Thursday, 4 June 2026

 Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston – Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Cost of Living, Minister for Renters, Minister for Men and Boys) (10:31): 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 Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 (the Bill).

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

Overview

The purpose of the Bill is to:

a)   acquit the Victorian Government’s commitments to strengthen protections for Victorian consumers in the housing market, by:

• improving the information available prior to property sales and prohibiting estate agents from benefiting from early release of deposits;

• strengthening renter protections and outcomes for renters through reforms to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997;

• providing for a process by which owners of owners corporation lots can request payment plans for the payment of certain fees and charges; and

• authorising the Business Licensing Authority (BLA) to suspend licenses of estate agents and conveyancers in certain cases of non-compliance.

b)   strengthen consumer supports and modernise ways of doing business under the Motor Car traders Act 1986.

c)   strengthen regulatory compliance and enforcement in relation to consumer goods and enhance consumer protection by:

• providing for the forfeiture of seized documents or things to the Crown if they remain uncollected after notice had been given to the person or owner from whom the document or thing had been seized and for the Minister for Consumer Affairs to authorise the disposal of a thing seized subject to an information or safety standard, an interim or a permanent ban;

• clarifying certain circumstances in which a person will be prohibited from engaging in debt collection; and

• combatting the sale of illicit tobacco.

d)   make miscellaneous amendments to a number of other Acts to ensure the consumer protections provided by these Acts are effective and operate as intended.

The Bill amends laws across Consumer Affairs and other portfolios, including amendments to:

•   the Estate Agents Act 1980 (EA Act) and the Sale of Land Act 1962 (SL Act) to:

• expand the comparable property disclosure requirements for a sale of land to include key features of the selected comparable properties;

• require real estate agents to publish a reserve price agreed with the vendor at least 7 days before any auction or fixed-date sale;

• increase the prominence of the Property Price Statement and property price information in property advertisements;

• require vendors to make the section 32 statement available at least 14 days before an auction or fixed date sale, or 14 days before a contract is signed; and

• prevent estate agents from taking commissions prior to settlement or until a contract is rescinded.

•   the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (RT Act) to:

• strengthen renter protections by prohibiting unreasonable refusal for extra keys and fobs for rental properties, capping the cost of breaking a fixed-term residential rental agreement of less than five years, enabling renters to make bond payments directly to the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority (RTBA); and,

• support the administration of the TBS by requiring bond debt repayments received by the Secretary to be paid into the Residential Bonds Investment Interest Account (RBIIA) and to clarify that provisions in Division 3A of Part 10 also apply to former renters to enable recovery of an outstanding debt to the State; and

• improve outcomes for residents of Part 4A parks (commonly known as residential parks) by establishing a register of Part 4A Parks, removing the ability to issue a ‘without cause’ notice to vacate to site tenants, introduce annual site agreement checks, clarify how deferred management charges and rent increases may be imposed, and inserting power to prescribe an industry Code of Practice; and

• strengthen existing protections for renters who are victim survivors of family violence in applications for bond and prohibit rental providers and their agents from discriminating against victim survivors unless an exemption is applicable; and

• make statue law revision amendments.

•   the Owners Corporations Act 2006 (OC Act) to:

• facilitate the use of payment plans for lot owners experiencing financial hardship;

• clarify the authorisation requirements for an owners corporation to commence a legal proceeding.

•   the Subdivision Act 1988 (Subdivision Act) to clarify the authorisation required for an owners corporation to make an application to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for orders relating to plans of subdivision.

•   the EA Act and Conveyancers Act 2006 (Conveyancers Act) to enable the BLA to suspend an estate agent or conveyancer’s licence if they do not meet specified trust account audit requirements.

•   the Motor Car Traders Act 1986 (MCT Act) to:

• streamline and support access to remedies for consumers;

• strengthen consumer protections; and

• better regulate use of new technologies and contemporary business practice.

•   the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (ACLFT Act) to:

• clarify certain circumstances in which a person will be prohibited from engaging in debt collection; and

• provide for the forfeiture of certain documents or things to the Crown if they remain uncollected after their seizure and for the Minister for Consumer Affairs to authorise the disposal of things seized that are subject of an information standard, safety standard or an interim or a permanent ban.

•   the Tobacco Act 1987 (Tobacco Act) to strengthen Victoria’s enforcement approach to combatting the sale of illicit tobacco, through the introduction of:

• closure powers, to enable relevant Victorian agencies to close illicit tobacco traders;

• landlord penalties, to create consequences for those who knowingly permit the sale of illicit tobacco at premises they own;

• landlord powers, including allowing a landlord to terminate a lease following a closure order by providing written notice; and

• provisions relating to pre-trial destruction of illicit tobacco, to introduce the ability to destroy large quantities of illicit tobacco, as soon as practicable.

•   other Acts to make minor and technical amendments.

Human Rights Issues

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

•   Recognition and equality before the law (section 8)

•   Freedom of movement (section 12)

•   Privacy and reputation (section 13)

•   Freedom of expression (section 15)

•   Protection of families and children (section 17)

•   Cultural Rights (section 19)

•   Property rights (section 20)

•   Right to a fair hearing (section 24)

•   Rights in criminal proceedings (section 25)

•   Right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 26)

Recognition and equality before the law (Section 8)

Section 8 of the Charter provides that every person has the right to enjoy their human rights without discrimination, is equal before the law, is entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination. This section also clarifies that measures taken for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups of persons disadvantaged because of discrimination do not constitute discrimination.

Discrimination under the Charter means discrimination within the meaning of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EO Act) on the basis of an attribute set out in section 6 of that Act (including, for example, age, sex or disability). Discrimination can either be direct or indirect. Direct discrimination occurs where a person treats, or proposes to treat, a person with an attribute unfavourably because of that attribute. Indirect discrimination occurs where a person imposes a requirement, condition or practice that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging persons with a protected attribute, but only where that requirement, condition or practice is not reasonable.

Section 9(3) of the EO Act sets out a number of factors to be considered in deciding reasonableness, which can be summarised as follows:

•   the nature and the extent of the disadvantage caused;

•   whether the outcome is proportionate to what the respondent sought to achieve by imposing the requirement, condition or practice;

•   the costs of any alternative measures;

•   the respondent’s financial circumstances; and

•   whether reasonable adjustments or accommodation could be made to reduce the disadvantage caused.

Family violence reforms to the RT Act

Clauses 52–55 of the Bill inserts sections 30AB, 94FA and 145BA into the RT Act to prohibit rental providers from discriminating against victim survivors by not letting a rented premises on the basis of a prospective renter being a victim survivor of family violence. This engages and promotes the right to recognition and equality before the law because women and other population segments, such as First Peoples and LGBTIQA+ people, are statistically more likely to be a victim survivor of family violence and these new provisions seek to address discrimination that is experienced disproportionately by those cohorts. Renters who are victim survivors of family violence will therefore be better able to apply for rental properties on an equal playing field in practice.

Clauses 52–55 of the Bill may also limit the right to recognition and equality before the law as proposed new sections 30AB(3) and 94FA(3) will exempt specified entities, such as social and affordable housing providers, from the new requirement that will prohibit rental providers and rooming house operators from refusing to let a rented premises to someone due to being a victim survivor of family violence. Women and First Peoples are over-represented in social housing and are statistically more likely to be a victim survivor of family violence. While this creates a distinction with renters in the private rental market, I consider that this limitation on the right created by the Bill is reasonably justified as a measure required to ensure that social and affordable housing providers can continue to allocate appropriate housing based on a wholistic assessment of priority of need, including having regard to whether a renter is a victim survivor of family violence.

Clauses 101–102 of the Bill may also limit the right to recognition and equality before the law by amending the RT Act to clarify that perpetrators of family violence can be held liable for loss or damage in excess of the value of the bond, subject to VCAT’s discretion. While this amendment does not contain reference to gender, it is likely to impact men disproportionately as they are statistically more likely to be the perpetrators of family violence. However, I consider that any limitation on the right created by the Bill is reasonably justified to give effect to the objectives of the bill, which is to provide renters who are victim survivors of family violence protections from liability for loss or damage in circumstances of family violence. I further note that determinations around liabilities are subject to proceedings through VCAT and its’ review processes, ensuring that renters have recourse to impartial consideration of their matters by the Tribunal.

Amendment of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (DBC Act) – New section 38A inserted

Clause 15 of the Bill engages and may limit the right to recognition and equality before the law because clause 15 inserts a new requirement into the DBC Act that certain agreements to vary a domestic building contract must be in writing that is in English and readily legible. This reflects requirements that apply to a domestic building contract when entered into, consistent with section 31 of the DBC Act.

To the extent that the Bill may limit the right to recognition and equality before the law, any limitation or restriction is reasonable and demonstrably justified as English is the de facto national language, acting as the primary language for government, education, and commerce, and is spoken by between 73–90% of the population as their main language. Requiring variations to contracts to be written in English and readily legible ensures that the terms of the contracts, which are often high value and complex for a consumer to understand, are clearly identifiable and that contractual disputes can be resolved understanding the full intended context and meaning of the contract.

The requirement for a contract variation to be written in English does not remove the ability for a translation of a contract to be prepared where required to ensure accessibility for the parties involved in the contract. Negotiations can also occur in a language other than English.

Accordingly, I consider that these clauses under the Bill are compatible with the right to recognition and equality before the law under section 8 of the Charter.

Freedom of movement (Section 12)

Section 12 of the Charter provides that every person within Victoria has the right to move freely within Victoria, to enter and leave it, and has the freedom to choose where to live. This right extends to accessing public spaces, such as the ability of individuals to move through, remain in, enter or depart from public spaces, including freedom from physical barriers and procedural impediments.

The right extends, generally, to freedom to move throughout the State without impediment or restrictions (both physical and procedural) and a right to access public places and services. This right is, however, not an absolute right under the Charter and may be subject to such reasonable limitations as are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, including the property rights of others.

Family violence reforms to the RT Act

Clauses 52–55 of the Bill engage and promote the right to freedom of movement by prohibiting rental providers refusing to let a rented premises to someone because they are a victim survivor of family violence. This supports victim survivors’ ability to move between rental premises and secure housing without discrimination. Clauses 100–102 of the Bill also engages and promotes the right to freedom of movement by strengthening protections to prevent victim survivors from being attributed with liability for loss or damage caused by family violence. This supports victim survivors to remain in housing instead of being forced to vacate rental premises due to inadequate protection from liability in circumstances involving family violence.

Amendments to the Tobacco Act

Clause 120 of the Bill limits this right by introducing new Part 3B to the Tobacco Act, which enables the making of short-term closure notices (up to 90 days) and long-term closure orders. The Bill provides authorisation for the Regulator (Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety), the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police and the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, as appropriate, to close premises.

Closure notices and orders will enable the forced closure of Victorian premises selling or supplying illicit tobacco, including selling tobacco without a licence, and when a tobacco supply business is in possession of illicit tobacco. It will be an offence to enter, remain on or sell things from closed premises without reasonable excuse. The effect of the amendment is that owners, occupiers, employees and customers will be prevented from entering premises subject to a notice or an order without reasonable excuse or an exemption notice. New section 36Z of the Tobacco Act makes it an offence for a person to enter, remain or sell anything from premises that the person knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, are closed premises, without reasonable excuse.

Accordingly, the right to freedom of movement is limited by the Bill. The right to freedom of movement may be subject to reasonable limitations under section 7(2) of the Charter.

Closure powers are necessary for the protection of public health from the harmful effects of illicit tobacco by ensuring premises that are not compliant with the law are closed. The closure powers are expected to disrupt the trade in illicit tobacco and will supplement the existing regulatory tools that Tobacco Licensing Victoria has as part of the tobacco licensing scheme (including immediate suspension of a licence) and Victoria Police powers, to provide a greater ability to disrupt the illicit tobacco trade and associated organised crime supply chains. There is no less restrictive means to achieve these purposes, as retaining the status quo (not having closure powers) means that businesses will continue to trade in illicit tobacco and the community will continue to access illicit tobacco.

The amendments strengthen Victoria’s approach to combatting the sale of illicit tobacco to reduce harm to the community.

The amendments are accompanied by important safeguards:

•   A closure order can only be made if the statutory criteria are satisfied. A short-term closure notice can only be made if the decision-maker: (i) reasonably suspects that any illicit tobacco is being sold or otherwise supplied at the premises (new section 36V); or (ii) reasonably suspects there is illicit tobacco at the premises in the possession or under the control of a person who carries on a tobacco supply business; or (iii) believes on reasonable grounds that a tobacco supply business is being carried on at the premises without a licence. A long-term closure order can only be made if the Magistrates’ Court is satisfied that: (i) illicit tobacco is being, or is likely to be, sold or otherwise supplied at the premises (new section 36X); (ii) there is any illicit tobacco at the premises in the possession or under the control of a person who carries on a tobacco supply business; or (iii) a tobacco supply business is being carried on at the premises without a licence.

•   New sections 36V and 36X provide that, when issuing a short-term closure notice or long-term closure order respectively, the decision-maker may have regard to whether the notice or order will impact the ability of the community to access essential goods and services and any other matter the decision maker considers appropriate.

•   Exemptions can be granted for persons to enter or remain in a closed premises.

•   The new section 36Z offence contains exceptions, including a “without reasonable excuse” defence.

•   Short-term closure notices are limited to 90 days duration and must be cancelled if the notice is no longer required.

•   Long-term closure orders may only be made by the Magistrates’ Court (new section 36X(3)).

•   The owner or occupier of premises subject to a long-term closure order may apply to the Magistrates’ Cout for cancellation of the order (new section 36Y).

I consider that any limitation on the right to freedom of movement created by clause 120 is necessary given the purpose of the Bill to disrupt the sale of illicit tobacco and the harms caused by the illicit trade on the community. I therefore consider the limitation is reasonably justified and proportionate to achieve that purpose.

Accordingly, I consider that these clauses under the Bill are compatible with the right to freedom of movement before the law under section 12 of the Charter.

Privacy and reputation (section 13)

Section 13 of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully and arbitrarily interfered with and not to have their reputation unlawfully attacked. 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.

Require estate agents to disclose property sale information to the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria

Clause 19 of the Bill engages and may limit the right to privacy and reputation by inserting new section 47AN into the EA Act, which provides that an estate agent must disclose property sale information in relation to the sale of residential property to the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria, unless an exemption is granted. While some vendors may consider sale price information to be private, this information is already subject to mandatory disclosure to the Valuer-General. Furthermore, property addresses and sale prices are ultimately made publicly available with the Valuer-General, albeit for a fee and after a delay of several weeks following settlement. The reforms seek to accelerate the transparency of information generated in an open market.

Given that property price information can already be accessed by the public, and serves a significant consumer protection purpose, any interference with the right to privacy and reputation is considered proportionate and lawful, and not arbitrary. In my view this requirement is lawful as the information and process for disclosure is precisely defined, and not arbitrary as its disclosure will improve the provision of information to better facilitate a well-functioning housing market. Disclosure of property sale information may be considered arbitrary where disclosure of this information may put a person at risk of harm (for example in circumstances of family or personal violence), which would be a disproportionate harm compared to the intended benefit achieved by information disclosure. There will be an exemption from the requirement to disclose information in such instances, to ensure that private information is not required to be disclosed arbitrarily.

Require estate agents to request disclosure of a vendor’s reserve price and publication of that reserve price in the Property Price Statement 7 days before an auction or fixed date sale

Clause 26 of the Bill engages and may limit the right to privacy and reputation by inserting new sections 47AG to 47AM into the EA Act. New section 47AG provides that an estate agent must request a seller’s reserve price in writing before an auction or fixed date sale and, under new section 47AH, the estate agent must then publish the seller’s reserve price for a property at least 7 days before an auction or fixed date sale.

The seller’s reserve price may be considered information of a private nature as it is information that sellers have historically withheld, with few electing to disclose it prior to sale unless compelled to do so. Sellers may avoid revealing their reserve price because they consider it weakens their negotiating position by signaling the minimum price they will accept, reducing competitive bidding and the chance of achieving a higher sale price.

Currently the seller’s reserve price will become known at the end of the sale process by prospective purchasers who attend the auction, as offers are rejected if they do not meet that reserve, and accepted if they do. Therefore, a sellers’ reserve price is only considered private information before the sale has occurred.

To the extent that clause 26 of the Bill may limit the right to privacy by requiring the disclosure and publication of information that may be of a private nature, I consider that any limitation of the right to privacy will be neither unlawful nor arbitrary. In my view this requirement is lawful as the information and process for disclosure is precisely defined, and it is not arbitrary as it is required to ensure estate agents inform prospective purchasers of important pricing information regarding a property, they are considering purchasing.

Additionally, sellers will not be compelled to sell if they receive a bid at or above their disclosed reserve price, limiting any impact the disclosure of this private information may have on their negotiating position. This information disclosure will improve the provision of information to better facilitate a well-functioning housing market.

Require estate agents to publish the sold price of a property in the Property Price Statement 7 days after the sale becomes unconditional

Clause 26 of the Bill may limit the right to privacy by inserting new section 47AJ into the EA Act, which requires an estate agent to amend the property price statement to include the sold price of a property within 7 days of the sale becoming unconditional, unless an exemption is granted. The price for which a property is sold may be considered to be information of a private nature, as evidenced by the fact that some vendors and sellers currently choose not to openly disclose the sold price following a sale and instead choose to keep the information private. This information can currently be accessed for a fee from the Valuer-General but is not available until settlement of a property sale. The extent to which the reforms limit the right to privacy is mitigated by the fact that they primarily remove cost barriers to access the information and make the information publicly available at an earlier point in time.

To the extent that clause 26 of the Bill may limit the right to privacy by requiring the disclosure of information that may be of a private nature, I consider that any limitation will be neither unlawful nor arbitrary. In my view this requirement is lawful as the information and process for disclosure is precisely defined, and not arbitrary as its disclosure will improve the provision of information to better facilitate a well-functioning housing market. Disclosure of sold price information may be considered arbitrary where disclosure of this information may put a person at risk of harm (for example in circumstances of family or personal violence), which would outweigh the aim of a well-functioning housing market. There will be an exemption from the requirement to disclose sold price information available in such instances, to ensure that private information is not required to be disclosed arbitrarily.

Power for the BLA to suspend a licence under the Conveyancers Act and the EA Act

Clause 12 may engage the right not to have a person’s reputation unlawfully attacked by inserting section 32A into the Conveyancers Act, which provides that if a licensee fails to comply with the requirements of section 84(1) or 85(1A) of the Conveyancers Act (which require trust records to be audited and the subsequent audit report to be lodged with the Director within 10 business days), the BLA may suspend the conveyancer’s licence for a period of up to 12 months. A similar power is reflected in clause 23, which inserts new section 24E of the EA Act which provides that if an estate agent fails to comply with the requirements of section 64(1), 64(1A), or 64(2A) of the EA Act (which require trust accounts to be audited, that they must be audited by a qualified person, and the subsequent report must be lodged with the Director within 10 business days) the BLA may suspend a licence for a period of up to 12 months. In both cases the purpose of suspending a licence is to address non-compliance with trust account audit requirements and reduce consumer harm. This may engage the right not to have a reputation unlawfully attacked through restricting a person’s ability to practice in their chosen profession.

To the extent this could engage the right not to have a person’s reputation unlawfully attacked, the engagement does not limit the right. Suspension must be undertaken within the legislative framework of the Bill, and therefore any resulting damage to a person’s reputation would not be unlawful.

Prohibiting unreasonable refusal for request for additional keys and fobs for rental premises

Clause 58 of the Bill engages, but does not limit, the right to privacy by prohibiting rental providers from unreasonably refusing a request from a renter for an additional key or security device. Rental providers are also prohibited from disabling a key or security device unless permitted under the RT Act. Rental providers are able to refuse a renter’s request if there is a reasonable justification.

Clause 58 of the Bill engages and promotes the right to not have a person’s family or home interfered with and is consistent with a renters’ right to exclusive possession of the rented premises during the term of their residential rental agreement. However the provision of additional keys or security devices to a renter may limit the right to privacy of co-renters within a rental premises or other residents within a building where the rental premises is located, by providing access to common areas of the building for people who may not be listed on the residential rental agreement. This clause may create an arbitrary interference of the right to privacy for co-renters in rental premises where a renter requests additional keys or security devices for the rental premises or for residents within a building where the rental premises is located.

To the extent that this could limit co-renter or other residents right to privacy, the limitation is reasonable and can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The new clause builds in a threshold requiring requests for additional security devices or keys to be provided only when the request is reasonable and enables the rental provider to refuse the request for additional keys and fobs where the request is unreasonable. The Bill also sets out the circumstances in which a security device or key can be disabled by a rental provider to mitigate against the misuse of security devices or keys which may also impact the privacy of other residents in an apartment building. As such I believe the new clause is consistent with the right to privacy in the Charter.

Bond paid directly to the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority (Authority)

Clause 79 of the Bill creates an offence at section 405B of the RT Act for a rental provider or their agent to refuse to enter into a rental agreement with a renter because they have elected to pay their bond directly to the Authority. Without this prohibition a rental provider may arbitrarily and unreasonably refuse to enter into a residential rental agreement with a renter who chooses to pay bond directly to the Authority. This engages and promotes the right to family and home by ensuring that a renter’s right to occupy a home is not unlawfully and arbitrarily interfered with because of their choice to pay a bond directly to the Authority.

Reforms to Part 4A of the RT Act (residential parks)

Clause 67 of the Bill engages the right to privacy and reputation by inserting new section 206ZZCA into the RT Act which requires the Director to keep and maintain a register of Part 4A parks. Proposed section 206ZZCA(3) of the RT Act provides for the information that is to be included in the register.

Clause 67 of the Bill also engages the right to privacy in proposed section 206ZZCB of the RT Act that requires the operator of a Part 4A park (commonly known as a residential park) to give notice to the Director, Consumer Affairs Victoria (Director) including the particulars required to enable the Director to record in the register the matters specified in section 206ZZCA(3) of the RT Act. Those particulars include personal information including the name, business telephone number and email address of any person located at the park who is a representative of the operator, if they are a different person to the operator.

The operator must register the Part 4A park with the Director prior to permitting a site tenant to occupy a Part 4A site and subsequently give the Director an annual update on information included in the register. For existing Part 4A parks, registration will be required within 3 months of the commencement of the proposed amendments. The Director must publish specified information on a public register, provided it is not personal information protected by the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014.

Although clause 67 engages the right to privacy, I consider that this provision is compatible with the Charter as it does not unlawfully or arbitrarily interfere with that right. The new provision clearly articulates that the information that must be submitted to the Director is limited only to that needed to identify operators of Part 4A parks for regulatory purposes. The scope of information published on the public register will be narrower and limited to the information required to support prospective site tenants to make informed decisions about entering into and living in a Part 4A park, such as park location, the website details of the park, park size and the nature of the park.

Clause 70 of the Bill engages the right to privacy by repealing section 207ZG of the RT Act which removes the option for a site owner to issue a ‘without cause’ notice to a site tenant to vacate the site at the end of the term of a fixed term site agreement. By protecting site tenants from no fault eviction, this amendment engages and promotes the right to privacy in the Charter and promotes a site tenants’ right not to have their home unlawfully and arbitrarily interfered with.

Family violence reforms

Clauses 52–55 of the Bill engage and promote the right to privacy by ensuring that providers of rental premises cannot discriminate against a person because a prospective renter has been subjected to family violence. By protecting the prospective renter in this way, victims of family violence are not at a greater risk of being refused a tenancy simply due to their circumstances. As such, prohibition has the effect of having their right not to have their family and home or correspondence unlawfully and arbitrarily interfered with.

Authorising a review of a motor car trader’s licence following the making of a specified VCAT order

Clause 162 of the Bill engages the right to privacy and reputation by amending the MCT Act to provide for the BLA to conduct a review of a licence of a licensed motor car trader where VCAT has made a ‘specified tribunal order’ against them. A ‘specified tribunal order’ is defined as an order requiring a licensed motor car trader to pay an amount to a purchaser of a motor car in relation to a transaction involving the buying, selling or exchanging of a motor car or the offering to buy, sell or exchange a motor car. This includes an order requiring a refund, compensation or payment in relation to a breach of contract of sale of a motor car.

The BLA will only review orders made by the Tribunal and, where available, reasons for decision for those orders. Orders and reasons for decision are publicly available and are exempt from the privacy protections in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 under section 34(6)(b) of that Act.

To the extent that the right to privacy is engaged, I consider that the requirements of new Division 2A of Part 2 of the MCT Act to be inserted by clause 162 of the Bill are precise and appropriately prescribed, not arbitrary and are permitted by law through the Bill.

The power for the BLA to suspend a motor car trader’s licence following a licence review engages the right to not have a person’s reputation unlawfully attacked because this restricts a person’s ability to practise in their chosen profession. In my view, any interference with a person’s reputation will not be unlawful as a decision to suspend will be undertaken within the defined legislative framework to be inserted by clause 162.

These amendments are reasonable to give effect to the licence review process, which will benefit consumers by increasing compliance with the MCT Act and by providing an incentive for licensed motor car traders to engage in early and effective resolution of disputes with consumers.

Requiring owners or operators of internet sites or digital platforms to produce information

Clause 175 of the Bill engages the right to privacy by amending section 82AD to give the Director and inspectors appointed under the ACFLT Act the power to require specified persons to provide information orally or in writing about a person’s licensed or unlicensed motor car trading business. Clause 175 also expands the list of specified persons in section 82AD(3) to include owners or operators of internet sites or digital platforms. The purpose of these amendments is to support the Director in taking compliance and enforcement action for contraventions of the MCT Act, particularly in relation to car sales conducted through auction houses by unlicensed traders.

To the extent that the right to privacy is engaged, I consider that the amendments made by clause 175 of the Bill are precise and appropriately prescribed, not arbitrary and in accordance with the law. The information that can be requested is clearly described in legislation and is appropriately limited to information relating to a licensed motor car trader’s business as a motor car trader or an unlicensed person’s trading in motor cars. It is appropriate and proportionate for this information to be accessible to the Director and inspectors for the purposes of addressing unlawful activity in the motor car trading industry.

Reforms to the OC Act

Clause 40 of the Bill inserts new sections 32A to 32J into the OC Act which provides for payment plans for payment of fees by lot owners to their OC. Clause 40 engages and may limit the right to privacy and reputation by providing that –

•   an application for a payment plan must be in the approved form. It is anticipated that the approved form will require inclusion of some personal information by a lot owner (new section 32A(2)); and

•   under new section 32C(2) evidence may be prescribed for the purposes of an owner occupier lot owner demonstrating hardship to support their application for a payment plan and such evidence may include personal information which an owners corporation (or person delegated by the owners corporation) may temporarily retain to assess whether the request is supported by relevant evidence.

Clause 48 of the Bill inserts a range of provisions dealing with information use and disclosure of personal information collected for the purposes of administering payment plan requests under the OC Act, including providing for the protection of a lot owner’s information provided for this purpose from misuse, interference or loss, return and destruction of lot owners’ information and disclosure of lot owners’ information. The new provisions include penalties for non-compliance.

I consider the privacy protections included in the Bill in clause 48 to safeguard any prescribed personal information are sufficient to ensure that any limitation of the right to privacy flowing from clause 40 of the Bill are neither unlawful nor arbitrary.

Forfeiture of certain documents and things to the Crown and subsequent destruction of seized things if uncollected

Amendments to be made to the ACLFT Act by clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill may limit the right to privacy and reputation by permitting the forfeiture of certain documents containing personal information belonging to a person. These clauses will amend the ACLFT Act to provide that any document or thing seized under Part 6.4 of the ACLFT Act by an inspector within Consumer Affairs Victoria may be forfeited to the Crown, if the Director, Consumer Affairs Victoria has sought to return the item where obliged to do so but the item remains uncollected after the lapse of a notice of collection. Once a document or thing is forfeited, the former owner will have no surviving right to apply for its return or right of compensation.

To the extent that clauses 5 and 6 provide for the forfeiture of a document containing personal information to the State, I am of the view that the provisions are precise, properly prescribed by law, and do not operate arbitrarily. As a practical matter, seized documents often remain uncollected, as they are generally copies of original documents and are of limited utility to their owner. In the absence of appropriate management processes, such documents may accumulate over-time, resulting in unnecessary storage costs and administrative burden for the State.

However, clauses 5 and 6 establish clear processes for the retrieval of documents by the owner prior to forfeiture and for their management following forfeiture, given personal information may be involved.

Clause 5 establishes requirements by which the person from whom an item was seized, or the owner of the item, must be notified before the item is forfeited to the Crown. A notice of collection must be issued in writing to the relevant person, specifying how the document or thing may be collected and the consequences of the item not being collected. If the relevant person is unable to be identified or located, the notice may be published in the Government Gazette, to ensure that any deprivation of property only occurs after information on the collection of an item is provided in a manner accessible to the public.

Clause 6 provides that any document forfeited to the Crown must, following forfeiture, be managed in accordance with the Public Records Act 1973. This means that, under the proposed amendments, forfeited documents will remain subject to the statutory framework governing the storage, access, retention and disposal of public records. In this way, the transfer of control over private information is regulated by law and confined to what is reasonably necessary.

Accordingly, I consider that this clause under the Bill is compatible with the right privacy and reputation under section 13 of the Charter.

Amendments to the Tobacco Act

Clause 120 of the Bill introduces:

•   new section 36V, which allows Tobacco Licensing Victoria or the Chief Commissioner of Police to issue a short-term closure notice; and

•   new section 36X, which allows the Magistrates’ Court to make a long-term closure order; and

•   new section 36ZD(2), which requires Tobacco Licensing Victoria to give written notice to the Chief Commissioner of Police of an intent to issue a short-term closure notice or apply for a long-term closure order; and

•   new section 36ZD(4), which requires the Chief Commissioner of Police to give written notice to Tobacco Licensing Victoria of an intent to issue a short-term closure notice or apply for a long-term closure order; and

•   new section 36ZE, which allows a landlord to terminate a commercial lease, with respect to a premises subject to a long-term closure order; and

•   new sections 36V(5)(b), 36W(3)(b) and 36X(6)(b) and 36ZC, which contain public notice requirements. These provisions require the notice or order to be posted at the front of the premises or another place at or near the premises where it is likely to come to public attention and enable the Regulator to make information about the notice or order publicly available on the Department of Justice and Community Safety website.

The making of a short-term closure notice or long-term closure order and the ability to terminate a lease may engage the right to privacy and the right not to have one’s home interfered with. While there is doubt as to whether the term “home” in section 13(a) captures a person’s workplace, the definition of home provided by the United Nations Human Rights Council includes a person’s workplace. As these measures may exclude a tenant from being able to enter and conduct their business at the premises this interferes with their territorial privacy.

In so far as these amendments capture information about a natural person affected by the closure notice or order, it will engage the right to privacy and reputation.

Section 13(a) of the Charter contains internal limitations that permit lawful and non-arbitrary interferences with a person’s privacy. Interference with privacy will be arbitrary if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable (Minogue v Thompson [2021] VSCA 358, [55]). Therefore, where an interference with privacy is lawful and not arbitrary, it does not come within the scope of section 13 of the Charter.

The closure of premises occurs according to the law and is not arbitrary because it follows the criteria specified in the legislation. Exemptions can also be granted for persons to enter, or remain in, a closed premises.

The disclosure of information between the Chief Commissioner of Police and Tobacco Licensing Victoria and the notice requirements will be required by law and is not arbitrary as it occurs in circumstances specifically outlined in the legislation where a closure notice or order has been made. While new section 36ZC provides discretion to Tobacco Licensing Victoria, it is limited to circumstances where a closure notice or order has been made and serves an important public notice function.

These provisions provide notice to the public where closure notices or orders have been made. The intention of this is to provide notification to the community about the closure and prevent inadvertent contravention of the short-term closure notice or long-term closure order.

Further, the information sharing provisions between Tobacco Licensing Victoria and Victoria Police will strengthen the monitoring and enforcement of closure powers. In assisting the regulation of tobacco licensing, the amendments will have significant community benefit. I do not consider the right to privacy and reputation is limited by clause 120 of the Bill as any interference with privacy will fall within the internal limitation in section 13(a) of the Charter.

Accordingly, I consider that these clauses under the Bill are compatible with the right to privacy and reputation under section 13 of the Charter.

Freedom of expression (section 15)

Section 15(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression. This includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds; whether orally, in writing, in print or by way of art or other medium chosen by that person. The right to freedom of expression is generally considered to also include a right to not impart information. Section 15(3) of the Charter provides that special duties and responsibilities are attached to the right to freedom of expression and that the right may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to respect the rights of other persons and for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.

Require estate agents to disclose property sale information to the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria

Clause 19 of the Bill engages and may limit the right to freedom of expression by inserting new section 47AN into the EA Act, which provides that an estate agent must disclose property sale information in relation to the sale of residential property to the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria, unless an exemption is granted. Requiring this information to be disclosed may engage and limit the estate agent’s (or agent’s representative’s) right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to not impart information. To the extent that clause 19 of the Bill may engage or limit the right to freedom of expression by requiring that particular information be imparted, I consider any engagement of this right is balanced by the requirement to protect the rights of other estate agents and the public, specifically prospective purchasers and vendors in the housing market.

These amendments are required to ensure that estate agents and the public have access to pricing information of sold properties to enable them to better understand current market prices. In some cases, requiring this information to be imparted may put a person at risk of harm (for example in family or personal violence situations), and in these cases their safety may be prioritised over the right of the public to access this information to facilitate an effective housing market. There will be an exemption in such instances, to ensure that the benefit from requiring that information to be provided is balanced with any risk of harm.

Amendments to the EA Act to require an estate agent to request and publish the vendor’s reserve price in the Property Price Statement seven days before an auction or fixed date sale

Clause 26 of the Bill inserting new sections 47AG and 47AH into the EA Act which engage and may limit the right to freedom of expression by requiring that an estate agent must request a seller’s reserve price in writing and publish that reserve price at least 7 days before an auction or fixed date sale can be held.

However, I consider that this limitation is reasonable as these requirements are necessary to promote the right to freedom of expression insofar as they enhance a prospective purchasers’ right to receive information, by improving access to pricing information about the property they are considering purchasing. Any limitation on the right to freedom of expression is therefore justified to ensure that consumers have the necessary information to make fully informed decisions when considering purchasing residential property, with more accurate knowledge of likely costs.

Amendments to the EA Act to require the publication of the sold price of a property in the property price statement within 7 days after the sale becomes unconditional and make the property price statement available for 18 months after the sale becomes unconditional

Clause 26 of the Bill may engage and limit the right to privacy by inserting new section 47AJ into the EA Act, which requires an estate agent or agent’s representative to update the property price statement to include the sold price of a property within 7 days of the sale becoming unconditional, as defined in the Act, unless an exemption is granted. New section 47AM then provides the property price statement must be made available without fee or charge for at least 18 months after the sale becomes unconditional. Requiring this information to be published may engage and limit the right of freedom of expression of the estate agent (or agent’s representative), as well as the seller and the purchaser, which includes the right to not impart information.

To the extent that clause 26 of the Bill may engage or limit the right to freedom of expression by requiring particular information to be imparted, I consider that any limitation of this right is balanced by the requirement to protect the rights of other estate agents and the public, specifically prospective purchasers and vendors in the housing market. These amendments are required to ensure that estate agents and the public have access to pricing information of properties sold to enable them to better understand current market prices. In some cases, requiring this information to be imparted may put a person at risk of harm (for example in family or personal violence situations), and in these cases their safety may be prioritised over the right of the public to access this information to facilitate an effective housing market. There will be an exception in such instances, to ensure that the benefit from requiring that information to be provided is balanced with any risk of harm.

Clause 26 of the Bill also engages and promotes the right to freedom of expression by (inter alia) inserting new section 47AJ and 47AM into the EA Act. Publishing this information promotes the right to freedom of expression as it positively impacts estate agents’ and prospective purchasers’ ability to receive information about the actual price at which properties in Victoria have been sold. This will be useful for prospective purchasers looking to understand what comparative properties in the area have historically sold for, or for estate agents looking for properties on which to base their estimated selling price (which must take into account the sale of comparative properties as provided by section 47AC of the EA Act).

Amendments to the EA Act require an estate agent to publish a link or QR code to an internet site containingthe property price statement in a physical advertisement

Clause 25 of the Bill engages or may limit the right to freedom of expression by amending section 47AF of the EA Act to require estate agents or agents’ representatives to ensure that physical advertisements of residential property that specify information about the property also refer to an Internet site that contains a property price statement, by including either an internet address or QR code link to the Internet site. Requiring the estate agent or agent’s representative to publish this information may engage or limit the estate agent or representative’s right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to not impart information.

However, I consider that this limitation is reasonable as these requirements are necessary to promote the right to freedom of expression insofar as they enhance a prospective purchasers’ right to receive information, by improving access to pricing information about the property they are considering purchasing. Any limitation on the right to freedom of expression is therefore justified to ensure that consumers have the necessary information to make fully informed decisions when considering purchasing residential property, with more accurate knowledge of likely costs.

Amendments to the EA Act require an estate agent to amend or remove advertisements with a selling price or estimated selling price lower than the reserve price

Clause 27 of the Bill engages or may limit the right to freedom of expression by inserting new sections 47C(2EA) and 47C(2EB) into the EA Act to require estate agents or agents’ representatives to take all reasonable steps to:

•   remove or amend any advertisement on an Internet site that includes a selling price or likely selling price lower than the seller reserve price within one business day of being notified of the sellers’ reserve price, and

•   remove or amend any advertisement not published on an internet site that includes a selling price or likely selling price lower than the seller reserve as soon as practicable being notified of the sellers’ reserve price.

Requiring the estate agent or agent’s representative to remove or amend information may limit their freedom of expression and may also limit freedom of commercial expression.

However, I consider that these requirements also promote the right to freedom of expression, insofar as they enhance a prospective purchaser’s right to receive information, by improving access to pricing information about the property they are considering purchasing. These amendments are therefore justifiable measures to ensure that consumers have the necessary information to make fully informed decisions when considering purchasing residential property, with more accurate knowledge of likely costs.

Accordingly, I consider that these clauses under the Bill are compatible with the right to freedom of expression under section 15 of the Charter.

Protection of families and children (Section 17)

Section 17(1) of the Charter recognises that families are the fundamental group unit of society and are entitled to protection by society and the State. Section 17(2) of the Charter provides that every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as is in their best interests and is needed by them by reason of being a child.

Family violence reforms to the RT Act

Clauses 52–55 of the Bill engage and promote the protection of families and children by prohibiting rental providers, rooming house operators and caravan park owners from refusing to let rented premises to someone due to their being a victim survivor of family violence.

Clauses 52–55 of the Bill may also limit the right of families and children to be protected as proposed new sections 30AB(3) and 94FA(3) will exempt specified entities, such as social and affordable housing providers, from a new requirement that will prohibit rental providers and rooming house operators from refusing to let a rented premises to someone due to their being a victim survivor of family violence. In addition, I note that women and First Peoples are statistically more likely to be a victim survivor of family violence and that single mother families are statistically the largest demographic groups in social housing. While this creates a distinction with renters in the private rental market, I consider that this limitation on the right created by the Bill is reasonably justified as a measure required to ensure that social and affordable housing providers can continue to allocate appropriate housing based on priority of need, including having regard to whether a renter is a victim survivor of family violence.

Clauses 100–102 of the Bill are intended to ensure that VCAT has discretion to make orders that a victim survivor is not held liable for loss or damage in circumstances of family violence. In doing so, these clauses engage and promote the rights of families and children to be protected by strengthening protections under the RT Act to support victim survivors and their children to secure safe rental housing and be protected from perpetrators of family violence.

Clauses 101–102 of the Bill may also limit the right of families and children to be protected by amending the RT Act to clarify that perpetrators of family violence can be held liable for loss or damage in excess of the value of the bond, subject to VCAT’s discretion.

Children or one parent families may be indirectly impacted where VCAT makes orders against the parent who is a perpetrator, including making a parent liable for up to all loss or damage suffered by the rental provider. However, I consider that the limitation on the right created by the Bill is reasonably justified to give effect to its objectives, which include to provide renters who are victim survivors of family violence protections from liability for loss or damage in circumstances of family violence. I further note that determinations around liabilities are subject to legal proceedings through VCAT and its’ review processes, ensuring that renters have recourse to impartial consideration of their matters by the Tribunal.

Accordingly, I consider that these clauses under the Bill are compatible with the right to protection of families and children under section 17 of the Charter.

Cultural rights (section 19)

Section 19 of the Charter protects the cultural rights of all persons with a particular cultural, religious, racial or linguistic background, and acknowledges that Aboriginal persons hold distinct cultural rights that should be protected.

Amendment of the DBC Act

Clause 15 of the Bill may engage with cultural rights by inserting new section 38A into the DBC Act which restricts a builder from entering into certain variations to a domestic building contract unless the contract conforms to a number of requirements listed in clause 15, including that the contract is written in English and readily legible.

To the extent that the Bill may limit cultural rights, the limitation is reasonable and justifiable. The Bill ensures that parties to a domestic building contract are afforded greater consumer protections by promoting greater understanding for parties of the variations being made, including the works and costs under the variation. Requiring variations to contracts to be written in English and readily legible ensures that the terms of the contract are clearly identifiable.

For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the provisions in the Bill are compatible with the cultural rights in section 19 of the Charter.

Property rights (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 common law, are confined and structured rather than unclear, are accessible to the public, and are formulated precisely.

Prohibiting an auction of a residential property occurring if the sellers reserve price was not published 7 days prior

Clause 26 of the Bill will engage and likely limits the property rights of vendors by inserting new section 47AI into the EA Act to provide that it is an offence for an estate agent or agent’s representative to conduct an auction or fixed date sale of a residential property if the seller’s reserve price for the property was not published 7 days prior, in accordance with new section 47AH(1). This reform may interfere with a vendor’s property rights by limiting their ability to transfer their property in a manner and at a time of their choosing. In my view any limitation on property rights would be lawful, as the provision that authorises the limitation is clearly set out in section 47AI. The limitation would not be arbitrary, as any limitation of property rights resulting from this reform is necessary to ensure the requirements regarding disclosure of a seller’s reserve price are complied with, which is necessary to achieve the policy intent of improving property purchasers’ access to price information in the public market.

Amendment of EA Act to provide for estate agent or agents representative to forfeit commission in cases where they are found to have breached prescribed sections

Clause 29 engages the property rights of an estate agent or agent’s representative who is found to have committed an offence against new sections 47AH, 47AC(2EA) and 47AC (2EB) of the EA Act, by amending section 94A(1) of that Act to include reference to these sections. Section 94A provides that the Court may order the person (found to have committed a relevant offence) to pay to the Victorian Property Fund any commission in relation to that offence.

Under section 94A(1) of the EA Act, forfeiture of commission is to be treated as a fine in the amount of the commission and not a confiscation of property. While this engages property rights as it is a ‘deprivation of property’, in my view it would be lawful and not arbitrary, as the commission was calculated and invoiced as a result of an estate agent or agent’s representative “having” committed an offence and the confiscation of that commission is necessary to ensure that a person does not benefit from property obtained through unlawful conduct. Additionally, the language in the Bill is clear as to which offences it relates.

Prohibiting estate agents from accessing commission or other amounts they may be entitled to prior to settlement

Clause 107 of the Bill may engage the property rights of an estate agent by inserting new sections 26A and 26B into the SL Act, which provide that an estate agent must not access their commission or any other amounts to which they are entitled before settlement. This reform may delay an estate agent’s ability to access their property (being their commission or any other amounts to which they are entitled). Prior to the amendment, if a deposit was released prior to settlement in accordance with section 27 of the SL Act, estate agents could claim their commission and other amounts to which they were entitled from that deposit. This created risk for purchasers, who may face difficulties if issues arise prior to settlement (for example, if the settlement fails due to the vendor or purchaser failing to meet the conditions of contract or deliver vacant possession and they need to retrieve monies taken by the estate agent.

Any engagement with the right to property is moderated by the fact this amendment would not deny the estate agent their legal entitlement to their commission but only defer the ability to access that entitlement until after settlement. Additionally, I am of the view that the clause is precise and appropriately described, is in accordance with the law and is not arbitrary as it is necessary to better protect the purchaser’s deposit, in the case that a contract may fall through prior to settlement and the purchaser needs to retrieve the deposit.

Cap the cost of breaking a rental agreement

Clause 60 of the Bill may limit the right to property by inserting new section 211A(3A) into the RT Act to limit the amount of compensation that may be awarded to a rental provider for loss of rent where a fixed-term rental agreement of less than 5 years is terminated early by the renter. New section 211A(3A) will limit the amount of compensation to a maximum of one week’s rent where there is 25 per cent or less of the term of the agreement remaining when the agreement is terminated; 2 week’s rent when there is 50 per cent or less but more than 25 per cent of the term of the agreement remaining when it was terminated; 3 week’s rent when there is 75 per cent or less but more than 50 per cent of the term of the agreement remaining when the agreement is terminated; and 4 week’s rent when there is more than 75 per cent of the term of the agreement remaining when the agreement is terminated.

To the extent that the right to property is limited, I am of the opinion that the formula for calculating compensation provides a reasonable amount of compensation to rental providers who may have suffered from loss of rent and is in accordance with the law. The capped amount provides certainty for renters and rental providers as to the maximum amount that can be awarded by VCAT for loss of rent. The reform does not prevent rental providers from seeking compensation under section 210 of the RT Act for other losses incurred including re-advertising and re-letting costs for the property and does not prevent VCAT from considering the matters provided under section 211 of the RT Act.

Accordingly, I consider that any such deprivations will be compatible with the right to property under the Charter.

Prohibiting unreasonable refusal for extra keys and fobs for rental properties in the RT Act

Clauses 58 and 59 of the Bill engages the right to property by ensuring that rental providers cannot unreasonably refuse requests from renters for additional keys or security devices and cannot disable a key or security device except under specified exceptions. Refusing to give an additional key or security device to a renter without a reasonable justification for the refusal could constitute an arbitrary interference in the renter’s right to property. Amending the RT Act to create an offence for a rental provider to disable a key or security device except in specified circumstances ensures renters cannot be arbitrarily denied access to the rented premises. This reform is consistent with the right to property in the Charter and promotes the right not to have one’s home arbitrarily interfered with.

Reforms to Part 4A of the RT Act (residential parks)

Clause 70 of the Bill engages the right to property by repealing section 207ZG of the RT Act, which removes the ability of a site owner in a Part 4A park to issue a ‘without cause’ notice to a site tenant to vacate a site at the end of a fixed term agreement. While this reform may limit the property rights of site owners, the site owner (or landowner or mortgagee, in certain circumstances) will still be authorised under the RT Act to regain possession by issuing a notice to vacate for a range of reasons specified in the Act, such as causing damage to a Part 4A site (section 207W), for dangerous, disruptive or threatening behaviour (sections 207X–207Z), use of the Part 4A site for an illegal purpose (section 207ZC) or subletting or assigning the Part 4A site without the site owner’s consent (section 207ZD). Any limitation of the right created by the reform is reasonable and demonstrably justified. This reform is also consistent with a key element of the right to privacy and reputation under section 13 of the Charter – the right not to have one’s home arbitrarily interfered with.

Family violence reforms to the RT Act

Clause 55 of the Bill may limit the right to property by amending the RT Act to give VCAT the discretion to make orders requiring a rental provider to compensate a prospective renter for loss caused by the rental provider having discriminated against the prospective renter. This amendment is reasonably justified to ensure that there is legal recourse for renters in response to alleged discrimination, in addition to providing specific and general deterrence for rental providers to not discriminate against victim survivors when determining to let rented premises. I further note that determinations by VCAT that discrimination occurred are subject to safeguards afforded through the legal proceedings and the subsequent appeals processes by providing that parties have the opportunity to be heard regarding an allegation.

Clauses 101–102 of the Bill may limit a family violence perpetrator’s right to property by amending section 420A of the RT Act to explicitly clarify that VCAT has discretion to order that a person who has perpetrated family violence against their co-renter may be liable for all loss or damage incurred by their rental provider, irrespective of the value of the bond. This amendment is reasonably justified to give effect to the purposes of the bill which include to further protect the rights of victim survivor renters. Any limitation of the right to property of the perpetrator will also be made by a Tribunal in accordance with law and not in an arbitrary manner.

Strengthening odometer tampering offences

Clause 166 of the Bill may engage the right to property by amending the offence against odometer tampering in section 38(1) of the MCT Act to clarify the types of actions that constitute odometer tampering. The amended odometer tampering offence will prohibit a person from altering an odometer, removing an odometer, substituting an odometer or disabling an odometer. This may limit a person’s control over their property by restricting what they are able to do with their odometer.

Clause 167 of the Bill may also engage the right to property by inserting new section 38B into the MCT Act which creates an offence for a motor car trader to offer a used motor car for sale or exchange unless they take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the odometer reading. This may limit a motor car trader’s control over their property by prohibiting them from selling a used motor car if they have failed to take these reasonable steps.

To the extent that clauses 166 and 167 may engage the right to property, I consider that the clauses are precise and appropriately prescribed, not arbitrary and in accordance with the law. The prohibited conduct relating to odometer tampering is clearly outlined and the limitations are balanced by the existing defence in section 38(3) of the MCT Act, enabling genuinely faulty odometers to be repaired or replaced when necessary. The requirement for motor car traders to take steps to verify the accuracy of an odometer reading reflects best business practice and recognises that motor car traders have a higher capability and responsibility compared with private sellers. The new offence contains a non-exhaustive list of reasonable steps to assist motor car traders in understanding their obligations. These reforms will benefit consumers who face significant financial loss if they purchase a car with an artificially inflated value due to a tampered odometer. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the right to property is not limited by these amendments.

Forfeiture of certain documents and things to the Crown and subsequent destruction of seized things if uncollected

Amendments to be made to the ACLFT Act by clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill may limit the right to property by providing for the forfeiture of certain documents or things belonging to a person in certain circumstances. These clauses will amend the ACLFT Act to provide that any document or thing seized under Part 6.4 of the ACLFT Act by an inspector within Consumer Affairs Victoria may be forfeited to the Crown, if the Director, Consumer Affairs Victoria has sought to return the item where obliged to do so but the item remains uncollected after the lapse of a notice of collection. Once a document or thing is forfeited, the former owner will have no surviving right to apply for its return or right of compensation.

To the extent that clauses 5 and 6 allow for the loss and disposal of a person’s property, I am of the view that the clause is precise and appropriately prescribed, is not arbitrary and is in accordance with the law.

Clause 5 establishes clear requirements by which the person from whom an item was seized, or the owner of the item, must be notified before the item is forfeited to the Crown. A notice of collection must be issued in writing to the relevant person, specifying how the document or thing may be collected and the consequences of the item not being collected. If the relevant person is unable to be identified or located, the notice may be published in the Government Gazette, to ensure that any deprivation of property only occurs after information on the collection of an item is provided in a manner accessible to the public. A notice of collection must be issued within 3 months of the relevant item being seized unless this period is extended by court order, in which case the notice will be published within 30 days after the end of the extended period and must give the relevant person a period of 28 days within which to collect the document or thing. If a person is unable to collect the document or thing within 28 days, they may authorise another person to collect it on their behalf.

The process established under clauses 5 and 6 operates alongside existing provisions in Part 6.4 of the ACLFT Act to ensure items are only seized where necessary and justified, and without undue deprivation of a person’s property; for example, section 166 of the ACLFT Act requires an inspector to provide a copy of a retained document to the person from whom it was seized as soon as practicable after its seizure.

Clause 6 of the Bill enables the Minister under the ACLFT Act to direct the disposal, including destruction, of a class of objects forfeited to the Crown, being only those objects seized subject to an information or safety standard or an interim or permanent ban made under the ACL (Victoria). This power may only be exercised with clear and justifiable limits. Before making such a direction, the Minister must have regard to various relevant matters, for example whether the item is, or is likely to be, subject to legal proceedings.

For these reasons I am of the opinion that, to the extent that clauses 5 and 6 may constitute a deprivation of property or limitation of the right to property, any such deprivation or limitation is reasonable, justifiable and will be in accordance with law and therefore compatible with the right to property.

Amendments to the Tobacco Act

The following reforms in Part 11 of the Bill engage the right to property:

•   the power to issue short-term closure notices (new section 36V) and long-term closure orders (new section 36X) interfere with the rights of owners of the premises, landlords and tenants who are no longer able to enjoy the property, noting there are offence (new section 36Z) to enter or remain on or sell anything from a closed premises. The owner and occupier will not be able to enter or remain on the property or carry on a business. Landlords’ ability to use or lease their property is also interfered with. There will be no compensation payable by the State in respect of anything done under or arising out of the issuing of a closure notice or order; and

•   the offence for a landlord knowingly allowing another person to use the premises to sell or otherwise supply illicit tobacco; and

•   the power of landlords to terminate leases by giving written notice to the tenant where a long-term closure order is in place. This will interfere with the rights of the occupier as their lease can be terminated which means they are required to vacate the property and no longer enjoy their rights as a tenant over the property; and

•   the forfeiture and disposal of illicit tobacco, as the authorities will be able to dispose of a person’s illicit tobacco.

In each of the circumstances identified above, there is likely to be a deprivation of property. This deprivation is in accordance with the law as these powers are conferred by legislation, confined and precise and accessible to the public.

Existing case law (PJB v Melbourne Health) also requires that it be shown that the Bill does not operate arbitrarily. The Court of Appeal, in WMB v Chief Commissioner of Police (2012) 43 VR 446 in the context of discussing the meaning of ‘arbitrary’ in section 13(a) of the Charter, has stated that a law is arbitrary where it is capricious, unjust, unpredictable or unreasonable in the sense of not being proportionate to a legitimate purpose.

I consider that none of the reforms operate arbitrarily for the reasons discussed below.

The purpose of the short-term closure notices and long-term closure orders is to further disincentivise and disrupt the illicit tobacco trade and unlicensed trading. It is also to reduce access to illicit tobacco products, which will have a positive health impact on the community. The introduction of closure powers is intended to impose a significant economic deterrent and disrupt the organised crime supply chains, which will have a positive impact on the community.

There are features in the framework that make the reforms just, reasonable and proportionate, including:

•   a closure notice or order can only be made if the statutory criteria is satisfied;

•   short-term closure notices are limited to up to 90 days duration and must be cancelled if the notice is no longer required;

•   long-term closure orders may only be made by the Magistrates’ Court (new section 36X(3)). Providing the Magistrates’ Court with the discretion to determine the maximum length of closure order is also necessary to support the objective of interrupting organised crime supply chains. It will also ensure the duration of the order is based on the severity of the offending behaviour;

•   further, when issuing a short-term closure notice or making a long-term closure order, the decision-maker may have regard to whether the notice or order will impact the ability of the community to access essential goods and services (new sections 36V(2) and 36X(4), respectively). This would allow a business who provides essential services in, for example, a regional area, to be partially closed, with the essential services still being able to be provided to the community; and

•   the Bill also provides that short-term closure notices may be varied or cancelled by Tobacco Licensing Victoria or the Chief Commissioner of Police (new section 36W), and that the owner or occupier of premises that are subject to a long-term closure order can apply to the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria for cancellation or revocation of the long-term closure order (new section 36Y).

The Bill provides that if a long-term closure order is made and the premises are subject to a lease, a landlord can terminate the lease by providing written notice to the tenant. If the tenant has not removed their property from the premises after the notice period has ended, the landlord can deal with the tenant’s property as appropriate, including by disposing of the property. Providing these powers to landlords complements the closure powers scheme by making it harder for illicit tobacco traders to resume trading at the same location.

It is my view that these powers are not arbitrary, as the power for landlords to terminate a lease, and later deal with the tenant’s property (if it is not removed from the premises during the notice period) can only be exercised once the Magistrates’ Court has assessed the evidence and determined that a long-term closure order should be made. That is, the Magistrates’ Court must be satisfied that illicit tobacco is being, or is likely to be, sold or otherwise supplied at the premises, there is illicit tobacco in the possession or under the control of a person carrying on a tobacco supply business (whether the business is carried on at the premises or elsewhere), or a tobacco supply business is being carried on at the premises without a licence.

In these circumstances, where a Court has found that illicit activity is occurring (or is likely to occur), it is just, reasonable and proportionate for landlords to terminate a lease. This will not only disrupt the illicit tobacco trade from premises in Victoria but also protects the property rights of landlords. It will ensure that landlords who have not been involved in illegal activity are not financially penalised because of the illegal conduct of their tenants. Without this mechanism, a landlord may suffer financial and other loss due to not being able to end the lease and re-lease the premises to a different tenant. Providing landlords with an ability to dispose of a tenant’s property left at the premises after the notice period has ended, will also facilitate the ability of landlords to rent the premises to a new tenant.

With respect to the amendments that introduce a new process for the disposal of illicit tobacco (new section 37D), the process is tightly confined and all requirements for managing illicit tobacco to the point of destruction or disposal are clearly articulated. There is also an opportunity for a person to apply to the Magistrates’ Court to seek the return of the seized item where they can demonstrate it is not illicit tobacco. The reforms serve an important purpose of reducing the significant safety hazards, costs and burden with the storage of the illicit tobacco while still maintaining evidentiary standards for court proceedings. There is significant public interest in protecting the community from the illicit tobacco trade, reducing the burden and cost of storing illicit things for extended periods of time and minimising security and safety concerns associated with that storage.

To the extent the rights of natural persons are engaged, I do not consider the right to property is limited. This is because any interference falls within the internal limitation of section 20. If the right to property is limited, having regard to the harmful effects of the illicit tobacco trade on the Victorian community, I consider any limitation to be reasonable and justified under section 7(2) of the Charter for the reasons discussed above.

Accordingly, I consider that these clauses under the Bill are compatible with property rights before the law under section 20 of the Charter.

Fair hearing (Section 24)

Section 24(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence or, who is a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing.

The term ‘civil proceeding’ in section 24(1) of the Charter has been interpreted as encompassing proceedings that are determinative of private rights and interests in a broad sense, including some administrative proceedings. It is well recognised that judicial determination of a person’s civil rights and liabilities is a crucial element of the fair hearing right. This right will be engaged where a person is prevented from having their civil rights or liabilities in a proceeding considered by a court. However, this right does not prevent the State from amending the substantive law to alter the content of those civil rights.

Family violence reforms to the RT Act

Clause 55 of the Bill engages and promotes the right to a fair hearing by providing parties with the opportunity to be heard before VCAT regarding an allegation of discrimination by a rental provider on the basis of a prospective renter being a victim survivor of family violence.

Reforms to the OC Act

Clause 32 of the Bill engages and promotes the right to a fair hearing by amending section 18 of the OC Act to clarify the resolution requirements required to authorise an owners corporation to commence a legal proceeding. Clause 32 will amend section 18 of the OC Act to clarify that an ordinary resolution (more than 50% of lot owners), rather than a special resolution (at least 75% of lot owners) is required to commence a non-monetary claim in VCAT or the Magistrates’ Court (and in corresponding interstate equivalents to the Magistrates’ Court). I consider that clarifying that only an ordinary resolution of the owners corporation is required for non-monetary claims to be made in these Courts and Tribunals promotes the right to a fair hearing by removing ambiguity that a higher resolution is required, thereby increasing the likelihood of lot owners resolving to commence proceedings.

Reforms to the Subdivision Act

Clause 114 of the Bill engages and promotes the right to a fair hearing by amending section 34D of the Subdivision Act. Section 34D(1)(b) provides that a member of an owners corporation, an owners corporation itself, an administrator of an owners corporation or a person with an interest in the land affected by the owners corporation may apply to VCAT for ‘an order consenting on behalf of a member or group of members of an owners corporation to the doing by the owners corporation of any of the things set out in section 32 or 33 of the Subdivision Act, including altering a subdivision.

The amendments carried by clause 114 will restore VCAT’s ability to make an order in response to an application under section 34D(1)(b) where more than half of the membership of the owners corporation previously consented to the action in question. The Bill inserts this ground for permitting an order as an addition to the existing ground which applies when a member or group of members who previously refused consent to the action in question owns more than half of the lot liability of the owners corporation. I consider that permitting VCAT to make an order under either circumstance increases lot owner access to VCAT and promotes the right to a fair hearing.

Authorising a review of a motor car trader’s licence following the making of a specified VCAT order

Clause 162 of the Bill may engage the right to a fair hearing by establishing a process where the BLA may undertake a review of a motor car trader’s licence following a VCAT order. As noted above, a ‘civil proceeding’ under s 24(1) of the Charter is not limited to a proceeding decided by judicial decision-makers and may encompass some administrative proceedings. While the right to a fair hearing may be engaged by the licence review process, in my view, the administrative decisions provided for in clause 162 of the Bill are compatible with section 24(1) of the Charter because of the key procedural fairness safeguards established in the Bill and existing safeguards in the MCT Act.

Following the review of a licence, the BLA may impose conditions or restrictions on a licence. I note the Bill does not provide an opportunity for a licensee to provide reasons to the BLA as to why conditions or restrictions should not be imposed, however clause 162 provides that the BLA must provide written notice to the licensee of its intention to impose conditions or restrictions on a licence. The purpose of imposing conditions or restrictions on a licence is to address non-compliance and reduce consumer harm. In my view any limit to procedural fairness and therefore the right to a fair hearing caused by the absence of opportunity for an affected person to provide reasons is justifiable as a person whose interests are affected by a decision of the BLA to impose conditions or restrictions on a licence may apply to VCAT for review of the decision under section 32 of the MCT Act.

If the BLA intends to suspend a licence, the BLA must provide written notice of its intention to suspend the licence to the licensee as soon as practicable after reviewing the licence: new section 29H. The notice is required to set out key details including the grounds on which the BLA intends to suspend the licence, the period within which the licensee may respond to the notice (the ‘show cause period’) and the consequences if the licensee does not respond to the notice. The show cause period must not be less than 30 days after a notice of intention to suspend the licence is served: new section 29H. The licensee may make written submissions to the BLA in relation to any matter contained in the notice: new section 29I. The BLA must notify the licensee of its decision on suspension: new section 29J. In addition to these safeguards, clause 162 provides that a person whose interests are affected by a decision of the BLA to suspend the licence under new Division 2A may apply to VCAT for a review of the decision. This affords individuals affected by suspension a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal and satisfies the requirements in section 24(1) of the Charter.

Power for the Business Licensing Authority to suspend a license under the Conveyancers Act and the EA Act

Clause 12 may engage the right to a fair hearing by inserting new section 32A which provides that if a licensee fails to comply with the requirements of section 84(1) or 85(1A) of the Conveyancers Act (which require trust records to be audited and the subsequent audit report to be lodged with the Director within 10 business days), the BLA may suspend a conveyancer’s licence for a period of up to 12 months. A similar power is reflected in clause 23 which inserts new section 25E of the EA Act, which provides that if an estate agent fails to comply with the requirements of section 64(1), 64(1A), or 64(2A) of the EA Act (which require trust accounts to be audited, that they must be audited by a qualified person, and the subsequent report must be lodged with the Director within 10 business days) the BLA may suspended a license for a period of up to 12 months. In both cases the purpose of suspending a licence is to address non-compliance with trust audit requirements and reduce consumer harm. While the right to a fair hearing may be engaged, in my view, the administrative decisions provided for in clause 12 and clause 23 of the Bill are compatible with section 24(1) of the Charter because of the existing safeguards in the Conveyancers Act and EA Act which allow an impacted person to apply to VCAT for a hearing if desired.

I note the Bill does not provide an opportunity for a licensee to provide reasons to the BLA as to why the licence should not be suspended, however proposed new section 32A(1) and new section 25E(1) provide that if the BLA decides to suspend a license under the Conveyancers Act or EA Act respectively the BLA must give prior written notice that the licence will be suspended if reporting requirements are not complied with, giving the licensee time to comply with reporting requirements and avoid the licence suspension.

In my view any limit to procedural fairness and therefore the right to a fair hearing caused by the absence of opportunity for an affected person to provide reasons is justifiable as a person whose interests are affected by a decision of the BLA to suspend a licence may apply to VCAT under section 187 of the Conveyancers Act for a review of any decision made by the BLA under the Conveyancers Act, and under section 32 of the EA Act for a review of any decision made by the BLA under the EA Act . This affords individuals affected by suspension a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal and satisfies the requirements in section 24(1) of the Charter.

Forfeiture of certain documents and things to the Crown and subsequent destruction of seized things if uncollected

Clause 8 of the Bill may limit the right to a fair hearing by repealing section 174 of the ACLFT Act to remove the requirement that the Director, Consumer Affairs Victoria apply to the Magistrates’ Court for an order permitting the destruction of goods subject to a safety standard and interim or permanent ban seized by an inspector. New section 167AA, inserted by clause 6, provides that the Minister under the ACLFT Act may direct the disposal of things seized subject to a safety standard or an interim or permanent ban that have been forfeited to the Crown. In addition, under the Bill, the Minister’s power to direct disposal will extend to things seized for non-compliance with a product information standard made under the Australian Consumer Law, as defined in the ACLFT Act. The Minister may, before ordering the disposal, have regard to matters including whether the thing is or will likely be used as evidence in a proceeding or if the thing is subject to a search warrant and likely to be brought before the Magistrates’ Court under the warrant.

To the extent the Bill may limit the right to fair hearing, the limitation is reasonable and justifiable. Goods subject to an information or safety standard or an interim or permanent ban are generally not appropriate to be available for purchase as consumer goods. As these goods are generally no longer usable by their owner or lack important information for the consumer, they go uncollected, resulting in unnecessary costs to the State of storing and handling items and to initiate and run court applications to seek an order for their destruction. Importantly, the power to direct the disposal of an item seized subject to an information or safety standard or an interim or permanent ban can only be exercised where the item has been forfeited to the Crown after unsuccessfully issuing a notice of collection under clause 5 of the Bill. As detailed above, clause 5 of the Bill contains various requirements to support the collection of a seized item by the person from whom it was seized.

Amendments to the Tobacco Act

Clause 124 of the Bill engages this right by introducing new sections 37D and 37E, which enables the pre-trial disposal of illicit tobacco. This could reduce the availability of tobacco for evidentiary purposes and affect the ability of an accused to prepare their defense.

In my view, these amendments will not limit the fair trial of an accused. The Bill will only permit the pre-trial destruction of illicit tobacco in tightly circumscribed circumstances.

These include:

•   a sample of the illicit tobacco that is sufficient to be analysed is retained;

•   other evidence regarding the appearance and quantity of the illicit tobacco is retained (such as photographs);

•   an analyst or botanist must analyse the sample and provide a certificate of their analysis; and

•   the sample of the illicit tobacco must be retained until the proceedings are finally determined.

I consider these processes will ensure fairness to the accused is maintained, while reducing the safety hazards, burden and cost of storing large amounts of illicit tobacco.

If the contrary view is taken and the right to a fair hearing is limited by these amendments, I consider it is a justified and reasonable limit pursuant to section 7(2) of the Charter. As discussed above, these reforms have an important purpose of reducing the significant safety hazards, costs and burden with the storage of illicit tobacco while still maintaining evidentiary standards for court proceedings. The safety risks and burden are avoidable and not in the public interest to maintain.

Any impact on fair hearing is confined and subject to safeguards, including the retention of samples and other evidence. The circumstances in which illicit tobacco may be destroyed pre-trial are appropriately and narrowly tailored to achieving the purposes of the amendments while maintaining fair hearing rights. There are no less restrictive means available to achieve these purposes of reducing the cost and burden of storage, ensuring safety of staff and alleviating security concerns. While I consider the right to a fair hearing is not limited, to the extent it is, I consider any limitation to be justifiable under section 7(2) of the Charter.

Accordingly, I consider that this clause under the Bill is compatible with the right to a fair hearing under section 24 of the Charter.

Rights in criminal proceedings (section 25)

Section 25(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law. The High Court has described this right as incorporating the fundamental requirement that ‘the prosecution in a criminal case has the burden of proving guilt’, that is, that a conviction can follow only where every element of an offence has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

Strengthening odometer tampering offences

Clause 166 of the Bill limits rights in criminal proceedings by amending section 38(2) of the MCT Act to align with the definition of “tamper” inserted to section 38(4). This existing provision reverses the onus of proof in circumstances where a motor car was on the premises of a motor car trader or in the possession, custody or control of a motor car trader when odometer tampering occurred. This clause will limit the section 25(1) right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty as it shifts the burden of proof onto an accused motor car trader in a criminal proceeding, so that a motor car trader is required to prove the odometer tampering was not done by or on behalf of the motor car trader.

I am satisfied that, to the extent that clause 166 limits the right to be presumed innocent, the limitation is compatible with the Charter because it is a reasonable, justified and proportionate to the legitimate purpose of the offence which aims to protect consumers from the consequences of purchasing a car with a tampered odometer.

Unlike motor car traders, consumers generally have limited ability to determine whether the reading on an odometer is likely to be inaccurate. Consumers who unknowingly purchase a car with high mileage may suffer significant consequential harm, including the disruption of their transport and associated costs should the car break down and be unable to drive. Courts in other jurisdictions have held that the presumption of innocence may be subject to reasonable limits in the context of regulatory compliance, particularly where regulatory offences may cause harm to the public.

The purpose of the reverse onus is to address the fact that in this circumstance, the facts are usually solely within the knowledge of the defendant. It is extremely difficult to prove the offence of odometer tampering against a motor car trader because of the number of people such as repairers or salespersons who may have had possession of the car even though it is still under the general control of the trader. However, it is the motor car trader who ultimately stands to profit most from selling a car with inflated value due to odometer tampering. The limitation is reasonable and proportionate because the prosecution is still required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that odometer tampering took place. A motor car trader charged with odometer tampering may rely on the existing defence in section 38(3) of the MCT Act, which provides that it is a defence to a prosecution for odometer tampering if the person proves that the tampering was not done with intent to deceive by or on behalf of the person charged.

Motor car traders have chosen to engage in the regulated activity of trading in motor cars, which involves assuming the responsibilities and duties that apply to this activity. The reverse onus provision in clause 166 amends the existing reverse onus provision in section 38(2) of the MCT Act, which has existed in largely the same form since the MCT Act’s commencement in 1986. Motor car traders should have the necessary processes in place to ensure that odometer tampering does not occur while a car is on their premises or in their possession, custody or control.

In my view, there is no less restrictive way of ensuring accountability for motor car traders when the odometer of a motor car they are selling has been tampered with, accordingly, I consider that this provision is compatible with the Charter.

Amendments to the Tobacco Act

Part 11 of the Bill introduces a number of offences:

•   clause 116 of the Bill inserts new offences (new section 11B) for commercial landlords who, without reasonable excuse, knowingly allow a person to sell illicit tobacco or allow a tobacco supply business to possess illicit tobacco on the premises;

•   clause 120 of the Bill inserts a new offence (new section 36Z(1)) for a person who, without reasonable excuse, enters or remains on premises that the person knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, were closed premises;

•   clause 120 of the Bill inserts new offences (new sections 36Z(2)–(4)) for a person who, without reasonable excuse, sells anything (that is not a tobacco product), sells a tobacco product or sells a commercial amount of illicit tobacco from premises that the person knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, were closed premises;

•   clause 120 of the Bill inserts a new offence (new section 36ZA) for a person who removes or interferes with a closure notice or order; and

•   clause 120 of the Bill inserts a new offence (new section 36ZF(2)) for a person who fails to comply with a requirement to give notice that a commercial lease subject to closure order has ended.

The more serious offences include a defence where a person has a reasonable excuse.

These offences engage the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in section 25 of the Charter, as they impose an evidential onus on the accused when seeking to rely on the defence. Case law has held that an evidential onus imposed on establishing an excuse or exception does not limit the Charter’s right to a presumption of innocence, as such an evidential onus falls short of imposing any burden of persuasion on an accused. Once the accused has pointed to evidence of a reasonable excuse, the burden shifts back to the prosecution who must prove the elements of the offence.

Accordingly, I do not consider the above ‘reasonable excuse’ offence provisions in the Bill limit the right to be presumed innocent in section 25(1) of the Charter.

The Bill also introduces provisions that regulate evidentiary matters:

•   new section 37D(6) provides that a written certificate of an analysis conducted by an analyst or botanist of a sample is evidence of the matters stated in it;

•   new section 37E(7) provides that a disposal notice or disposal certificate is evidence of the matters contained in it, including the description of the illicit tobacco and quantity; and

•   new section 39B provides evidence that a thing is labelled as a tobacco product or labelled in a way a reasonable person would take to be labelled as a tobacco product, is evidence the thing is or contains tobacco product.

These provisions may limit the right of an accused to be presumed innocent of offences where the facts contained in the certificate or new section 39B are relied on in court proceedings to show that fact. This is because the accused will be required to counter those matters.

To the extent this right is limited by the previously mentioned provisions, I consider the limitation to be reasonable and justified under section 7(2) of the Charter. The provisions do not impede the accused from challenging any evidence presented in the proceeding and presenting contrary evidence. The amendments are justified for the purposes outlined above of reducing the significant safety hazards, costs and burden with the storage of the illicit tobacco while still maintaining evidentiary standards for court proceedings. I consider there are also no less restrictive and reasonably available means to achieve the purpose of these reforms.

Accordingly, I consider that this clause under the Bill is compatible with rights in criminal proceedings under section 25 of the Charter.

Right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 26)

Section 26 of the Charter provides that a person must not be tried or punished more than once for an offence in respect of which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with law.

Authorising a review of a motor car trader’s licence following the making of a specified VCAT order

The licence review process to be established by clause 162 of the Bill may engage a person’s right not to be punished more than once, as they will authorise the BLA to undertake a licence review process following the making of a specified tribunal order made against a licensed motor car trader. A ‘specified tribunal order’ is defined as an order requiring a licensed motor car trader to pay an amount to a purchaser of a motor car in relation to a transaction involving the buying, selling or exchanging of a motor car or the offering to buy, sell or exchange a motor car. This includes an order requiring a refund, compensation or payment in relation to a breach of contract of sale of a motor car. There will also be the power to prescribe further types of orders. Accordingly, a person may have a civil award made against them by VCAT and subsequently be subject to a licence review process flowing from the same conduct.

I note that, it has been found that disciplinary proceedings and resulting consequences that limit a person’s ability to work in a particular field are aimed at protecting the public and are not punitive actions, so that section 26 was not engaged (Psychology Board of Australia v Ildiri). In my view a decision by the BLA, following a licence review, to impose conditions or restrictions on a motor car trader’s licence or to suspend the licence are similarly aimed at protection of the public against impugned behaviour of a trader, and should not be characterised as an (additional) punishment for the motor car trader. For this reason, I am of the opinion that these provisions are compatible with the right not to be tried or punished more than once in section 26 of the Charter.

I consider that the Bill is compatible with the Charter as it does not unreasonably or unjustifiably limit any rights under the Charter.

The Hon. Paul Edbrooke MP

Minister for Consumer Affairs

Minister for Cost of Living

Minister for Renters

Minister for Men and Boys

 Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston – Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Cost of Living, Minister for Renters, Minister for Men and Boys) (10:32): Under the Statewide Treaty Act 2025, I table a statement of treaty compatibility:

1.   I note that 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 Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 (the Bill) or for them to otherwise make representations about the effect of the Bill on First Peoples.

2.   In my opinion, the Bill is compatible with the objects 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

3.   The purpose of the Bill is to:

3.1 acquit the Victorian Government’s commitment to strengthen protections for Victorian consumers in the housing market through reforms to the Conveyancers Act 2006, Estate Agents Act 1980, Owners Corporation Act 2006, Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (RT Act), Sale of Land Act 1962 and the Subdivision Act 1988 by:

(a) improving the disclosure of key information in property sales by ensuring accurate and timely access to key property information, including price information, and reduce risks to consumers as a result of pressure from real estate agents seeking to gain early access to sales commissions from deposit moneys;

(b) streamlining government enforcement of non-compliance by estate agents and conveyancers with trust account audit obligations, including empowering the Business Licensing Authority to suspend the licence of a non-compliant estate agent or conveyancer;

(c) strengthening renter protections and outcomes for renters;

(d) providing for a process by which lot owners lots can request payment plans from an owners corporation for the payment of certain fees and charges and increasing access to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for owners corporations in relation to orders relating to plans of subdivision; and

3.2 strengthen regulatory compliance and enforcement in relation to consumer goods and enhancing consumer protection through reforms to the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (ACLFTA), Motor Car Traders Act 1986 and the Tobacco Act 1987 by:

(a) providing for the forfeiture of certain documents or things to the Crown if they go uncollected after their seizure pursuant to an information or safety standard or an interim or permanent ban made under the Australian Consumer Law and for the Minister for Consumer Affairs to authorise the disposal of those seized documents or things;

(b) clarifying circumstances in which a person will be prohibited from engaging in debt collection;

(c) strengthening consumer protections for purchasers of motor cars and updating governance procedures for determination of claims by consumers against the Motor Car Traders Guarantee Fund; and

(d) combatting the sale of illicit tobacco by introducing powers to close premises, introducing penalties for commercial landlords and address the forfeiture and destruction of seized illicit tobacco.

3.3 make miscellaneous amendments to a number of other Consumer Acts, including the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 and the Retirement Villages Act 1986 to ensure the consumer protections provided by those Acts are effective and operate as intended.

Consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl

4.   I note that 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 them 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)(i)–(iii) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025:

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

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 relation to provisions of the Bill which will:

6.1 improve outcomes for Victorian renters through reforms to the RT Act to:

6.2 strengthen regulatory oversight and consumer protections for site tenants of Part 4A Parks;

6.3 cap the cost of breaking rental agreements and require rental providers to provide additional keys or fobs, and enable renters to pay bonds directly to the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority;

6.4 strengthen protections for Victorian consumers through reforms to the Conveyancers Act 2006, Estate Agents Act 1980, Owners Corporation Act 2006, Sale of Land Act 1962 and Subdivision Act 1988 to:

6.5 improve the accuracy and timeliness of key information in property sales ensuring accurate and timely access to key property information, including price information, and reduce risks to consumers as a result of pressure from real estate agents seeking to gain early access to deposits;

6.6 streamline government enforcement of non-compliance with property professionals’ trust account audit obligations;

6.7 provide for a process by which owners of owners corporation lots can request payment plans with statutory protections for the payment of certain fees and charges;

6.8 increase access to VCAT for owners corporations in relation to orders relating to plans of subdivision;

6.9 strengthen compliance and enforcement activity with regard to consumer goods and services through reforms to the ACLFTA, Motor Car Traders Act 1986 and Tabacco Act 1987 to

6.10 provide for the forfeiture and disposal of certain documents or things seized under Part 6.4 of the ACLFTA;

6.11 improve consumer protections and to modernise the regulatory framework for the motor car trading industry;

6.12 combat the sale of illicit tobacco;

6.13 make minor and technical amendments to the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 and the Retirement Villages Act 1986 to ensure the consumer protections provided by these Acts operate as intended.

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

8.   In relation to provisions of the Bill which will amend the RT Act to strengthen protections for victim survivor renters, including protecting victim survivor renters from liability for loss and damage caused by a perpetrator and introducing a prohibition on discrimination against victim survivor renters in the context of rental applications.

9.   I note that First Peoples have been found to be disproportionately affected by family violence.

10.   The final report of the Royal Commission into Family Violence observed at page 7 that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, especially women and children, are disproportionately affected by family violence and face unique barriers to obtaining assistance.

11.   Given the disproportionate impact of family violence on First Peoples, this reform will benefit First Peoples by advancing the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples relating to housing needs and safety.

12.   As such, in my opinion the proposed amendments are compatible with the inherent rights and self-determination of First Peoples at section 66(3)(d)(i) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025, and do not limit addressing the unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation at section 66(3)(d)(ii).

13.   The Bill will also insert sections 30AB(3), 94FA(3) and 145BA(3) into the RT Act which exempts specified entities, such as social, community and affordable housing providers, from the new requirement that prohibits rental providers from refusing to let a rented premises to someone due to being a victim survivor of family violence.

14.   First Peoples are over-represented in social housing and, as previously noted, may be disproportionately affected by family violence. As such, these First Peoples may not enjoy the same benefit from these reforms as other renter cohorts.

15.   However, I consider that any limitation of enjoyment of the rights conferred by these reforms is not incompatible with the object at section 66(3)(d)(iii) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 as amendments are to strengthen protections for victim survivors of family violence, including First Peoples and will ensure First Peoples will have equal enjoyment of the protections provided by these reforms. The exemption of specified entities under new sections 30AB(3), 94FA(3) and 145BA(3) does not prevent social, community and affordable housing providers, as part of their application processes, from positively discriminating in favour of victim survivor rental applicants (including First Peoples) and in doing so, prioritise their housing needs and safety.

The Hon. Paul Edbrooke MP

Minister for Consumer Affairs

Minister for Cost of Living

Minister for Renters

Minister for Men and Boys

 Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston – Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Cost of Living, Minister for Renters, Minister for Men and Boys) (10:32): 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:

This Bill gives Victorian consumers stronger protections in areas that matter most for households such as housing, renting, and other essential goods and services, including purchase of motor cars. The reforms respond to growing cost of living pressures facing Victorian households by improving transparency and ensuring consumers have access to clearer and more reliable information when making important decisions.

The Bill also strengthens compliance and enforcement arrangements to deter misconduct and ensure businesses and individuals who fail to comply with the law are held accountable. Importantly, the Bill also introduces reforms to ensure Victorian law enforcement agencies have the powers available to disrupt organised crime around illicit tobacco in line with other jurisdictions across Australia.

The Bill will further improve outcomes for renters through amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997

Reforms will strengthen protections for residents of residential parks and improve oversight and professional standards in the industry

The Victorian Government is committed to enhancing protections for site tenants living in Part 4A parks (also known as residential parks) and supporting them to make informed choices about their housing. Residential parks are a fast-growing industry, commonly marketed as a lower cost or alternative accommodation option for older Victorians. However, complex products and fee structures have left residents unable to easily compare offerings and make informed decisions about their rights and obligations, putting them at greater risk of making decisions that do not adequately meet their needs or financial circumstances.

This government has already legislated to mandate standard form agreements and improve pre-contractual disclosure requirements for site tenants in residential parks. The Bill will build on these important reforms by responding to further recommendations from the ‘Life in Residential Parks’ report published by the Commissioner for Residential Tenancies in 2025. The Bill will regulate how deferred management charges (DMC) – a type of exit fee – are to be calculated, and how rent increases can be made, so that residents can make better informed decisions and forecast future expenses with confidence.

DMC are common in the residential park industry and enable site tenants to enter a park at a lower upfront price, in exchange for deferring payment of a contribution towards the costs of managing, maintaining and improving the park over the course of their occupancy. Some site tenants may be charged a DMC based on the sale price of the Part 4A dwelling at the time they exit from the park. As this amount cannot be known at the time of entry into the site agreement, site tenants cannot determine the extent of their liability to pay a DMC until they leave a park, at which time they may face unexpectedly high exit costs. This Bill will require DMC to be calculated by reference to the purchase price of the tenant’s Part 4A dwelling on the Part 4A site at the time they enter the park, together with the duration of the tenant’s occupancy, and in accordance with any further requirements that may be prescribed by regulations.

The Bill will provide that rent may only be increased under a Part 4A site agreement by reference to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or at a fixed rate set in regulations, whichever is higher. All other types of rent increases, including rent increases based on unpredictable market rent reviews, will be banned. If a site owner wishes to raise rent above that level for exceptional reasons, they will require substantial support from at least 75% of those site tenants subject to the increase. Should the 75% threshold not be met, site owners may only increase rent above the fixed rate by applying to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). To ensure arrangements between existing site tenants and owners remain predictable and fair, these changes will only apply to new agreements entered into after the commencement of these provisions.

As a further measure to improve transparency for those living in residential parks, site tenants will have the right to request an annual site agreement check from the site owner. Site owners with a DMC in their site agreements will, however, also be required to provide an annual DMC statement to site tenants. This Bill will also improve security of tenure for site tenants on fixed term tenancies by removing the ability to evict a site tenant at the end of their fixed term site agreement without cause. These changes will apply to both existing and new site tenants, regardless of when they started living in a residential park.

The Bill will also improve transparency and oversight of the sector by creating a public register of residential park operators. The register will be maintained by the Director, Consumer Affairs Victoria, and will benefit both the regulator and prospective residents by providing information related to park location, size and other relevant consumer information. The Bill will also introduce a new regulation making power authorising the development of a mandatory code of practice that residential park operators must follow. The code of practice may cover agreed standards relating to park operations, dispute resolution processes, repairs and maintenance and other related matters.

Together, these changes are an important step forward in ensuring those living in residential parks have fair and transparent renting arrangements.

This Bill also provides strengthened protections for renters

Limit on break-lease fees that renters need to pay

Renters may need to break their lease for a variety of reasons, and they should have the ability to do so without the fear of having to pay an excessive amount. The Bill sets clear, tiered caps on the amount a rental provider can claim for lost rent when a renter needs to end a fixed-term lease early. The amendment will apply to fixed-term agreements of less than 5 years. The Bill sets a maximum amount of compensation for lost rent that a renter will have to pay based on how much of the rental agreement remains. Other costs associated with breaking a lease early, such as advertising and reletting costs, can still be negotiated between a renter and their rental provider or determined by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) when agreement is not reached.

Prohibiting rental providers from unreasonably refusing request for additional keys and fobs

This Bill also strengthens renters’ rights by ensuring renters can request an additional key or fob to access their home. A request by a renter cannot be unreasonably refused by their rental provider or agent and cannot charge excessive fees for providing an additional key or fob. Renters will only need to pay for the key or fob itself, and the cost of procuring and activating it.

This Bill will also protect renters from being denied access to their properties by making it an offence for rental providers or their agents to disable a key or fob for reasons other than those permitted under the Residential Tenancies Act. This reform addresses growing instances of renters being denied access to their home as ‘punishment’ for paying rent late or breaking building rules.

Renters paying bond directly to the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority (Authority) and streamlined bondpayments

The new bond management system is already delivering benefits to renters, and the Bill will make the process even easier by providing renters the option to pay their bond directly to the Authority rather than having to pay it via a rental provider or agent. Streamlining the bond payment system ensures greater flexibility while reducing risk for renters.

The Bill will also clarify that payments from renters repaying debts owed to the State under the Portable Rental Bond Scheme (Scheme) are paid into the Residential Bonds Investment Account, rather than the Consolidated Fund. Further, amendments in the Bill will support administration of the Scheme by clarifying that certain provisions also apply to former renters, enabling the Authority to recover an outstanding debt to the State, including where the relevant rental agreement is no longer in effect.

Further reforms strengthening protections for victims of family or personal violence

The Bill makes amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act to strengthen the operation of existing protections for renters who are victim survivors of family and personal violence. The Bill will ensure that victim survivor renters can be fully protected from liability where there has been family violence, and that VCAT can hold a perpetrator co-renter solely liable in both applications for the repayment of bond and compensation.

To strengthen existing protections for victim survivors who are renters, the Bill will introduce a prohibition on discrimination to explicitly prohibit rental providers or their agents from discriminating against victim survivors by refusing to let a premises on the basis that the rental applicant or renter has been or is subject to family or personal violence. Victim survivor renters may apply to VCAT for compensation orders in respect of any loss suffered as a consequence of discrimination by a rental provider or their agent. The Bill also extends this prohibition to rooming house operators and caravan or caravan park owners, recognising that victim survivors rely on a broad range of tenancy types to meet their housing needs.

The Bill includes an exemption from the new prohibition, but only for entities who provide social, community or affordable housing to ensure that those providers can continue to prioritise victim survivor applicants when allocating housing in accordance with the specific eligibility requirements for those housing programs.

The Bill will improve outcomes in the property market by making amendments to the Estate Agents Act 1980 and Sale of Land Act 1962

Buying a property is the largest purchase most Victorians will make in their lifetime. We know that underquoting is a critical issue for those wishing to purchase a property. Too many Victorians are spending time and money chasing the dream of owning a home only to have a property sell for far more than the advertised price.

We also know that buying a home is a complex process, with homebuyers needing to consider a lot of detailed information before making an informed decision about a property. This is why this government is introducing reforms to increase and simplify access to property price information and promote fairness, transparency and efficiency in Victoria’s property market.

First, the Bill introduces a requirement for real estate agents to publish a property seller’s reserve price at least 7 days prior to an auction or fixed date sale. This change will give homebuyers confidence that the advertised price will match the actual reserve price on auction day and avoid buyers spending time and money attending auctions and commissioning inspections for properties they never had a chance of purchasing.

Secondly, the Bill introduces a requirement for real estate agents to publish a property’s final sold price, as part of its property price statement, once a sale becomes unconditional. Agents will also be required to provide key information about a property, including its sold price and key features, to the Director, Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) after the sale becomes unconditional. The Director CAV will then be able to publish that information in a central location. These disclosure reforms will give buyers, sellers and real estate agents a clearer understanding of what comparable homes in their area are selling for in real time.

The Bill will also make a number of other changes that will increase access to property information, including:

•   requiring a property seller’s section 32 statement to be made available 14 days before an auction or fixed date sale or 14 days before a contract is signed

•   requiring the indicative sale price and property price statement to be easily found in online advertising, and

•   expanding comparable property requirements to require estate agents to list key features of the comparable property.

We know that the early release of deposits presents a significant financial risk for consumers in situations where settlement may fail. We also know that the legislative process for an early release of deposit is confusing, which may lead to sellers and homebuyers agreeing to an early release without properly understanding the risks. Despite the risks involved, it is in the real estate agent’s interest to secure an early release of the deposit so that they can access their commission earlier.

This Bill will reduce these risks to homebuyers and sellers by repealing section 27 in the Sale of Land Act, which provides a process for securing an early release of deposit, and prohibiting real estate agents from taking their commission from a deposit if it is released prior to settlement. Homebuyers and sellers will still be able to agree an early release of deposit, but it will need to be done via a term in the contract of sale.

The Bill will streamline suspension processes for real estate agents and conveyancers who breach trust account requirements

This government recognises that trust account audit requirements are essential for ensuring transparency and consumer confidence in the handling of deposits. The Bill strengthens these requirements by amending the Conveyancers Act 2006 and the Estate Agents Act to allow the Business Licensing Authority to suspend a real estate agent or conveyancer’s licence if they fail to comply with trust account audit requirements. These amendments will better protect consumers from the risk of losing trust money by strengthening CAV’s enforcement powers so that it can more quickly address non-compliance with trust account obligations.

Reforms to the OC Act will protect owners corporations lot owners from the harms of first-resort debt recovery action

Payment plans with statutory protections, accepted by default for owner-occupiers

Owners of apartments within a plan of subdivision, like all homeowners, are experiencing intense cost of living pressures. An increasing number of lot owners are falling behind on their owners corporations (OC) fees and are being pursued by their OCs with costly and heavy-handed debt recovery action. We know that this can lead to financial hardship escalating quickly, causing needless financial and psychological distress. That’s why this Bill introduces a framework in the Owners Corporations Act 2006 (OC Act) where lot owners in OCs can access payment plans to spread payment of their OC fees over a longer period and be covered by statutory protections from debt recovery action while a payment plan is in place and being complied with.

The government understands that owner-occupiers of apartments are most at risk from mounting OC debt: in some cases, losing their homes to bankruptcy proceedings. To protect those most at risk, this Bill requires that when owner occupier lot owners request a payment plan, it will be accepted by default. OCs with more than two lots will only be able to refuse a request for a payment plan from an owner occupier lot owner if the lot owner has not provided prescribed evidence of hardship, or the OC does not have funds to support the requested payment plan. Regulations will be made prior to commencement of these reforms to assist OCs to make careful decisions about whether to refuse a payment plan.

Clarifying and improving access to VCAT for OCs and lot owners

The government is also aware of issues under the OC Act and Subdivision Act limiting access to VCAT. The Bill will amend section 18 the OC Act to clarify that an OC may bring a non-monetary claim in VCAT with approval of an ordinary resolution by the OC, not a special resolution. This will give OCs certainty that they can enforce rules and resolve procedural matters as intended. Section 34D of the Subdivision Act will also be amended by this Bill to ensure that lot owner applicants to VCAT for review of decisions under the Subdivision Act can apply regardless of whether the applicants were in the majority or minority of the decision in question.

The Bill will modernise and improve the regulatory framework for motor car traders through amendments to the Motor Car Traders Act 1986 (MCT Act)

The government recognises that buying a motor car can be one of the most expensive and important purchases many Victorians make. Owning a motor car supports Victorians to get employment, transport family members to care and education, and to maintain independence.

Consumers should be confident that when they buy a motor car, they get what they pay for and their rights will be protected. That is why the Bill will introduce reforms to support consumers to access remedies, strengthen consumer protections and modernise the regulatory framework.

Streamlining and supporting access to remedies for consumers

The Bill will make it easier for consumers to access remedies when something goes wrong after they buy a motor car. Many consumers are either are not aware of the options available to them or find the processes difficult to navigate.

The Bill will create a single, more accessible point of contact for consumers by abolishing the Motor Car Traders Claims Committee and transferring its functions to the Director CAV. This will leverage the expertise of CAV to assist with claims against the Motor Car Traders’ Guarantee Fund (the Fund). The Bill also enables the Fund to be used for consumer education, advocacy and assistance services, and education programs for motor car traders about their obligations. This will strengthen consumer understanding of their rights and avenues for redress.

The Bill includes a regulation-making power to enable additional grounds for claims against the Fund to be prescribed so that the claims process is more responsive over time. The new regulation-making power can also be used modernise the methods for calculating warranty periods in respect of second-hand vehicles to ensure the law keeps pace with improving quality of modern motor cars. Any changes made by regulations will be subject to consultation and a Regulatory Impact Statement process.

Strengthening consumer protections

The Bill will strengthen key consumer protections, provide for more robust monitoring of compliance with licensing requirements by licensed motor car traders (LMCTs), and strengthen CAV’s compliance and enforcement powers.

The MCT Act will be amended to enable the Business Licensing Authority (BLA) to review an LMCT’s licence whenever VCAT makes a monetary order against them in favour of a consumer. In these cases, the BLA will have the option to suspend or impose conditions on a licence, ensuring alignment of consequences when a claim is admitted against an LMCT.

LMCTs will be required to take reasonable steps to identify odometer tampering

The government takes odometer tampering very seriously. When a motor car is sold with a tampered odometer, consumers are at risk at paying a higher price for a motor car and are also at risk of serious faults occurring sooner than they expect. The Bill will better define odometer tampering, making offences easier to investigate and enforce. LMCTs will also be required to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the odometers of used motor cars before offering them for sale or exchange, and to advise prospective buyers in writing where there are reasonable grounds to doubt the odometer’s accuracy. Penalties will apply for non-compliance.

To strengthen record keeping and reporting requirements, the Bill will require auction houses to keep additional information about those buying and selling motor cars, and to notify the Director CAV when a single party is involved in four or more sales in a year. This will allow CAV to investigate and better respond to unlicensed motor car trading. Again, penalties will apply non-compliance with these requirements.

Modernising the regulatory framework

The Bill will also modernise the MCT Act and support modern business practices, by:

•   requiring the operators of digital platforms advertising cars to produce information and documents requested by a CAV inspector

•   ensuring motor car traders provide required documents to consumers prior to the sale of a used motor car

•   requiring motor car traders to display a prescribed notice containing their licence number on their website, as well as their physical place of business

•   enabling dealings books to be kept electronically, with no paper back-up.

Together, these reforms will deliver a more contemporary fairer framework for motor car trading in Victoria.

Amendments to the Tobacco Act 1987

The purpose of the amendments to the Tobacco Act 1987 (Tobacco Act) are to address the urgent need to combat the illicit tobacco industry and its links to serious and organised crime networks, which are continuing to have wide-ranging negative impacts on the Victorian community.

The amendments proposed in this Bill will strengthen Victoria’s tobacco legislative framework by supplementing the existing enforcement approaches available under the Tobacco Act.

The Bill will introduce:

•   closure powers, to allow Tobacco Licensing Victoria and Victoria Police to close premises that are trading illicit tobacco

•   landlord penalties, to create consequences for those who knowingly permit the sale of illicit tobacco at their premises

•   landlord powers, allowing a landlord to terminate a lease because of a long-term closure order by providing written notice

•   provisions relating to pre-trial destruction of illicit tobacco, to introduce the ability to destroy large quantities of illicit tobacco, as soon as possible.

Closure powers

Closure powers will be broader than existing regulatory tools and will affect the premises themselves, shutting down all illegal operators, whether or not a licence to sell tobacco is held.

The Bill introduces short-term closure notices (of up to 90 days), able to be issued in writing by Tobacco Licensing Victoria or Victoria Police. It also introduces long-term closure orders, made by the Magistrates’ Court on application by Tobacco Licensing Victoria or Victoria Police.

Closure powers will be used when there is a need to shut down a trader quickly. They will be able to be used on licensed and unlicensed premises caught selling, possessing or trading in illicit tobacco.

The Bill will require relevant thresholds to be met prior to using the closure powers, and for the decision-maker to consider whether closure of a premises would impact the ability of the community to access essential goods and services. This will ensure regional communities are not unnecessarily disadvantaged by a premises’ closure.

Once closed via a short-term closure notice or long-term closure order, no one will be able to access the premises, unless an exemption has been issued.

The Bill requires a public notice to be displayed at the entrance of the closed premises. Tobacco Licensing Victoria will also be able to post information about the closure on their website. These provisions are important to ensure the public is aware of premises that have been closed.

The Bill introduces significant penalties for breach of a short-term closure notice and a long-term closure order. It will be an offence to enter or remain on closed premises that the person knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, are closed premises, without a reasonable excuse. It will also be an offence to sell or otherwise supply non-tobacco products, tobacco products or commercial qualities of illicit tobacco from closed premises that the person knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, are closed premises and to remove or interfere with the closure notice or order displayed at a closed premises.

Landlord powers and penalties

The Government recognises that landlords should not be unfairly disadvantaged due to their tenant acting illegally. While leases generally include provisions that allow a landlord to terminate a lease if their tenant has engaged in illegal activity, the Bill will ensure landlords can take action to terminate a lease if a long-term closure order is in place over the premises.

The Bill also places an obligation on landlords to notify Tobacco Licensing Victoria when a lease related to a premises subject to a long-term closure order ends.

The Bill introduces an offence for owners of premises who know their tenants are trading in illicit tobacco, therefore enabling criminal activity. This will provide a clear legal and financial disincentive to deter landlords from permitting illicit tobacco supply from their stores and encourage them to support lawful businesses instead.

Changes to facilitate destruction of illicit tobacco

The Bill includes amendments that streamline the destruction of illicit tobacco while maintaining fair trial rights. This includes through a forfeiture notice process where the accused can apply to the Magistrates’ Court for a finding that the thing seized is not illicit tobacco. Samples of illicit tobacco will be taken and retained so the accused may seek independent analysis. The Bill requires certain evidentiary requirements to be met prior to the destruction, and for the Secretary or Chief Commissioner of Police to issue a disposal notice authorising the destruction. The person who conducts the destruction must issue a disposal certificate confirming the details of the destruction.

The reforms will allow for the significant reduction of stockpiles of illicit tobacco and will reduce the health and safety risks, reduce storage space, costs and risks, including addressing security concerns with potential stockpiles.

The amendments to the Tobacco Act made by the Bill are directly aimed at targeting the illicit tobacco trade in Victoria. They will bring Victoria into line with other jurisdictions which have introduced closure schemes and are reflective of the Government’s commitment to address these issues as effectively and efficiently as possible, in line with community expectations.

Amendments to the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012

Forfeiture of certain documents and things to the Crown and subsequent destruction of seized things if uncollected

The Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (ACLFT Act) establishes a framework for the retention and return of anything seized under Part 6.4, including goods subject to a safety standard or an interim or permanent ban. In practice, many seized consumer goods are not suitable for purchase because they are either unsafe for use or do not contain information necessary for consumers. As a result, these seized goods often go uncollected by their owner, creating unnecessary costs for the State associated with their storage and handling and the need to commence court proceedings to obtain orders for their destruction.

This Bill addresses this issue by streamlining and modernising the administrative processes relating to the collection, forfeiture and disposal of documents and things seized under Part 6.4 of the ACLFT Act. Specifically, the Bill replaces the current requirement for an application to the Magistrates’ Court for an order authorising the destruction of certain things, with a new process under which the Minister for Consumer Affairs may authorise the disposal of a thing seized subject to an information or safety standard, or an interim or permanent ban under the Australian Consumer Law.

Importantly, only certain things that have been forfeited to the Crown may be disposed of under this framework. Forfeiture will occur only after the Director CAV has taken the required steps to issue a notice to collect the seized document or thing, where there is an obligation to do so, and it remains uncollected at the expiry of a 28-day notice period. In instances where the person is not identifiable or is uncontactable, the Director CAV must publish a notice in the Government Gazette to assist with the collection of the seized document or thing.

This reform is expected to support more efficient administration and reduce unnecessary storage costs and enable CAV to direct its resources away from unnecessary administrative processes and towards its core compliance and enforcement functions.

Clarifying persons prohibited from engaging in debt collection

The ACLFT Act restricts who may engage in debt collection in Victoria. To further protect consumers from the risk of egregious debt collection practices, the Bill clarifies that a corporation will be prohibited from engaging in debt collection where, within the previous five years, they have been found by a court to have breached Commonwealth or state and territory consumer protection laws by using physical force, undue harassment or coercion in the course of their business activities.

The substantive reforms will be complemented by minor amendments to ensure consumer protections in existing Acts work as intended

Alongside the major reforms I have outlined today, the Bill will also make a number of minor amendments to ensure existing consumer protections and recent amendments work as intended.

The Bill will amend the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 to ensure that contract variations that impact the new First Resort Home Warranty Scheme for residential building work up to three storeys are evidenced in writing to avoid confusion about what has been agreed and that additional building work undertaken will be covered by the First Resort Home Warranty Scheme. The Bill will also make minor and technical amendments to ensure the Domestic Building Contracts Amendment Act 2025 operates as intended, including to: transfer responsibility for approving the form of a contract warning to the Victorian Building Authority, to require the form to be published in the Government Gazette, and to amend the definition of ‘domestic building work’ to reflect that the preparation of plans and specifications will be removed from the definition.

The Bill will also make a minor and technical amendment to the Retirement Villages Act 1986 to clarify that, for the purpose of releasing an entry payment made by a new resident of a retirement village to the village operator or owner, an agent holding the entry payment is only required to be satisfied that an occupancy permit has been issued under the Building Act 1993 where the relevant building or part of a building that the resident is to occupy was, at the time the residence contract was entered into, not yet constructed, or was under construction, instead of in all cases.

Together the reforms in the Bill respond to the real pressures facing Victorian households and help ensure Victorian consumers are better informed, protected and supported. This Bill strengthens consumer protections by improving market transparency and supporting fairer outcomes through stronger regulatory oversight in housing, property sales, motor trading and other consumer goods and services. The Bill also provides Victorian law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to combat illegal tobacco sales and its links to serious and organised crimes networks.

I commend the Bill to the house.

 Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (10:32): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Thursday 18 June.