Wednesday, 3 June 2026

 Melissa HORNE (Williamstown – Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Health Infrastructure, Minister for Prevention of Family Violence) (10:51): Under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility:

Opening paragraphs

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 Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) 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

This Bill is an omnibus Bill that proposes amendments to four Acts, including the:

1. Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 (ART Act) to require registered ART providers to comply with an approved accreditation scheme, to make amendments to provisions relating to the registration for registered ART providers and to provide broader entry and inspection powers for the Secretary;

2. Non-Emergency Patient Transport and First Aid Services Act 2003 to expand the scope of the regulations power in relation to the incorporation of documents;

3. Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (PHW Act) to amend provisions in relation to the registration of cooling tower systems and to clarify that responsibility for a cooling tower lies with the person who owns, manages, or operates it;

4. Radiation Act 2005 (Radiation Act) in relation to the disposal of radiation sources including the creation of an offence provision for improper disposal of radiation sources and to create a regulatory scheme for the provision of financial assurances and for other purposes.

Human Rights

The human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to this Bill are the:

• right to life (section 9)

• right to privacy (section 13(a));

• right to freedom of expression (section 15);

• right to property (section 20);

• right to a fair hearing (section 24(1));

• right to be presumed innocent (section 25(1)); and

• right to protection against self-incrimination (section 25(2)(k)).

Human Rights issues

This Statement of Compatibility commences with an outline of the rights engaged by the Bill and then discusses the compatibility of relevant Parts of the Bill with those rights.

The human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to this Bill are as follows:

Right to life (section 9)

Section 9 of the Charter provides that every person has the right to life and the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life. An ‘arbitrary’ deprivation of life may be described as one that is unreasonable or disproportionate. The right imposes a negative obligation on public authorities to refrain from conduct that causes an arbitrary deprivation of life, and in comparative jurisdictions has also been interpreted to impose a positive obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent arbitrary deprivation of life.

Right to privacy (section 13)

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 if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought. The right to privacy encompasses rights to informational privacy.

Right to freedom of expression (section 15(2))

Section 15(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds. However, section 15(3) provides that special duties and responsibilities attach to this right, which may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputations of others, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.

Right to property (section 20)

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. This right requires that powers which authorise the deprivation of property are conferred by legislation or the common law, are confined and structured rather than unclear, are accessible to the public, and are formulated precisely.

Right to a fair hearing (section 24)

Section 24(1) of the Charter relevantly provides that a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing. The concept of a ‘civil proceeding’ is not limited to judicial decision makers but may encompass the decision-making procedures of many types of tribunals, boards and other administrative decision-makers with the power to determine private rights and interests. While recognising the broad scope of section 24(1), the term ‘proceeding’ and ‘party’ suggest that section 24(1) was intended to apply only to decision-makers who conduct proceedings with parties.

Right to presumption of innocence (section 25(1))

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.

Right to protection against self-incrimination (section 25(2)(k))

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.

Amendments to the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 (ART Act)

Creation of offence provisions regarding compliance with accreditation scheme and other accreditation scheme offences

The Bill inserts the following offences into the ART Act which contain an exception in the form of an excuse:

• New s 73 provides that a registered ART provider must comply with the requirements of an approved accreditation scheme unless they have a reasonable excuse;

• New s 77B makes it an offence for a registered ART provider not to advise the Secretary within 24 hours after receiving notification that their application for accreditation under an approved accreditation scheme is either refused or revoked, without reasonable excuse; and

• New s 80B(2) makes it an offence for a registered ART provider that is a body corporate not to comply with a request for information issued under new s 80A(1) in respect of a director or officer exercising control over the provider, without reasonable excuse.

Presumption of innocence (section 25(1))

These offences contain excuses (also known as exceptions) which place an evidential burden on the accused which require the accused to present or point to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility of the existence of facts that would establish the exception or excuse. The Supreme Court has held that evidential onus provisions on an accused to establish an exception does not transfer the legal burden of proof and does not limit the right to the presumption of innocence. Once the accused has pointed to evidence of a reasonable excuse, the burden shifts back to the prosecution who must prove the essential elements of the offence to a legal standard. Further, the exceptions relate to matters which are peculiarly within an accused’s knowledge, being why they failed to comply with the regulator requirements and would be unduly onerous for a prosecution to disprove at first instance.

Accordingly, I am of the view that these offence provisions are compatible with the Charter.

Secretary’s powers in respect of applications for registration, renewal, amendment or variation to registration, cancellation powers of the Minister, and other oversight functions

The Bill introduces a new regulatory framework for registration as an ART provider which provides the Secretary with various powers to make decisions regarding new applications for registration (per new s 74) and applications for renewal, amendment or variation to registration for existing ART providers (per new ss 74D, 75AB). In exercising the above powers in respect of applications, renewals and amendment or variation in new ss 74, 74D and 75AB, the Bill provides the Secretary the power to request that an applicant provide further information or documents in relation to the application by a date specified, and to refuse to consider the application until the applicant complies (new ss 74(3)–(4), 74D(3)–(4), 75AB(3)–(4)). The Secretary must decide to register, or refuse to register, a person as an ART provider (new s 74(5)).

Under the Bill, the power to cancel a registration generally sits with the Minister (new s 75F), unless the ART provider themselves applies for cancellation of their registration voluntarily. In this case, the Secretary has the power, and indeed must, cancel the registration on application by the ART provider (new s 75E).

In exercising the various powers to consider applications for registration, renewal, amendment or variation, or cancellation of registration, the relevant decision maker may take into account the matters set out in new s 74A (per the Secretary’s powers in new ss 74(5), 74D(5), 75AB(5), and the Minister’s powers in new s 75F(1)(f) noting the Minister’s powers under new s 75F(1)(f) only extend to considering new s 74A(a), (b), (c) or (d)).

New section 74A considerations include (a) whether the applicant has been found guilty of an offence against this Act or the regulations, (b) whether the applicant is of sound financial reputation and stable financial background, (c) the applicant’s history of compliance under the ART Act (including any registration conditions under Part 8) or any other Act prescribed in the regulations, (d) whether the applicant has been found guilty of an indictable offence or dishonesty offence in the previous 10 years, (f) if the applicant has ever been a registered ART provider or been involved in the management of a registered ART provider, whether they have been the subject of any complaints, how those complaints have been handled and their past compliance with the ART Act and regulations, and (g) any other prescribed matters. In respect of directors or controlling officers considerations also include: (e) whether the relevant person is suitable to exercise control over the ART provider.

The Minister may cancel the registration of a registered ART provider if satisfied of any of the matters in new s 75F(1) including whether: a registered ART provider has failed to comply with the ART Act, regulations, conditions on registration or requirements of an approved accreditation scheme, there are any circumstances that prevent the provider from being able to continue to carry on as a registered ART provider in the future, the registered ART provider is operating in a manner that poses a serious health and safety risk, or the registered ART provider is no longer a suitable person to hold a registration as a registered ART provider (new ss 75F(1)(a)–(f)). In making a decision to cancel under new s 75F(1), the Minister must have regard to the conduct of the registered ART provider, the seriousness of any failures to comply with the Act, the Regulations and the conditions of registration, and any circumstances that could prevent the registered ART provider from continuing to operate as a registered operator (s 75F(2)(a)–(c)).

The Bill also introduces an “own motion” power for the Secretary to amend or vary the registration of a registered ART provider (new s 75AC). In exercising this power, the Secretary must notify the ART provider of their intention, provide the ART provider an opportunity to provide submissions and must take those submissions into account when making their decision (new s 75AC(2)–(3)).

New sections 80A and 80B provide for Secretary oversight of directors and officers in control of registered ART providers by imposing notification requirements on the body corporate to give written notification to the Secretary in respect of appointment, cessation of employment, or criminal convictions of directors or officers exercising control (new s 80A), and powers for the Secretary to request any information or document that would assist them to determine the suitability of a relevant director or officer to control or manage a registered ART provider (new s 80B).

Right to privacy (section 13)

As outlined above, the right to privacy encompasses rights to informational privacy. In exercising its regulatory powers under the proposed ART Act provisions in the Bill, the relevant decision maker will be empowered to receive and take into account matters which may include personal information of the relevant applicant or ART provider, or personal information of directors or officers of registered ART providers.

To the extent that the Secretary or Minister may impact a natural person’s right to privacy in exercising their powers under the Bill, I consider any impacts on the right to privacy are not unlawful or arbitrary. The interference with privacy is authorised under the legislation and is for the purpose of ensuring the appropriateness and suitability of persons accredited to provide assisted reproductive treatment services under the ART Act. Further, information relating to criminal convictions and financial history (per new ss 74A(a)–(b),(d), (e) 80A(2)), while personally sensitive, is generally information that is commonly provided when satisfying statutory tests that a person is appropriate and suitable for a regulated role. Additionally, a person seeking appointment as an accredited member of a scheme for the purposes of carrying out a profession or who is otherwise undertaking a directorship or controlling officer role is doing so voluntarily and is consequently choosing to engage with a scheme which requires their personal information to be considered.

To the extent that the right to privacy is limited, I am of the view that the limitation is appropriate and proportionate to the legitimate aim of ensuring greater transparency and rigour in the regulation of an industry which provides services of a sensitive nature, including medical procedures, and carries a high risk of potential physical or psychological harm to service users as well as connected persons who may be impacted by the provision of the service, such as a service user’s partner or a child born from the procedure. This includes possible harm arising if important governance processes (e.g. informed consent processes) are not properly implemented, or where people delivering these services are not considered appropriate and suitable to do so.

I therefore consider that the relevant clauses which empower the Secretary or Minister to consider or request personal information for the purposes of administering the registration framework are compatible with the right to privacy in section 13 of the Charter.

Right to freedom of expression (section 15(2))

The Bill imposes mandatory obligations on registered ART providers (under new ss 77B(1)–(2)) to not fail to give notice to the Secretary regarding their accreditation being refused or revoked. To the extent that an ART provider may be a natural person, these powers may interfere with the right to freedom of expression, which includes a freedom to not impart information. The notification obligations carry penalties for non-compliance.

While the information gathering powers may impose a limitation on the freedom of expression, I consider that this is a lawful restriction which is reasonably necessary to both protect public health and the rights of others within the meaning of the internal limitation in section 15(3) of the Charter. It is to enable the Secretary to effectively undertake their regulatory oversight functions in relation to registered ART providers, by ensuring critical information about an ART provider’s accreditation is provided to the regulator without delay. I note that an ART provider will be voluntarily assuming these obligations and waiving their freedom of expression in this particular context. Accordingly, I am of the view that to the extent the right is limited, that limit falls within section 15(3) of the Charter as it is reasonably necessary to protect public health and the rights of others.

Right to a fair hearing (section 24)

As the administrative decisions with respect to applications for registration, renewal, amendment or variation or cancellation do not involve the conduct of proceedings with parties, I am of the view that these decisions are not decisions to which the fair hearing right applies.

In any event, if a broad reading of section 24(1) is adopted and it is understood that the fair hearing right is engaged by this Bill, this right would nonetheless not be limited. The right to a fair hearing is concerned with the procedural fairness of a decision and the right may be limited if a person faces a procedural barrier to bringing their case before a court, or where procedural fairness is not provided. The entire decision-making process, including reviews and appeals, must be examined in order to determine whether the right is limited.

Should the Secretary exercise their “own motion” power to amend or vary the registration of a registered ART provider (under new s 75AC), they are subject to a show cause process in which the Secretary must notify the ART provider of their intention to exercise their “own motion” power, provide the ART provider an opportunity to provide submissions, and must take those submissions into account when making their decision (new s 75AC(2)–(3)). Further, any decision made by the Secretary to refuse registration, renewal of registration, or to amend or vary registration, or any decision of the Minister to cancel registration is reviewable by VCAT under new provisions in s 116O of the ART Act. This affords applicants and registered ART providers a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal and satisfies the requirements in section 24(1) of the Charter. As such, I conclude that the fair hearing rights in section 24(1) of the Charter are not limited by this Bill.

Secretary’s power to enter and inspect premises

Amended s 119 and new s 119A provide the Secretary expanded powers to enter and inspect premises, including powers to examine any thing (including a document), take photographs or make any type of recording of the premises or any thing at the premises, powers to require a person at the premises to answer any question put to them by the Secretary (see new s 119(3)(d)–(g) and new s 119A(5)(a)–(c)). Amended s 119(2) also provides expanded powers for the Secretary to enter the premises of an existing registered ART provider at any time (no longer confined to during ‘ordinary business hours’).

While exercising powers of entry in respect of existing registered ART providers, new s 119(3)(f) also provides the Secretary the power to seize and remove any thing that may afford evidence of a contravention of the ART Act, the regulations or a condition of registration. If the Secretary exercises their powers of seizure, they must give the occupier a written record of the seizure and removal and must ensure the seized item is returned within 48 hours (new s 119(4)).

These powers of entry, inspection and seizure are limited, in that the Secretary may only exercise these powers to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to do so for the purpose of determining compliance with a registration under this Act (per existing s 119(1)), or considering the suitability of an application for registration as an ART provider, including in relation to whether conditions should apply to the registration if granted (per new 119A(1)).

Section 119B(1) provides that the Secretary may apply to a magistrate for a warrant to search a particular premises if the Secretary believes on reasonable grounds that treatment procedures are being carried out on those premises and they are not those of a registered ART provider, and that entry to the premises is necessary to investigate a possible contravention of the Act or Regulations. A magistrate may issue a warrant under s 119B(2) and the limits on the right of entry and the search must be specified in the warrant (s 119B(4)).

Right to property (section 20)

The Secretary’s right to seize property under amended s 119(3)(f) engages s 20 of the Charter which provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. Additionally, if a search warrant is issued by a magistrate to the Secretary pursuant to new s 119B(1), which authorises the Secretary or their delegates to search for any “article, thing or material of a kind named or described in the warrant”, the Secretary will be authorised to bring the article, thing or material before the Court so that the matter may be dealt with according to law (per the Magistrate’s Court Act 1989, s 78(1)(b)(ii)). In this case, the right to property may be engaged to the extent that executing the warrant may result in the seizure of a person’s property.

I am satisfied that the powers which authorise the deprivation of property are conferred by legislation, are formulated precisely, are accessible to the public, are structured and confined only to those items the Secretary considers may afford evidence of a contravention of the ART Act, the regulations or a condition of registration. In respect of s 119(3)(f), the powers of seizure are exercisable in the context of an already limited power of entry, which may only be exercised to the extent that it is reasonably necessary for the purpose of determining compliance with a registration under this Act (per existing s 119(1)). Additionally, the powers under new s 119B(1) are exercisable only with a warrant issued by a court in accordance with the limitations and requirements of the Magistrate’s Court Act.

As such I am of the view that the right to property in section 20 of the Charter is not limited, but to the extent that it might be, any limitation is proportionate to and rationally directed at the legitimate aim of the Secretary ensuring compliance with the ART registration regime in order to protect public health and safety.

Right to privacy (section 13(a))

As outlined above, section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with, which encompasses the right to informational privacy. The determination of whether certain activities amount to an interference with privacy depends on whether the person has ‘a reasonable expectation of privacy’ in all the circumstances. In exercising their powers of entry and inspection, the Secretary or its delegate has broad powers to examine any thing, take photographs, make any type of recording of the premises or any thing at the premises, or seize certain items which could contain personal, sensitive or health information, including of staff or clients of an ART provider.

As the premises subject to the powers of entry, inspection and seizure are places of work there is a reduced expectation of privacy in relation to such property and premises. Any expectation of privacy is further diminished by the fact that any current or prospective registered ART provider has voluntarily submitted itself to the oversight of, or consideration for, the regulatory scheme.

Whether exercising these powers under the ART Act or pursuant to a search warrant, I am of the view that the new entry and inspection powers are clearly circumscribed, reasonable and proportionate. For example, prior to exercising entry powers under ss 119 or 119A, the Secretary must advise the occupier of the purpose of their visit, and in the case of a delegate, must produce, on the occupier’s request, the delegate’s identity card for inspection (existing s 119(2A) and new s 119A(4)). The Secretary’s powers are also constrained, in that they may only exercise their powers of entry, inspection or seizure under these sections to the extent that it is ‘reasonably necessary to do so’ for the purpose of determining compliance with a registration under this Act or considering the suitability of an applicant for registration (existing s 119(1) and new s 119A(1)).

Additionally, the Secretary’s powers of entry to premises of an unregistered ART provider are limited in that they may only be exercised pursuant to a search warrant issued by a magistrate. The Secretary may only apply for a warrant if they believe on reasonable grounds that treatment procedures are being carried out at the premises of an unregistered ART provider and that entry to the premises is necessary for the purpose of investigating a contravention against this Act or the regulations (new s 119B).

Access to any personal information that the Secretary requests or otherwise obtains through the exercise of these powers is not arbitrary, as it is necessarily confined only to information that the Secretary requires for those purposes. To the degree that these powers may intrude into the private sphere, the Secretary and delegates will be obliged to exercise them compatibly with the right to privacy.

I am therefore of the view that any limitation of a person’s right to privacy which may arise in the exercise of the Secretary’s right of entry and inspection is lawful and not arbitrary. It is appropriate and proportionate to the legitimate aim of safeguarding the health and safety of persons being provided ART treatment procedures and ensuring transparency and rigour in the regulation of an industry which carries a high risk of potential physical or psychological harm to service users or other people engaging with the service provider, and noting the importance of ensuring that persons and organisations providing such services are appropriately suitable and qualified to do so.

Freedom of expression (section 15(2)) and right against self-incrimination (section 25(2)(k))

The Secretary’s powers of inspection under amended s 119(3)(g) and new s 119A(5)(c) extend to requiring a person at the premises to answer any question put to them by the Secretary for the prescribed purposes (per existing s 119(1) and new s 119A(1)). Before requiring a person to answer such a question the Secretary must inform the person that they may refuse to answer a question if to do so would tend to incriminate them (new s 119(5) and s 119A(6)). This engages the right to freedom of expression (s 15(2) of the Charter) and the right against self-incrimination (s 25(2)(k) of the Charter).

The right against self-incrimination provides that a person should not be compelled to testify against themselves or to confess guilt. The existence of the Secretary’s obligation to advise a person of their right not to answer such a question if to do so would tend to incriminate them promotes their right to protection from self-incrimination, and therefore this right is not limited.

Self-incrimination is the only basis upon which the person can decline to answer such a question from the Secretary, meaning that the right to freedom of expression is limited to the extent that this right extends to a right not to impart information. A person at the premises of an existing registered ART provider will be committing an offence if they refuse to answer a question posed by the Secretary or their delegates pursuant to amended section 119 or new section 119A, if failing to do so is considered to obstruct or hinder the Secretary in the exercise of their powers (per existing section 120 in the ART Act).

While the Secretary’s information gathering powers under amended s 119 and new s 119A may impose a limitation on the freedom of expression, the Secretary’s powers are limited to requesting information only to the extent that it is “reasonably necessary to do so” for the purpose of determining compliance with a registration under this Act or for considering the suitability of an applicant for registration. To the degree that this power intrudes into the private sphere, the Secretary and their delegates will be obliged to exercise this power compatibly with the right to privacy. I am of the view that any limitation on the right to freedom of expression is proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting public health and the rights of others, is rationally directed at ensuring the Secretary has the powers necessary for the proper oversight of the registration framework and is a lawful restriction in that falls within the internal limitation in section 15(3) of the Charter.

Amendments to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (PHW Act)

Notification to Secretary on change to responsible person

The proposed amendment to new s 87(2) of the PHW Act will require that the Secretary be notified within 30 days where there is a change in the “responsible person” for a cooling tower system, or a change in the address or contact details of the responsible person. This may require disclosures of personal information where such disclosures relate to a “natural person”.

Rights to privacy (section 13(a)) and freedom of expression (section 15(2))

These powers engage the right privacy in section 13(a) (by requiring personal information to be disclosed) and the right to freedom of expression in section 15(2) (by compelling a person to impart information), however I am of the view that neither right is limited.

A person who has sought to become a ‘responsible person’ for a registered cooling tower will have done so voluntarily and on the understanding that they are engaging in a regulated regime which has certain requirements and obligations of disclosure.

Accordingly, any interference with the right to privacy or freedom of expression is lawful and (with respect to the right to privacy) not arbitrary in that the disclosure requirements are set out in a clearly articulated legal regime which is voluntarily assumed by persons who become responsible persons, and which is reasonably necessary to protect public health and the rights of others, by ensuring that the regulator has a current register of persons who carry duties and obligations under the regime.

Amendments to the Radiation Act 2005

New Part 6D of the Radiation Act 2005 provides for the disposal of radiation sources, which includes powers for the Secretary to issue a disposal protocol in respect of radiation sources (new s 67P), provides the ability for a current or former management licence holder to dispose of a radiation source in accordance with a disposal protocol (new s 12(3)), and a new offence provision for failing to dispose of radiation source in accordance with a disposal protocol (new s 67Q).

Right to life (section 9)

The amendments with respect to appropriate disposal of radiation sources are intended to protect human health and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation by ensuring that disused radiation sources are disposed of safely and effectively. Noting the highly detrimental impact on human health and potential threat to human life posed by exposure to unsafe levels of radiation, I consider that the right to life is promoted by these amendments.

Right to property (section 20)

New section 67Q creates an offence for a person to knowingly, recklessly or negligently fail to dispose of the radiation source in accordance with the disposal protocol prepared by the Secretary and published in the Government Gazette. The disposal protocol may include methods and timeframes for the disposal of radiation sources. This offence provision has the effect of compelling a person to dispose of their own property, for example, when a person owns a radiation source which reaches the end of its life. There may be circumstances where a person inadvertently comes into possession of a radiation source if, for example, they find the radiation source or they take control of premises where a radiation source is located. In such circumstances, a person may be required to dispose of the radiation source in accordance with the disposal protocol to avoid committing an offence, thereby depriving another person of their property.

The right to property provides that a person must not be deprived of that person’s property other than in accordance with law. While requiring a person to dispose of their own property to avoid committing an offence could amount to a compelled deprivation of property, a person engaging in a regulated regime would already have voluntarily submitted themselves to the terms of engaging in the regime, which includes an obligation to dispose of radiation sources they own at the end of their life. To the extent that this right might be limited by the amendments, I am of the view that any limitation is a lawful restriction in that falls within the internal limitation in section 20 of the Charter. Any potential deprivation of property is clearly conferred by legislation, is confined and structured rather than unclear (in that obligations with respect to method and timeframe for disposal will be clearly defined in the disposal protocol), is accessible to the public, and is formulated precisely. The amendments are therefore consistent with the right to property.

The Hon. Melissa Horne MP

Minister for Health Infrastructure

Minister for Ports and Freight

Minister for Prevention of Family Violence

 Melissa HORNE (Williamstown – Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Health Infrastructure, Minister for Prevention of Family Violence) (10:51): Under the Statewide Treaty Act ‍2025, I table a statement of treaty compatibility:

1.   In my opinion, the Bill is compatible with the matters set out in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of the Bill

2.   The Bill will make amendments to regulatory frameworks in four Acts to streamline and strengthen registration and licensing requirements, and to minimise the risk of harm to the health and safety of Victorians. These amendments will impact various entities regulated under these Acts by imposing new obligations on them.

3.   The Bill will amend the following Acts:

3.1 Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 (ART Act), to require registered ART providers to comply with the requirements of an approved accreditation scheme; amend provisions relating to the registration of registered ART providers to enable the Secretary to grant and refuse registration and to issue a certificate of registration; and provide the Secretary with further inspection powers;

3.2 Non-Emergency Patient Transport and First Aid Services Act 2003 (NEPTFAS Act), by expanding the scope of the power to make regulations in relation to the application, adoption or incorporation of documents in regulations;

3.3 Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (PHW Act), by amending provisions in relation to the registration of cooling tower systems and to clarify that the responsible person in relation to a cooling tower system is the person who owns, manages, or operates it;

3.4 Radiation Act 2005 (Radiation Act), in relation to the disposal of radiation sources  by creating an offence provision for improper disposal of radiation sources and a regulatory scheme for the provision of financial assurances.

Consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl

4.   Due to the recent establishment of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl, it was not possible to give the First Peoples’ Assembly the opportunity to advise on the Bill or for the Assembly to otherwise make representations about the effect of the Bill on First Peoples.

Compatibility of the Bill with each of the objects in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025

5.   I have considered whether the Bill is compatible with the objects at section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025:

5.1 advancing the inherent rights and self‑determination of First Peoples; and

5.2 addressing the unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation; and

5.3 ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples.

6.   In my opinion the Bill does not affect any of the objects in specified in section 66(3)(d)(i)–(iii) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 and is therefore compatible with each of those objects.

7.   In my opinion, the Bill does not in its terms deal with First Peoples and does not directly or indirectly in its practical effect engage the human rights or fundamental freedoms of First Peoples.

The Hon. Melissa Horne MP

Minister for Health Infrastructure

Minister for Ports and Freight

Minister for Prevention of Family Violence

 Melissa HORNE (Williamstown – Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Health Infrastructure, Minister for Prevention of Family Violence) (10:51): 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 Bill will make amendments to regulatory frameworks in three Acts to streamline and strengthen registration and licence requirements, and to prevent or minimise the risk of harm to the health or safety of Victorians.

The reforms outlined in this Bill will be administered and enforced by the Health Regulator, a branch of the Department established in early 2024 to consolidate regulatory functions and enable the Department to adopt a more consistent, risk-based regulatory approach.

Health regulation plays a key role in minimising or preventing risk of harm to the health or safety of Victorians and contributes to the vision of a Victoria free of the avoidable burden of disease and injury, so that all Victorians can enjoy the highest attainable standards of health.

The key priorities addressed by this Bill are:

• To amend the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 to require registered ART providers to comply with the requirements of an approved accreditation scheme; amend provisions relating to the registration of registered ART providers to enable the Secretary to grant and refuse registration and to issue a certificate of registration; and provide the Secretary with further inspection powers

• To amend the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 to ensure the person responsible for a cooling tower, whether owner, manager or operator, takes on key obligations and responsibility for any breaches; and

• To amend the Radiation Act 2005 to introduce a financial surety scheme to cover the cost of the disposal of radiation sources and create an offence related to the disposal of radiation sources.

The Bill also amends the Non-Emergency Patient Transport and First Aid Services Act 2003, to enable documents, such as clinical protocols, to be incorporated into the Regulations as in force from time to time.

Assisted reproductive treatment accreditation, registration and inspection powers

The Bill also makes amendments to the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 (ART Act), to support implementation of reforms recommended by the Rapid Review of Assisted Reproductive Technology and In Vitro Fertilisation Regulation and Accreditation in Australia (the Rapid Review).

The Rapid Review was commissioned by the HMM in June 2025 following two prominent mistaken embryo transfers and related public discussion about safety and quality in the sector. Ministers agreed to its recommendations in September 2025.

The first phase of reform identified by the Rapid Review is centred on establishing a new national accreditation scheme for assisted reproductive treatment (ART) providers, administered by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (the Commission).

The amendments to the ART Act in this Bill will ensure that the Victorian legislative and regulatory framework is ready to align with the national accreditation framework and standards, which are being developed by the Commission.

Currently, the Act effectively requires ART providers to be accredited by the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee (RTAC) in order to be registered and operate lawfully in Victoria. The Bill will replace those provisions with a requirement for registered providers to comply with an accreditation scheme approved by the Secretary to the Department of Health. It is intended that the scheme administered by the Commission will be approved by the Secretary for this purpose.

The Bill will also strengthen Victoria’s regulatory scheme by ensuring that the registration framework operates independently from the accreditation scheme.

Under the current registration provisions, the Secretary has no discretion to refuse an application from a provider that has been accredited by RTAC. Further, while there is power to suspend registration of an accredited provider, there is no power to cancel that registration.

The Bill will give the Secretary a full suite of discretionary powers to grant, renew, vary, or refuse ART provider registration applications based on specified assessment criteria. This ensures that the decision about whether a provider has legal authority to operate in Victoria rests clearly with the regulator, as appropriate. The Bill also introduces a power for the Minister to cancel registration on specified grounds.

The Bill defers commencement of the offence for failure to comply with Conditions on Registration, to allow the current Conditions on Registration to be reviewed and updated in alignment with upcoming new national accreditation standards before the offence applies. In the interim, the current Conditions on Registration continue to apply and a range of enforcement actions are available for non-compliance.

The existing provisions concerning suspension of registration and imposition of conditions on registration will be slightly altered, to align to the other registration powers and ensure that the Secretary has the full suite of powers necessary to effectively manage the registration of ART providers.

These registration powers will be supported by enhanced inspection powers for the Secretary or their delegate. Current provisions allow inspection only for the purposes of considering compliance by providers already registered and are limited to inspection of documents during business hours.

The updated powers in the Bill provide for inspections of the premises of a registered ART provider or an applicant for registration, to inform registration decisions or compliance monitoring and enforcement. They also allow inspection of the premises beyond documentation where relevant. In addition, the Bill introduces a process for application to the Magistrate’s Court for a warrant in relation to other premises (not belonging to a registered provider or applicant for registration) where there is reason to believe ART is being carried out.

The Rapid Review found that the current industry-led accreditation scheme is inadequate and lacks the transparency and rigour that governments and the community expect. Ministers agreed that the reforms offer a pathway to restore confidence, independence, and transparency in the ART sector. The Gorton Review of ART in Victoria similarly highlighted the importance for clearer separation between accreditation and regulatory oversight. The amendments to the ART Act in this Bill will put Victoria in a position to effectively enable the agreed reforms and strengthen Victoria’s ability to uphold community expectations of the ART sector.

In developing the Bill, the Department of Health has liaised with ART providers and sector stakeholders, as well as the Commission and other jurisdictions. Victoria is committed to successful implementation of this first phase of reform and will continue to actively engage in the recommended program of national improvements in regulation of this sector.

Responsibility for cooling tower systems

This Bill also proposes important reforms to Victoria’s public health framework by clarifying responsibility for the registration, management and maintenance of cooling tower systems.

Cooling towers are often used for evaporative cooling in large buildings, including residential towers and big industrial or commercial sites. They are a recognised source of risk for the transmission of Legionella bacteria, which can cause Legionnaire’s disease, a potentially fatal form of pneumonia. Victoria regulates cooling tower systems to manage this public health risk. All cooling towers must be registered under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.

Currently the owner of the land on which there is a cooling tower system is required to prepare and implement a risk management plan and to ensure the plan is audited annually by an approved auditor. This obligation does not always match the operational reality, which is that the entity with effective control and management of the cooling tower system may be a property or facilities management company, a lessee, occupier or owners corporation that is separate from the landowner.

The proposed amendments will require the responsible person, defined as the person who owns, manages or controls a cooling tower system, to assume obligations such as registration, development and review of a risk management plan and annual audits.

This approach ensures that primary responsibility for cooling tower safety is clearly identified, enforceable and aligned with practical control of cooling towers, taking into account contemporary building ownership and management practices. This change will attribute responsibility appropriately and enable effective compliance oversight, targeting the person whose acts or omissions create a public health risk.

These reforms are designed to improve regulatory clarity, not to impose unnecessary new burdens. The Bill complements existing regulatory requirements for cooling towers, including ongoing obligations relating to inspection, cleaning, disinfection and record-keeping, as set out in Public Health and Wellbeing Regulations 2017.

By making responsibility explicit, the Bill reduces uncertainty for industry, improves compliance, and supports timely regulatory intervention where risks arise. Ultimately, this reform will contribute to safer buildings and better protection for Victorians from preventable disease.

Financial surety and obligations in relation to disposal of disused radiation sources

This Bill also makes targeted amendments to the Radiation Act 2005 to strengthen Victoria’s radiation safety framework.

Radioactive sources are used safely across Victoria in healthcare, research and industry and deliver significant public benefit. However, once a source becomes disused, there is no ongoing justification for its continued possession, and unmanaged or abandoned sources pose risks to human health and the environment.

While existing licence conditions require disposal, experience has shown that disposal does not always occur in a timely manner. In some cases, the government is required to intervene to manage or store disused sources, with the associated risks and costs borne by the community.

These amendments introduce a financial surety regime for the management of disused radioactive sources. The purpose of the reform is to ensure that licence holders make adequate provision for the safe and lawful disposal of radioactive sources when they are no longer fit for an authorised purpose.

The amendments enable the Secretary of the Department of Health to require a financial surety, where appropriate, when granting or renewing a radiation management licence. The framework is risk-based and proportionate and ensures that funds are available to support safe disposal if a licence holder fails to meet their obligations.

The Bill also provides for disposal protocols to be issued by the Secretary and introduces offences for noncompliance, ensuring the framework is effective and enforceable.

These reforms align Victoria’s legislation with nationally agreed radiation protection standards and apply a well-established regulatory principle used elsewhere in Victoria’s health and environmental laws: that those who create or control risk should be responsible for managing and funding that risk.

This Bill will enable the Health Regulator to more effectively minimise risks to the health and safety of Victorians.

I commend the Bill to the house.

 Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (10:51): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday 17 June.