compensation Act improve compensation arrangements for workers with—I love the language—‘certain work-related injuries that are progressive in nature’. I think the member for St Albans talked about the impact of silicosis. This is a terrible scourge, and it is absolutely essential that we keep all legislation, but particularly workplace safety legislation, up to date because the dangers change all the time.

The manner in which the condition, if unfortunately it is contracted, needs to be dealt with and the way in which compensation measures apply need to keep evolving, and what is proposed here in terms of those changes is entirely appropriate. Also the changes with regard to allowances for attendance at funerals, but that is a relatively minor part of part 2.

A number of speakers in this debate have rightly made the point that workplace safety is not negotiable, that it is a right that everyone should enjoy.

To me it is not just about safer workplaces in the physical sense. In the context of these conversations we talk a lot about physical safety. We have had the conversation about particularly disabilities arising from incidents or at worst deaths, but there are lots of other ways you can be injured in the workplace. We need to protect mental health for workers. We need to make sure that workplaces are free from bullying.

To me, regardless of what you are doing—it does not matter, frankly, whether you are working on the Metro Tunnel, whether you are a chippy on a block out at Clyde or whether you are working in this place—you deserve to be protected and not just physically. You need to be protected in terms of mental health and you need to be protected from bullying.

We have heard lots of talk from many people on the government side not just in the context of this debate but in innumerable debates over my 15-plus years in this place where it is the high moral ground all the time. But unfortunately walking the talk does not always happen.

I will not go to the obvious incidents that are current, but I think we need to be aware of the hypocrisy that unfortunately is shown so often.

There is I think a concern with regard to the changes to prohibition notices. I know there are two views on that one. The expansion of circumstances in which prohibition notices can be issued has the potential to lead to a situation where inspectors are simply issuing penalties rather than seeking to get the problem solved, and in the context of workplace safety getting the problem solved, to me, is paramount.

It is not about additional income; it is about getting the problem solved, and I am not sure the legislation does that appropriately. You need to encourage collaboration. We talk about the need for collaboration between employers and employees. You need collaboration between the inspectors and the operators of the business as well. Simply whacking a fine on people does not solve the problem, and that is a concern.

Parts 3 and 4, the amendments to the Dangerous Goods Act and the Equipment (Public Safety) Act, essentially both clarify that the funds that are collected from infringements are paid into the WorkCover Authority Fund. So it is hypothecation. I know the Leader of the Nationals—and I heard the member for Ripon—talked about this. I probably have a slightly different view to some of my colleagues. Hypothecation has its place.

A couple of years ago, I think it was, I was very keen to see the amounts collected from boating licences hypothecated to the Better Boating Fund. That was the commitment that the government of the day—the current government—had made, but when we came to the legislation the hypothecation was not there. It was simply, ‘Trust me, I’m the Treasurer. Whatever comes into that fund I will allocate, but it’s still going into general revenue’.

Yet in this case I think it is very different because we are talking about infringements. We are talking about penalties issued at the discretion of inspectors, not licences that are paid by users of a service or users of a particular public facility, as with the Better Boating Fund.

So there is a real danger with this particular brand of hypothecation, where the penalties go back into a fund controlled by the employer. In many ways it is simply direct taxation, so I do have some concerns about hypothecation in this case.

There is a real potential for some overzealous enforcement.

There are a range of other measures in this bill. As I mentioned, the two that do not slot into the workplace safety area are the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act—I do not profess to know a great deal about it, but on the surface it appears to be a useful change—and I certainly do want to acknowledge and support the changes to the Victims of Crime Assistance Act.

It is a bill that is not exactly perfect but one that probably does more good than harm, so I am not opposed.

Legislative Assembly 24 March 2022

Mr MORRIS (Mornington) (11:00): The Gambling and Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2022: I must say we have had some pieces of legislation that were less inspiring than others, but this one would have to be right up there on the list in terms of the sort of housekeeping that we can afford to wave through without a great deal of debate.

There are a couple of nuggets in it that I think are worthwhile, but largely it is about housekeeping measures, about removing redundant pieces of legislation or legislation that is dealt with elsewhere—others have mentioned the commonwealth. This is not exactly groundbreaking stuff, but as I say, there are probably one or two important points in it.

Essentially it is amending the Casino Control Act 1991 to permit casino operators to pay winners by EFT. It is probably about 25 years too late, but at least it is happening. It amends the Gambling Regulation Act 2003—there we go, obsolete provisions on interactive gaming and gaming machine jackpots removed.

As others have mentioned, there is an increase in the time for dealing with unclaimed prizes from six to 12 months—I think that is reasonable. And something I certainly strongly support: prohibiting online community and charitable gaming. There are some changes to the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998—changes that probably should have been made last year when the initial changes to remote ordering were made, but now we are finally getting around to it.

I would suggest that the fact that the minister’s second-reading speech takes until the third paragraph on the second page to actually get into what the bill is about after a series f claims about what the government has done indicates that there is really not a lot of substance in this bill. Others have reflected on the quality of the legislation coming through, the quality of the legislative pipeline. I think I probably agree with those comments. One point in the minister’s second-reading speech that caught my eye was the claim that Victoria is the Australian jurisdiction with the lowest density of gaming machines, except of course for Western Australia, which does not permit them outside the casino—and I hope to have the opportunity to come back to that in a few minutes.

There are some changes, as I mentioned, to the provisions with regard to charitable institutions, and I think they are indeed sensible changes. The first is the banning of online gambling with regard to bingo and lucky envelope sales. I think that is a very sensible measure. I cannot remember who it was—it may have been the Deputy Speaker—who talked about the opportunity for online gambling to do harm. Effectively online gambling occurs in an unrestrained environment, so there are not the safeguards that you have at the casino or even at any pokie facility—those safeguards are not there—and people can get themselves into serious trouble very, very quickly. So I welcome that.

I also welcome the change in terms of the minor gaming permit system, upping the quantum there from $5000 to $20 000. It is hard enough for community organisations to raise funds either for their own purposes or to do good works in the community, as many do. The constraint that has been there of requiring a permit and the significant paperwork that goes with that and having a ceiling of $5000 has made it almost not worthwhile running a raffle or a similar event. Increasing it to $20 000 is a useful change.

The bill also makes some changes with regard to the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998. And as I mentioned earlier there were some changes—last year, if I recall correctly—which were intended to counteract what was perceived as the impact of COVID and the increased demand for home deliveries and the risk particularly of the supplies falling into the hands of those who should not have them. This bill now extends that to other forms of remote ordering, as the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation said in the second-reading speech:

… telephone, mail order, facsimile and other forms of electronic communication.

It also recognises that those other forms of remote ordering were not captured in the initial amendments, and I have got to say I do find that rather surprising.

I know many, many, many years ago I worked for some time, probably a matter of months, in a family-owned liquor business that did home deliveries, and I have got to say I was always entertained but never surprised by the extent to which people not that many years younger than I was but certainly too young to be ordering alcohol would go to try to have us—I do not think we actually ever failed in our duty—deliver alcohol to under-age kids. That was back in the 1970s, so this is not exactly a new issue. Hopefully the changes that are proposed in this bill will do something about that particular problem.

The member for St Albans talked a few minutes ago about the issue with the losses from poker machines in Brimbank city, and that is something that has been on my radar for a while. But it is not just Brimbank, of course. It is a range of municipalities across the state. Brimbank, on the most recent figures, the 2021 figures, had a gross spend of over $92 million and $552 per adult. The City of Greater Dandenong had $532 per adult and—with a lower population—$73 million in round terms.

I am certainly not a wowser. I have no problem with electronic gaming machines, but I do have a problem where you have municipalities such as these where they are unfortunately still very high ranking in terms of socio-economic disadvantage. Brimbank is currently ranked third in the state. Greater Dandenong is ranked second in the state.

You go a little bit further down the list. Latrobe city has a lower expenditure per capita, down to $435, but is ranked fourth. And Mildura, ranked fifth in socio-economic disadvantage, has a figure of $399 per adult.

Now, with regard to both Mildura and Latrobe, one would expect that there is an element of tourism in there, people on holidays wanting to go out and enjoy themselves, so the numbers per adult may be inflated, but the fact is that we have numbers that high with areas of such significant disadvantage—and we still do, there is nothing new about this.

So in terms of the rankings it is Brimbank first, Greater Dandenong second, then you go to Warrnambool, Greater Shepparton and Maribyrnong. The difference with those is they are way down the list in terms of socio-economic disadvantage.

Obviously we are not going to solve these issues today, but we have licence renewals coming up in the not-too-distant future, and I think we have a problem here that we fail to address. We may have, as the minister said, the lowest density in the country, and that is a good thing to have, but we have pockets where we have significant problems and pockets where those who can probably least afford to entertain themselves in this way do.

As I mentioned at the start, there is lots of housekeeping in this bill. There is lots of stuff that needs to be done that the Parliament needs to do, but there are one or two good nuggets in it, and certainly I have no problem, as the member for Euroa indicated, with any of the changes.