Thursday, 29 August 2024

Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mary-Anne Thomas:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Emma KEALY (Lowan) (10:15): I rise today to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2024. This is quite an extensive piece of legislation we have before us today. There are a number of changes. A lot of them are related to the Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority (VARTA) and moving that function into the department. Of course that is something where I am sure many people will share their personal stories of assisted reproductive treatment and the challenges they have gone through. We know how much of a toll that takes on families, on individuals and particularly on women, but also it can cost an enormous amount of money. There are levels of sensitivity around that, particularly in terms of access to information, making sure we have appropriate counselling and support services for the donors but also for the people who are going through those treatments, and potentially we need to do more at the other end of that when it is unsuccessful.

We also have multiple other changes within this legislation, which deal with, I think it is, six or seven other acts. Some of those are small changes; there are others that I think uncover more serious issues. I will spend some of my time during the debate on SafeScript, because there are some small amendments within this legislation that deal with some very, very serious issues around SafeScript and the failure of the original legislation as it was drafted to result in any medical professionals being penalised for inappropriate prescribing of addictive mostly pain medication. There was a very high profile case, which has been highlighted, of a young boy in Victoria that the coroner investigated earlier this year. I would like to spend some time on that because of my connection to SafeScript and my connection to John and Marg Millington, who were the key campaigners. It is really seen, and I think this is acknowledged on both sides of the chamber, that without the strong advocacy of John and Marg Millington we would not have SafeScript in Victoria. We need to ensure that a good, positive program, something that should be saving lives, is actually appropriately managed when it is rolled out and put in place and is delivering what was promised.

There are other smaller amendments, which I will touch on later on in my contribution, but the bulk of the feedback that we have obtained in the Liberals and Nationals around this piece of legislation has been focused on assisted reproductive treatment. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, this is something that is very, very sensitive. It is an area of expertise that I think is perhaps sometimes underestimated. When we look at anything within the health sector, we have a genuine level of respect for people who work in those fields, particularly when it comes to research around what is perhaps the most incredible thing to actually see in a laboratory, which is the creation of an embryo within a laboratory environment.

I had the good fortune to visit the Monash IVF centre before the last election, where we made a comprehensive announcement around opening up access to reproductive treatment to more Victorians, particularly Victorian women. For me, I was just amazed. There is nobody, whether you are interested in science or not, who could see that process being undertaken under a microscope and not feel a little tingle of how exciting it is from a scientific perspective but also that they are creating life. We often talk about doctors thinking that they are gods, but when you have got that creation of life, which is in the control of scientists, it is just absolutely phenomenal. Scientists in this state have delivered joy and happiness to so many families who have been unable to conceive through traditional practices. It was great to see that happening. I get very excited about this, because I am a scientist, a biomedical scientist.

I was one of only 28 people who graduated with a bachelor of biomedical science after 120 of us started. I was the only one of those 28 who ended up in pathology, working in diagnostic pathology. But all of the others, to their credit, went into research, and they have gone into a broad range of different research areas. Some of them are capturing the methane emissions from cows and measuring that in terms of the gases going into the environment – it would not be my first choice of what I would utilise my science degree for –

Roma Britnell interjected.

Emma KEALY: The member for South-West Coast is very interested in that. However, can I suggest, from speaking to my friend, that perhaps the capturing of the gases is not an altogether joyful experience. I have got another friend who actually went into research into how we can improve and advance the success rate when it comes to assisted reproductive treatment. These scientists are not paid a lot of money. They do an incredible amount of work, and I think at the end of the day they are often not recognised for the research that they put into that end outcome of giving the opportunity to have a child to people who otherwise may not have had that opportunity.

We also have, I guess, a very interesting situation. I do not know – I hope others can share their journey or their stories around this, but it is difficult. For women’s health reasons there are a lot of things that happen in your life when you cannot reproduce as you are taught in school. For women in particular the main focus on your reproductive system is about how not to get pregnant. When women then make the decision to have a child, for some that does not happen as it is supposed to. We are supposed to simply have sex and all of a sudden we wake up the next morning and we are pregnant, and that is it; that is your journey towards having a baby. That simply is not the case for so many Victorian women and women around the world. It is not the case.

I have got a very, very good friend who went through early menopause. This is something that is not widely known, that women can go through menopause at a very early age. Emily went through menopause in her early 20s. When she partnered and married they wanted to have children. I caught up with Emily only a couple of weeks ago, and she is still carrying a burden of what the process is to access donor eggs in Victoria. She is somebody who has already gone through a very difficult situation of feeling that they are unusual because they have gone through menopause when they were quite young, as opposed to when they are getting into their 50s or 60s.

It was really surprising to me to hear how donors are matched to their potential recipients. Emily likened it to being on a dating app, because you have to supply a photo and you have to supply information about your family, your situation and where you live. You have to basically put up a profile of ‘Why should I carry your child?’ as you would for a dating profile. That is an incredibly humiliating experience if you do not think that you are going to fit the mould or if you get constantly rejected by donors – that you are not seen as an appropriate mother. So not only have you gone through this early period of menopause, where you no longer have any eggs and you question how you fit into the world in that regard and perhaps feel like a failure, but then you go through this process of trying to access donor eggs in Victoria and you are again seen as not good enough to be a mother – or that is how that was perceived. I think that we should not be putting women into the position where they feel like failures or exposed to a level of judgement simply because their bodies have told them that at this point in time they are not going to put any more eggs out there for fertilisation and that is it, that is their journey. I think that is an incredibly humiliating experience.

Emily ended up accessing donor eggs from South Africa. It was easier for her to travel to another country to access donor eggs than it was to access eggs here in Victoria, and I do not think there has been a big leap in terms of how women can access donor eggs. We often talk about sperm donors, but we do not often talk about egg donors in these scenarios. I think there is still a lot of work that can be done in that area. But the reason I share this story is not just because the journey of reproduction can be a different one for many different women but also because it is mentally a very big burden to carry. It is a significant burden to carry.

You also have during this period fluctuating hormone levels or the addition of hormones to your body, which can of course create changes in your mental health and mental state but also in your physical state. It can be quite debilitating to feel like you not only cannot naturally conceive but even, when you are having assisted reproductive treatment, still cannot conceive, plus you are putting on a lot of weight, plus you are feeling moody or depressed or not attractive to your partner or like you are not able to contribute. That is one of the reasons that I think it is very, very important that at all levels of this process there should be wide access to counselling. I understand that through this legislative change there will still be mandatory counselling for donors and donor recipients, but the legislation takes away mandatory counselling for those accessing the register at a later date. That is not related to the story I just went through of my friend Emily or other women who have gone through assisted reproductive treatment, but we must look at this as a whole process where this is a very, very emotionally sensitive situation.

It is so important that when a child grows up and they are told, at whatever point during their life, that they were conceived through donor eggs or donor sperm they are given a wholesome and very much wraparound mental health support system. Under this legislation, the mandatory counselling element, which is currently provided by assisted reproductive treatment organisations, will be removed. The feedback from the sector is that this is a bad step – this is a step backwards. Instead, there will be a fact sheet given to those who are accessing information from the register about their donor parent. But it has also been highlighted in the feedback that it is so important that for those people – at that very, very important time in their lives, in a unique situation where it will be hard to find their tribe of other people who are in a similar situation – counselling should be mandatory, with professionals who have been through this before, who have expertise in walking through that process around an individual’s sense of identity when they have believed that person A and B are Mum and Dad, only to find out down the track that actually ‘You’re not really my father.’ There is that nature versus nurture, and perhaps looking at some of the background of the donor and working through that association and helping somebody to understand where they do fit in the world. It is very, very complex. I have already spoken about the complexity of the science behind this, but there is complexity in terms of the mental health and the counselling and the psychology around this as well, and that cannot be understated. As I said, that is not just for the donors and it is not just for the recipients, it is also for the children that are resultant from successful reproductive treatment. That is the feedback we have heard from the sector, and I think it is one element that is a major part of this legislation that falls short. I think it is something that should be considered to be revised. That is because we understand that mental health support is so important, because if you get it wrong, at the wrong time, it can be catastrophic in its outcome.

Other feedback that we have had I think has been in part worked through or resolved, or at least it has been flagged with the government and perhaps can be resolved through contributions made in the chamber to clarify what some of those positions will be. But also there is an opportunity perhaps to make some further amendments in the future if that opportunity arises. The bill lists in part 2, clause ‍4, ‘Definitions’, that a designated officer is now a ‘regulated person’. Given that the current ART act, the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008, does not define a role for a designated officer, other than the ART provider having to name one, it is unclear what that really means, and that is causing some concern in the sector about what that change might look like. It is also unclear from the bill and some of your changes what the intention is in regard to VARTA’s success rate and what adverse event data monitoring functions are.

Thirdly, as a minor concern, it is disappointing that the education function of VARTA is being removed without a clear plan in place to ensure the continuity of educating Victorians about their fertility. So much high school education relates to preventing unwanted pregnancy and STIs, and that is very, very important. But it is very, very important also that young people in particular have an independent and reliable source of information to help them understand how to plan their fertility. Over the years VARTA have developed an incredible range of patient resources. To lose that simply because we are bringing one part of VARTA into the department – if we are not taking it all in or we are not replacing that research element and if we are not replacing that educational element, then it would create a gap in the support services available in the state of Victoria, which would be I think more than just a shame. I actually think that it would be very, very concerning if that happened and it would be deleterious for all Victorians, but particularly for young Victorian women.

The other thing that is a little bit odd with the timing of this legislative change coming through is that there is a comprehensive review being done federally at the moment in relation to artificial reproductive treatment and the IVF sector. That is something that is being undertaken by Greg Hunt. This is something that is happening, as I said, on a national level. We know that other states are also working through individual reviews at this time, but if there is a level of expectation that there will be standardisation between states – which would help us to ensure that women who live near a border could access reproductive treatment on either side of the border and be treated in a similar way and that we had consistency in approach in relation to accessing register information and accessing donors ‍– I think that is important. It would be a step forward if we could have federal agreement and consistency in relation to artificial reproductive treatment. Again, that is something that has been flagged by the sector, and I think it should be taken into account in regard to the timing of this legislation coming through the Parliament of Victoria.

I just want to touch briefly, before I get totally enthralled in reproductive treatment, on SafeScript, because this is such an important issue for me personally but also for all Victorians. I just will go back to when SafeScript was first rolled out. In my opening remarks I mentioned the tireless work of John and Marg Millington of Nhill, who have done an incredible job in sharing their personal experiences of their son Simon, who became addicted to painkillers after a terrible car accident. As part of his treatment he was in so much pain – it was a really bad ute accident – that his mum Marg was begging the doctors, ‘Give him more pain medication. Give him more pain medication.’ But it was not the accident that took his life, it was actually his addiction to pain medication, some 16 years after the accident occurred. John and Marg have on so many occasions shared their story with the public through the media and they have met with politicians on all sides over at least four terms of Parliament. They have worked so, so hard to ensure that we have a better system, to make sure that people cannot doctor shop and to make sure that when they become addicted to medication we have some safeguards in there to make sure that doctors can see what the prescription history is for an individual and also that when pharmacists are dispensing information it will come up with a red flag if somebody has gone through the system too often.

The announcement of this by Labor sounded like it was delivering on what should have been committed to, and it was a bipartisan commitment at the 2014 election, but sadly there simply were not supports put in place for doctors to know what to do if somebody came to them with pain medication addiction, where they should be referred to and alternate pathways for pain management. There were no supports and no pathways given to pharmacists when a red flag presented to them as to what to do in that scenario or where to refer that patient, who was coming in for another prescription to be filled. But the biggest issue that we have about SafeScript is not a single medical professional has been penalised under the legislation, which was supposed to safeguard people and put medical professionals in a position where they had to ensure they were checking SafeScript. While it is very quietly put through the legislation before us today, there is now finally a move, some five years after SafeScript was actually rolled out, to close that gap.

This is on the back of a horrific case that was highlighted earlier this year – it was actually the subject of a coroner’s report – where a young teen, a 16-year-old, died after seeing 70 doctors within a 48-hour period and attaining 64 prescriptions from a total of 31 doctors. That should not happen. That young boy died of a drug overdose. SafeScript failed in that instance, when we were promised that SafeScript would stop that from happening. You promised John and Marg Millington that what happened to their son Simon would not happen again because we have got SafeScript in place, and then we have got these issues being flagged for five long years.

Even in the articles that come through and in the most recent one that I saw earlier this year in March, the department actually admitted that they knew what the legislative drafting error was. It was disclosed to the coroner that there were drafting issues in the legislation. Why has it taken so long for the government to act? When you put out a media release, when you throw money at something and when you say you are going to fix a problem, that is great. So often we hear from the Labor government ‘We’re doing this’, but when you follow through they are not getting the results that they are promising. It comes down to the deliverables, and too many young people are still losing their lives. Year on year we are still seeing the number of Victorians who are dying due to prescription medications increasing; it is not decreasing. There is simply very, very limited access to rehabilitation treatment in the state of Victoria. It is well below the rates of availability per capita in New South Wales. We are not seeing any expansion of rehabilitation services. The most recently announced one was many, many years ago now. Up in Mildura we finally got a site announced a couple of weeks ago, but that should have been built a long time ago. The residents of Mildura and that north-west part of the state should have had access to better drug and alcohol treatment by this point in time.

This is something that is so important to me: that this government listens. I look forward to the opportunity to be the minister for mental health and to make sure that people who are in the midst of challenges with drug and alcohol addiction, when they want to access treatment, can get treatment. Because nobody who is suffering from drug or alcohol addiction should ever, ever be told, ‘We can’t help you for another six months. We can’t help you for another 12 months.’ I have spoken to people who are in the midst of addiction and who in that position say, ‘Emma, all you can do is basically give yourself the white-knuckle treatment,’ which is just to clench your fists and hope to God that you can make it another day until you might get the phone call that you can get into rehab and start your treatment process. But all too often the temptation is too much. People are self-medicating for childhood trauma, for issues that have happened in their life. They are not able to access mental health support, so they self-medicate. It is catastrophic that we have not seen any significant shift in access to treatment rehabilitation in my time in Parliament and for a long time before that.

We also have terrible a situation when it comes to waitlists. The waitlists are growing and growing and growing. There are more people than there have ever been on waitlists for rehabilitation in this state. So while, yes, I welcome SafeScript – it is fabulous to have SafeScript – but please, this is only the start of some of the amendments that need to take place. Yes, we need to have legislation so that when we say we are going to penalise a doctor or a pharmacist for ignoring the SafeScript system they absolutely should be penalised. But it is more than that. We need better supports and controls for people who clearly have an addiction to pain medication. We need to make sure that we are making mental health support available to all Victorians when they need it. This is not what we have seen in this year’s budget, which is catastrophic cuts – a pause, basically, or a cancellation of the mental health reforms that were promised before the 2018 election.

We have seen massive budget cuts in the mental health sector. They are so concerned that all of the promises that were made about rebuilding Victoria’s mental health system have been completely pushed aside and they are no longer the focus. They are desperately concerned, because they put their heart and soul into the public arena and now have been told by Labor they are not good enough and it is not going to invest in that anymore. We see the mental health locals being scrapped – even though the federal government is still providing money to the state government they have been scrapped. I have the member for South-West Coast sitting next to me. In our part of the state, in the west and the south-west corner of the state, we were promised mental health locals. They have now been canned for at least another three years, which means in my communities there is no mental health support. There is literally nowhere for people to go.

Roma Britnell interjected.

Emma KEALY: The need is absolutely growing, member for South-West Coast. If we could get the Lookout in Warrnambool, it would close a massive gap that we have got in rehabilitation services in the entirety of the south-west of the state. Unfortunately this is what we are seeing from the government; we are seeing so many cuts.

While this bill might be heralded as a great step forward for women and for reproductive treatment in Victoria and as a big step forward for SafeScript and for supporting people with alcohol and other drug issues or mental health issues, we are simply not seeing that from Labor. This budget cut so much out of issues and programs that are important for Victorian women. In the early childhood sector supports and regulation were cut by nearly $80 million, or 11 per cent; wellbeing supports for schoolkids were cut by $34 million, 8.4 per cent; child protection was cut by $141 million, or 6.2 per cent; family violence service delivery was cut by $29 million, or 3.7 per cent; women’s policy was cut by $300,000 following a $3 million cut in 2023–24; and worst of all, public IVF services were cut by $42 million. This is of course after that horrific period during COVID where for whatever reason IVF was seen as being dangerous to people’s health and was suspended. I got stopped in front of my office by someone in tears because they were due for a cycle. It was an enormous amount of money that was down the tube, but also it was their hope of having a family. That cycle could not go ahead because IVF treatment was suspended during COVID lockdowns.

There are so many women that are doing it incredibly tough at the moment. Women were the ones who held their families together during the COVID lockdowns. They were the ones that were homeschooling their kids. They were supporting the mental health of others, and so often they were turning to the bottle to support themselves through that. We are now in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. Again it is the women who are working hard to make sure they can put some form of a meal on the table for their family. Often they are cooking for the family and just scurrying off and having a sandwich in the corner, in the pantry, so their kids do not see that they are not eating the same meal. People are accessing Foodbank at higher rates than they ever have before. This cost-of-living crisis is hurting Victorian women.

While I can see what the government are attempting to do with this legislation and other themes that we hear from the government about supporting women, it is nothing more than words. From the action and on the ground, what we see is Victorian women are paying the price for Labor’s decisions. We need to see much more being done when it comes to addressing the cost-of-living crisis and when it comes to addressing the health crisis across this state, where it is becoming harder and harder to access the health services that people need and deserve close to home. Every day we see another issue, whether it is ambulance ramping, people not being able to turn up or hospitals struggling to get staff. We are in dire straits when it comes to health care in this state.

These are issues that matter to Victorian women. We are not seeing them being addressed by the Allan Labor government. It is something that every single person in this chamber should be standing up and fighting for. But I will say to any Victorian woman listening that we are listening – the Nationals are listening and the Liberal Party are listening. You will be heard. We will always fight for you and make sure you are not being forgotten, as the Labor government have forgotten you.

Alison MARCHANT (Bellarine) (10:45): It is a pleasure to rise on the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2024. They say when you have your health you have everything, and I think in this place it is important that we continue to reform and improve our legislation in the health space to ensure that all Victorians continue to have world-class health care and to also have safeguards around that. We are committed in this space to the health and wellbeing of every Victorian. We not only have certainly taken significant steps over time to ensure that our health regulations are strong and modern but in this place will continue to reform to make sure that we keep pace and we have modern legislation, particularly when we have such technology advancements and especially in that space and practice of assisted reproductive treatment, which this bill does speak a lot to. These reforms, which were announced last year, are all about keeping Victorians safe and ensuring we have that modern health regulator in this state who looks out for them.

I want to talk a little bit about what this bill means in terms of the finer details but then also share a little bit of a personal story. The vision is pretty clear in that we want to have a state where everyone has health care and is free from avoidable disease and injuries, and it really just allows every individual to live a healthy lifestyle. This bill, which builds on our reforms, is that crucial step. It is strengthening our health regulations, and we aim to create a safer and more consistent healthcare system for all. This is not just about legal adjustments that we do in this place but about those safeguards which I have referred to. It does respond to that quickly changing landscape that is our healthcare system, and it is also there to meet community expectations. Our technology and medical advancements and practices have evolved so much, and so too our regulations, that we want to assure that regardless of your age or circumstances you can trust that healthcare system to be robust, fair and up to date.

I probably did not appreciate, being a newish member to this place, that really diverse range of responsibilities that the Department of Health have, including in relation to child safety, communicable diseases, medicines, poisons, legionella risk management, pest control – which I did not appreciate – radiation safety, food safety, private hospitals and day procedure centres, non-emergency patient transport, first-aid service providers, tobacco and e-cigarettes and safe drinking water. It is quite a list. Established earlier this year, the health regulator now has most of the department’s regulatory function, and it consolidates and brings all of it in-house and enables that department to assume more consistency and a really consistent approach. It just centralises the expertise within the department, and that in turn allows us to respond more rapidly and allocate the appropriate resources.

This is about work to deliver safer, fairer and more accessible services for those who are seeking and maybe receiving assisted reproductive treatment, for donor-conceived people and their future and for donors and surrogates. It is an honour to speak in this place on various issues, but sometimes the bills and acts that come to this place are a little bit more personal. We hear in this place a lot of people bringing their own personal experiences to share in the debate of bills, and it is an honour to contribute to this bill, because I know that these types of bills do make a real difference to people’s everyday lives. I want to acknowledge those who share their deeply personal experiences of assisted reproductive treatment such as IVF, conception, pregnancy, childbirth and child loss, which does include miscarriages. Sharing your lived experience shapes the language in our community, shapes our discourse, shapes our policymaking and shapes the kind of community we want to be. Ultimately, I hope that that ends in a more respectful and empathetic community.

It is hard to share those personal experiences on topics such as this, because even with how far we have come in speaking about this there is still a lot of stigma and taboo. I have shared in this place before that my husband and I lost a baby at 22 weeks – too small and too little to stay with us. She was born sleeping 16 years ago now, and there is not a day when I do not think about what she would look like and what she would be like if she were still with us. I openly share this story, and I know that by sharing my story that can assist others. I do have a lot of people who stop me in the electorate and say thank you for sharing my story. They will quietly say ‘I have a very similar story’ and that they appreciate that being shared.

It did take a little bit of time to become pregnant with our second child. Although we did not need to use assisted treatment, my heart goes out to families who do. I can appreciate that it is a journey and one that I have heard the Minister for Government Services state is not for the faint-hearted. I think it is probably worth noting that by the time someone does reach out or start accessing that assisted reproductive treatment they have probably gone through a very significant journey before getting to that point. It is a privilege to be in this place and have a chance to amend laws that will make it fairer and make it easier for those who want to grow a family. It is a privilege, as I have said, to share my personal story to help destigmatise that topic. Although no amount of legislation can entirely remove all those challenges from IVF, we must try and make that process fairer. We must make it accessible, available and as compassionate as possible.

For those that do use assisted reproductive treatment these reforms are going to make a real difference. We are going to transfer regulation of assisted reproductive treatment to the health regulator, and that will enhance our compliance with and simplify access to the donor conception register. We recognise the importance of these registers for donor-conceived people and their families, and we are committed to making this a process that is as supportive as possible and as accessible as possible. Those who are being born through assisted reproductive treatments and the rights of donors and their recipients really remain at the centre of our efforts. We will continue to listen to the voices of those with lived experience and we will use that to shape our insights and our policies.

The Victorian government has already conducted and delivered a significant amount of reforms after the recommendations from the Gorton review, and that was really to promote access and remove barriers to assisted reproductive treatment. There are also a few other key milestones that we have delivered as a government. We have delivered a Victorian public fertility service, a nation-leading public egg and sperm bank. We have invested $120 million to support thousands of Victorians looking to start and grow their families. We have had an additional $2 million in this last budget to fund the public egg and sperm bank as well. We will continue to work in this space. We know there is always more to do, and that is what part of this bill is about.

This bill also transfers that responsibility to the new health regulator. It introduces a consistent set of compliance and enforcement tools in line with the Gorton review’s recommendations. This reform is about delivering modern and improved health regulatory outcomes for consumers and for the state as the Allan Labor government strengthens our regulations in Victoria. It is there to protect, and it is there to provide greater consistency and regulation across the health system for Victorians. We have a world-class health system. We have a bill here in front of us today that not only strengthens it but is really putting people at the centre of it. It does mean a safer and stronger health system for all. I thank the minister for all her work in bringing this bill to the house. I commend the bill to the house.

Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (10:55): I am delighted to rise and make a contribution on the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2024. We have heard from other speakers that this bill will improve health regulation, which is a great step forward; make changes to assisted reproductive treatment, ART; abolish the Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority, VARTA; and make many other changes to the legislation. Any changes we can make to assist in the health sector are very important, because the Victorian health system is in crisis, and we see it all over Victoria – not just in metropolitan Melbourne but in our regions as well. It is a real concern, and that begins in the ambulance sector: from making the call, getting picked up, getting to hospital and getting the care that you need. We see paramedics are being overworked. I have been talking to MICA paramedics in my electorate, and they have got real concerns about the burnout that is going on there.

That is the very beginning of the health system, when you are dealing with paramedics and MICA paramedics, and of course when you get into the hospitals the nurses, again, are feeling well overworked. And it really is the Victorian patients who are paying the price. There is not a week that goes by when constituents do not talk to me about ambulance ramping, beds not being in use and concerns for their relatives who are in health care. So any step forward is a good start, but we certainly need to not just stop here but go further with other changes, assistance and investment in our health system. It is not acceptable in any community. The pillars of any community are clean water, a roof over one’s head, a satisfactory health system and education. I can comfortably say we have got clean drinking water, but after that things fall away very quickly; we have got some work to do. As I say, there is a housing crisis, a health crisis in every community and of course the education gap, and the students are paying the price.

The bill makes amendments to the regulatory frameworks, including cooling towers under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008; drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act 2003 – I will talk about that in a moment; first-aid services under the Non-Emergency Patient Transport and First Aid Services Act 2003; non-emergency patient transport under the Non-Emergency Patient Transport and First Aid Services Act 2003; pest control operators under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008; and radiation sources under the Radiation Act 2005. These will be regulated by the health regulator with the aim of strengthening compliance and enforcement powers with a wider range of mid-range remedies and penalties in graduated steps for appropriate intervention. The bill gives the health regulator powers to issue improvement or prohibition notices, accept enforceable undertakings, issue infringement notices and require the production of documents.

If I look at the health sector in the Ovens Valley region and our communities, as the member for Lowan spoke about, there is a need for mental health support. We all know a greater investment needs to be made. I accept that the government has made investment in mental health, but it is not enough. We do need more, and in our communities, not just our bigger communities. So in an electorate like mine Wangaratta, Yarrawonga, Cobram, Brighton and Myrtleford are the major centres in the Ovens Valley, but in the smaller communities like Eurobin, Katamatite and Tungamah, when people cannot get to the bigger communities or cannot get the services they need in the bigger communities, there is just nowhere for them to go. I really fear how that filters down through our smaller communities. It really is a concern.

In Cobram we have been trying to get dialysis chairs for I do not know how long now, and it is another concern we have got. People have to leave our region to go to Shepparton, Mooroopna and further and beyond to get dialysis three times a week or even more. We are finding that takes another person to drive, and it just ties up resources for that family. It can be the difference for a family in Cobram, for example, between having a relatively normal life if they can get access to the dialysis chair and having on four or five days a week the whole day taken up getting access to dialysis. Again, we are not talking about the millions and billions of dollars in investment which happens here in Melbourne. We are not after the world; we just want basic services so our communities do not have to travel or get a friend, an uncle, an aunt, a son or a daughter to take them to dialysis.

We know that Yarrawonga is the fastest growing town in regional Victoria. They take on a lot of work from across the river in Mulwala. I often say as a cross-border member that people do not understand the strain there can be on our services from non-constituents who live across the border, which is only a couple of kilometres away. And we know of the investment that Wangaratta needs at Northeast Health, because it was a base hospital and still effectively is. All the towns I have just mentioned – including Benalla, which is out of my electorate – and other towns and other communities like Goorambat need that support.

People love Bright. Everybody knows Bright and they love Bright. It is a fantastic community. When I first got Bright in my electorate in 2014, there had been a push to try to get an upgrade to the hospital in Bright. It was going to cost about $22 million to $23 million at the time. The local op shop had raised a million dollars over a couple of years to make sure they had enough money to kickstart the process, and we made that commitment in 2014. Obviously we did not get into government and have not since, but clearly Bright has not got that hospital upgrade. They have got the hospital they currently have, but it is under-resourced. We really need that investment with the amount of people that are moving to Bright and to that region – tree changers. I spoke only yesterday about how the price of houses has gone up. People in Melbourne are moving that way, but there is also the tourist trade. It is absolutely astonishing. Every weekend in Bright is busy. In fact if you do not go to the supermarket before Thursday morning, you really struggle after that until Sunday night because it is just so busy with tourists. They are all riding bikes – mountain bikes, road bikes – heading up to Mount Hotham and all those sorts of things. We have to keep investing in these small communities, because if we do not, the pressure on Bright then gets pushed onto Wangaratta. Wangaratta is already under pressure at Northeast Health with the amount of nurses and shifts required to keep that big health system going. They do a fantastic job with the resources they have got, but the other towns, like Benalla and Cobram and Yarrawonga and those sorts of communities push into Wangaratta to make sure they can get the services they need. It is really important that this happens.

We know why this investment is light on. We know it is because of the Suburban Rail Loop. The investment that is going into the SRL is just unfathomable. We know, and I think many on the other side know, that if we just pause the SRL, billions of dollars are not going to get injected into a hole in the ground. Yes, one day it will be very good for Melbourne and Victoria, but is now the right time, when we have got a health crisis and a housing crisis and our roads and education are subpar? There are just so many other places where we could invest that money. Pausing the SRL would allow us to do investment in Melbourne, in regional Victoria and in everyone’s electorate. If you divide the amount of money by the 88 seats in Victoria, the share that we would all get out of that would be just a massive investment we could all put into our communities. I know a lot of it would go into health and roads in my electorate, because they are the things that are most at risk and most in need of support from dollars invested. If you asked me where I would invest money in the Ovens Valley, it would be in health and roads. As I say, what is holding that investment up is the SRL and that massive commitment. If it goes ahead, and it seems to be that way, we are going to be in the doldrums with some dark times for many years to come, because this is not a commitment we can afford. Victoria cannot afford it. At the end of the day, it is what we are doing without because of it. It is important that it is stopped so that we can continue on and fulfil our health needs.

I will let somebody else have a go. I have gone through some of the regulations. Some of the speakers have spoken about them as well. As I say, any improvement is a good improvement.

Josh BULL (Sunbury) (11:05): I am pleased that it is Thursday. I am pleased to have the opportunity to be in the house and contribute to debate on the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2024. When it comes to the health and wellbeing of all Victorians, we as a government are focused on supporting each and every individual and ensuring that we are investing right across our state.

I do want to take the opportunity before I get into some further detail of the bill just to acknowledge the very powerful and important contributions that have been made in the house thus far on this bill and certainly – not reflecting on the Chair, of course – yours yesterday, Acting Speaker Mercurio, when you spoke about the health and wellbeing of your daughter. I think it brings to light discussion of how we as a Parliament, as a government and as individuals within our own community must always be constantly striving to support those that are in health care, our families and local communities and making sure that we are listening and enabling people to speak about what are often incredibly tough, traumatic experiences in their daily lives.

I also heard the member for Bellarine and her powerful contribution just a short time ago. I want to acknowledge her loss and again make the point that these are powerful and important matters for individuals, for families, for members of Parliament and for communities. I want to make the point that as a Labor team, both in terms of investment and when it comes to this bill in terms of a regulatory sense, ensuring that we are getting the very best healthcare system that we can possibly have in this state is an incredibly important function of our government.

The 2024–25 state budget provided a massive investment in health within our state. We know that we did experience a one-in-100-year global pandemic. As I did and many members did throughout the journey at that time, we thank and acknowledge our entire health workforce but also see it in the context of what it is, and that is a system that was under immense pressure, a system that we have worked incredibly hard, both from a budgetary sense but also a regulatory sense, and closely with to support. This bill builds on that, and it also builds on the $1.5 billion investment that was provided by the government a couple of months ago to provide for additional support and additional care for our amazing health workforce and the hospitals and health services right across our state.

On that, I do want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the local health services within my local community. The Premier and I had the opportunity to visit the Sunbury community hospital a couple of weeks ago. This was the day hospital, which will soon be the Sunbury community hospital thanks to a significant investment from this government in additional urgent care, additional oncology, improved dialysis. Making sure that we can provide the best health care locally when and where people need it is a commitment that we are very pleased to be working towards delivering, but I do want to take the opportunity to thank the entire team locally, because these people are incredible. They do phenomenal work, and we are very thankful and very grateful for everything they do. I also want to acknowledge Sunbury and Cobaw Community Health, who do an amazing job as well, and the team at the Goonawarra priority primary care centre (PPCC).

This bill, as I mentioned earlier, goes to regulatory reform. It goes to making sure that we are providing a better health service. Nine regulatory schemes across seven acts will be amended by this bill to improve compliance and enforcement powers. These in-scope regulatory schemes have significant gaps in terms of compliance and enforcement powers. What we are doing effectively with this piece of legislation and through those changes to the seven acts is making sure that things can be done in a more streamlined, more effective and better way – those acts being the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008, the Non-Emergency Patient Transport and First Aid Services Act 2003, the Safe Drinking Water Act 2003, the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, the Health Services Act 1988 and the Radiation Act 2005.

I know some members have spoken about those provisions thus far, and depending on how we go for time throughout the journey of the day I expect they will be canvassed quite significantly. We are making sure that there are new powers to do things such as the issuing of improvement notices to require that a regulated entity take specific actions to render noncompliance with the regulatory requirement, the issuing of prohibition notices to prohibit a regulated entity from engaging in an activity that poses a risk of harm or health to safety, the issuing of information or documentation production notices to require the provision of information or documents to be supported in compliance monitoring and the issuing of infringement notices for prescribed offences to impose a fine for noncompliance and accept enforceable undertakings.

There are a lot of words in there, and the basis, the origin, of this piece of legislation is getting the very best service that we can get. Health is a really complex area of public policy. It is a multilevel, multiagency framework that goes to supporting our local communities. I mentioned Sunbury Community Health before, the PPCC, urgent care and places like the Royal Children’s Hospital, which I visited just last week with my little one for a relatively minor but still very important procedure. It is a complex and dynamic area where every single Victorian should have the opportunity to both access and go through a system whereby you are given the very best chance. We should always remember in this country, because there are places throughout the world where this does not exist, that we are massively fortunate, incredibly fortunate, to have the system of Medicare – a system whereby when you are unwell, you are not forced, as in some places throughout the world, to make a decision between going broke and getting the health care that you need. Both as a state Parliament and at a national level we should always fight for and value that. We should always make sure that we are putting people’s health first, and that is exactly what we are focused on. I know that the minister is focused on that, and the entire team as well.

Regulatory reform is an important part of that health network, that journey. For those within our local communities and all of us in here, there is no family anywhere in our state that is not touched by matters of health. We are all in this together, as has been often said. Regulatory reform, investment in health and supporting our doctors, our nurses and our ambos at each and every opportunity should be something that is at the forefront of what we do as core government business. That is what we are focused on. This is another piece of legislation that goes to efficiency, to transparency and to making sure that we are getting the very best health care that we can. That is exactly what we are focused on. I commend the bill to the house.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (11:15): I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2024. The very first paragraph of this bill talks how about it will modernise and streamline compliance and enforcement powers to support a graduated, proportionate and risk-based approach to regulation by the Secretary of the Department of Health to prevent or minimise harm to health or safety of Victorians. I follow on from the member for Sunbury, who said that we must do everything we possibly can to support our health community, our doctors, our nurses, our allied health staff – everybody in the health system that pulls together to help people in their most vulnerable time, when they are unwell.

Our regional hospitals are absolutely – no doubt – facing significant challenges. This is having a detrimental impact on the communities that they serve. I suspect the health department through the government’s pushing is really squeezing the hospitals dry, and it is having a detrimental effect. In South-West Coast I have been made aware of numerous instances where highly skilled medical professionals are refusing to work in certain hospitals. This situation is not only unacceptable but also unsustainable, as it forces our residents to travel considerable distances to access specialist care.

Allow me to highlight a few cases that exemplify the gravity of this issue. We have an ophthalmologist residing in Portland who, rather than operating locally, is driving to South Australia and Hamilton to perform surgeries. A urologist based in Warrnambool, who served the Warrnambool community for eight years, now operates in Portland and Hamilton but not in the Warrnambool public system. An obstetrician has relocated from Warrnambool to New South Wales, citing an unwillingness to continue working in Victoria. A general surgeon in Portland unable to secure a contract left to work in New South Wales. An orthopaedic surgeon has recently resigned due to dissatisfaction, I am told. We have two anaesthetists in the region on stress leave. An oncologist physician has departed Victoria for New South Wales, where they report that while the system is also under strain, they at least receive the respect they deserve. There is an oncologist living in Warrnambool but not practising in the region. A general surgeon living in the region, who was operating in Portland for many years, no longer operates in Portland as his contract was left languishing for months on end.

Furthermore, I was recently made aware of an advertisement for an emergency doctor position offering a salary range of $400,000 to $600,000. This has understandably caused considerable discontent among our current emergency doctors, who are earning significantly less for the same role. Such discrepancies in remuneration are not only inequitable but also jeopardise our ability to retain specialists we desperately need. The South-West Coast region faces the tyranny of distance, making it all the more crucial that the specialists who choose to work in our region are treated with the respect and fairness they deserve. These doctors are not only highly skilled but also understand the unique challenges of our environment. They are experienced in managing their case loads and balancing overtime. These professionals are best placed to make decisions about their schedules in the context of the demands they face.

The impact of these issues is being felt acutely by our local communities, who are being forced to travel greater distances for essential specialist appointments, adding unnecessary stress and financial burdens, not to mention lengthy wait times. One example that demonstrates the effect on our community is that of a constituent who was referred to a urologist in Geelong, who was told that the next available appointment was in 55 months – yes, that is 4½ years. This is a taste of what the mergers will look like, with Geelong in charge of South-West Coast. They are clearly already under enormous pressure with major wait times. We simply cannot afford to lose any more medical professionals from our region. I call on the government to take immediate action to ensure that our healthcare professionals are adequately supported, fairly compensated and treated with the respect they deserve. We want to keep them in our region. We want to support them. The health and wellbeing of our community depends on it. Just last night one of the specialists said to me that he is concerned that people will not be able to travel: they cannot afford it, they have not got the support to be able to do it or they just simply cannot. My own father was diagnosed with liver cancer, brain cancer and lung cancer in July. He is obviously very poorly, but he is having immunotherapy treatment, which they tell me could produce miraculous results. He is clearly too poorly to travel for a PET scan to Geelong, so instead he is having a CAT scan and an MRI in Warrnambool.

We have been promised a PET scanner for over two years by the government. I do not really care what it takes to get that promise delivered, but Warrnambool deserves a PET scanner. Perhaps the government can speak with other providers in the region so that we can get a PET scanner at another precinct, where it is still free to the community. These are options the government needs to explore. We have a hospital that should have been built to scope, like every other hospital. We spent 10 years designing the needs of South West Healthcare. But there is no position in that design for a PET scanner, so how was that a complete scope, when the government came out and said we need a PET scanner but has not put that in the design? We need a helipad. Why is that not in the design of the hospital? Why are we being told we have to cut biomed, pathology and all the things that were supposed to be in that design for the precinct of the South West Healthcare base hospital, yet it did not even have the PET scanner that the government then announced and it does not have a helipad?

As the state of Victoria’s population grows, regional hospitals like South West Healthcare should have a helipad, and they should also be looking at the concept of perhaps a catheter lab. Cardiac patients are having to go down to Melbourne and Geelong, when cardiac treatment is becoming much more advanced than it was. When I did my training, from 1985 to 1988, someone having a heart attack was a significant event. Since then so much has been developed around thrombolytic treatment, which can actually reverse the effect. No necrosis occurs, and the patient does not end up with CCF, congestive cardiac failure, which is the complication when tissue in the heart dies and becomes necrotic and floppy. So much has been developed in just that period of time. Putting a catheter lab in Warrnambool should be in the design scope of people who are thinking about how we better look after the community’s health future.

It surprises me. The ambulance officers have talked to me about that service in Warrnambool that we value so much. I always thought if we called 000, an ambulance would be there immediately. I have heard from the ambulance officers recently, who have not been allowed to speak to me, because the government has told them they are not allowed to. But now, because of the window of opportunity they are provided with while they are negotiating the enterprise bargaining agreement, they are speaking to me and telling me things about the resource desert that is occurring in our region. On a Saturday night you would expect more than one ambulance in a population of 35,000, but instead, because of strains on the system, often the second ambulance has to go to Hamilton or Port Fairy.

The hours these professionals are having to do – if you are a health professional, you have just done a 12-hour shift and someone needs to be transferred across to Geelong, you are not going to say no. But these are very unsafe situations, and it is only coming to light for our community that we are in such a high-risk situation because they are now allowed to speak out. We are a community that should not be gagged – no-one, in the state of Victoria. This is not a socialist state. Surely if our community only has one ambulance and it is a risk to the safety of our community, that should be freely discussed and a problem dealt with and solved, not hidden from the community and swept under the carpet. The people who are employed by the government are told that if they speak up, they will lose their job, and if they do not lose their job, they will never get a promotion.

These are the sorts of things we are hearing about the current Labor government that constituents are now finally sharing with me, and that is why we saw the gagging take place with the hospitals when the board members and the CEOs were being told to cut their budgets. One of the hospitals in my electorate was told to cut their budget by 40 per cent, and that is because the government knew they had been bequeathed money that would keep them sustainable for another year. This is a desperate government looking for money wherever they can get it, and once they have done that they will say to these smaller health services, ‘You have to merge now because you’ve mismanaged your money and you haven’t got anything to be able to manage your budget for the next 12 months.’

These are tactics that are so clear and obvious to the people in the system like me, who worked as a nurse in that system for 30 years. Unfortunately they have gagged the employees of the hospital, but they have not gagged me. I certainly can see quite clearly what is happening, and you only have to look at what I have just highlighted here about the trend that is going on in the south-west and the pressures put on specialists. People will say they are rich doctors, they do not need anything and they are getting enough. That is not true. They are highly skilled, hardworking professionals who care about their community, not money at all. You cannot treat people with disrespect and divide them and destroy them. You need to show the respect that one of those specialists talked to me about just last night, and they will work with the government, not against them.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (11:25): Look out, colleagues on this side of the house. I have got the Labor red on because I am so excited to stand here and talk about our incredible Allan Labor government and speak on this Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2024. The aim of this bill is to strengthen our health regulations so that Victorians are better protected. On this side of the house, we always stand up for Victorians. I have to say it is an absolute pleasure for me to get the chance once again in this place to speak on a piece of legislation that deals with a topic that is so dear to my heart, and I know for so many comrades here in this place it is so very dear to their hearts, and that is the reproductive care and access to fertility services and IVF that the Allan Labor government has made possible.

I have spoken so many times in this place about my own experiences with IVF and how it helped both me and my husband have the family that we love and that we cherish today. I cannot be clearer when I say if it was not for IVF – and that was some 15 years ago when we started our journey – I would not be standing here as a mum and my husband would not be sitting over there across the road in the Fair Work Commission as a dad. IVF and fertility services and equal and fair access to them mean everything to people in Victoria, and there are many of them across this state who are struggling to get pregnant and struggling because of the cost – and the cost can be incredibly high – to access reproductive healthcare services.

It is a sentiment that I hear from so many women because I talk so publicly about our journey, the IVF journey, that roller-coaster journey to get pregnant. It is a sentiment I hear from so many women in my electorate who seek access to IVF treatment. I have to say in the time that I have been sitting on this side of the chamber this morning I have not heard those opposite mention the many, many women in their electorates who are desperately trying to seek access to IVF and get pregnant. The fact that this government has made public IVF free has been absolutely groundbreaking. It is something that this government should be commended for.

I have said it time and time again – I said it 15 years ago, and it is just as relevant today as it was back then – that you can never underestimate the desire of a person to have a child, especially when there are complications or issues and challenges that may require fertility or reproductive care. Fifteen years ago, when Scott and I started undergoing the treatment, it was not something people talked about. It was hidden away. There were very few support groups, and the support groups did not meet face to face. They were little online chat groups, not these sort of WhatsApp groups or instant messenger groups and things like that. It was really private. It was not talked about and there was a sense of shame and stigma attached to it. But fortunately for women nowadays who are requiring fertility services to get pregnant and who are undergoing IVF, it is something we talk about. It is one of the reasons why I stand here and I talk time and time again in this place about the importance of making access fair and equal and not just based on how much money you have in your bank account at the time.

Before I continue, I do want to give a big shout-out. On behalf of this side of the chamber, I want to give a big shout-out of support to all the women and the families who are undergoing IVF treatment and reproductive services to try and get pregnant right now. Keep going. It is a really tough journey. We will stand here alongside you. There are many of us here on this side of the chamber who have also had to walk that journey. It can be very isolating. There are services that you can reach out to for support, and I would recommend anyone undergoing IVF reach out to those support services. I am happy to say that Scott and I reached out to receive counselling while undergoing our IVF journey, and that was really helpful to get us through that journey to finally find ourselves pregnant thanks to IVF, but it was also something that was really helpful for our relationship during that really challenging time to stay on track and for us to stay together. Services are available.

I am really proud to say that we were the first state to have an IVF baby, born all the way back in 1980. As someone who was born in 1980, that first IVF baby would be turning 44 this year, which is just such a remarkable achievement. Four years later, after that event in 1980, we were the first state to implement legislative safeguards for this treatment.

It is also a good opportunity to remember the incredible strides that this government, the Allan Labor government, has made in this space in the course of nearly 10 years. It was this government that initiated the Gorton review back in 2018, which has actually informed so many of the reforms that we have made here in this place to make it easier and more accessible for folks to undergo IVF. We removed the requirement – this is such a ridiculous requirement; I remember the debate that took place here in this place – for women to get police checks to undergo IVF treatment. We removed the requirement for women who were separated from their spouse to obtain permission to do IVF. Can you believe that? We made it easier for existing families to use the same donor, so that their children can be 100 per cent biological siblings. That is something that if you have not had to sort of make these decisions in your journey to get pregnant, you cannot imagine how important that would be for families who are facing those decisions. We also allowed for a deceased person to attest in their will to how their gametes – sperm, eggs and embryos – can be used by their spouse or partner in accordance with their wishes. I mean you really hope that that does not happen to you, but for the people in this state that it has, we have changed the laws to make it easier to be able to determine what you want to do with sperm, eggs and embryos after the very sad death of a spouse or partner.

Most importantly, in 2021 our government funded the establishment of Victoria’s first public IVF fertility care service. That was groundbreaking, absolutely groundbreaking. This has been extended as an opportunity to thousands and thousands of families right across Victoria. I really cannot overstate my support for this service and the benefits it is bringing to so many families, saving them up to – it is just revolting how much it costs to do IVF if you are having to pay it up-front – 10 grand, $10,000 in IVF costs. It really is a game changer for so many families across Victoria, so many couples or so many individuals who are wanting to become a family and have a child. Even more recently, just last year in fact, we opened the first public egg and sperm bank in Australia, right here in Victoria, at the Royal Women’s Hospital. This means, on the flip side, that it has never been easier for people to donate sperm and eggs. For people undergoing IVF, who do need access to sperm or do need access to eggs, you cannot underestimate what an incredible groundbreaking thing this was to do for folks seeking to become a family.

What we wanted to do was to make IVF even more accessible for families in Victoria, and that is what this bill is about. That is why I am so excited to stand here in my proud Labor colours – or uniform as some have mentioned to me today. It makes me so proud to stand here and say what we are wanting to do is to make IVF more accessible for families in Victoria. That is why it is so important to speak on this bill, and that is why I know I have so many colleagues alongside me on this side of the chamber, noting that across the chamber it is quite empty. That is why we are so excited to hear this debate, why we are so excited to speak for a whole 10 minutes on this, why we are so excited to get up and back in this incredible bill. It really is an incredible bill; it really is. I do have to commend the minister for time and time and time again bringing this kind of legislative reform before the house. Labor is all about making Victoria a fairer and more equitable state and making it more inclusive for everyone, regardless of how much money you have in your bank account. This bill, the changes in this bill, goes towards those principles that the Allan Labor government is so intent on, sprinkling and spreading the love right across Victoria. It is about equality, it is about being able to become the parent that you want to be, and I commend the bill to the house.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (11:35): I am always bemused when the Labor government talk up the health system, because we know it is in an absolute crisis at the moment. They have clearly drunk the Kool Aid, or they are not listening to what is going on in their communities. The Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2024, which we have before us, is really about preventing or minimising harm. That might be to our health or to our safety. Generally, they are good things that people will be supporting. There is quite a lot here about the Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority (VARTA), which is the bulk of the bill, but there are also quite a number of other areas that are covered, and I will touch on one of those a little bit later on.

The health regulator was established earlier this year, and it has the role of consolidating regulation on a very broad range of health-related matters, including food safety; child safety; legionella risk management – and there are some common parts to the legislation today; radiation safety; pest control; schools of anatomy, which is interesting; medicines and poisons; and safe drinking water. So a very broad range of areas are covered under the health regulator. The bill that is before us is around compliance and regulation in a number of those areas. It will also abolish VARTA, and it is going to transfer the regulation elements related to assisted reproductive technology, ART, to the Secretary of the Department of Health.

VARTA has not been working as it should have been – there has been quite a bit of feedback about that – and in 2018 the government announced a review of assisted reproductive services. It was conducted by Michael Gorton AM, who was chair of Alfred Health at the time and has expertise in law and in health. That report was finalised in May 2019, so that is over five years ago, and some of the recommendations in that report are being dealt with today. Five years is a long time to be sitting on an outcome of a report before you are actually putting those into place. I will talk about some of those in a little bit more detail.

The Gorton review was looking at strengthening laws and providing more safeguards for those that are going down the assisted reproductive treatment path. The review made 73 recommendations and they were very varied. Some of those recommendations were around protections for individuals around breaches, sharing of information between the relevant regulators and other bodies, artificial insemination, and discrimination against married women who want to access assisted reproductive treatment following separation. As I said, there were some 73 recommendations, so lots of areas are covered in that. What was found very much was there were problems with access, affordability and quality of care, and particularly that people were not at the centre of fertility care. It recommended to the government that that needs to shift. I am going to quote from the executive summary of the report:

… there have been growing patient concerns with ART and its regulation over the last 10 years –

remember that this is in 2019 –

… high costs, unclear success rates, misleading information, limited psychosocial support for patients, intrusive legal requirements on patients, unproven treatments, and a small number of cases of unethical practices.

So there are very admirable causes and very admirable areas that we need to look at and make changes to. As I said, it is a little bit disappointing that some of those are still being rolled out at the moment. We have seen that VARTA is not working as well as it could have been, and so the government is making a number of changes here, as I have said, about the abolition of VARTA and transferring regulation to the Secretary of the Department of Health. This also has within it improvements to health regulation and compliance and enforcement tools. These are some of the purposes of the bill. There are a whole lot of other minor miscellaneous changes as well.

But when we have a look at the risks associated with the changes, there are a couple of areas of concern, and I think that they have been really skimmed over. The Department of Health released a summary of feedback it received during its consultation which did identify some concerns about aspects of the abolition of VARTA. They have been raised in the media as well. There is a need for specialist expertise in this very complex case. I do not think anyone would deny that this is a particularly complex area. The health department needs to ensure that it maintains that level of expertise and knowledge with that transfer.

There has been quite a bit of comment around the removal of mandatory counselling before accessing information from donor registers. This is an interesting one because counselling will still be mandatory before consenting to treatment or consenting to be a donor. That is still there, but there is part of that where people who are wanting to meet the donor parent or child are very vulnerable – there are heightened emotions, as you can well imagine – and they are about to enter a minefield which really could raise unexpected issues. They may find out that the parent or the child is dead or has criminal convictions or mental health issues, and they need to be supported to deal with those, because when something like that is thrown into the mix of what is already a complex emotional time it is important.

Monash IVF have made some comments on this, saying that they have seen firsthand how important it is to help these people manage their sense of identity if their donor conception status was disclosed later in life, to manage expectations and set boundaries for their contact with the donor and to manage relationships with their existing family members and that failing to do so can cause psychological harm and trauma and even lead to suicidal ideation, so it is something that is really important. It has been recognised by clinics that have been in this space since its inception. Also, removing the education function of VARTA is a little bit disappointing without a clear plan to ensure the continued provision of reliable and independent information to help people understand issues relating to fertility.

The government certainly talks a big game in this space and with women’s services. I will note that in the budget that was handed down in May public IVF services were cut by $42 million. In 2018 the Premier announced that there would be low-fee bulk-billing clinics in metropolitan and regional Victoria – I think it was something like 10. Things have really struggled in that part. This cut means that plenty of families will be waiting for longer for their treatment and services. We know, as I said at the outset, we are in the midst of a crisis.

One of the other areas that is mentioned in the bill concerns changes to the Safe Drinking Water Act ‍2003 and Alpine Resorts Victoria, because we have had an alteration in the set-up and governance there. I do want to mention that there have been issues in this space, particularly for Mount Buller. There was an $11 million investment in making a reservoir for water on the mountain. You would think the village needs water. Water is essential for snowmaking in the white season but also for activities in the green season, in the summer period. The alpine resorts are significant economic drivers for the state and they have significant private investment. Over 1.38 million people visit the alpine resorts annually. A recent study found that $2.14 billion in economic output annually is generated through this, with $1.3 billion directly via visitor expenditure. There are over 12,000 jobs. The government needs to do all that it can to assist Mount Buller with the issue regarding water.

In April, because of the restrictions on being able to pump water, the dam was only 30 per cent full. We need to have that dam 100 per cent full. When the government allows Mount Buller to pump water at the wrong time of the year, they go into the season with a dam less than half full. The dam needs to be full for the season so they can extend the snow season and make more snow. They have five snow factories and over 300 snow-making guns. They will only need to pump the same amount as suburban golf courses, so I urge the government to work to fix this problem at Mount Buller.

Mathew HILAKARI (Point Cook) (11:45): I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2024. I am going to just give a shout-out that I am going to talk a little bit about miscarriage during my contribution, so those people who want to turn down their speakers at the moment, please do so, and anyone who wants to get a coffee, do so too. Sometimes these are really challenging issues to think about and to reflect on from your past. I certainly want to thank the member for Laverton, who always gives such a joyful presentation of her past and the challenges and going through IVF. It is always such a pleasure to hear her and the member for Bellarine and the member for Sunbury as well, who just make such great contributions in this place.

These of course are important reforms that we are setting forward around assisted reproductive treatment, and the $120 million that we have put in to start and grow families is just so important for people in our community. For my family it was also important, because just before my son was born ‍– my son is almost one now and my other son is almost four – we were at that point of going, ‘Well, we need some help. We need the support of medical professionals to complete our family.’ We have got a wonderful, completed family now with two children, but we had a number of miscarriages along the way.

Just last week my son was in bed – I had both children and my partner there – and he was asking lots of questions, because little kids ask lots of questions, you would be surprised to hear, when they are coming up to four years old and they want to know all the things about the world. He asked, ‘Do I have a sister?’ This was one of those questions where grief and all these emotions come at you in all sorts of different ways at different points in time, and it was a question that just then I did not want to really answer. He asked again, and my partner fortunately said, very well, ‘No, you’ve got a brother and you’ve got cousins and you’ve got uncles and aunties and all of these things.’ But I did not know how to answer it, because that is sort of half true and it is half not, because we had a miscarriage that was a late miscarriage. It was after the period when we knew the gender. We had started to tell all our friends and family. We had had that brilliant piece of joy of saying, ‘Well, look, we’re at this point in time, and this is going to be our complete family. This is what we’ve been working towards for many, many years together.’ And it did not happen, and that was of course horrid – a horrid point in time. I am not alone in this; there are many, many people across our community, across this Parliament. I am so thankful for my friends and family, who have been around both me and my partner sharing their stories, and I am very thankful that I am living in a period of time when we can share those things with each other, because it was not so long ago that I think there really was a lot more silence. I am really thankful that we are in this position.

I actually think there is a big thing that has gone on in our parliaments and in the Labor Party in particular, which is to see more women sitting in parliaments. This has been a real driver of a change ‍– more women in leadership positions generally in society – in the cabinet room. It means that we are talking about policies that were never really considered in the way they should have been considered before. I am really thankful that I am part of a party which has prioritised seeing women into leadership positions, into the Parliament and into the cabinet, because we have a completely different set of conversations than we had before. We open up the space to talk about things that one day we really would not have talked about.

We moved on and we had our second son, and it is really just the greatest joy in our lives. I see around this Parliament so many people who have just had children or who are in the process of having children, and I am just so joyful for them. It just makes me happy. It puts a real spring in my step every day to know that more kids are coming along and more families are reaching the place that they want to get to. I am really thankful for that and really happy for that all the time. When we think fundamentally about the things that are really important to us, they always relate back to family and really directly to that. I just want to say to all those people in the community who are going through these things: there are people who are there for you and care for you and have experienced this as well and will be there to support you.

I want to talk a little bit more about the bill now. The member for Laverton was quite right in saying that IVF is something that has now been around in this state since 1980, so it is just slightly older than me. This has been a real change for so many people wanting to grow and complete their families. We have an important task to do in government, and that is supporting those people in their absolute time of need. When we were at the point of thinking about assisted reproductive treatment, IVF, we were not really thinking about how our data was stored or kept over time and about the regulations that were put in place. Governments need to think about these things because people are probably not in a position to do so when they are really ready to take that step, because it is in a period of a great deal of stress. I am really thankful that we are spending the time to get these regulations right and to support families both now and on an ongoing basis.

The member for Eildon really gave a good coverage across the Gorton review and the 73 ‍recommendations that were attached to it. This review landed in 2018, and this is just another step in our completing some of the actions that came out of that review. It is important that we listen to the particular expertise over time that we do get. We had 148 submissions in response to the minister calling for submissions on 29 April 2024, and they were generally from people who had lived experience in ART. Being informed by that lived experience is so important for us, going out and seeking the community’s wisdom and input on such matters. We also had peak bodies make contributions to this, as well as registered ART providers et cetera.

The whole bill itself seeks to make changes to seven different acts, including the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008, which I think is the most substantial section of the changes; the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981; the Health Services Act 1988; the Non-Emergency Patient Transport and First Aid Services Act 2003; the Public Health and Wellbeing Act ‍2008, the Radiation Act 2005; and the Safe Drinking Water Act 2003. There are a lot of changes in there, but it all comes back to the experience that people have, and the experience that people have over time, in our healthcare system.

I was very fortunate to have Minister Mary-Anne Thomas out adjacent to the electorate, at Werribee Mercy, last week. Werribee Mercy is the hospital in Melbourne’s south-west for people to have babies in – they have hundreds and hundreds of babies every month – but also we have a very well used emergency department there. We got to put some spades into the ground and shift some dirt around as part of the process to double the emergency department at Werribee Mercy. It means that 25,000 extra patients every year will be serviced by this emergency department. It is a really big deal for people in Melbourne’s south-west, because too often people are waiting at the emergency department for just that bit too long, and this is part of the ongoing effort to make sure people are getting the health care they need. I will give a particular shout-out to a doctor there who saw my partner on one occasion – she pulled her name out, and she was really just a wonderful doctor – and all the healthcare staff who work so hard every day. I do want to thank the minister for taking the time and the care to bring this forward to the advisers and to the departmental staff, because this is an important bill for people at vulnerable times for them – when they are seeking to grow and seeking to start a family. I commend this bill to the house, and I look forward to its speedy passage.

Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (11:55): I also rise to address the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2024. This bill is a government bill, which it says will modernise and streamline compliance and enforcement powers to support a graduated, proportionate and risk-based approach to regulation by the Secretary of the Department of Health to prevent or minimise harm to the health or safety of Victorians. That draws me to my first point – that is, one of the greatest risks, in my view, to the harm or health or safety of Victorians in the health space is the way that this government has managed the health budget over the last decade.

It was only a few short months ago that the government’s 10th budget was delivered in this chamber, and in that budget there were significant cuts to health services. Public IVF services, just as an example, were cut by $42 million in that budget. It was not so long ago that the government was claiming time and time again that a record amount of funding was being pumped into Victoria’s health system. But Victorians know that not to be true. They know that not to be true because of the evidence before them, whether it be code reds or code oranges for ambulance services or whether it be vulnerable Victorians in need of health services not being able to receive those health services and those health outcomes in a timely way. That is the proof of the fact that Labor is not investing what it should be investing in health and is certainly failing when it comes to the management of health services in this state.

It was only two weeks ago that the Treasurer admitted that there was a $1.5 billion shortfall in health service funding in Victoria and failed to tell the Victorian people how he was going to find that $1.5 billion for health services in this state. On 9 July my colleague in the other place the Shadow Minister for Health Ms Crozier said that the Minister for Health Mary-Anne Thomas had denied that hospitals had been told to cut their budgets and that all available funding had been allocated. Then the Premier stated:

If we do need to provide more funding … then we will do so.

So you have got a circumstance where the health minister is saying that there is record hospital funding, and there is a denial by the health minister that health services around the state have been told they need to cut funding, and days later we have got the Premier saying that if they need to add more funding they will do that.

There you go: $1.5 billion is the figure that has been put on this. Now the Treasurer, when asked about where that money is coming from a couple of weeks ago, said that it would not add to debt. If you are not going to add to debt, you have got two choices. To get that $1.5 billion you either raise taxes or you cut existing services. When asked about that, the Treasurer would not rule it out either. This is the way the health system is being managed in the state of Victoria, and it is just, frankly, shocking.

For my own part in my own community, and I have spoken about this before in this place and I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to speak about this again today, Sandringham Hospital in my community is a much-loved health service. It is the caring heart of our community. For many, many decades Sandringham Hospital has been the go-to hospital, with a 24/7 emergency department for people who need those emergency health services. As a father of two, I have found myself in the emergency department at Sandringham Hospital with both my son and my daughter receiving the very best care. In the context of recent conversations and recent suggestions that health services may be amalgamated and health services’ budgets may be forced to reduce, to decline, I wrote to the health minister saying I was deeply concerned about the potential impact on Sandringham Hospital. I asked a series of questions in a letter dated 27 June 2024. I asked the health minister:

How will budget cuts impact Sandringham Hospital? Are there particular departments or services that are at risk of being scaled back or eliminated entirely?

I asked:

Will you guarantee that the Sandringham Hospital Emergency Department will remain open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?

I asked:

What measures will be taken to ensure that patient care and safety are not compromised as a result of budget cuts?

I asked:

Will there be staffing cuts at Sandringham Hospital? If so, how will the hospital manage potential shortages to maintain the standard of care?

I asked, finally:

What steps will the government take to support my community and mitigate the negative impacts on those who depend on Sandringham Hospital for their healthcare needs?

In my view and on behalf of my community these are eminently sensible and necessary questions to ensure that Sandringham Hospital continues to provide the level of care and health service for members of my community. Of course it goes without saying that my community would expect nothing less of me.

I received a letter in response to those very specific questions asking about potential cuts to services and seeking assurances that the emergency department at Sandringham Hospital will remain open 24 ‍hours, seven days a week et cetera. I asked those very specific questions, and to her credit I did receive a response from the Minister for Health on 24 July. The letter reads:

Dear Mr Rowswell

Thank you for taking the time to write to me about Sandringham Hospital, which is operated by Alfred Health.

I’d like to assure you that the Allan Labor Government will not be closing or privatising hospitals.

I have run through for the purpose and the benefit of the chamber the very specific questions that I asked in relation to Sandringham Hospital on the extent of the impact of potential budget cuts to emergency care, patient care and safety, staffing levels and general community support. I never asked whether the Allan Labor government intended to close or privatise Sandringham Hospital. I suspect that the response by the minister is a generic response, not a specific response, because the only time Sandringham Hospital is mentioned in the 1½-page letter, which I am happy to make available to the house and I will certainly make available to Hansard, is in the first sentence. That is it.

This response from the minister hardly gives my community the assurances that we are requesting to protect and defend our magnificent health service at the Sandringham Hospital. I cannot for the life of me understand why the health minister would not have used it as an opportunity to assure my community and the great people that make up the Sandringham Hospital that the Allan Labor government is on the side of Sandringham Hospital, its staff, its patients, its volunteers and the community that depend on it in a very significant way. I am disappointed, frankly, by the response from health minister Mary-Anne Thomas on this occasion.

The reality is that the Allan Labor government and the Andrews government before them have been in power in this state for 10 years. Victorians need to ask themselves: in the last 10 years, do they feel safer in their community? Do they feel healthier in their community? Do they feel like they are better off in their community or do they not? I think there are a significant amount of data points to say that we do not feel safer as a community, we do not feel healthier as a community and we certainly do not feel better off as a community, and that is on the heads of members of the Allan Labor government.

I think there is a better way, and perhaps it will take a change of government in November 2026, to invest in a meaningful way in our health services, for a government to take the reins in this state that actually values my local health service at Sandringham Hospital, that values the people that work there, that values the administrators, that values the volunteers that fundraise for the hospital and that values the patients and the community that that hospital seeks to serve. I just wish the Labor government would do better for the Sandringham Hospital.

Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (12:05): I rise to speak in support of the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2024. This bill continues our government’s work to improve the health of Victorians, and in particular this bill strengthens and reforms health regulation in Victoria. What is really important about this bill is that it fills in the middle ground that has sometimes been missing previously where options open to regulators were between doing nothing and severe prosecution on the other end. You can see how for more minor or middle-ground compliance issues related to regulation that did not warrant full prosecution it would leave reduced options for dealing with that noncompliance and for creating improvements. What this bill essentially does is set us up to be more proactive and to be more preventative, making sure that we are keeping Victorians healthy rather than responding when things do not go well. I really support this bill and that approach to health regulation in Victoria.

If we think about the health of Victorians and if we think about public health more broadly, there are a few different things that contribute to that. We have got regulation, such as we see in this bill. There are the skills of our health services personnel, and we can see action from the government there with things like free nursing degrees, free postgraduate mental health qualifications et cetera. Another key factor contributing to the health of Victorians is making sure that the facilities are there for treatment, and we can see that in spades. Up in the north where I am we have got our community hospital in Mernda under construction at the moment. We have got mega-upgrades coming to the emergency department at the Northern and also at the Austin. In all the different ways, in all the different pillars with which we uphold health, you can see that Victorian Labor is providing a strong foundation for the health of Victorians.

This bill creates changes to the Safe Drinking Water Act 2003, and I find this a really interesting area of legislation. The electorate of Yan Yean in fact is named for Yan Yean Reservoir, which is Melbourne’s oldest water supply, and we celebrated 170 years since the sod turned on construction this year. Governor La Trobe I believe turned the sod. If we think about the understanding of water safety 170 years ago compared to today, there have been massive leaps forward in our knowledge and understanding but also in our technology for how we improve drinking water.

The idea that we need clean water is not new. There is information about that recorded in Sanskrit. It is on Egyptian walls – wick siphons and whatnot. But the first documented proof of the impact of drinking water on health was coincidentally at about the same time that they were turning the sod on the Yan Yean Reservoir. Back in 1854 Dr John Snow – no, not that Jon Snow, a different John Snow ‍– performed the definitive work concerned with the spread of cholera, and this was through analysing water supplied by two different sources in London. One source of water was the Thames at Battersea, and the other source of water was a fair way upstream on the Thames. There were two pipes. There was a pipe that went from each water source to the same suburbs and streets in London, but different houses received different pipes. They were then able to compare – it was about 30,000 residents, so a pretty good sample size – the incidence of cholera between those who received water from Battersea and those who received water from the Thames. At Battersea, sewage was pumped into that section of the Thames. Looking at that, they saw that people who had the Battersea water had a much higher incidence of cholera and those who received water from upstream had a much lower incidence of cholera than the average across London. Through that they were able to conclude that the water supply itself was transmitting the cholera agent. This is a classic study in the field of epidemiology, and it is really impressive when you consider that germ theory had not been realised yet. I think people are still drinking sewage, potentially, in London, but back then they did not have that clear understanding. So many changes have been made since then. We still use the same reservoir that was constructed at the time that this understanding of cholera was developing, but just recently we have again upgraded the filtration system at Yan Yean Reservoir.

It is not just the infrastructure, which I was talking about before, with health, but it is also the regulations. This bill means that the providers of our drinking water – the people who care for our water at its source, such as Melbourne Water, and the people who bring water to our homes, such as Yarra Valley Water – can be issued with infringement notices if they do not comply with the standards for safe drinking water in Victoria. It should be really reassuring for Victorians to know that that middle ground is being covered by infringement notices. Previously, if smaller noncompliance activities had occurred, we would have worked with those water suppliers to improve their practice, but this means that we can also apply infringement notices to strengthen compliance.

Just on a side note, we have not privatised water in Victoria. We have seen recently in England what happens when you do privatise water. We have the cleanest drinking water in the world because it is public. We have also managed to keep the costs of water down for families because it is not privatised. It is another thing to be proud of for Labor. I also want to acknowledge that there has always been Aboriginal knowledge in Victoria of the importance of clean water and how to source and maintain safe water for families. That knowledge has existed in Victoria for a long time.

I would like to touch briefly, if I could, on the health regulator itself. This health regulator, which will oversee safe drinking water et cetera, was stood up in February of this year after being announced in December. This health regulator was created through a new branch of the Department of Health, and it brings together expertise in the different areas that it covers, such as radiation safety, food safety, pest control, e-cigarettes et cetera, as well as regulation expertise – those who know about monitoring, compliance et cetera. Having these people all together in one place means that we can have consistent approaches and that we can work on, as I said, prevention and proactive action rather than reactive or extreme actions only. This really creates that sensible, safe middle ground for our department to ensure the health of Victorians.

The member for Sandringham ended his contribution promising that if his party was in government, they would be improving the health of Victorians. Well, I say they are a long, long, long way behind, because this is the government that backs the health system in Victoria, this is the government that backs health workers and this is the government that invests the billions in infrastructure that Victorians need, and long may it continue.

Tim READ (Brunswick) (12:15): I am joining the debate today on the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2024. We have heard plenty about the bill in prior contributions, so I will not cover it in too much detail. In short, the bill equips the government’s new centralised health regulator with the legislative powers it requires to carry out its duties. It also provides the regulator with what are being termed ‘mid-range enforcement tools’ – infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and the like.

In its mission to centralise, which is a real theme emerging from the government, this legislation also proposes to dissolve the Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority. I will start by noting that not one of the experts, academics or community members that my colleagues and I have heard from believes that VARTA should be abolished. In fact many were at pains to point out that VARTA is highly valued by members of the community who have used its services and by health regulators in other Australian jurisdictions and around the world.

Other than for the purposes of consolidation of regulatory powers across health services, I must admit that the reasons given for the dissolution of VARTA have been unconvincing. It is unclear whether the government gave any consideration to VARTA retaining many of its functions while still transferring its regulatory powers to the Department of Health, so we are left wondering if this may yet be another cost-cutting exercise. Of most concern to many is that VARTA will no longer exist to provide counselling to those wishing to access information about their donors or to engage in what is known as donor linkage. Whether counselling for those wishing to touch base with their donor or offspring should be mandatory is a question that is up for debate and perhaps better left to experts, including psychologists. However, that counselling should be readily available and well resourced is surely a no-brainer.

In 2016 this Parliament passed world-leading reforms giving greater rights to donor-conceived people to access information about their donors. Not only did that mean that people suddenly had greater access to their genetic medical history, it also meant that for some their sense of identity, of belonging and of family shifted dramatically. VARTA have been instrumental in ensuring that these people have been well supported. From all accounts VARTA counsellors are extremely good at what they do. They specialise in a very niche field. Many people are still finding out that they are donor conceived, so the need for specialised services has not gone away with time. Conflating the normalisation of IVF treatment and donor conception on the one hand with the idea that specialised support is no longer required on the other hand would be short-sighted.

The minister and her department have made promises about these functions being made available to consumers through an external provider. Many people remain worried about how this change will be implemented. Wherever counselling is transferred to, these counsellors must meet minimum standards. This is an extremely sensitive issue for people and it requires specialised support, so I really hope that the government does everything in its power to make sure that this change is implemented correctly. For example, ART – assisted reproductive technology – clinics provide fertility counselling, but donor conception linkage services are not part of their usual business, and nor should they be.

Another significant aspect of this legislation is the removal of the legislated requirement for education and research under the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008. For many years now VARTA have been world leaders in education, industry oversight and research, providing the public with up-to-date information about emerging technologies in assisted reproductive technology, helping to differentiate trend from breakthrough. Public education and research functions are important in the context of the predatory commercial behaviours of some IVF clinics. While the rapid transformations in IVF treatments and technologies have been life-changing for many, they have been accompanied by more and more so-called add-ons. These are additional treatments with low efficacy but a high price tag. The market power of these multinational services is significant, and with the uptake of social media and influencers as a common place for information gathering, misinformation, whether sinister or accidental, is common. VARTA have a dedicated team of researchers who have years of experience in this field and who are able to proactively respond to emerging issues as they arise.

Some have questioned whether the health department have the requisite expertise to continue to carry out the whole spectrum of this work and, given they will also be tasked with regulating the rest of the health system, whether the promise can really be made that ART will receive the specialist attention it deserves. One in six couples in Australia experience fertility difficulties. ART involves a high level of public interest, and yet there has been no transparency in the process undertaken by the government in making this decision. The government appears to be on a mission to reduce the cost and regulatory burden across many of its portfolios, particularly in relation to health services, but at what price? Therefore given the level of concern about the process that has been undertaken to make this decision, the Greens propose a reasoned amendment. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until an expert panel comprised of representatives from the legal sector, specialist counsellors, people with lived experience of donor conception and assisted reproductive technology, and people with other relevant expertise has examined the implications of the dissolution of the Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority and that the findings of this panel are tabled in both houses.’

IVF and other reproductive treatments are very important to particular groups, such as rainbow families, single people and those with chronic disease or genetic conditions. We need to think carefully about the impacts on them before we dissolve VARTA. We need to get this right.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (12:22): I rise today to talk on the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2024. I have just been handed the amendment from the member for Brunswick. I should go to that initially. I cannot see any reason for that amendment. I do not think that we should be delaying this bill being passed in this chamber or when it goes to the upper house. I am sure other members will talk to that amendment in greater detail than me.

I do want to acknowledge some of the previous contributions, in particular from the member for Point Cook and the member for Laverton, their personal contributions. I acknowledge them, the lived experiences that they have had and how important that is. I want to thank the Minister for Health and her staff, who have worked tirelessly on this bill in conjunction with the many key stakeholders, the experts and the people around Victoria, to finalise this particular piece of legislation.

The bill, through these amendments, at its core will modernise, streamline and strengthen compliance and enforcement powers to advocate for a graduated, proportionate and risk-based regulatory approach by the Department of Health’s health regulator aimed at preventing and minimising risk to the health and safety of Victorians, and that is at the utmost forefront of what this bill is all about. The amendments to the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 will transfer the regulatory powers to the Department of Health and bolster the compliance and enforcement powers to add to the strengthening of compliance and enforcement. The donor conception register will be managed by a new donor conception registrar.

I just want to touch on health itself and what this Allan Labor government has done, in particular out in the west, out in my patch, in regard to health infrastructure and that commitment. I will just highlight a couple of health infrastructure projects. The new Footscray Hospital, which opens up next year, 2025 ‍– the $1.5 billion build – is going to be amazing for the whole of the western suburbs, not just the electorate and the surrounding suburbs of Footscray. I know the member for Footscray is so excited about this particular facility. In my patch of Melton we will commence building the new Melton hospital later this year. The builders have been announced and awarded, and they are finalising plans. We cannot wait to see the start of that build. There will be a maternity section in the new Melton hospital, and I am sure there will be families that are affected by the outcomes of this bill. We will work through the new Melton hospital in the future, through that new maternity section. There is the upgrade to Western Health, Sunshine, a massive upgrade and a fantastic hospital; to the Joan Kirner facility; and of course to the Werribee Mercy, which the member for Point Cook alluded to.

And just under 12 months ago we opened up a new primary care clinic in Melton to take some of the stress off the emergency departments out in the west. They are just some of the commitments in the west, and for those opposite to suggest at times that we are leaving the western suburbs behind is so far from being accurate. As I say, there is a lot happening out in the west, in particular with health infrastructure. It is certainly well needed, and it is being delivered by the Allan Labor government.

The health and safety of Victorians are paramount to our government. An integral part of this is how health regulation works to best serve the interests of all Victorians, and minimising and preventing risk of harm in all forms to the health of the community is really important. Just before I came back into the chamber at 11 o’clock I was at the Parliamentary Friends of Diabetes event, and many, many people – members of Parliament and others – were there to hear about the great work that they are doing in regard to the medical treatments now around diabetes but also the great research that is being done. Earlier in the week we had medical research institutes come in, and right across our health sector they are doing fantastic work in supporting Victorians. It is really important stuff.

To ensure the effective execution of regulatory functions, regulators must be equipped with a robust, best practice toolkit that grants comprehensive compliance and enforcement powers, empowering them to implement a risk-based and proportionate approach to compliance and enforcement. So minimising harm is at the forefront of the government’s mind when it comes to this bill. Its few amendments pave the way for better compliance, better enforcement powers and a more consistent approach across a number of health regulation schemes, such as the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008, the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, the Health Services Act 1988, the Non-Emergency Patient Transport and First Aid Services Act 2003, the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, the Radiation Act 2005 and finally the Safe Drinking Water Act 2003 – and I know it was referred to by the member for Yan Yean. This bill ensures that across all of these acts the powers of the regulator are there to issue improvement notices, prohibition notices, information or document production notices and infringement notices for prescribed offences and to accept enforceable undertakings. This bill recognises that not every situation requires the same notices or tools to address issues that may arise, and that is why these powers create means for a proactive and appropriate response to noncompliance. So to ensure the effective execution of regulatory functions, regulators must be equipped with a robust, best practice toolkit that grants comprehensive compliance and enforcement powers.

Victoria has been a pioneer for such a long time in the provision and regulation of assisted reproductive treatment. I think it was roundabout 1980 or 1981 when Victoria became the birthplace of Australia’s first IVF baby, and it was the first jurisdiction in the nation to establish legislative safeguards for individuals undergoing assisted reproductive treatment with the groundbreaking Infertility Treatment Act 1995. And 1981 was an interesting year for me because that is when I started in the ambulance service. I became a paramedic in 1981, so the timing was quite interesting in regard to the first IVF baby. I remember it very well.

Our history in Victoria in championing the provision and the regulation of assisted reproductive treatment means that we know the unique challenges and complexities that surround donor conception. Of course donor conception is an increasingly common method of family formation, a really important method of family formation, and families should have easy access to it, should be supported through it and should be allowed to choose in regard to the formation of their family through this process. It is not an easy process, as we have heard from some lived experiences raised in previous contributions.

That is why these amendments include additional funding for the appropriate organisations. It is really important that we do that and support them with the appropriate level of funding so they can deliver the support and the services to these families that are going through this process in every which way that we can. It is essential that these families have access to suitably qualified and experienced counsellors that provide quality and culturally safe counselling for those that require it and want it. It is a really important part of the process that the potential parents receive that appropriate level of counselling.

The Allan Labor government recognises that the issues that may arise when it comes to assisted reproductive treatment are not common in other health service areas and the issues that are unique to assisted reproductive treatment may require specific legal protections. On the other hand, these changes recognise that the most effective support may in fact be one that falls under the legislated functions.

This bill is a really important bill, and it covers a lot. It is quite complex in regard to the processes that are involved. We have referred to the Gorton review and the recommendations that have come out of that. I know there are many, many families that will rely on the outcome of this bill being passed, and as I said earlier, things like counselling and things such as that are very important to the people that are going through this particular process. Once again, I just want to thank the health minister and her staff. This is an important bill, and I commend the bill to the house.

Sam GROTH (Nepean) (12:32): I am going to make a short contribution on the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2024. As we know, the health regulator was established in February 2024 to consolidate regulation across a range of areas sitting in the Department of Health. I also want to address, in the general section of the explanatory memorandum, the part that says the bill:

… will modernise and streamline compliance and enforcement powers to support a graduated, proportionate and risk-based approach to regulation by the Secretary to the Department of Health to prevent or minimise harm to health or safety of Victorians.

Before I go into that sort of stuff I just want to recognise those people who in this state are going through an IVF journey. My wife Britt and I were lucky enough to have twin boys 3½ years ago and did not have to undertake IVF to do so, but our boys were born premature and spent an extended period of time in hospital in a special care unit. In special care you see a lot of families that are in there with twins. The first question you get when you become a parent of twins is, ‘Did you go through IVF to get them?’ It is very, very common for people who go through IVF to get twins. We spent a lot of time in there with other families who had gone through that journey, many of them taking years and years to get there. I just want to acknowledge all those people that do go through that journey, the ones that do end up having children and are able to start a family, as well as sending, along with probably many people in this chamber, our thoughts and wishes to all of those who are undergoing that journey and who want to start a family of their own. I just want to start my contribution by acknowledging all of those families and wishing them all the best. I think all sides of the chamber would love to see that journey made as easy as possible for anybody who undertakes it so they can have their own family. I will leave that part there.

When you talk about general health commitments in this state, and I will keep my contribution fairly local, Rosebud Hospital, as I have spoken about many times and written to the Minister for Health about, continues to go with a lack of support. Previously it did have maternity services, but it no longer does as certain parts of that hospital have been closed down over time and it has gotten older. We have written many, many times to the Minister for Health with requests from constituents in my area, with firsthand accounts of their experiences. Every single one of those accounts does start with the fact that the staff, the nurses and everybody in that hospital does an incredible job, acknowledging the work that they do and how fantastic it is. The challenge that we have, though, is that we do not have a hospital that is meeting the needs of the community outside of the fantastic work that those nurses do.

I just want to raise some of those concerns in here from those constituents directly. A couple of them relate to the hospital. A couple of them relate to services around health that are not so easily accessed in my area. The first one was an elderly constituent who contacted my office recently and spoke about the closest 24-hour pharmacy being at Peninsula Private. Peninsula Private is at least a 45-minute drive away one way and a 1½-hour return trip. They have very, very limited health services, and most others are only open until 7 pm, still a 25-minute drive, so even if you can access telehealth medical assistance, you cannot access medications after hours.

Another constituent said that what seems to be overlooked is the fact that they are down there and that they are primarily an ageing population. Many do not have their own licence any longer and are unable to drive and so rely on others to assist with transport. If they need emergency treatment, wait times for an ambulance can be excessive, and then transport to Frankston or Peninsula Private can take valuable time depending on where they live. Further down towards Portsea it will be a trip too far and valuable time lost. Even from Rye it can take an hour to reach Frankston depending on the time of day, and in the peak holiday season much longer.

To put that into context, when you think about some of the seats that Labor members hold, that would be like the member for Pakenham having to travel to Ringwood to get health care inside metropolitan Melbourne at a public hospital. I do not think anyone on the other side of the chamber would find that acceptable, so why anybody would find it acceptable for those people living on the Mornington Peninsula to have to do so, while we still suffer as being part of metropolitan Melbourne, I think just beggars belief.

I also want to address an FOI request that we submitted recently to the Victorian Health Building Authority trying to chase up details of the business case around Rosebud Hospital. We submitted an FOI request on 24 May this year seeking a copy of the Rosebud Hospital master plan and business case. In response to that FOI, the search identified three documents. Unfortunately for me and my constituents, that FOI request has been denied in terms of being able to view the documents because of three reasons: that it is cabinet-in-confidence information – the government is obviously looking at it; that the master plan is an internal working document and is therefore exempted under section 31, which does not allow that to be released; and that they are documents relating to trade secrets.

While ‘cabinet in confidence’ gets used around a lot of FOIs, I think the people on the peninsula deserve to know, after all this time, why they keep being referred to Frankston. I think the investment in Frankston is fantastic for the people there. But for me, the member for Mornington and the member for Hastings, all of our constituents use Rosebud Hospital regularly as their primary public health service. And seeing the government and these departments continue to reject providing the reasons, the business case or any sort of communication around why the health of people in the peninsula is being put second behind those who live closer to public transport systems, I think the people in my electorate deserve to know the reasons why. If there is a business case that says the hospital should not be built, then tell us that, stop keeping people under the false pretence that the hospital is not needed. The people down there know it is needed. Give us the information – tell us why – and make some commitment, like we did and we have and we continue to do, around the future of Rosebud Hospital. I urge the government to do more in health right across the state, but please do more to support those people on the peninsula who need that public health care.

John MULLAHY (Glen Waverley) (12:38): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2024. From the outset I would like to thank the Minister for Health and her team for the tremendous work put into this piece of legislation. I trust it will make a positive impact on Victorians. I also would like to acknowledge the member for Bellarine for sharing her personal story. It is wonderful that you share your personal story; it makes it easier for people to share their story.

The Victorian people rightly expect that the government will make the necessary investments in upgrading and modernising their health system. They deserve a healthcare system which is affordable and efficient. They deserve the comfort of knowing that if they or their loved ones fall ill, they can get the care they need. This is what this bill is all about: improving regulatory frameworks to ensure that legislation reflects the needs of our healthcare system in serving Victorians. As new illnesses are discovered, new technology is implemented and new treatment methods are utilised, there is a clear need to make every effort to support our amazing healthcare workers. This bill makes amendments to several acts to do just that: to minimise risks of harm to Victorians by strengthening our regulatory framework systems and ensuring fair compliance with rules and enforcement.

Amending the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 will result in the regulatory function being transferred to the Department of Health and the donor conception register also being transferred to the Department of Health. I would like to take a moment to discuss Victorians’ leadership in the provision of assisted reproductive treatment, or IVF. The campaign to give people the gift of parenthood is inspirational and makes me proud to be a Victorian. Victoria is the birthplace of Australian IVF. The first IVF baby in Australia is a Victorian, and I want to commend the tireless efforts of those who have advocated for safeguards and support systems for those involved. The changes to the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act outlined in this piece of legislation are the implementation of recommendations 56 and 78 of the Gorton review, which are designed to improve regulation and assisted reproductive treatment.

The bill also improves compliance and enforcement in the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, the Health Services Act 1988, the Non-Emergency Patient Transport and First Aid Services Act 2003, the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, the Radiation Act 2005 and the Safe Drinking Water Act 2003. All these changes, including to the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act, have a purpose of improving the regulation of health services by ensuring greater compliance and oversight of the risk mitigation strategies deployed. For these regulatory functions to be applied effectively, regulators are being equipped with modern and accurate guidance strategies which are fit for purpose. These include the powers to issue improvement notices, prohibition notices, information or document production notices and infringement notices and to accept enforceable undertakings. By granting the health regulator a variety of options to choose from, it provides the flexibility to tailor their response depending on any specific context or conditions which may be relevant.

Having the ability to respond to breaches of law reactively and prevent any potential breaches proactively means that there is significant opportunity to minimise or prevent risks and potential dangers. This government also understands that with extended powers comes a greater responsibility for oversight and safeguarding mechanisms, and that is why this bill includes detailed safeguards as to how and when these new powers can be used. There are appropriate thresholds to limit when powers can be used as well as an accountability measure to determine whether reasonable grounds have been established to justify the exercise of any power.

In mentioning the specifics of this bill I want to take a moment to reflect on the Allan Labor government’s proud record of supporting our healthcare system in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Many residents in the east are serviced by one of the biggest medical facilities in our state, the Monash Medical Centre. This government understands how critical it is to maintain and improve this significant piece of infrastructure. That is why in the most recent budget an overall package of $572.5 million was committed for the Monash Medical Centre, and this includes for major works, which will expand capacity and modernise the facility for more efficient care. A new intensive care unit will be built as well as new birthing suites and operating rooms as part of an expansion of the emergency department.

I will just take a moment to thank the people down at the Monash Medical Centre, where my daughter Orla was born. We went in hoping for a nice, easy birth. Unfortunately it was 25 hours later in an emergency C-section that our beautiful daughter Orla arrived into this world. The treatment that she received down there was just amazing. We had to then take Orla to the children’s hospital right next door to get some antibiotics, and the treatment she got there was great as well. Thank you, Monash Medical Centre.

This investment will facilitate an additional 7500 more surgeries and 2400 more births annually, saving lives and giving the gift of many more. These investments are, quite literally, life changing. We understand that there are structural challenges because of the pandemic that need to be addressed. Additional pressure was put on our infrastructure and our workforce, which has impacted capacity and service delivery provisions. We also understand that these issues are multifaceted, which is why we are taking a multilayered approach to supporting our healthcare system. This is part of the $8.8 billion in this year’s budget to fund our hospitals, giving them certainty and security for the long term.

Strong and secure hospitals mean that patients can access quality care at a hospital nearby. However, as a consequence of the pandemic, there are systemic pressures on our hospitals and those who work in them. There is no point in having hospitals if there are no staff inside. I sat down just today with the mental health nurses of the Health and Community Services Union, and I want to thank them for sharing their stories with me.

Investing in our healthcare workforce is as important as investing in the physical infrastructure of hospitals, and that is why the Allan Labor government has funded nursing and midwifery scholarships. As part of a $28 million investment, resources have been committed to supporting further training and development initiatives on top of the scholarship programs. Encouraging our youth to learn these skills and join the workforce is a generational commitment to fostering their talents and ensuring that they are equipped to serve our communities.

Further, to ease the pressure on hospitals and general practitioners, this government has stepped in with our transformative priority primary care clinics. In partnership with the federal government, we are continuing to deliver 29 of these centres, free at the point of use and open seven days a week. I and my community are lucky to be served by not one but two priority primary care centres located in my electorate. Glen Waverley district residents know that if they require urgent yet not life-saving care, they can pop down to 476 Blackburn Road in Glen Waverley from 10 am to midnight every day or they can attend the Forest Hill PPCC, which is open from 8 am to 10 pm and is located at 490–524 ‍Springvale Road in Forest Hill.

I would again like to acknowledge the incredible work of the teams down at the Forest Hill and Glen Waverley priority primary care centres. Our community knows the important role they play in treating the ill and taking the pressure off our GPs and hospitals. When I was moving house to Glen Waverley over summer, my sister Christina, who was giving me a hand, unfortunately got her hand jammed between the door of the truck and the wall. We were fortunate to be able to head straight to the Glen Waverley Priority Primary Care Centre, where she got seen to straightaway. They are a great service and I thank them for all the work that they do.

We have also funded $146 million in this budget to support Ambulance Victoria. We are backing the secondary triage service and medium-acuity transport service, freeing up ambulances to help those in urgent need.

For far too long women’s health has been ignored, and this government is changing that with $18 million that has been provided to 12 women’s health organisations to support the incredible work they do. From preventative health services such as breast screening to community outreach and information campaigns, women’s health is a priority for this government. I would like to take a moment to thank the member for Northcote, the Parliamentary Secretary for Women’s Health, for visiting my electorate to discuss various topics at a women’s health forum that we held with my constituents. I would also wish to give a special shout-out to the member for Mulgrave. Alongside many colleagues in this chamber and beyond, I was honoured to attend her Cancer Council fundraiser recently. It was a great event. I have so much more to say; however, I commend the bill to the house.

Nicole WERNER (Warrandyte) (12:48): I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2024. This bill is especially close to my heart as it carries significant implications in the field of fertility and especially IVF and assisted reproductive technology. It is something that I really did want to speak to because, as many members know, I recently announced that my husband and I are expecting our first child in January 2025.

Today I am 19 weeks pregnant. It is very exciting, and it is at about this point in time that typically people will have a gender reveal. If you will indulge me, there are ones where people have a party where they shoot confetti cannons and it is the specific colour of the gender of the baby. I have been to ones where you bite into a cupcake and it is blue or pink. I even went to one where it was a golf ball and you had to putt the golf ball and it either was blue or pink dust that it exploded into. Again, if you would indulge me, it is at this point in time that people typically do share what the gender of their baby is. I thought there is no more privileged a place than this chamber, with all of my fellow parliamentarians across both sides of the aisle, for me to share what we are having, whether it is a little girl or a little boy. I am very pleased to announce today, at 19 weeks, that we are in fact having a little boy, which is very exciting. We are due in January 2025. We are very much looking forward to it. It has been a journey for us, and I am very pleased to announce it today in this place – breaking news. There we go. Thank you to my colleagues for being here with me for that. It is actually quite special.

There has been a bit of a baby boom in Parliament. The member for Mildura, I saw on one of my posts, said she would stop drinking the water in Parliament because she was afraid that she might catch what is going on in Parliament. In fact next year by January there will be five new babies here in the Parliament, and there will be three from the coalition side and two on the other side. That is just in the lower house, so who knows, and who knows what could happen between now and then. Very exciting indeed. Very fun. In fact it is a welcome change from where we were as a Parliament in 2003 under former Premier Steve Bracks. Victorian Labor MP Kirstie Marshall was a brave woman and brought her 11-day-old into Parliament, would you believe, and she was actually ejected from the Legislative Assembly all those years ago for breastfeeding her child in the Parliament. It is a long way that we have come since then to now having this baby boom in Parliament with all of these parliamentarians about to have babies. It is very exciting. I am glad that this is now a place that is family friendly, that allows and permits women to be working mums, and I am looking forward to being one myself.

At the heart of this bill is the proposed abolition of the Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority, VARTA. While it is very unlike a Labor government to abolish a government entity, because they usually prefer to create more – they love a bit of red tape – it is a welcome change of pace. I just want to echo the member for Nepean, who did speak to the fact that across both sides of the house we want to make it as easy as possible for people who want to start families to be able to start families. That is absolutely what we are here to do and something that we want to support. As I mentioned earlier, my husband and I have been public about our fertility journey. In fact infertility affects one in six Australian couples, and those are the ones that we know of. I am sure the statistics are much higher than that. It is something that does impact a lot of people – a lot of couples, a lot of individuals. Whether your journey involves endometriosis or polycystic ovarian syndrome, PCOS, like me, whether it is unexplained infertility or whether it is that you have to go through an IVF journey to be able to start your family, we in this Parliament are supportive of that. We want to say that you are not alone in your journey and that we want to be legislators that make it easier for you to have your family.

We shared our story, and we spoke about how it was a diagnosis of PCOS for me that meant that there was a bit of a journey that we went through to be able to start our family, and we are really privileged and excited to be able to do that now. But coming out and sharing our story – the reason we did that was because we wanted to normalise the conversation around fertility journeys. It is so common and it is something that is, I do feel, not spoken about enough, so I am so pleased that we were able to do that. I am so pleased we were able to raise awareness in that space. Since then I have had so many families and so many individuals reach out to me and share with me their fertility journey, their road to starting a family. There are so many out there that have been impacted by that, so to every family that has reached out, our thoughts are with you. To every family that shared with us their IVF journey, whether it is five or 10 years, and to every couple that has come and spoken to me about their unexplained infertility, whatever it is, I am so pleased that we were able to have that conversation and normalise this conversation around fertility, and I want to say again to you that you are not alone.

Fundamentally, though, this bill does not go to the heart of the problem facing women and their fertility issues. The member for Laverton was excited to say she was wearing her Labor red to show off Labor’s great record on IVF, but the truth is, unfortunately, that the Labor Party does not have a great record on fertility. In the most recent budget the government has cut public IVF services by $42 million, and we know that the moment delivering IVF is not convenient it actually gets dropped by those opposite because IVF is not one of their high priorities. Let us not forget in early 2022 Victoria was the only state or territory in the whole country to implement a code brown that suspended surgery and IVF services. It is surprising that those opposite state that they are so proud of their record on IVF when they were the only jurisdiction in Australia to suspend it. According to the Fertility Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Andrews government in 2022 and their singular decision to ban IVF meant some families will not achieve a pregnancy at all. I know that feeling of going through that process of hoping and praying and wanting to start a family but not being able to. I know that process of having those tests that you take – again, month in, month out, and being disappointed and going through that feeling of disappointment. I can only imagine the feeling of those families in 2022 when that code brown was issued. As I have said here before, there are families that are broken today because of that decision of those opposite, and I will not stand by and let them tout their support of IVF when I know that because of their cruel cancellation of IVF services there are pregnancies that unfortunately never happened and children that were never born.

The member for Laverton went on to say: why haven’t members mentioned people in their electorate that are desperate for IVF? Certainly there are many that have reached out to me as we have come out with our story, and many locals that have talked to me. In fact I received an email today from the president of one of our local cricket clubs, who said that his daughter has been on an IVF journey for 10 years and they have just received good news that they are expecting their first child. There are many stories out there in all of our electorates on both sides – happy stories, sad stories and difficult stories of challenges that people have had. I think when the member said that, she might have said the quiet part out loud.

Victorians are desperate for IVF. They are desperate because the waitlists get longer and longer and desperate because Labor has ripped out fertility services from our rural and regional communities. So I say to those opposite: Victorians are desperate because the government has cut $42 million from IVF services, which does make the waitlist longer. There are locals that have reached out to me from my electorate who have said that they have been on the waitlist for a long time, and unfortunately the public IVF system only permits them to have two rounds of IVF. I recently had a friend from within the electorate reach out to me and say that they at great cost had to fund three rounds of IVF which were unsuccessful then finally were able get onto the public IVF waitlist and undergo IVF through that system and have the two rounds of IVF that again were unsuccessful. It is so disappointing for those families. Victorians should not have to be desperate for IVF services, and we should not hold up the desperation as a badge of honour. I certainly would not come to this place and say that.

In closing, it is a bill that we support. We do want to make it as easy as possible for families. For all of those who are on their own fertility challenge or journey, our heart goes out to you, and we in this place support you.

Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (12:58): I will only have a short time before lunch before being able to continue after the break, but I do want to just start by saying that I strongly support this bill and acknowledge all the work that has been done and that the Minister for Health and her department and office have put in to create this important reform. I also want to acknowledge all the previous speakers. A lot of people have spoken really personally about their journey. At this stage I am probably not going to be reflecting too much on my personal experience, but I know how important some of these issues are at an individual level and obviously how that translates into the wider community. Because if it is very reflective of the Assembly members, then it is obviously very reflective of the population at large. I do want to thank everyone for making their personal contributions.

The bill itself makes quite a number of reforms to a number of pieces of legislation. It changes regulatory frameworks across seven acts, including the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008; the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981; the Health Services Act 1988; the Non-Emergency Patient Transport and First Aid Services Act 2003; the Public Health and Wellbeing Act ‍2008; the Radiation Act 2005; and the Safe Drinking Water Act 2003. A lot of the reforms were announced back in December 2023 when the minister announced the establishment of the health regulator within the Department of Health.

Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:03 pm

Business interrupted under standing orders.

The SPEAKER: I acknowledge the former member for Warrandyte in the gallery today.