Wednesday, 7 February 2024

Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Danny Pearson:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Jess WILSON (Kew) (10:41): I rise today on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2023, a piece of omnibus legislation that seeks to amend 14 acts across 10 portfolios. I am pleased to see the minister at the table today. I thank him and his office, particularly Jon in his office, for facilitating briefings for me and my colleagues. Obviously across 10 portfolios there were many different departments that needed to come into the briefings, and I appreciate the government’s willingness to organise that. I also note my thanks to the many shadow ministers who consulted on this piece of legislation. With the 14 acts and 10 portfolios involved, many of my colleagues made sure they were across the detail and asked many questions about the impact of these reforms.

As to the purpose of this bill, the government has stated that the reforms contained in the bill are mostly minor, technical or for clarification and do not represent substantive changes to the acts in question. For that reason the coalition will not be opposing this bill. The majority of the amendments are aimed at streamlining requirements or rectifying specific instances where current acts’ provisions are not working as intended or have become impractical. I think it was very clear from the briefings we had from the department that in many cases the reforms within this piece of legislation seek to amend legislative drafting issues or where there have been loopholes discovered after the fact.

I note that in 2022 the Parliament passed a similar bill, the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021. It is very similar in composition to the one we are looking at in the chamber today. Like the 2022 bill, the 2023 bill brings together a number of minor and technical amendments across a range of portfolios that are not significant enough to warrant their own standalone reform bills. I understand that this piece of legislation has been put together through the government inviting departments to submit minor amendments that they have discovered, throughout the course of operations, as being necessary to improve regulatory compliance or to produce administrative efficiencies. This bill is the ultimate result of that process. We on this side of the house are always looking to see a reduction in red tape and an improvement in efficiencies to remove that burden, particularly on small businesses across the state.

The government outlines the four objectives within this piece of legislation as (1) to modernise and streamline requirements for businesses and social service providers without compromising the effective management of harms, (2) to improve emergency preparedness, (3) to support technology-neutral legislation and (4) to make simple and uncontroversial amendments to support an effective and efficient regulatory system through amendments to a variety of acts.

I note the minister’s second-reading speech given in this place last year, wherein it stated that the regulatory reforms contained in this bill will provide over $2.6 million in annual savings to businesses in Victoria. These savings, as identified through questioning the department, will be achieved largely by removing licensing and permit fees and making regulatory compliance easier. When we probed deeper into the $2.6 million savings outlined for this bill, the department identified the following amendments as largely equating to the $2.6 million in annual savings, noting that given the variety and the number of amendments to acts in this bill there may be further savings. The $2.6 million in annual savings is largely contributed to by the amending of the Essential Services Commission Act ‍2001 to remove the requirement to provide notice of price determinations to all regulated entities, amending the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 to create a mechanism for the secretary to authorise a specified class of entity to undertake an activity that would otherwise require a licence or permit, and amending the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to provide licensees with remote access to keno systems and to allow for a single approval for linked jackpots.

I will return to the $2.6 million in annual savings a little later to speak more broadly about red tape reduction for businesses across Victoria, particularly small businesses, and where we see there could be further improvements. But before I do, let me take the house in thrilling detail through the various parts of the act and how the bill seeks to amend each of the 14 different acts.

Part 2 of the bill amends the Monetary Units Act 2004, and can I thank the Shadow Treasurer, who is sitting at the table, for his contribution to this part of the act. The Monetary Units Act 2004 amendment will provide greater flexibility in fee setting by allowing regulations in Victoria to prescribe small fees in the form of fee units. This is achieved by removing an unnecessary prohibition that means a fee less than the equivalent of one fee unit, which is currently $15.03, cannot be fixed in fractions of that fee unit. But with this change, fee units can be set for small fees and indexed annually to keep up with inflation. Part 2 also makes a minor amendment to clarify the fee units that can be used not only for regulations but for other types of legislative instruments that may set fees.

Part 3 of the bill amends the Casino Control Act 1991 to remove a requirement for licence applicants who are seeking to become casino special employees to provide evidence of certain former employment that is not relevant to the licensing criteria.

Part 4 of the bill amends the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005 to improve information-sharing arrangements within child information sharing schemes. The bill does this by updating references to restricted information-sharing entities and clarifying the power to delegate under the scheme. This will create an administrative efficiency by enabling regulations to be made that allow restricted information-sharing entities to delegate their powers and functions by instrument in the same way as information-sharing entities. We understand from the bill briefing that this was largely an error in drafting. It seeks to remedy that through this reform within the bill today.

Part 5 of the bill amends the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 to create a mechanism wherein the Secretary of the Department of Health can authorise a class of entity to obtain, possess and store medicines. Under this amendment the secretary will be required to conduct a risk assessment and authorised entities will be required to comply with existing provisions relating to storage, record keeping, access and administration.

I note that in his second-reading speech the minister stated that this amendment will allow the secretary to authorise Victorian residential aged-care facilities to be supplied with and store antiviral medicines without a permit, improving timely access to medications, and of course this is very important in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. I thank my colleague in the other place Ms Crozier, who was very much interested in diving into the detail of this amendment within the bill, and the department for answering a range of questions, including about the changes that have been made particularly by the Commonwealth in administering vaccines in residential settings.

Part 6 of the bill amends the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 to fix drafting ambiguities and also creates efficiencies in the operations of the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority and the Victorian Institute of Teaching. These efficiencies include simplifying the process of reinstating expired teacher and early childhood teacher registrations. This is a very important change, particularly in the context of what is a teacher shortage crisis in Victoria. It will allow for teachers who have had their teachers licences expire to go through a faster process to restore those and is a welcome change.

The bill is ensuring that requirements for commencing prosecution for offences relating to apprentices are consistent with the provisions in that legislation, ensuring the provisions in the legislation that relate to ministerial orders function properly, ensuring that authorised officers are able to appropriately seize documents or other things as required by their roles and ensuring that investigations that are undertaken by the Victorian Institute of Teaching and other regulatory authorities have the required powers to ensure those investigations can take place in a timely and appropriate manner.

The bill also clarifies that the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority must notify an affected person of its intention to publish noncompliance information on its website, provide that person with an opportunity to make a submission in response to that submission to be considered by the VRQA before the decision is published and made, and ensure that the publication date is included on any published material.

Part 7 of the bill amends the Environment Protection Act 2017 to grant authority to the Environment Protection Authority to authorise transportation of waste in an emergency.

Danny Pearson interjected.

Jess WILSON: We are only up to part 7. I think there are 14 parts.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair, without assistance from members on my right.

Jess WILSON: They can help out. This amendment updates the possible EPA responses in emergency contexts by allowing the EPA to set proportionate regulatory requirements about waste transportation in these circumstances. It will provide for the temporary relief of community hardship and enable the commissioning, repair, decommissioning or dismantling of any item of plant or equipment. I note that part 7 of the bill – the amendments here – seeks to align with the second objective, to improve emergency preparedness.

Part 8 of the bill amends the Essential Services Commission Act 2001 and the Water Industry Act ‍1994 to achieve several administrative efficiencies. These include removing a requirement for the ESC to serve price determination notices to commercial passenger services while still requiring the ESC to provide determinations to any regulated entity that requests them. I note here that without this amendment the Essential Services Commission is currently needing to send over 8000 notices to individuals, which was not the original policy intent. The bill removes the requirement that the entire codes of practice be published in the Government Gazette, instead requiring the Essential Services Commission to publish notice of changes in the Government Gazette, with the full changes published on the ESC’s website.

The bill changes the definition of ‘civil penalty requirements’ under the act to allow the ESC to use its enforcement provisions to improve outcomes for consumers with embedded networks, consistent with the recommendations from the embedded networks review. And following that, the ESC will use the information-gathering powers in the ESC act rather than relying on the Water Industry Act, granting the ESC a consistent set of information-gathering powers across all regulated sectors.

Part 9 of the bill amends the Food Act 1984 in line with recommendations of the parliamentary inquiry into the closure of I Cook Foods Pty Ltd. It modernises notice requirements and publication orders and allows for notice and closure orders to be served by email. It also makes an amendment to enable orders to be made on additional grounds prescribed by regulations to address food safety risks. It prescribes infringements for breaches of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, specifically the horticultural primary production and processing standards approved by the food ministers meeting in 2022. And finally, it grants regulation-making powers to the Minister for Agriculture to enable a registration framework for horticulture businesses. I note that these amendments fully implement recommendation 10 from the inquiry into the closure of I Cook Foods and also address recommendation 13.

Can I put on the record my colleague in the other place Ms Crozier, the Shadow Minister for Health, for her incredible work around the inquiry into I Cook Foods and her consistent due diligence in making sure the recommendations from that inquiry were followed up and implemented. I know she was pleased to see this change included in the bill today.

Part 10 amends the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to reflect advancements in technology in which keno systems can be remotely accessed. Part 10 also makes a minor amendment so that only a single approval is required for linked arrangements installed at the same venue, streamlining the present requirement in which a monitoring licensee and a venue operator are required to obtain two approvals for the one shared arrangement. This effectively keeps current regulatory requirements but reduces the number of applications.

Part 11 makes a number of amendments to the Meat Industry Act 1993. First, the bill will clarify that the act does not apply to the sale of dried meat online, which is covered by the Food Act 1984, thus reducing the regulatory burden for businesses selling dried meat online. It also makes an amendment to close a loophole currently found in both the Meat Industry Act 1993 and the Seafood Safety Act 2003 wherein licence applicants under both acts who are refused for a licence renewal can obtain a licence by instead applying for a new licence. So essentially, if you are refused a licence under one act, you cannot just go to the next act and apply for a similar licence, because the amendment will close the loophole by allowing the regulator to refuse licence applications where a person has failed to comply with one licence condition.

Part 11 also makes an amendment to update the Commonwealth and Victorian licensing and inspection requirements to avoid duplication to make it easier for PrimeSafe to rescind outdated codes of practice. It makes an amendment to streamline licensing requirements in the Meat Industry Act 1993 and Seafood Safety Act 2003 in recognition of the fact that refrigerated vehicles are often used to transport multiple commodities. This amendment will ensure that only one type of licence to transport meat and seafood is required, thereby reducing the regulatory burden on businesses transporting both meat and seafood products.

It makes an amendment to remove a requirement that poultry and game processing facilities provide information to PrimeSafe that PrimeSafe does not actually need or use to assess licences and licence conditions. It also makes an amendment to remove an impractical requirement for PrimeSafe to refuse a licence for vehicle-based meat-processing facilities where an application is inconsistent with applicable planning schemes. Part 11 makes a further amendment to clarify that parts 2 and 5 of the Meat Industry Act apply to poultry and game processing, ensuring consistency in regulatory requirements.

Finally, part 11 makes an amendment to allow for delegation to the chief executive officer of PrimeSafe to occur through electronic means rather than under common seal and makes several minor amendments to remove redundant provisions, reflect machinery-of-government changes and correct typographical errors.

Part 12 of the bill amends the Regional Development Victoria Act 2002 to increase the membership of the Regional Development Advisory Committee from nine to 10 and reduce the number of required RDAC meetings from six to four per year in line with meeting arrangements for other similar advisory groups. Previously when the Regional Development Advisory Committee met, the requirements were that there were too few memberships under the current legislation, and by increasing that it means that one person no longer has to rotate off those committee meetings. Part 12 also makes minor amendments to update references to Melton City Council and reflect machinery-of-government changes.

Part 13 of the bill amends the Seafood and Safety Act 2003 to ensure that only one type of licence to transport both meat and seafood is required, as we saw similarly before in part 11 of the bill, in recognition of the fact that refrigerated vehicles are often used to transport both seafood and meat and multiple other commodities. It also makes an amendment to close the loophole currently found in both the Meat Industry Act 1993 and the Seafood Safety Act 2003, which I referred to previously.

Finally, part 14 of the bill makes amendments to the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, the Social Services Regulation Act 2021 and the Children and Health Legislation Amendment (Statement of Recognition, Aboriginal Self-determination and Other Matters) Act 2023. These amendments arise from the changes to the Social Services Regulation Act and relate to definitions in the Children, Youth and Families Act, such as the definition of ‘community-based child and family service’. These amendments reflect that from 1 July 2024 these providers need to be registered under the Social Services Regulation Act 2021 rather than the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005. Without these amendments there may be a lack of clarity around the ability to place children at existing services. Part 14 also makes minor amendments to the Sale of Land Act 1962 and the Land (Goonawarra Golf Course) Act 1988 to update references stemming from the establishment of Homes Victoria – very much minor and technical amendments. The amendments in the bill contained before us today are mostly technical in nature and do not significantly alter the intent or operation of the acts that they amend.

I will just turn briefly to the consultation that was undertaken throughout the drafting of this legislation. As I said earlier, thank you to all the shadow ministers who took the time to look through the detail within the amendments in their own portfolios. The department also advised that the following non-departmental regulators had been consulted throughout the drafting process: the Environment Protection Authority, the Essential Services Commission, PrimeSafe, the Victorian Institute of Teaching and the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority. Additionally, the coalition has sought advice from the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group and the Council of Professional Teaching Associations of Victoria, none of which expressed concerns about this legislation.

If I turn back to the $2.6 million in estimated savings to businesses that this legislation will bring, as noted earlier we asked the department to provide further information about where those savings will be and how they will affect businesses. Largely the advice was that it will have more of an impact on government non-departmental regulators and the $2.6 million would largely be through removing licensing and permit fees and making regulatory compliance easier. But when we think about how Victorian businesses are struggling at the moment, particularly under cost-of-living pressures that are not only affecting all Victorians but small businesses in particular across the state, the modest savings in this bill are really put under a spotlight. $2.6 million in annual savings for Victorian businesses are claimed to result from this bill. Given there are over 710,000 small businesses in Victoria, that means each of these businesses can expect an average saving of $3.66 a year. Surely we can do better when it comes to easing the pressure on small businesses in this state. Just as households in Victoria grapple with cost-of-living pressures – whether that is in electricity, whether that is in education or whether that is every time they go to the petrol bowser or to the supermarket – we also need to understand the struggle that our small businesses are under with the economic headwinds that are in place.

If we look to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Victoria was the only state that went backwards in terms of the number of businesses in 2023. Victoria lost 7600 businesses in 2023, many of which were no doubt forced to shut up shop due to the unfavourable economic conditions and the years of financial mismanagement by the Labor government in this state.

It should come as no surprise to anyone here, but according to the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s Cost and Ease of Doing Business in Victoria report Victoria is perceived as the most expensive place to do business. It is simply harder to do business in Victoria than in any other state. I am sure the Shadow Treasurer would agree that as he goes around his own electorate and of course around Victoria, particularly as we have been discussing our tax reform paper, a number of businesses identify that the cost of doing business in Victoria and whether it simply stacks up anymore to open their doors, to try to hire more employees or – what would seem sometimes a crime under the Labor government – to make a profit is simply becoming too hard.

If we look at some of the cost pressures on small businesses, we can turn to electricity in particular, with a 17 per cent increase over the past 12 months. Coupled with that is a 31 per cent increase in the cost of gas for businesses in Victoria. That 31 per cent increase is double the rate of any other state. From 2027, as the government’s own Gas Substitution Roadmap has identified, Victoria will be using more gas than it produces, so that 31 per cent increase over the past 12 months is only set to get worse for businesses. Of course many businesses are concerned with the push by this government to force businesses and households out of using gas, many of which rely on it heavily for their operations and for their production. If I turn to the comments by the Victorian chamber of industry here and by their CEO Paul Guerra, he notes that the increase in the cost of electricity and gas for businesses in this state is alarming. It is their biggest concern, and he says:

We’re at this nexus now. We’re either going to see more price increases to the consumer, or we’re going to see more businesses fail, or probably both.

That is the consequence of the pressure that this Allan government is putting on our small businesses, the increase in electricity and the increase in gas. It is simply getting harder to do business, and at the end of the day the business has to either reduce its number of employees and reduce its operations or pass those costs through to the consumer at a time when Victorians are doing it tough.

There are a variety of other costs that are sitting on small businesses in this state. If I turn briefly to WorkCover, over the past 12 months we have seen a 42 per cent average increase in WorkCover premiums for businesses in Victoria. I have not met a business owner who has actually got a 42 per cent increase. I have met many who have received a 60, 70, 80 per cent increase in their WorkCover premiums, which is just putting further and further pressure on these businesses right across the state.

Coupled with the increase in taxes, fees and charges, one of the major inputs into the cost of running a business is of course paying rent. The increase in rent has been a major problem for many businesses across Victoria, and one of the problems that are often raised with me is when the government, particularly in my own electorate, has shut down roads and closed off roads for level crossing removals or looking at the Suburban Rail Loop and implementation of those works. They have shut down roads, they have closed off roads and there has been no regard for the small businesses in the area that have to try to keep open their doors during this time with a limited amount of foot traffic. One of the biggest issues they raise is that their rent bill continues to go up, and they have to pay that every single day. Their rent bill is going up because this government, in the context of a housing supply and housing affordability crisis, has decided to increase land tax. That increase in land tax is flowing directly through to renters at a time they can least afford it, whether they are households or whether they are small businesses.

Of course we have also seen a number of increases when it comes to payroll tax by this government. Hitting business hard seems to be the focus of this government in trying to turn its budget around. Heading towards $171 billion of debt in just a few years, we are now seeing the government look for revenue and trying to tap revenue from any possible source, and business is often the first one that they go after, whether it is land tax, whether it is payroll tax or whether it is increasing WorkCover premiums. We had the Minister for WorkSafe and the TAC out this morning saying that WorkCover premiums are likely to increase again later this year.

If I turn back to the bill, a bill that seeks to amend 14 acts across 10 portfolios, it is a piece of legislation that seeks to put in place a number of technical changes to clarify a number of pieces of legislation and to make changes that do not warrant acts in and of themselves. But the $2.6 million of savings that the government wants to cry about within this piece of legislation do not go far enough. As I said before, that equates to about $3 per business in Victoria. It is simply not good enough that this is what the Allan Labor government is delivering when it comes to regulatory relief for businesses in Victoria, when it comes to cost-of-living relief for businesses in Victoria. We have 710,000 small businesses in Victoria, and what we have from this government is a piece of regulatory reform that delivers very, very little and will make very little change in their lives.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (11:10): It gives me great pleasure to stand in this place this morning and speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2023. I obviously rise today in support of this piece of legislation, the second of its kind introduced by our government – an omnibus bill designed as part of the regulatory reform agenda of the government to make it easier to do business here in Victoria. Where in this country, if you are a business, be it small, medium or large, would you rather do business? Consistently over the term of this government Victoria has had the best-performing economy and also the fastest growing economy in this country. That is just a fact, and that has been consistent all the way through this term of government. That is in no small part, and we certainly play a role, due to my electorate of Tarneit, where we have an absolutely thriving and developing business community.

It was only a few months ago, before the holiday period, that I had the absolutely amazing opportunity, with the Minister for Small Business, who is at the table, Natalie Suleyman, amongst many others, to attend the opening of the Wyndham women’s microbusiness hub. This is an absolutely fantastic initiative supported by business, supported by government, supported by council and supported by some NGOs out there in Wyndham in response to how fast that microbusiness community is growing in Tarneit and Hoppers Crossing. During COVID we saw many microbusinesses develop and operate from home. They range from massage therapy to microbusinesses making things like candles or other things that they sell at local markets and directly from home.

The Wyndham women’s microbusiness hub gives those microbusinesses an opportunity to go into a facility to collaborate, to access things like free wi-fi and to access training programs which may help them learn to do their tax, which may help them learn to do a BAS or which may help them learn to use a program like MYOB. As I said, it was an absolute pleasure to attend that event. I think that is one of the better initiatives that I have seen for small business at a local level over the short period that I have had the pleasure to represent the communities of Tarneit and Hoppers Crossing.

In addition to that, over the last about four years, as part of the Victorian government’s suburban revitalisation program, we have seen the development and the flourishing of the Tarneit Business Association. This is an association with over 100 members. Over 100 small businesses in Tarneit are members. It is supported, as I said, through the Tarneit suburban revitalisation board. Just before Christmas we as board members voted on $50,000 to assist the Tarneit Business Association to do their annual business expo, an expo that I was proud to visit just last year – it opened last year – where small local businesses can once again come and collaborate, come and share ideas and come and network. I would really like to acknowledge the fantastic work of the president of the Tarneit Business Association Rashi Dhagat, who is a small local business owner who runs two cafes, the Little Growling Cafe. I will be very honest – I do not want to be biased – they are probably my favourite places to eat and grab a coffee in my electorate of Tarneit. We also have as the secretary Shivani Arora, another local business owner, and treasurer Nihar Shah, amongst many others, who have been doing an absolutely fantastic job as part of the Tarneit Business Association for our local business community.

We have had a pretty broad reform agenda when it comes to supporting business right here in Victoria. This agenda includes, in addition to what we are talking about right now, the Business Acceleration Fund, rapid reviews of regulatory settings, better approval processes for regulators and businesses and the establishment of an economic growth commissioner to undertake inquiries into impediments to economic growth. As I said earlier in my contribution, it is no secret that Victoria has been the fastest growing economy consistently over the term of this government.

This bill in particular is an integral component of our broader regulatory reform agenda. It seeks to simplify the process for businesses and regulators in obtaining and managing licences and registrations. Additionally, it encompasses small, non-controversial regulatory changes across multiple portfolios, embodying our commitment to making Victoria a better place to do business. Our objective is clear: to foster an environment where businesses can flourish, regulations are sensible and the Victorian economy is robust and inclusive. Our vision is of a high-performing state and a regulatory system that supports increased productivity, makes business easier to do in Victoria and also protects consumers, community and the environment – and that is exactly what this piece of legislation does. This piece of legislation saves Victorian businesses 300,000 hours in administration ‍– 300,000 hours. That is how you increase productivity and that is how you grow your economy.

I will just touch on the opposition and their track record over the four years that the Victorian people gave them an opportunity to govern. We assumed office in 2014, and after those four small, short, do-nothing years of the Baillieu and Napthine governments we identified the need for a systematic overhaul of the regulatory framework that we inherited, a framework that in many respects hindered rather than helped business and consumers. Our approach starkly contrasts with the previous government, where really all they did in this space was parrot the catchphrase ‘cutting red tape’. I am proud to stand here in this place this morning and say that we were able to do what those opposite could only say – cut red tape, make it easier to invest in Victoria and make it easier to have a productive small, medium or large business. As I said at the start of my contribution, this is by far the best state to do business in this country, and because of reforms like this it will continue to be.

Our government has undertaken numerous reforms right across various sectors, such as liquor licensing, environmental protection and consumer affairs, which have achieved tangible improvements over our terms in government. As I said, this reform is a fundamental imperative to continue to have a business sector in this state that is flourishing and that is increasing productivity. I commend it to the house.

Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (11:21): I also rise to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2023, following my colleague the Shadow Minister for Finance, the member for Kew, who in my view did an outstanding job in going through the bill before the house in such detail, taking up her full allocation of 30 minutes to convey the views of the coalition to members gathered and to the broader Victorian community.

As we know, the regulatory legislation amendment bill is a piece of omnibus legislation that amends 14 acts across 10 portfolios. The reforms contained in the bill are mostly minor, technical or clarificatory in nature and do not represent substantive changes to the acts in question – and what a relief that is. The majority of the amendments are aimed at streamlining requirements or rectifying specific instances where current provisions are not working as intended or have become impracticable.

The coalition does not seek to oppose this legislation. I will say that at the outset. We do not seek to oppose this legislation, but we note the government’s record of regulatory reform and red tape reduction is woefully thin, resulting in Victoria being perceived as the most expensive state to do business in. I listened to the member for Tarneit and his contribution just before mine, and there he was, talking about how Victoria is such a good place to do business in. That is not what I am hearing.

The Minister for Small Business is at the table, and the Minister for Small Business should be taking a greater interest in what small businesses and medium businesses and larger businesses are saying in this state. They are saying that because of the taxes imposed by this Labor government they are making their next major business investment decision not in this state but in other states – in Queensland, in South Australia. Premier Malinauskas in South Australia – do you know what he is doing? He is knocking. He wants Victorian-based businesses to come to South Australia. He is rolling out the red carpet. He has opened the door for Victorian businesses to make the jump, and do you know who they are being pushed by? This Allan Labor government, because of the 53 new or increased taxes imposed in the last decade – the tax on jobs, the tax on rents, the tax on employment, the tax on health, the tax on schools, all the taxes imposed – and because of the WorkCover charges going through the roof, the cost of electricity and the cost of gas going through the roof. The conditions for business to operate in this state are just not conducive to business growth, and that is what I am hearing fair and square from the business community in this state. My goodness, I got very excited very early.

I will draw the house’s attention to specific amendments to the Monetary Units Act 2004. As we are told by the government, this is to provide greater flexibility in fee setting by allowing regulations in Victoria to prescribe small fees in the form of fee units by removing an unnecessary prohibition that means a fee of less than the equivalent of one fee unit – currently $15.03 – cannot be fixed in fraction of a fee unit. This means that fee units can be set for small fees and indexed annually to keep up with inflation. It goes on. It makes a minor amendment to clarify that fee units can be used for not only regulations but other types of legislative instruments that may accept fees.

I just want to come back to two words in the first dot point which I refer to, and that is the phrase ‘indexed annually’. As I was informed by the member for Kew the Shadow Minister for Finance during the course of the bill briefing, the opposition sought specific clarification on this point in relation to the amendments to the Monetary Units Act 2004. Will the implementation of this bill be a revenue raiser for the government? We were assured that it would not be, but I want to put on record so members of the government can hear this quite clearly: we will be taking a very clear and careful watch of the amendments to the Monetary Units Act 2004 within this bill. Because they say that it will not raise revenue, but bowl me over with a feather, the phrase ‘indexed annually’ seems to me –

Emma Kealy: Isn’t it ‘blow me over’?

Brad ROWSWELL: Actually, correct, member for Lowan – although you are not in your correct place, so you probably should not be interjecting – blow me over with a feather, that is the correct expression. ‘Indexed annually’ seems to me to say that there will be additional revenue raised as a result of the implementation of this bill. What does that mean? That means that someone has got to pay. That means Victorians have got to pay at a time when they are being taxed to the hilt by this Labor government, who have got a debt problem and who have major interest payments to pay each and every day – 15 million bucks today, 15 million bucks yesterday, 15 million bucks tomorrow, climbing to $24 million a day in interest payments alone in the next three years. Victorians pay the price for the mismanagement of the economy by the Labor government, who this year have been ruling the state by decree for a decade.

I believe that we do need to beef up red tape reform in this state. We should be considering what a repeal day looks like in this chamber, instead of just creating more laws to impose upon Victorians to make their lives harder and to raise more revenue for the Allan Labor government to then waste it. You are probably aware of this: there has been more than $38 billion in cost overruns on major projects in the last decade at the hands of this Labor government. Instead of imposing more restrictions and instead of imposing more regulations upon Victorians what we should be doing is freeing up the economy. What we should be doing is allowing small businesses, medium businesses and larger businesses to do what they do.

Let us not forget our reason here. Let us not forget our purpose. Small businesses, medium businesses, larger businesses in this state – they employ people. We talk about numbers all the time and we talk about statistics, but sometimes I think we forget about what that really means. When we are talking about someone being employed in this state, we are not just talking about one person being employed, we are talking about a family being taken care of. We are talking about a family being able to stand on their own feet, pay for a roof over their head, pay for their increasing school fees, pay for their increasing energy bills and pay for their increasing grocery bills at the hands of a Labor government that does not really care.

It has been said time and time again, and I completely agree because I am experiencing it and my community is experiencing it as well: we are in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis in the state. There are many things that the Allan Labor government could be doing to ease the cost pressures on families and on businesses, but no, they do not. Through the lens of pure ideology, they are imposing an energy regime which is increasing the cost of energy in the state – more than a 25 per cent increase to the cost of energy just in the last 12 months and a 26 per cent increase for energy for local businesses. That has an impact on local economies, not just in my community and not just in the member for Kew’s community, the member for Lowan’s community, the member for Murray Plains’s community and the member for Nepean’s community but in communities right across the state. If it costs more to turn on the gas or turn on the electricity to cook the steak or deep fry the fish or cook the chickens on the rotisserie, then that is going to be paid for by Victorians.

We should be, for once in our lives, trying to at the very least have reliable and affordable energy, but no, no, no. The Allan Labor government is purely driven by ideology on this, not by the needs and the economic safety and security of Victorians. I was not expecting to be so broad in my contribution today, but I hope the house has enjoyed the treat. As I said, we will not be opposing this bill.

Darren CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (11:31): It is with some pleasure that I rise this morning to make my contribution on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2023. I can recall, I think it must have been around about when I was in year 10, at the school I went to, which was Mount Clear Technical High on the outskirts of Ballarat, having the opportunity to wander off and have one-on-one meetings with our career teachers to kind of plot out the next few years and the things that we might want to do post schooling. In that conversation I can recall being asked what were some of the things that I would like to do, and I came up with a list of careers that I thought might be interesting. Paul Keating was the Prime Minister at the time, and I can recall thinking, ‘Gee, I wouldn’t mind being a parliamentarian.’ I was very interested in working in politics, and I was very much, at that point in time, enjoying Paul Keating’s contributions to federal question time. I can recall having a conversation with my career teacher about that, and we came up with a bit of a list of things and reasons why I might want to do the various jobs that I had nominated as things that I would be interested in.

I must say that making a contribution in this chamber on regulatory legislation reform was certainly not on that list. There was a whole bunch of other reasons as to why I wanted to be a politician. Back then one of the great things that I found motivating was having the opportunity to potentially represent families that were in a similar set of circumstances to mine. In my family’s context, that was a working mother and father; my dad was a fitter and turner and my mother was a nurse.

Having been indulged by the house for a few minutes on this, I must say that these types of relatively dry bills are important for driving productivity in a micro-economic context and in some ways can contribute to small business just as importantly as the things that actually motivate me to be a politician. Certainly from my perspective, economically enabling infrastructure is super important to the running of our state. It underpins the economic productivity of our economy. In so many ways it drives the livability of this state, and it is the reason why many, many tens of thousands of people annually are making their way here to grow up, to raise a family and to contribute to the state of Victoria.

This piece of legislation makes more than 54 amendments to more than 14 different acts of Parliament across more than 10 different ministerial responsibilities. That really is in so many ways a joined-up government where ministers can undertake reform. It is not worth bringing those amendments to a chamber like this individually, but we can bundle them up and bring them forward in this style of omnibus bill to make sure that we tidy up legislation. In the context of Victoria, we were first proclaimed as a state in around the 1850s. Over that journey many, many bills have passed through this Parliament and become law, and there are elements of those laws that are no longer needed and that have become redundant for a whole bunch of different reasons. In the context of this bill, there is a bunch of them that we are bringing to this place with the hope of having the bill pass through both chambers in the near future to free up small business, particularly those small businesses that are regulated by elements of acts being amended by this bill.

I must say the one that particularly caught my attention – and I took the opportunity to head over to the advisers box a short while ago – was the dried meat amendment that is in this bill. It did not occur to me that there is a different set of arrangements that exist with online selling of wet meat and dry meat. That had never occurred to me as being an issue. Clearly it is an issue; that is why we have brought forward this amendment. I have no doubt that at the time that original act was passed way back whenever it might have been it was never envisaged that this would be a necessary step, to remove that. The dried meat amendment is of course important.

The types of amendments that are in this bill are important. They are necessary little tidy-ups to make our existing framework work more productively and efficiently. They are certainly not significant issues for us as legislators, but for those small businesses that are caught up, needing to comply with unnecessary and unwanted regulation is something we should avoid, and we should take the opportunity to tidy these things up.

I must say, in my concluding comments on this, I think it is always a testament to government as to what you take up when you are given the great gift of government. And I must say we, Labor, in government are reformers. We have brought a lot of innovation to this place. We are very determined to see the productivity of the state of Victoria uplifted. We are very determined to make sure that we make Victoria the best place in the country to do business. And when you look at every single measure that you possibly can to see how we are competing against other states for migration, for business and for opportunity, I think it is fair to say that Victoria is leading the charge with reform across the Commonwealth, and a small, little tidy-up with this particular bill hopefully passing both chambers will continue to add to the reasons why people choose to make Victoria home. I commend the bill to the house.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (11:40): I rise to make a contribution on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2023 on behalf of the coalition. As has already been talked about, this bill amends 14 different acts across 10 different government portfolios, and it contains a number of minor technical or clarifying amendments to those 14 acts that we are talking about. The genesis of this bill was that the government actually requested or invited departments to submit minor amendments to improve regulatory compliance or produce administrative efficiencies from the administration of legislation in their particular departments. They requested information about four major objectives: streamline requirements for business and social services providers, improve emergency preparedness, support technologically neutral legislation and make simple and uncontroversial amendments to support an efficient regulatory system through amendments to a variety of acts. That is the request that was made.

The government claim that these regulatory reforms will provide over $2.6 million in annual savings to businesses here in Victoria. What is interesting is that if you do a simple arithmetic calculation, there are a bit over 700,000 small businesses here in Victoria, and if you actually divide $2.6 million by 700,000 businesses, that means that every single Victorian small business gets to save about $3.36. It is a barbecue stopper! Stop the presses; Herald Sun, do not roll the papers, the government is bringing in legislation that is going to save each business $3.36! You think about the increase in administrative burden on businesses in Victoria that has grown under the decade of this government, and they are going to save $3.36. The request has gone out to departments to actually find savings for businesses. We spend billions of dollars in Victoria for these departments to function and to employ tens of thousands of public servants to administer the red tape, green tape and cultural tape that everyone suffers under in this state, and the best they can do is $3.36 per business in savings. Can I kindly put to the minister that perhaps they should not get a Christmas bonus this year, because they have not done very well in actually saving money for Victorian businesses.

If you think about the process that goes into legislation, there would have been a request to cabinet for this legislation. There would have been information going out to all the departments with the request, as I said, to streamline requirements for business and social service providers, improve emergency preparedness, support technologically neutral legislation and make simple and uncontroversial amendments to support an efficient regulatory system through amendments to a variety of acts, and this is the best they could do. I think it is a disgrace. If you think about the time in departments that would have gone into actually producing these recommendations, then preparing a bill, going back to cabinet and going through the whole process of bringing it to this Parliament, if this is the best that they can do, I actually think if there was a teacher marking this exam paper it would be a fail, because it has not actually done what I think it should have done – that is, make a significant change and significant reduction in cost of administrative burden for businesses here in Victoria.

There has been a plethora of new taxes. Since this government came into power there have been over 50 new taxes or increased taxes and costs on businesses, and we have now saved $3.36 per business, an absolute disgrace for the effort that has gone into that.

In my portfolio area there are changes to the Regional Development Victoria Act 2002. They are absolutely earth-shattering. They change the number of members on the regional advisory committee to increase it by one person – so there are nine members, one from each region, and an independent chair. It is earth-shattering, that one more person on there. They reduce the number of meetings per year from six to four. That is probably good. Given that RDV – Regional Development Victoria – effectively has no money now, has very few staff and does very little across regional Victoria, those four meetings probably are almost too many, because they have got nothing to administer anymore. They can make recommendations about what should be funded by government in their particular region, but there is actually no money to do that.

If you go back to when Regional Development Victoria was originally set up, and you particularly go back to when the Liberals and Nationals were in government, there was a $1 billion Regional Growth Fund that actually made a meaningful difference in regional Victoria. If you think about what RDV is now, it pales into insignificance against what it used to do. Even under the Brumby government, but particularly under the Baillieu and Ryan government, it made a real difference across country Victoria. There were programs from RDV then that made sure that sporting facilities were upgraded in regional Victoria. I can also remember in my electorate at that time a number of country halls that had not had any money spent on them for decades. They did not have air conditioners; they did not have proper hot running water. They actually had upgrades to the kitchens in their country halls, and they had upgrades to the air-conditioning systems. They became community facilities again that could be a hub for people to meet in. Those sorts of programs are gone. There is no money now effectively out of RDV to actually fund the programs that used to be funded. Local government used to look forward to the announcements that came out of RDV, where they could get money in addition to their ratepayers money to upgrade facilities in their area that helped their community. It is a long, long time since I can recall any RDV-funded projects being opened in my electorate, and I think that would be the case in most of the regional electorates around Victoria.

At one time the RDV staff would circulate widely in the community, working with the community and working with local government to actually get up projects to be funded. You never see those staff now. Most of them have gone. Those that are still there are seconded to other departments, but if they are there they do not go and drum up business, because they know they have got no money to allocate. RDV is an absolute shadow of itself. This changes the administration of the regional development advisory committee. I am not sure what advice they are giving to the minister other than saying, perhaps, ‘Please can we have some programs back that actually fund what happens in our communities and give us something to really hang our hat on into the future?’

For one of the other acts that I would take an interest in, although it is not my portfolio anymore, there are amendments around the transportation of seafood and the transportation of meat and the combining of licences there. I think that is a good thing to do. That has been a vexed issue for a number of years, once seafood came in under PrimeSafe a number of years ago. It was not originally there. That is a sensible amendment that actually can help in the future. One of the things that I would probably ask the minister about is that there is a change in the Seafood Safety Act 2003 around issuing licences where licences have been refused in the past and about people being able to ask to get a new licence. If the minister is summing up this bill, I wonder whether she might give some information as to what the issue is that this clause is actually addressing other than what it says. How many times have people been refused a licence and then been able to obtain one by applying for a new one? How often was that actually happening, and did PrimeSafe have good records of how many times that was particularly being used?

It does make changes, it does help some people, but I go back to where I started: if the best we can do out of all the work that has gone into this legislation, all the work the departments in good faith have brought forward, is save small businesses in Victoria $3.36 each, it does not even buy you a cup of coffee.

Natalie Suleyman interjected.

Peter WALSH: Do the simple arithmetic, Minister. Divide the money by the number of businesses, and that is how much it saves. $3.36 is not enough for all this effort.

Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (11:50): I think I would like to buy the Deputy Leader of the Coalition a coffee so I can explain to him a little bit about how I think he is out of touch. I do not think he knows, for example, the cost of a coffee, because it is a bit more than that, but I do not think that he is in touch with what small businesses in Victoria value, prioritise and need. It is the big and the small, and it is small changes like this that can have a big impact on people’s lives and businesses, giving them time – time is the valued commodity for small businesses – and giving them the opportunity to step away from the till and to step away from the paperwork and think of new and innovative ideas to grow their business and to boost their productivity. So I think the Deputy Leader of the Coalition is a little out of step there. This bill is an example of this government listening to families and businesses and following through. It is good for businesses in my electorate and good for the state overall, freeing up that time, as I said, away from paperwork and tick boxes.

Another thing I would like to explain to the Deputy Leader of the Coalition across a coffee is that actually we are doing very well for business in Victoria, thank you very much. Our economy is the powerhouse of the nation.

Emma Kealy interjected.

Lauren KATHAGE: I would love to give you an example. The recent Deloitte Access Economics Business Outlook report confirms that we will lead all states in economic growth over the next five years. All states – we will lead them. And this is not a report from government, this is an external independent report. I was very happy to provide you with that example. Our economic strategy is paying off not just for businesses but for jobs – record-breaking job creation and employment levels. We are in touch, and we are making our targets and exceeding them, and I am very proud of that.

This bill makes amendments to the Food Act 1984 to prescribe infringements for breaches of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, specifically horticultural primary production standards ‍4.2.7, 4.2.8 and 4.2.9. Standard 4.2.8 relates to the production and processing of leafy vegetables such as lettuce, kale and cabbage. It also covers herbs such as basil. I had the privilege with the Minister for Small Business recently to visit Walwa Park Farms in Upper Plenty. This is owned by David Markham, and he has created a farm share arrangement where he is supporting young farmers to get on their feet and establish themselves as small businesses. That includes Thanisa Adams of Wattle Gully Flower Farm, and I am sure the minister will agree with me that her cosmos cupcake flowers were beautiful, absolutely outstanding. Congratulations to her.

Also there at Walwa Park is Plenty Valley Produce, which is run by Michael Collins and Sam Shacklock. This is an organic small-scale market garden business. They take great care with each and every plant that they produce, and it is high-end produce. So if you dine out at one of the top restaurants in the city tonight, there is a good chance that you will be eating something from Plenty Valley Produce. This is a peri-urban small-scale vegetable producer, and they have grown rapidly as a business over the last two years. Their reputation in providing produce to these high-quality, topnotch restaurants in Melbourne depends on their reputation for high-quality and hygienic produce, so it is important that we have the standards and the regulations in place so that consumers can have confidence in their product and so that they have a competitive edge against others who may not.

While we were there, they showed the minister and me their practices for maintaining high food safety standards. We were there on a Friday, which is their harvest day. They harvest once a week ahead of the weekend markets and onto the wholesalers to the restaurants. It was a busy day, and I am sorry that we got in their way a little bit there. Some of their practices for maintaining the standards that are referred to in the bill are really straightforward, like not allowing food to touch the floor. But some of it was more complicated, and that related to the refrigeration of produce. That is definitely one of the more expensive items for them as a small business. It took them some time to work up to that. These capital-intensive startup requirements can be difficult for small-scale farmers, and as land for farming, especially in peri-urban areas such as Upper Plenty, reduces it will be important for government to consider how best to support these hardworking people.

But we know that government supports food and fibre businesses in Victoria. It is evident in the regulatory reforms such as those set out in this bill and in the investment that has been made in turbocharging the sector more broadly, such as the $1 million investment for the Morwell Innovation Centre, and it is paying off. In the 2022–23 Victorian Food and Fibre Export Performance Summary report we see Victoria is the largest food and fibre exporter by value in all of Australia, accounting for 24 per cent of the national total, and 2022–23 saw an increase of 7 per cent in export value, totalling $19.6 billion. I would be very happy for the Deputy Leader of the Coalition to run his ruler and do his numbers on that, because it is a very big number indeed and one to be proud of.

A member interjected.

Lauren KATHAGE: That is right. We are exceeding our incremental targets in the 2020 agriculture strategy, and we are well placed to reach our target of $20 billion a year in food and fibre international sales by 2030. We have a reputation for high-quality, safe products, and this bill supports that. That in turn drives our export growth. It is protected and enhanced by this bill. This industry supports 330,000 jobs, and that is what this government is about: growing the economy, growing the number of jobs. This regulatory reform lets our small farmers, our small businesses and our larger businesses get on with doing their jobs.

But this is not just a government about the economy and productivity. It is also a government about fairness, which is why this government banned compulsory embedded networks in new apartments, and that is something that I know has had a great impact for people and something that I am very proud of. An expert panel heard from people in such arrangements that they felt trapped, that they had a lack of choice. We know that consumers deserve to have fair access to fair deals, and that is why we took action on that. In the expert panel recommendations in the embedded networks review we have recommendation 7.2, which is:

To support strengthened oversight, monitoring and enforcement of the local energy network market, the ESC should be able to collect appropriate data and information.

The government response notes that we support proactive, robust and proportionate regulation, all with a customer outcome and all with fairness front and centre. The amendment that we are considering today will allow the Essential Services Commission to use the information-gathering powers in part 4 of the Essential Services Commission Act 2001 rather than rely on section 46 of the Water Industry Act 1994. This is an example of what I spoke of at the beginning of my contribution – that we are a government that follows through. We said that we were going to ban embedded networks in new apartments, and we have done it. We said that we were going to make it fairer for people in existing arrangements, and that is what we are doing through bills such as this.

Sam GROTH (Nepean) (12:00): I am absolutely thrilled to rise to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2023. It is exciting stuff – omnibus legislation that amends 14 acts across 10 portfolios. The reforms contained in the bill are mostly minor, technical and clarificatory in nature and do not represent substantive changes in the acts in question.

Emma Kealy: That’s not a word!

Sam GROTH: It is. I am not going to go into too much depth about every single amendment. I will quickly touch on part 5. As much as I know the house would like to hear it, I will just stick to a couple of pieces. Firstly, part 5 amends the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 to create a new mechanism for the Secretary of the Department of Health to make authorisations for certain organisations to obtain, possess and store medicines. This amendment will require the secretary to conduct a risk assessment and authorise entities to comply with the existing provisions relating to storage, record keeping, access and administration. In their second-reading speech the Assistant Treasurer stated the amendment will allow the secretary to authorise aged care facilities to be supplied with and store antiviral medicines without a permit. This is particularly important down in Nepean. We have got an aging demographic, probably one of the oldest in the state. Let us be clear, anything that allows patients or these older people in aged care facilities to get access to medications more readily by making them more readily available is fantastic, but this is not a solution for the underinvestment that we have seen in health care on the southern Mornington Peninsula.

I note that recently a community rally was held by locals at Rosebud. They braved some pretty extreme temperatures down there – 30-plus degrees – but there was a huge turnout from locals to raise awareness about the need for further investment into health care on the Mornington Peninsula. It is something that I have raised in this place many times and have had discussions with the minister on. While it is fantastic to see a public–private partnership being pushed up at Frankston and investment going on in that hospital, we still need to have health care on the Mornington Peninsula close to people when they need it. We should not have to send an ambulance 45 or 50 minutes down the freeway – on a good day. Let us not even think about what it has been like over summer. I know many members in this chamber have spent time down on the Mornington Peninsula over the summer period – I think probably a huge percentage of the people in this room. You know just how bad the traffic can be. So while in the winter period it might be 45 minutes to get from Blairgowrie or Rye or Capel Sound up to Frankston, 45 minutes over summer can quickly become an hour and a half. If you are in an ambulance for an hour and a half – that is once it gets to you, if one is available – that is far too long. We definitely need to see investment in health care, including the Rosebud Hospital, down on the Mornington Peninsula.

I also note that in the legislation and through briefings the government claims there is a huge saving to small business in this state of $2.6 million. It is a huge, huge saving for those 700,000 businesses – a grand total of $3.66 for every business. I am sure that will go a long, long way to cover their increase in WorkCover premiums, their increase in their energy bills. It is just going to do absolute wonders for business, not just in my electorate of Nepean but all over the state, I am sure – $3.66 is going to go a very, very long way!

A member: Hear, hear.

Sam GROTH: If you want to talk about ‘Hear, hear’ and the $3.66, we have seen a huge number of businesses leaving this state.

We need to make sure we are making Victoria the best state to do business, not just for those businesses that are here. We do not want them looking elsewhere; we do not want them looking to other states. But we also want to be encouraging businesses that are not currently doing business here to come back. I am not convinced that a saving of $3.66 is going to encourage other businesses to pick up and do business here. We lost last year alone more than 7500 businesses who no doubt were forced to shut up shop because of just how difficult this government, this Labor government, has made it to do business in this state. It should come as no surprise to anyone here. If you look at the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s Cost and Ease of Doing Business in Victoria report, Victoria is perceived as the most expensive place to do business in Australia.

We on this side of the chamber, the coalition, are committed to regulatory reform. We want to see reduced red tape, we want to enhance productivity, we want to improve efficiencies across the state of Victoria and we really just want to make it easier for those people that want to do business here, those small businesses that are the backbone of our economy – to make it easier for them to keep their doors open, employ more people and not be hit with higher rates of tax on payroll when they decide to increase their payroll. Just because you are employing someone it should not put further burden or more pressure on you as a business. We are committed to making sure that happens, and if this bill is anything to go by – the huge savings that we are seeing and the minor tweaks that are being done – those on the other side have absolutely no plan to make it easier for regulatory reform, no plan for making it easier for businesses in this state. And we want to see that.

There are a lot of minor changes in here. It will tidy things up. I am sure we are going to hear a lot of riveting contributions across all sides on this bill. It is one thing to tidy up 14 acts for 10 portfolios, but we need to see more done – more to help Victorian businesses, more to help Victorians, more to help our health system. There needs to be more done than what we are seeing in this bill.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (12:07): What does this bill do? The bill proposes 54 amendments across 14 acts and 10 ministerial portfolios to modernise and streamline regulatory requirements for businesses and social services, support emergency preparedness, ensure technology neutrality and make other simple and uncontroversial changes. These amendments have been developed in consultation with relevant departments, agencies, regulators and stakeholders. They reflect the feedback and suggestions – get this – received from businesses and social service providers who are affected by the current regulatory frameworks.

I do think it is interesting that throughout this debate what the opposition have come up with – red tape, free up the market, do the things, free it up – certainly lands as a concept very broadly. We get that means something, but it is much harder to actually do the work required to protect consumers and businesses in our state for the benefit of everyone. And when we are talking about the conservative estimate, the $2.6 million through these legislative reforms, that is a conservative estimate, because when we are looking at the reforms as a whole we are looking at things like aspects of food safety, public health, EPA emergency responses, and when you quantify those elements you are also looking at values as well. Does the opposition value those protections when it comes to food safety? And what is the cost of not regulating well in that capacity or in that domain? I would argue the ramifications of insufficient regulation or not continually reforming in this space could be extensive, to say the least.

I think that the rather manipulative argument that is being used by the opposition to try and diminish the significance and the benefit – whether it be economic or otherwise, food safety et cetera – is unhelpful to say the least, and it also detracts from the enormous amount of work that goes into delivering these kinds of necessary reforms for our state. It is obviously all they have got. That is the best they could find. They think, ‘Well, we’re actually meant to support this bill. We’ve got to come up with something, so let’s just try and diminish the significance of this,’ irrespective of the fact that there are a whole range of reforms that actually are for the benefit of consumers and businesses alike.

But the other thing I was going to say is that the way that they were presenting their argument was to suggest this is all there is for businesses in this state, which is absolutely and emphatically untrue. When you look at the enormous amount of continuing reform in our state across all departments in so many areas – and I am going to get to energy, because that was raised before – to suggest that this is just the last bastion when it comes to small businesses is a furphy at best. So nice try, but really I feel the thin rebuttal by those opposite, I guess, is the best they have. It also reflects well on our government, because we have obviously put up some pretty terrific reforms and it is hard to find something to go against them. That is the best they could come up with, so well done.

But anyway, moving on, there was an issue raised about our Gas Substitution Roadmap and what that means for businesses in this state and how we are really making life harder for businesses because we are actually putting forward a transition to a cleaner energy future. I thought that was really interesting, because there are a couple of aspects there, and I am going to unpack that because it does come back to the way we regulate our energy market.

One of the aspects that I wanted to go to with regard to this is that time and time again they pretend to care about the environment. They pretend to care about cutting emissions, but when push comes to shove, they cannot do it. They just cannot bring themselves to get to that very important precipice. They just cannot. I want to quote something that was published today:

CSIRO’s annual GenCost report again shows that renewables are the cheapest form of power, while nuclear is the most expensive.

Yet the Liberals are keeping the door open to nuclear –

get this –

and have opposed every renewables target in Parliament – meaning higher bills for Victorians.

That is who they are. They only think short term. They never think about the environment. They never think about the future of young people in this state or having a planet worth living in or affordability either, because there is a cost element that balances out that domain.

So let us get down to the nitty-gritty of this. We should say the impact of energy prices on business bills is not a supply crisis, it is a crisis of greed. Australia produces more than enough gas. Eighty per cent of our production is sent offshore. Gas companies are making windfall profits on the back of the illegal war in Ukraine. The ACCC found that in 2021 the big gas exporters had taken more gas out of the domestic market than they had put in. That is unacceptable.

Businesses can also access discounted energy efficiency upgrades through the Victorian energy upgrades program – funny that the opposition have not mentioned this. In 2020–21 more than 14,900 ‍businesses – I am going to say that again: more than 14,900 businesses – received upgrades through the program. That is fantastic. On average, businesses saved $3700 on their annual energy bills through the program – funny they did not mention that either. They have just exclusively tried to sort of pick at what might or might not benefit a small business from this one regulatory omnibus bill to the exclusion of all the other benefits that have been going on in this state.

We have also implemented the Victorian default offer for small businesses. There are currently 50,000 ‍small businesses. What? There are currently 50,000 small businesses on the VDO. Who knew? The introduction of the VDO delivered savings on expensive standing offers of between $1380 and $2050 for small businesses. I do not know if that means much to the opposition or not. It certainly does to me. It is dollars and cents, isn’t it? Small businesses on the VDO also pay about 25 per cent less than businesses in other states. What? I am going to say that one again too: small businesses on the VDO also pay about 25 per cent less than businesses in other states on the equivalent default market offer. I think that matters.

We know the quickest and only way to drive down gas bills is to help people take up electrical alternatives. When we look at the Gas Substitution Roadmap and this transition and the why, we are leading the nation with our Gas Substitution Roadmap – leading the nation, not just Victoria. Great news for those opposite: we are more than a month in and the sky has not fallen. The Victorian community and construction industry are getting on with it while the opposition tie themselves further and further into energy policy knots, which I alluded to earlier in my discussion today.

All-electric new homes do not need to cost any more to build than gas-connected homes – isn’t that wonderful? The cheapest form of new energy is renewable. That is why the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) have confirmed yet again that Victoria’s wholesale power prices are the lowest in the country.

Members interjecting.

Nina TAYLOR: I don’t know if they heard that. I could not hear what I was saying because I was being interrupted, but I will say it again: the cheapest form of new energy is renewable. That is why AEMO have confirmed yet again that Victoria’s wholesale power prices are the lowest in the country. Those opposite want nuclear and more gas, which will only drive power bills up more. I am going to go a little bit further – I have got another minute – but I hope this provides some reassurance to those opposite that we do have small businesses and consumers, Victorians across the board, in mind when it comes to energy regulation and regulation across the board.

I should say converting an existing home with solar panels from gas to electricity can save around $1700 a year on energy bills in addition to around a thousand dollars of savings per year from an existing solar system. For Victorians in a new all-electric home, going all electric will save them around a thousand dollars each year on their home energy bills. These savings can increase to over $2200 when paired with rooftop solar. And new all-electric homes do not need to cost any more to build than gas-connected homes. That is just a snapshot; I have not even got into other aspects of the economy which are being regulated to the benefit of businesses – small, medium and large – and also to the benefit of consumers across the board.

I commend this bill to the house. I believe the opposition are supporting it. It is not clear from the way they have presented their arguments in the chamber, but I understand that we are unified about passing this bill.

Emma KEALY (Lowan) (12:17): It is wonderful to be back in this place in 2024 and to be able to debate legislation, including the legislation before us today, the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2023. If you had listened to the previous speakers from the government side of the house, you would think that this is perhaps the most exciting piece of legislation that has ever come through this chamber. It is going to slash red tape and it is going to make such a difference to small businesses that are struggling so much with additional taxes from Labor and the escalating cost of doing business in this state, whether it is through more fees and levies being put through, the ever-increasing WorkCover premiums that come through for Victorians or the skyrocketing energy bills which are coming through as well. This is the problem. We have got a complete disconnect between what this government say and what they are actually doing.

Some of the things stated by the member for Albert Park around the impacts of shutting down gas were preposterous. I was one of many members of this place who went to the Australian Hotels Association dinner last night. Dave Canny, who has played an important role in the hospitality industry for such a long period of time – he is a champion fella all round as an individual but also in the work that he does for hospitality and particularly in his role with the AHA – made so very, very clear last night in his opening remarks the importance of access to gas for our pubs. It suits a certain way of cooking, and this is particularly important for Asian communities. We know that cooking is the heart of every home. To be able to utilise a wok it is essential that you have got access to gas. It is a cheaper source of energy than so many other options. It is a lower carbon emitting energy than many other options. It is very, very important for the pub and club industry. This is what Dave Canny was saying last night. The Premier was at that same dinner. I hope that she listened very carefully to those comments, because there are a lot of publicans who are very, very concerned about Labor’s single-minded approach to shutting down access to natural gas in this state. I do urge the government to ensure that they are evaluating that properly.

We are seeing an extension of transmission lines through large portions of my electorate of Lowan in particular. There is a cost to that. If there are more powerlines, we see that cost put on to every single Victorian’s energy bills, so there is a cost to it. I think that certain selective elements of the truth were portrayed by the member for Albert Park. The whole picture needs to be looked at very, very carefully, and I do refer to the Mountain report around alternative opportunities to look at transmission infrastructure in the west of the state – particularly his recommendation that upgrading the existing infrastructure which goes through to Horsham and up through Mildura and leads into New South Wales is a cheaper, more reliable option and would unlock more renewables in the short and long term. I urge the government to review that paper, because it has been ignored today.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to add some other points and rebut some of the points made by earlier speakers. This is a wideranging bill. I can see the Deputy Speaker nodding his head. As you can hear from many of the contributions, people are picking up the bits that are most important. As has been mentioned I think by every other speaker, the bill seeks to amend 14 acts across 10 different ministerial portfolios. The elements that I particularly want to speak to today are in relation to the agricultural sector – being the Shadow Minister for Agriculture, and of course that being the backbone of my local economy in the Lowan electorate, which represents 20 per cent of the state. The reason we have got such a large land mass is that we have got a lot of national parks but also vast areas of cropping land and farming land and pastoral land throughout the west of the state. We grow people’s food and fleece and their fibre and we do a very good job of it, and we are given very little credit for the work that we do and also the contribution that we make to the Victorian economy.

I would urge the Labor government to take that into account when they are developing the budget this year. We deserve to have recognition for all that we put into the economy and the state. We deserve to get safe roads, we deserve to have hospitals which are modern and support our healthcare workers, we deserve to have good police stations and courts and we deserve to have amazing schools for all of our students. That is very, very important, and I urge the government to ensure that every corner of the state is covered off on that. I would also like good public transport connections, and while I did hear the Minister for Public and Active Transport state yesterday that the Suburban Rail Loop will improve travel times for all Victorians right across the state, I do not think that it will have a great impact on my electorate. I think we have got a lot of money that is heading into Melbourne at the expense of upgrading our local facilities and ensuring that local people in far western Victoria have access to public transport as well.

The areas of this legislation which relate to agriculture are around streamlining some of the duplication between licensing, particularly the transporting of meat and seafood. I have consulted with the relevant industries, and they are pleased that this will come into play. It is red tape that probably has more of an impact on the bureaucrats and how this is actually managed in the licensing system as opposed to making a big difference to the end users. I think this is the important thing to point out. As part of the proposed red tape cuts that are coming through, it really is not going to make a huge difference for so many businesses across Victoria. Even the cost savings that have being outlined by the minister in his second-reading speech are around a $2.6 million saving. We could not hear through the bill briefing where that saving would actually occur. It is suspected that this actually just ‘Well, this is a change we want put through. It was one of the submissions for legislative change that we wanted to see come through’ and it would be an internal government saving.

Even if you could see that that would be not an internal government saving of $2.6 million, let us take for a second that it is true. This would save $2.6 million for small businesses right across the state of Victoria. There are 710,000 small businesses in Victoria. While it was contested by the minister who was then at the table that there was some fudging of the figures, simple maths says $2.6 million divided by 710,000 businesses only comes down to the grand total of $3.66 per business. Given the huge number of taxes that have been imposed on businesses in Victoria since this Labor government came into power – they are now in their 10th year; when we look at businesses that are struggling with the early closure and shutdown and the restriction of supply of energy supply in Victoria, which has seen the cost of energy just go through the absolute roof; and when we look at a government that has got this ham-fisted way of trying to do WorkCover reforms but does not satisfy anybody at all – everybody is divided.

When you get a position on a piece of legislation where the unions agree with the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who agree with us, and the only people who think that these WorkCover bills are any good are the government themselves – they say these are wideranging reforms, and yet we are going to see increases in premiums continue and we are going to see the focus on mental health completely slashed; all of those mental health reforms are totally forgotten, they are not a priority anymore – that is a problem. This government have lost their way.

While I understand that the amendments which are outlined in this legislation tidy up a lot of duplication and other problems – technical issues – and perhaps clarify matters for interpretation by those who have to impose fines and penalties or who have responsibility for licensing, for example, in the meat industry and seafood industry, they do not actually make a difference and answer the question that small businesses desperately want answered. That is, they want less government in their lives. They want less red tape. They want less green tape. This bill, while it is being sold by the government as being amazingly reformative, is not going to make a crack of difference for businesses who are really struggling at this point in time. And let us never forget that small businesses are the biggest employer group in Victoria. Particularly in smaller communities, we have fabulous small businesses. They are the ones who sponsor our footy and netball clubs. They are the ones who sponsor kids to go to Kokoda and do the trek over there. They are the ones who stand up. They employ our young kids. They create so many jobs, and they keep our money local in our country communities. So while I support the sentiment of the government in wanting to slash red tape for business, they have not hit the mark in this legislation. Please go back to the drawing board. Please try harder, because what our businesses desperately need is for a government to deliver on its commitment to cut red tape and cut the costs for business.

Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (12:27): I too rise to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2023. As we know by now, this is an omnibus bill that consists of over 50 reforms across 14 acts and 10 ministerial portfolios. While many of these reforms appear to be a collection of relatively simple and straightforward reforms, continuous fine-tuning of the legislation is essential to the Victorian government’s vision of a high-performing state and a local regulatory system that supports increased productivity, makes it easier to do business in Victoria and protects consumers, community health, safety and our environment. It is this continuous fine-tuning that continues to underpin Victoria’s growing economy, which continues to grow at the fastest rate in the nation – which you would not know about if you just listened to the other side all the time.

As announced on 30 January 2024 by the Treasurer and of course the member for Werribee in that capacity, the Deloitte Access Economics Business Outlook report released last week shows that the Allan Labor government’s strategy for sustainable, job-creating growth is working. The report forecasts that Victoria’s growth across all state products in 2023–24 will be 2.5 per cent, outpacing all other states and territories, and Victorian economic growth will lead all states over five years to 2027–‍28 at an annual average rate of 2.3 per cent. The report also shows Victoria’s strong economy has enabled job creation and employment levels just shy of the all-time high achieved last year of 3.68 million Victorians in work. The report expects Victorian household consumption to also grow by 1.3 per cent in 2024, outpacing the national forecast of 1.1 per cent. Fundamentally the Deloitte Access report shows that our economic strategy is growing jobs, it is keeping local communities strong and it is encouraging businesses to invest and expand their workforces.

Indeed the reforms contained in this bill, as well as the other various economic, budgetary and policy approaches, continue to support and foster a positive economic outlook for business, workers and communities across our state. If this was not the case, we would not be able to provide the economic environment for the kickstarting of business, jobs and cultural revitalisation opportunities through my community in central Coburg. In this respect I would like to draw the house’s attention to the media coverage by the Age newspaper on 27 January 2024 by Tom Cowie and 3 December 2023 by Royce Millar, both of which respectively featured and highlighted the incredible once-in-a-generation opportunities currently on the horizon for central Coburg revitalisation building off the record state investments into central Coburg, which include the world-class new Coburg and Moreland train stations; the removal of four level crossings along the Upfield line at Moreland Road, Reynard Street, Munro Street and Bell Street; the delivery of a new landmark active transport, cycling and walking, and open space corridor; investment into local schools, including $22.5 million to build a brand new Coburg special development school and $17.8 million for a new Coburg technology hub; and $6 million to redevelop Coburg City Oval.

All of these combined are working to drive local revitalisation efforts, to enhance local ambience and amenity and to attract new investment and businesses through central Coburg, Sydney Road and the Upfield corridor. Indeed this approach along with our broader regulatory reforms are creating dividends for local businesses and my local community.

Again as featured in the Age, the unlocking of the new Pentridge visitor and entertainment precinct is very much at the heart of what is becoming a new chapter for Melbourne’s northern creative, cultural, events, tourism and business sectors. I am glad that the Minister for Tourism is at the table, who has visited on a couple of occasions already and seen it firsthand for himself. Indeed, Pentridge’s North & Common Restaurant, in the former prison mess hall in the old B division, has been recognised by the Age’s Good Food Guide as Coburg’s first ever hatted restaurant, a world away from when some of the state’s most infamous names would have been lining the hall for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The Pentridge precinct is already drawing international, interstate and intrastate tourists on a daily basis – the tour is absolutely phenomenal – in unprecedented numbers to Coburg as they spend an unforgettable night in Pentridge and have the opportunity to experience the Sydney Road corridor.

In this respect I would also like to acknowledge and commend the Central Coburg Business Association, who continue to do a commendable job in advocating and promoting the interests of local traders and whom I have previously engaged with, including Ray Jacobs; the secretariat; Brett O’Riley, the chair, from True North cafe; Caspar Zika, the treasurer, from VICSEG New Futures; Donna Stoddart from the Brotherhood of St Laurence; Con Pavlidis from the National Australian Bank branch; Leeann Berger, formerly of Pictures and Pages, which is now owned by wonderful local mum Lien Giang; and many others.

One of the newest businesses, which I did recently have the pleasure to officially open on 25 November in central Coburg alongside the member for Essendon and the member for Broadmeadows, was Fresh On Young Food Hall in Louisa Street in central Coburg. An amazing family-run local business by Tony, David and Lee Abouzeid, Fresh On Young does provide locals with some of the freshest agricultural produce from right across the state and has also played a key role in helping reinvigorate central Coburg’s food and cultural offerings.

All of these food businesses will be particularly interested in the various reforms contained in this bill as they relate to the Food Act 1984, the Meat Industry Act 1993 and the Seafood Safety Act 2003. But along with these businesses in central Coburg, my municipality of Merri-bek is also home to a really wide array of local businesses who will be interested in many other of the 50 regulatory process reforms contained in this bill, which are designed to continue underpinning and streamlining regulations for businesses across the state. My community of Merri-bek is home to over 16,700 local businesses. That has grown by 1784 businesses since 2021–22, so we are growing business-wise and jobs-wise also in Merri-bek, despite the claims of those opposite. My local businesses consist of 16 ‍per cent construction; 14.8 per cent transport and warehousing – and I would particularly like to acknowledge the Transport Workers Union, which does such a magnificent job in representing many of those transport and warehousing workers across Melbourne’s north; 13.6 per cent professional and scientific sectors; 8.8 per cent rental, hiring and real estate services; 7.2 per cent retail trade; 6.8 per cent health and social services, a huge sector in my community; 5 per cent accommodation, food services and the visitor economy; 3.2 per cent manufacturers; 3 per cent arts, creative and recreational industries; 3 per cent financial and insurance services; and of course 2 per cent education and training. These businesses collectively help contribute over $7 billion in gross regional product and represent almost 1.5 per cent of the overall state’s gross product.

Of course there are a wide number of reforms that are contained in this bill, many of which I could go to and tie directly into any of those different local business sectors. As I said, there are 50 different pieces of reform contained in this bill over 14 acts and 10 ministerial portfolios. The Department of Treasury and Finance estimates that these reforms will provide over $2.6 million in annual savings to businesses across Victoria, including many of those that I mentioned earlier, by removing licensing and permit fees and making regulatory compliance easier. For example, the bill will modernise and streamline requirements for businesses and social service providers, including through the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, where the Secretary of the Department of Health will have the capacity to authorise a health service or another type of health entity to obtain, possess or otherwise deal with medicines where this is considered appropriate and does not create risk. On that note, I really would like to acknowledge Merri Health. They are one of the biggest and longest lasting community health providers and do an absolutely fantastic job. They are one of the biggest, if not the biggest, employer in the Merri-bek municipality, employing over 500 community, social and health workers, and this reform may potentially go directly to supporting their work.

The bill will reduce the regulatory burden for businesses that sell dried meat, as we have heard previously, in the food sector. The bill includes an amendment which will clarify that the Meat Industry Act 1993 does not apply to the online sale of dried meat, which the act was never intended to do, ensuring that online retailers are treated in the same way as bricks-and-mortar retailers, both being of low risk to consumers. The bill also streamlines the licensing requirements in the Meat Industry Act 1993 and the Seafood Safety Act 2003 and recognises that refrigerated vehicles are often used to transport multiple commodities. Issuing one type of licence to transport meat and seafood will reduce the regulatory burden on businesses and the transporting of both products. That will be a win also for Transport Workers’ Union members and drivers.

Currently, under the Social Services Regulation Act 2021, registered social service providers must notify the social services regulator about changes to information provided on registration. While in a business sense health and social services in my community rank at about, from memory, the 3 or 4 per cent I cited earlier, from a workforce point of view, health and community and social workers are the largest employment sector in my community. Around 15 per cent of my local residents are employed in the health and social services sector, so I really appreciate that particular reform being implemented through the business community.

The bill will also improve safety compliance and improve food safety for Victorian consumers by amending the Food Act 1994. Again that will be welcomed by many of those food and hospitality workers but also food manufacturers, the growing food manufacturing base in my community particularly through the Newlands Road and North Coburg corridor, which are making the very most of that beautiful, wonderful regional Victorian agricultural produce that is transported to northern Melbourne in my community and then value-added to through the work of local workers in those food hubs and food factories. On that note, I commend the bill to the house.

Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (12:37): I rise to make a contribution on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2023. I have changed a few notes from what I was originally going to talk about on this bill, because I have been sitting down there in my office and hearing a lot of the commentary coming from the other side about how fantastically great it is to do business in Victoria and what a great friend of government business is here in Victoria.

About 18 months ago I read a report that some members in this chamber have touched on already, but I just want to go into it in a little bit more detail. It was a report put together by the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI), which I think everyone in the chamber would agree is an independent agency representing the business sector in this state. They put together a report called Cost and Ease of Doing Business in Victoria. What it found was that Victoria is perceived to be the most expensive place to do business.

A number of members on the other side of the chamber, and I think indeed the member for Tarneit when he was speaking, said that between 2010 and 2014 we said on our side that we would cut red tape and did not do it but now on that side this government is actually doing it. I just want to read a couple of findings of this recent report that do not align with that sort of commentary that we have heard from a few members over there. It says that Victoria is sixth in relation to affordability and labour productivity of all the states in the country. It is seventh for the number of permits needed to start up a business. How can we claim to have cut red tape and made it easier for business when Victoria is seventh in the number of permits needed to start up a business? The report also says that more than half of the national businesses that operate nationwide in our country said it was hardest to do business in Victoria. More than half of the businesses that have a national presence said it was hardest to do business in Victoria, and only 7 per cent of businesses said that this government is doing a good job in reducing the cost of doing business.

This report was put out I think around 18 months ago. Things certainly have not got any better since then, from talking to the business sector. Our shadow minister who spoke earlier, the member for Sandringham, commented about what he is hearing from the business sector in his electorate, and I can certainly assure you that I am hearing very similar things from my electorate. Admittedly in my electorate we have had probably a tougher time than normal. We came off a massive drought straight into bushfires that closed down our whole region for the summer, and then we went headfirst into the COVID pandemic, which had a huge impact on businesses and regions that are predominantly reliant on the tourism industry. But the message that I am getting from my business sector – and I meet with them regularly and talk with them regularly – is that a lot more can be done by government to assist them in their endeavours to recover and stand on their feet again. Do not take it from me; let us take it from the VCCI report. Those messages that we are hearing from the other side of the chamber are terrific as speaking notes, but they are not the reality of the situation on the ground. I think VCCI’s commentary was that this was the most comprehensive evaluation of the costs impacting business in Victoria that we have ever seen. I think everyone in this chamber would say VCCI is an organisation with a high level of credibility, and we can certainly take notice of the reports that they produce and the commentary that they make.

Just recapping, we have heard from speakers prior to me on both sides of the chamber that this piece of legislation amends 14 acts across 10 portfolios and that there are a lot of technical clarifications to those acts. I did note that one of the commentaries the government provided was that this bill was the result of inviting departments to submit minor amendments or improve regulatory compliance, which is sort of a bit of a doublespeak for ‘fixing up errors that were made in the original bills’. I note that part 6, which amends the Education and Training Reform Act 2006, is to fix drafting ambiguities. If that is not bureaucratic speak for ‘fixing up mistakes’, I am not sure what is, but we are reading a little bit of that in some of these explanations in relation to these amendments.

A couple of the objectives of this bill are to streamline requirements for businesses. I have just touched on that. They do not feel that things have been streamlined for them. They rate us very, very low in relation to setting up a business, maintaining a business and just the regular bureaucratic processes that are required to operate a business. Small businesses are the major employer that we have in this country, and we need to do as much as we can to support them. As I have said, they have been through a very tough time with the pandemic and other factors in certain areas. In some parts of the state it has been flood. In my part of the state it has been fire, followed headlong by COVID. But as the member for Lowan pointed out, these small businesses are the ones that are the heart and soul of our community. They support our local sporting clubs, they support our local charities and they support people when they need a helping hand, and that must not be underestimated by anyone in this chamber. I think there is a wide appreciation of that.

The bill also says that it will improve emergency preparedness. This is an area I touched on earlier, where certainly my patch gets its fair share of emergency situations. I think we are probably impacted by more emergency situations than any other area of the state just due to our geography and our high, timbered areas of extensive national parks. We are very prone to flood. On the Great Dividing Range, if we get rainfall up there, we can have very severe floods within 24 hours. So anything that we can do to support and streamline our emergency services is something that we on this side of the chamber would wholeheartedly support.

It has been mentioned before about the handclapping and backslapping that is going on around this $2.6 million in annual savings. The reality of it is, as the member for Lowan pointed out, we have 710,000 small businesses. This is $3.66 a year. We are giving them half a latte a year and expecting to slap ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves, which is an interesting way of painting a positive picture on something that is relatively insignificant.

I want to make a comment on one element of the bill around the Meat Industry Act 1993 and the Seafood Safety Act 2003 and the changes there. I probably represent one of the few electorates in the state that has both a significant meat industry and a significant seafood industry; there would be some others, but perhaps none to the scale of Gippsland East. That involves obviously an enormous amount of transport out to the various markets, not only the length of and breadth of Victoria and nationally but in many cases, in particular in relation to our seafood, international markets. The Mallacoota Abalone cooperative is probably the key factor there. But we supply a lot of seafood and fish to Sydney and New South Wales markets, and obviously our beef goes everywhere, including across the border into overseas jurisdictions. This legislation does assist in streamlining the processes for transportation of seafood and the transportation of meat in refrigerated vehicles. Only one type of licence will now be required to handle both of those areas in relation to transport. That is a genuine streamlining. It is something that we strongly support and something that will certainly be beneficial to my region.

But in summing up, I will just say that this is fluffing around the edges. If we really want to support small business, we can do better than $3.66 per small business. We can get in there and adjust those factors that were highlighted in the VCCI report around more permits being required in Victoria to start up a business than anywhere else. There is so much more we can do to streamline for small business. We do not need to be going back to between 2010 and 2014. This government has been in power for 10 years. In a report that was published 18 months ago, there is much, much more we can do, so let us stop the back patting and the backslapping and let us make some real changes to support small business in this state.

Kathleen MATTHEWS-WARD (Broadmeadows) (12:47): I rise today to lend my support to the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2023. I note that this is the second such omnibus bill that we have put forward and it makes a lot of those small changes that are needed for business. It is not too exciting, that is true, but a lot of our legislation is about making small things easier, and this will make a big difference to a lot of industries.

The urgency in the bill is about the lack of access to antivirals in aged care at the moment. According to the bill summary, aged care facilities can access a store of essential medicines without the need for a public health emergency order to be in place. That is really important. In my time working in aged care policy during the pandemic we saw how vulnerable those communities were. Access to antivirals makes any illness that you get, particularly COVID or the flu, a less serious illness. It makes a big difference to the small businesses, and it will have an effect over different ones as we go.

Talking further about aged care, my mother-in-law and father-in-law were both at Dorothy Impey aged care, and they did a wonderful job looking after them. Having had a lot of experience in aged care, I have seen, when places get locked down because there is gastro or flu or COVID, how detrimental that can be to people without that social contact. Anything we can do to make aged care safer certainly has my support, and I am pleased this bill has come up right now so that we can make sure people have access to the medicines they need.

The bill contains clauses about waste during emergency services. During my time as an adviser, waste during the COVID pandemic was an incredibly big issue for a lot of communities, with all the PPE that was getting used in nursing homes and the overflow and the lack of ability for the waste industry to keep up with that and the need to get permits and the incredible burden it put on the system. To see that addressed here will make a really big difference. It will make a difference to risk in the community and it will make a difference to the community’s experience of emergencies. It is not just pandemics, it is fires and floods and all of those things where waste is a really big issue. I think that has been overlooked by people speaking about it.

The other thing we talk about in the bill is the reduction in regulatory burdens on local government. In my time in local government I saw that all the time. Anything we can do to save time and money for people applying for all sorts of things and businesses – it makes a big difference when we can reduce that and make things more sensible, like having the same permit for a meat and a seafood van. That just makes sense. Why would you have a seafood van permit and a meat van permit when essentially they are doing the same job?

I just want to reiterate that the omnibus bill does important things even though it is fairly unexciting to talk about. I also want to point out that the commitment to efficiency is not pursued at the expense of safety and responsibility. The bill in tandem places paramount importance on ensuring robust harm management protocols, acknowledging the need for a balance between regulatory ease and the protection of public interest.

In endorsing the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2023 we embrace a vision of a regulatory landscape that is not only responsive to the evolving needs of businesses but is also steadfast in safeguarding the welfare of our citizens. Among its notable provisions the bill stands to strengthen its food safety measures, particularly benefiting consumers in Victoria. By prioritising the safety of our food supply chain, it underscores a commitment to public health and the quality of life for citizens. Moreover, the legislation facilitates simplified access to essential antiviral and other medications for residents within aged care facilities, as I have already spoken about.

While I am speaking about aged care, I just want to give a shout-out to the workers. Aged care workers, to me, do one of the most underappreciated jobs in society, yet it is so critical. Often for residents in aged care that is the contact they have with people every day. I was so pleased that the Fair Work Commission recommended an increase in wages for aged care workers, and I thank all the aged care workers, who do such a fabulous job every day to look after our older people in residential aged care.

The bill also introduces more balanced controls on waste transportation, and it aims at advancing outcomes for consumers utilising embedded electricity networks, acknowledging the evolving landscape of energy consumption. Notably the Department of Treasury and Finance anticipates that the bill’s implementation will yield substantial economic benefits, projecting over $2.6 million in annual direct savings for businesses. This financial foresight underscores the bill’s multifaceted impact, aligning regulatory reforms with fiscal prudence and positive societal outcomes.

Anticipating a more responsive and efficient healthcare system, the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill foresees the secretary’s inaugural authorisation to be directed towards aged care facilities. The strategic direction comes from a recognition that these facilities play a pivotal role in providing timely healthcare services to residents. By avoiding the need for individual permits and Department of Health assessments, the legislation aims to eliminate unnecessary delays in the procurement of essential medicines. I have said before that that important work that aged care workers do every day – we want them to sit there and do that work and be able to talk to the residents and be able to care for them properly and not spend their time doing waste-of-time paperwork that does not actually benefit anyone and is clearly not needed. I think this legislation makes a big difference to those processes, where people can actually do the job that they want to do, caring for our older people rather than filling in forms that do not add value.

Specifically, the example of vaccinations supplied under the Commonwealth influenza and COVID vaccination programs illustrates the urgency of streamlining the authorisation process. Currently secured through public health emergency powers, the bill endeavours to extend this facilitation even beyond emergency circumstances, acknowledging the ongoing need for prompt access to medications critical for the wellbeing of residents in aged care. This foresighted approach not only aligns with the principles of efficiency and responsiveness but also underscores the importance of uninterrupted healthcare delivery, especially in settings where residents depend on swift and seamless access to essential medications. The Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill introduces a pivotal shift in the authorisation processes for residential aged care facilities to procure medications, opting for a more streamlined mechanism over the grant of individual permits.

This strategic modification is not intended to disrupt the existing supply chain dynamics governing the acquisition of medications for these facilities; rather it seeks to refine the bureaucratic processes involved in obtaining authorisation. By bypassing the need for individual permits, the bill aims to expediate the access to medications without necessitating alterations to the established procurement pathways. This change is procedural, not structural, ensuring that the critical supply chain remains unaffected while ushering in a more efficient and responsive authorisation process for the benefit of residential aged care facilities. In effect the bill reflects a nuanced understanding of the delicate balance between regulatory oversight and operational continuity. By adopting this approach it acknowledges the importance of maintaining the integrity of the existing supply chain mechanisms, emphasising that the amendments relate to the authorisation process.

This pragmatic stance ensures that while regulatory reforms are instituted, the core operations and logistics of medication procurement for residential aged care facilities remains seamless and uninterrupted. The initial authorisation to be issued by the secretary is expected to prioritise residential aged care facilities, allowing them to procure the necessary medications for providing health services to residents. Given the comprehensive considerations and procedural steps that precede the granting of authorisations, it is anticipated that this first authorisation may not be granted until an early to mid 2024 time frame. The careful examination of relevant factors and meticulous evaluation of risks are integral to this process, ensuring a judicious and well-informed approach to the implementation of the new authorised medium. Consequently, while the time frame for the first authorisation may extend into the specified period, it underscores the commitment to a thorough and thoughtful transition to the revised regulatory framework.

I wholeheartedly endorse the efforts of our Labor government in facilitating more accessible avenues for residents of aged care facilities to obtain antiviral and other essential medications. I also endorse the improvements to waste and food safety and all of the improvements in the bill for small businesses and local government. I endorse the bill.

Sam HIBBINS (Prahran) (12:57): I rise to speak on behalf of the Victorian Greens to the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2023. As has been canvassed by previous speakers, this is an omnibus bill that seeks to reform regulatory legislation across 14 acts and 10 ministerial portfolios. According to the second-reading speech, the purpose of the bill is to increase productivity, make it easier to do business in Victoria and also protect consumers, community health and safety and the environment. I will not go through all the 10 portfolios and the 14 acts that are due to be amended; I think other members have covered that quite well. What I do want to focus my remarks on is clause 1 of the bill, the purpose of the bill – and the bill actually does amend the Essential Services Commission Act 2001 in relation to various administrative enforcement matters.

A number of opposition members have spoken of the need to cut red tape and to reduce regulation. We have had a number of Labor government MPs wax lyrical about how good the economy is going and how things are good for business. Well, I can tell you the economy is not working for people. People are really struggling, and the government’s response does not need to be to have less regulation or an approach of suddenly slashing red tape, it actually needs to be expanding regulation. The Greens certainly believe that consumers do need more protection, and the government can do this by expanding the administrative and enforcement functions of the Essential Services Commission to include the retail grocery industry – more specifically, supermarkets. The government needs to recognise that what is obvious is that supermarkets are providing Victorians with an essential service, just like other essential service industries that are covered by the Essential Services Commission – water, gas, the retail energy market. These are all regulated by government. All Victorians buy groceries to live. The vast majority of us will shop at one of the two major supermarket retailers. At this particular time in history when Victorians are experiencing significant financial strain and the cost-of-living crisis, supermarkets are charging more for food –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I think now would be an appropriate time to break for lunch. The member will have the call when we return to the bill.

Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:01 pm.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.