Alert Digest No. 1 of 1999
23 March 1999


Barley Marketing (Amendment) Bill
Environment Protection (Amendment) Bill
Magistrates' Court (Amendment) Bill
Public Sector Reform (Further Amendments) Bill
Statute Law Revision (Repeals) Bill

Ministerial Correspondence
Gas Industry Acts (Amendment) Bill
Health Services (Further Amendment) Bill
Petroleum Bill
State Taxation (Further Amendment) Bill

Supplementary Report
Gas Industry Acts (Amendment) Act 1998

Other Bills Before Parliament
Public Correctional Services Authority Bill

Barley Marketing (Amendment) Bill

1.1

The Bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 11 November 1998 by the Honourable Pat McNamara MP with the Bill McGrath MP. The Second Reading Speech was delivered on 13 November 1998.

1.2

The Bill amends the Barley Marketing Act 1993 (the Act); makes provision for the deregulation of the domestic barley market; barley marketing; dissolves the Australian Barley Board (the ABB) and the Barley Marketing Consultative Committee; and transfers the assets, liabilities and staff of the ABB to the grower-owned successor companies.

1.3

Clause 2 provides that Part 1 and section 7 commence on Royal Assent, the remaining provisions commence on proclamation but not later than by 30 June 1999.

Clause 6 repeals Parts 2 and 3 of the Act that deal with the establishment of the ABB.

Clause 7 amends section 33 of the Act to deregulate the sale, delivery, transport and purchase of barley for use in Australia for stockfeed purposes, for the season commencing on or after 1 July 1998.

Clause 10 amends various sections of the Act to substitute "ABB Grain Export Ltd" for references to the ABB.

Clause 12 inserts a new Part 12 into the Act consisting of sections 79 to 87. The sections deal with aspects of the transfer of the business of the former ABB to ABB Grain Ltd and ABB Grain Export Ltd (the two grower-owned companies established to succeed the ABB referred to in the Second Reading Speech). The Part also facilitates the transfer of shares to eligible growers. Following the distribution of shares the ABB is dissolved. Eligibility for shares will be determined by the Victorian and South Australian Ministers and be published in the Government Gazette.

New section 79 transfers the property and liabilities of the ABB to ABB Grain Ltd and ABB Grain Export Ltd. The section also dissolves the ABB.

New section 85 provides for the transfer of staff from the ABB to ABB Grain Limited with the same rights and entitlements they had immediately before the transfer.

The Committee makes no further comment.

Environment Protection (Amendment) Bill

2.1

The Bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 11 November 1998 by the Honourable Marie Tehan MP with the Honourable Bill McGrath MP. The Second Reading Speech was delivered on 13 November 1998.

2.2

The Bill amends the Environment Protection Act 1970 to make further provision for industry waste reduction agreements, State environment protection policy and the transport of waste and to impose further landfill levies and other purposes.

2.3

Clause 2 provides for the various commencement dates for the provisions of the Bill. Unless an earlier commencement is provided for, all the provisions of the Bill come into operation not later than 1 October 2000.

Clause 6 amends section 50S of the Act to introduce a new hazardous waste landfill levy of $10 per tonne on prescribed industrial waste disposed of to landfill.

Clause 7 inserts a new section 50AA into the Act to provide for a rebate of the hazardous waste landfill if materials upon which the levy is paid are removed to be recycled, reprocessed, recovered or purified within three years of their disposal.

Clause 10 inserts new section 50XD into the Act to provide for a temporary increase in the landfill levy of $1 per tonne expiring on 30 June 2002.

Clause 17 inserts new sections 53B to 53G into the Act. New section 53B provides that it is an offence to transport prescribed waste or prescribed industrial waste without a permit, or an exemption. New section 53F deals with the issue of transport permits.

Clause 18 provides power to make regulations consistent with the provisions of the Bill. Clause 19 allows for the use of infringement notices consequent upon amendments made by the Bill.

The Committee makes no further comment.

Magistrates’ Court (Amendment) Bill

3.1

The Bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 28 October 1998 by the Honourable Jan Wade MP with the Honourable Phil Gude MP. The Second Reading Speech was delivered on 29 October 1998.

3.2

The Bill amends the following Acts:–

Magistrates’ Court Act 1989; Supreme Court Act 1986; County Court Act 1958; Crimes Act 1958; Children and Young Persons Act 1989; and Sentencing Act 1991. The Bill reforms committal proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court; changes the system of appeals from the Magistrates’ Court in criminal proceedings; and makes other miscellaneous amendments relevant to the operation of the criminal justice system.

3.3

Clause 2 provides that Parts 1 and 4 commence on Royal Assent. The remaining provisions commence on 1 July 1999.

Part 2 – Committal Proceedings

Clause 4 substitutes a new Schedule 5 into the Act dealing with committal proceedings.

The Committee notes the Attorney-General’s comments in the Second Reading Speech:–

Early and full disclosure

The Bill strengthens the disclosure function of committals to assist in the identification and refinement of the issues in dispute in cases. The prosecution is required to provide defendants with full details of the case against them at the earliest possible stage and in turn, defendants are required to state the issues in dispute if seeking to cross-examine witnesses.

No cross-examination without leave

Under the amendments, preparation of a hand-up brief will be the norm.

Cross-examination of witnesses will now only be allowed at committal hearings if the Magistrate grants leave. The Bill provides that leave shall not be granted unless the Magistrate is satisfied that the evidence elicited by the cross-examination will have substantial relevance to the facts in issue in the proceeding. The Bill establishes a procedure under clause 12 requiring the defendant to notify the informant, the DPP and the court in writing of the witnesses it is sought to question. The defendant will be required to provide details of the scope and purpose of the proposed questioning and explain how it has substantial relevance to the facts in issue.

If such a notice is served, the Magistrate will hear and determine the application for leave to cross-examine the witnesses at the committal mention hearing. If the application is successful, the matter will be listed at a later date for a contested hearing. If unsuccessful, the case will proceed as a "paper committal" upon the hand-up brief.

The Bill sets out several criteria which the Magistrate must have regard to when considering whether or not leave to cross-examine should be granted. These are:

  • The need to ensure that the case for the prosecution is adequately disclosed;
  • The need to ensure that the issues for trial are adequately defined;
  • The need to ensure that the evidence is of sufficient weight to support a conviction; and
  • The interests of justice.

The Bill also provides Magistrates with a specific power to curtail oppressive, irrelevant and repetitious questioning. As the defence will be required to state the issues in dispute when seeking to cross-examine witnesses, Magistrates will be better able to determine the relevance of cross-examination.

The amendments will allow cross-examination to proceed in appropriate cases while at the same time ensuring the restraint of irrelevant fishing expeditions and rehearsal questioning. The reforms accommodate legitimate concerns about witnesses being subjected without good cause to the trauma of cross-examination on two occasions.

The Bill provides extra protection from cross-examination for witnesses under 18 by providing that the court must not grant leave to cross-examine unless satisfied that the interests of justice cannot adequately be served except by doing so. Such witnesses are particularly vulnerable to the stress of being cross-examined and the government believes that they should only be cross-examined at committal hearings where absolutely necessary.

Plea Briefs

In cases where the defendant wishes to plead guilty, the need for the prosecution to prepare a full hand-up brief is questionable. Not only does this add to the delays in having the case resolved, it also adds to the costs of both prosecuting and defending the matter. The Bill endorses the preparation of "plea briefs" in cases where the parties agree and the defendant wishes to plead guilty. Such cases can be dealt with simply and expeditiously, benefiting victims in the recovery process and reducing time spent by defendants in custody on remand.

Costs

In order to encourage timely compliance with the statutory regime, the Bill allows Magistrates to order costs where there has been an unreasonable failure to comply with the Act by any party that has resulted in the proceeding being prolonged. This underlines that the new regime requires the players to be pro-active and prepared.

The New Schedule 5 – Provisions Applicable to Committal Proceedings

Part 1 – Preliminary

  1. Definitions and provision about service – Provides for definitions and sub-clause (2) provides that if a practitioner has filed an appearance on behalf of a defendant or has given the registrar notice in writing that he or she acts for a defendant then service of a document on a defendant may be made by serving the practitioner personally and is taken thereby to have been served personally on the defendant.
  2. Power of Court to control committal proceedings – The Court is given wide discretion in the conduct and control of the committal proceedings consistent with the interests of justice; the need to ensure that issues are defined and the prompt and efficient disposal of the proceeding.
  3. Part 2 – Mention Hearings

  4. Special mention hearing – Deals with special mention hearings. These are mentions that may occur during the course of committal proceedings that assist the case management of the committal proceedings.
  5. Committal mention hearing – Provides for temporal limitations in which committal mention proceedings must be commenced and provides for other procedural matters.
  6. Part 3 – Service of Prosecution Briefs

  7. Service of plea brief by informant – (applicable where the defendant intends to plead guilty) Clause 5 deals with service and content of a plea brief by the prosecution upon the defendant or his or her practitioner, prior to service of the hand-up brief. A hand-up brief will not be required where the prosecution has served a plea brief and the defendant has pleaded guilty.
  8. Service of hand-up brief by informant (applicable in contested proceedings) Clause 6 provides for service and the content of the hand-up brief by the informant upon the defendant specifying the committal mention date; explaining the nature and purpose of the committal proceedings and explaining the importance of obtaining legal assistance and providing contact details for Victoria Legal Aid. Clauses 6(1)(a) to (l) deal with the categories of evidence and documents to be contained in a hand-up brief. 6(3) provides that nothing in the clause takes away from any duty otherwise imposed on the prosecution to disclose to the defence any relevant material.
  9. Time for service of hand-up brief – A hand-up brief must be served not less than 28 days prior to the committal mention date unless the Court fixes another period at a special mention hearing or the defendant consents in writing to a lesser period.
  10. Rules with respect to statements – Deals with rules in respect to statements tendered by the informant at the committal. An additional category of person eligible to witness statements is provided in the new schedule, namely, certain Australian Customs Officers.
  11. Rules with respect to recordings – Provides for rules with respect to recordings, video and audio.
  12. Inspection of exhibits – Provides that the defendant may inspect the exhibits at a time and place agreed between the defendant and the informant.
  13. Part 4 – Procedure where plea brief is served

  14. Procedure where plea brief served – Deals with the procedure to be employed where a plea brief is served and filed.
  15. Part 5 – Procedure where hand-up brief served

  16. Defence notice – Makes provision for a defence notice not later than 14 days prior to the committal mention date giving notice in writing to the informant, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the registrar that the defendant –
  17. 12(1)(a) intends to cross-examine at the committal a specified person or persons who made statements in the hand-up brief, the scope and purpose of the proposed questioning and how it has substantial relevance to the facts in issue;

    12(1)(b) requires specified items to be produced for inspection on or before the committal mention date;

    12(1)(c) is prepared to proceed or not with the hearing while a forensic procedure or examination or test remains uncompleted. In exceptional circumstances leave to cross-examine may be given notwithstanding the expiration of the 14 day period.

    Clause 12(5) provides that in exceptional circumstances the Court may allow the defendant to make an application for leave to cross-examine a witness after the expiry of the period allowed for the giving of a notice for leave to cross-examine.

  18. Application for leave to cross-examine a witness – Sets out rules for an application to cross-examine a witness. The Court must be satisfied that the evidence sought to be adduced by the proposed questioning has substantial relevance to the facts in issue; and in cases where the witness is under the age of 18 years, that the interests of justice cannot be adequately served except by granting leave to cross-examine. The court must have regard to:– (a) the need to ensure the prosecution case is adequately disclosed; (b) the issues are adequately defined; (c) the need to ensure the evidence is of sufficient weight to support a conviction for the offence charged; and (d) the interests of justice.

The new procedure requires the applicant to specify the scope and purpose of the proposed cross-examination before being granted leave to cross-examine. Cross-examination is not to be permitted unless the applicant can show that the evidence sought to be adduced by the proposed questioning has substantial relevance to the facts in issue. The ‘relevance’ test may prove to be difficult to satisfy, however it remains to be seen what standard of specificity will be required by the bench in the notice for leave to cross-examine. The Committee is of the view that the committal proceeding is meant to determine what is of relevance for the purposes of a trial and that to make an application seeking leave to cross-examine on the foundation of questioning that is ‘relevant’ would appear to presuppose that what is ‘relevant’ is already known by the defendant/applicant. The purpose of cross-examination at committal has always been understood as one properly involving a forensic search to determine what is relevant as opposed to a broadly based fishing expedition or a rehearsal of testimony.

The Committee is concerned that the new provisions may impair the right of a defendant to know, at an early stage of a criminal proceeding, the full extent of the case against him/her and therefore effect the defence opportunity to fully meet that case at trial. In some cases it may also impair the prosecution in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of charges brought, and therefore it’s ability to effectively prosecute those charges or in appropriate circumstances to withdraw some or all of the charges.

The new cross-examination application procedure is silent as to cross-examination going only to issues of credit. The Committee believes that evidence on issues of credit allow both the defence and the prosecution sides to consider, in an informed way, the strengths and weaknesses of the case and may lead to an early determination of the proceedings by way of a plea or the withdrawal of some or all of the charges.

The Committee will write to the Attorney-General seeking her comments in relation to the Committee’s concerns on this amendment.

The Committee refers the matter for the consideration of Parliament.

14. Attendance of witnesses – Where leave is granted to cross-examine a witness the witness must attend the committal and give evidence. Failure to attend renders the evidence inadmissible. The Court has power to issue a warrant to arrest or summons to be issued to compel attendance. The Court may continue a committal proceeding in the absence of the witness if it would not be unfair to the defendant to do so. Currently an appeal may be abandoned with the leave of the court at any time before the close of the appellant’s case.

15. Giving of evidence by witnesses – Provides for the giving of evidence by witnesses. The general rule being, that if the Court grants leave to cross-examine, the witness must confine their evidence–in-chief to identifying themselves and attesting to the truthfulness of their statement. The Court however may grant leave for oral evidence in-chief to be given in part or in whole. A witness giving oral evidence may be cross-examined and re-examined.

16. Cross-examination of witnesses – The Court may disallow or forbid questions asked of a witness in the course of cross-examination which appear to the Court:– (a) to have no substantial relevance to facts in issue; (b) that are beyond the scope of the questioning for which leave was originally sought; (c) to be repetitive; or (d) to be oppressive in form or manner in which it is asked.

17. Special rules applicable to sexual offences – Applies special committal rules to sexual offences. Other than the informant and the defendant, only certain persons enumerated in 17(3) may be present during the testimony of the complainant.

18. Admissibility of non-oral evidence – Makes provision for the reception as admissible evidence, on proof of service, certain non-oral evidence as if their contents were a record of evidence given orally.

19. Procedure if defendant makes admission of relevant fact or matter – Re-enacts clause 7 of Schedule 5 (to be repealed) and provides that where a defendant makes an admission under section 149A of the Evidence Act 1958 (i.e. the admission of facts or matters made by an accused in criminal proceedings may be accepted by a person acting judicially as proof of those facts or matters without further proof) the Court must record that admission in the record of the proceeding and that admission may be used at the subsequent trial.

20. Absence of defendant – Re-enacts clause 8 of Schedule 5 (to be repealed) and empowers the Court to authorise the absence of the defendant during the committal where certain conditions are met. It also empowers the Court to continue the committal proceeding where the defendant absconds, misbehaves or is absent for any other reason in circumstances where a postponement would prejudice the prosecution or any other defendant or any witness.

21. Procedure if defendant absent at close of prosecution case – Re-enacts clause 9 of Schedule 5 (to be repealed) and sets out the procedure to apply where the defendant is absent at the close of the prosecution case.

22. Procedure on defendant’s attendance after absence – Determination of committal proceeding – Re-enacts clause 10 of Schedule 5 (to be repealed) and sets out the procedure to be followed where a defendant attends after a period of absence where he or she was not represented by a practitioner during the absence.

23. Determination of committal proceeding – Provides for the determination by the Court of a committal proceeding. At the conclusion of the prosecution case the defence must state if it intends to call any witness or make a submission. Sub-clauses (2) and (3) respectively sets out the determinations a Court may make where the defendant calls or does not call evidence.

    Part 6 – Procedure after committal

24. Procedure after committal – Regulates the procedure to be used after committal including the provision to provide the defendant, free of charge, with a copy of the depositions and any exhibit not previously provided to the defendant.

    Part 7 – Costs of committal proceedings

25. Costs order – a new clause providing that costs may be awarded against a party where the unreasonable failure or conduct of that party resulted in prolonging the proceeding.

26. Court may adjourn consideration of costs where defendant is discharged – Allows the Court to adjourn the consideration of an award of costs of a committal proceeding for up to 60 days.

Clause 5 inserts a new section 56A in the Act dealing with an application to the Court by the informant for the compulsory attendance and examination of witnesses or the production of documents or things or both without notice to the defendant.

The defendant is not a party to such an application, may not cross-examine a witness attending the Court under an order made pursuant to the application and may not address the Court on an application under this section or a proceeding held under an order made on such an application. Evidence must be on oath and recorded in the same manner as at the committal proceeding. The section does not exclude any other law relating to competency or compellability of a witness to give evidence. Clause 6(1)(d) provides that any statement made pursuant to section 56A intended to be tendered by the prosecution at the committal must form part of the hand-up brief to be served on the defendant.

The Committee notes that the amendment establishes a new witness examination procedure in criminal proceedings and that this procedure does not allow the evidence of a witness to be tested by cross-examination by any person who stands at risk of having an adverse finding being made against them as a consequence of that evidence. This may have the potential of infringing or diminishing existing rights. The Committee will write to the Attorney-General seeking her comments related to the Committee’s concerns on this amendment.

The Committee assumes that witnesses examined under the new section 56A procedure will be entitled to legal representation during any such examination. The Committee will write to the Attorney-General to clarify that this is so and also to confirm by whom the costs of such legal representation are to be paid.

The Committee refers the matter for the consideration of Parliament.

Clause 6 permits the Chief Magistrate with 2 or more Deputy Chief Magistrates to make rules of court for or with respect to committal proceedings.

Clause 7 inserts a new clause 20 at the end of Schedule 8 of the Act making transitional provisions and clarifies that the new procedure introduced by the new Schedule 5 only applies to the hearing of charges filed after the commencement date (1 July 1999). The former Schedule continues to apply to charges filed prior to that date. New clause 20(3) also declares that nothing in the amendments alters the nature of the committal proceedings from administrative proceedings to judicial proceedings.

Clause 8 makes consequential amendments to the Act.

Part 3 – Appeals

Alteration or variation of section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975 (section 4D(b)(iii) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968)

Pursuant to section 4D(b)(iii) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 the Committee is entrusted with the responsibility to consider any Bill introduced into a House of the Parliament and to report to the Parliament where a Bill does not repeal, alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975, but where an issue is raised as to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and to the full implication of that issue.

Clause 9(1) inserts a new section 86(1AA) into the Act having the effect that a County Court judge is no longer obliged to warn the appellant that a more severe sentence may be imposed on the appeal. Such warning will now be given to a defendant prior to lodging an appeal. The proposed new sub-section (1AA) provides:–

Despite any rule of law or practice to the contrary, the County Court is not required, on the hearing of an appeal under section 83, to warn the appellant before making a sentencing order of the possibility of a sentencing order being made, or of its intention to make a sentencing order, that is more severe than that made by the Magistrates’ Court.

The Committee notes the comments in the Explanatory Memorandum:–

The purpose of these clauses, in conjunction with other amendments, is to ensure that the appeal operates as a de novo hearing. As a result of the amendments, there will rarely be any reason for the County Court Judge to be informed about the sentencing order imposed in the Magistrates’ Court.

The Committee also notes the comments of the Attorney-General in the Second Reading Speech:–

Currently, a person who appeals against a conviction and/or sentence handed down by a Magistrate enjoys significantly inappropriate advantages that bring this appeal system into disrepute. On appeal, the appellant has the opportunity to "re-run" the case often presenting new or additional material to the County Court Judge that has not been placed in front of the Magistrate.

It is not unusual for a County Court Judge on any one day to have, for instance, ten to twelve appeals listed for hearing and then have a significant number, if not all, abandoned by appellants at the door of the court. This demonstrates an unacceptable lack of thought, preparation and assessment of the merits of a case by appellants and their legal practitioners. The high levels of abandonments indicate that many appeals are lodged in an unmeritorious attempt to have two bites of the cherry as the appellant currently has nothing to lose from lodging an appeal. The collapsing of court lists is an inefficient use of court time and resources which this Bill addresses.

After an appeal has commenced and the County Court Judge has heard some of the evidence and is considering imposing a greater sentence than that handed down by the Magistrate, the Judge usually warns the appellant that he or she is considering increasing the Magistrate’s sentence. When the County Court Judge gives such a warning it nearly always leads to the appeal being withdrawn. In 1997, 27% of appeals (628 cases) were abandoned by the appellant at various stages of the appeal.

In practice, therefore, the appellant does not receive a higher sentence. This means that there is no disincentive to lodging an appeal against a sentence in an attempt to improve the outcome, given that there is nothing to lose from doing so. This may be considered as giving the appellant ‘two bites of the cherry’, that is, presenting their case in two courts without the risk of a greater sentence being imposed. Valuable court resources, time and effort has been wasted that could otherwise have been used to deal with other matters.

The Bill provides a number of measures to address these problems. The court will have a discretionary power to award costs against an appellant where the application is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. Appeal application documents will advise that the sentence imposed by the Magistrates’ Court may be increased by a County Court Judge, thus ensuring that once an appeal has commenced there will be a genuine risk of an increased sentence being imposed. Once a notice of appeal has been lodged with the County Court, the appeal may be withdrawn in the 30 days which are available to lodge an appeal notice. If an appellant seeks to abandon after this time the court will need to be satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which warrant abandonment.

The Bill provides that where an appellant was charged with multiple charges in the Magistrates’ Court, related to one event, all the charges that led to the sentence imposed by the Magistrate will be included in the appeal to ensure that the Judge re-hearing the charge appealed has a more comprehensive version of the facts.

Currently if an appellant fails to appear, the County Court will strike out the appeal. The Bill gives the County Court the ability to determine an appeal in the absence of the appellant. A re-hearing will be permissible where an application for re-hearing is lodged within 30 days of the appellant receiving notification of the appeal determination. The applicant will also need to demonstrate that the initial failure to appear was not due to their fault or neglect. If an application is lodged outside that time frame, the court is only to grant the application if satisfied that the failure to apply for a re-hearing within the 30 day period was due to exceptional circumstances, and is satisfied that the respondent’s case would not be materially prejudiced because of the delay.

The Bill will have the effect of making appellants and legal advisers fully consider the merits of an application to appeal and the consequences of lodging an appeal. This will change the system from one of no risk to the appellant to one where the appellant must assume a real degree of risk.

The Committee believes that a failure to warn an appellant that he/she stands at risk of having a more severe sentence imposed on appeal diminishes a common law right of procedural fairness and natural justice propounded by the Victorian Supreme Court in Brand v Parson[1994] 1 VR 252 and by the High Court in Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596 and the Privy Council in Mahon v Air New Zealand Airlines [1984] AC 809.

The Committee further believes that there may be constitutional difficulties in applying the amendment in cases where the County Court exercises Federal jurisdiction. See Chu Kheng Lim v Minister of Immigration (1992) 176 CLR 1.

The Committee notes the High Court decisions in Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (1996) 189 CLR 51; Chu Kheng Lim v Minister of Immigration (1992) 176 CLR 1; Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292; and Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596 concerning constitutional law and the vesting of Federal judicial power in State Courts.

The Committee believes that a question bearing on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be raised by this amendment. The Committee reports it’s concerns pursuant to section 4D(b)(iii) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 that there may be implications concerning the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. However the Committee feels constrained in offering an authoritative legal comment concerning the possibility of an issue of constitutional validity arising from the amendment.

The Committee will write to the Attorney-General requesting her clarification on the Committee’s concerns on this amendment.

Clauses 9(2) and (3) repeals section 86(3)(a) of the Act and inserts sections 86(3A) to (3C) providing the court power to hear and determine an appeal where the appellant fails to appear on the appeal. The court may also strike out the appeal or adjourn the proceedings. New section 86(3B) allows the court, in circumstances where the appellant failed to appear on the appeal, to rely on any statements, exhibits or documents which the informant served on the appellant prior to the Magistrates’ Court hearing or may rely on oral evidence given on oath by or on behalf of the respondent.

The Committee notes section 86 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 invests in the County Court the same powers as the Magistrates’ Court could have exercised in the proceeding had the proceeding been commenced in the Magistrates’ Court by a charge filed in that court.

The Committee believes that the amendment to section 86 proposed to be made by clause 9(3) will impair a defendants right not to have a criminal matter adjudged on the merits and criminal sanctions imposed without the necessity of being present at the proceeding in which this takes place.

The Committee notes that the sanction applied in the Magistrates’ Court for failure to attend a summons on an indictable offence is the issuance of a warrant to arrest.

The Committee will write to the Attorney-General seeking her comment on the Committee’s concerns in relation to this amendment.

The Committee refers the matter to Parliament for its consideration.

Clause 10 repeals section 87 of the Act dealing with the County Court’s jurisdiction in appeals from the Magistrates’ Court involving sentences imposed by a Magistrate under Division 5 of Part 3 of the Sentencing Act 1991, involving adjourned undertakings (with or without conviction). The existing section 87 confines the County Court to either dismissing the charge against the appellant or making an order under Division 5 of Part 3, but not any other sentencing order.

The Committee recognises that the amendment abolishes the current advantage enjoyed by a person appealing a sentencing disposition of a Magistrate under Division 5 of Part 3 of the Sentencing Act 1991.

The Committee believes that the maintenance of the status quo or the abolition of that advantage is a matter for the consideration of Parliament.

Clause 11 inserts new section 88AA into the Act allowing the County Court wide discretion to order an appellant to pay all or part of the respondents costs of an appeal where the Court is satisfied that the appeal was brought vexatiously or frivolously or in abuse of process.

The Committee believes that the amendment may deter some meritorious appeals being brought by appellants and that the amendment may impact more heavily on financially disadvantaged appellants who do not qualify for legal aid.

The Committee refers the matter to the Parliament for its consideration.

Clause 12 inserts section 89A into the Act providing for a re-hearing in circumstances where the appellant was absent at the appeal. The Court must be satisfied that the failure to appear was not due to fault or neglect on the part of the appellant (89A(6)). The application must be lodged within 30 days of the appellant receiving notice of the appeal determination. In exceptional circumstances an application may be made out of time.

Clause 13 inserts new sub-clauses (4A) and (4B) into Schedule 6 of the Act providing that a notice of appeal signed by the appellant must include a statement in a prescribed form to the effect that the appellant is aware that on appeal the County Court may make a sentencing order more severe than that sought to be appealed against. On receipt of the appeal notice the registrar of the Magistrates’ Court must give the appellant a notice to the effect that the County Court may make a sentencing order more severe that the sentence appealed against.

Clause 14 deals with the abandonment of appeals and inserts new sub-clauses (2A), (2B) and (2C) into clause 6 of Schedule 6. The effect of the amendments are that once 30 days have elapsed from the making of the sentencing order by the Magistrates’ Court an appeal may only be abandoned with the leave of the County Court, before that time the appeal may be abandoned by filing a notice of abandonment. The Court may only give leave if it is in the interests of justice to do so because of the existence of exceptional circumstances (2C).

The Committee believes that the amendment may impair an appellants right of appeal, and may force appellants to abandon appeals at an earlier stage in order to avoid the risk of a more severe sentence being imposed at appeal.

The Committee is mindful that in many instances a grant of legal aid may only be given very near to the date of the appeal hearing. In such cases the amendment may impact adversely on persons reliant on legal assistance and who, without such assistance are not in a position to assess, in an informed manner, the merits of their case and therefore the likelihood of success of their case on appeal.

The Committee will write to the Attorney-General seeking her comments in relation to the Committee’s concerns in respect to this amendment.

The Committee refers the matter to Parliament for its consideration.

Clause 16 provides that clauses 9, 11, 13 and 14 of the Bill only apply to appeals commenced on or after 1 July 1999.

Clause 17 amends section 197(5) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1989 and makes it plain that the amendments introduced by this Bill will not apply to appeals from the Children’s Court.

Clause 18 amends section 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 by inserting new sub-sections (1A) and (1B) the effect of which will allow the Court of Appeal discretion, on dismissing an appeal under Part VI of the Crimes Act 1958 to disallow up to 3 months of a period of imprisonment or detention already served under the sentence between the time of giving of the notice of appeal or the application for leave to appeal and the determination of the appeal. Clause 19 provides that the amendments made by clause 18 only apply where notice of appeal or application for leave to appeal is given after 1 July 1999. Clause 20 makes consequential amendments to the Crimes Act 1958 by inserting a new section 591 into that Act providing that the amendments made by clause 18 only apply to appeals where notice of the appeal or application for leave to appeal is made after 1 July 1999.

The Committee notes the comments in the Second Reading Speech:–

Appeals from the County and Supreme Courts to the Court of Appeal.

In recent years, the court of appeal has expressed concern that some appeals are being brought before the court which are totally without merit. Such appeals delay the hearing of meritorious appeals, waste valuable court time and increase the burden on legal aid resources.

The Sentencing Act 1991 is being amended to deter frivolous appeals. Section 18 provides a mechanism for recognising the time an offender has been held in custody prior to sentence as well as treating such terms as a period of imprisonment already served under the sentence. The bill provides the Court of Appeal with a discretion to order that time spent in custody (up to a maximum of three months) between lodging the appeal and its unfavourable determination will not count as time served. This power will ensure that potential appellants carefully consider their position prior to lodging an appeal. This amendment appropriately balances the rights of review of persons with valid grounds of appeal with the interests of the whole community in the criminal justice system.

The Committee believes the amendment may impinge on the right of access to justice by some prisoners and may act as a deterrent to the bringing of meritorious appeals by some prisoners.

The Committee is specially concerned that the impact of the amendment may fall more heavily on unrepresented appellants.

The Committee will write to the Attorney-General seeking her comment in relation to it’s concerns in respect to this amendment.

The Committee refers the matter to Parliament for its consideration.

Part 4 – Miscellaneous Amendments

Clause 22 inserts a new paragraph (ea) in section 16(1) of the Act to allow rules to be made concerning service of documents in civil proceedings including service outside Australia.

Clause 24 amends section 126 of the Act allowing the Court to make an order prohibiting the publication of any specified material relevant to a proceeding that is pending in the Court for a period not exceeding 7 days. An order stays in force for that period unless sooner set aside by the Court. An order to set aside may be made by any person whether or not a party to the proceeding. An order may not be extended beyond 7 days. The Supreme Court and County Court may make an order in the same or similar terms including an order that takes effect immediately an order under section 126 ceases to be in force.

Clause 25 amends section 19 of the Supreme Court Act 1986. New paragraph (f) provides that the Supreme Court may close proceedings to the public if necessary to do so in order not to cause undue distress or embarrassment to a witness under examination in a proceedings where the offence involves sexual penetration. Clause 26 provides that the amended section 19 applies to any proceedings whether commenced before or after the commencement of that section.

Clause 27 amends section 36A of the County Court Act 1958 and inserts new sub-sections (3) and (4) giving the Court the same jurisdiction, powers and authority to grant an injunction in criminal proceedings restraining a person from publishing any material or doing any other thing to ensure the fair and proper conduct of the proceeding as the Supreme Court has and may exercise in respect of Supreme Court proceedings. The order may be interlocutory or final, either unconditional or on such terms and conditions as the court thinks just.

Clause 28 substitutes new sections 80 and 80AA in the County Court Act 1958. New section 80 allows the court to make orders; that the proceedings in whole or in part, either criminal or civil, be heard in closed court; that specified persons be present during the whole or any part of a proceeding; and prohibiting the publication of a report in whole or in part or of any information derived from a proceeding. Penalty for contravention - 1000 penalty units or 3 months imprisonment. A notice of such an order must be posted in a conspicuous place on a door at the court house.

New 80AA specifies the circumstances necessitating an order under section 80 including:– the national or international security of Australia; prejudice to the administration of justice; endangering the physical safety of any person; offending public decency or morality; or causing undue distress or embarrassment to the complainant in proceedings involving certain types of offences under the Crimes Act 1958. Clause 29 the amendments made by clauses 27 and 28 above apply to proceedings, whether commenced before or after the commencement of those sections.

The Committee notes the written submission and the evidence given to it on 22 March 1999 on behalf of the Victorian Bar by Ross Ray QC, Mark Derham QC and Mr Jonathan Morrow. The Committee further notes the written submission received from Mr Louis Schetzer, Policy Officer, on behalf of the Federation of Community Legal Centres.

The Committee expresses its appreciation to the Victorian Bar and the Federation of Community Legal Centres for their participation in the scrutiny of this Bill.

The Committee makes no further comment.

Public Sector Reform (Further Amendments) Bill

4.1

The Bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 11 November 1998 by the Honourable Bill McGrath MP with the Honourable Marie Tehan MP. The Second Reading Speech was delivered on 13 November 1998.

4.2

The Bill amends the Public Sector Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1998 (the Act) and makes minor corrections and miscellaneous amendments to other Acts. The Committee notes the comments in the Second Reading Speech:–

The purpose of this Bill is to make minor corrections to amendments made to Acts by the Public Sector Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1998 and to make additional amendments to other Acts.

The Public Sector Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1998 amended Acts contained in schedule 1 to that Act so as to bring these Acts into line with the Public Sector Management and Employment Act 1998.

Schedule 1 of the Bill amends schedule 1 of the Public Sector Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1998 so as to correct minor typographical and grammatical errors that occurred as a result of amendments made by the Act.

Accordingly the Bill will operate from 26 May 1998, the Royal Assent date of the Public Sector Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1998.

Schedule 2 of the Bill makes amendments to a number of Acts so as to bring them into line with the Public Sector Management and Employment Act 1998.

4.3

Clause 2 provides that, other than section 3 the remaining provisions commence on Royal Assent. Section 3 is deemed to have commenced operation on 26 May 1998.

Clause 3 makes amendments to Schedule 1 of the Act as set out in Schedule 1 of the Bill.

The Committee notes the comments in the Second Reading Speech and notes the operation of clause 3 has retrospective operation to 26 May 1998 being the day upon which the provisions of the Public Sector Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1998 commenced operation.

The provisions in the clause make minor amendments to the Act by correcting various references and minor typographical and grammatical errors as a result of amendments made to other Acts by the Public Sector Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1998.

In the circumstances the Committee believes that the retrospective operation of the provisions are not objectionable.

Clause 4 amends the Acts specified in Schedule two of the Bill. The amendments ensure that certain references in those Acts contained in the Schedule are consistent with those references as amended by the Public Sector Management and Employment Act 1998.

The Committee makes no further comment.

Statute Law Revision (Repeals) Bill

5.1

The Bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 11 November 1998 by the Honourable Bill McGrath MP on behalf of the Honourable Jeff Kennett MP with the Honourable Marie Tehan MP. The Second Reading Speech was delivered on
13 November 1998.

5.2

The Bill repeals Acts which no longer have any purpose or effect and amends the Tourism Victoria Act 1992 and the Emergency Management Act 1986.

5.3

Clause 2 the provisions of the Bill commence on Royal Assent.

Clause 3 the Acts listed in the Schedule to the Bill are repealed. The Committee notes the comments in the Second Reading Speech:–

The purpose of this Bill is to repeal over 250 Acts that have been determined as being spent or outdated by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee in consultation with the Chief Parliamentary Counsel.

This Bill will repeal the Victorian Tourism Commission (Tourism Victoria) Act 1992 and the Emergency Management (Amendment) Act 1994 but will ensure that transitional provisions contained in these Acts are retained by inserting equivalent provisions in the Tourism Victoria Act 1992 and the Emergency Management Act 1986 respectively.

This Bill continues the work commenced by the Committee in 1994 which resulted in the enactment of the Statute Law Revision Act 1995 which repealed a considerable number of Acts that were unproclaimed spent or no longer relevant.

In preparing the list of Acts to be repealed by this Bill the Committee consulted with the Ministers and departments responsible for these Acts to determine their suitability for repeal.

This Bill is needed to reduce the number and complexity of Acts contained on the Victorian statute book so that it remains clear relevant and accords with the needs of the community.

Clause 4 amends the Tourism Victoria Act 1992 so that a reference in any Act, subordinate instrument or any other document whatever to the Victorian Tourism Act 1982 is to be taken to be a reference to the Tourism Victoria Act 1992.

Clause 5 amends the Emergency Management Act 1986 so that despite the changes of name or titles made by the Emergency Management (Amendment) Act 1994, no act, matter or thing is affected or abated by the name and title changes.

The Committee makes no further comment.

Supplementary Report

Gas Industry Acts (Amendment) Act 1998

6.1

The Committee previously reported on this Bill (as it was then) in Alert Digest No. 8 of 1998. The Second Reading Speech was delivered on 22 October 1998. On 10 November 1998 the Minister made an amended statement pursuant to section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975. The Minister’s made a further section 85 statement in addition to the statement made in the Second Reading Speech. This involved an additional amended clause 21 and additional clauses 28CC and 28DD inserted after clause 28. The Bill was assented to on 24 November 1998 (Act No. 91/1998).

6.2

The Committee notes the Minister’s comments in the further section 85 statement:–

I wish to make a statement pursuant to section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975 of the reasons why that section should be altered or varied by clause 21 of the bill, as proposed to be amended, which inserts a new section 101B(2) in the Gas Industry Act 1994 and by a new clause to be inserted in the bill before clause 29 which inserts a new section 117A in the Gas Safety Act 1997.

This statement is in lieu of the statement made in the second-reading speech for this bill on Thursday, 22 October 1998.

Clause 21(1) of the bill as proposed to be amended inserts a new section 101B(2) in the Gas Industry Act 1994 stating that it is the intention of sections 16I, 16J, 62L, 149B and 149C of that Act to alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975. Clause 21(2) provides that it is the intention of clause 21(1) to alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975.

Sections 16I, 16J, 62L, 149B and 149C are provisions conferring immunities in respect of directions given by Vencorp or by the Director of Gas Safety, the Office of Gas Safety or servants of the office or in respect of things done, or omitted to be done, arising from such directions or from the gas supply emergency provisions in part 6A of the Gas Industry Act 1994.

A new clause to be included in the bill will insert a new section 117A in the Gas Safety Act 1997 stating that it is the intention of sections 109 and 109A of that Act to alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975.

Sections 109 and 109A are provisions conferring immunities in respect of the giving of directions or the exercise of other powers by the Director of Gas Safety under section 106 or the emergency powers under section 107 or things done or omitted to be done arising from a direction given by the director under section 106 or 107.

The reason for altering or varying section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975 is to ensure that persons acting under the Gas Industry Act 1994 or the Gas Safety Act 1997 in a declared emergency or responding to a threat to system security or safety or an emergency are immune from suit. These people are acting in the public interest. It is vital that those charged with responsibility for preserving system security and safety have the confidence to respond to any threat free from the risk of personal or corporate liability. These immunity provisions are founded directly in the public interest and in need to ensure that the relevant corporation or person and third parties involved have confidence to protect the public interest.

6.3.1 – Gas Industry Act 1994

Alteration or variation of section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975 (section 4D(i) and (ii) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968)

Amended clause 21 inserts a new sub-section (2) at the end of section 101B of the Act providing that ‘It is the intention of sections 16I, 16J, 16L, 149B and 149C* to alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975. *(the additional amendments made during the Committee stages of the Bill are underlined).

The additional new sections 149B and 149C, not previously reported on by the Committee are:–

149B. Protection from liability

(1) A person to whom this section applies is not liable to any action, claim or demand on account of any damage, loss or injury sustained or alleged to be sustained because of anything done or omitted to be done in good faith –

(a) in or in connection with or incidental to the exercise of a power to issue a direction under, or purportedly under, section 149; or

(b) in the reasonable belief that the act or omission was in or in connection with or incidental to the exercise of such a power.

(2) This section applies to the Director of Gas Safety, the Office of Gas Safety and the servants of the Office.

149C. Protection of persons executing directions

A person is not liable to any action, claim or demand on account of any damage, loss or injury sustained or alleged to be sustained because of anything done or omitted to be done in good faith –

(a) in the execution of any direction under, or purportedly under, section 149; or

(b) in the reasonable belief that the act or omission was in the execution of such a direction.

The Committee notes the amended statement of the Minister and is of the view that the proposed section 85 provisions are appropriate and desirable in all the circumstances.

6.3.2 – Gas Safety Act 1997

Alteration or variation of section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975 (section 4D(i) and (ii) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968)

Additional Clause 28CC substitutes a new section 109 and inserts a new section 109A not previously reported on by the Committee. These sections confer immunities arising from powers exercised under sections 106 and 107 (set out below) of the Gas Safety Act 1997.

Additional Clause 28DD inserts a new section 117A providing ‘It is the intention of sections 109 and 109A to alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975.

109. Protection from liability

The Director is not liable to any action, claim or demand on account of any damage, loss or injury sustained or alleged to be sustained because of anything done or omitted to be done in good faith –

(a) in or in connection with or incidental to the exercise of a power under, or purportedly under, section 106 or 107; or

(b) in the reasonable belief that the act or omission was in or in connection with or incidental to the exercise of such a power.

109A. Protection of persons executing directions

A person is not liable to any action, claim or demand on account of any damage, loss or injury sustained or alleged to be sustained because of anything done or omitted to be done in good faith –

(a) in the execution of any direction under or purportedly under, section 106 or 107*; or

(b) in the reasonable belief that the act or omission was in the execution of such a direction.

*Sections 106 and 107 in Part 6 of the Gas Safety Act 1997 provide:–

Part 6 – Enforcement
Division 1 – Directions

106. Director may give directions

(1) The Director may, in writing, direct any person –

(a) to cease the supply of gas to a facility, gas installation or appliance; or

(b) to make adjustments to the gas flow or to pressure in a pipeline; or

(c) to disconnect a gas installation from the gas supply –

if the Director considers that it is necessary to do so for safety reasons.

(3) The Director may, in writing, direct a person –

(a) to cease to use a particular facility, gas installation or appliance; or

(b) to make safe a facility, gas installation or appliance; or

(c) to do any other thing necessary to make an unsafe gas situation safe –

if the Director considers that it is necessary to do so for safety reasons.

(4) A person must comply with a direction under this section that applies to the person.

Penalty: In the case of a natural person, 300 penalty units or 3 years imprisonment or both;

In the case of a body corporate, 1500 penalty units.

107. Additional powers in emergencies

(1) In addition to the powers under section 106, the Director may do anything or give any direction that the Director considers necessary to make a gas emergency situation safe.

(2) A person must comply with a direction under this section that applies to the person.

Penalty: In the case of a natural person, 500 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment or both;

In the case of a body corporat

e, 1500 penalty units.

The Committee notes the amended statement of the Minister and is of the view that the amended section 85 provisions are appropriate and desirable in all the circumstances.

 

The Committee recognises that scrutiny and reporting difficulties exist for it in discharging it’s responsibilities in respect to section 85 provisions pursuant to section 4D(b) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968, in circumstances where section 85 amendments are introduced after the Second Reading Speech has been delivered and after the Committee has reported on the Bill as originally introduced into a House of the Parliament.

The Committee will write to all Ministers to ask for their assistance in drawing such special circumstances to the attention of the Committee as soon as possible

Other Bills Before Parliament

Public Correctional Services Authority Bill

7.1

The Bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 29 April 1998 by the Honourable Bill McGrath MP with the Honourable Tom Reynolds MP. The Second Reading Speech was delivered on 30 April 1998.

7.2

The Committee reported on this Bill in Alert Digest No. 4 of 1998.

Ministerial Correspondence

Gas Industry Acts (Amendment) Bill

8.1

The Bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 21 October 1998 by the Honourable Alan Stockdale MP with the Honourable Phil Honeywood MP. The Second Reading Speech was delivered on 22 October 1998.

8.2

The Committee reported on the Bill in Alert Digest No. 8 on 10 November 1998 at page 7. The Committee had two separate concerns in relation to the commencement provisions contained in clause 2 of the Bill. The comments made by the Committee were:–

Clause 2(5) relating to the commencement of clause 13(2).

The Committee notes that the commencement by proclamation of section 13(2) of the Bill leaves the operation of the provision open-ended. The Committee notes that no justification is provided for such an indefinite commencement for the operation of this provision in either the Second Reading Speech or the Explanatory Memorandum. The Committee is of the view that an open-ended commencement provision is undesirable. Where use of such a clause is to be thought desirable in the circumstances, appropriate justification for its use should be presented at the time of its introduction into the Parliament.

The Committee believes that the ability of the Executive to delay the commencement of a provision of an Act indefinitely, may be characterised as an inappropriate delegation of legislative power within the meaning of section 4D(a)(iv) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968.

The Committee will write to the Minister seeking comment concerning the commencement of this provision.

Clause 2(2) in respect to the commencement of clauses 9, 10 and 17(3).

The Committee notes that by the operation of clause 2(2) of the Bill, clauses 9, 10 and 17(3) apply retrospectively to 10 June 1998. The Committee notes that no explanation is provided in either the Second Reading Speech or the Explanatory Memorandum as to the significance of that date. The Committee will write to the Minister seeking clarification in relation to the specific retrospective date.

The Committee is concerned that persons may be adversely effected by the retrospective application of these provisions and will write to the Minister seeking further comment as to the likely impact on persons and organisations.

8.3 – Minister’s response

Thank you for your letter of 10 November 1998. I respond to your points using the same numbered paragraphs.

  1. Commencement by proclamation clause
  2. I am aware of the Committee’s Report entitled ‘Report on commencement by proclamation’ dated 19 April 1993 and support the recommendations contained therein. In this instance, the absence of an explanation in the Explanatory Memorandum of the reasons why section 13(2) of the Amendment Act is unable to commence by a named date was an oversight within my Department.

    As a result of a regulatory approval process undertaken in accordance with the Victorian Access Code made under section 48U of the Gas Industry Act 1994, changes have been required to the first Order made under section 48A(1) on 11 December 1997. At the time the Amendment Act was being prepared for introduction to Parliament it was unclear when the regulatory approval process would be completed. Consequently, the timing of making the amending Order (incorporating the then anticipated (and now realised) changes to the first Order was not ascertainable. As the commencement of section 13(2) of the Amending Act inserts a new sub-section (8) into section 48A, which sub-section prohibits the amendment of an Order made under 48A(1), it was not possible to prescribe a commencement date for section 13(2) of the Amending Act. In so far as section 13(2) of the Amending Act introduces a new section 48A(9), it is dependent upon the commencement of the insertion of the new section 48A(8).

    The Order amending the first Order was made on 15 December 1998. Accordingly, I have asked for papers to be prepared recommending to the Governor-in-Council that section 13(2) of the Amending Act commence in early 1999. The potential mischief which the Committee’s Report of April 1993 identified, that of an unacceptable delay in the starting of a provision of an Act which Parliament has thought fit to pass or even allowing the Executive to decline to bring into operation a provision of an Act which the Parliament has passed, will not occur in this case.

  3. Retrospective operation of clauses 9, 10 and 17(3)

The provisions of the Amending Act to which you refer represent the enactment of a policy regarding the liability of certain parties when responding to threats to system security and emergencies in the gas industry. That policy is spelt out in the second reading speech. That speech also notes that ‘amendments to make certain immunities effective were foreshadowed in a news release immediately following the "icing" incident at the Longford processing plant in June this year and were restated following the explosion there on 25 September 1998’.

The "icing" incident referred to occurred on 10 June 1998 and the response of Vencorp and the retailers followed immediately thereafter. Hence, the relevant provisions are expressed to commence on 10 June 1998.

At the time of the introduction of these provisions there was then no existing litigation which named the beneficiaries of the provisions as defendants. Accordingly, no adverse impact of the provisions is expected on any person or organisation.

The Committee thanks the Minister for his response.

 

Health Services (Further Amendment) Bill

9.1

The Bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 2 September 1998 by the Honourable Denis Napthine MP with the Honourable Phil Gude MP. The Second Reading Speech was delivered on 3 September 1998.

9.2

The Committee reported on the Bill in Alert Digest No. 6 of 1998 on 6 October 1998. (at page 4). The Committee wrote to the Minister in the following terms:–

Clause 6 of the Bill inserts a new section 17AA(1) in the Health Services Act 1988 (the Act) providing that ‘The principles contained in any agreement in force from time to time between the Commonwealth and Victoria with respect to the provision of public hospital services are established as guidelines for the delivery of public hospital services in Victoria.’ Whereas the Act to be amended, contains within the body of section 17AA the Medicare Principles.

Whilst the Committee appreciates the flexibility the new provision allows with respect to the incorporation by reference of the Medicare Principles embodied in new Medicare agreements we are nonetheless concerned that principles of good legislative drafting may have been overlooked.

The Committee believes it is good legislative practice for Parliament to be provided with details of the new Medicare Principles applicable to the agreement replacing the agreement which expired on 30 June 1998.

Pursuant to section 4D(a)(v) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 the Committee is required to comment on any Bill that by express words or otherwise insufficiently subjects the exercise of legislative power to parliamentary scrutiny. The problem the Committee perceives, is that it could not be said that the provisions of the Bill, as they currently stand, can be objectively known or ascertained by Parliament at the time Parliament is asked to consider the Bill’s impact, if any, on Victoria before voting on them. The Bill makes an implied reference to an extraneous document not provided to Parliament and the Second Reading Speech makes a reference to ‘the signing of an agreement’ however it’s provisions remain unknown to the Parliament which is asked to incorporate them by reference in the new section 17AA.

The Committee believes that the Medicare Principles should form an attachment to the Bill perhaps initially as a Schedule.

Further there appears to be no reference made in the Bill to Gazettal of new Principles arising from new agreements that would enable Parliament and citizens to ascertain what the law is at any point of time. This is put on the basis that the existing provision considered the Principles to be of sufficient importance to warrant their inclusion as part of the Act.

9.3 – Minister’s response

I note the views expressed by the Committee about the wording of clause 6 of the Bill, which inserts a new section 17AA into the Health Services Act 1988. This provision provides that the principles which are to guide the delivery of public hospital services in Victoria are to be those contained in the agreement between the State of Victoria and the Commonwealth as in force from time to time.

I agree that it is important that the principles in the current agreement, and any future agreements, are available to members of Parliament and the community generally.

I understand that a copy of the Australian Health Care Agreement signed on 27 August 1998 has been lodged with the Parliamentary library, to enable interested members of Parliament to have access to not only the principles which underpin the delivery of public hospital services, but to the agreement as a whole. The principles are contained in clause 13 of the agreement, and must be read together with the relevant definitions in schedule A. A copy of the agreement is also attached for your information.

In addition, the agreement has been made generally available. It has been placed on the Internet site of the Department of Human Services, where the entire agreement can be viewed (at http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/ahs). For those who do not have ready access to the Internet, the document will be sent to them on request.

Finally, clause 25 and schedule D of the current agreement requires Victoria to review, update and maintain the Public Patients’ Hospital Charter to ensure its relevance to public hospital services, and to explain what consumers should expect from those services.

These provisions also require the charter –

  • to be promoted and made publicly available wherever public hospital services are provided; and
  • to set out how the principles are to apply to the provision of those services.

In addition to being available from the premises where such services are provided, the revised charter will also be available from the Department.

In conclusion, Victoria is obliged to honour its intergovernmental agreements. One of the purposes of the amendment, as outlined in the Second Reading Speech, is to ensure that there will automatically be consistency between the Act and the agreement that is in force from time to time. This would not be so readily achieved by the inclusion of the current principles in a schedule of the Bill, as you have suggested.

In addition, I consider that the steps that I have outlined above will ensure that the principles in the current agreement are readily available to all interested persons. With respect to any future agreement, the fact of the entering into of such an important arrangement between the State and the Commonwealth is always likely to be within the public arena. Measures such as those outlined above will ensure that the precise content of the principles also remain public knowledge.

The Committee thanks the Minister for his response.

Petroleum Bill

10.1

The Bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 2 September 1998
by the Honourable Pat McNamara MP with the Honourable Phil Gude MP. The Second Reading Speech was delivered on 3 September 1998.

10.2

The Committee reported on the Bill in Alert Digest No. 6 of 1998 on 6 October 1998 (at page 14). The relevant extract of the Committee’s comment to the Bill is set out:–

Clause 252 allows the Governor-in-Council to make regulations for the purposes of the Act. 252(2)(f) and provides:–

‘The regulations may provide in a specified case or class of case for the exemption of people or things from any of the provisions of this Act, whether unconditionally or on specified conditions, and either wholly or to such an extent as is specified.’

The Committee is concerned at the very broad regulation making power sought to be introduced by clause 252(2)(f) and notes that a similar provision is not contained in the Act to be repealed. The Committee is concerned that notwithstanding the detailed provisions of the Act, specified cases or classes of cases may be exempted from the operation of the Act either in part or in whole either with conditions or unconditionally. The Committee further notes that no explanation is provided in either the Explanatory Memorandum or the Second Reading Speech for the necessity of such a wide regulation making power.

The Committee is of the view that clauses which allow for the amendment of the relevant Act by subordinate legislation, such as a regulation declaring that an Act or a provision of an Act does not apply to, or applies with prescribed changes, are generally objectionable.

The Committee will write to the Minister seeking comment as to why such a broad regulation making power is necessary and why it should not be regarded as a generally objectionable ‘Henry VIII clause’.*

*(A ‘Henry VIII clause’ is a clause in an Act of Parliament which enables the Act to be expressly or impliedly amended by subordinate legislation or Executive action.)

10.3 – Minister’s response

I am writing in response to your letter dated October 6 1998 relating to concerns arising from clause 252(2)(f) of the Petroleum Bill. The delay in my response has arisen from the need to consult with a number of parties including Parliamentary Counsel at length as well as reviewing recent analogous legislation.

The exemption provision is included to account for situations where adherence to the Act or regulations is not practical or the benefit of exemption far exceeds the need to regulate a specific activity. The exemption would be provided for by specific regulation and subject to the Regulatory Impact Statement Process. Provisions of this type are common in Acts requiring full regulatory powers.

In most cases the provision refers to exemption to "regulations" rather than "Act". The reference to Act in the provision rather than regulations arises from the way in which "Act" is defined in clause 5(2) of the Bill where Act is meant to include the associated regulations.

The intention was to provide exemptions where necessary from the regulations by regulation. Technically the provision, as it now stands, could also permit exemptions from the Act. On balance after review of other legislation and discussions with Parliamentary Counsel officers it would be appropriate to replace "Act" with "regulations" at the next opportunity. Regardless I will at this time give you an undertaking not to exempt anyone or anything from provisions of the Act.

The Committee notes the Minister’s response in particular his comment that it would be appropriate to replace the word "Act" with the word ‘regulations" in section 252(2)(f) of the Act at the next opportunity, and that pending that amendment, the Minister undertakes not to exempt anyone or anything from the provisions of the Act.

The Committee thanks the Minister for his response.

State Taxation (Further Amendment) Bill

11.1

The Bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 7 October 1998 by the Honourable Alan Stockdale MP with the Honourable Phil Gude MP. The Second Reading Speech was delivered on 27 October 1998.

11.2

The Committee reported on the Bill in Alert Digest No. 8 on 10 November 1998 at page 36. The relevant extract of the Committee’s letter to the Minister is set out:–

Part 3 – Amendments to the Financial Institutions Duty Act 1982 (the Act)

Clause 6 substitutes a new definition of "broker" in section 3(1) of the Act to mean "a person, (other a bank), who is a broker under the Australian Stock Exchange Rules." The existing definition provides that "broker" means "a person, firm or corporation (other than a bank) who or which is a member of the Australian Stock Exchange Limited."

The Committee notes that the amendment to the definition is deemed to have come into operation on 13 October 1998. The Committee will write to the Minister seeking his comment for the reason why it is thought to be desirable to give retrospective operation to the amended definition.

The Committee therefore seeks your response as to why it is thought desirable to give the definition of "broker" in the Act retrospective operation.

11.3 – Minister’s response

Thank you for your letter of 12 November 1998 requesting advice on the above Bill.

Part 3 of the Bill, among other matters, substitutes a new definition of "broker" in section 3(1) of the Financial Institutions Duty Act 1982 (the Act).

Section 3(1) of the Act currently defines a broker as a member of the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). However, in October 1998 the ASX was demutualised and its Business Rules amended to remove all reference to members, bringing into doubt the definition of broker in the Act.

Accordingly, the definition has been amended to provide that a broker is a person who is a broker within the meaning of the Business Rules of the ASX. The amendment applies retrospectively to coincide with the demutualisation of the ASX and the corresponding change to its Business Rules to remove any doubt as to the definition and ensure the status quo is maintained in terms of application of the Act to relevant transactions.

The Committee thanks the Treasurer for his response.

Committee Room
Monday 22 March 1999


Last update 29/8/99
©Parliament of Victoria
SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE Home Page || Table of Contents ||