Thursday, 10 February 2022

Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mr PEARSON:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:07): I rise to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021. This is an omnibus bill. It covers a variety of issues that are loosely held together under the umbrella of streamlining regulation. Though some of the proposed measures are not contentious, others are highly dangerous measures that have been slipped into the bill under the guise of being benign.

For background and in summary, changes are being made in response to the pandemic, including things like making changes to online meetings and AGMs, fee relief to accommodate loss of earnings and changes in relation to tobacco inspectors. There are also changes in relation to the world becoming more digital. Those changes relate to legislative requirements for public notices, a matter that I will be speaking about later; electoral maps being moved online; and changes in relation to pharmacies. There are also changes being made in relation to the teaching crisis in Victoria—changes in relation to the registration process, and I will speak about that matter later too. Finally, in substance, significant changes are being proposed to the electoral process—electoral reform—some of which include clarifying the number of posters that can be displayed, bans on mobile billboard advertising and, most dangerously, changes being made to the postal voting process, and I will speak about that in substance. There are also some other changes in relation to some tidying up.

A month ago President Biden gave a speech on protecting the right to vote, and in that speech he said:

… for the right to vote and to have that vote counted is democracy’s threshold liberty. Without it, nothing is possible, but with it, anything is possible.

And further, to them—the ‘them’ he was referring to were people undermining, in his view, that right:

… too many people voting in a democracy is a problem. So they’re putting up obstacles.

These electoral reforms proposed to postal voting are designed to create an obstacle to postal voting in Victoria. They are aimed at bastardising the availability of vote information and options available, including options and information available to the elderly and to the disabled—groups we know are the parts of the community that most benefit from the option of postal voting. If I can use an analogy we will all understand, the postal voting reforms proposed in this bill are designed to run sandpaper over the Victorian electoral cricket ball. They are aimed at squeezing the life out of postal voting. We will oppose this bill, and in government we will restore those rights for the community.

Almost 1 million people in Victoria receive information at each election about postal voting, primarily through political parties providing an application form to the community. Parties provide information to the community, and to a small degree—a very small degree—information is provided through the Victorian Electoral Commission. The best part of 1 million people at a state election would receive information that way and the electoral commission would provide information to, as it currently stands, roughly 80 000 people. 80 000 people are registered for a permanent postal vote and almost 1 million people receive information—paid for by the parties, mind you, not paid for by the taxpayer—through that process. This bill proposes to stop almost 1 million people receiving that information and cut it down to the 80 000 people or anybody who gets added to that list prior to the election. It is extraordinary and, as I started with, it flies in the face of what is happening in democratic systems around the world. It flies in the face of what other major countries, like the United States, are doing. In fact the United States is currently battling on these very issues, fighting on these very issues, and I will come back to that later.

To give some background further to those statistics on postal voting, of all votes cast at the last election 7.6 per cent were postal votes. There were roughly 3.5 million votes cast—3.7 million if you include everything that was knocked off—and 281 000 were cast via postal vote. So almost 300 000 people cast their vote by post. Think about that. Almost 300 000 people cast their vote by post, and the electoral commission has a list of 80 000 people.

You can see the difference between what the electoral commission will provide if these reforms are approved by the Parliament: the gap is not even a third compared with how many people cast their vote by post. And I think we all expect, and know, that the number of people who will vote prior to election day will only substantially increase. I understand the Australian Electoral Commission is anticipating half of all voters at the federal election will vote prior to election day, and we can all probably expect at least a similar number in Victoria. At the last election almost 300 000 people cast their vote by post, and we can expect a significant increase in all forms of prior-to-election-day voting. This reform will clearly put a dampener on that. It will bastardise that process.

Interestingly, out of the 3.5 million voters there were 119 complaints about postal voting. Even if you look at the almost 300 000 people that cast their vote by post, the number of complaints about postal voting was tiny, infinitesimally small, and we see proof of that point in the satisfaction rate of people who cast their vote by post. In fact postal voters were some of the most satisfied people of all voters in information provided by the electoral commission to this Parliament in a prior committee. Postal voters were happy with the process.

We also know that postal voting is on the increase. There was almost a static number change at the last election, but there certainly has been over time a substantial increase. And interestingly enough, the electoral commission noted that part of that increase—and I will refer to their submission to the committee of this Parliament:

… was due to the fact that some political parties had distributed information encouraging people over the age of 70 to apply for …

general postal vote status. The electoral commission confirmed that especially for people over the age of 70 there was an increase in participation because political parties had distributed information encouraging people to vote. And Labor knows that. The government knows that. That is what these reforms are about—these reforms are targeted political reforms to undermine the anti-Labor vote.

I mentioned earlier that under these reforms there will be significant restrictions on the way people can receive postal vote application information both through the list currently held by the electoral commission, which the commission advises me is 80 000 people, roughly speaking, and through Australia Post. Well, the electoral commission has advised the Parliament that ‘very few obtained their postal vote application from the post office’. It was 5 per cent at the last election.

When I asked in government briefings, noting this enormous reduction in information provided to the community, provided to the elderly, provided to the CALD communities, how this policy reform will address those concerns and what the election commission will do—I asked on notice for that information to be provided—you will be surprised to hear that the government did not answer that question. They have not answered the question. In the briefing their initial response was, ‘The CALD community can find out when they go to the post office to pick up an application form, and there could be alternative languages on the back of the form’. So they can find out they can apply when they fall into a post office, accidentally come across an application form, turn it around and perhaps find a language that they can read. I mean, you would almost have to fluke it, because only 5 per cent obtain their postal vote application through the post office anyway.

Mr Wakeling interjected.

Mr NEWBURY: They clearly will not know that it is there. It will be a fluke if people in the CALD community find out, and the government has no response—absolutely no response.

I mentioned earlier the number of complaints about postal voting. There were also specific complaints related to postal vote material—77, and I will put that into context. At the last election there was a total of 861 complaints made to the Victorian Electoral Commission, with 77 relating to complaints about political parties distributing postal vote applications—77 of 861. If I can refer to the Electoral Matters Committee report on the last election in relation to postal vote complaints, there was an infinitesimally small number of complaints relating specifically to the material that was provided. Of the 77, from memory five complaints were specific to the material inside. As the VEC said to the committee:

Five complainants were unsure if the material had come from the VEC or the Liberal Party but felt that it must be against the rules.

So of all the complaints received, which were from a very small number of the people who vote—3.5 million people voted, 861 people made a complaint, 77 people made a complaint about postal votes—five complainants were unsure about the difference between the material and a party. Five. On that hook the government has put this reform before the Parliament—using that hook.

We can see the debate going on in the United States at the moment about changes to voting rights. There have been extraordinary changes across the States to voting rights—extraordinary changes. In fact last year there were over 2200 election-related bills introduced into state legislatures. Thirty-eight states enacted at least one voting law reform last year. If you go to Voting Rights Lab’s recent report, A Tale of Two Democracies, 22 states enacted legislation to expand or improve mail voting, two states adopted new voter mail systems and 11 states enacted restrictions to that process, including restricting third-party ballot-related reforms, which is what we are talking about here.

I referred to President Biden’s remarks at the start of my contribution. If I can add further to that, and he is specifically talking about state reform here:

And what’s been the reaction of Republicans in Georgia? Choose the wrong way, the undemocratic way. To them, too many people voting in a democracy is a problem, so they’re putting up obstacles … voting by mail is a safe and convenient way to get more people to vote, so they’re making it harder for you to vote by mail.

‘They’re making it harder for you to vote by mail’. Further:

That’s not America. That’s what it looks like when they suppress the right to vote.

That is what this bill does. It is aimed at suppressing the right to vote. By contrast, in New South Wales, with four by-elections this coming weekend the New South Wales government empowered the electoral commission there to provide a postal vote pack to every elector. Talk about a sharp contrast to this state. We are ripping the option away. We are strangling the right—the government is proposing to strangle that right—and in New South Wales they are providing a vote pack to every single voter. And I will note the opposition there has been supportive, and they have also talked about the impact of reforms of this nature on the CALD community. They have been outspoken on that. To know that the government has provided no assurance to those communities—no assurance that they will not be disenfranchised in this state—is disgusting.

We will oppose this bill—we absolutely will oppose this bill—and in government we will restore those rights to the almost, at the last election, 1 million Victorians to receive the information they need to make a decision about how they vote. On this one measure alone Victorians should be concerned. Victorians should be concerned about the pattern of behaviour from this government in undermining democratic institutions, a government with a track record of closing Parliament and trying to kill electorate office attendance. I mean, this government’s record on democracy is shameful, absolutely shameful. It is not the only electoral reform. That one is the most pernicious, but there are also other reforms that do not make sense.

The Labor Party, in the committee stage of the 2018 state election inquiry, recommended that mobile billboards have a 100-metre ban from early voting centres, so of course the government has used its parliamentary power to pick that up as a reform in this bill. When questions were asked about that proposed reform and its workability, there were no answers. The proposed law does not provide any discretion; it just says that if a mobile billboard passes the 100-metre space, that is a breach. What about voting centres on main roads? That is a breach. It is a breach. It is totally unworkable.

I will now move to the publication element of the reforms, and this should have every regional member in this place concerned. Anyone who represents a regional community should be deeply, deeply concerned, because in simple terms what this bill does is it moves the publication requirements of certain government matters online.

Has anyone thought about what that does to regional media? Has anyone engaged? Because as far as I have seen, the engagement on this bill has been zip. I think departments have spoken to each other—I am sure that is the case—but regional media partly survives on some of these publications and the capacity for work to be published. And the local communities want it; the local townships want to read about what is happening in their community. I worked for a former Premier who would go back to front of his local newspapers, and he would know every single thing that was happening in that regard. I would refer the chamber to the Leader of the House’s comments in this place in June, when she said, with crocodile tears:

… the ongoing decline in the number of regional journalists and regional media outlets that is contributing to an ongoing diminution of the ability for regional communities and regional voices to have their stories told …

… we are witnessing the ongoing, sad decline of regional media newsrooms.

She then gives a whack to the federal government and says they should be focusing on support for regional journalism and regional newsrooms. I would say to the Leader of the House and the Labor Party: look at your own bill. What crocodile tears! The Leader of the House stood there and through crocodile tears wept for regional media, and then has been part of a cabinet that has spearheaded a knife through regional media. The Victorian Country Press Association wrote yesterday:

Regional news providers across Victoria including our own have deep concerns about—

this bill—

which will be presented to the Victorian Parliament in tomorrow’s sitting.

The reforms, if passed will take away the government legislated mandate for local councils to place their public notice and community information classifieds in regional Victorian local newspapers, taking away yet another revenue source and effectively negating even more council connection with their local communities. It will also potentially lead to all local government classified advertising migrating to a purpose-built government web platform. This could potentially remove local regional newspapers from receiving any local government advertising. Internet in country areas can be unreliable and unlike city folk, country people rely on their local paper for this information.

The Warragul Gazette said:

This Bill amendment I believe is happening tomorrow will be another huge nail in the coffin of regional publishing. The threat is real, that if this bill is passed that we, like many the regional publishers will be hundreds of thousands of dollars in ad revenue down, being redirected to a platform that provides no community interest, no investment in local jobs, no avenue to the community for council and political parties, and removes one of the primary roles a regional newspaper does which is be a source of local news and information for the community we serve.

Well, that is emphatic, isn’t it? And where is the Leader of the House now—protecting regional media? Trying to fix a Labor implosion, talking about who has been kicked out of Labor caucus—

Mr Wakeling interjected.

Mr NEWBURY: Yes, threatening to kick people out of Labor caucus. Instead of standing here talking about, through a members statement, what you think you should say, why don’t your actions meet your words instead of doing the exact opposite? This bill will hurt regional media, and every regional member—and as I look around there are very few in the chamber—should touch base with their outlet and ask them what effect this bill will have.

I would finally like to mention the reforms relating to the teacher shortage and quote from media reports:

Almost one in three secondary school teaching jobs in Melbourne’s north and west are going unfilled and teachers warn the situation will grow worse amid expected staffing shortages forced by the Omicron wave.

Further:

The Department of Education and Training report reveals specialist subjects including languages and technology are chronically short of qualified teachers, with roughly three in 10 advertised roles resulting in no appointment, while 20 per cent of advertised maths and science roles go unfilled.

And further:

… regions suffer the greatest recruitment challenges.

And where is the shortage? To quote another media report:

… the number of Victorian teachers applying for jobs in Queensland has grown from 0.1per cent in 2019 to 2.9 per cent this year.

This bill does attempt, almost three years into a pandemic, to address that. There is a crisis, just like there is a crisis in health, and this bill attempts almost three years into a pandemic to do something about it, so perhaps within the next year or two years there will be an effect, with the changes made in this bill. This bill is dangerous. This bill hides dangerous changes to the democratic system in what is being put up as an omnibus bill, a simple omnibus bill that makes regulatory reform. How many media releases have you seen about the bill and the electoral reform—how much fanfare from the government of fanfare? None. We will oppose this bill, and in government we will restore the right for people to choose to vote through post and provide them with the information they rightly deserve.

Mr STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (10:37): It is my great pleasure to rise to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021. This is a bill which covers a wide range of matters, as we have just heard, and it has very clear objectives: to modernise our regulatory system and support Victoria’s economic recovery. I will respond to some of the member for Brighton’s remarks around electoral reforms a little later in my contribution.

Small business owners, teachers, regional Victorians, Victorians with disability, Victorians in financial hardship and voters entering polling stations and voting booths—they are all, in my view, winners from this important piece of legislation. This is a bill that reduces physical waste and administrative burden. It introduces electoral reforms that will in fact strengthen democratic processes in Victoria. It will ensure our regulatory system is more efficient, effective, resilient and flexible, and it will make our regulatory system more responsive to current and future emergencies. There is always a need for appropriate regulation that keeps Victorians safe and prevents people from gaming the system, without adding unnecessary cost and red tape.

Before I get into it, I notice that the lead speaker, the member for Brighton, who I suppose was the lead speaker of the opposition because he is the Shadow Assistant Treasurer, has just left the chamber. He did not want to hear a clear rebuttal of the rubbish he spewed for 30 minutes. But given he is the Shadow Assistant Treasurer, it unfortunately does mean that I am going to have to sit through a lot of these very, very tired and annoying contributions on legislation for the rest of the year, which does not really do much for me, but nonetheless we will soldier on.

I would like to draw members’ attention to the breadth of measures contained in this bill. Parts 4 and 5 help schools that may be dealing with an undersupply of registered and suitable teachers by making permanent the ability of the Victorian Institute of Teaching to extend provisional or non-practising registration for teachers or early childhood teachers from six to 12 months, consistent with other types of registration—a key reform that will assist in us, while this pandemic still rages, keeping our schools open and keeping kids at school.

Parts 6 and 7 put in place electoral reforms ahead of the upcoming state election to ensure public confidence in the electoral system. A little later in my contribution I will respond to some of the statements made by the member for Brighton on that particular part of the bill, given he did speak for 22 minutes out of his 30-minute contribution on the electoral reforms.

Clauses 31 and 32 in part 8 ensure regulators are able to provide fee relief to Victorians doing it tough during a declared emergency such as the current pandemic. Part 9 strengthens the governance of registered housing agencies by streamlining reporting arrangements and ensuring board oversight of performance standards. Parts 11, 12 and 13 and clause 51 in part 14 extend the benefits of digital technology in our regulatory system. There are a number of other provisions, including more technical and uncontroversial amendments, that address a variety of additional regulatory improvements. This expansive package of measures is yet more proof that the Andrews Labor government delivers for all parts of the economy, in all parts of state. We deliver skills, jobs, education, housing and infrastructure. We also deliver consistent improvements to the state’s regulatory system to ensure it remains fit for purpose and that taxpayers get value for money.

In particular I would like to focus on the digital reforms in the bill. I commend the Assistant Treasurer for his diligent work in this area. Last year the Assistant Treasurer delivered Victoria’s Cyber Strategy 2021 to ensure we can all work safely and securely in the online environment. The government is ensuring Victoria is a leader in the digital economy. One of the measures of this bill is that it modernises our regulatory system by providing the flexibility to hold virtual meetings for local government, regional libraries and joint investigatory committees of Parliament. The bill also removes impediments under the Pharmacy Regulation Act 2010 to the Victorian Pharmacy Authority conducting meetings, inspections and panel hearings by virtual means.

The bill also modernises public notice requirements. Any public notice that currently needs to be published in print newspapers will have their publishing requirements satisfied by publishing online on a designated website. This will save up to $1700 per public notice. The change will be balanced by an enforceable guideline for government agencies that ensures public notices will be published in a medium which is most equitable for its target audience, including regional, multicultural and elderly audiences where print newspapers may continue to be the best communication method.

I do want at this point to perhaps insert some facts into this debate following that contribution by the member for Brighton. That is to say, despite what he said and the catastrophising that he presented on regional newspapers, nearly 90 per cent of government spending on regional newspapers is from the government communications budget and will not be affected by the proposed changes. Less than 10 per cent of spending by government on regional papers is made up of public notices. Under the Local Government Act 2020 local governments are already not required to publish public notices in print newspapers; however, in practice many still choose to do so. So the catastrophising and the crocodile tears on behalf of regional communities that we heard from the member for Brighton are, I think, particularly unfounded.

In regard to digital meetings, temporary provisions allowing virtual meeting technology were inserted into many regulations in Victoria, and really across Australia and across the world, to ensure participation and access to services could continue while protecting the most vulnerable in our communities. We know, particularly with local councils, for instance, many of them are to this day, even two years into this pandemic, still holding their meetings virtually. In fact it has promoted greater public access to those council meetings. I know both the City of Glen Eira and the City of Kingston, in my electorate, continue to hold meetings virtually, and under this bill they will continue to have the opportunity to have that choice to hold those meetings virtually and, frankly, be more accessible to their communities.

In the time I have remaining I want to address what the member for Brighton said with regard to the electoral reforms in this bill. He said, and I quote, that they ‘are designed to run sandpaper over the Victorian electoral cricket ball’, which is quite bizarre. I am pretty sure he practised that in the mirror last night to make sure he had such a very smooth and cutting delivery today, but it is bloody ridiculous to say the least, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, in my view it pretty much just clarifies the practice from the last election, particularly around the signage. Before the last election we did away with bunting, and hallelujah. I mean, none of us love bunting. It is useless, and we put it up the night before and then hire security guards to guard it overnight, and then it gets blown away in the wind and people walk right past it. I think that was a very good electoral reform. But he was of course mainly talking about changes to the laws around postal voting. And frankly we have an independent and unimpeachable Victorian Electoral Commission, and we will uphold the Victorian Electoral Commission’s independence. Having an independent electoral commission is what sets us apart from some of these other countries around the world, including countries like the United States.

Now, I have never been comfortable with the practice of political parties, whether it is my own or that of those opposite, sending around postal vote applications and processing postal vote application forms. It is the role of the Victorian Electoral Commission to facilitate the democratic vote of a voter. We intended not doing this last time, and in fact my political party did not send out postal vote application forms, nor did it process any. Of course those opposite in certain seats decided to send out postal vote application forms and make them look like they came from the electoral commission and confuse voters. That is up to them. But what I will say in the final 15 seconds is these changes were endorsed by the Electoral Matters Committee, including the Liberal members on that committee, including the Leader of the Opposition. I commend this bill to the house. I wish it a speedy passage.

Mr McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (10:47): I am delighted to rise and make a contribution on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021. As you have heard from the member for Brighton, we will be opposing this bill, and there are many reasons to oppose this bill. If for no other reason, after we heard the explosive comments yesterday from the former minister of the Andrews government, it is clear to me that this government should not be making any changes at all to the election procedures in this state. They simply cannot be trusted and certainly cannot be trusted as they manipulate the election procedure. And although we are told the aim of this bill is to ensure that Victoria’s regulatory system continues to be effective in managing harm, what we have seen with most bills that come into this place is that the name of the bill rarely reflects the substance that is in the bill. The narrative that the minister argues is that this will be achieved by having different bodies that are more resilient and flexible in the face of a crisis such as COVID-19. In reality the bill covers a variety of issues that are very loosely held together and attack the electoral procedures in this state. As with most Victorian government bills, some of the proposed measures are not contentious at all but others are highly risky and have been inserted into the bill with the hope that they are glossed over and waved through.

The bill will increase the flexibility for regulators and agencies to provide fee relief to businesses during emergencies by amending the Financial Management Act 1994. That on face value seems fine to me. It will modernise requirements for public notices to be published in newspapers by amending the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 and those requirements for the publication of electoral boundaries by amending the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act 1982. Well, to me that is not fine, and I will talk about that in a moment. It will implement the government’s response to the recommendations of the Electoral Matters Committee into the conduct of the 2018 state election by amending the Electoral Act 2002, and again you should never leave Dracula in charge of the blood bank. It will streamline reporting arrangements for registered housing agencies and ensure the boards of registered housing agencies certify reporting against performance standards by amending the Housing Act 1983.

Now, the bill is reacting to the changes that organisations and public bodies were forced to make to accommodate the government’s response to COVID-19, including online meetings, AGMs, fee relief to accommodate loss of earnings and things like the lack of tobacco inspectors because they have been roped into COVID-compliance work. The bill is also reflecting the change to a more digital world and the changes to print media by online forms of communication, but there are consequences, and the government has either overlooked them or ignored those consequences, including the changes that mean public notices can be online instead of in print newspapers, which I will mention again shortly, and electoral maps will be online and printed upon request.

The bill is a response to the August 2020 report into the Victorian state election. Can I say, the Electoral Matters Committee is stacked in favour of sitting Labor MPs, so the outcome was always predetermined. The bill claims to fix issues raised in the report in time for the 2022 election. It dictates the number of posters that can be displayed, sets a100-metre ban on mobile advertising near a polling place and prohibits any person or entity other than the Victorian Electoral Commission from providing postal voting applications, which the member for Brighton discussed in detail. Allegedly the reform was requested by the VEC in its submission to the Electoral Matters Committee inquiry based on 77 complaints.

After the admissions by the former minister yesterday, the admissions of corruption by a former senior minister, one wonders how this government should have any say on future changes to the election process. The behaviour of this government is nothing short of corrupt. No further changes should be allowed until the red shirts rorts are thoroughly investigated and those responsible charged and brought before the courts. The red shirts scandal is again in the headlines due to one of Labor’s own MPs, someone game enough to stand up to the dictators and not afraid of the consequences. The direction from Labor powerbrokers to MPs to not cooperate with police is living proof of the corruption that exists within this government.

Mr Fowles: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member for Brighton had a very wideranging contribution, but I think it is the practice of this place that subsequent contributions are generally more confined to the subject matter at hand. The member for Ovens Valley has well and truly walked off the reservation in the last couple of minutes, and I would encourage you please to encourage him to perhaps return to the matter before the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Burwood. Can you be succinct in your points of order, please. I think the member for Burwood was referring to relevance. Member for Ovens Valley, I ask you to come back to the bill.

Mr McCURDY: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I was just trying to draw parallels between what happened at the last election and changing the rules going forward. I think it is unwise that we allow this government to change those rules because history has suggested they have a very strong record in their corrupt manner. That is what I was going to with that.

I also want to talk about the signs that cannot exceed 600 by 900 millimetres, or another size as prescribed by the regulations, and if there are two or more candidates endorsed for the Legislative Council by one party, they do not get extra signs. This would result in major parties having six posters at a centre: two for the lower house, two for the upper and two for the party itself. There are new rules for billboards: they cannot be displayed within 100 metres of a voting centre, but certain premises such as homes and electorate offices are exempt from this rule.

Early votes will be counted at 8.00 am on election day instead of 4.00 pm, and the bill will prohibit the distribution of postal votes. As I say, that was well covered by the member for Brighton. Again, these changes are being determined by the Andrews Labor government, which worries us, particularly after we heard the explosive comments yesterday. I do have concerns around a central—

Mr Fowles: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member for Ovens Valley is misleading the house. He asserts that these are recommendations solely of the government. The Electoral Matters Committee, on which there is a minority of Labor members, has made these recommendations. Specifically it made the recommendation regarding prohibiting the distribution of postal vote applications to which the member for Ovens Valley has referred.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Burwood, that is not a point of order.

Mr McCURDY: I have also got concerns around the central website with a vic.gov.au domain. The choice to print in newspapers is a discretionary one, but some regional communities rely on their local newspapers, and the minister’s discretionary power can declare a new website for approved publications. I have been contacted by community members and businesses about this legislation because there are concerns about just this. The reforms will take away the government-legislated mandate for local councils to place their public notices and community information classifieds in regional Victorian local newspapers—papers in Swan Hill, Yarrawonga, Bairnsdale, Horsham and others will be affected. I heard the honourable member say before it is 10 per cent of their income. Well, 10 per cent of their income is a substantial amount, but if you have never been in business you probably do not understand that.

This will take away another revenue source and effectively negate even more council connection with the local communities, and it will potentially lead to all government classified advertising migrating to the purpose-built government website. This will weaken our regional newspapers, some of which will certainly die because of this. Just to give you an example of that, recently I have been dealing with an issue in Mount Beauty where North East Water claimed to be having a consultation and put out an offering for people to put submissions in, and when we got to the bottom of it we found out their consultation and their mode for communicating was in the North East Water newsletter. Now, who reads the North East Water newsletter? It turns out nobody does. That was their way of communicating with the community, and by this I mean the public notice has been and is—

Mr Fowles: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance.

Ms Staley: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, briefly, this is clearly a clause in the bill that goes to how things are advertised. The member is clearly being relevant.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not uphold the point of order.

Mr McCURDY: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. This is why we need to make sure that public notices remain in local papers where the message can get out, rather than on a government website which is not exactly mainstream.

Can I say that the interference with postal voting is a concern. We believe this legislation should be voted down, and I certainly cast my eye across the chamber to see whether there is anybody over there who has the courage to cross the floor and do what happened in the other place. I doubt that will happen, but certainly we live in hope, because this legislation should be voted down.

Mr DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh) (10:57): It is a pleasure to speak on a reformist bill, because that is the brand of this government and in fact the party. Just to take up the previous member’s final element of debate where he asked us to have the courage to cross the floor, I would ask his colleagues to have the courage to stick to their convictions that they expressed during the cross-party committee that came up with this really good reform, particularly as it comes to the postal vote elements of the bill. But I will get to that in a minute.

Let us just be really clear about what this is: this is us keeping up to date with the modern economy, putting into practice some glimmers of innovation that we found during the pandemic—the ability for people to meet online rather than in person, for example—and getting rid of statutory limitations on simple things like that. If it is not the role of government to address market failure or keep up with how statute books relate to modern life—for example, the public notices: why is it that businesses have to be lumbered with the cost of advertising in a bunch of different publications rather than having a central portal where they can acquit their legislated responsibilities? It reduces costs for business. We are listening to business in a range of areas.

Let me just remind the house that this is the first government to appoint a minister in the cabinet with express responsibility for regulation reform. It is very different to the perception that side of the house has about this side of the house: that we just love regulation. No, no—we actually appointed a minister to cut red tape. They talk about red tape reduction; we have cut it by 25 per cent, and we are still only part way through our agenda in that regard.

Just to give some examples of that, over the last seven-odd years of government we have reviewed and reformed regulation in liquor, environment protection, essential services, electricity, building and construction, planning, consumer affairs, owners corporations and more. We have touched most areas of public policy. We have legislated regulatory improvements through automatic mutual recognition, which we debated in this house not too long ago, cladding safety, wage theft, gender equality, casinos and gaming, worker screening and professional engineer registration, to name a few. As I said, we have gotten on with the job and reduced regulatory burden by 25 per cent. We have invested $60 million over 60 regulatory reform projects across local and state governments through the Treasurer’s incentive fund and through the Assistant Treasurer’s Regulation Reform Incentive Fund. There is almost $400 million a year in estimated growth in the Victorian economy because of the reforms we have made.

We have invested $100 million in reforms to Victoria’s planning system, boosting the state’s economy by $775 million over five years. We have also been working with local governments to pilot automatic approvals for low-risk permits. So check this out: automatic approvals for low-risk permits means that some permit approval times have gone from seven days to 10 minutes. Literally you go online, you get your permit, you get on with business. That is a hallmark of the Andrews Labor government. That is a hallmark in terms of regulatory reform. I met the Assistant Treasurer only yesterday, and I know he has enormous appetite for reform, as does the Treasurer. That is what we are talking about here, not the courage to cross the floor to do something that is against business; we have got the courage to stand by our convictions and support business.

Obviously there are other elements of this bill in relation to holding meetings of government agencies online—the public notices, as I said previously. And I hear the concerns of some of the speakers in relation to regional media, but those concerns are not going to be solved for any length of time by not doing this. Those concerns come from a far deeper issue and the decline of print media generally.

But I do want to comment obviously on an issue that I just find astounding the opposition are voting against, not only because it is a good reform but also because it stands in contrast to those same members on that committee who supported it. You could not imagine that they did not have an opportunity to put an alternative view forward, because there was a minority report.

Mr Newbury: I just gave you 30 minutes of my view.

Mr DIMOPOULOS: No, no; member for Brighton, I am not talking about your view today. The member for Brighton’s comment just reminds me of how they flip and flop all over the place. So he just said in an interjection, ‘No, no. I’m not talking about my view yesterday, I’m talking about my view today’.

Mr Newbury: No, I did not say that. Do not misrepresent me.

Mr DIMOPOULOS: Okay, you may not have said yesterday, but you did say ‘I’m talking about my view today’. I am left with the impression that there was an alternative view at some other point in time that was not today.

So my point is that the member for Brighton may not have been on the committee, but some pretty heavy hitters were on there, like the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Bulleen, and in the other place Mrs McArthur, Mr Atkinson and Ms Lovell. A bunch of people who are heavy hitters in the opposition had the option of a minority report but did not comment. In fact they were supportive of the report which said that effectively—in my words—the relationship between the Victorian Electoral Commission and the voter should be protected. It should not be polluted by political competition—on both sides, on all sides. I think the member for Brighton talked about how there were only 77 complaints. What he did not mention was that there was a 275 per cent increase on that same topic from the year before. What actually matters is the pattern and the growth of those complaints—a 275 per cent increase in complaints about postal voting.

Political parties have corrupted the relationship between the Victorian Electoral Commission and the postal voter. We all know how it works. I have volunteered on campaigns. We send material to Mr Dimopoulos Sr and say, ‘You need to vote, otherwise you’ll get a fine, and here’s the way we think you should vote’, and Mr Dimopoulos gets concerned about not paying a fine and wants to dispense with and acquit his responsibility to vote and has the easy Liberal or Labor or whatever card in front of him and just does it. Now, that is not the way it should be. We should not be frightening old people. We should be saying to them, ‘Your right to vote is just as sacrosanct as everybody else’s, just because you can’t get out to the polling booth and you need a postal vote’. This is the best reform, and that is why you supported it.

Mr Newbury: The best reform?

Mr DIMOPOULOS: The best reform, and that is why you supported it. What has happened is at some point somebody left the committee and a few months later said, ‘Who allowed that to get through? Don’t you know that most postal voters’—apparently—‘vote Liberal? Who let that reform go through?’

That is what they are upset about—the fact that they missed the opportunity. They missed the opportunity. It beggars belief that a properly constituted committee of the Victorian Parliament, cross-party, comes up with a uniform recommendation and the same people come to this chamber and say, ‘This is objectionable. This is atrocious’. I mean, at the very least have some integrity and say, ‘You know what? We’ve changed our mind’. Can you associate your view on that committee with your view today and at least be honest about it—that you have changed your mind because it is politically important for you to do that?

This is a good reform. Even if it targeted Labor voters apparently it would be a good reform, because the voter who is at home with the postal ballot deserves the same choice in terms of paraphernalia. Every political party will be informed by the electoral commission when that voter, who is a registered postal voter, will get their ballot paper. So your volunteers, member for Brighton, still have the opportunity to advocate for their cause. There is nothing like good, competitive tension in politics. What is not appropriate is hoodwinking a voter into thinking the only tangible option, viable option, is the one that they have received in the letterbox because you just happen to be providing them with a postal vote application. This is good reform. The reform generally in this bill is a part of what this government does: reform areas of the economy and public policy that require reform, keep up to date with modern life and strengthen democracy in the case of postal voting.

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (11:07): Acting Speaker Morris, it is a pleasure to see you in the chair today. I rise to speak vehemently against this proposal by the Andrews Labor government to effectively short-change many of those people that have relied on postal voting. I particularly make reference to those in my electorate of Caulfield—which has the largest postal vote of any seat—for a whole range of reasons. We have an ageing population, and for health reasons they have no other option but to postal vote. We have a very strongly Jewish population—30 per cent of my electorate is Jewish—and they have no other choice than to postal vote. Certainly for a number of other health reasons people choose to postal vote as well. That number is growing, and I know that those people rely on the postal vote. Without it they would not vote; simply, they would not vote. What this government is effectively doing is taking that away and not providing those people with the opportunity to exercise their democratic right. This is quite scary, and I know that many of my constituents in Caulfield are very, very concerned about what this government is currently doing and proposing to do. For example, there is a 7.5 per cent average across the state of postal voting, and it is 14 per cent in Caulfield.

The government preach on a whole range of things about how open and transparent they are. They are so far from that it is not funny, and this is a classic case of one of these as an example. What really confuses me about this more than anything is that we have just experienced the longest lockdowns of anywhere in the world. This government has incited a whole range of fears in people, particularly the elderly, to stay home, to not wander out, to not go about their lives. I know many of the constituents in my electorate have been quite scared about getting out and about. So why would, on the one hand, this government scare people or put out this fear to say, ‘Be careful. Don’t leave your homes. Stay at home. Work from home’, and on the other say, ‘Well, you can’t postal vote, so you’ve got to actually get out and turn up to vote at election time’. It just does not make sense. Why wouldn’t you during a pandemic make it easier for people to postal vote, not make it harder? I mean, that just does not make any sense at all, and it is very clear that this government, the Andrews Labor government, has a political agenda to actually disenfranchise the elderly and disenfranchise those with a religious perspective.

Ms Green interjected.

Mr SOUTHWICK: The member for Yan Yean can interject, but I am more than happy to take the member for Yan Yean to my electorate of Caulfield to meet many of the Orthodox community in Caulfield. Member for Yan Yean, you will understand why, for religious reasons, my constituents have no other option. Member for Yan Yean, you can talk about equality and all kinds of things in your normal contributions. This is the most inequitable thing we have ever seen by this government. It is a disgrace that they are taking people’s right to vote away.

Ms Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, if the member at the table could speak through the Chair, please, rather than to members in the chamber.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris): The member for Caulfield.

Mr SOUTHWICK: And again, the fact that the government will take points of order, trivial points of order, about something that is so important as voting shows what they are trying to do. They are trying to trivialise something that is so important. It is so important to give those people the right to vote. All we are asking is to give people fairness and equity when it comes to this, to give people the same opportunities no matter where they come from, no matter their situation. We will continue to canvass many people in my constituency just to understand the extent of what this government is actually trying to do. It is nothing but a censorship to say to those people, ‘Unless you are able to get out and about to vote on election day, your postal vote rights have effectively been taken away from you. You are not going to be informed ahead of time’.

Yes, there are some people that register for a permanent postal vote. We have a number of those in my electorate that register, and they will get that information. That is fine, but what about everybody else? What about everybody else that comes into the electorate, that actually turns 18? I think many of those people will have no other option. They will not be informed about their postal vote options. We have a lot of people that immigrate to my electorate for religious reasons. They will come from another place. They will get their permanent residency. They will get their citizenship. They will get their right to vote, but they will not have their opportunity to vote because they will not have their postal vote. That is what this government is doing. They are taking that away from our constituents in Caulfield.

Mr Dimopoulos: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I think there has got to be some accuracy in this debate. Because the member for Caulfield lost the election on election night and only clawed his way back on postals he is particularly personal about this, but someone not having the right to vote—that is a complete lie.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris): That is a matter for debate. It is not a point of order.

Mr SOUTHWICK: On the point of order, Acting Speaker—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris): I have ruled. Move on.

Mr SOUTHWICK: Okay. It is very, very important, particularly for my constituencies in Caulfield. I know the member for Oakleigh, who is in a neighbouring seat, would know many of those constituents, that he would have met, that actually rely very heavily on a postal vote. And the fact, as the member said, that there are so many people that do vote after election night from Caulfield is not something to trivialise. It just further points out the fact that that is the way that people in Caulfield vote. For a significant 14 per cent, twice that of every other constituency, that is how they vote, and the government politically, for no other reason than politics, is taking that right away from the elderly, from those with health reasons and from those with religious reasons. They know it, and that is why they are doing it.

This has got nothing to do with fairness or equity. It is a disgrace, quite frankly. It is a disgrace that they are taking people’s democratic freedoms away from them when we should be encouraging people to vote, to express their opinions, to express their views during these times. We should be looking at more ways to get people to vote, not less ways to get people to vote, and for a government to claim—

Mr Taylor interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris): Member for Bayswater, you are out of your seat, and you are interjecting. You should not be in either place.

Mr Taylor: I am not interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris): You are certainly out of your seat. If you are going to be yelling across the chamber, at least do it from your own spot.

Mr SOUTHWICK: We feel so strongly about this that we will be reversing this in government. That is what we have said we will do. We will scrap this because we feel it is absolutely unfair and undemocratic to take this opportunity to postal vote away from the voters. As I said, in a country like Australia and a state like Victoria, we should be proud of what we do in terms of being able to exercise our democratic rights and freedoms. We should be doing everything we can to do that. We should be encouraging people to vote, not taking that opportunity away from them.

This is a disgrace. It is a disgrace, quite frankly, that the government would even stoop so low as to take the vote away from the elderly, from people who have health reasons, from people who have work reasons and from people who have religious reasons. People cannot vote on election day for a whole range of reasons, and for those reasons they should be entitled to a postal vote and they should be entitled to the information about a postal vote. The government are effectively taking that information away.

Members interjecting.

Mr SOUTHWICK: Now, the government can rant and rave and carry on and try to trivialise what we have got here, but this is an absolute attack on democracy. It is an attack on our freedoms and our rights and it is an attack on my constituents of Caulfield that rely on postal votes and that rely on that opportunity. They cannot vote on Saturday, they cannot vote on election day, many of them, and they require that postal vote to be able to do it. I will be making sure that every one of my constituents is aware of what the government is up to—effectively censorship, effectively trying to manipulate a voting outcome. It is a disgrace. It is an absolute disgrace. Every single member of the government should be ashamed of themselves for taking the democratic right to vote away. They are clearly embarrassed at the way they have handled things over the last four years when they have got other members from the upper house crossing the floor and voting against them. We ask them to do the same on this, because they should. It is wrong to take the democratic vote away, and we ask those members of Labor: cross the floor, do what is right and give people that have the democratic right to vote the chance to vote.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris): Just before I call the member for Frankston, this is a debate. A debate is about standing up and putting forward your point of view, and if you do not agree with it, you stand up on the other side and you rebut it. It is not about shouting people down. It is not about making frivolous points of order in order to disrupt people. That is why we have standing orders. A lot of what has gone on in the last 10 minutes, 15 minutes, from both sides, has been disorderly. Now, whatever the practice has been, I am not going to cop that. I will have no hesitation in asking the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker to come in and turf you out if you do not abide by the rules.

Mr EDBROOKE (Frankston) (11:17): It is fantastic to see you, Acting Speaker, make those rulings and make it 100 per cent transparent to those opposite that making these frivolous points of order, as was done yesterday when I was on my feet, just is not acceptable. I have sat here and I have heard how serious this bill is to people.

I do note with a sense of irony that the three opposition members that were just at the table—the member for Ripon, the member for Caulfield and the member for Brighton—seem to be putting across this dialogue that we are taking a vote away from people. In reality what this bill is doing is making sure that people still have the vote, but it means they do not have the campaigning and marketing, I guess, tools that go with it. It is not politicising their vote; it can be misinformation. But it is with a sense of irony that I note that for all three of those members the only reason they are sitting here is that they won on postal votes, and that is a fact. It is also with a sense of confusion that I think many of us listening to this debate are listening to members who are seemingly undermining their leader. We have heard about Dracula and blood banks, we have heard about cricket balls and whatnot.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris): Some relevance to the bill would be appreciated.

Mr EDBROOKE: I am getting there, Acting Speaker. I am getting there.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris): Please get there quickly.

Mr EDBROOKE: It has been quite a wideranging debate, I am sure you will appreciate, but I do respect your rule, Acting Speaker. The misinformation during this debate has been tantamount to really leading, as we have heard, some possibly vulnerable elderly people down a path which is not reality. And it should be put out there very, very plainly that we have heard people misrepresent this bill and mislead this house during this debate.

It is also with a sense of irony that I note we have had opposition speakers talk about the Electoral Matters Committee. Now, I love my committee work. I was on the Family and Community Development Committee for many years; I was the chair. We changed things for the good of many vulnerable Victorians. I follow closely the Electoral Matters Committee. We have heard that there was a Labor majority. There was not a Labor majority on the committee. It was not a Labor majority; that is misleading the house. In fact I note with a firm sense of irony that the Leader of the Opposition was on that committee, and I am led to believe that the report and the recommendations that form this bill were supported unanimously. There was no minority action at all. It was a unanimous vote that this should be put to this house by that joint committee and voted through. To hear members of the opposition now making up stories about how this bill is so wrong, how it takes the vote away from people, how it is undemocratic—I totally disagree. This actually embraces democracy more than we ever have.

We have heard people on this side of the house put the record straight for sure, but I cannot understand how people can stand up on those opposition benches and say, ‘No, the Leader of the Opposition was wrong. We think this’. The Leader of the Opposition was on that committee. It was a Labor minority committee who put this forward. It was unanimously voted through. The recommendations were put up by that committee and here it is today and we have got opposition members telling us that we are wrong. They are actually saying that they are wrong too and the opposition leader is wrong. There has been some miscommunication somewhere. The member for Caulfield showed yesterday that we really have to go past the media releases to get the information. You cannot believe everything you read on the internet or you find yourself in some very dire and very embarrassing situations.

We must remember that this bill is an omnibus bill. We have just seen the ultra-marginal member for Caulfield make a pitch to people in his community that is totally untrue. I am very passionate about the truth, and I believe that to take advantage of elderly citizens like that, to take advantage of people in a different cultural position to us, is the low road—it is absolutely the low road. To tell people who come from different cultures, who may have experienced no democracy, fascism, that they are in Victoria and there is a government that is taking away their vote—does anyone actually believe that? No, not here, but there are some vulnerable people, possibly in Caulfield, that might believe that. That is very misleading, and those opposite should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

It is also very hypocritical I think to suggest that the situation allows for no democracy or an erosion of democracy when that sacrosanct relationship between the Victorian Electoral Commission and the voter is being strengthened by this bill. It is—there is no doubt about it. If you go past the media release and read the bill, read the second-reading speech from the minister, you can be in no doubt that that is what this is doing. These changes mean that all registered parties and candidates will receive notice that a postal vote has been sent so all registered parties and candidates can send their own how-to-vote cards, again strengthening democracy.

I see some confusion on the opposition benches. It is not all that confusing. You have just got to do your damn homework and read these bills properly. I am not suggesting for a moment that there is unprofessionalism over there from the shadow minister, but what I am suggesting is the member for Caulfield needs to stop embarrassing himself, because if I see these cuts on Facebook suggesting that people are having their votes taken away, that is literally—especially for people who are vulnerable—the lowest of the low.

We heard about the newspaper issue where people believe that is being taken away from regional newspapers. I guess once again you can maintain an argument based on very little at all, but in reality we have heard from the fantastic member for Oakleigh and the fantastic member for Bentleigh about the fact that nearly 90 per cent of government spending on regional papers is from the government communications budget and will not be affected by these proposed changes. Less than 10 per cent of spending by government on regional papers is made up of public notices. In fact the tangible benefit of this is that the proposed changes will have guidelines that will mean that in practice the effect on regional paper revenue from government will be even less.

It is still amazing, even after almost eight years in this house, to hear people on the other side of the chamber, people who have been in the judicial system quite recently over their business dealings, suggesting that people on this side of the house might not know anything about business. It is quite bizarre, because I look around and there are people here—it cracks me up—like the member for Mount Waverley behind me here, who have had their own businesses. I am looking around and I am still seeing people who have had their own businesses. I was part of a family business—certainly not one that was dragged through the courts, certainly not one that went through the judicial system. But I digress. It is still very funny hearing those opposite say that we do not know about businesses and, in this regard, local papers.

Another issue that has come up in this omnibus bill is about the teaching profession. Again, there are many teachers on this side of the house who understand that as far as this legislation goes, what this legislation is doing in regard to teachers is making temporary changes permanent. It is only making temporary changes that are already in place permanent. It is pretty simple, people. It is really simple. It is hard to stuff up. It is really hard to stuff up, just like it is hard to read this bill and interpret that this is actually taking the vote away from vulnerable people.

I sum up my contribution with a sense of shame, having to stand here and listen to these terrible, terrible contributions that seem to be talking about another bill. They should be ashamed of themselves. It is very, very hard, even in Frankston. It is not Caulfield, but in Frankston I might get emails in regard to this bill because of promotion regarding, ‘You’ve taken our democracy away’, because of the misinterpretation of those opposite and the shadow minister. It is very shameful. It is not the intention of the bill. They actually agreed to all the recommendations in this bill at one stage. It is funny how they have changed their minds. Is it that they change their minds or that they are just confused? Is it that they are feeling very vulnerable leading up to the next election? We have got the marginal seats manager here. He did pretty well, didn’t he? You did. You were amazing.

A member interjected.

Mr EDBROOKE: He can have a laugh in the mirror, but it was not funny for the other members of the opposition, I assure you. The three members who were standing there were indeed only elected on postal votes alone. This bill is not just about postal votes, this bill is about many other things, but it is shameful seeing people misrepresent that and actually take advantage of vulnerable people in their own community who they represent. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms STALEY (Ripon) (11:28): I rise to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021. I plan to address three sections of this large omnibus bill. The first clauses that I want to address are clauses 23 and 25. Clause 23 has the postal vote changes which have been very well ventilated in this debate. In relation to Ripon, I have one of my local government areas where over 20 per cent of people postal vote, and as an electorate, over 10 per cent postal vote. It is true to say that there are larger or higher rates of postal voting in country electorates than in most city electorates, with the electorate of Caulfield being an exception.

The problem I have with this reform or change or amendment that we have before us is that people are used to getting forms from political parties and filling them out, and now they are not going to know that they are not going to get one. They are actually not going to be advised that they have to go a different way to get the form. It is actually that lack of advice that I think is the problem. People will be waiting for their postal vote application forms. They are used to receiving them, and they will not receive them this time.

I find it curious that the government, in moving this, usually do not like to stand with Donald Trump, but in this regard they are, because Mr Trump has previously said that he believes postal voting allows voters to cheat—unlike the Democrats in the US, who have been working very hard to increase postal voting accessibility by having postal votes mailed to every voter. That also brings me to the fact that we remain in a pandemic, and I would have thought there would be an increased number of people who want to postal vote. So to me it is about increasing the accessibility, whereas this provision reduces the accessibility, and that is why I oppose it.

I now move to clause 25, and in some ways this could be called the Ripon 2018 memorial clause, because what this clause does is it puts provisions into the Electoral Act 2002 that require the commissioner to declare in certain words and give certain notice to all parties if he or she is planning to re-count a seat. Of course this arose out of what happened in Ripon at the 2018 election, when a re-count was called and political parties and candidates were only given an hour’s notice to get their scrutineers to the re-count. This is a worthwhile reform to put some time lines in requiring 4 hours notice, and I support the changes that are in that clause.

I now move to clauses 37 to 39, and this is the amendment with the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 changes. What these clauses do is remove the requirement for advertising in print newspapers. Now, like all country members, I would expect, we have all received correspondence. In my case I have received it from Craig Wilson, who is the publisher of the Pyrenees Advocate and the Ararat Advocate; from Chris Earl, who is the managing editor of the Loddon Herald; and from Peter Marland, who is the owner and editor of the North Central News. All three of them have written to ask me to oppose this bill purely on the grounds of these provisions, and they did so because they note that if these reforms are passed it will take away the government-legislated mandate for local councils to place their public notice and community information classifieds in regional Victorian local newspapers.

Now, government speakers on these provisions have talked about government advertising, as in state government advertising, but this goes further, from the publishers’ perspective, to include local government advertising. And a lot of my newspapers do have in particular planning changes and other local government notices that make up a considerable part of their revenue. Yes, print is declining, but it is a hugely important mechanism for so many people in country towns to get local news. They value their papers; they buy them. The trouble is the costs are high. They need the advertising that comes from these areas, and this takes this away. So I can assure the readers and the publishers of the many local newspapers that cover Ripon that I do oppose these changes. I absolutely understand why local news produced by local people for locals is what is really important in so many of the communities that I represent. And once again the government has clearly not consulted with the Rural Press Club of Victoria or the rural publishers, because they have all come out and they all oppose it as one. So again, the government has not done its homework here.

The final part of this bill that I want to discuss is clause 66, which makes some amendments to the Electricity Industry Act 2000. The amendment that it makes is it changes the COAG, because COAG is no longer with us, and creates a Ministerial Council on Energy within legislation. The reason I raise this is that the Ministerial Council on Energy is the overseer of the Australian Energy Market Operator, and AEMO is Victoria’s state jurisdictional planning body. I note that it is a body nominated by the energy minister of the relevant jurisdiction. So in Victoria the reason that AEMO is planning the grid is that that has been nominated by the Labor minister as the network planner. In the case of other states that is not the case. In the case of Victoria AEMO is the jurisdictional planning body.

We need to understand that therefore the government has control when AEMO comes in and wants to do transmission line upgrades such as the one that is going though my electorate at the moment in the face of incredible community opposition. The Andrews Labor government cannot run away from this being their project. These changes in this legislation make it very clear that the energy market body that the Victorian Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change sits on is the oversight body, and this is what this legislation does. There is no question, I think, that the government needs to recognise that what it is doing in western Victoria has a direct relationship to its ministerial body membership.

As a result of the actions of this government we have a very large transmission line project which is overwhelmingly opposed by the community in my electorate and other communities affected by that line, and yet the government are pushing on with this and trying to argue—various members have attempted to argue—that it is a national body doing this and it is not to do with them. But this bill in front of us now makes it very clear that it is the Victorian energy minister who sits on that council and who nominates AEMO, which is overseen by that council, as mentioned in this bill, to do the energy transmission network upgrades.

It is time the government went back and said to the communities ‘We hear you’ instead of putting them through a brutal environment effects statement process, a process they are finding very difficult to negotiate. They are finding it increasingly difficult to deal with AusNet—that is the Labor government’s contractor for this project—who is invading their properties against their will. At every point the government is trying to run away from their responsibility here, but they cannot run away. This is their project. They need to fess up and admit that—admit to those communities that it is them doing the terrible things that are being done—and find another way.

Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (11:37): It is a delight for me to speak today on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021. I was going to make a few comments about various elements of the bill—it is quite a broad bill. Probably until the start of the week I had not intended to speak a lot about clause 23, until I got a few emails in my inbox saying, ‘What’s this I hear that the government’s not going to allow postal voting at the election?’. I said, ‘Where did this come from?’. I see a few articles in the press and have a look at the Facebook pages of some of the members opposite and I see in big black and red writing ‘Government is taking away your right to postal vote’. And we have heard here today from speaker after speaker that postal voting is not going to be allowed, and that is just completely wrong—

Ms Settle interjected.

Mr HAMER: You are right, member for Buninyong; it is shame on those members opposite for creating more confusion amongst those who need to access the vote.

I will go and touch on the committee report, because the committee report is very instructive.

Mr Newbury: Read the bill.

Mr HAMER: I have read the bill, member for Brighton, and I want to have a look—

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris): Order! This is not an opportunity to have a conversation. The member for Box Hill has the floor.

Mr HAMER: I want to touch on the number of complaints that were received about this form of solicitation of postal vote applications. The total number of postal votes at the 2018 election was a touch under 8 per cent. The member for Brighton did touch on the number of complaints that were received in total by the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC), so there were 861 complaints of which 9 per cent complained about parties distributing postal vote applications.

Mr Newbury: Seventy-seven.

Mr HAMER: Seventy-seven; that is right. The member for Brighton has asked us to believe that this is a very small number and we do not really have to worry about those people. I hope that the member for Brighton does not take that approach with his constituents—that it is only a small number, it is only a small fraction of the population who are actually registering complaints with his office, so he can just ignore them. The member for Brighton said that there was a very small number of complaints and it was not necessary—

Mr Newbury interjected.

Mr HAMER: Not only that, if you look at the percentage, postal votes make up a fairly small proportion of the total number of votes which are cast, but of the complaints that were made there is a greater proportion of complaints made specifically for that purpose. Of all of the complaints that the VEC received, the proportion of complaints that were made in regard to this particular element was greater than the proportion of postal voters in the entire election. We would not expect that everybody is going to be complaining, so of those complaints you have to look at the proportion of the people who are complaining about this particular element of how the election is run.

The postal vote applications done through the political parties also make up a minority of the total postal vote applications, and the largest way that people applied for postal votes at the last election was online. The process for applying for postal votes is still going to be through the VEC, online or through the post. Parties can even tell their individual members, all of their electors, that if they want to get a postal vote these are the ways that they can get a postal vote. Let us be absolutely clear: postal votes are not being banned by this legislation.

I do want to get back to the specific elements of the committee. I do want to draw on what was particularly put forward by the Victorian Electoral Commission to the joint Electoral Matters Committee. We should be mindful of and very proud that the VEC is an independent electoral commission. I know that the members on the other side pine for some of the electoral commissions that are run in America, but very few of them are independent electoral commissions. I think it is one of the most important elements of our electoral systems—in Australia and in all of our states—that we have independent electoral commissions. The Victorian Electoral Commission has consistently raised this as an issue after each of the elections for which there has been an inquiry: removing the ability of political parties to send out information about postal voting because of the concern that it is confusing and misleading to voters.

I do want to just reiterate the finding that was made at the committee stage. As has been pointed out by other members, this was a recommendation and a finding that was supported by the entire committee of 11 members, only four of which were Labor members—so including Liberal members, including the Leader of the Opposition. The finding says:

The VEC received an increased number of complaints regarding political parties distributing postal vote applications in 2018. Electors find the practice misleading, believe it must be against the rules and sometimes believe the VEC has sent party political material, demonstrating bias. Legislative change ahead of the 2018 election limited, but did not prohibit, this practice.

The recommendation says:

That the Government amend the Electoral Act to prohibit any person or organisation other than the VEC from distributing postal vote applications.

That recommendation was adopted unanimously, and the government in its response also fully endorsed that recommendation, and that is what is reflected in clause 23 of the current bill.

In the 1 minute or so that I have remaining I do want to touch on a number of the other changes and clauses in this bill, particularly as they relate to changes to the Local Government Act 2020, the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 and the Pharmacy Regulation Act 2010, amongst others, really to re-enforce some of the changes that have been implemented over the last two years as temporary measures—to enable the online functioning of committee management council meetings et cetera. I think we have all learned an enormous amount over the last two years about how to just better use the technology and how much of a benefit that technology is in actually running the conduct and enabling that governance to occur. We do not necessarily all have to be physically present and all in the same room. I commend the bill to the house.

Dr READ (Brunswick) (11:47): I would like to give the Greens perspective on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021. Among other things, this bill allows local government, councils and parliamentary committees to meet online, it allows mandatory public notices to appear online instead of in print and it allows regulatory agencies to waive or reduce fees during emergencies, particularly welcome after the 2020 bushfires and while small businesses and individuals are still suffering extraordinary losses from the pandemic. But today I want to focus on two aspects: the changes to the Tobacco Act 1987 and the extent to which the bill implements the recommendations of the Electoral Matters Committee inquiry into the 2018 state election.

The bill allows the Department of Health to appoint tobacco inspectors from a wider range of people than just council environmental health officers, and this is a sensible measure to increase the pool available from which to recruit these inspectors. It would help, though, if these inspectors had an up-to-date register of all the premises licensed to sell tobacco and nicotine products. The licensing of tobacco and nicotine outlets would help inspectors find them; enable the state, for example, if it wanted to, to prevent the sale of cigarettes near schools; and create an easy way to sanction sellers that break the laws around the supply of nicotine or tobacco to children. Any shop in Victoria can sell cigarettes, but most other states require these premises to be registered or licensed, a bit like a liquor licence.

Tobacco kills between 4000 and 5000 Victorians every year, considerably more, for example, than have been lost to COVID. In fact about six months ago I asked the Minister for Health in an adjournment speech to set up a registration or licensing scheme for cigarette and nicotine vendors in Victoria, and it is time that Victorians got an answer to that. If opponents to such a scheme are concerned about excessive red tape, think about the red tape for getting hold of home oxygen or getting a disabled parking sticker if you have got emphysema, or employing a nurse. Think about the red tape for that. Even undertakers need a licence, so why shouldn’t cigarette and tobacco vendors?

As I say, the bill broadens the pool of recruitment for inspectors, but there is one particular type of tobacco vendor that should not be inspected—it should be abolished, it should not be allowed—and that is tobacco vending machines. These are particularly common in pubs. Banning tobacco vending machines, as has occurred in some jurisdictions, would break that nexus between smoking and drinking. It would reduce the availability of tobacco. It would mean that you would have to buy from a person who can check your age.

I am hearing more and more reports of shops selling nicotine for vaping, cigarette supply shops that seem to be near every tram stop. Teachers are saying that nicotine vaping is increasing in schools. We have a little bit of data, but it is always out of date—usually national data. We do not have good real-time data, which could easily be obtained from an annual survey of a representative sample of high school students to find out exactly how quickly the prevalence of nicotine vaping is rising in Victoria. Then there is the small matter of doing something about it, but the first step would be establishing a licensing scheme for vendors.

Mr McGuire interjected.

Dr READ: Indeed. I would like to turn now to how this bill implements the recommendations from the Electoral Matters Committee in their recent report. The Electoral Matters Committee recommended that political parties no longer be allowed to send out postal vote application forms, something that both the Liberal and Labor parties have done for many years. They have done this, apart from the obvious reason—for people to be able to apply for postal votes—to harvest the data from the voters. It is something that only big parties with the budget to send mail to every voter have been able to afford.

Around the time of the 2018 state election a growing number of people did complain to the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) about political parties mailing out postal vote application forms. This did come up in the committee deliberations. For years the Liberal and Labor parties—

Mr Wynne: Do the Greens not put out postal vote applications? I think you do.

Dr READ: I would like to take up the interjection from the member for Richmond. It is not something we have been able to afford on a large scale.

Mr Wynne: Yes, but you do do it.

Dr READ: I believe it has been done.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris): Order! The minister at the table will desist. The member for Brunswick, through the Chair.

Mr Wynne: Just for accuracy, that is all.

Dr READ: I am grateful for the attention of the minister. Nevertheless I would like to return to the issue, which is that this has been done on a large scale over many decades by both political parties, and I commend the government for bringing this practice to an end. For years parties have sent these out to people offering to obtain postal voting packs from the VEC in a manner designed to blur the role of the VEC and that of the parties in the minds of voters. It compromised the appearance of the VEC as impartial, and to many people it crossed the line. It was a misleading practice that should never have been allowed, and I support the government’s move to ban this. And while I understand why the Liberal Party would want to retain this sleight of hand, I am surprised that they are willing to say so publicly.

However, the bill misses an opportunity. It fails to implement the reform requested more frequently than any other by those who made submissions to the Electoral Matters Committee’s inquiry, and that is the abolition of group voting tickets. There are members in Victoria’s upper house who got there with microscopic votes, defeating others who had 10 times their vote. To just give one example, in the Eastern Metropolitan Region someone was elected with 0.6 per cent of the vote, ahead of a Greens candidate who got about 8 per cent of the vote.

Eight upper house MPs won seats with tiny votes amplified by a complex preference deal brokered by Glenn Druery for a success fee of around $55 000. Preferences are listed on group voting tickets, which are rarely examined by voters, yet 91 per cent of voters used them in 2018 to allocate their preferences. So voters, for example, for the Animal Justice Party in much of Victoria would be surprised to know that that their preferences were used to elect pro-gun Liberal Democrats. This bill that we are debating today removes any risk of confusion about postal voting but allows this confusing group voting system to continue. The 91 per cent of voters voting above the line generally had no idea where their preferences went, and those voting for micro-parties had no idea who they had elected.

Victoria is now the only state in Australia using this system. It has gone from federal elections. Western Australia has just abolished it after a daylight-saving candidate was elected with 98 votes. When you can buy a seat in state Parliament with more dollars than votes—for $55 000—that is corruption. It is legal, but it is corrupt. The Andrews Labor government had a perfect opportunity in this bill to simply allow those voting above the line to list their preferences above the line. They have chosen to stick with a corrupt system which leaves many voters unrepresented and may well put more anti-vaxxers or worse into Parliament at the end of this year. The Greens support this bill, but we do lament this missed opportunity.

Ms CONNOLLY (Tarneit) (11:56): Thank you, Acting Speaker Morris. I got a bit of a surprise, but it is very nice to see you in the chair today. I too rise to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021, and as someone who spent quite a long period of my career working on regulatory reform, rewriting legislation and trying to make systems and processes a whole lot better in the energy industry it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on regulatory reform and the regulatory reform agenda of this government.

No doubt colleagues on this side of the chamber will know that when we came to government in 2014 we inherited a whole lot of problems and systems in crisis from those opposite. 2014 was certainly a very big year for our side of the house and our government back then. It was certainly a very big year and step forward for Victorians. I would like to say we inherited some great things in 2014, like full shelves and a full program of works on road, rail, hospitals and most importantly schools from those opposite when we came to government, but unfortunately we inherited things like a regulatory system in absolute crisis. The previous coalition government did slash indiscriminately at regulations in this state, regulations that were created to protect Victorian citizens and, really importantly, the businesses of the mums and dads right across this great state of ours.

Being in government, as I have said this week and as the Premier reminds us on a regular basis, is a gift, and we cannot afford to waste a single day. That is why it was very disappointing in 2014 coming in on the back of a government that had slashed at regulations, that had no plan, no goal, to achieve an overarching narrative or a vision for this state, including in regulatory reform. But when we came to government in 2014 we did have a plan, and having a plan is really, really important. When you do not have a plan you end up with a state and suburbs and areas like out in my patch that had very little done to roads and rail during the previous government’s time in power, but we also did not have one single school built in my patch during that time, and in fact—

Ms Green: Shame.

Ms CONNOLLY: Shame. It was absolutely horrendous for my community as we were continuing to grow in number. The population forecasts for the area in which I have the privilege to serve were well known right across the state and certainly by the government at the time, and yet not one single school was built. It took six years in fact for the first school to open in Tarneit, and that was with Tarneit Rise, a great local primary school. It has certainly grown over the years since it opened in 2016.

Mr Wakeling: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I understand it is a wideranging debate, but I would ask that the member be brought back to some semblance of the actual bill and not talking about facilities in her own electorate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order?

Ms CONNOLLY: I do not have a point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not been in the chair to hear the member’s contribution, but I do ask the member to speak to the bill.

Ms CONNOLLY: The member for Ferntree Gully is right: I digress. Let us go back to talking about the regulatory system in crisis that we picked up in 2014. The overall objective of this bill before us today is to do a couple of things. It seems to have components ranging from, yes, electoral matters to education, training and reform, the Pharmacy Regulation Act 2010 and a number of other things. But there are really four main objectives to this bill.

The first is to ensure that regulators are prepared for the next emergency. What we have realised during this emergency is that preparation is everything, and it was a global pandemic the likes of which we have not seen in 100 years. We have learned a lot in the past two years, and one of those things is to be prepared and to make sure our regulatory systems and processes in this state are prepared and well equipped to be actioned and in place to deal with the next emergency.

It is also to embed regulatory changes that were made temporarily in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill is also going to support technology-neutral legislation that does not impede the use of digital and other technologies by businesses, government or citizens. For many of us, I know, in this house and, depending on where you work, in this state—indeed I know local councils have had to embrace digital technology, quite often having their council meetings via Zoom—things have really changed. We have come a long way in the past two years in how we use digital technology. We need to make sure our regulatory systems are keeping up with that.

The bill is also going to make simple, uncontroversial amendments to a whole lot of other acts to ensure efficient and effective regulatory systems, and this will include simple changes to reduce regulatory burden, which is really important. In my past life looking at the national electricity rules and reducing regulatory burden was a major part of my job. We are looking at making simple changes to reduce regulatory burden without compromising the effective management of harms.

I have to say we have done a lot in the past eight years in improving regulatory processes and removing red tape. Those opposite have really talked a big game about red tape, but the Andrews Labor government, like always, we do what we say we will do. We have gotten on with the job and reduced Victoria’s regulatory burden by a whopping 25 per cent. That is really big deal. That is a 25 per cent reduction in the regulations that those opposite left us in 2014.

Investing in regulatory reform is really important because we know that good reform needs a kickstart and a helping hand to get savings for the Victorian community both now and, most importantly, into the future. I want to talk a little bit about what we have done in terms of removing red tape and regulatory reform. We have invested $60 million in over 60 regulatory reform projects across local and state government through the Treasurer’s incentive fund, the Regulatory Reform Incentive Fund, which is now estimated to grow Victoria’s economy by almost $400 million per year and give back to Victorians just over 293 000 days per year in saved time. That is quite a big number.

We have invested $100 million in reforms to Victoria’s planning system, boosting the state’s economy by $775 million over five years. That is really important, because that has also been about creating new construction jobs and shortening permit approval times by an entire month, so it is getting things done and getting them done quicker. We also looked at streamlining screening checks for our wonderful NDIS workers, and that is saving 2800 days per year for applicants. That is a lot of saved time. We are getting these workers into jobs so that they can get on with supporting our very vulnerable disabled Victorians to live with dignity and respect. I am very proud to be part of a government that has spent a huge part of its legislative reform agenda here in this place helping enact legislation and amend legislation that will help provide better protection for vulnerable Victorians, including those with special needs and disabilities.

We know that some of the most onerous regulation for Victorians is at the local government level, and we have partnered really closely with local government over the past couple of years across the state to streamline and digitise their approval systems, and this has worked really well for local councils and ratepayers inside their LGAs. It makes it simpler and faster for local Victorian businesses to have their applications processed faster. This is a great piece of legislation. It is tidying up a lot of temporary arrangements and either putting them in place permanently or making sure that they are easily accessible in times of crisis and when we need them. I commend the minister for bringing this bill to the house, and I wholeheartedly support it.

Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) (12:07): I am certainly pleased to rise to contribute to this debate on the bill before the house. The starting position I just wish to make is one about the general legislative agenda of the government, which of late seems to be a continual introduction of omnibus legislation. Now, I understand grouping like changes into one bill may be sensible, but we are seeing significant pieces of legislation cobbled together in an omnibus bill which historically would have been split up and separated by respective portfolios. I just place that on the record because this is not only something that we have seen in this piece of legislation and in previous bills before the house but something that we will see in future bills that I know are coming before the house, where clearly there are a range of issues that have been cobbled together which have no commonality, and that makes it very challenging to properly address the issues before the Parliament.

This bill is predicated on regulatory reform, and those opposite have been championing the government’s reform package. I would have thought in this era, in this day, in this year, post COVID, the government would be in fact seeking to introduce legislation which is going to unburden our business community and others throughout the community to recover, to rebuild and to ensure that they are best placed to stay open and to grow or potentially to open. That is critical at this time in a post-COVID environment. I have surveyed businesses in my own community, and 80 per cent of those businesses indicated they are financially worse off during COVID as a consequence of COVID. Now, that is not necessarily saying it is all due to the actions of the government, but what it says is they are struggling to stay open. Some are closing, some want to grow, and what they are looking for from the government is reform to assist them to grow. They are not looking for new legislation, they are not looking for new regulations, they not looking for new taxes and charges; they are looking for reform to make their job easier.

I put that on record and say that I would have thought, as a starting position, that the government would introduce into this house at the start of this calendar year reform to help our business community thrive and grow. I had a business operator approach me recently when I was out talking to local residents, and they have a business operating in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, a manufacturing business. They live in the community and they employ people in the community, but they are struggling to stay open. They have been approached to go to New South Wales and relocate their business to Parramatta. They do not want to go to Parramatta. They do not want to sack their staff. They do not want to have to relocate their business, but the New South Wales government is providing them incentives to relocate. So we should be ensuring that we see reform come into this house under the guise of legislation like this that provides that help and support for those businesses.

Obviously the bill before the house seeks to make a range of amendments to a number of different aspects of current acts of Parliament. I just want to touch on a couple in the period that I have. Change in regard to the way in which information is disseminated into the community by use of the internet is going to have a detrimental impact on regional Victorians, particularly those publications and those newspapers in regional Victoria which rely on that information to be disseminated to their local communities through those newspapers. As the member for Brighton articulated in his contribution, stakeholders in that sector have made it very clear that the government’s decision to basically take that information away from newspapers and to put it online is going to, firstly, impact the viability of many of those country papers. I say that because when I was first elected to this house in 2006, we had two newspapers, the Leader and the Journal, which were distributed in my community every week, and here we are in 2022 and we have neither newspaper distributed throughout my community. The only way people can actually get a hard copy newspaper in my community is through a community newspaper, which in good faith is prepared by local communities.

Ms Britnell: We don’t have one.

Mr WAKELING: Well, I think that just highlights the point. Country communities rely on their country newspapers, and they are wanting their government to work with them to assist them. But here is a situation where that is going to be taken away. And actually when we look at it with information being put online—

A member interjected.

Mr WAKELING: I will not take up that interjection—I think that is offensive to those country newspapers. Deputy Speaker, it is unruly to take up interjections, and I do appreciate that. When they talk about the information going online, there are many of us who can access information online and know how to access information online and can do it very easily, but there are a lot of people in our community that cannot do that. We saw that recently with the government’s $250 rebate, where I had a proliferation of residents contact my office trying to access a service which they were told they could only access online. They could not access it online and in fact wanted to come to our office and have our office do it for them. Now, that is ridiculous. This just highlights part of the challenges we have in our community when this government is seeking to make changes which actually impact on local communities.

One final point I just want to make on the very concerning nature of this bill is with regard to postal votes and the changes. As we heard, five people in Victoria made a complaint in regard to postal voting—five people in this state made a complaint. And on that basis the government is putting in place a provision that prevents tens of thousands of Victorians from being able to make a postal vote application. We know information about applying for a postal vote is not disseminated to Victorians and that many people rely on that information being provided to them so they can apply for a postal vote. Their response was, ‘Residents will be able to apply for it either online or at their local Australia Post office’. That is cold comfort for many people in my community who cannot access that information, because firstly, they are not online, or secondly, they will not know the information is even at the post office. You may just naturally think, ‘This will be solved. Nothing to look at here’. What this will result in is the disenfranchising of tens of thousands of Victorians. The government says, through the Victorian Electoral Commission, there are 80 000 registered voters who receive postal vote information. But we know that in the last election 300 000 people accessed postal votes, so 300 000 people voted via a postal vote but they only have records of 80 000 people. So even if you presume that we can rest assured that the electoral commission will guarantee that those people who have utilised this service are going to be contacted, we already know that 220 000 people will not receive that information, and that is just the people who used it at the last election.

The member for Box Hill said, ‘Postal voting is on the decline’. Well, in 2018 people were not fearful of going to a polling booth, as people will be fearful now in a post-COVID environment. There is a presumption that everyone will go back to a normal life. We know there are people in our community, older members of our community, who are less willing to go out and vote in those circumstances. This is clearly an attack. People in my community are gravely concerned. We will make very clear to them this attack on their right to receive postal voting information.

Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (12:17): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021. This is a really important bill, not least because regulation is important and regulatory reform impacts nearly every single Victorian. Regulation is about balance. It is not about rants, it is not about hysteria, the likes of which we have been subjected to today, and it is certainly not about misinformation and confusion. I have to really call out those opposite for some of the misstatements that they have made, particularly in relation to postal vote applications.

Regulation is actually about good government, and it is about helping government achieve social, economic and environmental objectives—really, really clear objectives—to make sure that there are net social and economic gains to drive job growth, to improve the lives of Victorians. Contrary to those opposite—and I call out the member for Brighton—regulations are not there to serve particular personal interests or particular views of political parties. Indeed where we know that a framework or regulations may be creating confusion, may be leading to a lack of confidence in our public systems where they are causing concern, then it is incumbent upon good governments to act on that. I do pick up the example of the postal vote applications where we have got an independent electoral commission, the Victorian Electoral Commission, which has called for, not just once but consistently, the prohibition on any person or organisation other than the VEC distributing postal vote applications. It is incumbent upon us that we listen to that recommendation. That is the independent body that has been tasked with the oversight, the administration and the running of elections. It is so important that the public has confidence in that body, and that goes to the very core of democracy here in Victoria.

Recommendation 46 of the Electoral Matters Committee report into the conduct of the 2018 state election recommends the amendment of the Electoral Act 2002 to do just that—to prohibit any person or organisation, other than the VEC, from distributing postal vote applications. This was a joint parliamentary committee. We had members from all sides as part of that committee. That recommendation was made to government, and this government now accepts that recommendation. I point out that in its compelling submission on this issue the VEC reported that the distribution of postal votes from political parties is a cause of concern and is undermining the impartiality of the VEC across multiple elections. As I said, this is concerning for democracy in this state. Yet those opposite are now wilfully refusing to accept that position. They are refusing to accept that position because it does not serve their political interests, and that is not how regulations work in Victoria. That is an example of a great disservice to Victorians and a great disservice to democracy in this state. Frankly it is why we always have to remain vigilant, absolutely vigilant. We cannot ever allow the Liberals and The Nationals to hijack regulations—never ever—to serve their own political purposes.

We know that regulations, as I said, are here to make things much more efficient and fair in Victoria. The Andrews Labor government knows this. In fact we came to office in 2014, we came to government, to make regulations more efficient and fair. We appointed the first ever Minister for Regulatory Reform, and this is compelling in its own right. We have now seen regulatory review, reform and improvement across the entire government. We have seen it in local government. We have seen it in essential services. We have seen it in gender equality. We have seen it in the protection of workers against wage theft. We have seen it in energy regulation. In small business the cutting of red tape has been so significant.

Of course review of regulation must be ongoing, because we know that things cannot last indefinitely. There are always changing circumstances. Economic conditions change, social views change, communities change and most recently there has been COVID. It has had the biggest impact on all of us. It has impacted every business and every single person in Victoria. We have never experienced this level of risk to public health ever before. Needless to say, in that environment regulatory reform and a review of the regulatory framework is absolutely crucial, and it is crucial because it is critical to our economic growth and Victoria’s future in coming out of this pandemic. But it is also crucial in being able to address and respond to further challenges as they may arise, whether that is COVID, another variant of concern, or whether it is other natural disasters, like bushfire, for example.

It is absolutely critical that we get the regulatory framework right but that we get it to a point where it is flexible, where it is nimble and where all of our agencies and departments and bodies are best able to respond as needed and are best able to put in place the very services and responses that are going to be most effective and most efficient. Indeed our entire competitiveness, our entire livability, depends on getting that right, and that is why this bill is so important. This bill, as part of our suite of regulatory reform, ensures that we are maintaining constant attention on good regulatory design and ensuring that we are continuing to maintain and keep Victoria in the best possible position going forward.

We have seen that the bill will seek to amend quite a number of acts, which include the Financial Management Act 1994, the Housing Act 1983, the Electoral Act 2002, the Local Government Act 2020, the Essential Services Commission Act 2001 and the Education and Training Reform Act 2006. Whilst some of these amendments might seem quite small, I think taken together they really go to the continual modernising of the regulatory framework and, as I said, helping us best prepare for whatever might lie ahead.

I mentioned COVID earlier, and obviously given the significant impact that COVID has had on all of us it is absolutely crucial that we are able to best respond on time and with the best and most efficient services. One of those is obviously dealing with financial hardship. I think it is something that no member in here is blind to. We know that our small businesses have really suffered, and it is crucial that in being able to support those small businesses even small things, like the ability to waive fees or to defer fees, are able to be put in place very quickly to assist and support those businesses to avoid severe financial hardship.

I heard also the members opposite were raising issues with the proposed amendments to the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 which will see that public notices are able to be published online. This bill, contrary to what those opposite said, will not prevent governments and businesses from using regional newspapers. In fact in some instances regional newspapers are going to be the best way to get that information across to those rural communities, so let us ensure that the debate is clear and factual at all times. As I said, this bill is to support economic growth and recovery here in Victoria, and I commend the bill to the house.

Ms SHEED (Shepparton) (12:27): I rise to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021. At the outset I would like to say that I do have some concerns in relation in particular to that aspect of the bill that seeks to amend the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1994. I will come to the reasons for that shortly, but to commence with I would like to move a reasoned amendment. I will do that now in the following terms. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government conducts further consultation on the impact on regional newspapers of ceasing to publish notices in print newspapers’.

This is an omnibus bill, and it seeks to amend numerous other acts of Parliament, some of them quite significantly, but today I will mainly concentrate on the issue that arises because of this amendment that seeks to remove that requirement to publish notices in print media.

Just briefly, I will refer to a number of other amendments which are encompassed in the bill. During the pandemic temporary allowances were made for parliamentary committees, local councils and libraries to meet virtually, and this is now a process that will become permanent as a result of this legislation when it is passed. Another important element of this bill is giving regulators permission to offer fee relief in times of crisis. We have seen many instances of that during COVID, but often with a need to have particular legislation to do it. This will create a facility to enable organisations to step in more quickly and have some flexibility in that regard.

The problem that I have with this bill is really one that I have spoken about many times in this Parliament, and it is about the future viability of regional newsprint. It is an issue that is continually being brought to our attention in regional areas as more and more media outlets withdraw or close their doors. The changes in this legislation remove the requirement for Victorian government public notices to be published in newspapers—just to be published online. So the scheme is really one where currently statutory authorities and all sorts of bodies, including local government and the Victorian state government, publish these notices in the print newspapers.

There is now an intention to set up a single website and everything will go there and there will no longer be the need for the print to occur. It has been removed from the legislation. It is not even going to be a regulation that occurs. The very best that will come out of this is there may be a guideline set up by the minister wherein there can be certain circumstances where it goes in the print media also. It is virtually discretionary as far as my reading of the bill goes, and I think that is not good enough. Accessibility for our communities to this sort of information is extremely important, and I just draw on one instance as a situation that would give people an idea of how important it is. Just before Christmas Greater Shepparton City Council agreed to the situation where they would look at selling the airspace above a car park in the CBD. Now, there are a whole lot of people who are not happy with that and a residents association has been set up. This is only because our local newspapers were able to see a notice that was published, to write a story on it and to bring it to the attention of the public in a way that has allowed everyone in the community now to make submissions to local government, for and against, and to really create an atmosphere of people feeling that they have some say in government at that level, and indeed every level.

It really is important also because it takes away just some of the base income that regional newspapers have. In regional areas politicians advertise regularly in their local newspapers. I know they rely on that as well. It is part of our way of sharing with the community what we have been doing, what we are saying and what we are involved in on their behalf as their representatives. But more importantly, all those government notices that go out and into the newspapers that we see all the time, whether they be planning, whether they be applications for tenders, all sorts of things, that are really important—we are now looking at a situation where they go onto one internet site, and I think it is a really big mistake to think that everybody will have access to that site.

I draw attention to the fact that recently the Victorian government set up a power saving energy grant of $250, available to everyone. That was widely published—it was in newspapers, it was online and it has been extended now to 30 June, but there are so many people in our community who cannot go online and do what needs to be done to access that. So we have got our Mooroopna Education and Activity Centre in Mooroopna busy all the time asking people to come in and helping them fill out forms online to do these things, and quite a few of our community agencies are now engaged on behalf of these disadvantaged or elderly people who are not able to access the computers and the internet in a way that so many are. I do not think that is just a regional issue. I mean, if you do not use a computer on a regular basis, on a daily basis, then it can become difficult, it become hard to navigate, and there are many people in our community—not just the elderly—who are in that situation. But let me tell you that it is often the older, retired people who are really watching for those notices. They are on the ball, they are active community members and they want to know what is going on, and if they cannot access it in the local newspaper, then how will they?

Regional newspapers have suffered greatly in the past decade due to the increasing presence of online media and the decline in print newspapers across our regional areas. We have seen many of them close down. We have seen television stations removing their cameramen from our areas; the ABC used have a cameraman in Shepparton. We have seen WIN TV go to a weekly, whole-of-Victoria regional news bulletin; no longer does our area have its own. We are losing our stories. People are not telling our stories anymore and we are finding it really hard to share them, and this is something that has a really significant impact on every aspect of community life. WIN News also pulled out of Wagga Wagga, Orange, Albury, Bundaberg. We are seeing Sky News being streamed in. It is not local news. There is no capacity for them to do local news in the way that our smaller organisations have. So the impacts of just a simple few paragraphs in this omnibus bill can be devastating, and I am here to say that on behalf of regional communities something absolutely must be done about it.

Studies out of the UK and other countries indicate that where there is a loss of local media communities suffer a commensurate rise in corruption, political disengagement and heightened distrust in public institutions. Where newspapers stop reporting on what happens at their local council meetings, people become disengaged. Councils are not accountable. Councillors are not accountable. Council staff are no longer being held to account. For much of what happens it is really important that the light is shone on government at every level, and the removal of this simple aspect of bringing things to the forefront in people’s minds, of letting them know what is happening, what the government is advertising, what they are intending is, in my view, a major encroachment on people’s capacity to participate in society and really in a democracy.

So I have moved this reasoned amendment. I would think that any member in this place who represents a regional area would feel the same way I do. I think they know how important our regional news media at every level is, how much we have lost, what an impact it is having, and with the stroke of a pen we are being faced with a loss of security that was in the legislation and now will end up in some guideline.

Ms HALL (Footscray) (12:37): I am very pleased to make a contribution to the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021. If you have listened to this debate and the member for Brighton’s contribution earlier, you might think that there was great dissent in the Electoral Matters Committee around some of the recommendations that this legislation implements. The Leader of the Opposition sat on that committee, and we did a huge amount of work, collaborative work together, over many, many hours to produce the report, which I was pleased to table in the Parliament on behalf of the committee, but there was no dissent in that report. The opposition are now opposing recommendations that they supported, which is incredibly frustrating to hear, and as a member of the committee and on behalf of my fellow committee members I think it is particularly disingenuous.

The bill has a number of important reforms based on recommendations made by the Electoral Matters Committee into the conduct of the 2018 state election, and I am going to focus my contribution today on those recommendations. It is a comprehensive piece of legislation, and the reforms will include minor amendments to the Industrial Relations Legislation Amendment Act 2021, amendments to the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, amendments to the Local Government Act 1989, reforms to the Electoral Act 2002 and reforms to the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984.

I am very familiar, as I mentioned, with the work that the Electoral Matters Committee did to prepare and present its final report, and I might add the government is in the minority on that committee. So it is incredibly frustrating to see that despite these important reforms proposed by the committee being wholeheartedly supported by the opposition, they are now seeking to use a bit of a political stunt to scare people into thinking that we are going to impact their ability to vote by post.

The bill implements recommendations that were based on three key questions: was the election inclusive, was the election trustworthy and transparent, and was the election competitive? The findings of these questions were very heartening. The committee found no evidence of deliberate fraud, interference or significant counting errors. Generally speaking, candidates, parties and voters rated the services provided by the Victorian Electoral Commission highly. The VEC is one of the cornerstones of Victoria’s fair and open democracy, so maintaining public trust in their administration of elections is of the utmost importance. This bill is going to ensure that the VEC can continue to carry out its essential work maintaining public trust in what it is doing and why.

The amendments in the bill include: prohibiting the distribution of postal votes by people and organisations; clarifying the requirements relating to the use of political signage; allowing early voting to be processed earlier, at the same time as postal votes; and improving the process for notification of vote recounts to candidates and parties. I would like to speak a little bit about the processing of early votes. One of the findings of the Electoral Matters Committee was that early voting represented a significant proportion of votes cast in the 2018 election. 36.8 per cent of all votes counted were early votes, representing an increase from the previous election, and this trend has been replicated in other Australian jurisdictions as well as in New Zealand. Early voting is a very important thing to a lot of Victorians who find it difficult to vote on election day for reasons that can include work, caregiving, travel and health. However, a major factor for many people was the element of convenience. I can attest to this fact from my own experiences campaigning at the early voting centre in Footscray, conveniently located next to Savers and opposite Kmart. I can tell you how many people saw all of the volunteers, politicians and VEC officials camped out along the street and stopped, asked what was going on and whether they could vote early. And many, when they discovered that they had the option to vote early, did. In the context of a deadly global pandemic—

Mr Fowles interjected.

Ms HALL: I will take up the member for Burwood’s interjection: they voted for me, and that was fantastic. I was very delighted to secure a 15 per cent swing to Labor in the seat of Footscray, in part because the Greens fielded an appalling candidate whose contribution to the election campaign I think is well known to people in here.

In the context of a deadly global pandemic early voting will be an important feature for many people in a way that we could not have predicted when we were writing the report. One of the important findings of the report was that the two-week early voting period places pressure on parties and candidates, but it does mean that Victorians find it easier to vote. Facilitating our democracy should be of the highest priority, and that is why the Electoral Matters Committee ultimately supported retaining the existing two-week early voting period.

Another amendment within this bill is to remove the current requirement for maps of proposed new boundaries—of course which Footscray will also have—to be distributed at every municipal council office in Victoria. This is an expensive exercise that does not reflect how Victorians in 2022 receive information from the Electoral Boundaries Commission. The maps of proposed boundaries will be displayed on the electoral commission’s website, and I would expect that members of Parliament will be very happy to share that information with members of the public who wish to access it. In the 2013 redistribution the Electoral Boundaries Commission received no evidence that members of the public inspected any of the maps of the proposed boundaries at municipal offices. Any change to the administration of elections and electoral boundaries cannot occur within a vacuum, and that is why the government has consulted extensively with the Victorian Electoral Commission and ensured that they are supportive of these reforms.

Five recommendations that arose from the Electoral Matters Committee report were directed to government, and as I mentioned previously, these were wholeheartedly supported by the opposition, which is now opposing them. These recommendations include recommendation 28, which pertains to the technicalities of re-counts; recommendation 41, to amend the Electoral Act 2002 to clarify rules about signage around voting centres and amend the status of mobile billboards; recommendation 45, to allow early votes to be processed from 8.00 am on election day; recommendation 46, to prohibit any person or organisation other than the VEC from distributing postal vote applications; and recommendation 47, to remove the requirement for postal vote applicants to separately declare that they understand their name and address may be provided to registered political parties and non-party aligned candidates. And recommendation 47 will ensure that postal vote applications are not rejected when applicants do not tick the declaration box.

I am very pleased to support this bill, and I will conclude on this point. But I just want to reiterate the frustration I feel as a member of the committee, which worked very hard on this report, when I see that the opposition is now opposing it.

Mr BATTIN (Gembrook) (12:46): I rise to oppose the bill before the house today, the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021. I will first go to the reasoned amendment from the member for Shepparton and note that we will support her reasoned amendment. But I just want to clarify one thing. When the member for Shepparton spoke, she spoke about country, and I know she represents the country and she knows how important local papers are. I am in the growth corridor, and let me assure you, local papers are still exceptionally important in growth corridors, where we see continuous change, continuous development, new things happening in our community continuously. Rules are changing, councils are being moved around—obviously we have had issues with Casey council, and we have still got Cardinia council—with reports going into the papers, and the legislation ensured that those changes to rules and regulations were always put in those papers so people knew where they were.

Not everybody in the local communities, particularly in the growth corridors, will refer to their papers; some will go online. I was speaking to my friend from Gippsland East, and we were talking about some of the issues with people getting access to data online when we move away from regional papers and go to just an online service. Whilst I know some members on the other side say it does not mean the data has to go online and there is still the option for it to go in the papers, the reason the data was there was that people down through Gippsland East, when the fires went through, could not access information online. We learned so much from that, and the government need to listen to what the community is saying down there. They could not access online information, so newspapers, radio reports, the telephone were the way communication happened out in some of these regional areas. These are the most important people. They need these regional papers. These regulations and everything else should be printed in there. People who are looking it up in those communities should be heard here in the Parliament.

We know that Parliament is based in Melbourne. I know we always have the jokes around Labor and where they go and not thinking outside the tram tracks, but I do say to them that they have to start considering what is going to happen through regional Victoria when they remove access to information—information about our democracy. Our democracy is too important to be played with, and we need to make sure that information is going out there. It is also a lifeline for many of our regional papers. I know, Deputy Speaker, you would have many regional papers that would support you and you would support them up in your community, as many of us in our communities would. I have the Star News Group in my community. How important is it that they survive? We have seen campaign after campaign. The member for Shepparton, I know, would have run campaigns up there. It is so important our regional papers can survive. This is something that ensured that they had funding coming through. At the same time that we have got regional papers across Victoria calling for a $50 million support package, this is another huge hit on them. This is a government that is failing to listen to those communities out there and to those organisations and small businesses—mum-and-dad businesses—that go out and ensure that people know what is going on in their town, even the small things. It could be that you get your name printed up for batting 100 down at the local cricket club. But all those sorts of things support clubs; those clubs can go and get sponsorships. It is all these things that are part of that circular economy in what happens from a local newspaper—real estate, what is going on at your local school. I say to the government: we are going to oppose the bill, but seriously consider supporting, even at worst, the member for Shepparton’s reasoned amendment, because it is so important to our regional newspapers.

I will go back to what we were talking about in relation to the changing of postal vote applications—how applications can be sent out, who can get them and who is allowed to get involved in that transition at the moment of how people get postal votes and also early voting. Postal votes and early voting—I know the member for Footscray said it—are so important now within the electoral cycle. Many areas have gone, as I said, above that 35 per cent. Some are up to 50 and nearly 60 per cent. With this election, probably more so than ever, there is a fear in the community about being in queues, in lines and in places of high density. So in this election—we will wait and see; I could be proven wrong—I think we will see a record amount of people who are either postal voting or early voting to try and avoid the queues, to try and avoid being out with mass crowds at the time, and we need be putting in a position where we can support that.

There are normally just under a million people with postal vote applications, but only about 80 000 are registered as permanent postal voters. It needs to be ensured that those people who use those postal vote services, who have used a postal vote in the past, still have that access but also have that information, because many of them are not aware of it. We send out letters. We have done that for a while. We send out letters to people who turn 70 to inform them they can go onto the Victorian Electoral Commission website, go through the details and then register to be a permanent postal voter. But if we do not tell them that, they will probably never be told, and there are a whole group of people who are 70 and above, going from the date this will come out, that will no longer get that information. The only organisation that can send it out is the VEC, and I have to ask: are the VEC going to be sending that out to every person who turns 70? We send them a certificate for their 70th birthday, and we give them all the details of the things that change in your life when you reach the age of 70—things that you can apply for, what you have access to, concessions, whether you can be supported with the government’s $250 grant. All of these things are things we communicate, and one of those is postal votes.

I also go shop to shop. I go to every shop throughout my electorate and make sure I knock on the door a couple of weeks before the election. I hand over a letter to all the staff there and say to them, ‘Just to remind you’—and many of them would not live in my electorate, so it is not just about mine in there—‘if you are working on the Saturday of the election, there are alternatives for how you can vote, and those alternatives may be that you can go to an early voting centre. If you work hours that won’t even suit that, then there is the alternative of postal voting. But you have to apply, you have to go through a process with it’. That to me is all part of our democracy. Not once do I go in there and tell them everything about who to vote for, but I do give them that form. It goes to the VEC, and all parties get the benefit of that now. All parties are aware that that person is now a postal voter.

Why would the government—why would the Premier and the Labor Party—now want to interfere with that system? I did not 100 per cent agree with what happened in the postal voting applications last time, but what I will say is now you are interfering in such a way that it is going to take away the rights of so many people who use that postal vote system to ensure that their voice is heard. It is another thing here in Victoria that is tearing away at the democracy that we have been so, so proud of, that we all in this place, I hope, support and want to continue. I know there are parts of this legislation that could be supported, but the reality is these are two elements of it that absolutely prevent us, because we cannot just let these things idly swing by. Democracy is too important.

I will finish off by saying the postal vote one is very, very important but I will go back to what was raised around the local papers. As I said, I have got Star News Group. The Star News Group has been around for over 100 years. The editor down there is Garry Howe, who is one of the most committed local community people that I have seen—CFA, sports clubs, making sure people’s voices are heard, understanding his local community. I probably should not say, but he loves the races—not a real good punter. But he went as far as buying a race in his wife’s name for their anniversary as a gift once. He loves his local community. He lives and breathes his local community. If we change these regulations and these rules of what can and cannot go in those papers or what the government has to put in those papers and there is a drop in income there, it does not just impact Garry, it impacts on the staff—the young staff who he has put through that place who have now come out and are reporters that many of us know. Mitch at the Herald Sun and Aneeka at the Herald Sun, who does the crime reports—these are people that have come through Star News Group, and I am sure there are many more. There are people from out in the regional areas and from these local papers who have come into the city to work in the major newspapers and gone on to do other things. Some of them are at Sky News, some of them are at channels 7, 9 and 10. They all start somewhere.

If the governments think that they can take away and rip away hundreds of thousands of dollars from these local organisations, all they are doing is adding to the unemployment through those areas or impacting opportunities for these young people. So I say to the government: have a think about this particular part of this legislation, have a think about who it impacts, and ensure when you make your vote today on this bill that you take into consideration that you are ripping the lifeblood out of employment and jobs in regional Victoria and opportunities for young people who can go on and make a major difference in our media. If you go and look at the history of plenty of people in senior positions within our media in Melbourne, you will probably find many of them came from your local country town.

Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (12:56): I am delighted to have 3 minutes on the run-in to lunch to address the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021. I know we are all hungry—do not worry, this will be brief. I think the elephant in the room here is the fact that the committee that made these recommendations had four Labor members on it and four LNP members on it. One of those members is in fact now the Leader of the Opposition, so he has clearly been rolled on this. He has clearly been rolled because the committee came back—and it is not like there were not minority reports. No, the Greens had a minority report as part of this committee reporting process, so it was not like the door had not been cracked open to members of this committee expressing a different view—no, no. The four members of the Labor Party on the committee and the four members of the Liberal Party on the committee all supported the recommendations—all of them. So this is cognitive dissonance to an unbelievable degree.

One of the recommendations supported by the Liberal Party and supported by the Leader of the Opposition was that the government amend the Electoral Act 2002 to prohibit any person or organisation other than the Victorian Electoral Commission from distributing postal vote applications. Now, it does not affect a great many of the postal vote applications. Indeed more than 80 per cent of the postal vote applications are obtained by voters directly from the VEC anyway. What it does do is remove the frankly slightly odious practice, which my party and the Liberal Party have been involved in over a long period of time, of intersecting the relationship between those administering the election, in this case the VEC, and the voter. That is a very good reform. That is a reform that improves transparency. That is a reform that makes sure that the integrity of the electoral system is maintained. And despite some of the absolute nonsense put forward by the member for Brighton and the member for Ripon about this being some kind of Trumpian voter suppression effort, it is in fact a measure that improves the integrity of the electoral system because it removes party politics from the process of voting.

Clearly party politics can and should be involved in the process of electors making decisions about who they are going to vote for, but they should not be involved in the process of voting. That is why, for example, we have delineation at polling places. That is why we have distance between the act of voting and those canvassing for votes. And what we have seen today—it is extraordinary—from members of the coalition is them going against their own members, going against the Leader of the Opposition, who voted in favour of this recommendation, and going against all of that work of the Electoral Matters Committee and seeking to undermine it by coming in here and painting this dystopian picture of these reforms to Victoria’s electoral process. It is at best disingenuous. At worst it is a cynical manipulation of this process in this place and the work of this chamber, and I think those opposite should be condemned for it.

Sitting suspended 12.59 pm to 2.01 pm.

Business interrupted under standing orders.