Thursday, 5 March 2026

 Ros SPENCE (Kalkallo – Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Community Sport, Minister for Carers and Volunteers, Minister for Treaty and First Peoples) (10:45): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Safe Food Victoria Bill 2026:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Safe Food Victoria Bill 2026 (the Bill).

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights protected by the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of the Bill

The main purpose of the Bill is to establish a new statutory body called Safe Food Victoria under a new principal Act called the Safe Food Victoria Act 2026 (the Principal Act) and to make reforms for Safe Food Victoria to be responsible for food safety regulation in Victoria.

The Bill will amend the Dairy Act 2000 (Dairy Act), the Meat Industry Act 1993 (Meat Industry Act), the Seafood Safety Act 2003 (Seafood Act), the Food Act 1984 (Food Act) and certain other Acts, including to:

• abolish Dairy Food Safety Victoria and PrimeSafe;

• confer existing functions of Dairy Food Safety Victoria and PrimeSafe under the Dairy Act, Meat Industry Act and Seafood Act on Safe Food Victoria;

• allow Safe Food Victoria to regulate by licence under the Dairy Act non-traditional foods and foods produced using new technologies where those foods are declared by the Minister (referred to in this statement as ‘declared foods’);

• confer existing food safety regulatory functions and powers of the Secretary to the Department of Health under the Food Act on Safe Food Victoria and on the Secretary to the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action;

• insert in the Food Act new compliance and enforcement powers of Safe Food Victoria.

Human rights issues

In conferring food safety regulatory functions under the Food Act on Safe Food Victoria, the Bill will provide for the transfer of information relating to those functions to Safe Food Victoria. The Bill will also enable Safe Food Victoria to request from the Secretary to the Department of Health information relating to Safe Food Victoria’s functions and objectives.

The Principal Act will include provisions outlining when information held by Safe Food Victoria under that Act and other food safety legislation may be used and disclosed. The Bill will also insert in the Food Act similar provisions relating to the use and disclosure of information obtained by certain persons under that Act.

To support the regulation of declared foods under the Dairy Act, the Bill will extend certain provisions of the Dairy Act applying to dairy foods and dairy food licence-holders so that they also apply to declared foods and declared food licence-holders. These include provisions relating to the suspension or cancellation of licences, offence and evidentiary provisions, powers of authorised officers to give notices requiring food premises to be cleaned or disinfected, and other general authorised officer powers for the purposes of administering and monitoring compliance with the Dairy Act.

To support Safe Food Victoria in its regulatory functions under the Food Act, the Bill will insert in the Food Act new compliance and enforcement powers of Safe Food Victoria, including powers to issue information or document production notices and to make orders to councils for the inspection of food premises.

The following rights are relevant to the Bill:

• Right to freedom from forced work (section 11);

• Right to privacy and reputation (section 13);

• Right to take part in public life (section 18);

• Right to property (section 20);

• Right to be presumed innocent (section 25(1));

• Right against self-incrimination (section 25(2)(k)).

Right to freedom from forced work

Section 11 of the Charter provides that a person must not be held in slavery or servitude or made to perform forced or compulsory labour. ‘Forced or compulsory labour’ does not include court-ordered community work as a condition of release from detention, work or service required because of an emergency threatening the Victorian community or a part of that community, or work or service that forms part of normal civil obligations.

Orders in relation to food premises

Clause 102 extends the application of section 46 of the Dairy Act, which allows authorised officers to give notices to owners of dairy premises, dairy food or related vehicles that are unclean, unsafe or otherwise not compliant, requiring certain actions to be taken. That section is extended so that the powers are also available in relation to declared food and declared food premises. Among other things, a notice under section 46 can require that the premises, vehicle, plant, machinery or equipment be cleaned and disinfected to the satisfaction of the authorised officer.

Similarly, clause 172 expands section 19 of the Food Act, which enables orders to be made to food businesses to require that food premises are put into a clean and sanitary condition or that food prepared or handled is made safe. Section 19 is amended to include an additional circumstance where those orders can be made – being that the food premises, or equipment, activities or food on them, does not comply with the Food Safety Standards.

The expansion of the compulsion under those sections to clean food premises and take related actions may interfere with the right to freedom from forced work – specifically, the prohibition on compulsory labour in section 11(2) of the Charter. I am of the view, however, that the right is not engaged as any work required by the notices and orders would fall within the scope of the exception to the prohibition in section 11(3) of the Charter, relating to work or service that ‘forms part of normal civil obligations’. The notices and orders can only be given to food businesses and the owners of food premises who are engaging in a regulated activity and have voluntarily assumed associated responsibilities and obligations.

If the exception does not apply, and the right is engaged, I consider that clauses 102 and 172 do not limit the right. In relation to clause 102, under section 46 of the Dairy Act an authorised officer may only order the taking of actions set out in section 46(2) which appear to them to be appropriate in the circumstances (those circumstances being set out in section 46(1)) and so the owner of food premises is not compelled to take all actions specified in that section. In relation to clause 172, under the new circumstance inserted in section 19 of the Food Act, an order may only be made if the relevant authority is satisfied from the report of an authorised officer that the premises, equipment or food does not comply with an applicable requirement of the Food Safety Standards. In relation to both clauses, even when a notice or order compels the owner of the premises to undertake specific work or labour such that the right may be limited, I consider that any limit is reasonable and proportionate to the legitimate aims of maintaining hygiene and food safety standards and protecting public health.

Right to privacy and reputation

Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. An interference will be lawful if it is permitted by a law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed, and will be arbitrary only if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought.

Section 13(b) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their reputation unlawfully attacked. An ‘attack’ on reputation will be lawful if it is permitted by an appropriately circumscribed law.

Disclosure of pecuniary interests

Clause 26 requires members of the Board of Safe Food Victoria to disclose the nature of any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter being considered, or to be considered, by the Board and makes failure to do so an offence. The disclosure must be recorded in the minutes of the Board meeting. These provisions may have the practical effect of compelling Board members to disclose information which may include information about the person’s personal or financial affairs. This may interfere with the Board member’s right to privacy.

In my view, any such interference with the right to privacy will not be unlawful or arbitrary. The requirement to disclose pecuniary interests is clearly confined to when a conflict of interest might arise and only applies when the Board member’s interest is greater than that of any other person in the industry. The requirement is also necessary to ensure the integrity of Board decisions, by removing any real, potential or perceived conflicts of interest.

Information sharing

Part 4 of the Bill provides for the use and disclosure of information held by Safe Food Victoria under the Principal Act and certain other Acts. Clauses 41 and 42 authorise Safe Food Victoria staff, Board members, the chief executive officer, authorised officers and other specified persons to use and disclose this information for certain purposes and in certain circumstances.

Similarly, clause 185 inserts new information sharing provisions in the Food Act. Those provisions apply to Safe Food Victoria staff, Board members, authorised officers and other specified persons. Those persons may use and disclose any information obtained by them for or in connection with the performance of a function or duty or the exercise of a power under the Food Act for certain purposes and in certain circumstances.

The information that may be used or disclosed under those provisions of the Principal Act and the Food Act includes personal information and health information.

While the information sharing provisions are likely to interfere with the right to privacy, I consider this interference to be lawful and not arbitrary. The provisions are necessary to enable Safe Food Victoria, authorised officers and other specified persons to effectively perform their statutory functions and exercise their powers. They also include appropriate limitations on when use and disclosure is authorised, including for purposes directed toward supporting the administration of the Principal Act, the Food Act or any other Act and minimising risks to public health.

Further, the handling of personal information and health information is subject to a range of confidentiality and information sharing restrictions in the Health Records Act 2001 and the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014. These statutory requirements provide additional protections to ensure that information used or disclosed under the information sharing provisions are managed appropriately and consistently with privacy principles.

I consider that these provisions strike an appropriate balance between enabling the effective exercise of statutory functions and powers and protecting individuals’ privacy rights. The information sharing provisions are proportionate to the purpose of the limitation and therefore will not be an unlawful or arbitrary interference with privacy.

Transitional provisions for transfer of information to Safe Food Victoria

Clause 64 requires the Secretary to the Department of Health to transfer to Safe Food Victoria information relating to functions, duties and powers under the Food Act conferred on it under the Bill.

Similarly, clause 65 requires the Secretary to the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action to transfer to Safe Food Victoria information relating to functions, duties and powers under the Food Act conferred on it under the Bill.

While clauses 64 and 65 have the potential to interfere with the right to privacy, the interference will be neither unlawful nor arbitrary. The information to be transferred is limited to information obtained or held by the Secretary to the Department of Health or the Secretary to the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action in their performance of certain functions under the Food Act and other information necessary to perform those functions. Further, the transfer of that information is necessary to enable Safe Food Victoria to perform functions under the Food Act conferred on it under the Bill. I consider any interference with privacy to be reasonable and proportionate to the purpose of the limitation.

Safe Food Victoria may request information from Secretary to Department of Health or Secretary to Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action

Clauses 66 and 67 allow Safe Food Victoria by written notice to request information from the Secretary to the Department of Health or the Secretary to the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action relating to the performance of Safe Food Victoria’s functions or the achievement of its objectives.

These clauses have the potential to interfere with the right to privacy, however in my view the interference will be lawful and not arbitrary. The information which may be requested is limited to information related to the functions and objectives of Safe Food Victoria. The powers to request that information are necessary to enable Safe Food Victoria to perform those functions and achieve its objectives.

I therefore consider that any interference with privacy resulting from clause 66 or 67 is reasonable and proportionate to the purpose of the limitation.

Licence-holders to provide records

Clause 100 extends the application of section 44 of the Dairy Act to also apply to individuals and businesses holding licences for new declared foods. Section 44 currently requires dairy licence-holders to provide records relating to dairy food when required by notice and to permit authorised officers to inspect records required to be kept under that Act. The extension of this provision may interfere with licence-holders’ right to privacy, as the records provided, inspected or copied may contain personal or sensitive information.

However, in my view any resulting interference will be lawful and not arbitrary. First, clause 100 merely extends the application of a provision that is already in force. Secondly, the interference will be limited by the scope of the requirement, which only applies to records relating to certain food or which are otherwise required to be kept under the Dairy Act. Thirdly, any interference will be proportionate to the legitimate aim of monitoring compliance of declared food licence-holders with legislation that protects public health and safety.

General powers of authorised officers

Clause 101 extends the application of section 45 of the Dairy Act, which gives authorised officers general powers for the purposes of administering the Dairy Act and monitoring compliance with that Act and with dairy industry licence conditions. These include powers to enter and search dairy premises, enter and search vehicles used to transport dairy food, require the production of records relating to dairy food, inspect records and other things on the premises or vehicle and seize certain records. Clause 101 extends those powers so that they are available for monitoring compliance with declared food licences and so that they apply to declared foods and declared food premises. By extending these powers, the clause is likely to interfere with the right to privacy.

However, in my view the interference will be neither unlawful nor arbitrary. First, clause 101 merely amends powers that are already in force so that they are available in relation to new regulated activities. Secondly, there are clear limitations on the purposes for which the powers may be exercised and the premises, vehicles and information in relation to which they may be exercised. Thirdly, any interference will be proportionate to the legitimate aim of monitoring compliance by licence-holders with legislation that protects public health and safety and with their licence conditions.

I therefore consider the extension of these powers is compatible with the right to privacy.

Orders in relation to food premises

As outlined above, clause 172 expands section 19 of the Food Act, which enables orders to be made to food businesses to require that food premises are put into a clean and sanitary condition or that food prepared or handled is made safe. Section 19 is amended to include an additional circumstance where those orders can be made – being that the food premises, or equipment, activities or food on the premises, does not comply with an applicable requirement of the Food Safety Standards. An order under section 19 can direct that the premises temporarily stop selling or preparing food until the order is complied with – in which case the relevant authority can require the order to be displayed at the premises, displayed at the point of sale of the food premises, or published on the business’s website or elsewhere.

To the extent that the expansion of section 19 may interfere with the right to privacy, in my view any such interference will not be unlawful or arbitrary. The powers are conferred by legislation which is precise and appropriately limited. Under the new circumstance inserted in section 19, an order may only be made if the relevant authority is satisfied from the report of an authorised officer that the premises, equipment or food does not comply with an applicable requirement of the Food Safety Standards. In addition, any interference from the publication of those orders will be reasonable as it serves the legitimate purpose of enabling a member of the public to be made aware that a business should not be selling food and so protecting public health.

Information or document production notices

Clause 176 inserts new production notice provisions in the Food Act. Those provisions enable Safe Food Victoria to compel persons to produce information or documents in certain circumstances. The production notice provisions may interfere with the right to privacy, given that the documents or information required to be produced may contain personal or sensitive information. However, in my view, any resulting interference will be lawful and not arbitrary, for the following reasons.

First, any interference in a person’s private sphere will be limited by the scope of the powers. To issue a production notice, Safe Food Victoria must first reasonably believe the information or document is in the person’s knowledge, possession custody or control and the information is, or the document contains information that is, necessary for monitoring a person’s compliance with the Act, determining whether an offence has been committed under the Act or for determining whether a risk to public health exists. This threshold limits the personal or sensitive information that would be disclosed.

Secondly, production notices serve the legitimate purpose of ensuring compliance with legislation that protects public health and safety. Safeguards are also included in the Bill, including a reasonable excuse defence in the offence provision in new section 19BE of the Food Act.

Finally, the production of information and documents under the Food Act provisions will also be subject to the privacy principles in the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 and Health Records Act 2001 in relation to how personal and health information is collected, handled and disclosed. These requirements impose additional safeguards to ensure that personal and health information collected through a document that is the subject of an information or document production notice is dealt with appropriately.

Orders to councils for inspection of premises

Clause 181 inserts new inspection order provisions in the Food Act. Under those provisions, Safe Food Victoria may order a council to direct its authorised officers to enter and inspect specified premises for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the Food Act or determining if a risk to public health exists. An inspection order can require the authorised officer to take certain steps at the premises, including inspecting specified documents, articles and things, seizing or taking samples of those things, and taking photographs or recordings of them.

The inspection order provisions may interfere with the right to privacy, as authorised officers may collect personal or sensitive information when executing them. However, any interference will be limited by the scope of the powers. To give an inspection order, Safe Food Victoria must be satisfied that an article is being sold or handled for sale at the premises or place; and must determine that it is appropriate to give the order and require the doing of a thing specified in it, for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the Food Act or to determine whether a serious threat to public health exists. Safe Food Victoria must also consult the relevant council, except in urgent cases.

Further, the inspection order provisions serve the legitimate purpose of ensuring compliance with legislation that protects public health and safety and of monitoring risks to public health.

As such, so far as clause 181 interferes with the right to privacy, I consider the provision is reasonable and proportionate to the legitimate aim of the Bill and therefore not arbitrary.

Power to give information related to food or food premises

Clause 253 inserts a new provision in the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 which allows the Secretary to the Department of Health to give certain information to Safe Food Victoria, a Council, an authorised food safety officer or the Secretary to the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, if the Secretary considers the information relates to a public health risk, or whether there is such a risk, involving food or food premises.

So far as the information provided may contain sensitive or personal information, the provision may interfere with the right to privacy. However, if the right to privacy is engaged, I am of the view that it will not be limited.

First, any interference will be limited by the scope of the provision, which is limited to the sharing of information obtained under or for the purposes of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 or regulations made under it, and only where the information is relevant to a public health risk, or the potential for such a risk, involving food or food premises. Secondly, the provision serves a legitimate public health purpose, enabling the Secretary to identify and act on potential risks to public health associated with food or food premises. Lastly, this information sharing provision will be subject to privacy principles, and any personal or sensitive information will be dealt with accordingly.

Right to take part in public life

Section 18(2)(b) of the Charter provides that every eligible person has the right, and is to have the opportunity, without discrimination, to have access to the Victorian public service and public office. The right requires access to positions in the public service and in public office to be based on general terms of equality.

Appointment and removal of board members

Clause 14 provides for the appointment of members to the Board. A person is only eligible for appointment if they have knowledge, skills and experience in a field relevant to the Board’s functions. In determining whether to appoint a person, the Minister is to consider the degree to which the person’s knowledge, skills and experience are different from the existing Board members. This clause may be perceived as restricting a person’s right of access to positions in the public office. However, the eligibility criteria continue to facilitate equal opportunity to access the public service based on general principles of merit, and ensure that members of the Board have the skills necessary for the proper functioning of the Board. Those criteria are objective, reasonable and non-discriminatory.

Clause 21 enables members of the Board to be removed from office on certain grounds. That clause may be perceived as interfering with the right of access to public service for existing positions. However, to the extent to which there is any interference, it is justified to facilitate good corporate governance, hold members of the Board accountable for their responsibilities and to ensure the independence and proper functioning of the Board.

Accordingly, I consider that clauses 14 and 21, are compatible with the right, and any interference is reasonably justified.

Right to property

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. ‘Property’ under the Charter includes all real and personal property interests recognised under the general law, relevantly including contractual rights and licences. This right requires that powers which authorise the deprivation of property are conferred by legislation or common law, are confined and structured rather than unclear, are accessible to the public, and are formulated precisely.

Termination of chief executive officer contracts

Clauses 52 and 60 terminate the employment contracts of the chief executive officers of Dairy Food Safety Victoria and PrimeSafe, as if each contract were terminated by the employer giving written notice in accordance with the contract and with payment in lieu of notice.

Those clauses may be perceived as interfering with property rights (that is, contractual rights). However, to the extent that there is any interference, in my view this will be in ‘accordance with law’. The clauses are precise and clear as to the form of termination to occur. The termination to occur will be in accordance with the provisions of the contract applying in respect of termination on notice by the employer where the reason for the termination is not based on any serious failure to fulfil duties and responsibilities. Further, the termination of employment of the chief executive officers of Dairy Food Safety Victoria and PrimeSafe is not arbitrary but is a necessary consequence of the abolition of those entities under the Bill.

Cancellation or suspension of declared food licences

Clause 91 extends the application of section 26 of the Dairy Act, which among other things, enables the cancellation or suspension of dairy industry licences on certain grounds. That section is extended to also apply to declared food licences.

While extending that provision could lead to a deprivation of property (that is, loss of a declared food licence), in my view the right will not be limited by the amendments. Clause 91 merely extends powers that are already in force to a new category of licence. Licensees are choosing to participate in a regulated industry and have a conditional right to a licence. In addition, the powers are clear, precisely formulated and subject to various safeguards.

Under section 26 of the Dairy Act as amended, Safe Food Victoria may only cancel or suspend a declared food licence on specific grounds. Many of those grounds are directed to circumstances which, if present, may result in a risk to public health and safety if the licence were to continue, meaning the ability to cancel or suspend is important.

The cancellation or suspension of a declared food licence will also occur in accordance with sections 27 and 28 of the Dairy Act, which provide for procedural fairness in the form of the right of review to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). A licensee must be notified of the decision to cancel or suspend and on what ground. If the licensee applies to VCAT for review, the cancellation or suspension does not take effect unless and until VCAT have determined in favour of Safe Food Victoria.

Accordingly, the extension of these seizure powers by the Bill is ‘in accordance with law’.

General powers of authorised officers and orders in relation to food premises

As outlined above, clause 101 extends the application of section 45 of the Dairy Act, which gives authorised officers general powers for the purposes of administering and monitoring compliance with that Act. These include powers to enter and inspect dairy premises and vehicles used to transport dairy food and seize certain records, products or materials. Clause 101 extends those general powers so that they are available for monitoring compliance with declared food licences and so that they apply to declared foods and declared food premises.

Similarly, clause 102 extends the application of section 46 of the Dairy Act, which allows authorised officers to give notices in writing to owners of dairy premises, dairy food or related vehicles that are unclean, unsafe or otherwise not compliant, requiring certain actions to be taken. That section is extended so that the powers are also available in relation to declared food and declared food premises. Among other things, a notice under section 46 can order specified food to be seized, detained or destroyed.

By extending these powers, clauses 101 and 102 may interfere with property rights under the Charter. However, in my view the right is not limited by the amendments. Both clauses merely extend powers to seize and detain items that are already in force. In addition, the powers are conferred by precise legislation that contains various safeguards.

In relation to clause 101, the powers may only be exercised for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of the Dairy Act and licence conditions. In relation to clause 102, under section 46 of the Dairy Act an order may only be made where the authorised officer is satisfied that, or expects on reasonable grounds that, the premises, food or vehicles are unclean, unsafe or otherwise not compliant. Additionally, the order may only direct actions set out in section 46(2) which appear to the authorised officer to be appropriate in the circumstances (those circumstances being set out in section 46(1)).

When food is seized under section 46 of the Dairy Act, section 48 of the Dairy Act creates procedural safeguards and obligations relating to its storage, release and destruction. For example, an authorised officer is required to ensure the food is stored where it was seized or in another suitable place; a person may apply to the Magistrates’ Court seeking its release; and, if no application is made within the statutory timeframe or an application is refused, the food is to be disposed of in accordance with written directions issued by Safe Food Victoria.

Additionally, section 47 of the Dairy Act sets out requirements and processes for the destruction of food seized under either section 45 or 46 of the Dairy Act and which is decayed, deteriorated or putrefied, or where the owner consents to its destruction.

Accordingly, the extension of these seizure powers by the Bill is ‘in accordance with law’ and in my view does not limit property rights.

Orders to councils for inspection of premises

As outlined above, clause 181 inserts new inspection order provisions in the Food Act. Under those provisions, Safe Food Victoria may order a council to direct its authorised officers to enter and inspect specified premises for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the Food Act or determining if a risk to public health exists. An inspection order can enable entry onto the premises and certain steps to be taken there, including seizing specified things and detaining or removing them. This risks interfering with property rights.

However, I am of the view that the right is not limited, because the inspection notice powers are clear, are confined in their application and are conferred by provisions that are precisely formulated. To issue an inspection order, Safe Food Victoria must be satisfied that an article is being sold or handled for sale at the premises or place; and must determine that it is appropriate to give the order and require the doing of a thing specified in it, for monitoring compliance with the Food Act or to determine whether a serious threat to public health exists. An inspection order must specify the premises to which it applies, the purpose for which it is given, the steps directed to be carried out at the premises and the time period for compliance. In executing an inspection order, the authorised officer may only do things which the officer believes on reasonable grounds are appropriate to do for the purposes specified in the order.

Accordingly, I consider that clause 181 is compatible with the right to property.

Right to be presumed innocent

Section 25(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. The right is relevant where a statutory provision shifts the burden of proof onto an accused in a criminal proceeding, so that the accused is required to prove matters to establish, or raise evidence to suggest, that they are not guilty of an offence.

Evidentiary provisions

Clause 79 inserts new Schedule 1 into the Dairy Act, containing transitional provisions. Item 16(2) of that Schedule saves the operation of the evidentiary provision in section 59(1)(d) of the Dairy Act, despite amendments to it under the Bill. The effect of this is that the provision will still operate to remove the need for proof of the appointment of officers of Dairy Food Safety Victoria in proceedings, until evidence to the contrary is given.

Clause 110 extends the application of section 59(1)(a) of the Dairy Act, which provides for dairy food to be presumed to be intended for sale for human consumption in proceedings, unless there is evidence to the contrary. That provision is extended so that the presumption also applies to declared food.

The continuation and extension, respectively, of those evidentiary provisions may interfere with the right to be presumed innocent. The provisions reduce the evidentiary burden on the prosecution in respect of facts required to be proven to make out certain Dairy Act offences. However, in my view, clauses 79 and 110 will not limit the right. The evidentiary provisions being continued and extended are already in force. Further, the provisions do not transfer the legal burden of proof, and the evidentiary burden remains on the prosecution to prove the remaining elements of the offence. In relation to clause 79, the fact to be presumed is uncontroversial and, in relation to clause 110, the fact would ordinarily be peculiarly within the accused’s knowledge. In relation to both clauses, the accused would have the opportunity to rebut the presumption with evidence to the contrary.

Offence to contravene production notice

As outlined above, clause 176 of the Bill inserts new production notice provisions in the Food Act. New section 19BF creates an offence for contravening a production notice, which contains a ‘reasonable excuse’ exception.

In creating a ‘reasonable excuse’ exception, the offence in section 19BF may interfere with the right to be presumed innocent, in that it places an evidential burden on the accused to raise evidence of a reasonable excuse. However, in doing so, the exception does not transfer the legal burden of proof. Once the accused has pointed to evidence of a reasonable excuse, which will ordinarily be peculiarly within their knowledge, the burden shifts back to the prosecution to prove the essential elements of the offence. I do not consider that an evidential onus of this kind limits the right to be presumed innocent.

Criminal liability of officers of bodies corporate – new offence provisions

Clause 109 of the Bill amends section 55C of the Dairy Act so that it applies to the offence for failing to hold a declared food licence in new section 22(1A) of the Dairy Act inserted by clause 86 of the Bill. Section 55C of the Dairy Act deems officers of bodies corporate to be liable for offences committed by the body corporate. Section 55C(3) provides officers with a defence that they acted with due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence, and section 55C(4) allows a court to consider the officer’s knowledge of the commission of the offence, whether they were in a position to influence the body corporate, and the steps they took or could reasonably have taken to prevent the commission of the offence. Section 55C(5) provides that an officer may rely on a defence available to the body corporate, and bears the same burden of proof to establish the defence as the body corporate.

Clause 179 of the Bill amends section 51A of the Food Act so that it applies to the offence for contravening a production notice in new section 19BF of the Food Act inserted by clause 176. Section 51A of the Food Act deems officers of a body corporate to be criminally liable for offences committed by the body corporate, if they authorised or permitted the offence or were knowingly concerned in its commission. Section 51A(3) provides that an officer may rely on a defence available to the body corporate, in which case the officer bears the same burden of proof to establish the defence as the body corporate.

In applying section 55C of the Dairy Act and section 51A of the Food Act to new offences, clauses 109 and 179 may interfere with the presumption of innocence. Those provisions operate to deem as fact that an officer has committed an offence based on the actions of the body corporate and place an evidential burden on the officer to establish a defence. However, I do not consider that the right to the presumption of innocence is limited.

First, in relation to clause 179, the prosecution must prove the accessorial elements set out in section 51A(1) of the Food Act - that is, that the officer authorised or permitted the offence or was knowingly concerned in its commission.

Secondly, in relation to both clauses 109 and 179, section 55C of the Dairy Act and section 51A of the Food Act only place an evidential burden on the officer to establish a defence, and the prosecution is still required to prove the main elements of the offence set out in section 22(1A) of the Dairy Act and section 19BE of the Food Act respectively.

Finally, the evidence required to establish a relevant defence will likely be peculiarly within the personal knowledge of the officer, and would be difficult for the prosecution to establish.

In my view, it is appropriate to extend those Dairy Act and Food Act offences to officers of bodies corporate, to ensure proper compliance with the declared food licence and production notice provisions of those Acts. A person who undertakes the role of an officer of a body corporate accepts that they will be subject to certain requirements and duties, including a duty to ensure that the body corporate complies with its legal obligations. Affected persons should be aware of the regulatory requirements and, as such, should have the necessary processes and systems in place to effectively meet these requirements. Finally, neither offence is punishable by a term of imprisonment.

Criminal liability of officers of bodies corporate – extension of existing offence provisions

Clauses 94, 96, 106 and 108 of the Bill extend the food safety offence provisions in sections 30, 36, 50 and 53 of the Dairy Act so that they also apply in respect of declared foods and declared food licence-holders. Section 55A of the Dairy Act applies to an offence against sections 50 or 53; section 55B of the Dairy Act applies to an offence against section 30; and section 55C of the Dairy Act applies in respect of an offence against section 36.

Section 55A of the Dairy Act deems officers of a body corporate to be criminally liable for offences committed by the body corporate, if they authorised or permitted the offence or were knowingly concerned in its commission. Section 55A(3) provides that an officer may rely on a defence available to the body corporate, in which case the officer bears the same burden of proof to establish the defence as the body corporate.

Section 55B of the Dairy Act deems officers of a body corporate to be criminally liable for offences committed by the body corporate, if the officer failed to exercise due diligence to prevent its commission. In determining whether an officer failed to exercise due diligence, section 55B(3) allows a court to consider the officer’s knowledge of the commission of the offence, whether they were in a position to influence the body corporate, and the steps they took or could reasonably have taken to prevent the commission of the offence. Section 55B(4) provides that an officer may rely on a defence available to the body corporate, and bears the same burden of proof to establish the defence as the body corporate.

Section 55C of the Dairy Act deems officers of bodies corporate to be liable for offences committed by the body corporate. Section 55C(3) provides officers with a defence that they acted with due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence, and section 55C(4) allows a court to consider the officer’s knowledge of the commission of the offence, whether they were in a position to influence the body corporate, and the steps they took or could reasonably have taken to prevent the commission of the offence. Section 55C(5) provides that an officer may rely on a defence available to the body corporate, and bears the same burden of proof to establish the defence as the body corporate

In extending offences to which sections 55A, 55B and 55C of the Dairy Act apply, clauses 94, 96, 106 and 108 may interfere with the right to be presumed innocent. However, I do not consider that the right to the presumption of innocence is limited.

Firstly, the clauses merely extend the application of existing offences to which those evidentiary provisions already apply. Secondly, in relation to clauses 106 and 108 extending offences to which section 55A of the Dairy Act applies, the prosecution must prove the accessorial elements set out in section 55A(1) of the Dairy Act - that is, that the officer authorised or permitted the offence or was knowingly concerned in its commission. Thirdly, in relation to all clauses, sections 55A, 55B and 55C of the Dairy Act only place an evidential burden on the officer to establish a defence, and the prosecution is still required to prove the main elements of the offence set out in the offence provisions. Finally, the evidence required to establish a relevant defence will likely be peculiarly within the personal knowledge of the officer, and would be difficult for the prosecution to establish.

In my view, it is appropriate for the Dairy Act offences amended by these clauses to apply to officers of bodies corporate, as they are directed to protecting public health and safety. A person who undertakes the role of an officer of a body corporate accepts that they will be subject to certain requirements and duties, including a duty to ensure that the body corporate complies with its legal obligations. Affected persons should be aware of the regulatory requirements and, as such, should have the necessary processes and systems in place to effectively meet these requirements. Finally, the offences are not punishable by a term of imprisonment.

Right against self-incrimination

Section 25(2)(k) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence is entitled not to be compelled to testify against themselves or to confess guilt. This right is at least as broad as the common law privilege against self-incrimination. It applies to protect a charged person against the admission in subsequent criminal proceedings of incriminatory material obtained under compulsion, regardless of whether the information was obtained prior to or subsequent to the charge being laid.

Information or document production notices

As outlined above, clause 176 of the Bill inserts new production notice provisions in the Food Act. New section 19BE enables Safe Food Victoria to compel persons to produce information or documents in certain circumstances. New section 19BF makes it an offence to contravene a production notice without reasonable excuse. New section 19BH provides that a natural person may refuse to provide information (but not documents) specified in a production notice if doing so would tend to incriminate them. However, new section 19BI provides for a use immunity in relation to documents that are produced. Under new section 19BI, a document produced by a natural person that would tend to incriminate them is not admissible against the person in a proceeding, unless they are required by law to keep that document or the proceeding relates to false or misleading information in the document.

So far as they relate to information, in my view, the production notice provisions will not limit the right against self-incrimination. The requirement to provide information in response to a production notice is subject to a reasonable excuse exception in new section 19BF. This exception is coupled with new section 19BH, which will allow the privilege against self-incrimination to be claimed by a natural person to enable them to refuse to give information if doing so would tend to incriminate them.

In relation to documents, new section 19BH of the Food Act provides for a limited abrogation of the right against self-incrimination. A document would be required to be produced even if it may contain evidence that would tend to incriminate the person.

However, this is the case in relation to pre-existing documents only. At common law, the protection afforded to pre-existing documents is considerably weaker than that afforded to oral testimony or to documents that are brought into existence to comply with a request for information. The compulsion to produce pre-existing documents that speak for themselves is in strong contrast to testimonial oral or written evidence that is brought into existence as a direct response to questions. Accordingly, any protection afforded to documentary material by the privilege is limited in scope and not as fundamental to the nature of the right as the protection against the requirement that verbal answers be provided.

In addition, the use immunity in new section 19BI provides an important safeguard by ensuring that any incriminating documents produced by a person are not admissible in evidence against them, except in very limited circumstances.

The weaker protection afforded to pre-existing documents at common law and the safeguard referred to above serve to reduce the extent of any limitation of the right against self-incrimination by new section 19BH. In addition, any limitation is reasonable and justified. The purpose of the abrogation in relation to documents is to ensure the effective operation of the production notice provisions and enable Safe Food Victoria to have access to relevant documents to facilitate and ensure compliance with legislation that protects health and safety. There is significant public interest in enabling this. In my view, there are no less restrictive means available to achieve the purpose of enabling Safe Food Victoria to have access to relevant documents to facilitate and ensure compliance.

General powers of authorised officers

As outlined above, clause 101 extends the application of section 45 of the Dairy Act, which gives authorised officers general powers for the purposes of administering the Dairy Act and monitoring compliance with that Act and with dairy industry licence conditions. These include powers to compel persons to produce records relating to dairy food for inspection. Clause 101 extends those powers so that they are available for monitoring compliance with declared food licences and so that they apply to declared foods and declared food premises. Extending the application of these powers may interfere with the right against self-incrimination, as a person might be forced to provide documents to an authorised officer that might contain incriminating material.

However, in my view the right against self-incrimination will not be limited by the extension of these provisions. Clause 101 merely amends powers that are already in force so that they are available in relation to new regulated activities. Further, the powers to compel the production of records only extend to pre-existing records, in respect of which the protection afforded by the privilege against self-incrimination at common law is weaker than for records brought into existence.

The Hon. Ros Spence MP

Minister for Agriculture

 Ros SPENCE (Kalkallo – Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Community Sport, Minister for Carers and Volunteers, Minister for Treaty and First Peoples) (10:45): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Incorporated speech as follows:

The Safe Food Victoria Bill 2026 establishes a new consolidated food safety regulator - Safe Food Victoria - and makes other incremental but important changes to improve the way food safety is regulated in Victoria. These reforms will enable the continued protection of public health, a collaborative approach to achieving food safety outcomes with industry, while streamlining and simplifying the regulatory system.

The aim of the Bill is to implement the first stage of a two-stage reform program to consolidate food safety regulators in Victoria, as part of the Government’s commitment in the Economic Growth Statement to halve the number of Victorian regulators by 2030.

The way that the current food safety regulatory system is structured is overly complex, with four Victorian Acts and two responsible Ministers. The system is currently regulated by Department of Health, Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, Dairy Food Safety Victoria, PrimeSafe and 79 Local Councils.

This first stage of reform – implemented by this legislation – is focused on entity reform. Bringing together PrimeSafe and Dairy Food Safety Victoria; two regulators with similar remits; as well as some departmental food safety regulatory functions; into a new central food safety agency. Safe Food Victoria will enable more efficient regulation, better incident management, a paddock-to-plate approach to food safety that is better aligned with risk, and clearer food safety leadership including within Victoria, as part of Australia and New Zealand’s bi-national food regulatory system and for our important export markets.

The purposes of the Bill are to:

• establish Safe Food Victoria and to provide for it to perform functions in regulating the Victorian food industry;

• abolish Dairy Food Safety Victoria and PrimeSafe;

• make consequential and related amendments to the Dairy Act 2000, the Food Act 1984, the Meat Industry Act 1993, the Seafood Safety Act 2003 and certain other Acts.

A consolidated regulator can deliver benefits for businesses and consumers, while protecting public health. It will reduce the need for businesses to engage with multiple regulators and reduce compliance costs. Consolidation will improve efficiency and remove duplication which will lower the cost of regulation over time. This has been the experience of similar reforms made in New South Wales, Queensland and in most of our comparable international jurisdictions.

A consolidated regulator will also be able to balance important specialist capabilities with general food safety skills - better enabling it to respond to food safety incidents and work with industry to ensure the safety of consumers.

Once Safe Food Victoria is established, a further series of reforms in a second stage will be brought before the Parliament in the next term. This will further consolidate existing food safety legislation, modernising the licensing, compliance and enforcement laws. The second stage of reform will also consider new cost recovery arrangements and the role of local councils in regulating food safety. While we expect some regulatory benefits in this first stage of reform, this legislation will largely set the foundation for more explicit benefits as part of Stage 2.

The Government’s vision is that these staged food safety reforms will deliver a regulatory scheme that safeguards public health, protects consumers and assures markets. It will provide a clear, simple and proportionate regulatory environment to support business diversity and economic growth. The legislative framework will be robust and responsive to effectively manage emerging risks, foster innovation and facilitate continual improvement. Finally, the scheme will facilitate a collaborative approach to identifying and managing food safety risks across the supply chain.

Reforms have been supported by an extensive engagement and consultation process over the last year involving more than 60 individual engagements with stakeholders and interest groups. This has culminated in an Engage Victoria process across September and October 2025. More than 120 unique submissions were received, with an overwhelming 91 per cent in support. This feedback included that the Bill, in creating Safe Food Victoria, should establish a regulator:

• capable of providing clearer food safety information and that can encourage greater consistency of outcome;

• that will be a “one-stop-shop” for businesses;

• that can support local councils and businesses with ongoing specialist expertise;

• that understands the balance between critical, non-negotiable public health outcomes while working with industry to address these efficiently; and

• importantly, has embedded stakeholder connections via consultative committees.

The Government is confident that the design elements of Safe Food Victoria are consistent with this feedback.

I shall now outline the major provisions of the Bill.

• The Bill provides for the creation of a new statutory authority - Safe Food Victoria - to replace PrimeSafe and Dairy Food Safety Victoria, as well as conduct the food safety regulatory functions currently undertaken by the Department of Health. PrimeSafe and Dairy Food Safety Victoria will be abolished.

• Commencement will be by proclamation, but my intention is for Safe Food Victoria to begin operation on 1 July 2026, pending passage of this Bill.

• Safe Food Victoria will be governed by a small Board of between 5 and 7 members led by a Chair and Deputy Chair. The Board will be appointed by the Minister responsible for administering the Act and will report to that Minister. It is intended that the Minister for Agriculture will be responsible for the Act and that Safe Food Victoria will exist in the Agriculture Portfolio.

• Safe Food Victoria will be led by a Chief Executive Officer, appointed by the Board, with power to employ staff.

• The Board will have the ability to form consultative committees for key sectors in seeking advice on the performance of functions of Safe Food Victoria – and I expect, for a start, this to include individual committees for the dairy industry, meat and seafood industries, public health and local government.

• Staff, property and assets from the existing regulators will be transferred to Safe Food Victoria as the legal successor. Staff will transfer on conditions no less favourable overall than they currently hold. This is to maintain the considerable industry expertise that has built up over the years in both Dairy Food Safety Victoria and PrimeSafe. Staff are being supported through this change process.

• Safe Food Victoria will be a largely cost-recovered entity and have a hypothecated fund to ensure funding remains with the entity. Some funding from government will be provided for regulatory functions transferring from the Department of Health.

• Safe Food Victoria will implement the existing regulatory frameworks under legacy legislation. This means that while the Safe Food Victoria Bill provides a legislative umbrella, the frameworks under the Dairy Act 2000, Food Act 1984, Meat Industry Act 1993, and Seafood Safety Act 2003 will continue to apply. Minor amendments are proposed to these acts to ensure this new umbrella framework can function effectively.

• The roles attributed to the Secretary of the Department of Health under the Food Act will transfer to either Safe Food Victoria (for the operational provisions) or the Secretary of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (for the policy-setting provisions).

• One notable addition created by this legislation is a specialised framework to support businesses engaged in food innovation, such as the production of cell-cultured foods. Safe Food Victoria will be the regulator of this new type of business in Victoria. This supports the Government’s response to the recommendation of the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Welfare of Pigs in Victoria to recognise the development of the lab grown meat industry in Victoria.

I would like to recognise the important interactions between the regulatory role of Safe Food Victoria and the central public health roles played by the Minister for Health and Chief Health Officer.

Reforms are a whole of Government endeavour, but I’d like focus on the important role that the Minister for Health and the Department of Health have had in these reforms. After all, Safe Food Victoria will continue to contribute to important public health outcomes. To enable this, the Bill includes provisions that ensure the Chief Health Officer has a role in the new framework. The Chief Health Officer may provide advice or information in relation to a public health risk, such as information about a particular food-borne illness or pathogen that may not be available to Safe Food Victoria. This may help Safe Food Victoria inform how it assesses or manages a situation. This legislative role will be supported by a new memorandum of understanding between the agencies. Food safety regulation is and will remain predominantly about protecting the public from the risk of contaminated food. Safe Food Victoria will improve how this occurs and reduce the overall risk of contaminated food. The Department of Health will also continue to support contributions to food safety policy and the Food Ministers’ Meeting.

Before I conclude I would like to acknowledge the close collaboration that has occurred between portfolios including Agriculture, Health and Treasury. This is an important initiative arising from the Economic Growth Statement that will ensure the regulation of food safety in Victoria is easier and safer. This reform is one of the first in a broader effort by the Allan Government to make government services more efficient, accessible and simpler for businesses.

This Bill makes important improvements to the way that we set up food safety regulation in Victoria. It represents a critical juncture in the broader reform journey that I hope is completed over the coming years. This includes further consolidation of functions, such as those for primary production currently in the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. It also includes opportunities to consider the optimal role for local government in the food safety regulatory framework. These processes will be subject to further consultation and will not be progressed until the next term of Parliament.

I commend the Bill to the House.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:45): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Thursday 19 March.