Tuesday, 17 March 2026

 Bridget VALLENCE (Evelyn) (13:20): I rise to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2026. Regulatory reform? Absolute spin. This Labor government loves to put spin in the title of each and every one of its pieces of legislation, and this one is no different. Members in this place and people right across Victoria should not be fooled by the title of this bill. This bill has nothing to do with regulatory reform. The government, quite frankly, would not know regulatory reform if it fell over it. This bill is just another example of this Labor government’s addiction to spin and rhetoric and its desperate hope to make it look like it is doing something meaningful when in reality it is only making the lives of Victorians harder. This bill is nothing more than a standard statute law revision bill, changing 13 acts across various ministerial portfolios as part of a legislative sweep to fix irregularities and make various consequential changes.

Sitting suspended 1:21 pm until 1:41 pm.

Bridget VALLENCE: Who would have thought a so-called regulatory reform bill speech would cause a fire alarm and an evacuation, but here we are. With the exception of the proposed amendments concerning the spent convictions regime that have resulted from a review of the Spent Convictions Act 2021, this bill has not been informed by any regulatory reform inquiry or recommendations. The changes in this bill do not represent structural reforms that the Victorian economy so desperately needs. The spin started in the minister’s second-reading speech. The minister said:

Regulatory reform contributes to increased economic productivity, makes it easier to do business in Victoria, and protects consumers, community health and safety, and the environment.

There is nothing about consumer protections, community health or safety in this bill – nothing. There is nothing that contributes to economic productivity in this bill – nothing. In fact the Department of Treasury and Finance officials admitted to this during the bill briefing. When I asked the DTF officials if they could provide me with any modelling on how this so-called regulatory reform bill would result in increased economic productivity or how it would make it easier to do business in Victoria, the officials confirmed that no benefit analysis or modelling had been undertaken for this bill in relation to economic productivity and no savings had been quantified. The measures contained in this bill will do nothing to contribute to increased economic productivity and do not represent regulatory reform. In fact some of the government’s proposed changes in this bill are not only not likely to result in efficiency or productivity improvements but more likely to result in ambiguity, uncertainty and delay. While no doubt government members will have their preprepared speaking notes from the minister’s office about some of the supposed reforms contained in this bill, the reality is there is nothing in this bill that will make the lives of Victorians better.

I will discuss some of the changes contained in this bill which require further scrutiny. Yet again we have another bill seeking to amend the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Act 2021. The circular economy act must hold the record for being the most amended piece of legislation in recent years. By my count, this bill will mark the 13th time the circular economy act has been amended in four years. That equates to being amended on average three times every year, and quite frankly this Labor government still cannot get it right. The act is supposed to focus on reducing our carbon footprint and encouraging more recycling, but this government has shown a propensity for wasting paper and ink when it comes to consistently changing this piece of legislation.

One of the measures that the department officials were keen to say was reform is at clause 4 of the bill, which allows the EPA to have a longer period of time to determine exemption applications. Department officials confirmed these applications could involve someone seeking an exemption from paying landfill fees. Currently these exemption applications need to be determined by the EPA within 28 days. Both in the minister’s speech and in the briefing this change was referred to as a ‘stop the clock’ measure. Officials have asserted that the EPA does not always have sufficient material to determine whether an exemption should be granted within the current prescribed 28-day timeframe. It was argued by the departmental officials that the amendment would provide a benefit for businesses because the additional time would allow businesses to provide additional material without needing to lodge a new application.

I stopped counting how many times the DTF officials talked about stopping the clock in the briefing, but if you actually read the bill it does not actually include the words ‘stop the clock’. There is nothing in clause 4 that actually pauses the 28-day time period. All clause 4 of the bill does is allow the EPA a longer period for time to assess these applications, and there is no ability to restart the clock. Once the EPA have been provided with any additional information they require, the effect of this measure is to remove the obligation for these applications to be determined by the EPA in a set period of time, and instead the EPA can now assess these matters at their leisure. The government and its hopeless EPA want to move from a definitive timeframe of 28 days for these applications to be assessed to a position where they will now have unfettered discretion as to how long the EPA will take to process these applications, with no deadline imposed. Unless there is a definitive timeline by which these applications are to be assessed, they are likely to lead to longer delays in assessment, which will only result in greater inefficiency and more uncertainty for business. This amendment does nothing to enhance regulatory reform or increase economic productivity. On the contrary, it completely undermines it. Allowing these applications to be assessed at the EPA’s leisure will not improve productivity or lead to better decisions, it will just result in government bureaucracy gaining more power and control and having less accountability.

Further, the proposed changes in this bill to this act will give the EPA the ability to amend Victorian recycling infrastructure plans. Without consultation that is not reform, it is just less transparency and more control. It should be noted that these proposed amendments in this bill cannot proceed unless the Entities Legislation Amendment (Consolidation and Other Matters) Bill 2025 is passed, in which the government wants to abolish Recycling Victoria. I note that we stand here today and the entities bill still has not passed the upper house, the Legislative Council, leaving these changes in this bill that we are debating in the Assembly under a cloud.

The bill also proposes to make changes to the Conservation, Forests and Land Act 1987. I refer to part ‍4 of the bill, specifically clause 20, which seeks to remove the current requirement imposed on the Secretary of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) to ensure a notice is displayed in a conspicuous place on land which is subject to a land management cooperative agreement as soon as possible after the agreement has been made. In the minister’s second-reading speech he said the requirement to display notices on land about these agreements caused landowners stress, safety and wellbeing issues. When I asked the Department of Treasury and Finance officials if they could provide any example of where landowners had complained about such issues, I was provided with just one example. The example related to a property under which the landowner had entered into an agreement with the government, and in exchange for monetary compensation the landowner had agreed to allow the government to use their land as a native vegetation offset for the purpose of the construction of a wind farm in close proximity to the property, which had been the subject of much community concern and opposition. According to the department, local community members were able to deduce from the notice displayed on the property that the landowner had entered into this financial arrangement for a government project. No evidence was provided of any stress, safety or wellbeing issues being suffered or how they were balanced with the stress, safety and wellbeing concerns of many more people across the local community. Rather, it appears both the landowner and the government were angry and embarrassed. The local community members were able to uncover the methods the government engaged in to get this wind farm built in the face of community opposition. If anything, this example demonstrates why it is so important this obligation remains in the act as a public benefit. Local communities deserve to know how land is being used in their community, especially if it involves the construction of major infrastructure projects that will impact the amenity and liveability of local properties.

This amendment is nothing more than a measure to reduce transparency with Victorians and make it harder to hold the government to account for their backroom deals. Victorians are entitled to and deserve to know this information, especially if it involves a financial pay-off to private landowners so that government projects can proceed.

The government argues that people will still have access to this information because the secretary will be required to publish a notice in the gazette and in news publications that circulate throughout Victoria. But I am willing to wager that about 99.9 per cent of Victorians would have no idea that the Government Gazette exists, let alone where to find it or even be able to find what edition the notice was published in, and publishing it in online news publications that are probably behind paywalls is not satisfactory either.

The government says it will also publish a copy of the agreement on its website. But while that might seem useful, what is the point of publishing it on a website if people do not know about it in the first place? If this government is expecting people to search the website daily to find out if any new agreements have been made in their local community, that is just not acceptable.

Interestingly, when I asked to be provided with a copy of the land management cooperative agreement that the government referred to in its one example, do you have any idea the hoops through which I had to go to have a viewing of this? Despite having the right to see the agreement under section 80(4) of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act, I had to chase multiple times. I was first told I could see a copy if I travelled to DEECA’s office to view it there. The minister’s office refused to provide me a copy, and then in the interests of time, when I said I would be happy to attend DEECA’s office, they did a 180, and I was subsequently told that DEECA would not allow me to view the agreement despite the act requiring it to be made available to the public. DEECA said I could not look at the agreement because it might link the agreement to a specific project, which could exacerbate the negative community sentiment, despite this being something that should be provided to the public under the act ‍– an extraordinary statement. We now have a government department telling a member of Parliament that it will not perform its statutory duty under the act to allow me to view the agreement. This is the kind of secrecy we have in Victoria under the Allan Labor government. A government department will not even allow the shadow minister, as part of the bill briefing, to view a copy of the agreement they themselves referred to as part of justifying why this change to the act was necessary. I mean, it is not North Korea.

In the public interest I pursued this again – and I do thank Claudia in the minister’s office, who I sensed also was exasperated by DEECA’s stance. Thankfully they agreed for me to view the document but only if attended by the department secretary and the minister’s representative. What are they hiding? And it was only just moments before Parliament commenced proceedings for today, and as such I had a representative do this for me because I needed to be here in Parliament – a pretty disgraceful episode, and in many respects DEECA’s conduct was quite unbecoming and disreputable.

Given what has transpired in the last couple of days, I am now convinced more than ever that this government amendment is not in the public interest, because it deliberately removes the transparency and limits disclosure of information to local communities about how land in their area is being used and managed. Whether it is a wind farm or transmission lines or a new industrial development metres from homes – as is happening right now in my community in Lilydale, without consultation with the community – local communities have every right to know what agreements and financial rewards this government is making with individual landowners when it is seeking to push projects on communities. As such, the Victorian Liberals and Nationals will move an amendment in the Legislative Council to retain the requirement that a notice must be displayed on the land for which an agreement is made with the government. Communities deserve more transparency, not less.

Now to the government’s proposed changes to the Environment Protection Act 2017 in part 5 of the bill. Clause 23 of the bill introduces a new immunity provision from littering offences contained in the EP act. Under the new clause a train, tram, bus, ferry, passenger vessel – even a plane – or other public transport vehicle will not be subject to any littering offences if a passenger of the vehicle did the littering and the vehicle was being used for a public purpose. I am not sure how many times people would litter from a plane, but there we are. Taxis and Ubers will also receive the same immunity. Despite asking many questions of the department officials in the briefing about these new immunity provisions, they have still failed to provide an adequate explanation or rationale for the changes.

A couple of points are to be made. First, the clause introduces a new term, ‘public transport vehicle’. However, there is nowhere in the EP act or the Transport Integration Act 2010 that provides a definition for this term, creating ambiguity. The department stated that the term would be interpreted as plain language or a dictionary definition. If we have learned anything from the past 12 years of this Labor regime, it is that they are absolutely incapable of speaking in plain language. It is all spin – just look at the title of this bill. We were told earlier this week by the Minister for Transport Infrastructure that it was fiscally responsible to pay $125 million to the thousands of businesses that Labor shut down as part of the hotel quarantine fiasco, on which this government has wasted at least a further $40 million in legal fees trying to fight these small businesses. Talk about spin. Labor does not speak in plain language.

The Oxford, Macquarie and Cambridge dictionaries do not provide definitions for the term ‘public transport vehicle’, and I fail to see any regulatory reform in this proposed amendment to the act, especially as it excludes hundreds of vehicles that are used for a public purpose. This clause creates a huge gap in the vehicles used for a public purpose that will receive the immunity and those that will not. While those that operate planes and ferries will be protected if a passenger litters from their vehicles, cars, SUVs, trucks and other light commercial vehicles completely miss out on immunity. I also note that helicopters miss out, should any Labor Chief Commissioner of Police be listening.

As members of this place would be aware, the government have hundreds of cars, SUVs, light trucks, utilities, medium and heavy trucks in their fleet that are used every day for public purposes. Cars, SUVs, light commercial utes, vans, medium and heavy trucks are used by Parks Victoria, Melbourne Water, FRV, Forest Fire Management Victoria, Ambulance Victoria and Smile Squad vans. They have all been excluded or forgotten in this bill. The department that operates these vehicles will not receive the same immunity from a passenger littering from them, but that is something that is being given to taxis and Ubers or Qantas planes. It just appears to be another example of where the government has all its priorities wrong, and will only create more confusion under this change, rather than being regulatory reform or creating economic growth.

There are also a number of changes to the Local Government Act 2020 in part 8 of the bill. Clause 34 of the bill removes the obligation on arbiters to refer matters involving serious misconduct to the chief municipal inspector. No rationale has been provided by the government for this change, and you would have thought, in normal circumstances, that you would want cases involving serious misconduct investigated by the CMI. However, it appears this government does not. And I would have thought that if the government was serious about improving productivity and increasing economic growth, it would do everything possible to ensure allegations of corruption and serious misconduct were adequately investigated and reviewed. But then we all know, with the $15 billion going to corruption and criminal bikie gangs on Labor’s rotten Big Build infrastructure projects, that cleaning up corruption and reporting issues of serious misconduct is not a priority of this Labor government. On this, too, we will seek to move an amendment in the Legislative Council to retain the mandatory obligation on arbiters to refer instances of serious misconduct to the chief municipal inspector.

At the end of his second-reading speech, the minister said that the common thread that ran through all of these amendments was a commitment by the government to bettering the lives of Victorians. The government has proposed changes in this bill that will do nothing to better the lives of Victorians and, as I said, Department of Treasury and Finance officials themselves were unable to provide any evidence or analysis as to how any of these measures will result in increased economic gains or productivity improvements for Victorians. This bill is just a massive, missed opportunity when it comes to regulatory reform. If this government was really serious about improving the lives of Victorians, it would support measures that restored integrity and honesty to our government institutions. By way of example, if the Labor government was serious about regulatory reform, serious about integrity measures, about pulling out corruption by its roots on the rotten Big Build government worksites, it would support the Liberals and Nationals measure to give IBAC follow-the-money powers to trace where the $15 billion of Victorian taxpayers money had been rorted and siphoned off to corrupt criminal bikie gangs. If this government truly cared about bettering the lives of Victorians, it would support measures to establish a construction enforcement watchdog with real powers to investigate and prosecute militant union thugs and bikies on rotten Big Build projects who engage in violence, standover tactics, intimidation and demanding of women to perform sexual favours just to keep their jobs. If this Labor government was truly committed to regulatory reform that delivers transparency and accountability, it would establish a royal commission to immediately investigate the corrupt practices that were allowed to flourish and take root on the rotten Big Build while the now-Premier was the minister who was responsible and had complete control over the Big Build as transport infrastructure minister. Yet these measures are not in this regulatory reform bill. The government has voted against these measures time and time again, demonstrating it has absolutely no interest or commitment to bettering the lives of Victorians, and it does not care that $15 billion of taxpayers money was siphoned off to corruption on Labor’s Big Build.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.