Thursday, 20 February 2025

Bills

Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Danny Pearson:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Bridget VALLENCE (Evelyn) (10:09): I rise to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025. May I first thank the minister and his office for arranging a briefing on this bill. Given the extent of the amendments included in this bill, the briefing was useful to answer a couple of our questions, but unfortunately there are still questions that we do not yet have answers to.

In the minister’s second-reading speech the minister said that the bill is:

… the unglamorous, but ultimately vital work of ongoing regulatory reform.

I regret to inform the house that I respectfully disagree with the minister for a couple of reasons. The first is that none of us in this place should really be concerned about whether the work we do is unglamorous or not, because our principal focus should really be on making the lives of Victorians easier, not harder. If achieving that goal means that the work is unglamorous, then I am all in. At the end of the day we are here to serve our communities and ensure that they receive the best possible outcomes.

My second reason for disagreeing with the minister is because this bill does not actually represent regulatory reform in any way, shape or form. While the government seeks to introduce this bill under the guise of regulatory reform, it is anything but. Apart from a couple of amendments that are worthy, such as those relating to the Adoption Act 1984 and the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, most of the amendments are intended to correct sloppy drafting errors from previous legislation, and the minister’s department conceded and confirmed that. Indeed that became clear through the bill briefing. As I mentioned, the department themselves conceded that most of these amendments were really intended to fix previous mistakes that were the result of careless drafting, so it is not really regulatory reform.

Most of the amendments will do nothing to make the lives of Victorians easier; in fact the opposite is true. Many of the amendments will see Victorians paying more for services from the government that they actually need. At a time when Victorians are doing it tough through the cost-of-living crisis with increased state government taxes, increased fuel prices, increased energy prices and crime increasing every single day, I think this bill is really telling in terms of where this government’s priorities lie.

I am also not convinced that the minister has actually read the bill. In his second-reading speech he said:

This Bill includes almost forty proposals across 14 different Acts …

For a finance minister I think he needs to do some work on his maths. There are actually 16 acts, not 14, that will be amended by this bill and 60 proposals contained in this bill. If you take away some of the normal machinery provisions, there are 60 different and distinct clauses of this bill that seek to amend 16 different acts. All I can say to the minister is I think that he and his department should perhaps buy a new calculator, and it is absolutely no wonder that the state budget is in such disarray when they cannot even work out the number of acts that they are changing with this bill.

The minister also said:

The Bill has many more benefits which can be found across the four main objectives of the Bill.

There are no objectives in this bill, no objectives contained the bill; in fact the word ‘objective’ is not used in the bill once. Whilst there are fleeting references and claims in the second-reading speech that the bill will contribute to increased economic productivity and make it easier to do business in Victoria, there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate these claims whatsoever by the government or of what savings there will be for ordinary Victorians. When we sought further information from the department in relation to the increased economic productivity improvements that Victorians could expect to receive from this bill and whether there were any dollar savings that Victorians could expect to receive from this bill, the Labor government representatives were unable to provide a response of any substance at that time. They have subsequently come back and confirmed that there was no cost modelling done, no modelling whatsoever, and they could not quantify any cost savings at all in relation to the changes in this bill. All it does seem to do is make changes to make work for bureaucrats easier. So the fact is that the majority of the amendments in this bill are doing no more than giving effect to a wish list of requests from various bureaucrats and various departments.

It is kind of like a sweep has been done of the public service to identify where some errors and problems might have occurred in legislation and ‘Let’s do a bit of a clean up.’

Regulatory reform is not about fixing errors and mistakes in legislation. Regulatory reform is about changing how governments operate and how governments better serve the Victorian people and our communities. The vast majority of the amendments in this bill do nothing to achieve that. Whilst the opposition does have a couple of concerns about a number of the 60-odd amendments contained in this bill, we will not be opposing the bill. As I mentioned previously, there are a couple of worthy and important amendments contained in the bill and we should not be doing anything to delay their progression. They have already been delayed enough by the inaction of this Labor government.

The primary amendment that the government has been slow to act on is changes to the Adoption Act 1984. Part 2 of the bill concerns amendments to the Adoption Act. In his second-reading speech the minister said that some of the proposed amendments were in response to the Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiry into responses to historical forced adoptions in Victoria. Members may recall that on 25 October 2012 a former Premier of Victoria, the Honourable Ted Baillieu MP, delivered the Victorian parliamentary apology for past adoption practices and acknowledged that these past practices were unethical, immoral and unconscionable. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the brave mothers who had the courage to once again share their experiences to assist the committee to further expose the abuse that they suffered and the ongoing injustice and the trauma that has never left them. As a mother myself, I cannot imagine their anguish. It is an episode in our history that I hope is never repeated.

The committee made 56 recommendations as a result of its inquiry, with its final report delivered to Parliament on 8 September 2021. It is now 3½ years since the committee delivered its report and still Parliament has yet to give full effect to the recommendations of the committee. I think it is incredibly sad and disrespectful that after three years this Labor government has yet to implement all of those 56 incredibly important recommendations. The principal intent of the amendments in this bill is to assist the reunification of families that were separated as a result of forced adoptions, yet it has taken the government, as I say, more than three years to implement these changes, meaning separated families have continued to suffer delays in reuniting with loved ones, and that is an incredibly sad situation. I would ask the government to review whether there are any other recommendations of the committee that remain outstanding and ask that they introduce legislation to give effect to them as soon as possible. We should do everything that we can together to ensure that these families do not suffer any more pain.

The amendments in part 2 of the bill focus on making it easier for family members to access information, specifically allowing brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and grandparents to access identifying information about an adopted person in order to reunite them, provided the adopted person is over the age of 18. Chapter 10 of the committee’s report focused on accessing information and family reunification. The committee noted at page 269 of its report:

Accessing adoption records and searching for and reconnecting with family were significant themes raised by inquiry participants. The Committee heard from mothers and people who are adopted about the challenges of accessing their records –

and –

… the overwhelming need to fill in the missing pieces.

It is a positive step that the government is now finally helping these families fill in those missing pieces and make it easier for separated families to have access to this information to allow the process of reunification to occur.

Part 2 of the bill also seeks to provide new powers to the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety to obtain access to certain adoption-related records from Births, Deaths and Marriages Victoria. As the committee noted in its report at page 300, births, deaths and marriages is arguably the most important source of information for people searching for a family member. However, the committee also queried at page 302, as a result of evidence received from the Victorian Law Reform Commission, whether the information-gathering powers of the secretary included the power to ask the registrar for any information on the BDM register about adopted persons.

It seems there was still some doubt about whether the secretary could access this information. An issue was also identified as to whether the secretary was required to obtain the consent of the adopted person before releasing the identifying information. It appears that the current amendments in this bill now go some way to clarifying the situation by allowing the secretary to now obtain this information from births, deaths and marriages and providing the secretary with the discretion to disclose the information without a person’s consent. However, there are important safeguards included as well, and these amendments provide the secretary with a discretion not to disclose information if, in their opinion, they consider doing so would cause harm to the person who may be identified or increase the risk to their safety. We consider these amendments achieve an appropriate balance between attempting to help families reunite and protecting a person’s privacy. Importantly, to help give effect to these important measures, the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 will also be amended to ensure the functions of the registrar include performing the functions given to the registrar made by the amendments to the Adoption Act.

Part 3 of the bill contains amendments to the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005. The amendments seek to allow the Secretary of the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing to authorise principal officers of Aboriginal agencies to exercise various powers in relation to protective intervention or protective orders with respect to Aboriginal children as well as any of their non-Aboriginal siblings. The intention of these amendments is to clarify that non-Aboriginal siblings may form part of the same class of children, along with their Aboriginal siblings, pursuant to authorisations made by the secretary, which will allow the principal officers of the Aboriginal agency to exercise their protective powers with respect to these children. We consider these amendments are appropriate and will assist with the protection of these children.

Part 4 of the bill seeks to make amendments to the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Act 2021. The specific amendments here seek to amend nine different sections in that act to convert them into civil penalty provisions, which allows a court to impose financial penalties on a person who contravenes these provisions. Apparently these amendments relate to earlier amendments introduced by the Environment Legislation Amendment (Circular Economy and Other Matters) Act 2022. Whilst I already had my own suspicions, it soon became clear in the bill briefing that these amendments were seeking to correct previous drafting errors in the 2022 act, which failed to prescribe these provisions as civil penalty provisions. This is a clear example of some very sloppy drafting on behalf of this Labor government. The government is quick to talk about imposing new requirements and new obligations on operators in relation to waste reduction and recycling, but it fails to give the provisions any teeth, leaving them unenforceable.

It is an embarrassment that since the circular economy act came into operation on 1 July 2022 it has been amended no less than 10 times in two years. This clearly demonstrates this government is pretty much making it up as they go along when it comes to recycling and waste reduction. It should also be noted that these amendments will result in individuals facing penalties between $23,710 to $197,590, and for corporations between $118,554 and $987,950. These are significant penalties for stakeholders in the industry, and I certainly hope that the government and the EPA will educate stakeholders and business owners about these changes, because as we were told in the bill briefing and as was confirmed by the minister's department, there has been no consultation – absolutely zero consultation – with industry stakeholders about these new penalty provisions, which I find quite astonishing. Again, this is another indication that this bill has been put together in a very hasty and unprofessional fashion – as I said, 10 different amendments to this bill in the last two years, clearly demonstrating that they have failed to get it right. Perhaps there are still more to go.

Part 5 of this bill, the amendment to the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Act 2003, seeks to allow the commissioner for environmental sustainability to undertake paid work outside of their role as commissioner, with the approval of the minister. It is difficult to conceive of how this amendment could on any basis be considered as pressing or urgent regulatory reform. The fact that this government thinks it should be a priority of the highest order to ensure that paid bureaucrats – the highest paid bureaucrats – seek paid work outside of their statutory duties tells you everything that you need to know about the priorities of this government.

This is a government that has completely lost touch with the Victorian community and has its priorities all wrong. How on earth can this Labor government think that in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis it would be a good idea to allow bureaucrats to undertake work outside of the government? How could this possibly improve economic productivity?

In his second-reading speech the minister said this measure was needed so that the government could:

… attract and retain quality candidates for the role of Commissioner …

Seriously? According to the 2023–24 annual report of the commissioner for environmental sustainability, the commissioner receives an annual salary of between $290,000 to $299,000, so let us just call it a 300K gig. Is this Labor government taking Victorians for absolute fools? Is this Labor government really saying that it cannot attract quality people to jobs that pay $300,000 a year? I thought the Labor Party was meant to represent workers, not highly paid fat cat government bureaucrats.

There are so many things wrong with this amendment. It is basically saying the role of the commissioner for environmental sustainability should be converted into a part-time gig. The commissioner obviously thinks that there are better things to do with their time, and that pay more, than ensuring Victoria’s environment is protected. Let there be no mistake, the commissioner’s role is a full-time position. The commissioner leads an agency that has a $2.75 million budget. There would hardly be the time for the commissioner to sit around and twiddle their thumbs, let alone taking on outside paid work, which also would invite significant conflict-of-interest considerations. The paid work the commissioner may seek will likely be directly relevant to their role. It does not make any sense for a senior bureaucrat who leads an agency on a full-time basis to potentially be creating conflicts of interest for their agency by taking on paid work in the private sector in the same field. We think this amendment fails the pub test and does not on any measure represent regulatory reform. It represents a misguided government that has its priorities all wrong.

Part 6 of the bill seeks to make amendments to the Domestic Animals Act 1994. Among the amendments is an amendment to require owners of dangerous, menacing or restricted dog breeds to notify their local council if a dog has moved residence or has died. This amendment is intended to enable local councils to better manage the potential risks posed by these dog breeds by having accurate and current information to assist with compliance activities. Another amendment seeks to reinstate a penalty provision in relation to dogs and cats which have been seized. If a person other than the authorised officer seizes a cat or dog, they must deliver the animal to the local authority as soon as possible or face a penalty of nearly $1000. The government states this amendment reinstates the penalty that had applied previously to this provision, which was removed by the Domestic Animals Amendment (Reuniting Pets and Other Matters) Act 2022. This is not an example of regulatory reform; it is just another example of fixing a previous stuff-up.

Part 7 of the bill seeks to make amendments to the Electricity Industry Act 2000. Specifically, the amendment seeks to allow the Essential Services Commission to make the minimum solar feed-in tariff determination for the upcoming financial year by 28 May in the preceding financial year rather than 28 February. The government argues that by providing the ESC the ability to make a determination later in the year it will allow the ESC more current data when making a determination. It is interesting to ask why the ESC actually needs more time, because on 10 January this year the ESC released its draft decision on the minimum feed-in tariffs that electricity retailers must pay solar power customers for the electricity they export into the grid. The ESC proposed to set the feed-in tariff at – wait for it – 0.04 cents per kilowatt hour from 1 July this year. This is a reduction from the 3.3 cents that it pays to customers currently. Basically, there is no longer any incentive for households to install solar panels under this Labor government, because the feed-in tariff is effectively zero. That means the savings that Victorian households thought they would recover from installing solar power have now been wiped away.

This then comes back to my question: if the feed-in tariffs are effectively sitting at zero, why does the ESC need any more time to make a determination? Is there any suggestion that they might increase the feed-in tariffs in the future? Of course there is not under this Labor government. Again, how is this a regulatory reform? When feed-in tariffs have now fallen through the floor, why does the ESC need any more time to tell Victorians they will no longer receive any compensation for helping to generate power from renewables for Victoria? It makes absolutely no sense.

Another very curious amendment to the Electricity Industry Act 2000 is the proposal to remove the requirement of licensees who are authorised to sell electricity to report on how many small renewable energy generation facilities sold electricity to them and how much electricity the licensee purchased from these facilities. Currently these energy retailers are required to report on a quarterly basis how much electricity they have purchased from small renewable energy generation facilities and how much of it they have sold. The government stated that the removal of this reporting requirement will reduce unnecessary administrative burdens on businesses and that much of this data is publicly available through other sources.

Nowhere in the material relating to the bill were these other sources identified. We did have to ask this of the department, and they finally did come through with some information, but I am not sure that it covers it all off. The amendment will also remove the requirement for the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action to report on this information. This amendment does nothing more than diminish transparency in reporting on how much renewable electricity is being purchased and sold in Victoria’s energy system. I find it incredibly hypocritical that at a time when the government claims to be producing record amounts of renewable energy it is seeking to remove any obligation to report how retailers are buying and selling renewable energy. Why does this Labor government want to keep this information hidden from public view?

I took the time to check the annual report of the department for the last financial year. At pages 333 to 335 the department, in compliance with the current legislative obligation, provides a report about the amounts of renewable electricity that are being purchased and sold. Interestingly, the sources of this renewable electricity remain fairly constant, ranging between 601,000 and 628,000 sources over the course of the year. However, there is a big difference in the amount of renewable electricity purchased and sold through the course of the year, from a high of 904 million kilowatts at the end of the March quarter, being the summer months, to a low of 418 million kilowatts at the end of the September quarter, being the winter months. Clearly what this data demonstrates is that the supply of renewable energy drops by more than half during the winter months, which should come as no surprise to anyone. This data is incredibly important because it demonstrates the fragility of renewable energy in the winter months with the lack of sunlight and why there needs to be a constant supply of base load energy to meet Victoria’s energy demand.

We see no reason why these reporting requirements should be removed when the government has been unable to identify where else, in a fulsome way, this exact information can be obtained. This is again yet another example of a measure being dressed up as regulatory reform when in fact the measure is designed purely to diminish transparency and keep critical information secret. We think that these reporting requirements should continue unchanged. We see no benefit from their removal.

Part 8 of the bill seeks to make various amendments to the Environment Protection Act 2017. One amendment will require the EPA or local council when issuing notices to revoke the registration of a licence or permit to include the date from which the revocation will take effect. Another more substantive amendment will allow the EPA to charge a business or a business owner with an offence where a vehicle registered to that business has been used to illegally dump waste. This amendment seeks to remove the current restriction placed on the EPA, which only allows it to charge a business or business owner where they are unable to identify the driver of the vehicle. The amendment will provide the EPA with discretion on who should be charged with the offence and who should be held responsible for the illegal dumping of waste. This government argues that this amendment is intended to target those companies that seek to deliberately and systematically dump waste as part of their operating practices – the current provision was originally only concerned with small-scale littering from a vehicle.

The coalition welcomes any measure aimed at protecting our environment from illegal dumping of waste. It would be well known by all members in this place that it is this Labor government that has presided over a waste crisis in Victoria, with more than 390,000 tonnes of recyclables being sent to landfill, toxic waste fires exploding across Melbourne’s western and northern suburbs, the illegal stockpiling of waste and a regulator that was hopelessly ill-equipped to respond, all under this Labor government.

However, we are concerned there was not any consultation with interested stakeholders about this particular change. When we asked about consultation at the bill briefing, we were told there was none. The amendment will have the impact of broadening the coverage of people or entities that can possibly be charged with this offence, and we think the government should have at least given stakeholders an opportunity to provide feedback on this amendment, instead of simply seeking to slip it through with 60 other changes in the bill. Again, it is hard to call this regulatory reform when the Labor government has not even consulted with those that they are seeking to regulate.

Part 9 of this bill deals with amendments to the Essential Services Commission Act 2001. Specifically, the amendment seeks to insert an explicit limitation period of six years. This means the Essential Services Commission will have six years to commence civil penalty proceedings from the date the contravention occurred. Currently there is no express limitation period specified in the act, and in these situations the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 will apply, which imposes a two-year limitation period for the commencement of civil penalty proceedings. This amendment is also retrospective, meaning that the six-year limitation period will apply to contraventions whether they occurred before or after the commencement of this new amendment. It does seem this amendment is yet another case of sloppy legislative drafting. Back in 2021 the ESC was given new enforcement powers to prosecute contraventions of the act. It has since been amended several more times through previous regulatory reform bills making various changes to these enforcement positions, and it seems that this is yet another example of legislation being rushed through this Parliament without proper consideration, review or drafting.

The government also argues that increasing the limitation period is consistent with other regulatory frameworks; however, this is not strictly correct, because WorkSafe Victoria, under section 132 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, must bring a prosecution within two years of an offence occurring. The most stunning example of this was when we saw the Office of Public Prosecutions drop charges against this Labor government’s Department of Health and Human Services for their widespread failures to keep people safe in the hotel quarantine debacle because the two-year limitation – guess what – had expired and prevented further evidence from being obtained. It was a complete and utter disgrace that no-one in this Labor government was held accountable for such a disastrous Labor government policy that resulted in the deaths of 800 innocent Victorians. If the government were really serious about ensuring consistency, they would ensure all regulators have the same powers and limitation periods instead of rushing legislation without proper consideration.

Now to part 12 of the bill, which seeks to amend the Service Victoria Act 2018: these amendments are specifically directed to provide the Service Victoria CEO with the power to require fees and charges to be paid by Victorians using the services and products of Service Victoria. It is clear that these amendments are a device for the government to raise further fees and charges for various government services. Parts 13 and 14 of the bill also seek to increase various fees and charges under the Subdivision Act 1988 and the Transfer of Land Act 1958. During the bill briefing, when we sought further details about the proposed fee increase, we were assured by the government representatives that there were no plans to increase fees. Why then would they need to give a head of power to increase fees? Any increase in fees absolutely must be subject to public consultation, but in a cost-of-living crisis I would suggest that there should not be any for things that Victorians already pay their taxes to deliver. Members may recall that similar assurances have been made by our former Premier Daniel Andrews, who on the eve of the 2014 election made a promise that there would be no new taxes under this government. Well, we all have seen how that has panned out – 60 new or increased taxes under this Labor government.

Despite what the government may say, there is very little tangible benefit for ordinary Victorians in this bill. Rather than providing any cost-of-living relief, this bill is more concerned about allowing bureaucrats to perform their work for private contractors or preventing them from disclosing critical information and diminishing transparency. You would think that a bona fide regulatory form bill would identify savings in monetary terms for the taxpayer, but when asked again in the bill briefing from the government what savings would be realised as a result of these measures, we were told quite expressly that no work had been done to quantify any dollar savings. In fact they could not identify any dollar savings for government or industry; rather, this bill was meant to achieve internal efficiencies. It is clear the real objectives of this bill are correcting the sloppy drafting errors, making the jobs of bureaucrats easier and charging Victorians more for government services during a cost-of-living crisis.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (10:40): I too rise to speak on this Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025. I do have to say, I have been listening closely to the member for Evelyn’s contribution to this bill as the lead speaker, and I do have to smile, because if you listened to any of that contribution you would be thinking, holy moly, we should just round up all the legislative drafters in this state, lock them up and throw away the key, right?

I do want to start my contribution by giving a big shout-out to the very hardworking staff who spend hours and hours and hours when it comes to legislative reform in this state. Writing and amending legislation takes true skill and expertise and a lot of patience, and as someone who went on and did a law degree, graduated from law and spent a lot of time actually amending and redrafting the National Electricity Rules, which is a really big piece of Commonwealth legislation, it is a real skill. It is an art to be able to reform legislation, and yes, time and time again, usually on a yearly basis, or every two years, we need to go through legislation and make changes. I would not call that sloppy drafting. I would call it just a need to clean up some of these bills and legislation. It is just part of the job.

This bill is not monumental in scope. We have had quite a few before the house in the almost seven years since I have been here. They do come through and they need to be done; they need to be passed here in this place. This bill does not make the kind of profound legislative changes that make members in this place want to get up in this chamber and scream from the rooftops about them. But we are here, nonetheless, on this side of the house, and we will debate this bill and pass this bill through the house, because they are important, because our legislation is always in need of constant improvement. That is really important. That is what governments should be doing – looking for ways in which to constantly improve and make things fairer, to make Victoria a fairer state and a more equitable state for everyone in it.

Definitions that no longer fit need to be updated and must be updated, and this is the way we have to do it. Provisions dependent on a section of another act that has been repealed need to be updated. This is the kind of work that goes into regulatory reform bills like this one, and I certainly will not be talking down this bill and the work that lawyers have done in this space. I do want to acknowledge their work. I know it takes hours and hours in the office in front of a computer and probably with a red pen and a highlighter, redrafting and fixing up this kind of legislation within the departments, and yes, within the minister’s office. The work is dry, and it is thankless, but I do say to the staff: you deserve recognition, and I thank you, not only for writing these bills but for all of the time you have spent poring over legislation to find those that are outdated. Overall, this bill amends a total of 14 acts of Parliament, providing simple, straightforward and uncontroversial improvements to these acts that I am sure we can all accept are needed. We need to do it.

When it comes to regulatory reform, our government has delivered in spades over the last decade. We have reviewed and we have improved regulations in liquor, environmental protection, essential services, electricity, building and construction, health, planning, consumer affairs, fee pricing, owners corps and so much more. On top of this, we have legislated regulatory improvements to things like cladding safety – remember that? – wage theft, gender equality, casino and gambling laws, worker screening processes and so much more. We have done all of this whilst actually reducing the state’s regulatory burden by about 25 per cent. And we know that businesses have benefited immeasurably from these regulatory changes. Those opposite go around constantly claiming that regulations are killing small businesses in Victoria. I might direct them to look at the Business Acceleration Fund, which previously featured in different iterations. It has funded projects that have collectively grown the Victorian economy by about $450 million each and every single year, saving Victorians about 330,000 days a year in saved time. We have saved businesses about 40,000 days per year in preparing and managing food safety programs by simplifying the state’s food safety requirements.

We have streamlined Heritage Victoria permits for low- and no-harm applications, saving about 6000 businesses about 91,000 days a year. This has also had the effect of getting houses built quicker and boosting supply.

These are just some of the ways in which regulatory reform is delivering for Victorians, including importantly, small businesses. And we will not be stopping there. We are currently working on and examining unnecessary red tape. We are looking at ways we can simplify and streamline things to make things more effective and efficient so that Victoria can remain a state where it is easy to do business and where businesses want to come and do business. This includes goals like halving the number of business regulators from 37 to 18 by 2030; speeding up environment effects statements processes by giving answers in 18 months or less, making the system faster, cheaper and more predictable; and driving up investment in things like wind farms, water projects and road and rail infrastructure projects, which we all know are so vital to our state’s economy and our environment. It includes new priority assessment teams –

Bridget Vallence: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this bill does not refer to wind turbines or wind whatsoever –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is?

Bridget Vallence: so on relevance, I would ask you to ask the member to come back to the narrow confines of the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member to stick to the bill and please continue.

Sarah CONNOLLY: It includes new priority assessment teams within key regulators to fast-track the assessment of priority projects and streamlining liquor and planning approvals for hospitality businesses so that they only need a liquor licence to go ahead and serve alcohol – to do business – saving businesses up to $7000 and allowing them to open up six months earlier.

Overall, we are hoping that by 2030 the regulatory burden for businesses in Victoria can be reduced by about $500 million through streamlining regulations and reducing duplication and digitisation where we can. That is what our economic statement is all about, supporting local and small businesses and the incredible people who work within them, because when they succeed we know that Victoria succeeds.

As I have looked through this bill and taken a quick look at some of the minor technical changes in here, there are actually some really interesting and positive changes that this bill makes through regulatory amendment. A good example is the amendments to the Adoption Act 1984 to remove barriers to help families who have experienced forced adoption to reunite. The work that that parliamentary committee did a couple of years ago in relation to forced adoptions was absolutely incredible. It was a really difficult inquiry, and having spoken to the members, the stories that came through that were absolutely heartbreaking. But we know from the work that this government has done in looking at this issue just how traumatic and impactful this practice was for the Victorian women who suffered under this forced adoptions. It is exactly why we set up a redress scheme in late 2023 to support the mothers who live with the consequences of these forced adoptions each and every single day. This is a small legislative change in this bill, but what it will mean is a world of difference for the mums and their children who are out there in the world seeking to reunite with them. The bill does this by allowing natural relatives to access identifying information about the adopted person to allow for those reunions to go ahead and happen. I for one certainly hope that this change leads to some very positive outcomes for those families affected by forced adoptions.

Another really important change here is to the Domestic Animals Act 1994, which will be amended to ensure that we can empower councils with better data on the location of dangerous dogs, a small change that will keep our community and especially our children safe from dog attacks. We see in the newspaper – I read those articles – that there have been the most terrible attacks from dogs that are unsafe and have likely attacked before and that end in tragedy. A child or someone walking by is attacked and ends up in hospital from that dog attack. We know that that does happen, and that is why we are doing this here in this bill.

I will not have time to go through the rest of the changes in this bill. The bill is not a milestone piece of legislation, but it makes a number of serious small, minor and technical changes to a bunch of different pieces of legislation, and I commend it wholeheartedly to the house.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (10:50): I rise to speak on this bill. If the member for Laverton believes a red pen will help ease regulation here in Victoria, I am happy to buy the department a whole box or even a whole carton of red pens, if that is actually going to relieve some of the regulatory burden on this state.

If you go to the statement of compatibility and you look at the overview of this bill, it says it is there to support efficient and effective regulation and reduce the administrative burden of regulation. Can I say, those two statements do not pass the pub test here in Victoria. If you went out to anyone that is in small business, anyone that actually has to interact with the government from a regulatory point of view, they would say there is more red tape, there is more green tape and there is more black tape in this state than there ever has been before. The cost to businesses of actually filling in those forms, having someone go online and fill all those in, is just getting more and more. People are getting to the point where they are not prepared to run a business because of the impost of this government on them.

If you talk about the housing crisis we have in Victoria, the shortage of homes for ownership, the shortage of homes for rental and the shortage of homes for social housing, that is a crisis that has been created principally by red, green and black tape in the state. If you look at – and I have used this example before – C117, a major subdivision in the west of Echuca, that took six years to bring to market. For those people that invested there, bought that land and wanted to get that to market, it took six years because of the bureaucracy and the rules they had to go through to do that. Wel.Co is one of the investors there that is part of that subdivision. They are now proposing to do a 400-lot subdivision at Cohuna, a smaller town in my community. The Gannawarra shire has identified that with the major projects that are happening in that area – VHM mineral sands mining, the VNI West powerline, renewable energy projects – there is a desperate need for housing, but that subdivision is being held up also by red tape, green tape and black tape in this state. Gannawarra shire has done all the planning work. They have stuck to all the rules, but the bureaucracy is saying, ‘No, we want you to do additional work. No, we actually think what you’re saying is wrong.’ Why should a bureaucrat have the right to say that all the work that a shire has done to get a subdivision in their shire done is wrong? Personal opinions should not count here. Again it is this issue of bureaucracy.

Then I go to the issue of land use activity agreements. That sounds very innocuous, but we have a subdivision in Bendigo where a gentleman there is being asked to pay half the value of his private land in a land use activity agreement to Dja Dja Wurrung because he needs access to a public road. Again, why should that impost be put on a subdivision that is going to provide housing in Bendigo? It is wrong that it has been modelled on the Timber Creek case, a High Court case in the Northern Territory, and applied to Victoria so they have to pay more.

There is more red tape, there is more green tape and there is more black tape in this state, and for this legislation to say any different does not pass the pub test, as I have said.

If you go to particular clauses to the bill, part 12, the Service Victoria Act 2018 part, clarifies that fees must apply for the following category: providing or improving access to government services. Why should we have a new fee to provide access to government services? Government services are there to try and streamline the system here in Victoria to make it easier for business to actually operate. Why should they have to pay more to improve a government service? Isn’t that a core business of government, to actually try to be more effective and efficient themselves? There are also potentially fees there for sending to or receiving information from Service Victoria. Why should people have to pay to send information to or receive it from Service Victoria? Service Victoria, by definition, is supposed to deliver a service, not to charge more fees into the future.

The changes to the Subdivision Act 1988 seek to allow the registrar to increase the fees and charges for various services and permit the registrar to levy fees in line with pricing for Victorian value. This means fees are not limited to cost recovery but may also be based on value for service. Can I put it to the house that if you are actually basing fees on value to service from a government department, all the fees here are Victoria should be halved straightaway, because there is no value for service when it comes to dealing with government departments. Fees should actually be decreased, not increased, because there is no efficiency for businesses in how they interact.

It was interesting the other morning to listen to the Rumour File, because we have had a lot of talk about the digital licence here in Victoria and how that is the way forward. One particular gentleman, whose voice I do know – but I will not name him in the house – phoned in that he had been to a government agency where he was asked for proof of identity. He pulled out his phone, brought up his digital drivers licence and was told, ‘No, we don’t acknowledge that.’ What is the point of getting a digital drivers licence if a government department will not actually accept that as proof of identity? There is not value for service when it comes to giving anything here in Victoria

Changes to the Transfer of Land Act 1958 will permit the collection of fees without being limited to cost recovery in Victoria’s pricing guidelines. Again, why should we have to pay more in the future for dealing with government?

I want to comment on the Water Act 1989 and the change there that will allow the Victorian Environmental Water Holder to not have a set time as to when they are supposed to prepare a corporate plan. In Victoria the environmental water holder owns hundreds of millions of dollars worth of water. They have a corporate plan that sets out how they are going to use that water responsibly and how they are going to use that water to actually achieve the best environmental outcomes here in Victoria. There is not consensus in the community that they do that anyhow, but apart from that, why should they have an open-ended extension to wait until they have the right information to prepare that plan? Timelines make things happen. The environmental water holder has a timeline. They will prepare their plan. If they need an extension, they have to go to the minister to get that extension currently. Why should they not have to do that? As I said, timelines make things happen. If there is no timeline for the environmental water holder, there is no requirement for it to stick to it at all. I would say you will get a lot of drift as you go through in preparing that particular plan.

One of the issues that the lead speaker, the shadow minister, raised was this issue that the commissioner for environmental sustainability will have the ability under this change to go out and get outside work. We have a government employee of an important department, an important role that has an impact on a lot of people’s lives here in Victoria, who gets a salary somewhere in the range of $300,000 a year, and we are going to legislate change to allow them to go and get outside work. Why should they be allowed to go and get outside work when they have a full-time job for the government? I just find that rather offensive. Those people who are struggling in a cost-of-living crisis would be saying, ‘I’m struggling to pay my rent or my mortgage, kids’ school fees, all the costs I have in my life, and I’m nowhere near on a salary that big, and here’s someone that the government’s now going to do legislative change to allow them to go and have a second job when they already have a full-time job here in Victoria.’

The issue around not reporting the renewable energy feed-ins – I think you will find for all those people that originally put solar panels on their roofs, those that were lucky enough early on to get 60 cents per kilowatt hour for feed-ins, that that has slowly diminished over time. Why shouldn’t it be reported? We should know what is actually happening with those feed-in supplies, so it can be reported. Why should that exemption be taken away and not have that reported into the future?

I think what we see with this legislation is – the truism will be there – under Labor you actually pay more and you get less. If you look at the changes in this bill, there is the ability to increase fees, and we have seen fees and taxes increase or new taxes introduced all the time. This bill enables the government and government departments by giving them effectively the right to charge more and give less. If you want a better service, you are going to pay even more again. This is just a bill that is not going to deliver. As I started with, it just does not pass the pub test, because people know that red, green and black tape is out of control in this state.

Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (10:59): I rise to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025, and I would like to start by thanking Minister Pearson for his work in bringing this bill to the house for debate. Those who have been in this place for a while will remember many of Minister Pearson’s speeches. The minister really did enjoy speaking on regulatory reform bills and would wax lyrical about how particular elements of a bill could be traced back to Graeco-Roman times and how it all originated from there. Unfortunately, because he had the second-reading speech incorporated into Hansard, we will not be honoured with that sort of contribution today.

As has been said, this is an important bill. It is an important part of government and Parliament to review legislation over time and make sure that it is more fit for purpose. Obviously it is called regulatory legislation and is about reforming regulation, and I do want to just echo some of the contribution that the member for Laverton made in terms of the difference that this Labor government – this Allan government and the Andrews government before it – has been making in terms of regulatory reform. As the member for Laverton stated, over the last 10 years the Allan and Andrews governments have reviewed and reformed regulations in liquor, environmental protection, essential services, electricity, building and construction, health, planning, consumer affairs, fee pricing, owners corporations and more and reduced Victoria’s regulatory burden by 25 per cent.

We are going to do more, and I want to touch a little bit on the economic growth statement which was released late last year. I had the privilege to work with the then Treasurer and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer the member for Frankston in putting together the economic growth statement and particularly hosting a series of round tables with industry, large and small, about what they would like to see that would help stimulate further economic growth in Victoria. One of the key outputs from the economic growth statement was cutting red tape. This is what we heard from industry: onerous and outdated regulation creates headaches for business, stifles innovation and slows growth. That is why there is a range of initiatives that the government has committed to to further reduce regulation and make it easier for small business and large business to operate and grow in Victoria, because that will contribute to a growing economy and a more prosperous state and population.

Those initiatives include halving the number of business regulators by 2030, speeding up the environment effects processes, delivering new priority assessment teams with key regulators to fast-track the assessment of priority projects, using digitisation and AI to speed up government, streamlining liquor and planning approvals for hospitality businesses and removing the need for a planning permit for outdoor dining on public land. The target is to slash the regulatory burden for businesses to the tune of $500 million by 2030. A lot of those regulatory items are in process and will be the function of future reforms and legislation, but this is the message from industry, and the government is listening. That is why it is in the economic growth statement, and these are the initiatives that we are going to introduce.

In terms of the legislation at hand, the amendment bill proposes to make changes to 14 different pieces of legislation, some larger changes than others. I do want to focus on a couple of particular changes to legislation, and one of them is about the changes to the Domestic Animals Act 1994 which propose a range of changes, including the voluntary surrender of certain approvals and licences, requiring notification of additional information to council, including a timeframe for declared bird organisation applications and additional infringement offences.

I want to particularly look at the additional information to council. This revolves around the declarations about dangerous dogs, particularly if an owner moves premises or if the dangerous dog dies and the owner then notifies the council. There is an incident that I want to want to share with the Assembly, which I think shows why some of this legislation and reform is really important. I was contacted about six months ago by a constituent of mine who was horribly attacked by a dog. She was on holiday in Tasmania in a caravan park and she had to be taken away and treated at hospital, but the only record that they had of the dog was that the dog was last seen leaving in the back of a vehicle with Queensland number plates. We tried to provide assistance to this constituent, but it proved very difficult, because while most of the states have very similar legislation in terms of what classifies as a dangerous dog, it is invariably up to the local council to keep a record on that dog. The problem in this situation was that obviously the dog owner was not from Tasmania and the individual that was attacked was not from Tasmania, so the Tasmanian government and the local Tasmanian council would not have had any record that the dog was in the local area.

Obviously there are jurisdictional issues involved in trying to have our Minister for Agriculture get involved in that, but I think the request was more about trying to have some sort of national system of laws and register – that if a dangerous dog were to move from state to state, and particularly even if it was just taking a pet with you on holiday, there was an easier avenue to be able to notify the dog owner about an incident that had happened and to bring that up to prosecution if need be. I think that that is going to be an important change. Obviously it does not solve the particular scenario that I described, because of the cross-jurisdictional matters, but anything that is able to make it easier for notification to happen to councils when an owner moves or when a dangerous dog dies under the ownership of a particular individual is just going to make it easier for owners and obviously then safer for the community in general.

I also want to just briefly touch on the changes to the Water Act 1989. I was actually surprised that clause 62 refers to special meetings and changes to special meetings that will omit ‘by post or in person’, and that is in terms of the notification requirements of a special meeting. That will allow a special meeting to be notified by email now. If you think about all other walks of life, it would be pretty unusual that email correspondence does not qualify as a legitimate form of notification of a meeting, particularly in this day and age. We are aware of the cuts that have been happening at Australia Post and relying on mail or in-person delivery does seem very unrealistic for this day and age. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Sam GROTH (Nepean) (11:09): I rise to give a contribution on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025, and I want to thank the Manager of Opposition Business and Shadow Minister for Finance for the work that she has done on this bill as well as the nine shadow ministers, I believe, who had input on the legislation across a whole range of portfolios.

We know this bill amends nearly 40 regulations across 16 acts, and the government claims the bill will streamline regulation, reduce administrative burdens and enhance economic productivity by making it easier to do business in Victoria, which would probably be a first for this government over the last 10 years. The bill as presented by the government is a necessary step towards regulatory reform. The government claims it will enhance economic productivity and simplify business operations, but I think we need to scrutinise some of these claims and consider the potential consequences for constituents and the broader community.

I mentioned those acts, and I will not go through them all at the moment, but I want to start with the Adoption Act 1984 and the proposed changes aimed to implement the recommendations from the 2021 inquiry. I want to echo the comments from the shadow minister in her 30-minute contribution, and I understand the significant injustices faced by many of those families and individuals affected by those past adoption practices. While my situation is a little bit different, my mother was actually adopted by a family who became my grandparents, my family, but later in life, when they passed away, my mother was reunited with her biological mother. I think these practices are important for not just the people who suffered the historical injustices but also people who come from families of adoption as a whole. As it turned out, my biological grandmother had a relationship with a high-ranking member of the Australian Defence Force, became a single mother, could not take on my mother as a child and put her up for adoption, but later in life when that reunification took place she found out about some health issues within my side of the family – my biological grandmother ended up suffering severe Parkinson’s later in life. I think it is important that people who do come from these families actually have the opportunity to understand possibly not just who their biological families are but also some of those issues that may arise in family history and those sorts of things, so I personally welcome some of those changes when it comes to this bill.

Can I just say, though, in terms of the whole regulatory reform piece, it should not be about just fixing drafting errors within legislation. It also needs to be about fixing efficiencies and making the lives of Victorians better. When these bills come up, and this is the third one of this nature that the government has brought up in the last few years, we have got to make sure that they continue to make the lives of Victorians better when we bring those pieces of legislation forward.

As I said, the majority of these amendments are administrative in nature, but some do make substantive changes to the powers of secretaries across a variety of departments, and I want to bring to light a couple of these. I will start with the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Act 2021, and we know that since this act came into effect on 1 July 2022 it has been amended by this government no less than 10 times in two years. Now, you would think that when a government bring a piece of legislation forward they have done the work and they know the pieces that need to be put in place, but it clearly demonstrates to me this government are pretty much making it up as they go along when it comes to recycling and waste reduction. I also note the amendments result in individuals facing larger penalties, and these are significant for the stakeholders in this industry. I hope the government and the EPA will educate stakeholders about these changes, because as the shadow minister said in the bill briefing there has been zero consultation with industry stakeholders about these new provisions.

One of the big concerns we have is around the amendments to the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Act 2003, and when you have someone who is taking on a role and the government want to, as they said, attract and retain quality candidates for the role of the commissioner, it is our firm belief that if you are paying someone $300,000 to do a job then that job should be done as a full-time gig, not part-time on the side, with people then seeking extra remuneration from other pieces of work. For the commissioner for environmental sustainability to undertake paid duties outside of the role, this should have the approval of the minister. The government argue it will enable them to attract and retain quality candidates, but they also argue the same situation applies in relation to other government executive board positions. However, it could be argued that such a provision converts the position into a part-time gig, as I said, so we need to make sure that the people who we give these commissioner roles to on $300,000 are actually fully committed to doing the job at hand.

Can I just quickly reflect on the member for Box Hill’s comments around domestic animals and dangerous animals. I think many of us have had a run-in with a dangerous animal at some point, so I fully welcome anything that allows us to further track and make sure dangerous animals are kept in check and the owners are kept in check and we know exactly where those dangerous animals are. Many of us have dogs or young children that we take to dog parks and such, and none of us want to see those dangerous animals inflict the sort of injuries the member for Box Hill spoke about on any citizen or resident of Victoria. I fully welcome anything that does anything to make sure that we know where those dangerous dogs are at any time. I fully understand those comments, for sure.

I want to touch on the amendment to the Essential Services Commission Act 2001 and the minimum solar tariff feed-in determinations. As the shadow minister said, we know those feed-in tariffs are being reduced dramatically, which is going to have an added effect on those Victorians who have put solar on their house with the understanding that they would get those feed-in tariffs. We have seen them reduced significantly in recent times, down to 3.3 cents, and now they are going to be reduced further, down to just 0.04 cents. As the shadow minister said, why do we need delay the reporting changes if there is no intention to change those tariffs again?

The Service Victoria Act 2018 – the amendments seek to raise revenue for the government by charging fees for various government services. I think the part that is worrying in both this and the Subdivision Act 1988 is that the amendments seek to raise revenue that is above cost recovery. Cost recovery is one part – the government should be delivering these services – but we want to make sure that there is no added impost. The Service Victoria the app, the digital licences and all of these things hopefully add a level of ease and efficiency. We all carry our mobile phones now – I would much rather carry my mobile phone than carry my licence around most of the time – but we want to make sure that this impost is not put in terms of costs on the average Victorian just to be able to take on added services through Service Victoria. I understand that there is a cost to running these services and to implementing them across the Service Victoria app across a wide range of areas, but that added cost above cost recovery should not be added to Victorians.

When it comes to the Subdivision Act 1988 and the Transfer of Land Act 1958, it is the same thing – we want to make sure that these costs are limited to cost recovery. At a time when housing is an issue, we want to see more subdivisions taking place, we want to see more people being able to buy or build homes. We do not want to be adding an extra cost. We already know that an incredible number of property taxes have been added across the housing sector through the life of the Andrews and Allan Labor governments, to the point where we are talking 42 per cent of the cost of any house and land package is now tax. We want to make sure that any other costs that are going on to these are not added purely through a bill like this, that is, as we said, supposed to be creating efficiencies. Efficiency should not mean an added cost to Victorians.

We do not have any major concerns with this bill. There are a few pieces that I think could be looked at and tidied up. As I said, the Adoption Act is something that I have personal relation to. I am glad that these things are taking place. It is an important piece to act on. It has taken a little bit of time for this government to be able to do so, but overall I think that it is an uncontentious bill. We do not want to see added regulation, we want to see further efficiencies created across a whole range of bureaucracy, but those efficiencies, as I said, should not necessarily be about making the lives of bureaucrats easier. They need to be done to make the lives of Victorians easier, and not with an added cost.

Paul MERCURIO (Hastings) (11:19): I rise to give my contribution to the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025. This bill is the government’s third regulatory legislation amendment reform bill, playing a vital role in ongoing regulatory reform to make Victoria a better place to live, work and do business. The bill will make amendments to 14 acts of Parliament; I am not quite sure where those on the other side get 16 from. As I have sat in the chamber I have gone quickly back through to the second-reading speech and through the notes and I can definitely see 14 acts, not 16, so I am a bit confused about that.

This bill will provide simple, practical and widely supported improvements to legislation that align with the evolving needs of businesses, communities and the government. This is an omnibus bill. As I said, it amends 14 different acts. To some extent these sorts of bills are just housekeeping. To some point they are not considered all that important, although I do note that the Manager of Opposition Business spent the half-hour of her debate ripping into this bill, pointing out many parts of it that she was displeased at. She thought that the government was doing pretty bad things through changing some of the words in this bill. But then I also note that she supports the bill, so again, I am confused by that. Either you do not like the bill and do not support it, or you can read the bill and maybe make some points but support it.

What is important about this – a lot of people are talking about the fact that we on this side, the government, keep coming back and making changes to acts. That is our job. There are acts from 1918 or 1956; things change. As we know, things can change significantly in the community and in our lives, legally and with technology. So we need to go back and look at the acts that regulate what we do in the community, or laws, and we need to change them because they are no longer fit for purpose. I think that is an incredibly important thing to do. For the people in this chamber who complain about the fact that we are making changes, it is not because we have not worked hard, it is not because we do not believe in what we previously done; it is because we accept things change. So I am quite happy to be here to talk about this bill.

The other thing I would like to point out too is that words have power. It is really important. Sometimes in this chamber I hear people hurling words around that are full of misinformation, that are designed to hurt, and it is really disappointing to hear that, because words have power. I spoke in my inaugural speech about the big changes that we need to make being important, but so are the little ones. They are vitally important. They keep the world going around; they keep the community supported. These little words are incredibly important. They could save a life, they could change a life and they could make a life.

As the member for Nepean leaves, I might just say in terms of words changing lives and altering lives, I agree, the Adoption Act 1984 is a case in point. Lives were changed when the member discovered family. These changes here might be little words, but they can change a life, and I think we should all remember that. That is a really important part of what we do in here.

I congratulate the people with the blue, green, red, black and purple pens that spend so long –

A member interjected.

Paul MERCURIO: Not purple? Well, I like purple. I will add purple in there. I do not know how they do it – sit in a room, probably a darkened room, read all these acts and somehow make sense of them and find the changes that need to be made, find the words that need to be corrected and cross the t’s and dot the i’s. It is vitally important work, and I am certainly grateful to the people that have the ability and the talent to do that. I am happy to get up on stage and fall over a few times, but I could not go into a room with a bunch of pens and make those adjustments, so I am very grateful for that.

I might talk a bit more about the bill, possibly.

Members interjecting.

Paul MERCURIO: I have got 5 minutes. I have realised, ‘Phew. I’ve got that far.’ It is only going to go down from here, because now I am going to talk about the mundane aspects of what these changes are about and what this bill is about. Again, I just keep saying that they are so important. I am going to go through each of the 14 acts and every part of them – no, I am not, because it is going to take too long. Look, there are a lot of really important things that will make a difference. Yes, they are cutting red tape, and they are trying to make life easier for the community, and again I support that.

The first cab off the rank, which I want to talk about really briefly, is the Housing Act 1983, and that allows me the opportunity to remind everyone in this place that Victoria is building more homes than any other state in the country and has a real plan to tackle housing issues, unlike those on the opposite side and indeed those in federal opposition up in Canberra. Currently the office of the housing registrar does not require ready access to bank account details of registered agencies. The bank account details do not provide any useful insight for the regulator, and it was deemed unnecessary for them to have access. Additionally, it raises concerns about having too much information, which leads to an unnecessary risk to privacy and security. The impact this change will have is just removing an unnecessary burden on registered agencies and just means there is one less administrative task for someone to do, giving workers more time for more important tasks – a small change but an important one. As I refer to my notes, I am seeing someone in a darkened room with a bunch of coloured pens changing words, and again I am grateful.

Also there is the Domestic Animals Act 1994. This one I thought was interesting. One of the amendments is to reinstate the penalty for seized dog or cat delivery offences. What that basically means is that they are reinstating a penalty. This amendment is just correcting a drafting error that was made in the previous amendment. This is just reinstating that the council-authorised officers can enforce the requirement that those who seize a dog or a cat must deliver it to a council, a shelter or a veterinary practitioner. This is done to stop people claiming found animals as their own or rehoming them or perhaps even selling them on to other people, when they are not the legal owner of the animal. I think that is a very important point. There are some other bits there which I might not go on with, as I have got 2 minutes left.

I did really want to talk about dumped rubbish, for one. There are some changes made there. Unfortunately in my community there is dumped rubbish on the sides of the roads, up by the railway tracks – wherever they can, actually. It is really sad, and I do not really understand the mindset of people that care so little about their own community that they want to dump rubbish anywhere. There is the cost of living, and there are certainly things people might try and save some money on, but it is not the point. It is not right. So there is an amendment, a change, which gives the EPA enforcement powers to go after businesses that are deliberately and systematically dumping waste as a business practice, often in large quantities. Often they are instructing their drivers to do so. So what this change does is it allows the EPA to actually go after the business, not the driver, and I think that is important, because if you are being put under pressure to dump rubbish to save money, that is unfair.

I have only got a minute left. I wanted to talk a little bit about adoption. I do not want to go into any personal circumstances, but I have had some experience within this area. I think the change in adoption is very, very important. I do note that people can find out about people who may be adopted or may be family only if the person is over the age of 18. As I said before, these are small changes that can save a life, can change a life or can make a life, and certainly within this area, as the member for Nepean said, finding out about adopted families is a vitally important thing for health and wellbeing but also to understand about your own physiology, mental status and all those sorts of things. So that part, the small words being changed in that act, I feel is vitally important. I certainly commend the bill to the house, and I hope the other side is not so grumpy about it.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (11:29): I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025. I am always interested when it has got the word ‘reform’ in there, because we know that essentially these are just fixing up and tidying up rather than reforming. I think I even heard members of the government earlier say that this is not groundbreaking reform at all, but it has got that in the title, so I think it makes everybody feel quite good that they are making particularly big changes when it is not really so.

We have got an omnibus bill before us, 16 pieces of legislation over nine portfolios.

Actually, it is not as chunky as I thought it may well have been when it was introduced. Typically, these bills are around tidying up, cleaning up, fixing drafting errors that happen from time to time. Sometimes there are oversights, and sometimes there are errors that have been in place that people have known about for a couple of years that they need to get to the fore to actually fix the issues with the particular act.

I do note, like the member for Murray Plains talked about in the statement of compatibility, that the bill amends laws across a range of ministerial portfolios to, and I am quoting from the statement of compatibility:

• support efficient and effective regulation

• promote consistency with other legislation and existing policies

• reduce the administrative burden of regulation, and

• address technical errors …

I want to talk about efficient and effective regulation for a moment and the administrative burdens that are placed on individuals and particularly businesses and the cost of business. One of the key costs of business is that of compliance and filling in forms and needing to jump certain hurdles, and sometimes these hurdles are so great that smaller businesses are being put on the same platform as some of the larger businesses who employ people who can do these sorts of things. But when you are a small business of two, 10 employees you do not always have the manpower to do this, and we have seen so many businesses fold because of red and green tape. In 2023, actually, more than 129,000 businesses closed in Victoria, and we have commentary from industry experts about the difficult conditions in Victoria to open and operate a business compared to other states, and the administrative burden around regulation and inefficient regulations is indeed part of that. The Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry only very recently said that 45 per cent of small business owners have considered closing or leaving in the last 12 months, and I think that is really quite sad. The Herald Sun last week said that more than 350 Victorian businesses per day are shutting their doors for good and we have the highest business exit rate across the nation. They were referring to data from the ABS and work being done by the Institute of Public Affairs. I think it is really quite sad that Victoria is difficult to business in, and one of the reasons is taxes, taxes, taxes, but there are also the burdens of compliance and regulation. These need to be streamlined, and I will always support that.

I do want to touch on a couple of the areas that are referred to specifically: the EPA, the Environmental Protection Authority Victoria, and the changes around the illegal dumping of materials. I guess many of us would see in our electorates, as you drive around, materials that are dumped, and I have got a couple of key spots, certainly one at Castella, where there have been for too long building rubble, concrete and bits of plasterboard and things that have been dumped in a particular spot. And it has been dumped by trucks. It is much greater than somebody unloading their ute and chucking it not quite into the bushes in a little pull-over area. We have stuff dumped on roadsides all the time. I am pleased to see that here the government will now be able to pursue the owner of the vehicle or the company or the business that may own those vehicles. Previously they could only do so if the driver could not be identified, but the changes are here, and I see so much of this. Sometimes it is very deliberate dumping, and it would be a good thing if those companies who are doing that as a matter of course were held to task. I think there is in this some discretion for the EPA, and I am pleased to see that.

But also on the EPA there are a couple of areas around governance and the board, and I was actually quite interested in this, particularly around filling casual vacancies. Occasionally people leave the board, for whatever reason, and currently a person may be appointed only for the remainder of a term when a vacancy arises, and I would think that is perfectly normal. If you have got somebody leave one year into a three-year term, you would conclude at that three-year term, because very typically, if you look at the information of company directors, you have a changeover; you have a rolling movement on your board. You might have three people who are up for reappointment at one point and then another three at a different one.

When you start halfway through this to put somebody in who is off the cycle, I think it is going to be fraught with difficulty and create a lot of unexpected consequences. I am not sure that that is a particularly good idea. I am quite keen on governance and good governance. I am not sure that this change that is being introduced is indeed good governance.

With regard to the circular economy, I think this is the fourth crack at trying to get this right. This time they have included a provision around civil penalties, because they forgot to have the penalties in previously. It is not a bad thing that they have fixed this up, but it is the fourth crack at getting this in. The circular economy legislation is not particularly old – 2021. It is not very old at all, and this is the fourth crack.

Also as part of the changes here is the commissioner for environmental sustainability having the ability to undertake paid duties outside of their role. This is really quite extraordinary. We have a senior bureaucrat, who would presumably be well paid, having to get a second gig. I have thought about what this might look like. Perhaps it is a board position, but if you are taking a board position that has remuneration as part of that, perhaps you could waive that if you are already on the public purse rather than double dipping. One of the reasons for doing this is the attraction and retention of quality candidates for the role. Seriously, if you cannot get a quality candidate for the role of commissioner for environmental sustainability without offering additional perks, there is something very wrong. I am really quite surprised that the government has put that in. I am not aware of the extent of the rollout of that policy across the public service, but I would think that that is something to have a bit of a look at.

The changes to the Domestic Animals Act 1994 are fairly simple and are designed around helping councils and owners of menacing dogs, dangerous dogs and restricted breeds. From time to time their dogs will die, and I think it is only reasonable that if they are on that register, the obligation is to notify the council so that they have accurate information records, because I think the issue of dangerous dogs is something that everybody does hear about from time to time.

There are changes around the adoption laws. I will just remind the house that it was a former minister Mary Wooldridge who made the apology in August 2012 around forced adoption because of things that had happened to people which were not what they wanted. We have all heard many stories about this. The recommendations of the Legal and Social Issues Committee in 2021 are, three years later, coming into being. It is around making finding lost family members easier. For somebody who may have a sibling or an aunt there are some provisions here to help access information that makes it easier for them to find out about and possibly locate them. I do wonder how quickly science is overtaking our laws, because time and time again people are finding family members through DNA on ancestry.com. I have even seen TV shows where they help people do all of this through DNA. The more this is done through DNA, probably the less need there is for some of the adoption laws. I am curious as to how long that is going to take.

Finally, the Service Victoria changes will raise revenue for the government by increasing fees to access government services. Maybe you want us to pay for an app. Give me a break. Service Victoria is there to service the people of Victoria, and sending or receiving information is what they do. We should not be taxed on that.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (11:39): I am very pleased to speak on these regulatory reforms. I will attest that they are reforms. I looked it up on Google, and Google said ‘make changes in something in order to improve it’, and I would have to say fundamentally we are not here standing up for the sake of it – we are making these reforms to improve the system. I think that that needs to put on the table. We would not be just speaking to this legislation to pass time. It is because there are important improvements that are for the benefit of all, including the workers who are helping with the regulations, because I think there was a comment about, ‘Don’t make things simpler for the workers who are implementing the regulations.’ I would say it is important for the workers and also those in the community who benefit from the improvements to the regulations. I am putting that point out there as well. Why not make processes better?

Fundamentally what it should and indeed is seeking to do is to provide a clearer, fairer and more modern system in terms of the laws and regulations while strengthening regulatory tools available to agencies that protect our state – particularly in this case to do with environmental protections, but I should say overall when we are looking at improving the way the state is managed – and refining redundant processes, reporting and notifications, helping to reduce administrative burdens on businesses, government and individuals. So it is making sure all those relevant persons or entities benefit from the outcomes being driven.

Firstly, I did want to speak to the changes with regard to removing barriers to help families who have experienced forced adoptions to reunite. I was thinking about my late great-grandfather. He did not find out until he was about 40 that he had been adopted. I do not believe it was a forced adoption – I just want to be clear – and I am going to draw it back to the bill. That had a cataclysmic emotional impact on him, as you can imagine, when you have gone 40 years of your life thinking these people are your parents and suddenly at 40 you find out otherwise. It certainly had a very significant impact on him and his emotional state. Now, he did manage to get through that, and he lived on until his late 80s – a credit to him for that. I must say, adoption per se, as we know, is a particularly emotional element because it does – I have not been adopted myself, so I am going to speak in an objective sense as best I can – cause one, I imagine, to question your identity and what has caused you to be the person that you are, and that raises a whole other vicissitude of existential questions. Nevertheless coming back to the bill, let alone being adopted, a forced adoption of course must be an incredibly traumatic thing to go through for those persons who have had to go through that. So it is certainly pleasing to see that these reforms are being brought about. Hopefully they will bring some comfort, and comfort is a word I am going to say very cautiously because we are talking about an after-the-fact improvement. Nevertheless it is one that is important in the context of the reforms that we are speaking to today.

I also do want to speak to the improvements when it comes to empowering councils with better data on the location of dangerous dogs, helping to keep the community safe. I was reflecting on a dog that my mum had, a dog named Paddy, a lovely dog. She was out one day with the dog, and then out of the blue two, I will call them, dangerous dogs came up off lead and absolutely pounced on poor Paddy. My mum was screaming. In the end a neighbour chucked boots to make the dogs let go, but unfortunately Paddy passed away, I think within a day or two, because the shock caused him to have a heart attack. So without meaning to be too negative, I am just saying we know the ramifications of irresponsible dog ownership, if I can put it that way, hence the impetus to have these kind of controls or improvements in controls and regulations. You think of your family pet as being incredibly resilient, but of course even they will have limitations as to what they can endure, so I am very pleased to see these changes being brought about, because that incident need never have occurred. I should say, certainly those dogs should have been appropriately contained, for starters. Nevertheless it does back in the imperative for changes that help to keep the community safer and have better awareness of where dangerous dogs are being kept.

Further, I am also going to reflect on not only the changes being brought about with regard to some of the matters that I have discussed but – and I am jumping around here a little bit – when we are looking at the issues of housing and land. We know that housing is an incredibly important element; it is a fundamental element of human existence.

I know that there is certainly an imperative for us as a community as a whole, and certainly in government, to make sure that there are homes not only for the people of today but also for younger generations into the future. We have to think of them, and we know that, at least on this side of the house. That is why we are delivering more homes for young people, families and downsizers and around 50 train stations and tram stops in Melbourne’s inner suburbs. This builds on the 10 initial pilot centres. I know, as somebody who lives in the absolute inner city – almost in the city, virtually in the CBD, in probably the most built-up space you could have – what a beautiful community ambience there is. But it is also – I am just taking a little tangent here – a credit to the hard work that the community put in. There are some real leaders in our community who really bring people together and nurture those community spaces and events. Sometimes there are attitudes about apartment living, but let me tell you, it can be a really convenient element. It means you are right on the doorstop of all the arts, if that is your thing – it certainly is my passion – and all the wonderful facilities, the botanical gardens et cetera. Who would not want to live there? I am just putting it out there.

It is obviously not only in that space; it is all about choice as well. Activity centre planning is about building more opportunities and better communities by setting clear expectations for long-term growth – that is absolutely fundamental – and giving the community a say early, coming back to that regulatory element, and streamlining planning to unblock home building. We are undertaking a review to make it easier, faster and cheaper for Victorians to divide their blocks and build more homes. By making it easier for homeowners to subdivide their land, it will be easier for more Victorians to find a home in an established suburb where they have already got the schools and the ambulances and all the other things – what do you call them? Ambulance stations. There should be ambulances everywhere – they are mobile. Let me just be really specific about that. But certainly there should be all the services that you need to be able to live in a healthy and safe community, close to transport, jobs, schools and services.

I know that in late 2024 the government released a landmark plan for 27 additional greenfield areas across Melbourne’s outer south-east, north and west to be released over the next 10 years, committing to providing the space and completing the planning work to deliver 180,000 new homes over the decade. Fundamentally what is inherent in this is that government is planning ahead for all Victorians and giving them choice, because while I might like living in Southbank, there are others who want to be further out. So be it. Good, great – let us make sure that they have those opportunities. That is exactly what we are doing. I should say, also in late 2023 – I am just reflecting on the record as well as forward thinking in this space – we made it easier to allow homeowners to build small second homes such as granny flats without a planning permit. I understand that has been a popular element because it makes good sense, and it is also a terrific use of much-needed land. We have also slashed stamp duty on off-the-plan apartments, units and townhouses to cut up-front costs, speed up building and make it more affordable for everyone to buy off the plan through to October this year. We can see these important elements, the whole spectrum of housing choices and opportunities for people to be able to live where they want to live now and into the future – not only current generations but younger generations into the future.

Emma KEALY (Lowan) (11:49): I rise to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025. This is an omnibus bill which covers off on many different pieces of legislation, and I would suggest that most people in this place surely could raise some local issues relevant to standing up for their people which would outline how Labor cannot manage money and how so often it is Victorians that are paying the price. For this reason I will particularly focus on elements of this legislation which seek to amend aspects regarding the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Act 2023.

The reason that I really want to focus on this is because mineral sands mining is something which is of great interest to my local electorate of Lowan. Within my electorate, which is about 20 per cent of the state, underneath our soils, we have the Stavely Arc, which is of course a rich source of resources. We have got a goldmine at Stawell and we have got copper mines throughout the Grampians that are looking to be established, and what is happening and has been happening for the past 30-odd years is there has been extraction of mineral sands resources from our region. We have an enormous number of exploration permits, and we are looking at many applications for extraction licences for these mineral sands from my region.

While we have been undertaking mineral sands extraction for some 30 years, the more recent mining opportunities that have been proposed and put forward – and environment effects statements have been applied for – have certainly been in areas where there has not been extensive mining in the past. There is great concern from local landholders – particularly the farmers who rely on a clean environment and a productive environment in order to support their businesses and to support their families and the community where they live – that there has been a dearth of information provided to local people around the impacts of mineral sand mining. This is a catastrophic failure of the Allan Labor government, because there have been so many opportunities to provide information to my community around what structures are in place to ensure that there is not a disaster unfolding unnecessarily in the region in relation to mineral sands mining, the extraction of that product and also the transport of that product. Of course when you take things from under the ground, particularly in the mode in which mineral sands are extracted from the ground, it does result in dust. It does then require, for dust suppression, the use of an extensive amount of water. When we are looking at significant water shortages through my region at the moment this is of course a concern to farmers, who are already looking at water shortages. There is concern that any water that is applied for dust suppression will be of high salinity and therefore have an impact on the soil and the opportunity to rehabilitate the land and grow crops in that area. There are also concerns about the impacts of radioactive dust: how it is monitored, what impacts that will have on the health of the community and also what impacts that would have on the saleability of produce grown in my region given that there is an increasing pressure from global markets to ensure that there are clean products, particularly in food sources which are set for human consumption. Of course then that could have a significant flow-on effect to local markets and the ability for not just strong returns for those businesses but money to be put back into the local economy.

There are also concerns about freight. It is no secret that my electorate of Lowan and most areas of rural and regional Victoria host the worst roads not just in the state but arguably in Australia. If we are looking at trucking out these mineral sands resources, we are going to have more heavy vehicle traffic on our highways and on some of our private roads. How will our roads stand up to that when our roads are riddled with potholes and crumbling edges already?

We also have substandard access to the rail system because it has been neglected for such a long period of time by Labor. We have should have routes to port, down through to Portland, which are able to carry freight. Having rail services that could carry passengers as well – passenger rail – would be nice for my region. I always sit back and listen to other members of this place who are complaining because there are not enough rail services or railway stations or there are not enough stops on their line. We do not even have a train service in western Victoria – 20 per cent of the state, no rail services. And why is that? Paul Keating’s One Nation project.

Paul Keating’s One Nation project was to standardise rail across Australia. He did not fund the whole thing, so we have got standardised rail which goes down to Geelong and the Ballarat line was never standardised. Therefore we have this situation where the rail gauge changes just south of Ararat at Maroona and you cannot get a set-gauge rail service through the region.

There is a simple solution: get a passenger rail train with an adjustable bogie and we could have rail services going not just to Horsham but perhaps further towards the border and perhaps even through to South Australia – head through Ballarat, perhaps additional services for Wendouree, and then head right through to Melbourne. It is a simple solution. It is a low-cost solution. It would be a very straightforward fix and something that would ensure that people who have not got access to good public transport and reliable public transport in my electorate of Lowan would have access to public transport and rail transport so they could do work, perhaps do their studies for university or school if people were off to boarding school, usually in Ballarat, or they could just sit with their family, perhaps have a nap and have a safe trip on their journey to Melbourne or Ballarat for the footy, to go shopping or just to visit friends and family. It is something that is important and has not been forgotten by me.

There are solutions to the concerns in my region about mineral sands. I have lost count of the number of letters of representation I have written to the Premier, to the Minister for Planning, to the Minister for Environment and to the Minister for Energy and Resources. There are simple bits of information that should be provided. I cannot exaggerate – I do not think it is possible to do so – the stress and anxiety that the lack of this information from the government has caused in my community. We need additional mental health support in my part of the state to support people through the journey around what mineral sands mining looks like. Even if it does not go ahead, we need additional mental health support. We still do not have a mental health local in Horsham, as was promised as part of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. Our region needs some support right now.

But more than that they need factual information that is accessible and reliable, which is why I have called for an office of Resources Victoria to be established in Horsham. It is in the middle of the Wimmera, which is the heart of where all the mineral sands resources are at the moment. I would envisage that this office would be a place where members of the community could get reliable information on any permits through the region, any licensing, an understanding of the EES process and how they can give input to that, the current stage of development for the various mining operators through the region who have got a presence and also information about what the government is doing in terms of monitoring radiation from these mines and ensuring there is not dust that could contaminate crops or impact on the health of our community.

We need general information out there that is accessible around the rehabilitation process. Who signs off that land is to be rehabilitated, and who will provide assurance that the bond system is up to date? We do not have a lot of understanding of the value of the bond that is held by the government and how that is released, and it is felt that it is very much biased towards mining operators. This is all very straightforward information, but it has been very, very difficult to source, not just from writing directly to ministers but the website is in very technical language and set out in a very complex way. It is not accessible, and I think it would take a lot of stress out of the community if there was an office in the Wimmera. A further thing that I would ask for is more education. I would love a presence of the earth resources regulator or Resources Victoria, for example, at the Wimmera Machinery Field Days between 4 and 6 March, an important event for our local community.

We also need concepts of fairness for farmers. They feel like there is going to be compulsory acquisition of the land; they feel like they are going to be driven off their farms. This is causing enormous stress. We need to ensure that there is a framework around a dislocation fee available and a compulsory ability that if farmers want to sell their land, mining companies have to set a high and a premium price for that land. Most importantly, we need to ensure that the government is listening. Please come out and speak to my community, take some of the stress out of our community around mineral sand mining and provide information that is trusted.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (11:59): I rise today to contribute on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025. At 48 pages, this is a pretty standard omnibus bill which makes simple changes to numerous acts – I think around 14 acts if I have counted correctly – in order to support effective and efficient regulation and ensure consistency with other legislation. It streamlines processes, reduces administrative burdens and corrects minor errors. In other words, we are trying to make sure that the legislation works for all Victorians and makes Victoria a better place to live, work and do business.

Over the last 10 years we have reviewed and reformed regulations in liquor, environmental protection, essential services, electricity, building and construction, health, planning, consumer affairs, fee pricing, owners corporations and a lot more. We have legislated regulatory improvements to automatic mutual recognition, cladding safety, wage theft, gender equality and casino and gambling laws, as well as well as worker screening processes, green energy and greater energy market protections, just to name a few, and we have reduced Victoria’s regulatory burden by about 25 per cent.

Local governments will be able to better manage the potential risk posed by dangerous, menacing and restricted breeds of dogs. Amendments to the Domestic Animals Act 1994 requiring the owners to notify local governments if the dog dies or is relocated will ensure that local councils have accurate mapping of where these dogs are and the current details to inform compliance and enforcement activities. It also means that councils will have better data on the location of these dangerous dogs, helping to keep our community safe. I just want to refer to the contribution by the member for Albert Park about the dangerous dogs that she or her mother encountered in regard to her mother’s dog. We must make sure that with dangerous dogs the owners take greater responsibility. Unfortunately, there are some people in our communities that use these dangerous dogs just to intimidate other members of the community.

Our public officials will be empowered to better protect members of our community with amendments to the Adoption Act 1984, which allows the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety to not disclose certain adoption information when they believe it may increase the risk of harm to another person, including family violence. Further amendments will allow the secretary to notify or seek consent from a party, thereby alerting a person in certain cases when a request for adoption information is received and when the secretary believes this action would increase the risk of harm.

Natural relatives of an adopted person, such as siblings, aunts, uncles and grandparents, will be able to receive identifying information about an adopted person for the purposes of reunification, and that is a good thing. As it stands, natural relatives are eligible to receive only non-identifying information about an adopted person, which reflects the ongoing shame and stigma of historical forced adoptions at the time the Adoption Act was introduced. This prevents natural relatives from identifying the child’s adoptive parents or the whereabouts of the adoptive parents or the adoptive person, and this is especially important for members of the stolen generations. We anticipate that this reform will allow many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who were forcibly removed from their families and their descendants to reconnect with their communities, their families, their country and of course their culture, and this is so important. The amendment is consistent with the 2021 parliamentary inquiry into responses to historical forced adoptions. It recognised the grief and the trauma caused by historical forced adoptions, which most of us here would never, ever understand or appreciate, and the importance of improving access to adoption records and information for those that have been affected.

One of the other things that this bill goes to is illegal waste dumping. In my local area of Melton we see on the sides of the roads much waste dumped, unfortunately, particularly things like mattresses and other rubbish that is carelessly dumped on roadsides, in particular in places like along the Melton Highway. I have had several constituents contact me to report illegal waste dumping near their houses, and again, as I said, along the highways and the back roads of my electorate. Some of the other concerns that have been raised have been around building sites and the dumping on building sites.

People seem to think that they have a right to dump rubbish wherever they want, whether that be on building sites or the side of the road. Personally I feel that the penalties for waste and rubbish dumping, regardless of where it is, should be much, much heftier. I think it is a terrible act just to dump rubbish anywhere you like, and it shows complete disregard for the environment.

Changes to the Environment Protection Act 2017 will mean that people and businesses that illegally dump rubbish are more likely to be caught. Currently the EPA can pursue the owner of a vehicle only when it is unable to identify the driver of the vehicle. This means the EPA is unable to pursue companies that are deliberately and systemically dumping waste as a business practice, often in large quantities. I should say that we experienced a situation like this at the back of our place, where a whole heap of rubble and rubbish was dumped – there is a creek at the back of our place – many truckloads of it, illegally. We pursued the offenders – this was some years ago – and quite hefty penalties were applied, and they had to clean it up at great cost, I am pleased to say. They had complete disregard – they just took it upon themselves to drop truckloads of rubbish and rubble at the back of our property, on a creek bed, unfortunately. These amendments will allow the Environment Protection Authority Victoria to pursue a business or business owners where a vehicle owned by that business has been used to illegally dump waste. Again I make reference to the penalties that apply, and I think they should be a lot harsher in relation to people thinking they can just get away with it and that they have a right to dump rubbish.

This is a significant new bill that introduces amendments across multiple legislative frameworks. These changes aim to improve, as we say, regulatory efficiency and enhance protections for individuals and businesses, and they align existing laws with contemporary governance standards. One of the primary objectives of the bill is to reinforce regulatory oversight and enforcement mechanisms. The amendments include things like establishing a clear six-year limitation period for civil penalty proceedings, ensuring accountability while providing regulatory certainty; under the Domestic Animals Act 1994, restoring penalty provisions for offences related to seized animals and mandating notification requirements for owners of dangerous or restricted dog breeds; under the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, enhancing the framework for Aboriginal child welfare services by allowing non-Aboriginal siblings to be included in Aboriginal agency oversight, improving continuity of care; enhancing environmental protections and corporate accountability – and I went to that before about the dumping of rubbish; and under the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990, enhancing protections for commercially sensitive information, ensuring confidentiality in regulatory processes. There are many changes in this bill to make acts better, cleaning up acts to make it easier for Victorians.

A number of changes aim to reduce administrative burdens, improve digital governance and online legislation with contemporary operational practices. It allows Service Victoria to charge fees for its services, ensuring financial sustainability of digital service delivery. As we say, there are many, many changes to these acts – 14 acts in total. It removes outdated references to, say, paper-based conveyancing, modernises fee structures and clarifies regulatory authority. This is an important bill. I commend the minister responsible for this bill, and I commend the bill to the house.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (12:09): I rise to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025. In the second-reading speech for this regulatory reform bill, these regulatory reforms are proposed by the Allan Labor government and are supposedly designed to increase economic productivity, make it easier to do business in Victoria and protect consumers, community health and safety and the environment – very, very noble ideals that the state of Victoria absolutely urgently needs.

Economically Victoria is on its knees, and we would be thrilled if this bill actually achieved some of these worthy aims, and I sincerely hope it does. I suspect that this is instead just tinkering around the edges of nearly 40 regulations across 16 acts. It is an omnibus bill that is very much about administrative fix-ups covering multiple portfolios. There are some good things in this – I am not disputing that – particularly around the adoption law changes, but we have seen no evidence from this government in the last decade that the government has done anything but increase regulatory burden, and Victorians are certainly suffering as a result of that. We are seeing businesses just absolutely exit the state. The figures do not lie. The evidence is clear.

Frankly, this is a missed opportunity. This bill could have done so much more. There are so many opportunities where the government could have improved business efficiencies. They could start with how the government handles Crown leases, for example. In south-west Victoria there are a few examples I would like to raise, including the Princess Margaret Rose Cave near the South Australian border, the Robin Boyd-designed visitor centre at Tower Hill and the Port Fairy golf club.

The Princess Margaret Rose Cave has been closed to the public since 2021 when the private lessee could not get the government to engage with them effectively. They eventually walked away as they could not secure a lease, which meant they could not offer contracts to employees because they themselves had no security You just cannot do business in that sort of environment. There were too many frustrations in dealing with the Allan Labor government. The government needs to reduce the regulatory red tape to make leases more commercially attractive and ensure that processes are less onerous so people will consider opening up public assets like the Princess Margaret Rose Cave.

Regulatory red tape is holding back business. We need to ensure these leases are dealt with in a timely manner because assets like Princess Margaret Rose Cave cannot be reopened due to those overly burdensome, onerous factors. Access for the public to enjoy natural assets has diminished under the Labor government. The Allan Labor government has been completely inept at managing leases. We have seen examples in Nelson, as well as the Princess Margaret Rose Cave, where we have seen the bait shed go through the same thing and leave. The general store in Nelson has closed too, and they have lost access to the local shop. It is not an isolated situation, and the government’s lack of understanding of how to do business is quite evident.

Businesses need security of tenure before they can invest in a business and make sure they get a return. The government is not offering this when they will not engage. The cave is located near the South Australian border. It has had $650,000 worth of state tax money invested in it, yet it still sits closed in February 2025. The truth is that the government have not issued a new lease that we know of, and the fact remains that the asset is closed.

Another one is the tourist attraction in South-West Coast of the Robin Boyd-designed visitor centre at Tower Hill. This is a place that has been at the heart of my family’s Sunday afternoons since I was a very little girl. I now take international visitors there because you can be guaranteed to see a koala, an echidna, an emu, a kangaroo and often even a snake. It is a wonderful part of the world where you are really guaranteed to entertain anyone. In 1962 a distinctive circular building at Tower Hill was designed by famed architect Robin Boyd. It was completed in 1969. It is a beautiful building, and it curves with the landscape and has a volcano crater and harmonises the natural landscape. It has been used as a visitor centre, but in 2023 it had some conservation works done on it. Those are now complete but the centre sits vacant and closed to the public – another public asset closed. With a bit of imagination and some commercial acumen and effort it could be a visitor centre again with a kiosk and a gift shop, but that would require the Allan Labor government to grant a commercially attractive lease and provide an opportunity for someone entrepreneurial to increase the amenity of the area. Instead the government is mired in red tape. Everything is too hard, and that is what the community continue to tell me: it is all too hard, it requires too much effort. They urgently need to get some basic get-up-and-go so these can be addressed.

The Port Fairy golf club have been trying to finalise their lease for some time, and the excuse given by the government is the delay is because of COVID. During COVID the golf club reported to me the government said that they were two years behind.

Imagine in a residential context if a renter was out of lease for a few years. The real estate agent just could not get away with it. If it would not be acceptable for them, why is it acceptable for the government? This means the club has to get a permit to do something as simple as fix a sprinkler. Seriously, is this bureaucracy gone mad? It is the opposite of efficiency. They are filling out forms, paying staff to do their job but they have to get a permit for something like that. This is a golf club of volunteers who are running a board and weeding the land that borders them so that they do not get the weeds from the Crown land close to the coast on the golf course, which is also Crown land. This saves the government money because you can see that there is a win-win for the golf course if they keep their area clean and free of weeds.

The government should be congratulating them and thanking them, but I am told the government are just making it really, really hard. Of course the government has the monopoly. They are the monopoly provider of leases for public assets, so the community do not want to upset the government, because what if they kick them out? That is what they are frightened of. There is a real power imbalance and the government is using bullying tactics. We have seen that in Port Fairy – they are sending negotiators from Melbourne who do not even understand golf, is what was reported to me, let alone the realities of working with the land. It is a really unfair situation, and I urge the government to just get on with getting that lease sorted.

As well as managing leases, though, the Allan Labor government are completely inept at managing pest control, and this bill talks about changes to environmental management. We have got natural assets such as walking trails, caves, public golf courses and parks being absolutely overrun by rabbits. If anyone has been to South-West Coast of late and has gone for a walk down the beach at Portland, Port Fairy or Warrnambool, they will have seen rabbits galore. When I walk down to the coast in Warrnambool I play this game of count the rabbits. I get to the railway line through the cutting and there is always at least 20 just sitting there, right next to you. It is absolutely out of control, and they are doing enormous damage to the natural environment.

Another example is Ralphs Bridge on the Great South West Walk. Access for the public to enjoy a natural asset certainly has diminished under the Labor government. It is completely inept at managing these assets. The Great South West Walk in mid 2023 had a tree fall on a footbridge. It took seven months for that committee of volunteers to get permission to remove the tree that had fallen on the bridge – seriously, to pick up a dead tree and take it off a bridge so that they could fix it. They still cannot get any action to fix the bridge and it is nearly 19 months on. It is absolutely bureaucracy at its bloated worst. It is simply tedious. Local volunteers, who built this 40 years ago themselves, who know it like the back of their hands, who do not want the environment ruined by big trucks coming in and bringing in a new bridge, have said, ‘We can repair it ourselves.’ But, no, no. The government knows best. So here we are 18 months later, after an engineer has assessed the site and promised a report and after a year they finally had an insurance claim lodged. Imagine waiting for a year to get your car back if you lodged your insurance claim a year later. It is just berserk. This is the government’s insurance organisation. We have all these volunteers who built this 40 years ago still waiting for an answer 19 months later to fix a footbridge. Honestly, it is berserk. The government needs to get on with replacing a simple footbridge that has been sitting there for four decades. Immediate action is needed to restore this treasured walk.

The government really have a long history of terrible management – their vegetation management on the sides of roads – all where they need to be setting an example. They could deliver a much better outcome. Instead we have this hopeless incompetence in managing public assets such as Ralphs Bridge on the Great South West Walk and the Princess Margaret Rose Cave, which sits idle and is closed, the same with the Robin Boyd-designed centre. As far as the Port Fairy golf course goes, surely they have not got people waiting to take on that lease. It has been there forever. It is an iconic golf course. Get on with helping the volunteers, not hindering them.

Josh BULL (Sunbury) (12:19): I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to make a contribution on this important piece of legislation that goes to making sure that we are providing for a better, fairer system when it comes to reform and making sure through these 14 amendments to the acts that I will go through shortly that we are delivering and fine-tuning, if you like, an opportunity for those acts to be reformed. I will make some remarks shortly on the 14 acts.

I did just want to point out the fact that the business of government is making sure that we are delivering some long-term reforms but also the big projects. Many of those opportunities, initiatives and investments this government has made over 10 years now – whether that be the Metro Tunnel, whether that be removing level crossings or whether that be making upgrades to local community facilities, investing in community hospitals, or our broader investment in hospitals such as Footscray and Frankston. We are making sure that we are delivering those projects. But coming back and circling back to what is also in the can, we are making sure that we are looking to existing legislation that has already been through the house. Creating a fairer, better system is something that we should be focused on.

I was just in a meeting earlier, having some discussions around the EPA, and there are some provisions of course within this bill that go to the important work of the EPA. We are making sure that we are working with local communities to provide for the very best possible environmental settings as we balance that equation – often a fine line of an equation – of community sentiment, growth, challenges with the environment and the delivery of safe and efficient energy and waste with the important work of the EPA in balancing those things as we as a state grow by more than 150,000 people per year. For growth corridors like mine out in Sunbury, we are making sure that we are doing that in a way that protects our environment. These are challenges that will continue to come through the doors of any government, no matter the political persuasion. Making sure that reforms such as those contained in this legislation, but also for the other acts as well, is indeed something that is critically important.

We want to make sure through the reform process and through bills such as this – despite some of the theatrics and carry-on from those opposite – that we have the very best reforms in place so that both business and industry have an opportunity to act in a whole number of ways that make our state fairer, better and stronger and, on the journey, create jobs. These reforms are important. I have touched on the reforms that are contained around the Environment Protection Act. The legislation also contains amendments to the Domestic Animals Act 1994, ensuring that we will empower councils with better data on the location of dangerous dogs – I have heard other members speak about that this afternoon – and that goes to community safety and helping keep our community safe. There are amendments to the Adoption Act 1984 to remove barriers to help families who have experienced forced adoptions to reunite – yet again, another important step that goes to fairness and that goes to supporting families. Of course making sure that those provisions are in place is indeed important.

There are amendments around the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Act 2023 which go to the protection of commercially sensitive information provided by licence-holders in their workplaces, aiming to support effective and efficient regulation. Those changes, and those surrounding other acts, go to the premise of both protection and the importance of listening to community along the journey, a recognition that the government’s work is never done. We need to always make sure we are going back in and reviewing both the legislation and the framework that surrounds the legislation, and in this instance the many reforms that are in place, to make sure that they are as good as they can be. Acting Speaker Farnham, as you know in your community, and as I am sure other members know, right throughout both houses of the Parliament, circumstances change. Global economies change, populations move, peoples’ circumstances change in communities, and we need to be responsive to that.

Having an opportunity to be able to do that work via this piece of legislation – and I understand this is the third piece of legislation that the government has brought in in terms of reform and a reform-style omnibus bill – is indeed important for making business and living in our state much, much better.

There are of course those amendments which go to supporting local communities and those that I touched on earlier with the EPA. We are making sure that we are indeed listening to our departments along that journey and bringing legislation through the Parliament to build on that record of reform over the last 10 years, having reviewed and reformed regulations in liquor, environmental protection, essential services, electricity, building and construction, health, planning, consumer affairs, fee pricing, owners corps and more. And there is legislation that goes to regulatory improvements for – and I heard this mentioned earlier as well by other members – cladding, wage theft, gender equality and casino and gambling laws, as well as worker screening processes, green energy and greater energy market protections, to name a few.

That all builds to reducing regulatory burden. We are just, as we so often do in this great chamber, going to have to agree to disagree on those changes when it comes to regulatory burden. We are making sure that through the reforms we help, kickstart and support business. I heard other members mention the Business Acceleration Fund. Of course we are making sure that we are providing for those settings to support the important work that is done as our economy grows and as our state grows. This is very important work that the government will do today, next week and every day that we are given the great privilege and opportunity to be on this side of the house. Making sure that that work is done builds upon a broader plan across health, education, transport and right across every portfolio of the ministers on the front bench. Every single member on this side of the house should have focused in their mind an opportunity to make sure that we are investing, that we are supporting and that we are listening to local communities.

I will finish where I started. It is about striking a balance, and it is about striking a balance between community needs, which is of course listening to community, and making sure that we have got the policy settings in place to continue to be the best state in this nation and to make sure that we are delivering on the commitments that we took to the last election. Of course those are commitments that will be delivered, and we will continue to make sure that we are working right across those portfolio areas to work through the processes and the systems both of the Parliament and with the budget, which is just in a couple of months, to ensure that we are supporting every single Victorian to have the opportunities in life that they are rightfully entitled to – opportunities to live in their local community, enjoy their local community, have fun along the journey and do all of those things that we know Victorians love to do.

Although this bill may not be a show stopper and my speech may not be a show stopper –

Cindy McLeish: Come on, Josh. Don’t undersell yourself, mate.

Josh BULL: thank you, Cindy; you are very kind – this bill is important. It is an important piece of work from the Parliament. With those very short comments I commend the bill to the house.

Tim READ (Brunswick) (12:29): There is a lot in this bill, and the Greens are looking at the whole bill in detail to determine our position. But today I would like to speak on part 4, the amendment of the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Act 2021. This part of the bill clarifies penalties relating to the circular economy act, including several penalties relating to operators of waste incinerators or thermal waste-to-energy facilities, to use the government’s preferred euphemism. The Greens and I have made no secret of the fact that we are absolutely opposed to the use of incinerators as a way of dealing with Victoria’s rubbish problem. Setting fire to our rubbish is a decidedly outdated way of dealing with it. It is more polluting and expensive than any other form of energy except coal, it produces mountains of toxic ash that create serious health risks for workers and surrounding communities and it undermines Victoria’s move towards a circular economy.

We have an opportunity here to learn from rather than repeat the mistakes of the rest of the world. Particularly in Europe, the path of incineration is well worn, and they are now moving away from it due to the many problems it has caused. Denmark, for example, was becoming so reliant on waste-to-energy incinerators that it imported nearly a million tonnes of rubbish from other countries in 2018 alone. They realised of course that this was no way to cut their emissions and that their reliance on waste incineration was actively undermining investment in waste reduction and recycling systems. So now they are shutting down their incinerators one by one, improving their waste collection services instead.

Why should we go through all the trouble of building something very like fossil fuel plants in disguise only to rip them up later when we could learn from the Danish and take the much better route of investing in a truly circular economy? As Danish waste authority Jens Hjul-Nielsen said in 2020:

… if you don’t have incineration plants today, you should start with recycling.

To put it another way, the best time to decommission a waste incinerator is before it is built.

I am not giving up hope that the Victorian government will see the light on waste to energy and consign this bad idea to the rubbish pile of history. Local communities and a number of Labor’s own MPs who have made their opposition clear would certainly breathe a sigh of relief, but if the government must insist on building and running these ill-advised incinerators in Lara and Wollert and elsewhere, then I must insist that they expand on the list of banned items referred to in this bill that cannot be burned in any waste-to-energy facility.

This bill specifies penalties for waste incineration operators who put banned waste through their facilities. I am glad to see there is a list of banned items and there will be fines in place to try to prevent this, but let us talk about what banned waste actually means. Section 74L of the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Act 2021 defines banned waste as:

(a) waste other than permitted waste or exempt waste; and

(b) eligible containers …

in the context of Victoria’s container deposit scheme.

To understand banned waste and therefore to understand the circumstances under which an operator might be penalised under this bill we need to first understand the Victorian government’s definitions of ‘permitted waste’ and ‘exempt waste’. According to the Victorian Waste to Energy Framework:

Permitted waste is waste that can be used for thermal waste to energy under a cap licence. It includes:

• residual municipal waste from a council that has at least a three-bin kerbside system in place and collects waste in accordance with any applicable regulations.

• commercial waste that has been source-separated in accordance with any existing legislation or regulations, or can be demonstrated through a market assessment to be impracticable to recycle, even after sorting.

I am incredulous at this last point – the government’s own framework defers to the market to say what is recyclable rather than available technology or a commitment to improving our waste system. If the financial costs of reusing and recycling certain types of waste are too high, then according to Victorian government those types of waste can just be chucked into incinerators and forgotten. Of course this waste is not really forgotten, not by the environment, which has to absorb the greenhouse gases emitted by the transport and incineration processes, and certainly not by the local communities dealing with the toxic ash and chemicals from these incinerators, but it is forgotten by the companies getting rich from producing, throwing away and burning their waste, because they will not be held accountable for any of that.

And how about ‘exempt waste’? Going back to that framework:

Exempt waste is waste that can be used for thermal waste to energy outside of a cap licence. It includes:

• certain streams of dry or fibrous waste biomass that are suitable for thermal bioenergy.

• hazardous waste.

So on top of the Victorian government doubling the cap of waste allowed to be burnt in these incinerators from 1 million to 2 million tonnes, operators will not even need to count these types of waste, much less find better solutions than simply setting them on fire. So yes, this bill provides penalties for operators who put banned waste through their incinerators, but the government’s definition of ‘banned waste’ does not seem altogether meaningful from a perspective of caring for the environment and local communities.

If we have to do this – and again for me that is a big if – if the government insists we have to, then let us at least improve it. For a start, banned waste should specifically include materials that are able to be recycled with existing processes, including cardboard packaging, rigid plastic packaging, ferrous and nonferrous metals, wearable clothing and mattresses, regardless of whether these come from municipal or commercial collections, and certainly without the loophole that companies can just send them to the fire if recycling them is deemed too expensive.

I should emphasise that the penalties in this bill are of little value without proper enforcement. It is important that this does not just become another bit of legislation on the books. I urge the government to save themselves a lot of time, money, emissions and community backlash by scrapping these incinerators and investing in genuine circular economy solutions instead. They might feel embarrassed to walk back their plans, but surely it is not as embarrassing as stumbling through the same costly mistakes that many other countries have already learned from. But as a very distant second choice, I urge them to consult with waste experts to expand the list of banned waste to make it stronger, more comprehensive and free of loopholes that cost-cutting companies could exploit and to review and revise the list of banned items periodically to update it in line with emerging recycling technology.

Luba GRIGOROVITCH (Kororoit) (12:37): It gives me great pleasure to get up and speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025. This bill is about amending a multitude of existing regulations, so there is no single subject matter. The bill makes amendments to over 14 acts of Parliament that provide simple, straightforward and uncontroversial improvements to the legislation that I am sure all sides of Parliament can get behind.

The comments from the speaker just before me, the member for Brunswick, urged ministers and the relevant parties to make sure that they have done their research. I can say from the briefings that I have been in that that has certainly happened and we have definitely consulted with a number of community groups, so I absolutely commend this bill to the floor. It provides important benefits, ensuring that Victoria has clearer, fairer and more modern laws and regulations for all Victorians while also strengthening the regulatory tools available to agencies that protect our environment as well as consumers.

Unlike those opposite who are ideologically opposed to regulation, we know that good regulation is good for both businesses and communities. When Labor came to government in 2014 we inherited a regulatory system that was in crisis. The previous government slashed indiscriminately at regulations which were created to protect Victorian citizens and businesses. But this Labor government has a plan and we are delivering it. These amendments fine-tune legislation so that it reflects the modern needs of business, the community and government. The amendments aim to support effective and efficient regulation; promote consistency with other legislation and existing policies; streamline processes and reduce administrative burden for businesses, departments, agencies and regulators; correct technical errors; and make minor updates to legislation. These bills are important because they help government to continuously undertake regulatory reform so that Victoria is a better place to not only live but to work and to do business.

Here are the things that the legislation will do. First of all, we have got the amendments to the Domestic Animals Act 1994, which of course is keeping all of us safe in our communities. It will ensure that we empower councils with better data on the location of dangerous dogs, which helps to keep our community safe. There are amendments to the Environment Protection Act 2017 which will make it quicker and easier for both businesses and individuals to do the right thing and to be refunded financial assurances to be paid to the EPA. We are also amending the 2017 Environment Protection Act to allow the EPA to charge a business owner where their registered vehicle has been used to illegally dump waste. There have been some examples of illegal waste dumping in recent times, and this reform will better protect our communities, including in our national parks where some of this illegal dumping is occurring and on the side of freeways as the member for Melton mentioned.

Amendments to the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 will also protect commercially sensitive information provided by licence-holders in their work plans. We are amending the Essential Services Commission Act 2001 to provide the Essential Services Commission with the power to commence civil penalty proceedings within six years from the date on which a contravention occurred. This will give enough time for contraventions to come to light and give the ESC sufficient time to undertake complex investigations and of course to protect consumers.

Amendments to the Adoption Act 1984 will remove barriers to help families who have experienced forced adoption to reunite. Amendments to the Adoption Act 1984 will also allow the responsible secretary to refuse to disclose certain information where they responsibly believe it may jeopardise someone’s life or physical safety or cause an individual harm. This is a critical reform that will mean we can better protect individuals where there is potential risk of family violence. Importantly, this bill will allow natural relatives to access identifying information about the adopted person to allow natural relatives to be reunited. This is an important amendment that will help people impacted by forced adoptions, including survivors of the stolen generations, to connect with their biological families, a fundamental human need which has been denied through no fault of their own.

This bill amends the Transfer of Land Act 1958 and the Subdivision Act 1988 to allow for the collection of fees in line with Victoria’s pricing-for-value guidelines. This is a necessary reform that recognises that the diligent work of the registrar has been undertaken with every transaction, whether it is withdrawn, amended or rejected. Amendments to the Housing Act 1983 will ensure that regulators are not collecting unnecessary data from community housing providers, helping to keep sensitive banking information with its owners. Amendments to the Electricity Industry Act 2000 remove unnecessary reporting requirements for licensed electricity sellers. Amendments to the Water Act 1989 will allow water corporations to serve notice of a board meeting by electronic means. This is another simple example of the way in which we are making sure that existing legislation reflects the modern way in which we govern, correcting technical errors and of course making minor updates.

Over the last 10 years the Victorian Labor government has reviewed and reformed regulations in liquor, environment protection, essential services, electricity, building and construction, health, planning, consumer affairs, fee pricing, owners corp and more. We have legislated regulatory improvements to automatic mutual recognition, cladding safety, wage theft, gender equality and casino and gambling laws as well as worker screening processes, green energy and greater energy market protections, just to name a few, and we have reduced Victoria’s regulatory burden by 25 per cent. Our government’s record in regulation stands comparison with that of those opposite any day of the week.

Our government invests in regulatory reform because we know that good reform needs a kickstart. That is why we established the Business Acceleration Fund, and ultimately this is about giving business owners more time. Funded projects are estimated to grow Victoria’s economy by over $450 million per year and give back Victorians nearly 330,000 days per year in saved time. We have simplified Victoria’s food safety requirements, saving 25,000 businesses nearly 40,000 days per year in preparing and managing food safety programs. That is time that they can now use to grow their business.

We have streamlined Heritage Victoria permits for low- and no-harm applications, including removing the need for some permits altogether, saving 6000 businesses 91,000 days a year, speeding up approvals to get houses built quicker and cheaper and of course increasing our housing supply. We have digitised applications and approvals at the conservation regulator, making it quicker and easier to process wildlife management permits, saving 11,000 agriculture businesses and individuals at least 678 days per year. And we have digitised licensing and approval for early childhood education and care providers, saving workers collectively 120 days per year of time. We have streamlined screening checks for NDIS workers, saving 2800 days per year for applicants, and we are getting these workers into jobs faster so that they can get on with supporting our disabled Victorians to live life with both dignity and respect.

We are also helping to get more workers into jobs sooner.

We have accelerated approvals for accrediting taxis and rideshare services, meaning that workers can get on the job four weeks sooner. We have replaced the labour-intensive, paper-based national police check with a digital certificate and we have digitised working with children checks to make it easier for workers to show their credentials to employers and of course get a job sooner. We have partnered with local governments across the state to streamline and digitise their approval systems, making it simpler and faster for local Victorian businesses to have their applications processed as well as making it quicker and simpler for Victorians to apply for and receive a building permit from their local council.

Then we go to homes. We are delivering more homes for young people, families and downsizers around train stations and tram stops in Melbourne’s inner suburbs; this builds on the 10 initial pilot centres. We are undertaking a review to make it easier, faster and cheaper for Victorians to divide their blocks and build more homes. By making it easier for home owners to subdivide their land, it will be easier for Victorians to find a home in an established suburb if that is what they choose to do, closer to transport, jobs, schools and services. In late 2024 our government released a landmark plan for 27 additional greenfield areas across Melbourne’s outer south-east, north and west to be released over the next 10 years, committing to providing the space and completing the planning work to deliver 180,000 new homes over the decade.

Our government has no less strong a record in supporting our pets and their owners as well as improving animal welfare in our state. We have banned cruel puppy farms, with the strictest breeding rules in the country, and we have given renters the right to keep a pet. Victoria has become the first state to introduce mandatory reporting of animal fate data for dogs and cats in both shelters and pounds.

This government’s record of achievement is both in reforming our state and in regulatory reform, and it is one that we can be immensely proud of. This bill goes to enriching the lives of Victorians, and I commend this bill to the house.

Jess WILSON (Kew) (12:47): I too rise on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025, and I note that this bill contains largely administrative and housekeeping measures that the coalition will not be opposing.

I want to speak about one amendment in particular to begin with, which relates to the Domestic Animals Act 1994. I met last year with a constituent in the electorate of Kew who very sadly lost her dog after he was attacked by another dog. The constituent was very, very concerned – and I raised this with the Minister for Agriculture at the time – that the Domestic Animals Act does not provide enough guidance to councils when it comes to actually declaring dangerous dogs. Sadly, this incident was preceded by multiple threatening encounters with the same dog over a number of years, and then it tragically ended with the death of the constituent’s dog. Sadly, to the constituent’s disappointment and concern, Boroondara council did not declare the dog as a dangerous dog for the purpose of section 34 of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 following the fatal incident.

This section of the act indicates that a council may exercise a discretion to declare a dog dangerous if the dog has caused the death of or serious injury to a person or animal by biting or attacking that person or animal. However, as I said, there is no specific guidance as to how that discretion should actually be exercised by councils, and because of that Boroondara council has established their own internal assessment processes for declaring dogs dangerous, which it has informed me implement VCAT’s criteria. The constituent in this case is very concerned that this process is insufficient to prevent dogs such as the one that killed her dog from causing further harm.

I note that the bill before us today does make a number of amendments, and sensible amendments, to the Domestic Animals Act, one of those being that if an individual shifts between councils and their animal has been declared dangerous, councils must be notified, which was an issue that was raised in this case as the offending dog was shifting between councils. But it does not go as far to deal with the issues that I have outlined today around the declaration of dangerous dogs in particular, and I would suggest, as I have to the Minister for Agriculture previously, that we look at whether section 34 of the Domestic Animals Act should have be further reviewed and whether more specific guidance should be given to local councils as to how this section should be exercised so that councils are not left to themselves when it comes to implementing the criteria.

I think all of us in this place who have pets know that they are part of our family, and the loss of a pet can be absolutely heartbreaking. In this case it happened in such a tragic way in their own street with this dog that had caused the family much concern for many years, ultimately resulting in the fatality of their own dog. Again can I suggest to the minister that while the changes to the Domestic Animals Act are welcome in this piece of legislation, it is worthy of further review in terms of how we provide greater guidance to local councils to make sure that if there is an incident with a dog or any animal and there is a risk of that animal committing an incident again, then we look at how the guidance around declaring animals dangerous can give greater guidance to local councils.

More broadly on this piece of legislation, I would note that this is a bill that speaks to supposedly regulatory reform and removing the burden of red tape on businesses and industry in this state, yet it is very, very unclear from this piece of legislation and the number of amendments it makes to many pieces of legislation how the burden on business in this state will actually be alleviated through any of these reforms. Victoria has gone from what was once seen as one of the best regulatory systems a decade ago to one of the worst in the country. The Andrews government upon assuming power did dismantle key elements of the regulatory management system. It abolished red tape reduction targets. It abolished the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission. And the quality of regulatory impact statements has declined under this government. Indeed nearly 10 years ago the Auditor-General found:

… gaps and weaknesses in the review processes for new or renewed regulation have added or maintained red tape that has not been adequately tested to assure its necessity or efficiency. As there has been no central, coordinated oversight of these review processes, it is unclear to what extent untested regulation has negated the gains from red tape reduction programs.

This bill does absolutely nothing to reduce the layers of red tape that are crippling businesses in this state. You do not have to take my word for it. We have heard from those opposite a shopping list of reforms that have supposedly made it easy to do business in this state. But you only have to turn to the experts, those who actually operate businesses in this state. If I turn to the Business Council of Australia’s Regulation Rumble 2024, it ranked Victoria last for overall business settings and found:

With a low ranking for its property taxes and charges, payroll taxes, and business licencing requirements, the State has much room for improvement if it is to attract and generate business-driven growth.

Across specific areas impacting business conditions the survey ranked Victoria last for overall taxation, regulatory costs and trading regulations, with Victoria’s property tax settings the least competitive nationally. It was ranked seventh for overall licensing, administration and compliance issues; sixth for the cost of workers compensation schemes, with premiums above the national average – and we know how those premiums are hitting small businesses time and time again; and fifth for planning and building permitting systems. There is no doubt that businesses are suffering the highest regulatory burden in the nation under the Allan Labor government.

The BCA is not the only organisation belling the cat. Just turn to the NAB regulatory impact analysis. This was commissioned by the Department of Treasury and Finance, so it was a regulatory impact analysis actually commissioned by the government. It has only seen the light of day because we on this side of the house actually FOI-ed it to make sure that we could understand what the impacts were on businesses as a result of this analysis. The government were keen to hide it away, and let me tell you why they were keen to hide it away: because the survey found that Victorian businesses experienced the worst impact of state government regulation in the nation.

Victorian businesses experienced the most difficulty in complying with state government regulation, and the impact of state government regulation was most acutely felt in the manufacturing sector, followed by retail, wholesale and construction. Forty-five per cent of respondents identified compliance requirements as the driver of worse government regulatory impacts. This was a survey commissioned by the government and then put in the bottom drawer so it would not see the light of today because it revealed just how crippling red tape is in this state under the Allan Labor government.

If you do not want to listen to the BCA and you do not want to listen to NAB, then let us listen to the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. More than half of national businesses that the chamber surveyed said Victoria was the hardest place to do business in the country.

Putting all of that impact to one side, you would have thought today after listening to those opposite that there have been floods of red tape reform over the past decade. But we know that in fact the government has sat on red tape reforms worth up to $1.6 billion in savings for industry and business a year. This is what this bill should be about. It should be actually about reducing the red tape on business in this state to make it easier to do business and to ensure that those people in Victoria who put their livelihoods on the line to run their own small businesses are not hampered in doing so because of regulations put in place by this government.

The government sought advice on how to encourage departments to reduce the number of business licences in Victoria as part of this $1.6 billion, but they have not acted on it. Today we have in front of us a bill that does nothing to make it easier to do business in this state. Red tape is crippling Victorian industry, and it is because this government cannot manage money, and Victorian businesses and Victorians are paying the price.

Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (12:57): I rise to speak in support of the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025. This is a bill that makes amendments to over 14 acts of Parliament, providing simple, straightforward and uncontroversial improvements to legislation that reflect the evolving needs of government, business and the broader community. In my contribution to the bill, however, I would like to focus on changes contained in three of the acts before us, the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Act 2021, the Water Act 1989 and the Domestic Animals Act 1994.

We know that if we are to take the real action we need to on climate change and the environment and move towards a more sustainable future, we must double down on our efforts to recycle and move towards that circular economy, and the reforms contained in this bill as they relate to the circular economy act will allow us very much to continue that work in that regard. Since 2020 our circular economy strategy Recycling Victoria: A New Economy has driven systemic change and established strong foundations for a circular economy which aims to take waste out of the community. Through this strategy, which is underpinned by a record $515 million investment, we have of course introduced a range of new landmark measures across our homes and communities, including significant new recycling infrastructure, boosting capacity to process record volumes of material being increasingly recovered, the rollout of the four-stream household waste and recycling system via the introduction of the new purple bin to separate glass from plastics and cardboard and of course the rollout of the Victorian container deposit scheme, or the ‘cash for cans’ scheme.

It is anticipated that when combined these measures will help turbocharge our state’s circular economy and recycling and waste sectors in terms of economic output, job creation and of course sustainability outcomes. Via a $6.7 billion boost to the state economy, they will create at least 3900 new jobs across technology design, repair, development, material research, material usage, processing and handling. We will seek to divert a massive 80 per cent of waste away from landfill by 2030 while helping reduce carbon emissions across the sector by 50 per cent. To date these measures, you may be interested to hear, have resulted in over 1.7 million tonnes of newly installed waste and recovery capacity across the state, with a further 424,000 tonnes of capacity for processing to be installed by the end of 2025.

To date the measures have also created a significant boost for environmental sustainability and circular economy outcomes across my community of Merri-bek. When it comes to the introduction of the new purple glass kerbside bin, the then environment minister visited Merri-bek on 14 May 2023 to announce that Merri-bek would become the 13th municipality to complete the rollout of the kerbside purple glass bin. As a result of these reforms across Merri-bek during 2023–24, councils reported the following collection stats, which included 12,900 –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Order! At this point in time we are going to break for lunch.

Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:02 pm.

Business interrupted under standing orders.