Tuesday, 20 February 2024

Bills

Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Lizzie Blandthorn:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (16:49): I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2023. I want to start off by thanking my colleague and friend in the other place Jess Wilson for the work she has done on this bill and the government for the briefings it provided to the opposition on this bill as well. The bill is a piece of omnibus legislation that amends 14 acts across 10 portfolios. The reforms contained in this bill are mostly minor technical clarifications in nature and do not represent substantive changes to the acts. The majority of amendments are aimed at streamlining requirements, rectifying specific instances where current provisions are not working as intended or have become impractical.

The coalition does not oppose the passage of this bill through Parliament, but we note the government’s very poor record on regulatory reform and red tape reduction, which is woefully thin, resulting in Victoria being perceived as – it actually is – the single most expensive state to do business in, which of course means that businesses, like with the ANZ–Suncorp deal we saw today, and many other businesses and many other investors, are making decisions to invest away from Victoria. You have to wonder why that is. We are the highest taxing state in the nation, we have the highest property tax in the nation and we have the highest stamp duty in the nation. The government’s response to everything is a new tax or increased regulation without thinking of the consequences for investment.

I know that in my electorate all too well. I was out in Greenvale, as I am often, only last week with my colleague the Shadow Treasurer Brad Rowswell. We went to Philmart Asian Groceries at Roxburgh Village. We in fact chatted to all the businesses at Roxburgh Village, some of which did not even know they had a local Labor member. We went to all those businesses and chatted to them about energy costs. Again, we went to Philmart Asian Groceries. As they said, and many of the other businesses said, the landlord has passed on the cost of the land tax directly to all the small businesses there, and that has had a really damaging impact. Rudi and Letty from Philmart Asian Groceries are long-time small business owners. They are a Filipino couple, migrants to Australia who have been quite aspirational and started a small business. I note that 74 per cent of new migrants in this state start a small business and really have a go at it, but this government is making it harder for them and harder for those migrant families and small business owners, because that increased cost that is passed on has meant that they are now just breaking even. They consider themselves employees rather than small business owners because they are not making any money and they can no longer afford to pass on those costs through higher costs for their goods or for their food because it is a cost-of-living crisis.

I know many in Roxburgh Park are feeling the cost-of-living crisis, so I was very sad to see that. A lot of them are also reporting the devastating cost of energy that they are facing. I was chatting to another Indian grocer there, who was reporting that as the number one issue. There are many drycleaners in the north actually. I was at Mr Thomastown Dry Cleaners in Thomastown – I love to shop local in my electorate; I send my suits there – and they have actually got a sign on their front counter from an article in the Age about Victoria having the most expensive energy prices. They are finding it really tough.

Is it any wonder that Victoria has the highest energy prices and is the toughest and worst place to do business? Investment is fleeing the state – big investors are choosing to invest elsewhere – and of course we are the highest taxing state. All government decisions have an effective consequence. You might just think you are upticking land tax for a COVID debt levy, but investors are not an endless piggy bank. And it does not just end with the investor – it gets passed on. Why do you think we are seeing some of the images on social media of queues going around the corner, for hundreds of metres, of people trying to get into a rental? It is because of the increased land tax, which is making it worse for people to get a roof over their head. These things have consequences.

Property Investment Professionals of Australia in their survey revealed that one in four investors are fleeing the market – 25 per cent appraisal rates across the state, across metropolitan Melbourne, in our growth areas – because investors have said that property is an uncertain investment. They have said it is an uncertain investment and are either choosing to invest elsewhere or getting out of the market completely because Labor have made property an unaffordable investment, and nothing is going to change until this government realises that 100 per cent of the private property market is made up of landlords and investors who choose to invest in property and rent out that property to people that need a roof over their head.

You can talk all you want about freezes, and I know that our friends the Greens do, but the answer to that is more supply, lower taxes and certainty. This government, we know, as the Treasurer has flagged, is going to bring out another horror budget, and we know horror budgets in the Treasurer’s mind mean higher taxes, more regulations and more ways to make it harder for business, not easier. So when I see people like Rudi and Letty in Roxburgh Park having a go at a business and facing the real-life consequences of this Labor government, I am heartbroken for them. I am heartbroken for the families trying to have a go in a small business, and this government just does not care.

As I said, the coalition does not seek to oppose the passage of this bill, but we do note the government’s record. It is similar to an omnibus bill passed by the Parliament in 2022 – again minor and technical arrangements that do not quite have enough oomph in them to form a standalone bill. This is a result of the government inviting departments to submit minor amendments to improve regulatory compliance to produce administrative efficiencies, and the key word here is ‘invite’: ‘Would you please submit them – please, please?’

In a past life I was an adviser in the Abbott government which of course had a huge focus on red tape reduction, and it was not just a simple invitation to departments.

Members interjecting.

Evan MULHOLLAND: They are laughing at $20 billion in savings for businesses across the country due to a reduction in red tape. But the government had two red-tape repeal days a year where an entire day of the Parliament would be spent on reducing red tape and compliance for businesses. And you know what, we did not just invite and simply send an invitation or maybe an email to departments: ‘If you choose to reduce red tape’. We told them, ‘You must reduce the red tape compliance burden on businesses, Australians and entrepreneurs by this much,’ and I tell you what, with that mandate those secretaries coughed up and they put forward a suite of measures which in the tens of billions reduced the compliance burden for businesses across Australia. Those were very popular days because the government spent those days dedicated to repealing red tape and unnecessary regulation. Across Australia red tape costs about $156 billion in lost economic output, in that economic opportunity, in businesses not started. I was chatting earlier on the Service Victoria Amendment Bill 2023 about Service NSW and a small-business concierge service in the app that gives you every single form you might need, which they have reduced by a massive amount, federal, state or local, to start a small business.

Try to get that on the Service Victoria app. It will probably take you to another window that opens another window that opens another window. That is what we get in Victoria. No wonder we have had the worst small business closures – that is 7000 businesses.

Georgie Crozier: How many?

Evan MULHOLLAND: About 7000 businesses across Victoria that have closed down. This government talks a big game with this bill, but it is barely touching the side. Let us have a look. The department identified the amendments below equating to $2.6 million in annual savings by amending the Essential Services Commission Act 2001, amending the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 and amending the Gambling Regulation Act 2003, but again, the government’s record on red tape reform is not good.

While any savings for Victorian small businesses at a time when many are struggling are certainly welcome, they are completely modest changes. They could go a lot further. The government estimates $2.6 million in annual savings for Victorian businesses as a result of this bill. Given that there are over 710,000 small businesses in Victoria, this means businesses can expect an average saving of $3.66 per year. Well done, Labor. $3.66 per year you have saved every small business in this state, while increasing their energy costs by thousands of dollars, plus payroll tax and WorkCover premiums. But you have saved them $3.66 – give yourselves all a pat on the back. Surely we can do better when it comes to cutting red tape and easing regulatory burdens on small businesses than $3.66. It is not even a cup of coffee – which we know has increased at many places due to increased energy costs, increased logistics costs and port disputes jacking up the prices everywhere. But $3.66 – jeez, is that all you can do? Is that all you can do for businesses across Victoria?

Just as households grapple with ever-increasing costs of living, so too do businesses struggle with economic headwinds and rising costs. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Victoria was the only state that went backwards in terms of the number of businesses in 2023. As I mentioned earlier – and I will correct my figure – we lost 7600 businesses in 2023, many of whom no doubt were forced to shut up shop due to unfavourable economic conditions that years of Labor mismanagement created. I know there are several at Roxburgh Village, Meadow Heights and Greenvale shopping centre and other small manufacturers across Campbellfield and Somerton that have shut up shop because it is too hard to do business in Victoria. But Labor does not care. What do they seek to do? They seek to provide savings of $3.66. Like, really. They can do a lot better to support economic activity, to support people who have a go, to support those 74 per cent of new migrants that start a small business to make things easier for them – but no, their only solution is increasing red tape, higher energy costs and higher taxes. That is no solution for Victoria. Victorians are doing it really tough. People like Rudi and Letty and Philmart Asian Groceries in Roxburgh Village – they are doing it really tough. People are doing it really tough with this government’s cost-of-living crisis and deserve better than this Labor government. According to Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s Cost and Ease of Doing Business in Victoria report, Victoria is perceived as the most expensive place to do business. In fact it is the most expensive place to do business – we know that. We know that just through speaking to businesses in our electorate. We know that just through speaking to people that are trying to start a small business. The government is not giving them the tools or the regulatory environment to make that easier.

I know many businesses across the north – in Broadmeadows and up in Wallan, Beveridge as well as Greenvale – that have had to let go permanent employees and casual employees and have family members working in the business. They only do that because of increased costs – increased energy costs and increased taxes – like at Roxburgh Village where the landlord has passed on the increase in land tax directly to those small businesses.

The Treasurer’s intention with the COVID credit card levy is to charge it to people who can afford to pay, but he clearly does not know anything about economics and does not know anything about the fact that all of these investors will seek to get a return and seek to pass on what they lose. The average property investor in Victoria, who rents out one household, owns one additional property, earns between $100,000 and $120,000 a year. But this Labor government thinks that that is the top end of town. They love taxing them more and think they are a piggy bank. But I know many across my electorate that have sold up. They have sold up and another person has bought that house – and good on them for achieving the great Australian dream – but that home is no longer on the rental market. We know we have a rental availability crisis in Victoria, but the government’s decisions just in the last year have made it harder for people. They have made it harder for renters, they have made it harder for investors and they have made it harder for small and medium businesses. They have made it really hard, and this bill goes absolutely nowhere near fixing these issues.

Part 8 of the bill removes the present requirement for the Essential Services Commission to serve price determination notices to all commercial passenger services. It does not remove the requirement for the Essential Services Commission to provide these determinations to any regulated entity that requests them. This bill also ends an existing requirement that forces the Essential Services Commission to publish the entire codes of practice. Now it is changed within the codes, and the Government Gazette will replace that with the requirement to publish them on the website of the Essential Services Commission. Both seem like common sense.

It does address some recommendations which came out of the Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiry into the closure of I Cook Foods. The coalition is pleased to finally see some action on this front. I know the Leader of the Opposition in the Council Ms Crozier will be particularly pleased, given how incredibly hard she worked on that committee inquiry as well as subsequently to pursue what was one of the most egregious persecutions of a small business and miscarriage of justice in the history of the state.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: A disgraceful episode in our state’s history. We are pleased to finally be seeing some action on that. The Liberal–Nationals coalition is committed to regulatory reform to reduce red tape, enhance productivity and improve efficiencies across Victoria for people. I was saying this earlier in the Service Victoria Amendment Bill 2023 debate. This government is focused on a bureaucracy-first approach – whatever works best for the bureaucracy, whatever works best for Labor – and it needs to have a customer-first approach, a Victorian-first approach, to government services. As I said earlier, we know that during the pandemic while Victoria was using pens, paper and fax machines, New South Wales was using instant access technology, QR code technology and instant delivery of contact tracing data so that they could detect and trace cases of COVID and notify, within an hour or hours, of cases. Victorians were being notified that they had been in contact with someone who had COVID after they had already finished having COVID. Thanks, government; thanks, Labor. But this is the kind of technology we are forced to deal with.

The government cannot even get a mail merge right, with the digital drivers licence. They sent an email to 44,000 people in Ballarat. They got the names wrong and exposed data to people that did not need that data, and the Treasurer was forced to apologise. They cannot even get a mail merge right, because they are not focused on Victorians. They are not focused on easing the regulatory burden that businesses face, which I know businesses face, across the state. They are not focused on putting downward pressure on energy costs. I know many large manufacturers, particularly in the beverage industry, which is big in my electorate, in Broadmeadows and Campbellfield are really struggling with increased energy costs. For all the talk and gripe we hear on that side about manufacturing, we see nothing in regard to support for those businesses with the pressures that they are facing. In fact Labor only makes it harder for those businesses to keep their doors open and employ people in manufacturing in Victoria.

As I said, in a past life I was a proud adviser in the Abbott government, and those red tape repeal days were really important. We did not just, like Labor wants to do, invite departments to submit minor and technical arrangements. We forced them to provide substantial red tape reductions for all Australians, which resulted in I think over $20 billion in savings to businesses across Australia, whereas this government seems content with just inviting – you know, a ‘please, kindly; thank you’. I would be interested to know how many departments actually participated. There is clearly more to do on this front.

I would love for us to have our own red tape repeal day, where we spend an entire day up here, maybe even an entire week, repealing things and easing the pressure of doing business for small businesses across this state. That would be a logical step to take. This government seems content with providing every business with $3.66 in savings. All the businesses that are doing it tough down Gippsland way I am sure would be absolutely stoked that they are receiving $3.66 in savings while they are having to empty all their refrigerators because of blackouts – the same for those up in Berwick and across the state.

Even in my electorate, in Wallan, people were left in the dark for almost 24 hours. I am sure those businesses will be comforted to know that the government is providing them with $3.66 in savings as a result of this bill. I mean, talk about the wrong priorities. Again, it goes some way to reducing red tape, but not nearly far enough. If Labor seems content with this kind of approach, it does not deserve to represent Victorians that are doing it tough – Victorians like Rudi and Letty at Philmart Asian Groceries, who are really struggling due to the increased land tax, due directly to decisions this government has made. We need to ease the cost of doing business in this state. We need to make Victoria an attractive place to invest. That is why my colleague in the other place the Shadow Treasurer Brad Rowswell and the Liberal–Nationals economic team have actually launched a tax discussion paper – so that we can have these conversations. We are out there speaking to businesses. I know the Shadow Treasurer held a forum with me last week at Greenvale Recreation Centre with several local businesses, who all talked about how tough it is to do business at the moment. He also came up last year to the town of Wallan, an outer suburban suburb. It used to be a regional town, but it has quite exploded in population. Of course the government is not delivering on anything in the town of Wallan. We had a really good discussion with local businesses about the next steps, about our approach to tax reform and about our approach to taking small businesses on the journey with us. The government is very good at listening to bureaucrats and the government has come up with this bill that does really very little. We are actually out there listening to businesses. The government would do well to do a bit more of that, to actually get out there and listen to businesses about the cost of doing business – listen to businesses like Mr Thomastown Dry Cleaners and listen to businesses like Philmart Asian Groceries. The government would do well to actually listen to the people they purport to represent, because they are not doing a very good job of representing them right now. They are not doing a very good job at all.

When you have 7600 business closures in one year, that is a pretty bad report card. That shows you something is going wrong, because those 7600 businesses are not just pieces of economic data. They are families who have mortgaged for their small business. They are families in my electorate and all of my colleagues’ electorates, and this government does not care about them. This government just thinks they are economic data on the map and maybe it will get better next year. It will not, especially with the effort the government has put into this bill. We are not opposing this bill, but the government could do a whole lot better.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:17): I am pleased to be contributing to the debate surrounding the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2023. This bill is yet another episode of the Allan Labor government’s exemplary reform agenda in regard to regulation. This is the second regulatory reform omnibus bill that the government has brought to this place. These reform bills also address the need for modernisation across the regulatory schemes and bodies. This one addresses a broad range of matters requiring reform from food industry regulation to technology neutrality.

I would like to touch on some of the rhetoric we have been hearing about the bill from those across the other side. They say this bill is not good enough for business and that it is not enough for business. Frankly, I reject this. It is categorically untrue. I will speak later in my contribution on the nature of the Allan Labor government’s reform and continuous amending of legislation, but until then I will just say this: this government’s commitment to business is plain to see, and this bill is just one example of the very substantial business and regulation reform agenda. I know those across from me do not like to hear about it, the shocking mismanagement of government across the board, specifically when we remind them of how Kennett absolutely trashed this great state, so I will change it up for them today. The Baillieu–Napthine Liberal government left Victoria’s business regulations in an absolute mess under the guise of what they dubbed the so-called ‘cutting of red tape’. The Baillieu–Napthine Liberal government brutalised without discrimination a chunk of Victoria’s essential business regulations and protections. When Dan Andrews succeeded Napthine in 2014 the regulatory bodies were crippled. The Liberal government had claimed that they would be making interactions with regulatory bodies and bureaucracies easier, but the shocking state they left Victoria’s regulatory system in only served to remove protections and safeguards from small business.

It is this government that after inheriting the Baillieu–Napthine mess has streamlined, modernised and improved not just business regulations but countless other regulatory bodies that affect everyday life. Furthermore, these reforms to regulate do not leave small businesses and consumers worse off or more vulnerable, unlike the Baillieu–Napthine free-for-all, which did. Considering their track record, I do not think they have much right to say we are not doing enough for business.

This government is one that cares about small businesses, and luckily, the small businesses of Victoria have an exceptional minister in charge of the department designed to serve them. My good friend in the other place Minister Suleyman is passionate in her work and advocacy for small businesses. The minister has done a lot in her time as Minister for Small Business. Just last year she launched the second round of the mental wellbeing of business communities grants. The mental wellbeing of business communities grants were initially launched to empower business communities and collectives to seek training and support for their mental health. This is because we know how tough it is running a business and how vulnerable you can be. It is important that every business owner is able to ensure that their health and wellbeing is looked after.

It was also under Minister Suleyman that we saw the launch of Made by Many Minds, a digital platform designed by migrant women in business for the express purpose of connecting multicultural women in business. Thanks to the hard work of the women who established it, it was developed with the help of a $150,000 grant from the Allan Labor government. Created for members of Migrant Women in Business, Made By Many Minds provides them with access to information and services from legal to merchandising to improve the functioning of their businesses. It is heartening to see multicultural women, one of the most disadvantaged cohorts in business, coming together to uplift each other, and I am proud to be a member of a government that believes in the interests of these women. Clearly anybody can see Victoria’s Minister for Small Business is passionate about her work and that Victorian small businesses are certainly in good hands.

This government has delivered record investment and groundbreaking reforms for our beloved small businesses. To say that this government does nothing for small business is out and out just not true. The bill introduces reforms that will modernise and improve not just regulations surrounding small businesses in Victoria but much more. In all it introduces 54 amendments to a net 14 acts in total across 10 ministerial portfolios. The reforms that affect businesses are broad and wide reaching.

The bill could be approached by breaking it down into multiple sections defined by objectives. The first and primary objective seeks to slim down the regulatory requirements imposed on Victorian businesses and social services. Of course this is to be executed without sacrificing the protections that the regulations provide against the risk and harm. This includes a myriad of changes, including the following outlined amendments. There are amendments to allow the Secretary of the Department of Health to authorise a class of entity for medicines that will be achieved by reforming the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981. After section 20 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 the bill will amend the act to include new section 20A, which will provide the act with a mechanism allowing the secretary authority to grant a class approval for entities. ‘Entity’ is defined as an entity belonging to a class that participates in activities involved in the manufacture, sale, supply, administration or use of schedule 2, 3, 4, 7 or 8 poisons or a controlled substance. The act seeks to allow the health secretary to grant class approval to these entities, which may otherwise require licences, permits and warrants. Currently entities must deal with medicines where it is appropriate without posing a risk. The introduction of this mechanism will largely improve services that require this practice. This will largely improve the functioning of many different services, like residential aged care facilities, that currently require the acquisition of a permit. Of course the bill accounts for risk management, requiring the health secretary to be responsible for risk assessments prior to class approval being issued and subsequent provisions to be outlined for services. Entities will also be held accountable for the appropriate acts that outline the standards for S medicines, administration, storage, recording and so on.

This bill introduces many amendments to the Meat Industry Act 1993. Firstly, it seeks to account for the sale of dried meat online. The act from 1993 did not account for the sale of food goods online and does not apply to the sale of dried meat online. This bill will clarify this but affirm that the sale of dried meat online is regulated by the Food Act 1984. Another amendment relating to the Meat Industry Act 1993 concurrently amends the Seafood Safety Act 2003 to streamline licensing to be more reflective of the fact that refrigerated vehicles are often used to transport different kinds of commodities, such as meat and seafood. This is for the purpose of lowering the time it takes for businesses to employ the operation and get it up and running.

The bill is further amending the Meat Industry Act 1993 to remove the requirement for poultry and game processing facilities to provide information to PrimeSafe that the organisation does not need. PrimeSafe is, for those that do not know, Victoria’s state authority on regulation and safety for the consumption of meats, poultry, seafood and even pet food. It is important that PrimeSafe has access to businesses’ information for general public safety, and there is presently duplication within information-gathering requirements. The bill seeks to remedy that, updating Commonwealth and Victorian licensee requirements to be more up to date with what is required to achieve the goals of licensing. The bill also amends the laws relating to PrimeSafe, specifically removing the requirement for PrimeSafe to refuse a licence for vehicle-based meat processing facilities where an application is consistent with planning schemes.

The bill also makes amendments to remove requirements for casino special employee licence applicants to provide evidence of former employment that is not relevant to the industry. This will be achieved through the amendments to the Casino Control Act 1991. Furthermore, it will enable the streamlining of mandatory notifications by registered social service providers to the social services regulator for improved functions of our state’s social service providers. Finally, the bill will ensure that the Secretary of the Department of Health and local councils are adequately able to direct the business to undertake improvements to an inadequate food safety program.

To summarise the first set of reforms, they are each examples of reforms that streamline and modernise our regulatory bodies without leaving consumers out in the cold or endangering community health and wellbeing. This is classic Allan Labor government style reform, and in no way is it insignificant.

The second objective of this bill is in relation to the improvement of emergency preparedness. This will be achieved by explicitly introducing the ability of the Environment Protection Authority Victoria to manage and deal with waste management, transportation and removal in case of temporary emergency. Additionally, the bill will enable the EPA to provide temporary relief for public nuisance or a community hardship. Finally, with this bill the EPA will be able to commission, repair, decommission or even dismantle any plant or equipment. These three amendments will ensure that in case of emergencies the EPA is able to impose appropriate regulatory requirements for the transportation of hazardous waste. These emergency situations may include fires, floods or even animal disease situations. This will expand to promote community safety and ultimately protect the broader community.

The third and final objective of this bill is the establishment of clarity within several acts for the support of technology-neutral legislation. Technology neutrality in this case refers to ensuring that legislation does not bias or discriminate in favour of any specific technology as it seeks to achieve its objective. The bill seeks to achieve this in several ways within Victoria’s regulation and legislation by amending three acts, the Gambling Regulation Act 2003, Food Act 1984 and Meat Industry Act 1993. Under amendments to the Gambling Regulation Act 2003, keno licensees will be given the ability to authorise the remote access use of keno systems. This will bring keno providers into the 21st century here in Victoria. Amendments are also made to allow for more effective approval processes in applying for linked jackpot machines. Additionally, the bill will update the notice requirements outlined in the relevant acts so as to modernise reporting requirements. This will include the allowing of electronic transmission and also publication of closure orders. This is achieved by amending the Food Act 1984 in response to the recommendations in the findings of the parliamentary inquiry into the closure of I Cook Foods Pty Ltd. The amendment also stipulate that closure orders may be issued via email. The final measure to achieve technology neutrality amends the Meat Industry Act 1993 to outline that the delegation of the chief executive officer of PrimeSafe will occur through electronic communication processes as opposed to under common seal, bringing the practices in line with modern government practices.

The bill also includes simple and non-controversial amendments to various acts for means of ensuring that reform systems are efficient and effective. These amendments will improve the strength of our state regulatory system like the three objectives previously outlined, modernising and improving regulatory requirements for businesses and social services that have the potential to act as a barrier for the smooth functioning of a business without sacrificing community or consumer protections, enabling the Environment Protection Authority to oversee waste management in the case of a temporary emergency or other measures that improve community health and safety and supporting technology-neutral legislation. Amended acts include the Essential Services Commission Act 2001, the Regional Development Victoria Act 2002, the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, the Sale of Land Act 1962, the Land (Goonawarra Golf Course) Act 1988, the Food Act 1984, the Meat Industry Act 1993, the Seafood Safety Act 2003, the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005, the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 and the Monetary Units Act 2004.

Finally, I will add that the amendments included in this bill are expected to provide Victoria with a benefit of up to $2.6 million a year, mostly accounted for by the sheer amount of time that it will save businesses in following regulatory measures. It is only the Allan Labor government that will provide businesses with this kind of support, thanks to the strong business reform agenda.

I would like to acknowledge something about this bill that Minister Pearson in the other place noted in his second-reading speech on the bill. Minister Pearson noted that this, like many other Allan Labor government reforms, is an exercise in fine-tuning legislation. As with many other regulatory omnibus bills, we have introduced a collaborative effort across portfolios and departments to improve the functioning of our state’s broad-ranging regulatory measures and bodies. These continuous efforts of simple and straightforward reformation are essential to ensuring a smooth, functioning system of regulations. This is a highly effective means of actualising the Allan Labor government’s vision to create a regulatory system that not only makes business easy in Victoria but also promotes to the highest degree community safety, consumer protection and environmental health and safety. Government is not an episodic job but an ongoing responsibility that requires constant care and attention, just as the latest regulatory omnibus bill provides. I am proud to be a member of a government that recognises this and incorporates it into its practices. Ultimately Victoria is better off under the practices and the legislative habits of the Allan Labor government. Victoria will continue to benefit from a government that holds a close eye to examining what it can change to improve the lives of everyday Victorians, both business owners and consumers.

In summary, I would like to reaffirm that the bill will reintroduce effective regulatory change to many facets of Victorian businesses in everyday life. I commend the efforts of the 10 relevant ministers, including my good friend in the other place the Minister for Small Business Minister Suleyman. I would also like to acknowledge this state’s hardworking business owners. They are the backbone of our community, and I am sure I speak for everyone on this side of the house when I say that we are forever grateful for their contribution and will always be in their corner. I commend the bill to the house.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): At this point I would also like to acknowledge the presence of a former member in the gallery Mr Philip Davis.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:32): I rise to speak to the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2023. I know that my colleague Mr Mulholland has gone through in detail what this bill is about and explained that it is a piece of omnibus legislation that seeks to amend 14 acts across 10 different portfolios. This is largely technical in nature; it is just looking at various aspects that different portfolios are affected by and then getting the department secretaries to have a look at those issues and really streamline and fix up some of the issues that have come to their attention. Therefore these are not substantive changes. The large majority of the amendments are aimed at streamlining requirements or rectifying specific instances where current acts’ provisions are not working as intended or have become impractical. I think that is a good thing. You need to be looking at legislation. You need to be looking at reviewing what is required and understand that at times various pieces of legislation do need to be tweaked or amended so that you can have that streamlining effect. A couple of years ago, in 2022, the Parliament passed a similar omnibus-type bill around regulatory reform, and it was still looking at some pieces of legislation. Like that bill, this one brings together some of those technical elements.

The government itself has outlined that there are four main objectives to the bill. They are, one, to modernise and streamline requirements for business and social service providers without compromising the effective management of harms. I want to come back to that, as my colleague in the other place Ms Wilson so eloquently spoke about the issues. Mr Mulholland has pointed out the many issues facing small business around red tape and regulation and the actual impacts. The savings the government claims this bill will provide are in actual fact quite immaterial, and I will come back to that. The second point is to improve emergency preparedness, and of course this has been at the forefront for all Victorians with the devastating effects of fires and storms last week, knocking out power. There are still thousands of Victorians without power, and it is having a massive impact on their ability certainly to manage their businesses but also their day-to-day living. To support technology-neutral legislation and make simple and non-controversial amendments to support an effective and efficient regulatory system through amendments to a variety of acts – those are the main aims of this bill.

I want to go back to what Mr Mulholland said around business and red tape and the streamlining that we need to do. He, like Ms Wilson, made the point that if you look at what is actually occurring in Victoria, which is of huge concern when you have got the likes of the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry speaking about confidence and about the numbers of small businesses that are leaving or –

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, they should care, Mr Mulholland, because small business is the heart of our economy. They really are the engine room of what we need to do.

To provide services to the general Victorian community, you have to have taxation. Money does not grow on trees, but this government love to spend and they love to tax. They claim that this bill will have a grand total saving for small business of $2.6 million in annual savings. As has been highlighted, Ms Wilson through the bill briefing really questioned the department officials on that and said, ‘What will that mean? What does that look like for business?’ As has been mentioned, it comes down to a total amount of $3.66 in savings per business per year. So there is nothing for this government to crow about with what they are doing to support small business when it is $3.66. That does not even equate to a cup of coffee, as was highlighted before by Mr Mulholland. That is when businesses are being slugged with WorkCover costs, premiums are skyrocketing and that has been disgracefully allowed to go on and on where businesses are absolutely being smashed through WorkCover premium increases. It is not 42 per cent, as the government claims; for the most part it is up around 70 to 80 per cent. They are absolutely being smashed.

Payroll tax – I have said time and time again in this house: why on earth would the government be applying a payroll tax to GP clinics? They are effectively a small business. They are providing a necessary, vital service, an essential service in our communities, yet this government is going to apply a payroll tax. Well, what is that going to do? It is going to end bulk-billing. The cost to patients will be $100 per visit to the GP, so every time a Victorian needs to take their family member or themselves to a GP it will cost them $100 a visit, and that is as a result of the government’s payroll tax. Those small businesses do not make a huge living, and I do not know what is wrong with the government if they think GPs are the top end of town. Maybe they should go and speak to some of their mates that they have done deals with and made a fortune for over recent years. They are at the top end of town, they are mates of Labor, not these hardworking small businesses. GPs, as I said – end of bulk-billing, closure of clinics, and what will that mean? Millions of Victorians will flood into our already overstretched emergency departments.

It is the most stupid decision by government to be taxing health. Not only is this health tax a tax on GPs, it is a tax on patients, and I cannot stress that enough. I keep saying the government must reverse their decision. It will have rolling implications for our health system, which is trying to get back from where it was – it was smashed through COVID and it is still recovering – and the outcomes for Victorian patients are not getting any better, they are getting worse. I said through COVID, if you shut off and stop elective surgery, then Victorians will get sicker – and they have. If you prevent them from going and getting their primary care, they will not have the ability to have that primary care and their conditions will worsen – and they have. And then you have got those ongoing implications for so many people that are just struggling to get the basics, to get their elective surgery done, and those wait times are still massive. Despite all the grandstanding by the government, we had a reduction of just 800 people in the waitlist. But there is a hidden waitlist, and that is getting bigger and longer.

I have digressed a little bit, but it is important to understand that those GP clinics are small businesses too, and they need the support. Whether it is WorkCover premiums across the state, whether it is payroll tax, whether it is utility costs – that is the thing that this government does not understand either: running a business, having overheads, whether it is rent, whether it is utility costs, whether it is salaries and wages or whether it is these insidious taxes that are being applied by the Labor government, all put pressure on businesses, and it is so hard to do business here in Victoria as a result. We need to reverse that. Labor has no plans to do that. It is only the Liberals and Nationals that understand and have a plan to do that, and that is looking at some of these taxes, as I said. For God’s sake, do not put a health tax on patients.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: We are not going to apply it, Mr Batchelor. You should go to your Treasurer, your minister and your Premier –

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Order! Do not debate across the table.

Georgie CROZIER: Through you, Acting President –

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Ms Crozier, get back to the topic, please.

Georgie CROZIER: Through you, Acting President, I am taking up the interjection. Mr Batchelor asked me if we would reverse it. We would never put such a stupid tax on in the first place. I have just outlined why, through you, Acting President –

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Order!

Georgie CROZIER: I think it is important that Mr Batchelor understands the cost to small business, and GP clinics are small businesses largely. You guys do not get it. You have not got a clue about the implications. I suggest that you all go and speak to your Minister for Health, the Treasurer and the Premier and lobby them to stop applying the health tax.

To get back to the bill: as I said, $2.6 million in savings for small business – what a joke. What a joke. Do something that will actually make a difference, for God’s sake.

The other part of the bill I want to go to in the time I have left is around amending the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 to create a mechanism whereby the Secretary of the Department of Health can authorise a class of entity to obtain, possess and store medicines. Under this amendment the secretary will be required to conduct a risk assessment, and authorised entities will be required to comply with existing provisions relating to storage, record keeping, access and administration. I do not have a huge issue with that, although we need to obviously keep an eye on things in relation to what is going on in the Department of Health.

I want to get to the food and safety aspect of the bill, because it actually goes to the heart of an inquiry that Mr Mulholland mentioned and that I was involved with – the I Cook Foods closure. We did not have just one inquiry in this state about the disgraceful way this business was treated, we had two inquiries undertaken by this Parliament. This bill goes to one of the recommendations, recommendation 10:

That the Food Act 1984 be amended to allow for the addition of electronic transmission and publication of closure orders.

What we found through the inquiry was the shocking way that that matter was handled, undertaken by the then acting chief health officer Dr Sutton. The way that business was treated and the lack of integrity –

A member interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: No, he did not. He actually ballsed it up. That is why we made the recommendation, and that is why your government has put it in the bill.

Sonja Terpstra interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: He did not. He actually did not do it properly, and the inquiry found that. In fact he misled the inquiry, Ms Terpstra – through you, Acting President.

Sonja Terpstra interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: He did. I am not making it up. He actually came back. It is written in this report, where he said that I Cook Foods were the sole suppliers of Knox Private Hospital. It was completely misleading a parliamentary inquiry. He came back and corrected the record, so I would ask you to just understand exactly what went on, Ms Terpstra. He made some assertions in his evidence. It is in this report. Ian Cook and his family and those 40-odd employees lost their jobs through the absolutely disgraceful way they were treated, and I might say that for the woman in question, the results we were provided by Dr Sutton were not actually true and accurate. In fact, Mrs Painter was 38 kilos and 180 centimetres tall, and she went into that hospital in a very poor condition. We never got all of the results in our inquiry. There were many things that were kept from that inquiry, and I have to say that there were so many issues that arose out of the mishandling by the department of health and Dr Sutton at the time.

I want to commend Ian Cook, Ben Cook and their families for the tremendous efforts that they have made to correct the wrongs that occurred because of the department of health. As a result, we are debating this legislation today which goes to one of those recommendations. It goes to recommendation 10 and refers to recommendation 13, and it looks at amending the Food Act 1984 to reflect the modernisation of communication and reporting to support the timely completion of reporting. They were the findings of this report of the inquiry. That is the recommendation, and that is what this legislation is addressing. So to say it was all wrong is absolute baloney. I say again, the Cooks and the way they have been handled I think is one of the most shameful periods – I have said it before – in this state’s history in relation to what they were subjected to. The loss of jobs by those people in that business and the findings – I mean, Mrs Painter when she died did not have listeria in her system. The post-mortem showed that. There were a whole range of issues, and yet this government spent millions of dollars in legal fees to fight the case. I commend the Cooks, and with those words I will conclude my contribution there.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:47): I am pleased to rise and continue the debate on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2023. The bill seeks to make a range of amendments to Victoria’s regulatory framework. It is the second of a regular series of omnibus bills on regulatory reform that the government has brought in, showing, I think, that the government takes a sensible and considered approach to ensuring that the suite of regulations that exist in Victoria are continuously monitored, that their application is thoughtfully considered, and that where those regulations can be improved the government through this legislation and legislation like it takes steps to improve the burdens – some may call them burdens – that exist or the rules to ensure safety and public health and good order, as others may.

In the range of amendments that are before us today, there is a range of 54 amendments that are being made across 14 acts across 10 different ministerial portfolios with three to four key objectives. The first of those key objectives is to modernise and streamline regulatory requirements for businesses but also for social services. We know that it is not just businesses in Victoria that are subject to regulation – a range of service providers also have various rules that apply to them. Another suite of the amendments will support emergency preparedness, and the last substantive group of amendments is to ensure technology neutrality.

The development of this legislation has occurred following a range of considered consultation and feedback across a range of portfolios with a range of stakeholders, businesses, regulators and social service providers who are affected by a range of current regulatory frameworks. The objectives of these changes, in the broadest sense, are to ensure an appropriate regulatory set of arrangements that are focused on outcomes for those who use those services or the products that those services provide and, I think most critically and importantly for a regulatory framework, that are looking at enhancing safety and public health, because that is ultimately what our regulatory frameworks are designed to do. It is also an important, if unglamorous, task often to be involved in the process of statutory law reform to keep legislation up to date with emergent and currently used technologies.

The way the bill seeks to modernise and streamline requirements for businesses and social service providers will be done in a number of ways, but overarchingly I think it is important to say that when we go about the task of regulatory reform, we do so not with some slavish devotion to attacking the bogeyperson of red tape, because fundamentally what some call red tape is what is protecting people in our community from certain harms. There are some who, in their slavish devotion to the ideological pursuit of attacking red tape, would seek to inflict further harm on communities by reducing those checks and balances and those requirements that exist, whether they be health or environmental regulations – they are just two such measures – and are designed to promote and support public safety.

The consequence when we do not have the systems that we need to protect public safety, the consequence that exists when our regulatory frameworks are probably not being monitored as effectively as they could be, is that we do not have enough scrutiny on businesses that are providing goods and services to the community. That means that occasionally, if those things are not up to scratch, you end up with the kind of situation and circumstance that is scaring families right across suburban Sydney, for example, where due to a breakdown in the way that important regulations have been adhered to and monitored, you have got asbestos being mixed with playground mulch in schools and in parks, and those places are being shut down and people are being unable to use them because they are rightly concerned that fibrous asbestos that gives people mesothelioma is not the kind of substance that we should be including in mulched material, for example.

The framework that exists and the environmental protections that exist in the state of New South Wales to try and keep asbestos out of mulch and asbestos out of playgrounds in schools are exactly the kinds of regulations that are put in place, whether they be health or whether they be environmental, to help keep our community safe. So when people routinely in this chamber or in other forums get up and blithely rant about the burden of red tape on our community, those are the sorts of regulations that some call red tape and others call necessary components of public safety. If you want to go and attack the kinds of environmental regulations that stop asbestos being put in mulch, please stand up and do so, but you are not going to see that from us on this side of the house, because what we are interested in is taking a considered approach to regulatory reform, which is what this legislation before us does. It streamlines where we can, improves practice where we can and looks at updating regulatory and technological issues to make sure that they are modernised with current practice. But it is not something that we get up and celebrate by having what some in other places have called burning a bonfire of red tape. That is not the kind of approach that you will see from this government, because we do take a considered approach to looking at regulatory reform. We are conscientious, we are meticulous and we go through each of various provisions with stakeholders and do it in a responsible way. That is why you get better results. If you have a slavish way with a sort of –

Sonja Terpstra: Ideological.

Ryan BATCHELOR: ideological haze as you cut through important protections for our community, then you run the risk of putting people at further risk, of exposing them to harm, and that is not something that I think any of us in good conscience should pursue.

As an example of what this legislation will do, in one instance it will seek to streamline the operation for businesses under the Meat Industry Act 1993, which means that the regulatory burden for businesses selling dried meat online will be reduced, without creating any greater risk to food safety or from an animal welfare perspective, ensuring that instead of being caught under the Meat Industry Act those will be regulated under the Food Act 1984. Additionally, the bill is going to streamline licence requirements to recognise that refrigerated vehicles are often used to transport multiple commodities such as meat and seafood. In an industry like agriculture, the food production sector, which is so critically important to the Victorian economy – I think last sitting week I talked about how they are employing nearly 150,000 Victorians in the broader food industries – these are the sorts of sensible approaches that we want to see to regulatory reform, not the ones that would expose Victorians to unnecessary harm that would arise as a result of taking an alternative approach.

In relation to emergency preparedness, which is one of the other themes of the bill, there are amendments proposed to the Environment Protection Act 2017, which will seek to enable the Environment Protection Authority to authorise the transportation of waste in an emergency situation. Obviously too many communities, in the last week in particular, have understood why we need to make sure that things like our preparedness for emergency response and recovery are as effective as they can be. The legislation, the bill before us today, will improve the EPA’s response to an emergency animal disease situation, floods and fires. We know that with natural disasters, particularly certain types of natural disasters, livestock animals are unfortunately killed. There are circumstances where carcasses need to be transported to prevent the spread of different or further diseases. The legislation before us will give the EPA better capacity, from a regulatory point of view, to undertake the necessary response to the harm caused from natural disasters and to be better equipped and prepared to act in an emergency context – again, part of the sensible, considered changes that the government, through its efforts on regulatory reform, seeks to make.

The third thing I will mention very briefly is the objective to support technology-neutral legislation. Obviously whilst this Parliament, as it has demonstrated on many occasions, is a dynamic and spontaneous place, sometimes the legislation that we pass may sit on the statute books for many years, and when certain provisions are written into legislation to govern the sets of circumstances that might exist at a particular point in time, often the world moves on faster than we bring that legislation up to date. Part of the legislative reform that this bill is taking seeks to improve the technology-neutral aspects of certain legislation. For example, keno licensees will be able to authorise remote access to keno systems under amendments to the Gambling Regulation Act 2003. It will better facilitate Victoria’s 450 keno outlets remaining appropriately regulated while minimising operational burden. So we see that that there are a range of things that we can do in various parts of this regulation to ensure that legislation and legislative frameworks remain technologically neutral.

We think the bill provides a range of simple and uncontroversial amendments to support an effective and efficient regulatory system through a range of alterations to a variety of acts. This is important to the broader Victorian economy, and by modernising these legislative frameworks Victorians can know that this government is taking a sensible and considered approach to having both an appropriate regulatory burden and regulatory arrangements and also a range of protections in place. With that I conclude these remarks.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (18:00): I move:

That debate on this bill be adjourned until the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until next day of meeting.