Thursday, 23 June 2022

Bills

Child Employment Amendment Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:53): With great pleasure I rise to speak to and support the Child Employment Amendment Bill 2022. Gone are the eras when children were exploited and forced into very unsafe employment. Now we certainly still see some places around the world where children are being exploited, but in Victoria the Andrews Labor government continues to ensure that the regulatory framework to protect our most vulnerable workers is strong and effective—and that includes the regulation of child employment.

The Child Employment Act 2003 at present regulates when and in what circumstances children under 15 years of age can work in Victoria, and we know that for children doing part-time or casual work it has many positive impacts for them. They can learn new skills and they gain confidence, experience and also independence—not to mention they may get some pocket money as well for themselves. However, the benefits must be balanced against the requirements of education and the need for additional safeguards due to their vulnerability in the workplace, particularly for children under 15.

The act of 2003 sets out the age, types of work and conditions that apply to child employment and aims to protect children from doing work that could be harmful for them or even affect their attendance at school. It should be remembered that in Victoria children up to the age of 17 are required to be at school and are only exempted in very exceptional circumstances.

However, we undertook a review of the act in 2021, and in this amendment bill there are several amendments being proposed to strengthen the protections, which arose from that review process. The review highlighted opportunities to improve the child employment regulatory regime, particularly with respect to streamlining the permit system and adopting a risk-based regulatory approach. It has to be emphasised that this piece of legislation does not propose to alter at all the minimum age for work nor to displace a number of important exclusions.

Under the current act of 2003 any children aged 11 and over can do and take on delivery work and children aged 13 and over are able to be employed in some other non-hazardous work. However, there is no minimum age for children to work in the entertainment industry, which, as we know, can employ people and young children in performing, modelling, photography and television or film work. Children of any age working in a family business are exempt from the permit requirements at present. Children are only permitted to undertake very light work, but they are excluded from employment in a number of hazardous industries and from performing dangerous tasks. These age limits for child employment regulation in our state are aligned with the international labour standards on child labour. Victoria’s occupational health and safety laws also ensure that children from age 15 to 17 are afforded strong protections in the workplace.

On the key reforms of this bill, I would like to mention the licensing system. At present employers are required to apply for individual permits for each and every child they engage in employment, and the bill now introduces a streamlined child employment licensing system to replace that individual permit system. So instead of the requirement for obtaining permission to employ a child, one licence application would be in place annually for an entertainment licence and biennially for a general licence. We know, for example, in the entertainment industry we may have a lot of children being employed for filming or performing. Take Oliver Twist, for example. That would require a lot of children to be on stage, so now the new licensing system will streamline the process with a single permit application. The new licensing system also enables better targeting of resources to focus on licence-holders in the highest risk areas, who must provide more information and will receive more oversight than those in lower risk areas. Current levels of protections for children in the workplace will be enhanced.

Sitting suspended 1.00 pm until 2.03 pm.

Dr KIEU: I would like to continue my contribution to the Child Employment Amendment Bill 2022. I have been talking about the streamlining of the permit system. In addition to that, the bill also provides for a public register of all employers who employ children and who have been granted a licence. This is to enable parents and other people acting with child employees to assess a given workplace compliance for their safety. The measures will also build on the Andrews Labor government’s recent adoption of new child safety standards to ensure a focus by service providers and employers on children’s safety and wellbeing.

Under this bill a decision made by the wage inspectorate about a licence—whether they decide to grant one or to cancel or to suspend a licence—will be reviewable by VCAT to ensure procedural fairness for the applicants or the licence-holders.

Again, in response to the evidence presented to us from the review, the bill also aims to address certain areas of uncertainty in the regulatory framework in order to promote better understanding and compliance and ultimately a greater level of protection for children covered by the existing act. This includes amendment of the definition of ‘employment’, which is very broad deliberately. This bill will amend the definition of ‘employment’ to remove the exclusion for door-to-door fundraising, as the risks to children in this setting are high. So it will no longer be excluded. It also removes the exclusion of work performed for not-for-profit organisations that might not meet the definition of a formal work contract. On the other hand it provides an exclusion for children who appear in the background of news, current affairs, lifestyle, documentary or education programs where they are not given direction about how to appear in the program—so they are just in the background. It also provides clarification that children providing babysitting and other domestic services are not covered by the act. The bill also extends the current tutoring exclusion to those outside residential premises so that tutoring occurring at a library or other premises will not be covered.

Some of the changes include (1) making it clear that a child employment permit is not required for formal work experience arrangements, (2) clarifying what is meant by ‘direct supervision’ for children working in a family business and (3) increasing the minimum age of a person supervising a child under 15. Those supervisors have to be a minimum of 18 years of age. This is for consistency and to address the concern that if a person under 18 is placed under obligation to supervise children under 15, it might create potential friction because they are themselves subject to protection. There also will be a new requirement for children who are auditioning for a role or participating in the casting process to be supervised by a person who will need to have working with children clearance to ensure that the children are safe.

Currently not-for-profit organisations are covered by the act if they engage children under a formal work contract. This bill will amend that inconsistency so that any work meeting the definition of ‘employment’, as in some of the amendments that I just outlined, under the act will be regulated, whether the employer is for profit or not for profit.

In order to ensure compliance and also enforcement the Wage Inspectorate Victoria will be responsible for administering the act and has a dedicated child employment team. The authorised officers from the Wage Inspectorate Victoria will have additional enforcement tools, including compliance notices, as a way of achieving compliance with the act, and infringement notices. The infringement notices are provided when a breach has been detected but has yet to meet the requirements for prosecution. The penalties for offences under the act have also been increased to more closely align with other comparable regulatory schemes, such as working with children requirements, and also to reflect the seriousness with which conduct that puts children at risk of harm is viewed.

In order to provide sufficient time and also opportunity for stakeholders and industry participants to prepare and achieve compliance, some amendments in the bill that impose new requirements, including the new licensing scheme, are proposed to commence from 1 July 2023—next year. Likewise, the slightly expanded coverage of not-for-profit organisations and the supervision requirements for audition and casting by people over 18 will also commence on 1 July 2023.

In summary, the Child Employment Amendment Bill 2022 will amend the act to ensure that it will remain a targeted, effective and responsive approach to contemporary workplace issues in response to the numerous changes to the employment landscape and to regulations around child protection in recent times.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (14:11): Certainly there are some really important reforms being brought about through this bill, which is very pleasing to see. We note that the challenge we have with the current system is that it requires an employer to apply for individual permits for each child they engage. Our review has identified the permit system as one of the biggest issues for stakeholders, who supported a more efficient, responsive and flexible approach. So it is really common sense.

The bill introduces a streamlined child employment licensing system to replace the individual permit system, and it will simplify the process for obtaining permission to employ a child by requiring one licence application annually for an entertainment licence and biennially for a general licence. Under the current act some employers who engage children frequently, such as those in the entertainment industry, can have hundreds of permits at a time, and this can create a significant amount of administrative work. Moving to a targeted licensing system where an employer only requires one licence will streamline the process and make it easier for employers to comply.

The actual application process under the new licensing system will also require provision of different information depending on the level of risk involved in the work. The new licensing system will also enable better targeting of resources to focus on licence-holders in the highest risk areas—again, a good, commonsense approach—who must provide more information and will receive more oversight, including an increased emphasis on compliance, monitoring and audits, than low-risk areas, which again makes good sense.

Employers will be able to employ multiple children under one licence rather than applying for individual permits for each child employed prior to their employment. They will then inform the Wage Inspectorate Victoria of each child who is employed. There will be no cost associated with applying for a child employment licence.

Current levels of protection for children in the workplace will be enhanced under the new system by the inclusion of a fit and proper person test and the creation of new roles for nominated officers and employer representatives for entertainment licences. These employer representatives will have responsibility for ensuring compliance with the act and any licence conditions. The bill provides for a public register of all employers with a child employment licence, which will enable parents and other persons interacting with child employees to assess a given workplace’s compliance.

You can see the various protections that are being included with this licensing arrangement but at the same time creating some commonsense reforms which make a simpler approach, I would suggest, for managing what could otherwise be quite a convoluted process for employers. These measures will build on the Andrews Labor government’s recent adoption of new child safety standards to ensure a focus by service providers and employers on children’s safety and wellbeing. We can see that this is very much supportive of employment in this context. It is not pulling away from it in any sense or form.

With this bill I was reflecting on my first jobs. I think one of them was taking care of a neighbour’s kids, and that was more an ad hoc arrangement, but I also remember making pizzas. What are the lessons that you get out of that kind of job? You have to turn up on time and you have to take direction. Those orders have got to go out in a systematic manner, because otherwise people in the community who are waiting on those pizzas or whatever the service is are going to get pretty testy. They want their dinner or their lunch or otherwise. I remember also you had to make sure you did not put too much topping on or the pizza would not cook through properly in the time that it went through the oven process.

Ms Symes: Oh, no. There’s nothing worse than uncooked pizza.

Ms TAYLOR: That is right. And sometimes I would want to put too much topping on, and they would go, ‘No, no, no’. There is a rationale to why you just keep it at a certain level, a certain amount, so it—

Ms Symes interjected.

Ms TAYLOR: Exactly: consistency. So you can relate. Already I was learning about the discipline associated with making that pizza.

Mr Ondarchie interjected.

Ms TAYLOR: It certainly does; I am coming back. Stay with me, because I am seeing the value in taking employment even from a young age, providing of course there are appropriate caveats and protections in place. Some people who perhaps are not as familiar with the central tenets of the bill might be concerned—‘Oh, what does this mean for younger people taking jobs et cetera’. I am just affirming that, yes, our government sees value in these kinds of experiences. For me it was in adolescence. The only thing I must say is that my fingers got pretty stinky, particularly making the seafood pizzas. That was not my favourite. But, anyway, again sometimes in work we have to do things that are less palatable—nothing inappropriate. I do remember that as well, but I am really grateful for the opportunity that I had to do that.

Mr Ondarchie: On a point of order, Acting President, I understand the marinara connection to the bill that the member is outlining here, but perhaps she could bring it back to the exact purpose of this bill, please.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): There is no point of order. Reflecting on earlier debate, some of these matters have been canvassed. I think the member is still—

Mr Ondarchie: Not pizza.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): It might not be specifically pizza, Mr Ondarchie, but certainly in terms of members’ early childhood employment experiences.

Ms TAYLOR: I am just getting back to the point that from a government perspective we can see the value in having these early experiences in employment—and I would not look down on the making of pizzas. What I am trying to say in the thread of the message that I am trying to give is there is value in the process, in the discipline—I am deeply grateful for that—and hence keeping this system well regulated and having an appropriate licensing system makes good sense.

I just wanted to reiterate our government’s position with regard to children and employment. I should say that there are certain caveats in place, just to offset some concerns that may have been raised or reflected on by those who may not have been as close to the bill—about what it does encompass and what it does not encompass. Under the current act, employment of children under 15 years is primarily regulated through a permit system. I did speak to this before in some detail, but it is just to make sure and be really clear what is and what is not incorporated in the bill.

Interestingly—and I had not thought about this—when you reflect even on films that you have seen, there is no minimum age for children to work in the entertainment industry. It can include performing, modelling, photographic and television or film work. However, a specific entertainment industry permit is required. A mandatory code of practice further prescribes conditions around the employment of children in the entertainment industry where the risk is deemed to be higher and where the vast majority of working children are currently employed. Children of any age working in family businesses, including family farms, are exempt from the permit requirements. I am just speaking to what is and what is not included. Children are only permitted to undertake light work and are excluded from employment in a number of hazardous industries and from performing dangerous tasks.

This again makes very good sense, and I do not think it requires a lot of explanation to understand why there are those appropriate caveats and protections for people who, we would suggest, are more vulnerable because of their age and life experience. These age limits for child employment regulation in Victoria are aligned with the international labour standards on child labour. Victoria’s occupational health and safety laws also ensure that those children aged 15 to 17 years are afforded strong protection in the workplace. School attendance is compulsory for children in Victoria until the age of 17 years, with exemptions only granted in limited circumstances.

The reason for me raising those points is of course that when we are discussing the ambit and the premise upon which regulation is undertaken in this space, when we are talking about the employment of children, you can see why it is very important that there are these protections in place for those who are vulnerable. It is certainly very important that all these matters are debated and discussed today to give people comfort with the regulation that we are undertaking and the reforms that we are undertaking in this space.

If we just go to another issue of not-for-profits, currently not-for-profit organisations are only covered by the act if they engage children under a formal work contract. This bill will amend that inconsistency so that any work meeting the definition of ‘employment’ under the act will be regulated whether the employer is a profit or not-for-profit entity. Again we can see that there is value in consistency, I think certainly for employers, which will make it easier for them to understand that sort of streamlined principle, but also I think it makes good sense because I cannot see why from a pragmatic point of view you would want to lower the protection whether someone is in a profit or not-for-profit entity. It makes good sense that in both circumstances there would be reasonable protections in place. The impact on not-for-profit organisations is considered to be low. That is another important thing, because we understand that if they are not for profit it is harder to operate and a more challenging environment to operate in. They may have fiscal constraints et cetera. But the good thing is that with the undertakings in preparation for the bill it has been established that the impact on not-for-profit organisations is considered to be low and in any event offset by the greater protections that coverage of the act will provide to children.

As was previously the case, local sporting clubs—and this is another issue actually somebody asked me, and so I just want to be clear about this caveat—will not be covered where they are engaging children in work that is considered low risk, such as umpiring or coaching team sports. I have to say that I had these specific questions put to me, and hence the purpose of this kind of debate—to be really clear about what is in and what is not in the bill and the rationale that underpins that decision-making.

The Child Employment Act 2003 aims to regulate risks to children associated with work and the tasks they are required to perform as part of that work, such as fatigue, risk of injury, disruption to education et cetera. We can see the necessity for these appropriate protections to make sure that children, their health and safety, is taken care of. These work-related risks are considered unlikely to arise in the context of the above excluded activities children might be employed to undertake, so that just validates the rationale as to why those particular items—for example, umpiring or coaching team sports—are not actually within the ambit of the bill. However, work related to high-risk activities, including martial arts, horseriding and gym instruction, will still be covered by the act. Again we can see the logical thread there because of the higher risk, so that makes good sense. Certainly it is appropriate that those protections are appropriately covered by the act.

What about compliance and enforcement? The Wage Inspectorate Victoria, set up by the Andrews Labor government, is a statutory authority and is responsible for administering the act and has a dedicated child employment team. These amendments will see the WIV provided with a stronger and more responsive enforcement regime to enable the inspectorate to effectively carry out its role as a risk-based modern regulator.

We can see there are some really sensible reforms being put in place here to ensure best possible outcomes for children who are employed within the state of Victoria, but at the same time appreciating the value that there is in work and work experiences for younger persons in our community where it is age appropriate and appropriately supported, with protections in place.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (14:26): I rise to speak to the Child Employment Amendment Bill 2022. The bill seeks to reform the laws that oversee how children aged under 15 are employed in Victoria. Community groups have sought reform for a number of years, building on a review undertaken in 2009 and further consultations with stakeholders over the last few years. The bill makes a number of reforms. It provides greater clarity on what activities performed by children are considered employment and includes removing the requirement of the employer to be engaged in for-profit enterprise. This ensures children working in not-for-profit organisations are captured under the act. It also provides that a child under 15 years of age must be supervised by a person aged at least 18 years or older. The minister’s second-reading speech rightly notes that children under 15 are particularly vulnerable in the workplace, so requiring their supervision to be provided by an adult adds a further safeguard. The bill gives the Wage Inspectorate Victoria greater powers and scope for compliance activities, and indeed the effectiveness of the compliance regime is crucial to ensuring children are not exploited or harmed when employed. Given the age limit of 13 does not apply to children in the entertainment industry, further protections are included for children working in that industry.

However, I am going to focus my comments today on industries other than entertainment—specifically food services and retail—and the key reform in this bill: the shift from a permit system for every child employed to a licensing system for employers who seek to employ kids under the age of 15. The survey conducted by the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions as part of developing this bill found that 35 per cent of children were employed in retail and 21 per cent in food services—that is, a majority of children aged under 15 are employed in those two industries. We have had concerns raised with us by the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union about the potential impact of this change from permits to licensing. RAFFWU is a union focused on the industries that employ the most kids under this act. They are concerned that removing the need for individual permits and making it easier to employ kids will see more kids employed in the fast-food and retail industries—in places like McDonald’s and Hungry Jack’s as well as the two major supermarket companies, places that are well known for their churn of teenage workers as they can pay teenagers less than adults—and given that the big companies in this industry were consulted on the bill and pushed for this change, it seems a not-unwarranted concern.

We always need to be on alert when words like ‘efficiency’ and ‘streamlined’ are used to justify changes. They usually mean that changes are in the interests of employers and not workers. It is important to note we are also talking about industries well known for exploitative practices. One of the government’s signature reforms that we very much welcomed was its wage theft laws. These were needed because workers were being cheated of their wages and entitlements, and the worst offenders were in the hospitality and retail industries. In fact last year RAFFWU was successful in having a McDonald’s franchise penalised for repeated breaches of workplace laws, including denying workers paid 10-minute breaks and preventing them from drinking water or using the toilets during their shifts—essentially coercing children and young staff into working in conditions which were illegal. Following on from that case, there is now a class action against McDonald’s for the theft of rest breaks.

On this issue of rest breaks, I want to note that the legislation maintains the provision that children are required to have rest breaks after 3 hours but they can be paid or unpaid, while under the relevant awards, entitlements to paid rest breaks are after 4 hours. But again, it makes no sense to me that when we are talking about 13- and 14-year-olds being employed by the likes of McDonald’s or Hungry Jack’s, we would not be mandating paid rest breaks after their maximum shift time.

These are also industries where bullying behaviours and sexual harassment are known to exist and put young people at risk, so we understand where the union concerns are coming from. RAFFWU also raised with us concerns that in workplaces employing kids, only the supervisor has to have a working with children check, but obviously children employed in places like McDonald’s or Coles will be coming into contact with a range of different adults across different spaces and times in what are supposed to be trusted settings. As the minister said, children under 15 are particularly vulnerable in the workplace. We believe requiring working with children checks is a simple step to providing additional protection. They are required in other circumstances where children regularly come in contact with a range of adults in positions of responsibility.

I have an amendment to require all adults in workplaces where children are employed to have a working with children permit, and I would like those amendments to be circulated now.

Greens amendments circulated by Dr RATNAM pursuant to standing orders.

Dr RATNAM: I appreciate the government will not be supporting these amendments and acknowledge they could have been more tightly drafted, but to the extent that working with children checks are a burden, maybe having a hurdle to employing children when that hurdle is concerned with their safety is not a bad thing.

One of the rationales for shifting from individual permits to a licensing system for employers is that by removing the administrative burden of processing permits there will be more resources for compliance. I certainly hope that is the case. Strong and broad compliance measures focused on the industries where children are clearly at risk of exploitation and harm must be prioritised. I also have amendments to require the wage inspectorate to report on the number of children employed under the act and its compliance activities.

I also acknowledge the intent of the bill is to strengthen protections for children in employment by modernising the act. The government maintains the changes will not lead to more kids being employed or the exploitation concerns raised by RAFFWU being realised. I hope so. Let us not forget we are talking about 13- and 14-year-old kids being employed by businesses known to be exploitative. This bill is providing a licensing system to enable child labour. While there can be benefits from kids having paid work, there are also lots of risks. We urge close monitoring of the new system and that we all continue to regularly review the protections in place to ensure kids are not exploited or harmed at work.

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:33): I rise to make a contribution on the Child Employment Amendment Bill 2022 as well. I note there has been some discussion as part of the debate today around reflections on members’ early memories of working as children, and I am going to top the pizza example.

Mr Ondarchie: Oh no. You’re not going to do this. If you go from pizza to fish and chips—

Ms TERPSTRA: No, I am not going from pizza to fish and chips. I have got something loads better than that, Mr Ondarchie, I can assure you. I guarantee you. But I want to talk about this bill. It is an important bill, and I think that the value of work cannot be understated or underestimated for children, certainly as a mum. I have got two kids, and one of the first things that I did with both of my children as soon as they were 15 was say, ‘Go and get a job. Go out to work’. So my son got a job at KFC—

Mr Ondarchie interjected.

Ms TERPSTRA: No, I am going to talk about mine in a minute. But anyway, my daughter is working for a large supermarket. What I noticed with both of my children as soon as they were able to get into work was how they developed as a consequence of working. They understood much more clearly that if they were late to work there would be consequences for not getting to work on time. They also understood the value of money a little bit more. At the bank of Mum and Dad money seems to grow on trees, but when all of a sudden you have got your own money and you have to pay for something yourself you say, ‘Oh, that’s a little bit expensive’, and it is like, ‘Yeah, I know’. So we cannot underestimate the value of work for kids who are old enough to work, as I said, as part of their development. They learn to interact with people in that workplace environment as well. They learn about respectful interactions—what is respectful, what is not respectful—and their rights as well.

Actually, just as I was sitting here listening to this debate—and this is not completely related to do the bill, but hey, here we are. As an aside—

Mr Ondarchie: I’m just getting ready for my point of order.

Ms TERPSTRA: I have not even said anything. Well, it kind of is related because it is work related. But this is important. If you think about families today and if you look at wages and the cost of living and those sorts of things, children can contribute to household income, and sometimes families might have to rely on their children to help contribute to household income.

I might note that from 1 July this year, 2022, employers will be required to make superannuation guarantee contributions to an eligible employee’s super fund regardless of how much an employee is being paid. That is a good thing, because with the super guarantee it used to be that you had to be either 18 or earning over $450 a month. That is gone. The benefit to young people who work at the age of 15 or even below is that those early retirement savings will compound over their lifetime and add so much more to their superannuation savings. It is a wonderful thing. So that is what I was saying; it is not entirely related to the bill, but in terms of work and children working it is a good thing that these reforms to super will come into place from 1 July 2022. Likewise, just getting back to my children’s experiences, I am really grateful for the fact that they both have access to an industry super fund, and they know that their contributions are going into that industry super fund. They are saving for their retirement right now, and that is a good thing. That is a great thing. I do not want to see my kids as they get older perhaps struggling to find meaningful work. They might be in and out of work over time, but the point is they will have that money that they can fall back on.

This bill, though, goes to talking about and regulating—Dr Ratnam and Ms Taylor spoke about this as well—why we need to have greater protections for kids. There are examples where some kids under 15 are in fact working. They are working in family businesses or they are working in the dance or entertainment industries. If you go to the pool, you see a lot of young kids at the pool doing lifeguard duties and those sorts of things, and it is really important that they have those protections. With delivery work, for example, we never used to have the delivery of alcohol and we never used to have delivery of even pharmaceuticals. Those sorts of things are all coming up now, so it is very appropriate that we look to these new forms of work that did not used to exist, and they are things that kids can do. If I try to look for a parallel form of work that might have existed—the paperboy—

Mr Barton: The newspaper boy.

Ms TERPSTRA: The newspaper boy or newspaper person used to carry the little trolley around with all the newspapers, and they were usually young kids. You have done it, Mr Barton. I can see you nodding there, so there you go. We do not have newspapers anymore, so that is a job that clearly does not exist anymore. Everyone is now going to talk in the chamber about their newspaper delivery stories, as paperboys in the past. But you can see how these sorts of roles have changed. It was a job that kids used to do for pocket money. We want to make sure with the deregulation of markets—I am not saying you can drive an Uber at 15—

Mr Barton interjected.

Ms TERPSTRA: No comment. But the thing is we are seeing lots of different forms of work being available to younger people because they are able to do it, so it is a good thing that we properly regulate these things.

I might say, I think one of the first jobs that I had—there you go, Mr Ondarchie, I am getting to it—as a young person, and I was definitely under the age of 15, was I worked in a horse yard. I was shovelling horse manure and feeding horses, and I would do that—

Mr Ondarchie interjected.

Ms TERPSTRA: I told you I would top the pizza example. I really enjoyed that because it was my first job and I got money in my hand and had independence as well. That goes to the point I was making about when young people actually get out to work. There is that sense of personal development and growth that comes with it, and it is a good thing. But again, some families might be struggling as either Mum or Dad might be unemployed, and they may have to rely on their children to contribute to the household income. That is the reality for some people, so it is only appropriate that we look to strengthening the sorts of protections that are available. But I must say I enjoyed myself in my first job, in that horse yard. My friends and I used to try to hide behind the 44-gallon drums because the horse used to try and kick us—things like that. It is good that we have got health and safety protections these days, because I can assure you, back then we used to run for it.

Mr Ondarchie: Sounds like caucus.

Ms TERPSTRA: No, it definitely wasn’t. But I enjoyed that job. It taught me a lot about not only caring for animals, which is something I still have a passion for today, but working with another person, working as a team, making sure I did the job and then getting paid at the end of the week. So that was a great thing.

In terms of this bill, there is a permit system in place now anyway. Under the current act employment of children under 15 years old is regulated through the permit system. Provided the employer obtains a general industry permit, children aged 11 years and over can undertake delivery work and children aged 13 years and over are able to be employed in other non-hazardous work. So you have got that there now, but as Ms Taylor said earlier, there is no minimum age for children to work in the entertainment industry. This can include performing, modelling, photographic and television work, but a specific entertainment industry permit is required. The mandatory code of practice further prescribes conditions around employment of children in the entertainment industry where the risk is deemed to be high and where the vast majority of working children are currently employed. Children of any age working in family businesses, including family farms, are exempt from the permit requirements, and children are only permitted to undertake light work and are excluded from employment in a number of hazardous industries and from performing dangerous tasks.

The age limits for child employment regulations in Victoria are aligned with the international labour standards on child labour. Victoria’s occupational health and safety laws also ensure that those children aged 15 to 17 years are afforded strong protection in the workplace, and school attendance is compulsory for children in Victoria under the age of 17 years, with exemptions only granted for limited circumstances.

Indeed as I noticed when I was looking at some stuff to do with TAFE and kids, at what age they leave school and then even after leaving school whether they re-engage with further education through TAFE and the like, one of the leading reasons for children wanting to leave school earlier than 17 years of age is not only for independence but because they want to gain access to the workforce and money. So that is about independence and wanting to get some money and then developing independence away from Mum and Dad and supporting themselves.

I will not go on. I know Mr Melhem wants to speak on this as well.

Mr Melhem: No, keep going.

Ms TERPSTRA: No, I got told before. I got written instructions about how long I was meant to speak for, so I will do the right thing. I am a good girl today. But I think it is an important bill. It is important to make sure we protect children and make sure we have strong protections in place. You do not want children to be exploited or taken advantage of in the workplace.

I will just finish on this point: it is important for children, if they are going to enter the workplace, to understand their rights, so I would encourage anyone playing along at home and listening to these contributions today, if they are children wanting to work, to make sure they join their union, because that is the best place that they can learn about their workplace rights and get help and assistance—from their union—because sometimes they will get taken advantage of. I know that anyone who has worked at any point in their life will at some point have had a question about their pay, a question about their superannuation, a question about their rights around safety, and I know many young people who work in the hospitality industry, in fast food and the like—it is horrible. You can see they get abused in some of these jobs. People get angry because they do not get their food on time and all the rest of it, so there is abuse, there is bullying, there is harassment—all those sorts of things. So health and safety protections are very important in the workplace, and as I said, there is no better organisation to help—

Mr Ondarchie: I thought you were finishing up.

Ms TERPSTRA: Yes, I am getting there. There is no better organisation to help young people understand their rights than the union. I will conclude my contribution there. I commend this bill to the house without amendment.

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:44): I rise to speak on the Child Employment Amendment Bill 2022. I will be supporting this bill today. The reforms of this bill have been welcomed by many to streamline the oversight of child employment. The bill will also free up the Wage Inspectorate Victoria to educate employers about their obligations under the act and increase their ability to address risky employment situations for children. This is very important. I welcome the increased range and size of sanctions, as they will increase the ability to derive compliance from businesses and other organisations that employ children.

Currently children aged 11 years and over can undertake delivery work where their employer obtains a general industries permit. Children aged 13 years and over can be employed under the general industries permit. We all agree we must have protections in place to protect these children who are vulnerable to exploitation from employers. Up till this point there has been widespread misunderstanding among employers when it comes to child employment. There is a commonly held belief that children are able to be employed from the age of 14 years and nine months. This is not the case. Clearly, further education on the act is needed for employers.

There are a number of points I urge the government to consider when developing and enforcing the regulations of this bill. One: the streamlining provided by the licensing must not result in any cuts to the funding and levels of staff that provide oversight of compliance with the Child Employment Act 2003. Compliance oversight is critical to protecting children. This cannot be compromised. Two: the new system must continue to make sure that the parents are making informed decisions in approving the work that their children do. Not only are employers largely unaware of the act but parents are as well. They should be fully informed prior to giving their approval or disapproval for their child to work. Three: there is also a need for the Victorian government to monitor that children are not subjected to exploitative and harmful employment arrangements through the gig economy. Gig economy platforms and businesses may seek to implement models to avoid being captured by the provisions of the Child Employment Act. We know the gig economy is founded on exploitative workplace practices. We also know that they have been under-regulated and allowed to take over a large portion of our workforce. Children must be protected from the gig economy. But I will commend this bill to the house.

Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (14:47): I also rise to speak on the Child Employment Amendment Bill 2022. Following on from various speakers in relation to this particular bill, I think it is a very important bill. Some people will think, ‘Okay, well it’s just straightforward’, that it is not a big issue, but it is a big issue actually. It is important that we have the bill. We always should be reviewing the circumstances and the conditions under which our children are sent out or could do some work.

I think a lot of speakers talked about their own experiences over the years. I recall one of my first jobs. I am not sure if it was a job, but it was sort of doing some work, paid work, as a child. I think I was 12 or 13. I do not remember the exact age, like most people. It was selling newspapers. I was going around, and I tell you it was very attractive back then at the time. I made some really good cash out of it—good money. I used to go and tease my oldest brothers and sisters about it—my other brother was only about two years older than me—and we used to make good money in comparison with them, and they were going to go and do adult jobs. So it was a good job at the time.

I think it is important to have that experience and for kids to be able to go and do some work, but we need to make sure the conditions are right. We do not want to end up with what is happening in other, Third World countries where we are facing a child labour situation, where kids are forced to work in horrendous conditions—and the word is ‘forced’. You know, child labour still exists around the world, unfortunately, and I am hoping the day will come when we are able to eliminate that. Thankfully, I am reasonably confident that we do not have that problem in this country where we have child labour, and I hope we never do.

I just take a quote from the ILO, which states:

Not all work done by children should be classified as child labour that is to be targeted for elimination. The participation of children or adolescents above the minimum age for admission to employment in work that does not affect their health and personal development or interfere with their schooling, is generally regarded as being something positive.

The reason I have quoted that goes back to the point I made earlier. I think it is great experience for kids to be able to go and do some work to give them a taste for what it is like to go to work and earn a bit of money, and it does not have to be that you are a member of a family who cannot afford things or maybe is struggling financially. It applies to all kids—of rich or middle-class or working-class families. I think it is a good experience for kids to actually get that taste early on—not because of need, necessarily, but for experience.

That is why the review that was conducted by the Andrews Labor government in 2020–21 was to look at the current legislation we had in place and whether that legislation was still fit for purpose or whether we were able to make some changes to make sure we improve on that. So that is the purpose of bringing to the house this bill and the various amendments to the existing act, to make sure we can fine-tune the current legislation so we are able to provide opportunities for young kids—I call them kids because we are talking about people under the age of 16 and even under the age of 17—to work and also to look at employers’ abilities to provide those opportunities while not necessarily putting an additional burden on them but making life easier, cutting some of the red tape and making sure employers are able to do that. But it will also balance the responsibility of making sure that these kids are not being subjected to any abuse and they are working under a decent standard, because we do not want to be facing a situation where children go back to child labour. As I said earlier, we are not facing that situation, thankfully, in this country, but you never know. There may be some cases we do not know about, but it is important to empower the inspectorate to do some further work to make sure we do not get to that point and make sure employers are doing the right thing.

I mean, I dealt with my own kids. They did not get into doing some work probably until the age of 15 or 16. They did the odd job here and there. They always did one day here and one day there, but as they got into high school and then at university I always thought about this lesson, because I learned it from my own parents: if you work hard, you will get somewhere. I actually said to them that they are welcome to stay at home as long as they do two things: they work when the work is available, and they study and complete their studies. That is the advice I have given them, and so far they are adhering to that. So you can stay home until you complete that, but if you are not going to work or study, then you are on your own. The point I am making is this: it is important that we provide our kids with the opportunity, and we need to encourage them to do some work, to actually go and do the odd job.

Ms Terpstra talked about delivering newspapers as no longer being available the way it used to be, because everybody is going online. I think the only one that is available now is the weekend paper. I think some people still probably use that, but the Monday to Friday delivery of newspapers is probably a thing of the past now because everyone is going online. Now you have got to have a car because the volume is not there to be able to deliver them, so maybe it is no longer available much for young kids to be able to deliver newspapers as most people in this chamber at a point in time probably did in their early teens. That may not be available for kids these days.

So it is an important bill to make sure that we address some of the issues that were highlighted in that review of the act in 2020–21. For example, one of the changes the bill will provide is a public register for all employers with a child employment licence, which will enable parents and other people interacting with child employers to assess their workplace compliance. I think it is very important to give that comfort to parents that employers are doing the right thing, because the other definition which is in the bill is ‘fit and proper’. I think it is important to make sure that if someone wants to employ someone, they are a fit and proper person to employ young children. We do not want shonky employers or individuals who may prey on children to be given the privilege of employing children—or of employing anyone, really.

Also the bill provides that a decision made by the Wage Inspectorate Victoria about a licence—a decision to cancel or suspend a licence—will be reviewable by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to ensure procedural fairness. Other changes in this bill include that employers, instead of having to apply for a permit every time they employ someone, can now apply for an annual permit, which will give them the opportunity to employ people throughout the year. The entertainment sector, I think, will be able to apply biennially.

Those are some of the changes contained in this bill. As I said, enforcement is very important to make sure there is full compliance and that the appropriate penalties are put in place to deter people who are likely not to comply with the requirements. For example, the penalty for employing a child without a permit, a licence, has increased from 100 penalty units, or $18 174, for a body corporate and 60 penalty units, or $10 904, for any other case to 1200 penalty units, or $218 088—a big jump, and rightly so—for a body corporate and 240 penalty units, or $43 617.60, in any other case. So it is important that we remind people that if they break the rules or break the law, particularly in relation to children, heavy penalties will be coming their way.

The commencement of the bill obviously will allow sufficient time and opportunity for stakeholders and industry participants to achieve compliance. Some amendments which will impose new requirements, including new licensing systems, are proposed to come into effect on 1 July 2023. I think that will be plenty of time for the industry and stakeholders to be able to make themselves familiar with the process and comply with the new regulations and the new requirements.

With these comments I definitely commend the bill to the house. I want to congratulate the Minister for Industrial Relations and the whole of government on bringing this to the house and making sure that children in the state of Victoria will be able to participate in the workforce—hopefully not in a full-time capacity, because we do not necessarily want them to work full time but to basically get a taste of working. What is most important for us as a society and a government is to make sure children actually attend their schooling and finish their schooling. We hope to continue to make sure that kids are able to finish years 10, 11 and 12 as a minimum and then go on to do whatever they want to do with their lives, whether it is university, trades, TAFE training or non-accredited training. There are a lot of opportunities available there for our kids to be able to thrive into the future. With these comments I commend the bill to the house.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (14:59): This is a really important bill to be discussing, and it is important in the context of not only understanding workplace rights, entitlements and obligations but also in understanding how they apply to different groups and different parts of our community. I want to at the outset set a little bit of a scene in terms of the work that I was involved in about 740 years ago, when I worked for the then Department of Innovation, Industry, and Regional Development. In particular Industrial Relations Victoria was based in that department at the time, and the Child Employment Act 2003 was passed in relation to a permit system that required a number of different preconditions to be satisfied in order for children to be employed. This was a response to the policy shortcomings and gaps that existed in affording children and young people a fair and consistent safety net in the work that they undertake.

As I recall at the time, one of the things that prompted that was a range of young actors who were involved in stage productions here in Melbourne. We have got an enviable culture of theatre, and as I recall, there were productions such as Annie that had a number of child stars, for want of a better term, who were engaged in contracts for performance and really needed that safety net and terms and conditions framework to make sure not only that they had a balance but also that their families were aware of the framework within which they were working, often at really unsociable hours, and that the employer, the production company for whom they were working, had a certain set of obligations that would sit around the nature of engagement of these children to take account of their particular circumstances as employees and the needs that they have, including and by reference to wellbeing, balance and the unique occupational health and safety considerations that are at play when young people are in a workplace setting, which as we know does not usually kick in in the structured way that we understand it to be until we are 16.

In my case I was 16 when I first started working at the Great Australian Ice Creamery on Main Street in Lilydale, after which time I worked at the Taco Bill just adjacent to that on Main Street in Lilydale. But the point remains that—

Mr Ondarchie: The sun would come out tomorrow.

Ms SHING: Thank you, Mr Ondarchie. You have just quoted Annie at me, and the sun did come out tomorrow. That is why I am going to come back to what I was talking about before being so interestingly and gastronomically distracted by my first-ever job. I tell you what, I had a scooping arm like nobody’s business.

But on a serious note, it is actually really important to make sure that when children and young people are engaged in work, we are holding their employers to account but we are also providing a framework of oversight and of regulation that does not impose onerous obligations upon employers. To that end, this bill streamlines the way in which permits can be allocated by having an employer-based licensing framework which will attach to the employer rather than to the permit which needs to be sought by an employer in every instance of child employment. This has a number of features that add, I think, to a landscape of protection, of intervention and of recognition of the needs of children in a workplace setting. That sits with the employer, as it should. This allows for clear messages to be sent and to be received through the oversight mechanism and through the register that an employer will go onto for—six years?—a period of time. I will just revise that, should I need.

But what happens with this register is that it then actually puts the responsibility for compliance on the employer as that relates to a particular class of workers within that workplace setting, specifically children. We see that that is important, including by reference to the deterrent impact that that will have upon any unlawful or inappropriate conduct, behaviour or workplace practice that an employer might engage in. It creates obligations for employers to positively act to ensure that the workplace environment is safe and suitable for children in that setting. It is also making sure that where we have children under the age of 15 who are working, we have a situation of consistency, of transparency and also of accountability.

In that setting the Child Employment Act 2003 refers to a balancing, as I said, of various needs and various balances that need to be struck as far as children’s hours of work et cetera go, and school and education are a really central part of that. It is very, very easy to make aspirational commitments that a child will not be disadvantaged by virtue of his or her role on a stage or indeed elsewhere, but in fact to deliver on that is hard, where the bright lights might be shining, the boards might be there to be trodden and the attention might be there to be received as far as momentary celebrity and an opportunity to sit in the limelight for a time go.

That is where educational development is such an important thing to recognise as part of this child employment framework and making sure also that there are safeguards around that vulnerability piece that we need to really recognise and build into the legislative response to these issues, and this is something that was raised in the review of the act which took place in 2020–21. It talks about the importance of understanding these dynamics of children in a workplace setting where their needs differ, often very significantly, from the adults with whom they are working, and that was a process that involved some pretty extensive consultation and discussion with employer groups, unions, key stakeholders across child welfare groups and also other government departments and agencies. Mr Melhem has covered that in his contribution as well, and I think it is a point worth underscoring in the context of this particular bill. But it is also about identifying changes and opportunities to improve, and continuous improvement is a responsibility not only of government and of the Parliament, including here in this bill that we are talking about, but also as it relates to what employers are doing—how they are spending their time, what they are doing on a workplace level to help young people to understand their rights and entitlements and also what it is that parents, caregivers or kinship carers are able to understand about the obligations that an employer has and the way in which those obligations need to be met.

Going back to the point that I made earlier about the permit system, where we have an employer who employs large numbers of children there can often be an enormous number of permits that are in the system at any one time, and that is a huge volume of administrative work. It is also a volume of administrative work that can be streamlined, and that is precisely what this bill does. The application process and moving to that targeted licensing scheme will make it easier in practical terms but also in terms of accountability and transparency for an employer to complete that one overarching permit application and to be able to employ multiple children under that one licence, rather than applying, as I said earlier, to receive individual permits for children before they are employed.

The work associated with employment of children is also worth commenting on in the context of broader workplace reform, including the framework within which we have applied as a Labor government a system and indeed a culture that over time recognises the importance of safe workplaces, of a fair safety net of minimum terms and conditions, of the requirement to provide information to workers, of workplaces that are free from discrimination and harassment and of a workplace safety framework which is rigorous, independent and well resourced. That is something that we have discussed many times in this chamber. It is also an enduring feature of the work that has guided our legislative agenda as it relates to everything, including industrial manslaughter, and we have talked about that as it relates to cases that have led to tragedy, particularly in the agricultural sector, where young people have been working on farm and there have been rollovers of quad bikes and similar. That, if nothing else, speaks to the importance of understanding the impact of a productive, collaborative but also, importantly, rigorous framework of regulation for the way in which children work.

So there are necessarily flexibilities built into the system, but at the heart of what this bill seeks to achieve is a continuation of the rigour attached to child employment, of terms that actually extrapolate a number of the themes that we, as a Labor government, have pursued—have always pursued—around equity and safety in employment terms and conditions and of making sure that we are building on the child safe standards and the work that we have done to implement those changes to ensure that service providers, including employers, have that focus on child safety and wellbeing.

We have got work for the Wage Inspectorate Victoria to be able to make decisions around the cancellation or suspension of a licence. Those decisions will be reviewable by VCAT, so there is an element of procedural fairness built into that through the administrative law framework.

Making sure that we can continue this work is a key part of this discussion that we are having here today, and I would like to make sure that we are under no doubt about the importance of an ongoing discussion on child safety and on child employment but also that we can amend and remove—which is what this bill does—the uncertainties that are attendant upon the existing framework, including by reference to an amended definition of ‘employment’. This is something which has been canvassed by other speakers in this place today, including by Mr Melhem, who was on his feet immediately before me: the removal of the exclusion for door-to-door fundraising and the removal of the exclusion for work performed for a not-for-profit organisation. Other areas of uncertainty that are amended include an exclusion for children who appear in the background of news and current affairs, lifestyle, documentary or education programs; clarification that children providing babysitting and other domestic services are not covered by the act; and also an extension to the current tutoring exclusion outside of residential premises so that where it is happening at a library or indeed somewhere else of that nature, children will not be covered.

These are practical changes, and these are changes which acknowledge the reality of the world in which we are living and working now. They are also changes which pick up the occurrence of unintended consequences, including, as I flagged earlier, the way in which children might appear in the background of certain televised footage where they are not being directed to act a certain way—so, for example, a news report. I have done a few of these at kindergartens, where kids are frolicking in the background—and they do frolic because there are often a lot of good things to celebrate. But where they are frolicking in the background, they would not need to be engaged in the course of employment where there is in fact not a direction in place for them to work or to behave in a certain way. So it is a clear delineation between the world in which we live, the way in which people interact, including children, and a more formal and crystallised employment situation which engages a framework of directions for work to be undertaken by a child and the framework of regulation that sits around that.

These are, I think, really important improvements. They are improvements which go, as I said, to the heart of subject matter that addresses an asymmetry in power and therefore a corresponding increase in obligation that needs to be put in place to make sure that that is recognised but also that safety is paramount for children in these settings and that there is no wriggle room for employers because of any regulatory gaps to escape the obligations or responsibilities that they have or indeed to act inadvertently without there being some form of sanction in place. So I am really pleased to support this bill that we are discussing here today. I am glad to hear of the support of others in achieving the objectives of this bill. I wish it a speedy passage, and I thank the house for the time afforded to me this afternoon.

Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (15:14): It is such a delight to be here today to speak to this chamber on the Child Employment Amendment Bill 2022, and I thank Ms Terpstra for already providing remarks earlier on. Is that right? I am really kicking myself that I missed that.

A member: You can read Hansard.

Ms WATT: I will take the time to check Hansard and read what was no doubt a very powerful contribution on this important bill, which establishes a regulatory framework to protect Victoria’s most vulnerable workers and make sure that it is strong and effective. The regulation of child employment is indeed no exception. The Child Employment Act 2003 currently regulates when and in what circumstances children under 15 years in Victoria can work. We know that part-time or casual work can have many positive impacts for children: they learn new skills and gain confidence and indeed independence. What is going on with the clock?

Members interjecting.

Ms WATT: Oh, I am sorry. I am very happy to—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): Order! We are still in session, people. Please recommence your contribution, Ms Watt.

Ms WATT: From the top, perhaps. Thank you, Acting President. I do so much appreciate that.

Ms Shing: On a point of order, Acting President, I am just wondering whether the member might take the contribution from the top.

Mr Ondarchie: That is what he just said.

Ms Shing: Oh, sorry. I thought he said ‘recommence your contribution’. My apologies, Acting President, it has been a long week.

Mr Ondarchie: On the point of order, Acting President—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): Mr Ondarchie, there is no point of order.

Mr Ondarchie: Well, I would put to you that she was more than 40 seconds into this contribution.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): Well, I think, Mr Ondarchie, given that we have now chewed up almost a minute and I cannot ascertain clearly how long Ms Watt had been going for, I will invite her to start from the top. She has already had a 1-minute haircut. Ms Watt, begin your contribution from the top, thank you, in the remaining time.

Ms WATT: I appreciate that. And thank you to members of this chamber for speaking up for me to make sure that my contributions are heard here today on the Child Employment Amendment Bill 2022. I indeed have so very much to say about it that I do appreciate the extra time, Acting President.

As I was saying, the regulation of child employment is no exception in our state as we protect Victoria’s most vulnerable workers and make sure that it is strong and effective. The Child Employment Act 2003 currently regulates when and in what circumstances children under 15 years can work. We know, as I said, that part-time or casual work can have many positive impacts for children: they learn new skills, gain confidence and independence and get to earn a bit of money for themselves. I could talk about some of my experiences in my younger years and the new skills and confidence that I learned, and indeed one of those was about the administration of ventolin to young children as I babysat some young kids. And that, in my later years, has been very, very helpful. These benefits, however, must be balanced against their educational development and the need for additional safeguards due to their vulnerability in the workplace.

The act sets out the age, types of work and conditions that apply to child employment and aims to protect children from doing work that could be harmful or affect their attendance at school and to protect children from exploitation. The Andrews Labor government undertook a review of the act in 2020–21, and the amendments proposed in this Child Employment Amendment Bill arise from that process. As part of the review process we consulted with employer groups, unions, industry associations, child welfare groups and other government departments and agencies. That review highlighted opportunities to improve the child employment regulatory regime, particularly with respect to streamlining the permit system and adopting a risk-based regulatory approach. The final amendments aim to ensure that the act and the child employment regulatory scheme remain targeted, effective and responsive to the contemporary workplace issues in a changing work landscape.

This legislation does not propose to alter the minimum age for work nor to displace a number of important exclusions. Under the current act employment of children under 15 years old is primarily regulated through a permit system. Provided the employer obtains a general industry permit, children aged 11 years or over can undertake delivery work and children aged 13 years and over are able to be employed in other non-hazardous work.

There is no minimum age for children to work in the entertainment industry, which can include performance, modelling, photographic and television or film work. However, a specific entertainment industry permit is required. A mandatory code of practice further prescribes conditions around the employment of children in the entertainment industry, where the risk is deemed to be higher and where the vast majority of working children are currently employed.

Children of any age working in family businesses, including family farms, are exempt from the permit requirements. Knowing just how many of us have spent time in our early years helping our family businesses to thrive, I know that family businesses will be very happy to see that no changes have been proposed there—that is, children of any age working in family businesses, including the family farm, are exempt from the permit requirements. Children are only permitted to undertake light work and are excluded from employment in a number of hazardous industries and from performing dangerous tasks.

The age limits for child employment regulation in Victoria are aligned with the International Labour Organization’s international labour standards on child labour. Victoria’s occupational health and safety laws also ensure that those children aged 15 to 17 are afforded strong protection in the workplace. School attendance is compulsory for children in Victoria until the age of 17 years, with exemptions granted only in limited circumstances.

I will just take a moment to acknowledge just how challenging it can be for those adolescents and young people undertaking performing arts and television and film work. I indeed attended school with a very talented young woman who was a model. I still remember her name to this day: Helena. She was a model of the very famous Dolly magazine. If any of you were around and read Dolly magazine, you will know just how much of an important publication that was for young women and girls. To know that my colleague at school Helena would often feature in the pages of Dolly magazine meant that sometimes she missed school. So Helena, you are in Dolly mag, and I was so proud to know you, but it did mean that sometimes you missed out on school and school excursions and the school camp and other fun things. But Dolly mag was a pretty special part of my monthly ritual: go down to the shop and buy a Dolly mag and see if I can spot my friend Helena in it.

There are of course age limits for child employment regulation in Victoria. I have spoken about that, and I could go on for quite some time, but I am just thinking about the Dolly mag and the good times reading that as a younger woman. Back to the bill perhaps, Sheena.

The current scheme requires an employer to apply for individual permits for each child they engage. A review identified the permit system as one of the biggest issues for stakeholders, who supported a more efficient, responsive and flexible approach. The bill introduces a streamlined child employment licensing system to replace the individual permit system. It will simplify the process for obtaining permission to employ a child by requiring one licence application annually for an entertainment licence and biennially for a general licence. Under the current act some employers who engage children frequently, such as those in the entertainment industry, can have hundreds of permits at a time, creating a significant amount of administrative work. I reckon that was the case at Dolly mag. Moving to a targeted licensing system, where an employer only requires one licence, will streamline the process and make it easier for employers to comply.

The actual application process under the new licensing scheme will also require the provision of different information depending on the level of risk involved in the work. The new licensing system will also enable better targeting of resources to focus on licence-holders in the highest risk areas, who must provide more information and receive more oversight, including an increased emphasis on compliance monitoring and audits, than lower risk areas. Employers will be able to employ multiple children under the one licence rather than the individual permits for each child employed. They will then inform the Wage Inspectorate Victoria of each child who is employed. There will be no cost associated with applying for a child employment licence.

Current levels of protection for children in the workplace will be enhanced under the new system by the inclusion of a fit and proper person test and the creation of new roles for nominated officers and employer representatives in entertainment licences. These employer representatives will have responsibility for ensuring compliance with the act and any licence conditions.

The bill provides for a public register for all employers with a child employment licence, which will enable parents and other persons interacting with child employees to assess a given workplace’s compliance. These measures will build on the Andrews Labor government’s recent adoption of the new child safety standards to ensure a focus by service providers and employers on child safety and wellbeing. Under the bill, decisions made by the wage inspectorate about a licence, such as a decision to cancel or suspend a licence, will be reviewable to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to ensure procedural fairness.

Just again in response to the evidence presented to the review, this bill aims to address areas of uncertainty in the regulatory framework to promote better understanding and compliance and ultimately a greater level of protection to children covered by the act. This includes an amended definition of ‘employment’. The concept of employment is deliberately broad in the act and is intended to capture a range of working arrangements that may not meet the legal definition of a contract of employment. Consistent with the purposes of the act, this is designed to ensure the protection and wellbeing of children in employment-like scenarios. The amended definition removes the exclusion for door-to-door fundraising, as the risks to children in this setting are high, and removes the exclusion for work performed for a not-for-profit organisation that may not meet the definition of a formal work contract. There we go—that is actually a really meaningful one.

Some other areas of uncertainty are also amended, with exclusions for children who appear in the background of news, current affairs, lifestyle, documentary or education programs where they are not given directions about how to appear in the program; clarification that children providing babysitting and other domestic services are not covered by the act; and extension of the current tutoring exclusion to outside of residential premises, so that if it is occurring in a library or other premises, it will not be covered. Other changes include making clear that a child employment permit is not required for formal work experience arrangements, clarifying what is meant by direct supervision for children working in a family business and increasing the minimum age of a person supervising a child under 15 years in the workplace to 18 years to address concerns about the potential friction in placing protective obligations on children who are still subject to protection themselves. There will also be a new requirement for children who are auditioning for a role or participating in a casting process to be supervised by a person with a working with children clearance to ensure that they are safe in this setting.

Currently not-for-profit organisations are only covered by the act if they engage children under a formal work contract. This bill will remove that inconsistency so that any work meeting the definition of ‘employment’ under the act will be regulated, whether the employer is a profit or non-profit entity. The impact on not-for-profit organisations is considered to be low and in any event offset by the greater protections that coverage of the act will provide to children.

As was previously the case, local sporting clubs will not be covered when they are engaging children in work that is considered low risk, such as umpiring or coaching team sports. Now, that is a really common area for young people to seek some of their earliest employment—around coaching a team or umpiring—and you know, I am sure that there are others in this place that could tell a story or two about coaching the younger members of the team or other teams at their club.

The child employment act aims to regulate risks to children associated with work and the tasks that they are required to perform as part of that work, such as fatigue, risk of injury, disruption to education et cetera. These work-related risks are considered unlikely to arise in the context of the above excluded activities children might be employed to undertake. However, work related to high-risk activities, including martial arts, horseriding and gym instruction, will still be covered by the act.

There is so much more to be said, but any bill before us that strengthens protection for children and makes robust laws to protect workers in Victoria is a good thing, and I am very pleased to see this bill before us. And yes, I did tell the story about Helena in the Dolly mag, and I am sorry that I have run out of time to share my story about my colleague on the set of Neighbours and how very much I admired her contribution to that important, remarkable Australian TV show.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (15:32)

Mr ONDARCHIE: Minister, thanks for the opportunity to address this very important bill. I just want to touch on one major issue that has come to me on a number of occasions, including through the course of this debate, by messaging. Mr Melhem referred to this bill as ‘a bill that will ensure that shonky individuals do not prey on children’. I want to go to that for a moment because I have had a number of instances that have been relayed to me about younger people that start in a workforce, particularly in retail or hospo, where the relevant union involved has had a shop steward or an official approach the children to sign them up to union membership and to have some deductions taken out of their salary for—well, I said it was in retail and hospo, so I am sure you can put it all together. Parents were concerned that their children were—I am not going to use the word ‘forced’—encouraged to sign up for this paperwork and sign up for deductions out of their salaries without the parents getting the opportunity, because these kids were under 18, to examine the documentation and ensure that all was appropriate before the kids signed up. The advice I got from one particular parent was:

I saw … first hand when a child commenced work at—

a place—

… the shop union rep was very … demanding …

that the kid signed the document before they went home.

Ms Terpstra: I think you’re making that up.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Ms Terpstra, this was not from me, this was sent to me. You can be as defensive as you like, but this is reality. As you walk out of the chamber, the question I have for the minister is: how do we ensure that our kids who are in workplaces are protected from that sort of pressure?

Ms SYMES: I thank Mr Ondarchie for his question. Mr Ondarchie, the conduct that you have articulated and described to the chamber is not something that the bill deals with. In relation to any conduct in relation to a union official, that is a federal matter. There are federal bodies that could look into complaints of that nature.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Minister, given this bill is about ensuring protection for children in employment in Victoria, does the government have no view on ensuring they are protected not only from employers’ inappropriate practices but also from those of trade unions?

Ms SYMES: Mr Ondarchie, that is not what I said. What I am saying is that this bill is about the conditions that children can be employed under and the supervision requirements et cetera. There have been a lot of speeches today that have gone through what this bill does, and what it does is not go to the matters that you have referred to. There are other potential mechanisms for complaints to be made in relation to those matters and indeed numerous ways to make complaints against concerning conduct. If you have got any specific examples, you can send them through to the national body that can look at unions, but in relation to workplaces, of course we want children to be employed by responsible employers, be looked after in the workplace and have a positive and indeed safe experience. We want to make sure that there are the appropriate supervision mechanisms and the like in place, and that is what this bill goes towards.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Minister, should children under the age of 18 be required to sign documentation about their employment and anything relating to their employment without the opportunity for them to refer that to their parents or a responsible adult?

Ms SYMES: Mr Ondarchie, you are asking me questions that are outside the bill. You are also asking me for an opinion.

Mr ONDARCHIE: No, I did not ask you for an opinion.

Ms SYMES: You asked me for legal advice, effectively.

Mr ONDARCHIE: So is the answer that you are not responding?

Ms SYMES: I am saying it would be useful if the committee stage were confined to the contents of the bill. If there is a specific clause that you want to draw my attention to to have a conversation about, then I am more than happy to do so.

Mr ONDARCHIE: I do not have any further questions for the Attorney-General on this point, so this is not a question, it is a statement: once again the government is abrogating responsibility to the children of Victoria.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 (15:39)

Ms SYMES: I am sorry, Deputy President. Mr Ondarchie and I are having a conversation across the table because he gave me notice that he would require some information in the committee stage, so I was waiting for some questions that he did not ask. But he did ask them, so I am wondering if, by leave, perhaps I could respond to the questions that he asked in his second reading.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We are up to clause 18, so let us just pass clause 18.

Clause agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now, before we move to clause 19 and the amendment, Mr Ondarchie, by leave, will ask the question that the minister wants to answer.

Mr ONDARCHIE: By leave, one of the things that we are concerned about is that the Wage Inspectorate Victoria undertake a comprehensive information campaign to ensure that businesses are well and truly aware of what these changes are and how they may affect them. Minister, would you respond to that, on how the Wage Inspectorate Victoria will undertake such a campaign or if they will?

Ms SYMES: Thank you, Mr Ondarchie. Yes, this is a bill that has been subject to a lot of consultation, so a lot of people already know about this. This is not a surprise to many people in the sector. It has been through forums with industry and worker representatives in its development. A working group was established to represent industry, unions and children in the entertainment sector. They met regularly throughout the development of this legislation, and that group has been updated about the changes which we are currently discussing at the moment.

The wage inspectorate will be putting in place a comprehensive communications and engagement plan to ensure that any further relevant stakeholders are aware of the changes to the regulatory scheme. In the coming weeks meetings will be held with targeted groups to commence this consultation process, including the following groups: the Victorian Small Business Commission, the Commission for Children and Young People, the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group, the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, Trades Hall, the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association of Australia, the National Retail Association, the Australian Retailers Association, the Victorian Farmers Federation and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia.

The government wants to provide sufficient time and opportunity for industry to achieve compliance, so some amendments which impose new requirements, including the new licensing scheme, will not commence until 1 July 2023. The new requirements for supervision during auditions and casting and slightly expanded coverage for non-profit entities will also commence on 1 July 2023, allowing ample time for industry participants not only to become aware of the new requirements but to engage with forums that have been set up for them to ask questions about how they will be able to follow the guidelines in their own workplaces and to give them time to transition and be set up and implemented by that start date of the middle of next year.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Minister, as I said in my second-reading contribution, which was a long time ago today and well before members of the government were talking about the construction of pizzas and moving horse manure around, one of the concerns we have about the new system of regulation is the imposition or the impact it will have on small business. Can you outline to the house what involvement the Minister for Small Business had in the construction of this bill?

Ms SYMES: Mr Ondarchie, I do not know the answer to that because I am not the Minister for Small Business, but obviously with our bills, contrary to yours—I do not know what happens with yours, because I asked Mr Davis yesterday and he could not tell me what happens in the shadow cabinet process—when it comes to the cabinet process for government, the departments that are responsible for drafting bills have an initial discussion with all of the other departments. So it would have picked up the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions, where the small business portfolio sits. Then issues are canvassed out, and there is a coordination process. It goes to cabinet in the first instance and then gets approval in principle to go forth and be developed further. There is a time gap there for further conversations between government ministers, relevant departments and indeed our industry as required. As I identified in the consultation in relation to this bill, that would have happened in that period then. Then again they come back to cabinet for final approval before they are agreed to to go into the Parliament. So the Minister for Small Business would have been engaged for some time through the normal process, and indeed I have no doubt that the department that looks after small businesses and the related agencies would have been heavily involved in the development of this legislation.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Last one, Minister: this bill imposes a significant increase in penalties. As a result of that and associated activities, is the government foreshadowing an increase to the workforce required to issue compliance infringement notices?

Ms SYMES: Thank you, Mr Ondarchie. Just for the house’s interest on the matter of penalties, a penalty for employing a child without a permit licence will increase from 100 penalty units, which is around $18 000, for a body corporate and 60 penalty units in any other case to 1200 penalty units for a body corporate and 240 penalty units in any other case. The penalties are effectively for failing to produce documents, hindering authorised officers and giving false or misleading information. These have increased to 100 units for body corporates and 60 units for any other case.

My advice in relation to the staff to oversee the new system and the like is that, because it is a streamlining system, it is anticipated it will actually free up a lot of compliance and enforcement activity, plus the streamlining and licensing system will actually be a help to small businesses.

The expectation is that this legislation and the systems that support it will make the job easier. It will be clearer for employers, small businesses in particular, because there are less permits to obtain because you are no longer having to obtain them for individual kids. It is for a two-year period, so there is going to be less impost, less paperwork and therefore that streamlining effect should not have a massive burden, in fact it could actually be less work for the people that are overseeing this system.

Mr ONDARCHIE: This will be the last one, depending on the answer of course. Minister, given you have outlined what the penalties are going to be, which I did in my second-reading speech, and you have talked about how the system becomes more efficient as a result of the activities you are undertaking, are you foreshadowing some redundancies required then in the system?

Ms SYMES: No, Mr Ondarchie. I am not foreshadowing redundancies. That is not a matter for me to foreshadow.

Clause 19 (15:46)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, I invite you to move your amendments 1 to 4, which are a test for your amendments 5 to 8.

Dr RATNAM: I move:

1. Clause 19, after line 1 insert—

‘(1) For section 19A(1) of the Principal Act substitute—

“(1) The Worker Screening Act 2020 extends and applies—

(a) to the supervision of a child in employment that requires a permit under this Act as if that supervision were child-related work for the purposes of the Worker Screening Act 2020; and

(b) except in relation to employment in entertainment, to any adult who performs work (other than the supervision of a child) in the same workplace as a child in employment that requires a permit under this Act as if the adult’s work were child-related work for the purposes of the Worker Screening Act 2020.”.

(2) In section 19A(2) of the Principal Act—

(a) for “subsection (1)” substitute “subsection (1)(a) or an adult referred to in subsection (1)(b)”;

(b) in paragraph (c)—

(i) for “19A(1)” substitute “19A(1)(a)”;

(ii) after “2003” insert “or is an adult referred to in section 19A(1)(b) of that Act”;

(c) for paragraph (d) substitute—

‘(d) section 78 applies as if the following subsection were substituted for section 78(3)—

“(3) For the purposes of Chapter 6—

(a) a person supervising a child referred to in section 19A(1)(a) of the Child Employment Act 2003 who has been given an interim WWC exclusion under section 66 is not to be regarded as having a current WWC clearance in respect of that supervision; and

(b) an adult referred to in section 19A(1)(b) of the Child Employment Act 2003 who has been given an interim WWC exclusion under section 66 is not to be regarded as having a current WWC clearance in respect of work in the same workplace as a child as referred to in section 19A(1)(b) of that Act.”;’;

(d) in paragraphs (h), (k) and (m)—

(i) for “19A(1)” substitute “19A(1)(a)”;

(ii) after “2003” insert “or is an adult referred to in section 19A(1)(b) of that Act”.’.

2. Clause 19, line 2, before “At” insert “(3)”.

3. Clause 19, line 8, after “employees” insert “or adults who perform work in the same workplaces as child employees”.

4. Clause 19, line 9, after “employees” insert “or adults who perform work in the same workplaces as child employees”.

I just want to make some general comments relating to my other set of amendments, which I originally proposed. First, I want to thank the Treasurer for committing to a review of the changes in this bill. Importantly, the review will look at whether there has been an increase in the number of children under 15 years in employment, in particular in the fast food and retail industries, and whether there is any evidence that the amendments have led to additional or higher risk for that age group. The bill represents a significant change to the framework for employing children under 15. The key change is one that has been pursued by employers, so a review to ensure it is working in the interests of children is important. The minister I understand perhaps will put on the record that Wage Inspectorate Victoria is expected to report on the number of licences issued, children employed and the use of their compliance tools. In view of that commitment, I wish to withdraw my amendments 6, 7 and 9 regarding reporting requirements for the wage inspectorate.

However, I do want to address my amendments regarding working with children checks. As I covered in my second-reading speech, and as broadly acknowledged, children are particularly vulnerable in workplaces. They are vulnerable to the types of exploitation other workers can experience but are at a further disadvantage due to their youth and the power dynamics at play. Over 50 per cent of children employed pursuant to the Child Employment Act 2003 work in retail or food services, which are known to be industries with high levels of non-compliance with workplace laws. We think that, as well as a supervisor, it is appropriate to require a working with children check for other workers who will be working with children. It is a simple additional protection.

While I acknowledge my amendments go further than just the fast food and retail industries and have the potential to capture large numbers of workers, they only capture workplaces where children are employed. If there is a choice between the administrative burden of a check versus employing a child, maybe the right decision is not to use child labour. I do believe that the value of working with children checks as additional protection for kids at work should be considered by the government. I move amendments 1 to 4 as they will be a test for my subsequent amendments.

Mr ONDARCHIE: After some consideration by the shadow cabinet and the shadow minister, the Liberal-Nationals coalition will not be supporting these amendments.

Ms SYMES: Thank you, Dr Ratnam, for your consideration of withdrawing your amendments. I thank the Treasurer’s office for facilitating some positive conversations with you. I guess I just put on record that Wage Inspectorate Victoria will as a matter of course report publicly on its activities. Noting that this is the first year of its operation as a standalone entity, it has not yet had the opportunity to do so. We expect that after the commencement of this bill the inspectorate will report on the numbers of licences issued, children employed and use of compliance tools.

Under the bill the inspectorate will already be required to establish and keep a public register for all employers with a child employment licence, and the inspectorate must record in the register for each licence issued details of the licence-holder and its nominated officer, the date the licence came into force and its expiry, and any conditions on the licence. The inspectorate’s published compliance and enforcement policy describes its regulatory approach and has been in the practice of reporting publicly about its compliance and enforcement work where there is a public interest to do so. Of note, the inspectorate in the year to date has assessed and issued more than 7000 child employment permits, completed 159 proactive compliance checks resulting in 35 matters referred for further investigation and initiated 211 investigations.

Thank you, Dr Ratnam, for taking the time to have conversations and have a constructive outcome in relation to that matter. They are important issues that you have raised, and it is good that we have been able to resolve that in a manner that is satisfactory to both parties.

Similarly to Mr Ondarchie and the coalition, the government is not in a position to support your amendments in relation to working with children check expansions. We do not think that these amendments are necessary, and the legislation already further protects children in employment. Expanding the working with children check scheme is not a solution to resolving the concerns that you have raised in relation to child exploitation.

From the Attorney-General’s perspective—I oversee the working with children check scheme—a lot of people require it already, as you have identified. We do not think expanding it to what we are anticipating could be approximately 500 000 workers employed in both the retail and hospitality sectors who may come into contact with children is a good use of resources. It is a system where the numbers are quite high already. For example, there are 1.73 million working with children clearance holders. That is how many people in Victoria have a working with children check as of April this year. The number of applications processed between July 2021 and April 2022 was 281 792. The way it works is if people ping in relation to relevant offences that are deemed to put children at unnecessary risk of harm, then those people can be excluded. There were 6292 working with children exclusions issued as of 30 April 2022.

It is a scheme that has been around for some time. It has been expanded. I know for my purposes you cannot volunteer at a school without a working with children check. Even as Attorney-General I still have to get a working with children check to be able to help out at the school fete, for instance. There is a lot of work that goes into it, and it is expensive. The 2021–22 budget provided output funding of $33.3 million until 2024–25 alone to support the continued operation of the working with children check. So I guess from that perspective, the advice from the Treasurer’s office is that it is unnecessary. I think my concern and my position is that it would swamp our system and not necessarily produce the outcome that you think it would. Balancing effort for outcome, we would be concerned about having to create a whole new workforce just to process cards for people that may come into contact with kids, as opposed to the targeted approach and the categories that the working with children check system already covers.

As I said, we want employers to be ensuring that all of their staff are fit and proper for the role that they undertake, and really the criminal history information that the working with children checks uncover is really only one aspect of these suitability tests. Given supervisors of child employees are already required to obtain the check, the child safe standards provide a better mechanism for organisations to ensure the broader workforce are fit for the roles that they perform.

As I said, expanding the scheme would lead to a blowout of not only costs and staff that I would need to process those increased applications but also the wait times. In fact without having received formal advice on it, I cannot see how it would not actually increase the costs for all cardholders with that sort of massive injection of additional cardholders. So we are concerned about your amendment to broaden the scope of the scheme, and we do not think it fits with recent reforms around spent convictions either and think it may result in unfairly preventing people from accessing the workforce. We understand your intent. Everyone wants kids to be as safe as possible and you want to do everything possible, but we just do not think that this is the right approach. So we will not be supporting this amendment. It is just a little bit disproportionate to the risk that can be identified.

Mr MEDDICK: Minister, what is the interaction between the working with children scheme and the child safe standards in this legislation, please?

Ms SYMES: Thank you, Mr Meddick—a good question. I have got some advice that hopefully will go to the issues that you have raised. The working with children scheme is administered by the Department of Justice and Community Safety, as I have indicated. That is a portfolio responsibility of my office. The Child Employment Act and the amending bill that we are discussing today mirror the provisions of the Worker Screening Act 2020 in section 19A of the Child Employment Act, and the exceptions are in 19B. The only amendments to these provisions aim to clean up the drafting a bit and provide more clarity regarding their application. However, if you do need a working with children clearance under the Worker Screening Act, you will also need it under the Child Employment Act. Conversely, if you are exempt under the Worker Screening Act, you will be exempt under the Child Employment Act, with the exception of persons providing supervision, who will need a working with children clearance in all circumstances.

The child safety standards have been updated, and the new standards take effect from July 2022. The wage inspectorate becomes the new sector regulator from 1 January 2023. Child safe standard 6 provides that people working with children and young people are suitable and supported to reflect child safety and wellbeing values in practice. In complying with child safe standard 6 an organisation must, at a minimum, ensure recruitment—including advertising, referee checks and staff and volunteer pre-employment screenings—emphasises child safety and wellbeing; relevant staff and volunteers have current working with children checks or equivalent background checks; all staff and volunteers receive an appropriate induction and are aware of their responsibilities to children and young people, including record keeping, information sharing and reporting obligations; and ongoing supervision and people management is focused on child safety and wellbeing.

The standards are expressed to apply to particular organisations, including organisations that employ a child and that are required to hold a permit issued under the Child Employment Act 2003 for that employment. The Wage Inspectorate Victoria will have responsibility for ensuring compliance with the child safe standards for entities that hold a child employment permit from 1 January 2023, and compliance with the child safe standards will also be a condition of the child employment licence. Hopefully that explained the interaction and where individuals and organisations will have requirements under both versus where people do not.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Minister, for that. I have three other questions, one of which is general; the other two relate to that same section of the Child Employment Act, sections 19(1)(a) and (b). The first one is: clause 17 amends sections 19(1)(a) and (b) of the principal act to introduce a requirement for persons who supervise children in employment to be adults. Can we take this to mean then that, say, in a fast-food outlet, for instance, a supervisor of employed children cannot be under the age of 18? Now, the question is raised because in some instances in fast-food outlets—some of the larger chains, for instance; I will not mention any names of course—

A member interjected.

Mr MEDDICK: Well, it is a bit like the ABC, isn’t it? You cannot mention names. Sometimes a trainee manager, for instance, might be under the age of 18 but they might be considered to be in charge of younger children. Will this amendment capture that and make sure that, regardless of that position, the person in charge must be 18 years of age or older?

Ms SYMES: Just for the avoidance of doubt, Mr Meddick, yes, supervisors will have to be 18-plus under the amended act.

Sitting suspended 4.00 pm until 4.18 pm.

Mr MEDDICK: Attorney, can you please explain the changes to section 19 in relation to keeping records of who supervises a child in employment?

Ms SYMES: Thank you, Mr Meddick. In relation to the changes in section 19 in relation to keeping records of who supervises a child in employment, it is a requirement under the current act that has been amended but not deleted. Clause 16 amends sections 18B(4) and (5) of the Child Employment Act to introduce a new record-keeping requirement for employers to keep a written record of the name of any person who supervises a child in the course of the child’s employment and the number of any current working with children check clearance for that person. The employer must keep the written record for a period of five years after the person last supervised the child in the course of the child’s employment, or any other prescribed period.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Attorney, for that. This is my last question. Can you please describe the new roles for nominated officers and employer representatives, including how they might apply to a franchise?

Ms SYMES: Yes, Mr Meddick. The act introduces the new roles that you have identified—nominated officers for all licences, and for an entertainment licence, employer representatives. Licence applicants will be required to nominate an officer of the employer who will have responsibility for ensuring that requirements under the act, including any licence conditions, are complied with. This is to ensure that large organisations who may, for example, have corporate headquarters outside of Victoria have a nominated officer and do not just defer it to a HR person in a corporate office which may be miles away from where the child is employed. For example, that nominated officer within the company has to have knowledge of the Victorian child employment laws and responsibility for compliance with those laws.

Nominated officers will be required for all child employment licences. There is nothing in the legislation that prevents an employer from nominating multiple officers to undertake this role, provided there is at least one. If there are multiple sites and different corporate structures for each of those sites, it may be appropriate for the employer to nominate more than one nominated officer in the same way a large company can have multiple officers under the corporations act, and each of those officers had responsibility for ensuring legislative compliance. If the employer is a franchise, each franchise will have to obtain a child employment licence and nominate an officer.

In relation to your questions around employer representatives, they are only required for an entertainment licence. They are responsible for ensuring compliance with the act, any licence conditions and the mandatory code for children working in the entertainment industry. This role recognises the fact that there are often multiple parties involved in the engagement of a child in entertainment, such as producers, directors, choreographers, photographers et cetera, and having an employer representative ensures that there is an identified person with an overarching responsibility for compliance on the ground.

Amendments negatived; clause agreed to; clauses 20 to 80 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (16:23): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (16:24): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.