Thursday, 10 March 2022

Bills

Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (12:46): I am pleased to rise again to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021. It is a very important bill because it makes significant regulatory improvements to a number of bills in this place and a number of regulatory improvements as well, which has been touched on by Ms Shing. Mr Tarlamis has also talked about the changes we have made in the past to planning, to consumer affairs, to fee pricing, to owners corporations and more and the legislated regulatory improvements we have made for cladding safety, wage theft and gender equality. This is to name just some of the work that has already been done in terms of protecting Victorian consumers but also protecting the sector and the industries involved. Reputation is very important and consumer trust and confidence is very important, so we have already made a number of improvements to pieces of legislation.

This is an omnibus bill with many parts, and that is why I will touch on some of the details of what we are proposing today. The bill seeks to amend the Financial Management Act 1994 to increase flexibility for regulators to provide fee relief during emergencies. The bill also amends the following acts to make temporary changes permanent: the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 to reinstate the ability to extend the registration of teachers for provisional or non-practising registration; the Local Government Act 2020 to retain the ability to allow for virtual council and regional library meetings; and the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 to make permanent the ability of joint investigatory committees of Parliament to meet by electronic means. This is very important. We have all seen the benefit of working remotely in terms of committee work; it can lead to considerable efficiencies. These were temporary changes initially of course in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is quite sensible that we implement a permanent provision for them. Obviously the committee changes that we have experienced will apply to any joint investigatory committee established under the Parliamentary Committees Act. These include the Integrity and Oversight Committee, the Electoral Matters Committee, the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee and the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. The measures also apply to any subcommittees of committees established under the Parliamentary Committees Act.

Parliamentary committees that do not fall under those acts can already meet remotely under the relevant standing orders and practices of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council. The proposed amendments bring the operation of joint investigatory committees in line with the practice of these other parliamentary committees. I am the chair of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee, the standing committee. We have already been meeting remotely and conducting our business in that manner. That is already allowed as per the standing orders.

Have the measures been effective? The temporary measures have been a very important tool to facilitate both public hearings and delivery of meetings of joint investigatory committees during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for regional members of Parliament and stakeholders more broadly. We have as the Parliament of Victoria stakeholders across the state, and I think the travelling of large distances was not possible, but I think during the pandemic we have also learned the value of not needing to travel those large distances in many instances and still being able to make just as important a contribution remotely via online software packages that are available. So I am pleased that those changes are being brought forward by this reform.

The bill also amends acts to support technology-neutral legislation, such as the Pharmacy Regulation Act 2010 to remove impediments to a range of virtual or electronic activities, the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 to modernise requirements for public notices in newspaper publications and the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act 1982 to remove physical publication requirements and replace them with online publication requirements and remove redundant provisions of that act—so a very important change that has been reflected on by a number of members in this chamber, but it is important that we move ahead.

The bill seeks to amend acts to support an efficient and effective regulatory system in terms of the Electoral Act 2002, to implement the government’s response to the recommendations of the Electoral Matters Committee inquiry into the conduct of the 2018 state election; the Pharmacy Regulation Act 2010, to allow for late fees and late applications for the annual renewal of licences and registration; the Housing Act 1983, to streamline reporting arrangements for registered agencies and ensure oversight by their boards over the registered agencies’ reporting against performance standards; the Tobacco Act 1987, to allow for the Secretary of the Department of Health to appoint inspectors from a wider range of eligible persons and to allow for an infringement enforcement of an existing offence for smoking in an outdoor drinking area that is not separated from an outdoor dining area; and the Essential Services Commission Act 2001, to expand the classes of persons to whom the information-gathering powers of the Essential Services Commission may be delegated.

It makes a consequential change to the Education and Training Reform Act 2006, with minor amendments to correct inaccurate or outdated references to the Education and Care Services National Law Act 2010, the Children’s Services Act 1996, the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005, the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 and the Industrial Relations Legislation Amendment Act 2021. All identified Victorian laws will replace references to the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, and related intergovernmental bodies in response to the disbandment of COAG in 2020 and the establishment of the national cabinet.

So it is quite an extensive omnibus bill before us. Most of the reforms, like I said, are sensible, needed and overdue, and they do make improvements in terms of efficiency of these agencies and regulations. The context of this bill is very important to understand too. The bill forms part of the 2020–21 budget’s regulatory reform package to support Victoria’s economy during the recovery phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and build regulatory resilience to prepare for emergencies. It also supports Victoria’s commitment to the commonwealth Council on Federal Financial Relations to prioritise making temporary regulation changes made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic permanent.

It also supports technology-neutral legislation that does not impede the use of digital communications and technologies by business. I think this is common sense. This is an approach that many in the private sector have already adopted. Some had actually adopted this kind of technology-neutral approach before the pandemic. I worked at a national law firm, and we had moved towards a paperless office structure prepandemic, and it is amazing to see that in some regards governments lag behind innovative business practices out there in the private sector, where individuals have taken on that responsibility and have changed their practices and ways of working to adjust to the globalised world we live in and, online, the World Wide Web. The COVID-19 pandemic taught us the usefulness of these tools and adapting to the way people are gathering information and seeking information and the way they are conducting business. So it is appropriate that the regulations support that innovation and support the ability for organisations to adapt to those technologies in a changing world.

Obviously a time frame is important with any introduction of new legislation. I know many people are probably wondering why the bill is needed right now, and I think that is an important question. It is needed for a number of reasons. If the bill is passed today, the provisions will commence the day after the day of royal assent, other than a number of minor amendments to the Industrial Relations Legislation Amendment Act 2021 which will commence retrospectively from 31 December 2021. This is because they amend sections 62(1) and (2) of that act which came into effect on 1 January 2022 and need to be rectified to address an error and ensure that the amendments operate properly. The amendments to the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 to enable virtual meetings of joint parliamentary committees will commence on 25 April 2022, after the temporary amendments lapse. A couple of temporary amendments are already in place to facilitate that; this will just make sure that there is a seamless continuation. The amendments to the Local Government Act 2020 to create governance rules and allow virtual meetings into the future will commence on 2 September 2022. Reforms to the Electoral Act 2002 will commence by 1 June 2022 if not proclaimed earlier. Reforms to the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 and public notices will commence by 31 July this year if not proclaimed earlier.

An important aspect of this omnibus bill is the electoral reforms aspect. It has received quite a bit of publicity, and it is a matter that probably concerns all of us. Obviously we are elected through the democratic electoral process, and even if we are not on the Electoral Matters Committee like me or Mr Tarlamis or Mrs McArthur or Mr Meddick and many others, changes to the Electoral Act impact us all. The changes and the amendments to the Electoral Act prohibit persons or organisations from distributing postal vote applications; clarify the requirements related to the use of political signage at early voting centres; allow early votes to be processed earlier, being 8.00 am on election day—the same time as postal votes; and improve the process for notification of recounts of votes to candidates and political parties.

It is important to understand that there was wide consultation before the bill was brought to this house. The government consulted extensively with the Victorian Electoral Commission, which is supportive of the reforms, but also a number of other sectors, the local government sector and many others that are broadly affected. The VEC’s position is broadly supportive in relation to both the Electoral Act and Electoral Boundaries Commission Act changes, and we are responding to the Electoral Matters Committee recommendations from 2018, as I stated earlier.

I guess some may ask: why the changes to the postal vote applications? Registered political parties, candidates and persons other than the VEC will no longer be able to distribute postal vote application forms as part of their own campaign materials to voters. This will ensure voters are not confused or misled as to the source of these application forms, as many electors were mistaking these materials as communications from the VEC. The bill provides that it is not an offence for a person to make available at a post office an application to vote by post, which is provided by the Victorian Electoral Commission to allow for the collection of applications at post offices. This is very important. People can be misguided at times and may believe that material is coming from the official electoral body in instances where it is coming from a candidate. This provides greater clarity.

Another clarity measure that we have introduced is about the rules regarding political signage at voting centres, which I was pleased about. It just clarifies the exact specification of how many we can have. I note my time is running out, but I think it is a good bill overall and improves regulation in our state and is much needed, so I commend the bill to the house.

Sitting suspended 12.59 pm until 2.03 pm.

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:03): I am pleased to rise this afternoon to say a few brief words on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021. In doing so I would just like to concur with the lead speakers from the Liberals and The Nationals, my colleagues Mr David Davis and Mr Rich-Phillips, who eloquently outlined some of our concerns around this very complex omnibus bill. I will not prosecute blow by blow their contributions, but I will state that quite clearly I support the amendments that have been foreshadowed and circulated by Mr Davis on our behalf. The reason for my jumping up and wanting to make some comments on this bill predominantly relates to our country newspapers and the importance of our country newspapers not only as a way of providing all the local sporting information and news but as a way of disseminating really important goings-on in our region. That also certainly includes what is happening at a council level.

We note that in part 11 of this bill there are over 400 requirements in Victoria for public notices to be published in print newspapers. This bill would seek to change those notices and require them or enable them to go online on a to-be-determined digital platform. We need to embrace digital platforms. We all have our various forms of communication. Our phone is attached to our hip pocket if we are in this place. Other people embrace laptops, iPads et cetera. They are a great way to communicate. But this bill should not remove a very valued source of information from our local newspapers. When you think about country papers—I go into a few homes; certainly before the pandemic many homes—they are often sitting at the end of the kitchen table. People buy them as a trusted source of local information with comprehensive coverage of what is going on in our regions and in our towns. Often the articles are written by the journalists, without doubt, but they also come from press releases supplied, and in those instances the local shire council will supply a press release and that will be published alongside the ad of the day, whatever that might be. That provides some additional information. It fills the papers, yes, but it provides that thorough information.

What we know is that grandparents often buy, as do parents, the paper to see little X or little Y, little A or little B kicking a soccer ball, playing great cricket at the moment or in the tennis team. We love to see our young people and our children in the newspapers. But by osmosis, sometimes in flicking through the paper you actually get to see and understand some of the issues that council is facing and also some of the adverts, which is really important.

During COVID we know that many of our country papers went to the wall or almost went to the wall. I know I, like many other members with a rural constituency, poured a lot of my electorate office budget into helping support our local regional newspapers, predominantly because shops in all of our great local towns—the shoe shops that would normally advertise in our local papers—were closed. The pubs were closed. They could not offer special deals because they were shut during the pandemic lockdowns under the Andrews government. So I felt that I should do whatever I could in that small way, and I am sure others did the same.

Our print media is incredibly important. We are now glad that people are opening up and the pubs are advertising their specials et cetera, but it is a very vital service that our local newspapers provide. We know that during the course of the pandemic the Great Southern Star, which is one of my local papers and which had been in operation for decades upon decades—and the Yarram associated paper as well—closed. It was really sad to see that those papers had closed. We do not want to see any more close, and that is why, no matter how small this operation is of providing funding through the shire councils, we need to keep that.

I would also like to thank the Victorian Country Press Association for writing a very passionate and heartfelt letter, and I am sure others received the same letter, again outlining the negative outcomes if this bill is passed in its existing form.

The Nationals and the Liberals were very clear in identifying that they were going to move amendments to alter this particular part of the bill—to change it, to improve it, to take that requirement for a digital platform away. That was very clearly forecast. The member for Shepparton also, if I can say, got on the bandwagon about it, and then all of a sudden we see the Premier in the lower house kowtowing to her and pumping up her tyres and the government saying, ‘Look, we’ll change this. We’ve made an error’. We need to see our local councils advertising in our local papers.

The other thing that is really concerning is that if we only have a digital platform we know that there are black spots in regional Victoria in communications. Quite often one of us has to go and stand on the roof and turn southwards to pick up the internet if we are all wanting to use it. There are black spots. If we just rely on those connectivities it is going to disenfranchise a lot of people but also cut people out of getting good information. Also, many older people have not embraced or have not had the opportunity to learn about the digital platforms, and therefore having our local papers is very important. As I said before, other members of the Liberals in my team have certainly covered off on some of those other concerns that we have about the bill, and we look forward to putting those amendments to the committee and having them successfully passed through.

Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (14:10): I am going to make a short contribution about the amendments, in this case the ones circulated by the government. Originally the issue of advertising in regional newspapers was raised by Ms Sheed in the other place, who subsequently tried to pass a reasoned amendment, I do believe. That obviously failed, being in the Assembly, and she came to me and asked me to push this through. I am not claiming a win in this—the government did what the government did.

Mr Barton interjected.

Mr BOURMAN: It is not my win to have, Mr Barton. But it is clear that other people have a different perspective, and I think that it is a good thing regardless of who did it, because I think it is very easy for people in the suburban and urban areas to forget that not everyone uses a device, not everyone has connectivity everywhere they go. There are some people that just have to or just want to go and sit with their newspaper and read it, and there are a lot of people that are not actually that fond of electronic gadgets and refuse to use them. We will call it an oversight that it was not done in the first place, but I am glad to see it has been done. With those few words I will take a seat.

Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (14:11): As I rise to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021, I would like to note that I am proud to be part of an Andrews Labor government that in less than two terms of government has worked tirelessly to deliver key regulatory reforms that have improved lives and made Victoria a fairer place. In this term alone we have legislated regulatory improvements through automatic mutual recognition, cladding safety, wage theft, gender equality, casino and gambling worker screening and professional engineer registration.

These reforms and improvements make such a large difference in the lives of so very many Victorians, and unlike those opposite, we invest in regulatory reform because we know that good reform needs a kickstart and a helping hand to get savings for the community of Victoria both now and into the future. That is why we have invested $60 million in over 60 regulatory reform projects across local and state government through the Treasurer’s incentive fund and the Regulation Reform Incentive Fund, which is estimated to grow Victoria’s economy by almost $400 million per year and give back Victorians 293 201 days per year in saved time. What an extraordinary number, 293 201—my goodness. We are investing $100 million in reforms to Victoria’s planning system, boosting the state’s economy by $775 million over five years, and creating new construction jobs and shortening permit approval times by an entire month. We have streamlined screening checks for NDIS workers, saving 2800 days per year for applicants, bringing these workers into jobs faster so they can get on with supporting disabled Victorians to live with dignity and respect.

The Andrews Labor government knows that some of the most onerous regulations for Victorians are at the local government level. That is why we have partnered with local governments across the state to streamline and digitise their approval systems, making it simpler and faster for local Victorian businesses to have their applications processed. I would like to run you through a few ways that this bill will assist local councils in my constituency of Northern Metropolitan Region with local government regulatory reforms.

The Andrews Labor government is supporting the Moreland City Council in my electorate of Northern Metropolitan to make planning processes simpler. Funding is being provided from the Regulatory Reform Incentive Fund to develop guidelines and fact sheets about planning scheme requirements. The project will save businesses time and money and lead to quicker approvals. The Victorian government is also supporting Moreland City Council to make it easier for businesses to navigate council approval processes. Funding is being provided to the council to consolidate a range of systems and develop an online business portal. Businesses will experience more streamlined interactions with council and will not have to provide the same information to council multiple times.

The Victorian government is supporting the City of Melbourne to speed up and digitise business permits. Funding is being provided to consolidate, transform and digitise 13 high-volume permits for construction and business and some on-street permits, affecting a total of 31 000 permits annually. This project, jointly funded with the City of Melbourne, will help city businesses in their recovery by reducing the time and costs associated with regulatory approvals.

The Victorian government and the City of Melbourne are also launching an as-of-right pilot program to allow personal trainers to conduct fitness training without a permit across parks in the Melbourne CBD. This program, which uses a notification system and provision of insurance, will boost fitness activities and bring foot traffic back into Melbourne’s CBD.

The Victorian government is supporting businesses in the City of Yarra by providing funding to the council for two regulatory reform projects, simplifying council approval processes for planning, building, local laws and health, saving businesses time and money and leading to quicker approvals.

While I am at it, centralising information about high commercial vacancy rates in the City of Yarra activity centres is also being supported so that vacancy data can be more broadly available. The information is expected to lead to more leasing opportunities for businesses, such as short-term leases and pop-ups. I love a pop-up, so this is great news.

Up in the north of Melbourne in the Northern Metropolitan Region the Victorian government is supporting the City of Whittlesea—there we go—to make it easier for businesses to obtain approvals from council. Funding will be provided to digitise and automate a range of application processes, including low-risk approvals for building permits. The project will save businesses time and money and lead to quicker approvals.

The Victorian government and the City of Hume are launching an as-of-right pilot program to speed up the permit process for local businesses, placing skip bins on job sites, undertaking fitness training in parks and trading on footpaths. This is extraordinary.

This omnibus bill contains a number of key provisions to help with Victorian regulations and prepare us for challenges our state might face in the future. This bill builds on every single one of the legislative recommendations made by the cross-party Electoral Matters Committee inquiry on the conduct of the 2018 state election. This will modernise our electoral system and ensure a fairer and more accessible democratic process. It is important to note, as was brought up by my colleague Mr Tarlamis, that the government held a minority on the Electoral Matters Committee. We had representation from nearly all parties, and it was a committee report which the now Leader of the Opposition, among other members of the opposition, contributed to and signed off on. This means the recommendations we are delivering today are recommendations that both houses and the major parties all agreed to.

A change that has been adamantly opposed is the prohibition of any person or organisation other than the Victorian Electoral Commission distributing postal vote applications. I know that my colleague Mr Tarlamis spoke about this in great depth, so I might take a moment to skip ahead to some other pieces of legislative reform that are proposed in this bill today.

It is true that this bill will also clarify political signage use, and I know that that has been hotly debated as of late. This will allow a candidate to have two signs at voting centres, and in addition to this, registered political parties can have two signs of a specified size at voting centres. The bill will ensure that billboards cannot be displayed while being transported by any means within 100 metres of voting centres. The bill also proposes measures to allow early voting to be processed earlier and at the same time as postal votes, helping election results to be announced sooner to the public. We all know what that means for interested parties in our democracy on election night, so this is indeed good news.

Lastly, the bill will make some small changes to regulation that can be effective at reducing regulatory burden while maintaining the protection the public expects. The bill will also promote an efficient regulatory system by allowing pharmacy businesses to lodge their registration renewal applications late, while requiring a late fee to be paid, and extend the registration period of certain teacher cohorts to help increase the supply of teachers, ensuring that Victorian kids can learn and schools can still stay open in emergencies.

There are also moves in this bill to strengthen the governance of registered housing agencies that provide social housing to people on low or very low incomes. There are also some minor amendments to the Tobacco Act 1987 to allow for better and more equitable enforcement of breaches. This is something that I remember with great interest from my time serving in the health sector.

Moving on from electoral matters and other matters, as just discussed, this omnibus bill will also increase the flexibility of regulators to provide fee relief during emergencies. The current pandemic and other emergencies, such as the 2019 bushfires, have shown that not all Victorian regulators and agencies have adequate powers to waive, defer, refund or reduce fees or other charges. Without these powers Victorian citizens and businesses could be at risk of financial hardship in the next emergency. Within the provisions of this bill we will be enabling all agencies who are paid fees to have the power to waive, defer, refund or reduce a fee declared, during an emergency, when a Victorian is suffering from financial hardship or special circumstances. The fee relief can have an effect for up to six months after the end of an emergency—because we know lingering financial hardship does not stop just because a declared emergency does.

This bill will make amendments to lock in temporary regulatory changes that have been effective during the COVID-19 pandemic. This bill will give local councils, joint investigative committees, some regulators and regional libraries the flexibility to meet virtually—and I love the idea of supporting and strengthening regional libraries in our state. This means that in emergencies our institutions will be able to legally carry out their duties online. This flexibility will also be at the discretion of those bodies and will be subject to any other laws.

While many others might have Zoom fatigue—I know my eyes are certainly over Zoom and looking at people through a square—we should not forget that lack of accessibility to these forums hampers equitable participation. So it is important to highlight that this change also means that those forum members with accessibility challenges will be much more readily able to attend. This allows parents, carers, disabled persons and others to be able to participate in these forums from home. I think that is one of the silver linings, I suppose you could say, from COVID—that we have allowed much greater accessibility to some of our public services.

The bill will also modernise public notice requirements, bringing the practice into the 21st century. Any public notice that needs to be printed in print newspapers will also have its publishing requirements satisfied by being published online on a designated website. This change will significantly reduce costs and administrative burdens associated with print newspaper publication, while also consolidating information and increasing transparency for the Victorian public. With over 400 requirements across Victorian acts and regulations for public notices to be published, it is estimated that this change will save Victorian businesses and citizens up to $1700 in print advertising costs per notice—what a very clear benefit to our community that will be. These measures will particularly help new businesses that need to issue public notices before trading as well as businesses pivoting their operations during emergency or other times of change.

We understand, though, how important these print notices are in the local newspaper and also how important these print notices can be for more diverse and vulnerable members of our community. I think particularly of the importance of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander press knowing about what is going on with government—you know, I have found out about what is going on through reading my paper, the Koori Mail, on more than one occasion. So this is why these changes will be accompanied by an enforceable guideline that ensures public notices will be published in the medium which is most equitable for their target audience. I think that is a pretty critical change, which I know will be of benefit to many target groups and diverse communities. Public notices only make up around 10 per cent of the government’s communication budget, and with the mandatory guidelines the effect on print newspapers should indeed be marginal. These changes build on our successful and uncontroversial change to the Local Government Act 2020, which allows councils to publish their notices online.

I understand that the topic of regulatory reform will not make the headlines in the news this evening. It is not the most exciting aspect of work for this government. But you know what? I am a little bit excited about it. This bill will have a real and tangible impact on the lives of Victorian people and businesses and the future of small businesses and businesses right across our state. This is indeed a good day for Victorian businesses. This is in stark contrast to what we inherited. The appointment of a dedicated Minister for Regulatory Reform will help coordinate our reform agenda across government, and I take this moment to acknowledge the Minister for Regulatory Reform for the work that he has been doing in transforming our state. You can see the depth of the efforts that he is going to to change regulation here in our state by this bill before us today, so thank you to the Minister for Regulatory Reform.

This bill not only saves time and energy for new investments, new jobs, new technology and new services; it also still protects against the risks that those regulations were created for in the first place. And for all Victorians it can affect their access to services, their participation in our democracy, the way they spend their time and the costs they face to meet their obligations.

The Andrews Labor government believes in regulatory reform. We want to let Victorian people and businesses get on with the job, but we will do it without compromising the protection that regulations provide. Can I just say through this I am looking forward to more pop-ups, more shops and stronger small businesses across our state.

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (14:26): I rise to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021. To quote Mr Quilty, ‘I will be brief’, because I only want to speak about a couple of small points in this bill. The Liberal Party has quite significant concerns with this bill, but the speakers who have gone before me have outlined most of those.

I would like to speak about the government’s provision in the bill that public notices would no longer be printed in newspapers. This showed a true lack of understanding of country Victoria, and even suburban Victoria, by this government. They felt that everybody was connected to the internet and would be searching through a number of websites on a daily basis to see when public notices were issued. There are, as Ms Bath pointed out, over 400 requirements for public notices to be issued in print media, and certainly Victorians do not have time to be searching through all of those websites to see if notices have been published on a daily basis.

Certainly for country Victoria it showed a real lack of understanding of the importance of our community newspapers. Our newspapers are not just a source of information. They are a way of connecting our communities and making sure that we are connected to what each other is doing and what is going on in our communities. Important notices, like calls for nominations to hospital boards, for instance, could be very easily missed, and locals would be cut out of participating in that governance structure in our communities.

Also—and I think this is perhaps more a country issue than a city issue—not everyone is as computer literate as the government may think they are and not everyone has access to the internet, particularly in country Victoria where sometimes the connections are particularly bad. We saw this when the government had their silly requirement that those of us who lived in border communities would have to have border passes to pass into New South Wales during the COVID pandemic. What we saw was a lot of elderly people were not able to access those border passes because they did not have access to the internet and our neighbourhood houses were overrun with people coming in needing access to the internet and assistance in gaining those border passes—

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): Members, it is getting increasingly difficult to hear, and it is probably distracting for Ms Lovell. If you need to have a conversation, could I ask you to move to the back of the chamber so we can have the contribution heard in silence.

Ms LOVELL: Thank you, Acting President. It was particularly distracting; there was quite a lot of chatter going on in the chamber. Now I have forgotten where I was at. I think I was talking about the number of people who presented to neighbourhood houses for border passes and the difficulties that people had with that. It does show that not everyone is connected to the internet, and it is very important that these notices continue to be published in our country newspapers. As Ms Bath also pointed out, our country newspapers are finding it tremendously difficult financially, and they do rely on a lot of advertising. But I think even more important than that—as important as it is for them to be financially stable—is that locals have access to that information via their newspaper rather than having to search through hundreds of websites on a daily basis to find the public notices that might relate to their area.

The other point that I wanted to make about the digital world or the requirement of the government not to publish in newspapers is that this is a change that was brought about to this legislation because the Liberal Party flagged its intentions to move this amendment. As we know, in the lower house the government have tremendous numbers. They listen to nobody. They ignore the opposition and they ignore the crossbenchers in that house. And that happened in the lower house—yes, Suzanna Sheed put up a reasoned amendment, but the government voted against it. They did not listen to her. It was only days after this legislation had already come to the upper house—the Liberals had days before flagged our intention that we were going to move amendments in this house, and it looked like they were going to get support from a number of people in the crossbench—that the government actually got nervous about this. That was when they did their backflip on the advertising in newspapers and said that they would bring in their own amendments. I can say that the government’s amendments are not as strong as the Liberal Party’s amendments, which deal much more specifically with this particular problem in the legislation. I am glad there are a number of members of the crossbench here. I would encourage the crossbench to look closely at the difference between the Liberal Party’s amendments and the government’s amendments, because the Liberal Party’s amendments are much more strong on this. I would encourage you to support our amendments rather than the government’s.

The other part that I wanted to touch on in this legislation was the amendments involving electoral reforms, particularly the bit that prohibits anyone other than the Victorian Electoral Commission from providing a postal vote application. It has been a longstanding provision in this state that the parties have sent out postal vote applications, and many, many Victorians look for that each election. I think this amendment is actually going to be detrimental to postal voters, because they are used to getting their postal vote applications that way and they wait for the one that comes from the party rather than using something that comes as a generic thing from the VEC. I know I am on the Electoral Matters Committee and this was a recommendation of our report, but can I say: that is a committee that is dominated by the government and a couple of members of the crossbench. While I disagreed with this, there was strong support in other circles for this recommendation. It went through as part of the report, but it was never something that I particularly agreed with. As we all know, a committee report is a collective decision; it is not the individual’s decision. That is something that I did not support that went through as part of the recommendations of that committee.

With those few words, I endorse the comments of particularly David Davis, who led the debate on this for the opposition and for the coalition. I hope that the crossbench will look closely at those amendments and support the Liberal Party’s amendments.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (14:34): I rise to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2021. Here we have yet another omnibus bill, a bill that amends—if I have counted correctly—32 different acts. The minister said in his second-reading speech that:

A key part of this is ensuring that our regulatory systems continue to be effective in managing harms, while being … flexible in the face of this—and any future—emergency.

Now, that all sounds well and good. There are changes to allow fee relief during emergencies, the ability for councils and committees to meet online, measures to counteract the shortage of teachers—all these are welcomed. But I do have to say that it is a bit hypocritical that there are changes to allow councils to meet online and to vote on motions but the same privilege is not allowed for members of Parliament. In fact only the other week, when I suggested that the sessional orders regarding remote participation be extended, the ones that we had only a few months ago, there was no support from the government.

As I have seen with similar bills, the government take the opportunity to hide changes to other legislation—changes that they know that many of us would not support. They have just slipped them in, hoping to get them through. I cannot see how changes to the Electoral Act 2002 or the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act 1982 have anything to do with ensuring that our regulatory systems continue to be effective in managing harms.

The proposed changes to the electoral process are typical of this government’s attitude to democracy and stripping away the choices of Victorians. As it stands 80 000 people are registered with the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) for a permanent postal vote. Around another 1 million receive information and a postal vote application mainly through political parties. These are often older people and people from multicultural communities. Many of my constituents benefit from receiving this information. In Western Metropolitan over 100 000 of my constituents are over the age of 70 and nearly 80 000 were born overseas. So we know that the number of postal votes is increasing. The Australian Electoral Commission is expecting half of the voters at the federal election to place their votes before election day. My community love early voting—it is seen at council elections and it was seen at the last state election. There were an enormous amount in 2018 doing early voting when we were given the three-week opportunity. Election day was quiet by normal standards.

Normally what motivates this? We all know that constituents actually vote with their feet or want to vote from home. The community love to know they have the opportunity to actually vote from home. When you are disabled, when you are elderly, getting to a polling booth is quite difficult. Sometimes it is in extreme heat and weather or freezing cold. To have the opportunity to be able to do that at home is a most important feature for my most vulnerable residents in Western Metropolitan Region. So what is the government’s motive behind this? It cannot be due to complaints, because the number of complaints received about postal voting is minimal—so, so small; tiny, absolutely tiny. Really we get applause for actually being allowed to have postal voting. We get applause for having that online ability to vote for councils from home and receiving their ballots at home as well as that information about each candidate and those kits. So it cannot be cost cutting, as it is paid for normally by the parties and it is not coming out of the government’s purse. Could their motivation be that they feel it actually favours minor parties, that it actually favours independent candidates, who cannot afford mail-outs to older residents, to large multicultural communities? Maybe they feel this favours them, or could it be that it favours the opposition—protest voting? There is no good reason that the government can give for this proposed change.

The change regarding signage at polling booths also is not very well thought through. How many polling booths are located in church halls, in schools, in community centres—all located on main roads? Since billboards cannot go within 100 metres of a polling booth, are we meant to have billboards being driven around suburban streets? I see that some premises will be exempt under these regulations to be drawn up by the VEC, yet again we are asked to pass a bill before we know what these regs are.

The next major change that I have a problem with is the change to the publication of public notices. Now, others have raised the importance of these public notices to regional media and the effect this will have on them, our local papers. Now, the community relies on their local media or suburban or regional local news and information. I hear that the government believe they are going to save money. It is such a small cost. What about independent media?

For me, I feel that this actually is just adding another layer on a process that has been working to date, and you are burying the information. You are going to be burying that information in the VEC website, in a government website, and we all know how difficult that website is to actually navigate. If you have ever been a candidate, if you have ever tried to actually get any information on the VEC website, it is absolutely a minefield. It is not user friendly. So to think that you are not going to have public notices in public papers and to suggest that this is saving costs, I would say that you are just burying the information in the web and making it very difficult for voters and constituents to find it. There is an old saying: ‘If it’s not broken, you don’t need to fix it’. For me, I feel that the current system runs quite well. We have not had the complaints around postal voting.

One of the other interesting aspects that I have heard about through this debate today, and I think the government mentioned this, is the push for voter ID. I have heard the debates federally around that. For me, I welcome the opportunity for this state government at some stage to actually go down the path of voter ID. Why do I say this? Because our electoral rolls are full of names—full of names. If you have ever witnessed, like me, a council election and the return-to-sender information sent back to the VEC, they have a room full of ballots that have gone out to the wrong address—ballots that have gone out and the person has actually moved and the roll is not up to date. It is really a simple task to actually have people be able to go to the voting place and be able to show voter ID and to actually have their vote recorded. We also know that the political parties use this as a tactic. There are many times that there is multiple voting. So in other words—

A member: Vote early, vote often.

Dr CUMMING: That is exactly right. It is a party motto: ‘Vote early, vote often’. Why? Because you can actually go from booth to booth and go, ‘My name’s Catherine Cumming. I’m here to vote’. And then you go to the next booth: ‘My name’s Catherine Cumming. I wish to vote’. I will go to the next booth: ‘My name’s Catherine Cumming. I wish to vote’. There is no ID required. You get your name marked off, you vote and they stick it in a box. They do not know which vote is Catherine Cumming’s. All you receive is a letter from the VEC saying, ‘Excuse me, Catherine Cumming, I see from our records from all of these rolls that you have voted 20 times. Is that at all possible?’. And all you need to reply is, ‘No, I only voted once’. There is no CCTV to say otherwise at schools and at other places, and there are multiple votes. If you times that by the political parties, they have got their armies and teams going around doing that. Bussing—I have seen bussing. I have seen busloads going from booth to booth, jumping out and voting like this.

A member interjected.

Dr CUMMING: Yes, I have in my 25 years of experience. And you cannot do anything about it, because when they go into that voting centre voting is done secretly. There is no way of stopping this without actually providing ID, because if you show ID you cannot do multiple voting. I would love our electoral system to be cleaned up. I would love it not to be hidden under the pretence that somehow it is about your privacy—it is not. You should only be allowed to have one vote at one booth by showing your ID. But this current system, the system that I have witnessed all my life, is totally corruptible. I have witnessed firsthand people coming in with a different coloured T-shirt, with a different hat, and you cannot stop them. You can call the police; it does not stop them. If you bring it up with the VEC manager on the day, you cannot stop them, because they have got a list, these political parties, and they will go in with that list from the roll and they will go and vote multiple times.

I would love our system to be cleaned up, but I would also love this government to actually spend some money where they should, which is actually on teaching people how to vote properly—because that is another tactic. They do not want people, the general public, to come out and vote. They want to make sure that you are so angry that you will walk in there, tick your name off and throw an empty ballot into the bin, not marked, rather than educating the community on how to fill out the ballot properly and make their vote count and educating the community on how our system works in the Legislative Council, in the Senate, in the Assembly, in the lower house—or even at council elections—and on the difference between a preferential voting system or otherwise so that all of their votes actually count. This government would be doing the community a service to actually have voter ID. They would be doing the community a service by teaching them how to vote and making sure that their votes count.

But I must say that since this pandemic the only similar part of the world that I have seen is probably Germany. I think in these next elections, the next federal election and the next state election, there will be a major shift towards minor parties. No matter what kind of cheeky amendments that this government or other governments make to discourage constituents from voting, I believe come November this government is going to see an increase in formal voting. A formal vote is a correct vote. You put the numbers in the right boxes, in the right order, and your vote will count. I look forward to the next election. Even if it does not have voter ID this time around, I promise you that next time around, if I get re-elected, we will have voter ID. We will clean up the rolls. We will stop the unfair elections that I have seen in the past. I do not commend this bill at all.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Instruction to committee

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp) (14:51): I have considered the amendments proposed by Dr Ratnam on sheet SR91C, and in my view these amendments are not within the scope of the bill. Therefore an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 15.07 is required.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (14:52): I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that they have the power to consider an amendment and new clauses to amend the Electoral Act 2002 to implement optional preferential voting in relation to groups in Council elections and to make related amendments to that act.

House divided on motion:

Motion negatived.

The PRESIDENT (14:59): I have considered the amendments proposed by Mr Davis on sheet DD94C, and in my view these amendments are not within the scope of the bill. Therefore an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 15.07 is required.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:59): I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that they have the power to consider amendments to the Local Government Act 2020 to provide for advertising of hardship provisions under the Local Government Act 1989.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (14:59): The government and I urge other members of the Council to oppose this motion. It is more than unnecessary. I put on the public record today that there will be a bill concerning hardship cases in the local government sector. I agree with you, President, that it is outside the scope. There will be plenty of time for conversation, debate and even a committee stage on these particular issues when I bring that bill to this chamber.

House divided on motion:

Motion negatived.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (15:10)

Mr DAVIS: I have a number of questions for the minister in the first instance, and I might, for convenience reasons, seek to ask those questions on the purposes clause of the bill. I would draw the minister’s attention to the changes to the electoral arrangements, and I would ask about the postal vote issue. I ask: how many postal votes were cast in the 2018 election?

Ms SYMES: I would not anticipate that that is a matter for the purposes of the legislation. My access to that information would be the same as yours, Mr Davis.

Mr DAVIS: As I understand it, the bill seeks to amend the Electoral Act 2002 and put in a series of rules to change the timing and the presence of scrutineers, require the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) to give notice, prohibit the distribution of applications to vote by post by persons other than the Victorian Electoral Commission, provide for the display of signs in the designated entrance of a voting centre and prohibit the display of mobile billboards within 100 metres of an entrance of an early voting centre. I go to clause 1(e)(iii) on page 2 amending the Electoral Act:

to prohibit the distribution of applications to vote by post by persons other than the Victorian Electoral Commission …

I appreciate the difficulty that the minister may face with omnibus bills that cover a wide range of areas, but this is highly specific. It seeks to prohibit the distribution of applications, so the government must have some understanding of how many postal vote applications are distributed now and how many it imagines will be distributed later.

Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, it is not the quantum that is the motivation for the change.

Mr DAVIS: Well, whether it is the motivation or not, it is the effect. There will be less postal vote applications distributed, and that is likely to have an effect. So my simple question of how many postal votes were cast in the last election is a very simple starting point. The government must imagine that there will be some different number cast in the coming election.

Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, despite my earlier comments that it is not particularly relevant to the bill in terms of the number of postal votes, I do have some information that in the 2018 state election 250 403 electors voted by post compared to 294 571 in 2014. And you will note from the amendments that there is no change to the ability for people to apply for a postal vote. We are not in a position to predict how many people may be seeking to apply for a postal vote in the forthcoming state election.

Mr DAVIS: Minister, it is not strictly correct what you said. There is a change in the ability of people to apply for a postal vote. They can apply directly to the electoral commission, but they cannot apply by the other mechanisms that they can now. So there is actually a change in the opportunities and mechanisms by which you can apply for a postal vote.

Ms SYMES: Well, with that said, there is no change in the eligibility or the reasons that you might seek to obtain a postal vote. So if you want to have a postal vote, you can still apply for one. Nothing changes in terms of limiting people’s access to it; it is just a different vehicle to—

Mr DAVIS: Well, it does limit it because there is a mechanism counted out.

Ms SYMES: But we would say that it is an available mechanism; it exists. If you want a postal vote, you can get one.

Mr DAVIS: I just make the point that there will be a reduction in the opportunities.

A member interjected.

Mr DAVIS: Yes, there will. Parties distribute them and have done for many years. Indeed in the federal election—in April or May, or whenever it is—postal vote applications will be distributed there. That is the normal process that has operated for many, many decades, and that will not be available any further. So it actually does restrict the options of people applying for a postal vote. They cannot apply through a party-distributed postal vote.

Ms SYMES: I really do not agree with where you are headed in this line of questioning. My information is that 84 per cent of people who obtained a postal vote went through the VEC, and there is nothing to stop political parties advertising to the public about how to obtain a postal vote through their campaign material. So we do not see that anybody who is seeking to cast a postal vote is in any way—there are no barriers for them to continue to do so or indeed to elect to do it for the first time.

Mr DAVIS: Well, we will have to agree to differ on that matter. How many registered postal voters are there at this point, Minister?

Ms SYMES: I am not sure I would have access to the data of the independent agency, but I will see if we have got anything that will assist with that.

Mr Davis, as I articulated before, we have got the stats for 2014–2018. It is something that becomes available after an election, so we do not currently have stats that would indicate to the house how many people are currently registered. Of course voters can apply for a postal vote from the issue of the writs, from Tuesday, 1 November 2022, until 6.00 pm on Wednesday, 23 November 2022. So in terms of people that are existing registrees, it may not be an accurate reflection or even an indication of how many are likely to be seeking a postal vote for the 2022 election.

Mr DAVIS: Could you just say those dates again for me, please?

Ms SYMES: Voters can apply for a postal vote from the issue of the writs, 6.00 pm on Tuesday, 1 November 2022, until 6.00 pm on Wednesday, 23 November 2022.

Mr DAVIS: So there is only a 22-day period, as I see from that, when you can apply specifically for a postal vote for that election as opposed to being a general postal voter.

Ms SYMES: Correct.

Mr DAVIS: That would seem to me to be just three weeks and one day, and that is quite a short period of time for people to be able to contact the electoral commission and ensure that the electoral commission sends the vote back and then be able to lodge the postal vote as well.

Ms SYMES: Sorry to interrupt, Mr Davis. That is not a new thing. The bill is not doing that. That is not a change.

Mr DAVIS: No, no. But it is closing off one mechanism by which they can obtain a postal vote and have it followed through for them.

Ms SYMES: You can apply to be a general postal voter at any time, and there is nothing to stop the Liberal Party advising people of that if they wish to. It is publicly available information. But in relation to voters that can apply for postal votes, particularly those that may be going overseas and the like, it is generally common practice to apply within the writ window.

Mr DAVIS: But with respect, Minister, the number of postal vote applications is much greater than the general postal vote numbers. My figures, the most recent figures—and these are just from a week or two ago—are actually 97 851. That is the number that are currently registered as of about a week ago. So it is a much smaller number than the 294 571 Victorians who postal voted in 2014 and a lesser number than postal voted in 2018. If you look at the registered group, it is just a bit more than a third of the total number that voted by post at the peak. I ask you another question here: for example, in 2014 where it was 294 000, how many of those postal vote applications came through a party system as opposed to general voter registration?

Ms SYMES: Of the postal votes cast in the 2018 state election, 63 per cent of the applications were made using the online form available on the VEC website, so that was 157 753; 16 per cent of applications appeared to use a form supplied by a political party, so around 40 000; and 5 per cent of the applications were sourced from the post office. The balance of 16 per cent refers to general postal voters and other special categories.

Mr DAVIS: So 16 per cent of 250 000 is the sort of number that you are suggesting.

Ms SYMES: 40 000.

Mr DAVIS: Of 240 000?

Ms SYMES: 40 000.

Mr DAVIS: 40 000 is the number of postal vote applications that came through political parties.

Ms SYMES: Appears to.

Mr DAVIS: Appears to; some may have been triggered by other forms. But my point here is that a significant number of people have chosen to use that system and may not have been able to avail themselves of postal vote applications otherwise—they may not have been aware of them, they may not have had the opportunity, they may not have known where to go. There are a whole range of reasons. People have busy lives. They are not necessarily thinking about how you go and obtain these matters. But if it is put in front of them, they have the option. I think that 40 000-odd number is a significant number. It is 400 or 500 per electorate if you think about a lower house electorate. It is a significant number if you spread it across the 88 electorates. So our concern is that this significant wedge of votes will not find it as easy to postal vote, and that will suppress the voting as it occurs.

I should also note our concern that in fact postal voters were more satisfied than ordinary voters—83 to 81 per cent at the 2018 election—and in that sense we think the decision of the government to put this in the bill is a mistake. We think it will operate undemocratically.

I did point to a lot of commentary in America. There is actually an enormous amount of commentary in America about postal voting. I accept that in America the situation is different, with voluntary voting as opposed to compulsory voting here, and I accept that there are different geographic characteristics in some respects. Nonetheless, Nancy Pelosi said that mail-in voting in the upcoming election would be an essential option for Americans’ safety and wellbeing—she said that in 2020. And I could go on. I could read a hundred or a thousand of these from Democrats particularly all around the United States worried about blocking of postal voting and reduced opportunities for postal voting. In that context, Minister, particularly in America, they are keen to see as many people vote as possible, and I think that is a general principle that we would all support. At least I certainly would support it, and I imagine most in this chamber would as a general matter support that.

But the Americans have been particularly worried with respect to COVID, and the fact is that postal vote systems enable people who may be hesitant to attend a polling station, correctly or incorrectly, to vote by another means. I perhaps wonder whether the government has considered the risk that COVID will be back, the risk that there will be another strain, the risk that there may be public health orders that seek to enforce distancing and other matters. If the minister has had a briefing on this, it would be interesting to hear the government’s position about whether COVID could impact on this election.

Ms SYMES: I will take up a few of your points, Mr Davis, although an analogy with America is probably not something I was expecting to spend too much time on. Of course we would anticipate that there would be people in any election year that do not wish to attend voting centres, and that is one of the reasons that we have postal votes available. There is no reduction in the ability for people to access a postal vote. What we are preventing is political parties from being able to effectively pollute ballot papers with their campaign material when people are seeking this information.

There is absolutely nothing to stop political parties directing people where to get or register for a postal vote. The VEC have a very active education component in their role and I am sure will be well placed to provide advice to people about where to access postal votes as well as, I understand, post offices. It is just about ensuring that voters are not confused or misled as to the source of the application forms. A lot of electors mistake the material that comes through from political parties as material from the VEC, and that is a problem, particularly people with English as a second language. So to ensure that it is a fair and transparent process, this is good reform that in no way diminishes people’s ability to access a postal vote if they are so inclined.

Mr DAVIS: The minister might answer a further question about COVID. Does the government have any advice on whether there will be any COVID restrictions—distancing, hand hygiene, masks and other matters that we have become very familiar with with COVID? Will there be any of those aspects in place at election time?

Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, it is certainly not a matter for this bill, but in terms of COVID-safe practices, I suspect that they will be in place for some time, as will any practices or measures that protect people’s health and safety against any illness or safety concern. But it is not a matter for this bill, and I am not going to speculate.

Mr DAVIS: With respect, Minister, the importance of it is if you are closing off one mechanism for people to vote—

Ms SYMES: We are not.

Mr DAVIS: Well, you in effect are clipping, narrowing, the opportunities for postal votes to be distributed and to be accessed by people. The truth of the matter is COVID will potentially be a risk at the time, and COVID-hesitant voters should have the maximum opportunities, I think you would agree, to vote. In that circumstance it may well be quite misplaced to restrict the opportunities for the distribution of postal vote applications. So we are concerned that if there were further rules and controls put in place, there would actually be a significant risk that COVID-hesitant voters may not have the full suite of options that they have got currently or that they will have at the federal election.

I might leave that as a comment and just ask the minister whether the government has considered the matter of confusion between the state and the federal rules. I appreciate they are not always the same, but with electoral matters and the electoral roll and matters around elections we have tried to keep them roughly consistent. In that circumstance has the government considered whether introducing an inconsistency is actually wise?

Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, there are a lot of comments in there that I do not necessarily agree with. We do not believe that there is any reduction in access to postal votes. The VEC is well placed to give information to voters about where they can obtain postal votes, and in relation to any confusion between federal and state, I think you are selling voters a little short. There have been inconsistencies among many things between state and federal issues connected to elections, and otherwise people have generally worked out how to navigate it. There will be plenty of opportunities for people to access postal votes if they so choose, plenty of avenues to obtain information about how to obtain one and indeed plenty of places to vote on election day or indeed in the period before election day.

Mr DAVIS: Well, again, this might just have to be one of those areas where I record our different views on this matter. We think it does introduce an unnecessary inconsistency and an unnecessary break with traditional practice here. But in terms of the electoral commission’s intentions with postal votes, what are the intentions of the electoral commission to advertise postal vote options? Will they—given that there is no distribution by political parties—redouble their efforts? Will they advertise further the options? Will they circulate postal vote applications to every voter in any event via the VEC?

Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, these are matters particularly for the VEC, not for government, but as I indicated earlier in our exchanges, the vast majority of people who access postal votes already get them through the VEC. Particularly at the last election 63 per cent of applications were made using the online form available at the VEC website. We would anticipate that that would increase. Particularly I guess we talk about COVID and having to plan for those contingencies. I think that many Victorians have indeed become quite IT proficient. I am much better than I was pre COVID in terms of being able to access information for these types of matters. The VEC will use all available channels to ensure that voters are aware of their options, and we anticipate that, again, anybody who requires a postal vote will have no trouble in accessing one.

Mr DAVIS: That is a partial answer, and I thank you for that answer, but does that actually mean there will be more availability through the electoral commission of postal vote applications? Will they be distributed widely? Will there be an advertising campaign? Will there be an online campaign? I do not think it is unreasonable where we are restricting access in this way through this bill to be asking what remedial steps, what alternate steps, are being put in place to ensure that people have access to those postal votes if that is what they choose to exercise.

Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, these are matters for the VEC, but, as indicated, the data would indicate that most people are seeking the information directly from them already.

Mr DAVIS: I thank the minister for the response, but if this is passed in this way, the VEC needs to step up and make sure that there is sufficient knowledge and sufficient opportunities. I do not think it has always been very good at getting that message about postal votes out, which is one reason that the parties over the years have stepped in, because it has been an important set of steps.

Ms SYMES: Look, I know that you are fond of tradition, but the amount of people that would be accessing information not through the mail in 2022 but who obtain their information online is bearing out in the data. We anticipate that people will be able to access postal vote information and indeed applications more easily than they ever have before.

Mr DAVIS: I certainly accept the minister’s general principle that the shift to online activity will be borne out in part through these sorts of processes. I do not doubt that for one moment. But there are segments of the community that are not so online proficient, older people in particular. You can take a stroll through some areas of the nursing homes in my electorate, and certainly in those areas people are not necessarily online proficient. I think the significance of postal vote applications for them is greater, especially where they are COVID hesitant, as you would expect. Those are, I think, key points.

The other point I wanted to make on these matters is around the prohibition on distribution. Why could the government not have looked at a way of preregistration for postal vote applications? That is in our amendment, and you will have seen that. Why could the government and the VEC not have had a system of preregistration of a particular form?

Ms SYMES: The VEC has a direct relationship and the ability to have people apply to be a general postal voter or you can apply within the window. So what gap are you talking about?

Mr DAVIS: It is the distribution by parties, which has traditionally happened. But if there were some difficulty with a particular application form, surely that could be dealt with by a preregistration arrangement where the party would put that in front of the VEC and the VEC would authorise it or not.

Ms SYMES: A party preregistration process?

Mr DAVIS: Well, a registration for a postal vote application form. The party would produce a postal vote application form and would put that to the VEC.

Ms SYMES: No, that is not government policy.

Mr DAVIS: Did the government investigate such an option?

Ms SYMES: I am not the relevant minister in relation to those considerations, but it does not sound like a very good idea to me considering our proposed amendments are to prevent political interference with the democratic process of voting. We are of the view that direct contact between the voter and the VEC is more appropriate than political parties attempting to intervene in the process between application and voting.

Mr DAVIS: Can I just indicate that I have circulated my amendments, so when we get to the relevant point I will move them.

Mr LIMBRICK: I have just got one question around clause 60, if I may just do it in clause 1—if that is convenient. It is around the changes in subclause (2). It changes the reference to an offence and updates the offence, and the offence is around a tobacco or e-cigarette company intentionally or recklessly contravening or causing another person to contravene the act. It is my understanding that e-cigarette premises are responsible for the signage and display and these sorts of things, but I cannot understand how an e-cigarette company could cause an e-cigarette retailer to contravene this and trigger this offence. Could the minister provide some clarification on what type of activity this is actually trying to prevent?

Ms SYMES: I will just seek some advice. Because we have jumped to a different section we have different people, so give us a second to catch up. I might get you to repeat the question, if that is okay.

Mr LIMBRICK: I will repeat the question for the benefit of the advisers. Clause 60(2) updates an offence of a tobacco company or an e-cigarette company intentionally or recklessly contravening or causing another person to contravene. This is unclear to me because in an e-cigarette retailer premises the owner of the store is responsible for the signage and display of products, and I am unsure how an e-cigarette company could cause a retailer to trigger that offence. My question is: what type of activity is this offence actually trying to prevent?

Ms SYMES: Mr Limbrick, I am advised that it is actually not the creation of a new offence there, it is just aligning the legislation within it. That is not referring to a new offence. It is an existing offence.

Mr LIMBRICK: Yes, I am aware it is an existing offence. I am just asking what it is trying to do. I realise we are just updating the references, but with this offence I cannot understand how an e-cigarette company could cause an e-cigarette retailer to trigger that offence and therefore what the offence would actually be seeking to prevent.

Ms SYMES: Mr Limbrick, I will come back to you on that. We are just going to get some advice from the advisers for the health part of the omnibus bill who are in the vicinity. I will come back to you with a bit more detail in relation to that.

Mr DAVIS: I move:

1. Clause 1, page 2, line 32, after “Commission” insert “or as approved by the Commission”.

As I said earlier, there is much in this bill that we agree with, and its omnibus nature means there are many different parts. But the other part that I would draw the minister’s attention to relates to the requirements on notices in newspapers. I notice the government’s amendments that have been distributed. The first amendment says they will omit ‘whether circulating generally in Victoria or in a particular locality’ and insert ‘circulating generally in Victoria’. There is an amendment to clause 38 which adds ‘approved’, and another to clause 38 which inserts:

“(2A) For the avoidance of doubt, subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to any requirement under an Act, a statutory rule or any other subordinate instrument to provide for the publication of a notice published in a print newspaper in a particular locality.”.

I note the explanation made by Minister Leane earlier. I have no doubt the minister will make a further comment on this as she moves towards moving the amendments. We are obviously concerned with the government’s original intent here, which would have stripped away the scale of advertising in many country publications, and small city publications I should say too. That obviously concerned us a great deal. Consequently our amendments that were circulated seek to ensure that where:

… a statutory rule or any other subordinate instrument for notice (however described) to be published in a print newspaper applies in respect of any locality or part of Victoria which is regional Victoria, publication—

(a) must be in published in a print newspaper circulating in that part of regional Victoria; and …

It goes on, but the point I wanted to make here, and I think it is worth having the discussion now and then I will ask some broader questions, is our view is that the government’s amendment is a positive step but does not go far enough. Our view is that our amendment overlaps in part but is more precise than the government’s amendment and consequently provides greater certainty and greater security for those smaller country papers in particular, where our concern was greatest.

We certainly felt that the change the government was making, and I accept that the amendment is a sort of partial step in a useful direction, was very likely to impact directly on those country newspapers. It is clear that their subscription bases in many cases are relatively small. Their advertising has in some cases diminished. COVID has had an effect more recently too, and I think it is worth putting that on record. In those circumstances we think those country papers in particular provide a very important service, a very important protection for their community, a vehicle by which local issues and discussions are ventilated, local issues and discussions are focused upon. Without that support of government through the notices, and similarly advertisements, there was a risk that there would be a diminution in the position of those papers, a risk to the viability of some papers, and we were very concerned indeed to see what would occur there.

If those papers were diminished in that way, I think it would be a terrible loss for those country communities. The failure to have a paper circulating affects democracy, it affects the ability for communities to act cohesively, because they have shared understandings that come through their newspapers in this case. Now, I accept of course that there has been significant change with respect to electronic means and electronic advertising and the place of Facebook and the internet more broadly. There is no question of that, but still in many country communities the small newspaper plays a very important role. It plays a role that would see the position of those country papers put at risk if the government pulled its advertising, as was certainly proposed in the original version of this.

Now, I do note that I heard the Premier’s—let me choose my words carefully—intemperate approach in the lower house on this matter, and whilst I welcomed his decision to reverse the government’s position, I thought some of it was a little disingenuous too. It was on the Wednesday. The opposition had directly flagged its amendments, and then the Premier had something of a conversion experience where he then stepped back from the government’s earlier position and said, ‘We will put in some protections for those country papers’. I do not want to be churlish about it, but I do not think the amendment quite goes far enough. It does not provide quite the clarity and security and certainty that I think some of those smaller country papers deserve and should have.

I might start with the first question to the minister, just to understand the context on this matter, and just ask: does the government have a figure as to how much advertising was to be affected by its original proposal? That is the bill that we have got here in front of us. And how much advertising would be diverted back to country papers by their own amendment?

Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, the way you have constructed that is just incorrect. The government’s house amendment is to provide clarification and a guarantee against something that was never going to happen. To suggest that it was the government’s original intent to strip advertising from local papers is a falsity, so let us just start there. This house amendment will guarantee the status quo. It will ensure there can be no scare campaigns and that we can give an absolutely clear message that cannot be tainted about our intention to continue to support our local papers. You gave a very long speech about the benefits of them; I do not intend to repeat that. But on those points we agree, so I would put that on the record.

The government’s proposed house amendment clarifies that regional and local newspapers will be left no worse off by the government’s changes to regional public notices. The original intention was that we were going to do this in regulations anyway, but this is sending a really clear message that cannot be scrambled by any political interference. The amendment will mean that any notice that is required by law to be published in a print newspaper circulating in a particular locality will remain unchanged after the bill is passed. In practice it will mean that all types of public notices that are currently required to be published in a regional or local print newspaper will continue to be required to be published in those papers. We are confident that our amendment is sound, it is neat and it will deliver that outcome, and we welcome members to support that.

Mr DAVIS: Just on the simple question, then, of how much advertising currently comes through those mechanisms into country papers, does the minister have figures to that effect?

Ms SYMES: No. I will see what I can get for you if you like, but that is not directly relevant to the bill.

Mr DAVIS: I appreciate that the minister might not have them to hand, but we would certainly appreciate those figures. I think it is relevant to the bill because the bill did tamper, at a minimum, with the likelihood of that advertising, and—

Ms SYMES: Actually I have got a sort of figure for you.

Mr DAVIS: Sure.

Ms SYMES: I have just been advised—it does not really give you an actual figure, but I guess it could give you a sense of the quantum—that 12 per cent of government spending goes through public notices. I think also I would draw your attention to the support and continuation through COVID. It was directly the aim of government to support local papers by continuing advertising through a period when perhaps others were not as well placed to do so.

Mr DAVIS: So 12 per cent of all government advertising, is that what you are saying? So that will be a figure that you can come back with relatively quickly. I think it is the case that the small country papers publish increasingly online these days too, and that is an important aspect. I wonder if the minister might outline the government’s intention with respect to online advertising of that type?

Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, our commitment is in relation to the continuation of public notice advertising through local papers. We have not been specific in relation to the platform.

Mr DAVIS: So how will we get an understanding of the break-up between the different platforms? How will we understand that?

Ms SYMES: We can provide you with the overall figures, but we do not distinguish between the online and the print version for each paper. Sometimes you get a package and that includes both.

Mr DAVIS: Yes, I get that, but nonetheless there still should be some capacity to separate those out. There must be some. You may not be able to do it right now, I understand that. So, Minister, when we talk about country papers I just want to also be clear that this includes the regional papers, the dailies, as well as the small weeklies, the small biweeklies and the less common still in some cases. The second question I would then ask is: will this apply to any of the small city papers as well?

Ms SYMES: Yes, Mr Davis, it includes all of the ones that you have mentioned, which is why we use the language ‘in a particular locality’.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davis’s amendment 1 is a test for his amendments 3, 4 and 5.

Committee divided on amendment:

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 22 agreed to.

Sitting suspended 4.05 pm until 4.21 pm.

Clause 23 (16:21)

Mr DAVIS: I move:

3. Clause 23, line 4, after “(3B)” insert “and (3C)”.

4. Clause 23, line 11, omit ‘Commission.”.’ and insert ‘Commission.’.

5. Clause 23, after line 11 insert—

‘(3C) It is not an offence under subsection (3A) for a person to make available or distribute an application to vote by post if the application to vote by post is approved by the Commission.”.’.

These amendments arguably have already been tested; nonetheless, I think they are of great importance. We believe these are matters of huge principle. We have come up with what we think is a sensible and elegant solution to any concerns the government may have. Simply to read amendment 5:

5. Clause 23, after line 11 insert—

‘(3C) It is not an offence under subsection (3A) for a person to make available or distribute an application to vote by post if the application to vote by post is approved by the Commission.”.’.

It is a pre-vetting process. The commission can say yes or no. We think it is an eminently reasonable position.

Ms SYMES: This is in the category of Mr Davis and I agreeing to disagree.

Amendments negatived; clause agreed to; clauses 24 to 37 agreed to.

Clause 38 (16:23)

Ms SYMES: I move:

1. Clause 38, lines 17 to 19, omit “, whether circulating generally in Victoria or in a particular locality,” and insert “circulating generally in Victoria”.

2. Clause 38, line 22, before “approved” insert “an”.

We have articulated why I am moving these amendments. This is to ensure that the status quo for regional paper advertising remains unchanged. It was in the last parliamentary sitting that the Premier gave assurances that the government would amend this bill, and this is delivering on that commitment. The government’s proposed house amendments will clarify that regional and local newspapers—so suburban or even small city, depending on locality, papers—will be no worse off with the government changes to regional public notices. The amendment will mean that the requirements for any notice that is required by law to be published in a print newspaper circulating in a particular locality will remain unchanged after the bill has passed. In practice this is mainly about public notices that are currently required to be published in a regional or local print newspaper. They will continue to be required to be published in those papers.

This set of words that the government are proposing covers in particular regional papers and, as I said, particularly those suburban papers that many members would be familiar with. We have a competing set of words from Mr Davis. I will allow him to speak to his amendment, but I think we might just need to make sure we are very clear about what is being proposed to the house. He effectively proposes that the bill incorporate two sets of words, where we would say that our words cover the field and in fact are more precise and do not create ambiguity around a particular locality. We are concerned that Mr Davis’s wording in fact is a bit messy and could create confusion around particular localities, and although it calls out regional papers, it might do that to the exclusion of others.

What I am particularly concerned about is that if we are to pursue both amendments in this respect—of course we can do anything by agreement in the house—this would be a very unusual situation, where we would be sending a less than perfect bill to the Assembly. We would be asking them to consider a bill where we would have to renumber it and say, ‘Hey, we’ve got a guarantee written this way, and we’ve got a second guarantee written another way’. I do not think that that is professional. I think it would be an indictment on this house to agree to such a clunky bill. Of course there is no obligation to send a perfect bill to the Assembly, but it is something that I would strive to achieve in most instances. In this instance it is so obvious that this would be less than perfect that I would urge members to consider that.

We would say that our amendment is superior to your amendment and should cancel out your amendment, but I do understand, Mr Davis, that you still intend to put it and still intend to seek a division on that. Of course the will of the house will hold.

Mr DAVIS: It is worth stepping through the history of this just a little to understand what has occurred here. We did indicate in the last sitting week on the Monday that we would in fact be moving these amendments. We indicated the nature of those amendments, to protect country papers in particular. The Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel I think have done quite an elegant job, contrary to the minister’s view, in turning my intentions into a very smooth piece of amendment to the legislation, so I pay tribute to the new parliamentary counsel team.

But leaving that aside, I do accept that there is overlap. I just think that ours is more clear and more certain than the government’s position. There is doubt and, indeed I might say, ambiguity about what the government will do with their approach. It is also the case that whilst there is overlap there is not a point of tension that we cannot accommodate. It is one of those—you know the old-fashioned expression—belt-and-braces approaches. You have a solution that actually provides greater assurance rather than lesser assurance—so the sum of the parts may be greater than the individual bits. I think in this circumstance the clarity that is provided to country newspapers in particular is important. We will support the government’s amendment, and we would urge the government to likewise support our amendment to add, as I would say, to a belt-and-braces approach.

Mr GRIMLEY: Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party believe that the government has the smoother of the two amendments, I suppose, if I can put it that way. We strongly support the continued publication of notices in regional and local newspapers. We have worked closely with the government also on this issue since the bill was introduced and on the amendment that was needed to ensure that publication of notices in print media could continue in regional areas. The government’s house amendment deals with this issue we believe sufficiently, so we feel that the amendment proposed by the opposition is not required.

Mr BOURMAN: I am in concurrence with Mr Davis in that I think it is a little smoother, and I am happy enough to go with that because we all need a smooth way out of this place this afternoon.

Mr MEDDICK: There is nothing smooth about me. Like Mr Grimley and like many of my colleagues whose areas have large regional representation, the matter was raised with me several times about this continuation of advertising in regional newspapers. I know that Mr Bourman was going to bring in an amendment, which he has since dropped since the government have looked at this, have corrected it where they thought it needed correcting and have brought the house amendment, which actually covers this off very well. I concur with Mr Grimley on that, so I will be supporting the amendment.

Ms SYMES: I just want to put on record that I think we are all in furious agreement here. I have articulated that there was never any intention to deprive country or suburban newspapers of this advertising. It was going to be picked up in regulations by government, but of course when you do not legislate something, some people get a little bit worried about that so we wanted to make sure that we had a house amendment that covered the field. Indeed, Mr Davis, your amendment has an identical intention, but it is our view that ours does cover the field. Yours is unnecessary, but I do commend you for having the exact same intent as ours, and our opposition to your amendment is not opposition to its intention.

Amendments agreed to.

Mr DAVIS: My amendment 6, as we have outlined, is a belt-and-braces approach in this context, but we think that it is important and we think that the clarity is important. In that sense I agree with the Attorney about the intent now, but we were concerned where the government began. It is not clear why they began in that position in the first place, but we are moving in the right direction. I move:

6. Clause 38, page 25, line 2, after “subsection (1)” insert “or, if subsection (2A) applies, by complying with the requirements set out in subsection (2A)”.

Committee divided on amendment:

Amendment negatived.

Ms SYMES: I move:

3. Clause 38, page 25, after line 2 insert—

“(2A) For the avoidance of doubt, subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to any requirement under an Act, a statutory rule or any other subordinate instrument to provide for the publication of a notice published in a print newspaper in a particular locality.”.

These issues have been well canvassed, but these amendments are intended to clarify that regional and local newspapers will be left no worse off by the government’s changes to regional public notices. The amendment here will insert a requirement for notices to be published in newspapers in particular localities if there is a requirement under an act, statutory rule or subordinate instrument.

Mr DAVIS: In line with the discussion we have had, we will support this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr DAVIS: I move:

7. Clause 38, page 25, after line 2 insert—

“(2A) Despite subsection (1), if a requirement in an Act, a statutory rule or any other subordinate instrument for notice (however described) to be published in a print newspaper applies in respect of any locality or part of Victoria which is regional Victoria, publication—

(a) must be in published in a print newspaper circulating in that part of regional Victoria; and

(b) in addition, may otherwise be published in a manner specified in subsection (1)(a) to (c).”.

Again, this is belts and braces. We want to be quite clear. It is an important amendment. It is not inconsistent with the government’s position; in fact it makes it sharp and clear.

Ms SYMES: The government is not in a position to support this amendment because I disagree with Mr Davis that it provides belts and braces. It is just another set of words saying the same thing and in fact will create confusion for people because we will be sending a bill to the Legislative Assembly effectively asking them to agree to two separate clauses that say the same thing in a slightly different way. I cannot see how that is in any way a reflection of what this house should strive to do, and that is to provide simple laws for people to follow.

Committee divided on amendment:

Amendment negatived.

Amended clause agreed to; clauses 39 to 59 agreed to.

Clause 60 (16:48)

Ms SYMES: I am just following up on a question on notice for Mr Limbrick. He asked about the offence in relation to the Tobacco Act 1987, particularly in relation to e-cigarette retailing premises and the obligations or even the situations where a company may cause them to be in breach of the act. I am advised that it may be that a company supplied certain advertising material and asked the retailer to put it up, and that might be a contravention of the act. Another example could be that the company supplies a product knowing that it is banned under a ban order in the Tobacco Act.

Clause agreed to; clauses 61 to 78 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments.

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (16:49): I move:

That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (16:50): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: The question is:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

House divided on question:

Question agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill with amendments.