Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) — I move:
1. Clause 1, line 6, omit “transactions; and” and insert “transactions— “.
2. Clause 1, after line 6 insert—
“(i) to recover the cost of transitional assistance provided to certain participants in the commercial passenger vehicle industry; and
(ii) to partly fund the regulation of the commercial passenger vehicle industry; and”.
These amendments, in essence, effectively hypothecate the levy, which we have heard an awful lot about this afternoon. They really are to ensure that we define a clearer purpose for which the levy is collected, that being to recover the costs of transitional assistance and to partly fund the regulation of the commercial passenger vehicle industry.
I think, as we have heard through the committee process, knowing where the levy is going and that the legislation is ensuring that the levy will go to where it is supposed to go is very important. These amendments clarify that within the legislation and ensure that the levy we raise goes to the people who need it and helps fund the compensation for those who are being affected by this very disruptive time in our commercial passenger vehicle industry. Having listened to the conversations about that lack of clarity, I think this will help us ensure that there is complete clarity about the levy and the purpose for which it will be used. I commend my amendments.
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) — In response to Mr O’Donohue, these two amendments insert in line 6 of clause 1 — straight into the purposes clause of this bill — that it is:
“(i) to recover the cost of transitional assistance provided to certain participants in the commercial passenger vehicle industry; and
(ii) to partly fund the regulation of the … vehicle industry; and”.
It very clearly clarifies within the purposes clause of the bill what this levy will be used for.
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) — To clarify, these two amendments, as part of the raft of amendments that I am hoping to make to this bill, also connect this bill back to the Essential Services Commission, which will have some oversight of the levy to ensure that the levy is at its lowest and is there for compensation to the transitional assistance. I have faith that having the Essential Services Commission involved in this will ensure that this levy is not misused.
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) — I move:
3. Clause 3, page 5, after line 12 insert—
“ESC means the Essential Services Commission established by section 7 of the Essential ServicesCommission Act 2001;”.
My third amendment inserts a definition of the Essential Services Commission which, as I mentioned in my previous comments, will help to oversee, audit, regulate, ensure that the levy is used appropriately and provide an independent eye over the levy as it becomes instilled into this legislation. I commend my amendment to the committee.
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) — I move:
4. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly —
Clause 12, line 29, omit “$2” and insert “$1”.
5. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly —
Clause 12, page 10, line 1, omit “regulations” and insert “regulations, in accordance with section 20(2),”.
6. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly —
Clause 12, page 10, line 8, omit “$2” and insert “$1”.
Effectively my suggested amendments 4, 5 and 6 reduce the levy in the bill from $2 to $1. I think there has been much discussion during the second-reading debate and also during the committee process about the right point at which to put this levy. I have made no secret since the introduction of this bill — it seems like a terribly long time ago — in the lower house quite some months ago that I felt that a $2 levy was too high. It would reduce compliance, it may also affect the market and the most important thing, going by industry figures, is that we could meet the transitional assistance for those people who will be affected by these changes as a result of significant disruption to our commercial passenger vehicle industry. We are going through significant change. We must ensure that these people are compensated and that we are doing that well. I note that the government has already budgeted for much of that compensation, but I feel very comfortable that $1, on the very conservative figures that I went through in my second-reading debate speech, will ensure compliance, ensure fairness and ensure that the compensation is paid and that transitional assistance, as the Premier has announced, of some $500 million can be met.
This further links to my inclusion of the Essential Services Commission, which will ensure oversight and review of that levy to ensure that the levy is meeting that goal of compensating the people affected by this significant change to legislation, but also to ensure that the government is not trying to take advantage of this levy and trying to increase it. I think having an independent assessment and review will ensure this, and I do not think anybody is in any doubt that a $1 levy is fairer, will create far greater compliance and will also address the needs of those seeking the transitional assistance. I commend the amendments.
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) — I move:
7. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly —
Clause 20, line 6, after “(b)” insert “subject to subsection (2),”.
8. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly —
Clause 20, after line 13 insert—
“( ) The Minister must not recommend the making of regulations specifying an amount of $1 or more as the amount of the levy unless the ESC recommends the specification of that amount in accordance with subsection (3).
( ) The ESC must not recommend the specification of an amount unless the ESC is satisfied that it is the lowest amount that is reasonably likely to result in the total amount of the levy collected within 8 years of the commencement of this Part being equal to the money spent on transitional assistance.
( ) For the purposes of subsection (3), the money spent on transitional assistance is the total amount paid by the State (whether as compensation or otherwise) to participants in the commercial passenger vehicle industry to assist those participants in relation to changes to the law that applies to that industry as compared with that law as in force immediately before the commencement of this Act.”.
My suggested amendments 7 and 8 really clarify the making of the regulations set out there, but they also ensure that this levy is kept at the lowest level possible. As Ms Dunn and the Greens have stated, the concern we have for low-income users, the concerns we have for students and for people with disabilities mean it is very important to manage this level. My amendments 7 and 8, which are my final amendments, ensure that the minister cannot increase the levy without a recommendation from the independent Essential Services Commission and that any increase in the levy may only be to the lowest amount required to repay the transition assistance package within eight years.
It also goes on to further define transitional assistance and what we mean by transitional assistance. If I may, I will just say I think this ensures, as we have been debating in our second-reading contributions and within the committee, that we acknowledge that we need to pay assistance to the people who have been hugely affected by the changes in this industry, the disruptive nature of technology in our 21st century, and how these are changing. But it provides an oversight through the Essential Services Commission to ensure that this levy stays for as short a period as possible and remains as low as possible. I hope people agree that this adds to the bill and will hopefully provide some assurance both to low-income people in Victoria and also to those who will be receiving transitional assistance. I commend the suggested amendments to the committee.
