Thursday, 15 May 2025

Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Gayle Tierney:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (23:11): We have had the warm-up act this evening, and we are the support act. I thought it was a warm-up, and now we are on to the main event, the main course, with whatever delectable delights on the smorgasbord of regulatory reform that awaits us in what is the government’s third regulatory legislation amendment reform bill – bills that the government brings before the Parliament from time to time –

Harriet Shing interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: because it gets better with age. That is right. It is very late, isn’t it? They are important because they help the continuous process of making sure that various parts of our regulatory system are upgraded, updated or amended to ensure that they are delivering on their stated purposes and to fix various errors.

There are some who spend a lot of their time decrying things like government regulation; I am not one of those. I think that in many respects the way that government regulation is used does the things that keep our community safe. It does the things that keep updated the parts of the functioning of our administrative state that enable us to live our lives healthier, safer and freer and that make them less confusing and less inefficient. I think that it is too easy in politics sometimes to criticise red tape and to criticise various forms of regulation, but I think you will see in the regulatory reform bill that is before us today that regulatory changes can have a significant, serious and real impact on people’s lives, and there are a few of the changes that are located in the regulatory legislation amendment reform bill today that will do just that.

Part of the task is to remove some redundant provisions and reporting notifications to help streamline administration. Another is to make what appear to be small and technical amendments but that can have really positive consequences. I want to come particularly to the provisions that are being amended in the Adoption Act 1984 that will do just that. But there are further amendments that are being made here by this bill, principally to things like the Domestic Animals Act 1994, which will empower councils to keep better data on the location of dangerous dogs. There will be some amendments made to the Environment Protection Act 2017 to make it quicker and easier for businesses to do the right thing and to be refunded financial assurances paid to the EPA. And there are some amendments to the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 to protect commercially sensitive information provided by licence holders to their work plans. So you can see across this that there are a range of areas in a range of settings that will provide a range of benefits. The one I want to spend a little bit of time talking about at the start of the speech is the changes that are being made to the Adoption Act. The amendments to the Adoption Act 1984 contained in this bill will allow the secretary to comply with a court order to produce documents in court proceedings or in royal commission proceedings, which is not currently permitted. The bill will allow natural relatives to access identifying information about adopted persons so they can be reunited.

The reason why I think this is particularly important is that it will particularly help families who have been impacted by forced adoptions, including members of the stolen generations, to connect with their biological families, for many of them a fundamental human need has been denied to them through no fault of their own. This Parliament and other parliaments in the last 20 years have spent a deal of time uncovering the stories of the stolen generations and those who have been subject to forced adoptions. The stories that we have heard have been harrowing about the experiences of individuals who were forcibly adopted. I know in work I have done previously when I was working supporting members of the Commonwealth Parliament and the Commonwealth minister for families, we spent a great deal of our time both supporting members of the stolen generations and also supporting those Australians known as forgotten Australians, care leavers and others who were forcibly adopted out. Through the various inquiries that have been conducted by parliaments both here and in Canberra, we know that many, many children who were forcibly adopted in the course of our history have been left with very little connection to their biological family. They have been left with very little sense of who their family are. That has had, for many, serious, profound and long-lasting consequences that have been with them for all of their lives. Some only learn the identity of their family after those family members have died, and they are truly anguishing sets of circumstances.

What this bill seeks to do in making these amendments to the Adoption Act is to try and make a small change that can make a real and significant difference to those individuals by providing them with the capacity under the law to have greater access to information about their biological family. We know that there are sections of the Adoption Act that restrict access to adoption records. The advice that the government has received from counsel is that these provisions prevent the relevant secretary from complying with compulsory processes for the production of documents in the context of civil proceedings: producing documents pursuant to consent orders, including for early discovery and the inspection of documents by a party following discovery or in response to a subpoena. It has also prevented the secretary from complying with a notice to produce from a royal commission. We know that in recent civil litigation historical forced adoptions have highlighted that the restrictions imposed by the Adoption Act, as interpreted in recent legal proceedings, are preventing the secretary from disclosing adoption information even in response to a court order or a subpoena. That restriction is impeding the administration of justice in the broadest terms but also impeding the individuals affected in their quests both to claim justice and to find out more about who their family is. These changes that are being made here, with respect to adoptions and forced adoptions, will give the relevant secretary the authority to comply with those proceedings, and that will have significant benefits for those and not frustrate those civil court proceedings and not hinder the administration of justice.

The other purpose of some of the other changes is to support natural relatives of adopted persons receiving identifying information for the purposes of reunification, and that will help these people, as I said, who have often, through forced adoption practices, lost all connection to their relatives. So I think my purpose in going into this in some detail is to demonstrate that often those areas of our legislative agenda, our legislative program, that may on the face of it appear to be about drier topics – regulatory reform – actually have significant and real impacts on people’s lives.

There are a range of other changes brought forth in the bill. There are changes to the Domestic Animals Act with respect to the requirements around notifications to local government authorities about particularly dangerous dog breeds. We know that there are, for good purposes relating to community safety, public safety and the safety of individuals in our community, measures in place to ensure that certain breeds of dogs that are regarded as dangerous have to have certain notification provisions put in place so that local councils, as the relevant and responsible authority for the management of these rules, have an understanding about where these animals are at any particular point in time. There have been circumstances where the existing provisions have meant that councils have been unable to keep track in certain circumstances of these dangerous dog breeds, and the changes that are being made here will mean that owners can no longer decline to notify councils of a new address at which the dangerous dog is kept. So that clarity in these regulatory provisions that are being proposed by the bill before us today will expand notification requirements to require owners to notify councils when a dangerous, menacing or restricted breed of dog has been moved, but also when that dog dies, so that the councils will have a much better and more accurate picture of the number and location of dangerous, restricted or menacing breed dogs that exist in their local government area. In particular, this change has been brought about through consultation with local government authorised officers in 2023.

There is also a change to the way that infringement notices for certain types of dog attack offences can be issued so that the penalties associated with owners who do not take proper care and control of their dogs can be done in a way that is more efficient and more effective and does not rely on lengthier and more complex court cases – so replacing these matters being dealt with by a court with being dealt with by infringement officers. There are also some other further changes in the domestic animals section of this, particularly relating to declared bird organisations and requirements on ministers to ensure that our assessments for renewal applications are done within 60 days so that these declared organisations do not lose the continuity of their operations.

There are a range of changes to the Essential Services Commission Act 2001, providing the commission with the power to commence civil penalty proceedings within six years from the date of a contravention. There are a range of other changes to the Environmental Protection Act as well to allow the EPA to charge a business owner where their registered vehicle has been used to illegally dump waste.

This is a series of examples of what, on the face of a bill, on the face of a topic, might seem to be dry, regulatory changes, but they can and will have significant impacts on the everyday lives of Victorians. They are worthy of the consideration of the chamber, and I am happy the government supports them.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (23:26): I rise to speak to the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025 at this late hour of night as we await the Fire Services Property Amendment (Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund) Bill 2025 to come back from the Assembly, which is a devastating result for so many. I have just got text messages as I have been half-listening to Mr Batchelor on this bill, with concerns from people in country Victoria where I grew up about how devastated they are and alerting me that they are all very worried about the CFA going offline. Now I have gone off on a tangent, but I did want to make that point that it is an important bill that we have been debating all day.

But to get back to this bill, this is an omnibus bill, and it largely is looking at making a number of changes. It amends nearly 40 regulations across 16 acts, which cover a number of portfolios, including the areas of child protection, the Attorney-General, environment, agriculture, energy, housing, water and a couple of other areas. The government claims that these changes will contribute to increased economic productivity and make it easier to do business in Victoria, but I just wanted to say that today when I woke up, I was listening to an interview on 3AW. It was with the man who has been quoted in today’s Australian, Angie Romas, and his son Adam, who own a sandblasting business in Dandenong South. He very eloquently went on radio and spoke of the enormous impost of doing business in Victoria and the capacity for him to be able to pay a huge land tax bill. I raise this because of this point in this bill around increased economic productivity and making it easier to do business in Victoria. This bill might proclaim to do this, but there are so many issues that are actually making it so difficult for businesses to be able to do business. The land tax bill that he has been lumbered with has gone from $8700 to over $203,000 in just 10 years. I mean, that hike, that land tax grab, that cash grab again by the Allan Labor government is completely unsustainable.

Businesses cannot do the work they need to do. Economic productivity and doing business in Victoria need to be much better than they are with these tax grabs that are going on, whether it is the bill that we have just spoken about, which is going to absolutely smash farmers and every household and business, or the land tax that he spoke of, which is really very, very significant.

Business generates a stream of taxes that come in, whether it is payroll, GST or land tax. But I want to just quote from Paul Guerra, the chief executive of the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI) – who has done a brilliant job in that role, I might add, and I am sure he will do a brilliant job in his next role heading up Melbourne. Yes, I think he is looking forward to that. But nevertheless, he has been very, very effective in supporting small business and business for the Victorian economy and the state. He said the spike in land tax was:

… pushing costs to unsustainable levels, stalling investment, slowing transactions and choking growth.

Instead of boosting activity, these changes are scaring off new and existing businesses and investors …

I think they are really very important comments from Mr Guerra to just explain what is happening – how land taxes are making it so difficult for business to actually operate. We do want improved and increased economic productivity in this state and we do want to make it easier for business to be able to do what they do, but the government are not doing that in so many areas of their responsibilities. It is quite disgraceful, and it is going to stifle that business growth, stifle investor confidence and drive business out of the state. That is not me saying that; that is the chief executive of VCCI saying that. We need to be giving businesses hope. We need to be giving the economy some confidence. Taxing your way out of a mess, which is what this government is doing, is not the way. They are trying to tax their way out of a mess because they have mismanaged taxpayers money. They have mismanaged it to such a degree that the levels of debt and interest that we are paying are unsustainable at the current rates. So they are trying to claw that back by taxing productivity, and that will stall economic growth.

While this bill makes minor tweaks in various places, and the government says it is to increase economic productivity and make it easier to do business in Victoria, I make those points because I think if the government were really serious about those issues then they would address their increasing desire to tax Victorians to the hilt. In fact they are destroying the state. They are wrecking the state. They are wrecking economic activity. They are wrecking hope, and they are wrecking the ability of this great state to get back on its way. It is going to take years and years and years to pay off this enormous debt that they have incurred.

Mr Batchelor very clearly went through the bill, and he outlined the acts that this bill has an impact on. He spoke about the areas that affect the Attorney-General’s portfolio: the Adoption Act 1984; the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996; the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005; the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Act 2021; the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Act 2003; the Environment Protection Act 2017; the Domestic Animals Act 1994; the Electricity Industry Act 2000; the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990; the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Act 2023; the Essential Services Commission Act 2001; the Housing Act 1983; the Subdivision Act 1988; the Transfer of Land Act 1958; and the Water Act 1989. They are all the acts that this omnibus bill covers. I will not go into a huge detail on all of those various acts, but I do want to point out a few.

I think Mr Batchelor also referenced the area around adoption in part II, division 1, of the Adoption Act 1984. The government wants to implement, as I understand it, the recommendations from the Legal and Social Issues Committee in response to the inquiry into historical forced adoptions in Victoria. That was an important body of work in looking at that very sensitive issue, and it is a very serious and very important issue for many, many people. But it has taken quite some time for the government to even get to that response – over three years. These amendments largely do correlate with the recommendations from the inquiry. They will allow the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety to comply with a court order or subpoena to produce documents in litigation or a compulsory notice from a royal commission to produce documents concerning adoption information, and they will allow the secretary to obtain access to certain adoption-related records from Births, Deaths and Marriages Victoria.

The bill will allow natural relatives, such as siblings of an adopted person, to access identifying information about the adopted person to enable them to identify or contact them. Of course this is I think the most important part, because that allows siblings and families to be able to be reunited. If they had been separated through adoption, then that does give them the ability to have that information be passed through and be identified so that those reunifications can occur. I do think that is important for those that have been through that process, and I think that is a particularly important part of this bill, and Mr Batchelor articulated that very well. It also allows the secretary to refuse to disclose certain information where they may believe that somebody’s life may be in jeopardy or there could be at risk of physical harm or it could place them in some sort of harm, so it does give the secretary that ability if they feel that it is necessary.

The other area I want to go through is the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, which then allows the secretary to authorise a principal officer of an Aboriginal agency to exercise their various powers in relation to protective intervention or protective orders with respect to Aboriginal children as well as any of their non-Aboriginal siblings. That is just really to enable or clarify that non-Aboriginal siblings may form part of the same class or belong with their Aboriginal siblings so that they are seen to be one and do not have any sorts of barriers around who they are. Again, I think that is an important element for this bill to recognise and for those individuals who are in that situation. So that will clarify those aspects.

Part 4 of the bill relates to the circular economy, waste reduction and recycling, and the amendment that applies to that particular act will update the list of provisions for which a civil penalty order can be made by a court. Now, there are around nine civil penalty provisions under which duty holders may be exposed to civil penalties. I understand that this is a bit of a tidying-up; there were errors in the initial drafting or an oversight which failed to prescribe the provisions previously having been subjected to civil penalties. So this is just tidying up those errors that had not been done in previous drafting around that particular piece of legislation.

There is another aspect to the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability I want to raise, and this allows the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability to undertake paid duties outside their role as a commissioner with the approval of the minister. Now, this is a little bit curious given that the government say they want to be able to attract and retain quality candidates for the role, but the commissioner is paid between $290,000 and $300,000 per annum, so it is not an insignificant payment to that commissioner’s role. So to then have a part-time role outside what the commissioner is doing does seem to be a bit curious around, as has been said, a bit of a part-time gig for the commissioner and a nice part-time gig on $300,000 to run this and look at it and then be able to go off and do something else. That is rather curious, I would have to say; if this commissioner is allowed to do that, what is next? Nevertheless that is the government’s reasoning for the changes to that particular act.

The Domestic Animals Act 1994: the bill looks to amend that particular act to require owners of dangerous, menacing or restricted dog breeds to notify their local council if the dog has moved residence or died. We have heard too many stories in recent years of dangerous dogs and some shocking incidents where children have been involved – very sad cases of maulings and other very serious incidents. This is a good area of change so councils can then track where these dogs are, keep an eye on them and make sure that the owners care for them in an appropriate manner and they are not being let loose, so to speak. It is so they are able to manage them better and able to actually limit any potential risks that these dangerous dogs or these menacing dogs may have on the community. The other elements of that amendment are fairly self-explanatory.

I will just move on to the Electricity Industry Act. The bill allows the Essential Services Commission to make minimum solar feed-in tariff determinations for the upcoming financial year by 28 May in the preceding financial year rather than 28 February. This amendment probably does take away a little bit of the transparency that had previously been there. The government has said that there are no further requirements for reporting. We do need to ensure that we are doing it right, and this amendment actually diminishes transparency about how much renewable energy is being bought and sold by energy retailers. I suppose over time we will be able to tell where that is at given the demands on the system, how much will be actually generated and how much will be used through the renewable energy market.

The Environment Protection Act: the amendments that the bill goes to basically require that when the Environment Protection Authority Victoria or council revokes the registration of a licence or a permit, the notice must include the date from which the revocation takes effect. It is just, again, tidying up a little area. It will then not allow the EPA to pursue a business or business owner where a vehicle owned by the business has been used when waste has illegally been dumped. If a business has illegally dumped waste, then they can track that and manage that. I think that is fairly reasonable. We do not want illegal waste being dumped all over the place, and that can be tracked by the EPA. There are quite a few other elements to that particular amendment, but it is all just tidying up in relation to how the EPA needs to be able to conduct its work and simplify some of those procedures for the governing board. It also gives more flexibility to the board to be able to undertake the work that they do.

The Essential Services Commission Act has an amendment which really seeks to provide a limitation period of six years from the date on which a contravention occurred for the Essential Services Commission to commence civil penalty proceedings, as currently there are no explicit limitation periods specified in the act concerning civil penalty contraventions.

The Housing Act, the mineral resources acts and others are pretty minor amendments, although the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Act 2023 removes the requirement of the department head to notify the Secretary of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action within seven days of approving of a variation of a rehabilitation plan involving extractive work carried out on land within the Melbourne strategic assessment levy area. It is a bit technical and there are other technical elements to it, but the change is proposed on the basis that a variation to a rehabilitation plan is not a levy event. So this one is a little bit technical around that requirement, but it is really looking at making sure that those regulatory components come online in a timely fashion.

For Service Victoria, the amendment to part 12 of the act seeks to raise revenue for the government by charging fees for various government services and providing the Service Victoria CEO with the power to require fees and charges to be paid by customers using the services or products provided by Service Victoria. The government say that the fees, when they are applied, must provide or improve access to government services, so they are actually requiring that Service Victoria is actually doing what it says it is doing.

The rest of the bill deals with some other areas around the Water Act and the Transfer of Land Act. The Transfer of Land Act amendment removes outdated references to paper-based conveyancing transactions and other redundant provisions. There are a few other technical elements around that one. The Water Act amendment allows the minister to set a date by which the Victorian Environmental Water Holder must submit a corporate plan, providing necessary flexibility in reporting dates.

These amendments are largely non-contentious in relation to tidying up some drafting areas and some other technical areas in that list of bills. There are quite a number of them, as I have tried to highlight. I have not gone into a huge amount of detail in relation to the exact workings of each of the bills, but I have tried to give a snapshot of exactly what most of the amendments aim to do. Therefore we certainly will not be opposing this bill. It is tidying up those areas that I said and making some small amendments. I think those ones around the Adoption Act and Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 are particularly significant, given what they are aiming to do, which is to improve the outcomes for children, Aboriginal children and other children, who have been adopted in reuniting them with their siblings and family members. Those areas of this bill I think are very important and more significant than perhaps others, although they are technical in nature. I do think there needs to be some oversight and transparency, and there are some aspects around the removal of various transparency elements of a number of the acts. However, the government has assured the opposition that there are no concerns around overseeing them and making sure that the acts do what they are actually intended to do. With those words I will not prolong my speech any longer. I think, at this late hour of the night, I will stop there and pass on to the next speaker.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (23:49): I am quite excited to be speaking on this bill – it has been sitting in my notes for about three months, I think. This Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025 does a lot of things, taking on everything from dangerous dogs to dumping rubbish and bird clubs. As much as I love a good bird club, I am not going to be talking about many of the details of the bill, most of which is sensible regulatory reform. However, I am going to be talking about two changes which we would like to see, and my colleague Ms Gray-Barberio will talk about the adoption parts of the bill later in the debate. This bill fixes things that are not quite working in our legislation, but there are some very sensible reforms which are not here.

In the May 2024 budget the government announced $2 million for Trust for Nature to facilitate nature covenants on private land in Melbourne. Conservation covenants are a huge success story. Victoria has some amazing wildlife and bush on private land and plenty of landowners who would like to see their land protected. Covenants allow these landowners to enter into agreements which protect that habitat and the species in it for generations to come. This $2 million for Trust for Nature was then legislated via a new section in the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972, which established an account for Trust for Nature to use. However, it limits the use of the account to vacant residential land in Melbourne. Trust for Nature is very happy to prioritise covenants on this land; however, the reality is there is not that much land that meets this criterion, and as a result Trust for Nature is not able to use the full $2 million. We had previously drafted an amendment to address this issue; however, we have since worked with the government and received an assurance that the forthcoming state tax bill will solve the problem and enable more landowners to protect the habitat on their land via Trust for Nature. As a result, we will not be moving that amendment, but I did want to put it on record that we look forward to the government following through on their promise around this important issue.

The second issue that I want to raise, although it falls slightly out of scope of the different issues that are addressed in this bill, is that we believe this was a missed opportunity to protect Births, Deaths and Marriages Victoria from privatisation. Last year the then Treasurer floated the idea of privatisation of births, deaths and marriages via a joint-venture partnership to deliver some of its services. Despite the fancy words, the idea of privatisation faced a strong backlash from the community, who believe our private information needs to be carefully protected and not managed on a for-profit basis. In the past Labor has tried to privatise services and infrastructure by stealth via public–private partnerships or moves like leasing the Port of Melbourne for 50 years. While the state still owns the land for 50 years, it will be run by a private entity whose priority is profit and not meeting the needs of Victorians. We know when times are tough governments of all stripes are tempted to sell the furniture to the highest bidder. Births, deaths and marriages information should be protected, and this could have been achieved by ensuring that any future privatisation could only go ahead with the democratic approval of both houses of Parliament. This is a change that would have strong community support, and I would urge the government to consider it.

I do not have any further comments on the rest of the bill. The Greens will be supporting this bill. As I indicated, my colleague Ms Gray-Barberio will have some further comments to make about the adoption aspects of the bill.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (23:53): I also rise to partake in what has been a most enjoyable debate on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025. It is indeed a content-rich environment and a diverse one at that. No doubt there have been many things on in Melbourne tonight. There may have even been a game of football or something, but I think this is what people have been holding out for, as Mr Batchelor referred to – the smorgasbord we have before us in this bill.

Renee Heath: The gallery is full!

Michael GALEA: The gallery is a little bit emptier than it has been at other points of the day, but I am sure they are watching in some capacity. This is a wideranging bill that covers various different relatively minor – some, though, are very important – regulatory reform aspects. It links in as part of the ongoing iterative process in terms of what this government is continuing to do to make sensible reforms, improve regulations and streamline those processes as much as can be reasonably done.

We have had many debates in this place in particular this week and in weeks past about the very important work that the government is doing in the space of planning and making it easier for more Victorians, especially young Victorians, to get their own home. That is a very, very important thing that we are doing. If you look at the work through Better Regulation Victoria and all the other various aspects, there is a long history that we do have of reform in the state which is designed to make services easier to access for individuals – better services – but also to streamline those processes for businesses too. I will pick up on a comment from Ms Crozier, who mentioned the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. And yes, I will join in wishing Paul Guerra all the very best for his forthcoming tenure at Melbourne Football Club. You seem very excited about that too, Minister Shing. Are you a Melbourne fan?

Harriet Shing interjected.

Michael GALEA: She is about to be. The force of Mr Guerra’s personality will make Minister Shing a Melbourne fan. I think we can bestow that great honour on you tonight to join that illustrious club. Things do happen in the Legislative Council late at night sometimes.

But on a more serious note, and a very exciting note as well, I do note that for just the 14th time there will be, this year, a World Chambers Congress – only the 14th. I was surprised that there had not been more. I am not quite sure how often this event gets held, but it is indeed a very significant event for the various chambers of commerce around the world. This year, in September, it is going to be held in Melbourne. We know we certainly are the major events capital of Australia and one of the key major events hubs of the world I dare say, and this is another landmark event. I know, having spoken with people from various different corners of the world, they are very excited about coming to Melbourne this year. Just a few weeks ago I had the great opportunity of meeting with the Kyiv chamber of commerce, and they are very excited indeed about coming to Melbourne and bringing what they hope to be a large delegation with them as well. So it will be a very exciting time in that first week of September, when we will have a huge chunk of the world’s business communities and other thought leaders as well descending on Melbourne for what will be, I am sure, a very important congress.

There are a number of pieces of legislation that are amended by the bill before us today, and one such act is the Domestic Animals Act 1994. Of course we all love our domestic pets. They brighten up our lives, and indeed, as Minister Shing says, our wild ones do as well sometimes. I am not sure if donkeys are technically classified as domestic pets.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Michael GALEA: They would not be owned by anyone. I think you have just described my cat, though, as well, Minister Shing. I am sure there is a blurred distinction somewhere from wild to domesticated. But we do all love our pets, whether it is our donkeys, whether it is our horses, Mrs McArthur, or whether it is our cats or our dogs.

A member interjected.

Michael GALEA: Chickens. Yes, chickens have been a recurring theme in some debates, I believe, this week as well. Whether it is our chickens that some people might have as pets too, they do brighten up our lives. I am sure, for many members of this place, there is nothing better than coming home after a long day or a long sitting week to your chickens, to your cats, to your rabbits, to your donkeys, to your dogs.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Michael GALEA: I am sure we will be hearing the screams of your donkeys from right here in Parliament, Minister Shing. I am sure they will be eagerly awaiting your return at some godforsaken hour later this evening.

Bev McArthur interjected.

Michael GALEA: I am speaking about a very important piece of legislation, Mrs McArthur. Indeed sometimes we get, in this Parliament, graced with visitations from pets, whether it is Bracks the dog, who comes into the annexe, or whether it is indeed Mr Larry Purcell, who visited my office earlier this evening. It was wonderful to have him come and visit. The surname is perhaps debatable, but Larry came to visit, and it was lovely to have a bit of a play with him and take him outside for a short walk as well. Those sorts of things certainly can brighten up what can otherwise be a very serious workplace.

Dogs are terrific. We are very, very lucky to have them. In some small cases, though, we can see dangerous dogs causing significant issues, and when those issues do arise they are very severe indeed. We have seen some horrific examples of dog attacks in this state and more broadly over recent years. We could probably have a whole separate debate as to whether it is really the dog’s fault or how they were raised, but it is important that where these cases arise we do keep good data management of those situations. That is where the reform to this act comes into play in assisting councils to keep that data as up to date as possible and as effective as possible.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Harriet SHING: Pursuant to standing order 4.08, I move:

That the sitting be extended.

Motion agreed to.

Michael GALEA: Indeed the reform, when it comes to domestic animals, is one relatively small component today but an important one for community safety that is provided for under this bill. It comes of course on the back of a raft of measures that this government has implemented, whether it has been banning the cruel puppy farms – we have now got the strictest breeding rules in the country; making it an offence to sell a pet without a valid microchip and source number from the pet exchange register; removing the need for greyhounds to be muzzled in public; producing Victoria’s first animal welfare action plan, which recognises that animals are sentient; or giving renters the right to keep a pet – we have a great many renters in this state, and they have just as much right to have pets as anyone else. Of course we have also reformed the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to ensure that government receives expert advice and become the first state to introduce mandatory reporting of animal fate data for dogs and cats in shelters and pounds. So a wide range of measures have already been implemented, and the reforms today will in some small way help to complement that.

A very significant piece of this legislation before us today – significant in terms of its effects more than its volume – is some changes to the Adoption Act 1984, which will promote consistency with other legislation and some existing policies. This will provide a legal basis for the departmental secretary to comply with a court order in order to produce any documents required by any court or by a royal commission in any proceedings which will facilitate support and better outcomes for a child. Currently this is not permitted by the legislation, an oversight which will be addressed in the bill before us today. It will also, and Ms Crozier went to this point as well, allow natural relatives to access identifying information about an adopted person so that they can be reunited. We know how important it is for people to have that sense of connection, that sense of belonging. In this country we have many great stories to tell from our history but many bad ones too, and the stolen generations is perhaps one of the absolute worst stories that we have. The measures in this bill will I certainly hope go a significant way to supporting people who themselves or through family members are in some way connected to the stolen generations to reclaim that identity, to find that connection, to build those links with loved ones lost, loved ones and relatives that were never known that otherwise could have been. A fundamental human need, a fundamental human right, will be facilitated by the measures in this bill.

The issue of child adoption and especially forced adoption is one that we have had a long and confronting journey with in this country. In previous speeches this week I had some opportunity to speak about a recent visit I paid to Ukraine. In a very short amount of time I was able to discuss the over 19,000 – suspected to be more than 30,000 – children who have been forcibly abducted from stolen land, from temporarily occupied territory that Russia has taken from Ukraine. Of all the meetings I had – frankly every meeting I had there would have been worth the visit just in and of itself – a meeting in particular that I had with a remarkable woman, Anastasiia Stepula from the Ukrainian Child Rights Network, was particularly profound. She told me in great detail about the issues, the challenges, what has been happening but also the challenges in overcoming and trying to bring these children back. There are currently 1.6 million children in these illegally occupied zones. We know that at least 30,000 have been taken; we do not know how many more will be. Younger children are forcibly adopted out. They are often stolen completely or under false pretences – under the guise of ‘We’re going to take your children to the beach for a day out’ – never to be seen again. Their names are changed; their birthdates are changed. They are adopted to a family in Russia. Many that are too young will never even know their true identity. For older children, they are too often put into camps to be brainwashed and indoctrinated and to be trained up to fight against their own country once they turn 18.

There are many people, mostly civilians themselves, who have against incredible odds managed to get their children back. Older children have managed to find their way home, but it is a small minority. Quite startling to me as well is that given the contested status of occupied territories, it is actually very difficult under international law to prosecute these cases, which was quite staggering to hear. It is one of many, many horrendous things going on and part of a campaign of terror against an entire group of people that has been perpetrated by a murderous tyrant who surely deserves to rot in hell.

There are of course many other aspects of this bill as well. Regulatory reform covers a wide range of areas, whether it is the Essential Services Commission or various other aspects that have been touched upon. Referring to the previous speaker, I know Dr Mansfield was keen for Trust for Nature to get a guernsey as well. I know that is a topic that we have actually discussed a few times in this place. I know it is of particular interest to Ms Terpstra, as I did once tell the chamber, that when I was much, much younger, as a child, I actually was, for want of a much better word, a model and featured in a Trust for Nature brochure, standing admiringly and looking up at a large gum tree with a friend of mine. A family friend was working for Trust for Nature at the time, and they needed some children to facilitate, to help demonstrate how wonderful some of these sites are. The Harbury site, which is in Pakenham Upper, not too far from my region now, is a beautiful site, and though I have not been back since, I believe it is still very much cared for and looked after by that organisation too. I always enjoy hearing about Trust for Nature in this place. Indeed it is important that we acknowledge the very valuable work that it does, and we will very much continue to support it.

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Michael GALEA: A Hamer initiative, you say, Mr Mulholland. Well, we are happy to give credit where credit is due. He was certainly one of the more progressive Liberal premiers, wasn’t he? My time is up, but I will commend the bill to the house.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (00:08): I will have it in Hansard that it was a fantastic Hamer government initiative, because we know that it is indeed the Liberal Party that is the true party of conservation here in the state of Victoria.

I want to talk about the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025 and indeed talk about some of the issues to do with our environment and natural environment here in the state of Victoria. I particularly want to talk about a crisis that is occurring in the northern suburbs and also the western suburbs, as my colleagues tell me, and that is of illegally dumped rubbish, which is a crisis that is out of control in the northern suburbs. I note that some elements of the bill do deal with this and take a step in the right direction.

Colleagues in this chamber would have heard me speak pretty frequently about illegally dumped rubbish in this place. It is because it is a crisis. Too many businesses and individuals are using the northern suburbs as a dumping ground for hard waste and, even worse, a dumping ground for illegally dumped asbestos. Instead of disposing of it safely they are dumping hazardous materials like asbestos and other materials in our open spaces in our community, and it is really not good enough for people to be doing that. I spent a lot of time in my previous portfolio in the building space working with different families that were trying to get into a house and dealing with a small minority of very dodgy builders. To my great frustration, many of the companies caught out dumping rubbish are also the same abhorrent people that get caught dumping all of the rubbish from their building sites illegally in our community. These are rubbish individuals in this case.

I have to recognise this: in July last year community groups in the northern suburbs lit up at the sight of a truck bogged at the side of the Hume Highway with its load in the air attempting to illegally dump rubbish on the side of the Hume Highway. They happened to get caught out because they got bogged. I could not help but laugh and enjoy the thousands of comments on different community groups in the north about the misfortune that this cowardly individual had got himself in – and they are cowards. They are cowards because they dump all their rubbish onto our open spaces in our community. There is no other way to describe these individuals. Go about your business and dispose of your rubbish safely, or we will call you out on it. I am pleased that this bill goes some way to putting some liability onto those businesses where the owners of said vehicles cannot be identified. They are crooks and they are crooked. The open space in the northern suburbs is not yours to dump your rubbish in.

I would also like to acknowledge the advocacy of Hume City Council in this space. In March last year, actually, through this Parliament, I advocated for the government to put a fence around land adjacent to the Hume Highway on Mount Ridley Road at a water-filling station because it had for several months become a free tip of illegally dumped rubbish. Everything from hazardous waste to nappies to garbage bags to cardboard was in a big stinking pile on Mount Ridley Road which was being used as a free tip. I want to also thank Hume councillor Jim Overend for putting up a notice of motion at council advocating for the government to put a fence around this area, as we had done in the Parliament as well. Then, several months later in June, the state government finally acted and put a fence around that area. It is no longer a free tip for people to dispose of their rubbish illegally, which is good.

I also want to acknowledge, particularly in the environment space, some exciting businesses in my community. It was great to visit Aussie Bin Hire in Thomastown last week, a great recycling business in my electorate, with the Shadow Minister for Environment Brad Rowswell. It is great to see this business grow and take off as part of our circular economy. I want to thank Shahroze Gilani, Junaid Bhai and Abdullah Bhai for hosting us there in Thomastown.

I also want to speak about our natural environment. I want to speak about it, acknowledging earlier I said the Liberal Party is the natural party of conservation – and that is true. I want to speak also about a place I took the Shadow Minister for Environment last week, which is the Greenvale Reservoir and the Greenvale Reservoir Park. I mentioned to the shadow minister that it has been over 3000 days since the government back in 2017 promised $1.4 million to reopen the Greenvale Reservoir Park. It was closed for dam wall reconstruction works in 2014 and never reopened. Then in 2017, out from the election, the government promised $1.4 million to reopen it – and then nothing happened. Part of that media release said they were going to upgrade the Somerton Road entrance to the Greenvale Reservoir, but that also contains overgrowth of weeds, illegally dumped rubbish, broken-down concrete – nothing seems to have been spent. So I actually put to the government this week: what was that money used for? We do not know – we do not know what it was used for. That is $1.4 million that we do not know how it was spent. Was it just a media release? We actually do not know. I think communities like Greenvale deserve better than that.

As I explained, there was $1.4 million to reopen the Greenvale Reservoir Park in 2017. It was quite surprising actually: I obviously advocated on behalf of the community, we had about 1500 signatures on my petition to open the Greenvale Reservoir Park, and so finally we see the government spring into action. We had the then Minister for Water, Ms Shing, with the member for the neglectorate of Greenvale, promise $3 million to reopen the Greenvale Reservoir Park in November last year. We still do not really have a timeframe on when that might happen, given the last media release was over 3000 days ago – that promise was $1.4 million in 2017, that media release by Ms Spence and Ms D’Ambrosio. You have to wonder when the park will actually open and what that $1.4 million is being spent on and what that $3 billion is being spent on now and whether it is actually happening.

I truly hope the government gets it right this time and it is not just a media release, because we have had plenty of media releases up in the north. The community has a lot of fond memories of the Greenvale Reservoir Park. It is where many saw their first kangaroo; there have been many cultural barbecues from the Turkish community, from the Italian community. I have got a lot of Italian cousins in Greenvale, and I went there to the reservoir park many times as a kid for family days with extended families and cousins. I know many in our community, from our Iraqi community to our Turkish community and others, really enjoyed and have fond memories of going there to recreate, to kick a footy and to have a barbecue, and they really look forward to being able to do that again in such a wonderful part of the world and such a scenic part of the world that has been closed off for I think too long. As I said, I have obviously got scepticism on whether the government can keep this commitment – this $3 million commitment now; it was $1.4 million in 2017, but now it is $3 million. I wonder whether that is inclusive of the $1.4 million or not. Hopefully the minister can provide me with some details on that, as I spoke about it this week in an adjournment.

I received several responses back to my advocacy on this issue in the Parliament. The Minister for Environment actually mentioned that there were two toilets. I know Mr McGowan likes to talk about toilets, but I also have a bit of a toilet issue in regard to this park, because the Minister for Environment informed me that there were not one but two new toilets as part of an upgrade to the northern section of the park, which is very small but is open to the community; you can go in there. The Minister for Environment actually informed me that they had upgraded the picnic area, and they had installed two new toilets. I had been there many times, and I even went there – it is around the corner from my office – and rechecked. But there were no toilets – no toilets. Yet in several responses to me the Minister for Environment – copied and pasted probably from the department – said they had installed two toilets. I later did another adjournment on this, and he was, embarrassingly, forced to clarify. He did not say that he himself got it wrong but said Parks Victoria had clarified that no toilets have actually been installed. So there you go: no toilets have been installed. It was just a mistake. Many in my community found that bemusing. But I am really looking forward to that park reopening.

As Mr Galea mentioned, this bill makes several changes to do with adoption, and this is a very important topic. In my maiden speech, actually, I talked about Victoria’s dwindling birth rate and how it is a big issue for us to grapple with as a state. Family formation is a really big issue and an issue that I endeavour to make a contribution towards and tackle in my parliamentary career in any way I can, because it is important for our state and it is important for our economy, but family formation is important to people’s lives. Unfortunately, it used to be the fact back in 2022 that we had a birth rate of 1.48 children per woman, which is low – lower than the rest of the country. That has now fallen to 1.39 children per woman, well below our replacement rate here in Victoria and unfortunately the lowest in the country. People are not having children because of a cost-of-living crisis, because of their housing situation, because of their economic circumstances, and that is a really, really sad thing. We need to encourage family formation, traditional families or non-traditional families. We need to do everything possible, and hopefully changes to the Adoption Act 1984 can do that, because family formation is really important. I am certainly doing my part. My wife and I are having another baby this July, which will be our third – so one for the country. But it is quite an important issue for our nation and an important issue for our state. 1.39 children per woman is the lowest in the country, and the crisis of family formation and encouraging that in the future is a really important issue for this Parliament collectively to tackle.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (00:23): I am pleased to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025 and pleased to offer my contributions, but in particular to address the changes in relation to child protection and adoption. As my colleague Dr Mansfield noted, the Greens do support this bill. We support a number of the regulatory changes that the bill will bring. We support Aboriginal agencies having more authority with respect to Aboriginal children. We think it is a good step towards self-determination, and we support the ability of natural siblings, grandparents et cetera of adopted people to get information about the adopted person. The Greens recognise that the intention behind new section 90A is to prevent harm. We support steps to keep people safe, but we cannot ignore the very real risks that this clause poses to the rights of adoptees and parents who seek to access information about their own history – information that for too long in this state was deliberately withheld.

In scrutinising this bill I met with Sharyn White, the vice-president of Adoptee Rights Australia. She had a number of concerns about the bill, which I want to address today. Let us be clear about what new section 90A proposes. It gives the secretary the power to withhold identifying information from someone if they believe there is a risk of harm, but what is concerning is just how vague that standard is. The bill does not define what constitutes a risk of harm. There is no clear threshold, and it leaves a lot of room for discretion and not much room for accountability. Worse still, there is no robust avenue for review. If the secretary decides to withhold your information, you cannot appeal to the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner, you cannot go to VCAT and your only option is the County Court – a daunting, expensive and time-consuming process that most people simply will not even bother pursuing.

While the government has a role to play in preventing harm, particularly to those experiencing family violence, it is important to also balance this with appropriate procedural safeguards or protections to ensure that the law is applied consistently. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case with this section of the bill. New sections 97A and 90A blatantly disregard the findings of the review of the Adoption Act 1984 by the Victorian Law Reform Commission tabled in 2017, which recommend rewriting the information access section of the Adoption Act 1984 and in fact the entire act, including making decisions reviewable by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, VCAT.

The broad discretion to withhold information without requirement for a formal finding, independent assessment or right to be heard contravenes principles of fairness, transparency and proportionality. It risks arbitrary application and may result in individuals being denied information that is critical to their identity, their history or relationships without explanation or recourse. It is crucial that adopted people and their relations have the right to access information relating to their culture or hereditary medical risks. We know that secrecy and shame have been hallmarks of past adoption practices in Victoria, and we know how harmful that has been. Countless Victorians are still carrying the grief of not knowing who their family is or having no medical history and no understanding of their identity. The harm is ongoing.

The Victorian Law Reform Commission recognise this. In 2017 they released a comprehensive report on access to adoption information, and their message was clear: the act needs a full, modern overhaul. They said the adoption information system would reflect contemporary understandings of privacy, trauma and human rights. But instead of responding to that report with comprehensive reform, we are here debating a narrow and potentially regressive clause that has not been subject to broad public consultation and that has not been properly justified, and that risks setting us back.

I just want to speak for a moment about fairness. We have robust systems under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to weigh the public interest and personal safety against the right to access information. We have review rights, clear criteria and independent oversight, but none of those protections apply here. We are creating a parallel system under the Adoption Act, one that offers less transparency and fewer rights. Why should one person’s access to their birth records be treated with fewer safeguards than someone else’s request for government information? Why are we lowering the bar? This bill does not answer those questions.

The Greens believe in a restorative approach. We believe in centring the voices of adoptees and their families, and we encourage the government to consult with Adoptee Rights Australia to address these concerns with this multifaceted and comprehensive bill. It is so important that we balance all of the positives of this bill with carefully safeguarding any areas of concern for the community.

As I noted at the beginning of my speech, the Greens are in support of the positive changes to make and simply encourage careful attention to the points I have raised today. I commend this bill to the house.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (00:29): I also rise to make a contribution on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025. This is an omnibus bill that will enact a number of changes to a number of acts, and this will be a test of my mental faculties at this time of the morning. It is very late at night and certainly early in the morning on Friday now, and getting across this will be challenging. But nevertheless, what I think I will do is highlight some of the acts that will be changed. Then I will focus on one of them which is of great importance. The bill seeks to support effective and efficient regulation, and it will amend the following acts: the Essential Services Commission Act 2001, the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, the Minerals Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990, the Adoption Act 1984 and the Environment Protection Act 2017. It also seeks to amend the Service Victoria Act 2018, the Transfer of Land Act 1958, the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Act 2023 and the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Act 2003.

There are also some other amendments that will streamline processes and reduce administrative burdens for businesses, departments, agencies and regulators. The acts that are proposed to be amended under that tranche are the Housing Act 1983, the Electricity Industry Act 2000 and – this one piqued my interest – the Domestic Animals Act 1994. The amendments proposed for that particular act are to allow for certain organisations to have their registrations and approval removed at their request but also to require declared bird organisations to provide for a renewal of application 60 days prior to the end date of any active approval to allow for sufficient time and consideration of the renewal application before the active renewal lapses. I thought, ‘This is quite interesting. I wonder how many bird clubs we actually have here in Victoria.’ It was interesting. I had a bit of a look on the internet. Some of them have very interesting names, and there are quite a few. I know the minister will be interested in hearing about this as well.

The Yorkshire Canary Club of Victoria would be a very interesting organisation indeed. I know there are many people in Victoria who would deeply care and have deep interest in owning or showing Yorkshire canaries. I did not know that such a thing existed, but there you go – Yorkshire canaries are a thing. There are the Australian Plainhead Preservation Club and the Geelong & District All Breeds Pigeon Club – because I know there are people who call themselves pigeon fanciers, but they also like to race pigeons, so there you go. There are clubs that actually do these things, so you can join a club and participate and partake in racing or breeding pigeons. This one was also quite interesting: the Victorian Lizard Canary Society. I did not know there was such a thing as a lizard canary. You learn lots of things that you would never have thought you would learn about. You learn all this knowledge you never thought you would ever learn about, but you have now acquired it; whether you like it or not, you have acquired some knowledge. There you go. That is the Victorian Lizard Canary Society, and then there is also the Melbourne Canary Improvement Society. I do not know how you would improve your canary, but there must be a way because there is a club that helps you do it. There must be skills that you can learn about improving canaries, and I am sure there are many and varied skills for improving canaries. But there is also the Budgerigar Council of Victoria, a very important council. Everyone loves budgerigars. I used to have a budgie when I was a kid, and it used to sit on my dad’s beer can and drink beer out of the beer can, which is probably not a thing you would encourage today. But back in the day that was a thing that used to happen, and the budgie actually loved it.

There are also the Avicultural Society of Australia, the Wimmera Bird Club, the Gippsland Caged Bird Society, the Victorian Canary Society, the Border Fancy Canary Club, the Gloster Canary Club of Victoria, the Melbourne and Regional Fife Canary Club – there are all these different types of canaries; who would have thought – the Mornington Peninsula Avicultural Society, the Melbourne Border Fancy Canary Club, the Melbourne Pigeon Society and the Australian Canary Association. A shout-out to all those clubs. They are fantastic clubs. I am sure they are well patronised by many Victorians who like canaries or fancy pigeons.

I note there were no chicken clubs there.

Lee Tarlamis: You could start one.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Absolutely right. If you want to, you could do a chicken appreciation or chicken fanciers club, because I know that many people do like to in fact show their chickens. There is many a regional show where people turn up and compete to win prizes for chickens. It is 12:35 in the morning, and this is what we get to talk about at this early hour. But yes, there are chicken-fanciers, and I know I have seen some pretty big roosters in my time, particularly at many a regional show. I know I can reflect on –

Lee Tarlamis interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: There you go. As I say, people reflect on the fact that, particularly going to the Royal Easter Show and the Melbourne Royal Show, people come from regional areas and bring their chooks with them and show them, and there are prizes for that. Just like I was mentioning, I am sure there are also prizes for the Fife canary and the lizard canary – who would have known the lizard canary – and the Plainhead Preservation Club. These things are important because it will allow these organisations to apply for renewal of their application 60 days prior to the end date. Why do you need this? Well, because if you are a declared bird organisation, what it means is that you can then sell these birds and you can do it without having to do it through a pet shop or a residential premises. It is important, but there are some birds that are exempt from this requirement. They are waterfowl, fancy poultry – there you go; if you have fancy poultry you do not have to worry about this – fancy pigeons, racing pigeons and birds used for the commercial production of meat or eggs. If you have things other than that, then you have got to basically comply with these requirements.

There is a list of declared bird organisations. As I said, I give a shout-out to those bird organisations. Like I said, I am sure that there are people who are avid bird-fanciers. The Budgerigar Council of Victoria is a very important council, as I said before. There is lots you can learn. Like I said, you can improve your canary. How that works, I do not know, but it is something you can do. These are important things. As I said, it enables these very important clubs to do more and to advocate or increase awareness of the importance of the breeds, particularly for people who like birds and like bird-keeping and for the promotion of aviculture and the wellbeing of birds, whether in captivity or in the wild. That is important.

I know other speakers have spoken about other things tonight. There are some other acts of importance that are being amended through this bill. As I said, the Allan Labor government takes regulatory reform and amendment very seriously, and this is another example and another tranche of acts that are being amended. A bill such as this supports efficient and effective regulation, because we need to have that efficiency. We like to have efficient regulation. It is important to be efficient and effective when you are regulating, so we do that and we consistently review it to make sure we are consistently effective. We want to promote consistency with other legislation and existing policies, because when you have legislation things can change and policies can change. It is important to make sure that when we are reviewing legislation it is consistent with other pieces of legislation, and as policies change we make sure it is consistent with that as well.

The bill also reduces the administrative burden of regulation. I just spoke about bird clubs, and you can see that by having the proposed amendment for the bird clubs it means that they can just notify the agency 60 days prior to the end date of their application for renewal before it lapses, because then there will be some other process. Trying to streamline that means that they get to save time. It reduces the regulatory burden, and it is amending legislation to make sure any technical errors are addressed and to make minor updates as well. Again, these are important things. Making sure we can amend our legislation so that acts do not basically get out of step or out of kilter or become basically stumbling blocks or insurmountable problems for other acts of Parliament is important.

As I mentioned, I have been talking about pets and animals, and with dogs one of the things that is going to happen under the amendment to the Domestic Animals Act includes notification of the death or change of address of a dangerous, menacing or restricted breed of dog. Currently councils are not informed if a dog under one of these categories dies, and therefore they are not aware of how many are living in the municipality at one time. That is going to help local councils have better data and access to information, which is crucial. Currently, if some owners of dangerous or menacing dogs refuse to provide an address when they move, they are only required to notify that they have moved. That effectively means that councils do not necessarily have the tools that they need to be across where a dangerous dog might be kept. It is a rare occurrence, but nevertheless fatalities can result from dog attacks. Therefore the introduction of this amendment would promote the right to life and supports local governments’ ability to ensure appropriate precautions are taken for keeping dangerous, menacing or restricted dog breeds to minimise any safety risks. We all love our dogs and most of the time our loving furry pets are gorgeous, but of course if there are some menacing dog breeds the last thing we want is for somebody to be severely injured or killed as a result of a dog attack. This is just going to help the councils keep on top of that and know where those dog breeds might be.

There are a range of other things that are happening under this omnibus amendment act. For example, some of them relate to our circular economy legislation. Even though that act was only passed in 2021, which was not that long ago, we want to update the list of provisions for which a civil penalty order can be made by the court. This would reflect new provisions introduced by the Environment Legislation Amendment (Circular Economy and Other Matters) Act 2022, which is already in force.

Again, we need to make sure we update things to keep pace with other changes that have come on board to keep things harmonised and make sure that everything works together as it was intended to. It is a good thing. As I said, it is something that the Allan Labor government does to continue to make sure we have bills or laws that support efficient and effective regulation and, whether it is businesses or clubs or other entities that are bound to comply with various rules and laws, that it can be done in an efficient and effective way that is going to be good for the community as well. We think this bill is a sensible bill, and of course it supports our overall regulatory reform agenda.

It is now a quarter to 1 in the morning. We are very energised and excited to be talking about regulatory reform at this hour. I have 8 seconds left on the clock, so I think I have done my job. Having said that, I commend this bill to the house.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (00:44:244:): I am very happy to stand and speak on this third regulatory legislation amendment reform bill, the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025. We know that these bills are important because they help government to continuously undertake regulatory reform so that Victoria is a better place to live, to work and to do business. We know that were it up to the Liberals we probably would not have white lines painted on the road for cars to drive down. If the Liberals had it their way, their hands would be off the steering wheel, and God knows what would be happening. That is just the way they approach the world, whether it is economics or social cohesion or whatever it is. But yes, I am glad to be part of a party that takes a positive, proactive and constructive approach to a regulatory framework that sees us get the best out of our society and the best out of our Victorian economy.

The bill makes amendments to over 14 acts of Parliament that provide simple, straightforward, uncontroversial improvements to legislation that all sides of the Parliament can get behind. I think we have heard in many of the contributions tonight the gusto and the wherewithal with which speakers have been able to get behind these regulatory improvements. They will provide important benefits, ensuring Victoria has clearer, fairer, more modern laws and regulations while strengthening regulatory tools available to agencies. The proposed amendments remove or refine redundant processes, reporting and notifications, helping to reduce the administrative burdens on businesses, governments and individuals. Since these rules were drawn up, obviously things have changed in our society yet again. Although the Liberal–National coalition do not want to see things in our society change – they would rather see us looking in the rear-view mirror and have us look more like the 1950s than the 2050s – we are always evolving legislation and the regulations that have previously been drawn up so that they are fit for today and of course fit for tomorrow.

They also demonstrate the way in which small technical amendments can make a difference in our everyday lives. There are amendments to the Domestic Animals Act 1994 which will ensure we empower councils with better data on the location of dangerous dogs, helping to keep our community safe. Amendments to the Adoption Act 1984 will remove barriers to help families who have experienced forced adoptions to reunite. Amendments to the Environment Protection Act 2017 will make it quicker and easier for businesses and individuals who do the right thing to be refunded financial assurances paid to the EPA, and amendments to the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Act 2023 will protect commercially sensitive information provided by licence-holders in their work plans. The amendments aim to support effective and efficient regulation and promote consistency with other legislation and existing policies, because it is important that various regulations work together seamlessly so we are getting the best outcomes for everybody that they touch. We will streamline processes and reduce the administrative burden for businesses, departments, agencies and regulators, and of course we will correct technical errors in and make minor updates to legislation.

We are amending the Essential Services Commission Act 2001 to provide the Essential Services Commission with the power to commence civil penalty proceedings within six years of the date on which a contravention occurred. This will give enough time for contraventions to come to light and give the ESC sufficient time to undertake complex investigations and protect consumers. We are also amending the Environment Protection Act 2017 to allow the EPA to charge a business or a business owner where their registered vehicle has been used to illegally dump waste. We know that the Liberals do not have any concern for protecting consumers, and I do not think they have got much concern for waste being dumped either, as we see in their environment and climate policies. And of course we see the winding back of any consumer protections at any point; they just want to expose people to the harshness of the market. We know through their student university days studying Reaganism and Thatcherism that the Liberals are just so hard-nosed. There have been some egregious examples of illegal waste dumping in recent times, and this reform will better protect our communities, including our national parks, where some of this illegal dumping is occurring.

Amendments to the Adoption Act 1984 will allow the secretary to refuse to disclose certain information where they reasonably believe it may jeopardise someone’s life or physical safety or cause them harm. This is a critical reform that will mean we can better protect individuals where there is a potential risk of family violence. Promoting consistency with other legislation and existing policies through amendments to the Adoption Act 1984 will allow the secretary to comply with a court order to produce documents in court proceedings or in a royal commission, which is currently not permitted. Importantly, this bill will allow natural relatives to access identifying information about the adopted person so they can be reunited. This is an important amendment that will help families impacted by forced adoptions, including stolen generations, to connect with their biological family – a fundamental human need which has been denied through no fault of their own and something I am sure that we can all absolutely support through this bill.

We are also amending the Transfer of Land Act 1958 and the Subdivision Act 1988 to allow for the collection of fees in line with Victoria’s pricing-for-value guidelines. This is a necessary reform that recognises the work of the registrar that has to be undertaken with every transaction, whether it is withdrawn, amended or rejected.

We will also streamline process and reduce administrative burden for businesses, departments, agencies and regulators by making amendments to the Housing Act 1983, and that will ensure regulators are not collecting unnecessary data from community housing providers, helping to keep sensitive banking information with its owners.

Also, the Electricity Industry Act 2000 removes unnecessary reporting requirements for licensed electricity sellers, and there will be amendments to the Water Act 1989 that will allow water corporations to serve notice of a board meeting by electronic means. This is another example of the way in which we are making sure that existing legislation reflects the modern ways we govern.

We will also be correcting technical errors and making minor updates, as the bill tidies up legislation by removing references to repealed provisions, such as in the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 and the Domestic Animals Act 1994. It also clarifies that under the Environment Protection Act 2017, the EPA can consider both actual and potential costs of any remediation or clean-up when considering whether to release a financial assurance.

On the economic growth statement, while this bill is a great example of the way the Allan Labor government undertakes regulatory reform at every opportunity, we have also set out a broader plan to cut red tape as part of our economic growth statement to make it easier to do business in Victoria. Unlike those opposite, who are ideologically opposed to regulation, we know that good regulation is good both for businesses and for communities, because we want Victoria to thrive in all aspects – economically, socially and environmentally. Of course if you do not have all of them thriving at the one time, you are out of balance – a bit like the Liberal Party.

We also know that onerous and outdated regulation makes it hard to do business, stifles innovation and slows growth. That is why, as part of the economic growth statement, we have committed to cutting unnecessary red tape and simplifying government processes so that businesses can get on with creating jobs, fostering innovation and driving economic growth. Work is underway to halve the number of business regulators by 2030, from 37 to 18; speed up environment effects statement processes; deliver new priority assessment teams with key regulators to fast-track the assessment of priority projects; use digitisation to speed up government to streamline licensing; streamline liquor and planning approvals for hospitality businesses; and slash $500 million in regulatory burden for businesses by 2030.

Through our Business Acceleration Fund we are making sure that regulatory agencies, including local governments, are streamlining, simplifying and digitising regulatory functions to make it easier to start and grow a business in Victoria. So far more than 130 game-changing projects have been funded through the Business Acceleration Fund and its predecessor the Regulation Reform Incentive Fund. This will transform the way Victorian businesses deal with state and local governments, reducing valuable time, paperwork and costs by setting up a Resources Victoria approvals coordination role to significantly reduce approval times for construction projects, removing the need for unnecessary food safety compliance programs for 30,000 low-risk businesses so they can focus on customers and business development and developing an online system that allows Victorians to apply for and display a digital working with children card on the Service Victoria app. As part of the economic growth statement, the government announced $14 million in additional funding to digitise outdated regulatory processes, adopt AI for approvals, reduce red tape and implement a tell-us-once approach, saving business time and money. You could only hope that the Liberal Party could have a process to remove some of their outdated processes so perhaps they might see a little bit more success than they did in the federal election. But anyway, they can only hope, and I suppose anyone who supports them or once supported them or once maybe even voted for them could hope for the same as well.

We are also ensuring that regional Victoria can reap the benefits – and of course the Labor Party has had four premiers from regional Victoria; our four most recent premiers have all been from regional Victoria – with part of this funding going towards proposals that will enhance growth and productivity in the regions in industries like freight, food production and manufacturing and towards digitising rural and regional council systems. Through these initiatives we are making sure regulation is smart and simple, saving medium and family businesses time and money. The economic growth statement is our road map to help businesses succeed in Victoria, because when businesses succeed it creates more jobs and more opportunities for Victorian workers and their families.

Over the last 10 years we have reviewed and reformed regulations in liquor, environmental protection, essential services, electricity, building and construction, health, planning, consumer affairs, fee pricing, owners corporations and more. We have legislated regulatory improvements to automatic mutual recognition, cladding safety, wage theft, gender equality, casino gambling laws, as well as work in screening processes, green energy and greater energy market protections, to name a few. Our government invests in regulatory reform, because we know that good reform needs a kickstart. That is why we have established the Business Acceleration Fund. We have funded projects estimated to have saved Victorian businesses and workers over $450 million per year, giving Victorians nearly 330,000 days back per year in saved time. We have simplified Victoria’s food safety requirements, saving low-risk business more than 80 hours a year each in preparing and managing their food safety programs; that is time back they can use to grow their business and provide more goods and services to all Victorians. We have streamlined Heritage Victoria permits for low- and no-harm applications, including removing the need for some permits altogether, speeding up approvals to get houses built quicker and cheaper, increasing housing supplies. We have digitised applications and approvals at the conservation regulator, making it quicker and easier to process wildlife management permits, saving agricultural businesses and individuals at least 678 days per year, and we have digitised licensing and approvals for 350 early childhood education and care providers, saving providers up to 4 hours per application and up to 8 hours on their assessments. We have accelerated permit process approvals by 10 days for 2000 oversized vehicles each year, making it easier for businesses to move cranes and platform trailers.

I am delighted to have had the opportunity to speak on this bill. I will make a note that I heard Mr Galea talking about a sport club other than his own, and given that he barracks for Essendon it is no surprise he was talking about another club. I actually thought he was talking about another code. Anyway, as he is putting the boot into Essendon, I will leave my contribution at that.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (00:59): I am pleased to speak in support of the Minister for Economic Growth and Jobs in the other place’s Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025. This bill includes almost 40 proposals across 14 different acts that provide simple, straightforward, uncontroversial improvements to legislation that all sides of the Parliament can get behind. In listing these amendments to the Adoption Act 1984, the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Act 2021, the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Act 2003, the Domestic Animals Act 1994, the Electricity Industry Act 2000, the Environment Protection Act 2017, the Essential Services Commission Act 2001, the Housing Act 1983, the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990, the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Act 2023, the Service Victoria Act 2018, the Subdivision Act 1988, the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (TLA) and the Water Act 1989, all have minor changes which serve to simplify and uncomplicate the regular activities of government agencies, businesses and individual Victorians. The Allan Labor government is committed to legislating effective and efficient regulation, which is why these amendments aim to fine-tune legislation so that it reflects the modern needs of business, the community and the government. The bill also has many benefits which can be found across its four main objectives, which I will come to soon.

I wish to firstly note, however, that this bill is indicative of a government which is committed to bettering the lives of Victorians by making simple, straightforward improvements to legislation, because we are a government that is not afraid to get things done. This may not be the easiest or most glamorous bill brought before the house, but it is ultimately vital work. Not only does regulatory reform contribute to increased economic productivity, but it makes it easier to do business in Victoria and it protects our consumers, our communities’ health and safety and the environment.

The bill addresses a wide range of matters which, once enacted, will support effective and efficient regulation. The bill will amend the Essential Services Commission Act 2001 to set a six-year period for the ESC to commence civil penalty proceedings. Currently no explicit limitations period for commencing civil penalty proceedings exists. This will change, and it will ensure that the ESC can promptly undertake investigations and commence necessary proceedings. This will promote the long-term interests of Victorian consumers and properly oversee regulated industries in Victoria, which is consistent with the legislative framework of other regulators, such as the Australian Consumer Law, which also has a limited period of six years for consumers to take legal action against a business for a consumer protection issue, with some variations.

Amendments to the Domestic Animals Act 1994 will mean that local governments will be able to better manage the potential risks posed by dangerous, menacing and restricted breeds of dogs. Owners will be required to notify local governments if the dog dies or is relocated. An owner of a dog for which there is an investigation into an alleged offence or a dangerous dog must notify the council within 24 hours if the owner’s address changes. This notice under the amendment must include the new address of the dog. These amendments mirror the ones made for menacing dogs in a restricted dog breed. Additional amendments made to the Domestic Animals Act 1994 include enabling approval holders to surrender their dog obedience training organisation’s approval and applicable organisations’ approval for cancellation by the minister, enabling commercial dog breeder approval holders to surrender the approval to the minister for cancellation and enabling holders to surrender their animal registry licence for cancellation by the secretary. If a declared bird organisation applies for a new declaration at least 60 days before the expiry of the current declaration, the minister must approve or reject the new application before the current declaration expires. This will ensure that local councils have accurate current details to inform compliance and enforcement activities.

The bill will also clarify the intent of previous amendments made to the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, in particular the abilities of the Secretary of the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing to authorise a principal officer of Aboriginal agency to act with consideration to the unique cultural requirements of Aboriginal children, as well as any of their non-Aboriginal siblings. Such changes are crucial, given the diversity of families, to mitigate the risk of traumatisation that comes with the upheaval of family units, to avoid delays through protective intervention orders that result from separate authorities and also to maintain crucial cultural and kinship ties by promoting the care of vulnerable children by First Nations agencies. Importantly, this will also work to avoid delays to child protection investigations that result in individual authorisations.

The Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Act 2023 will be amended to allow for the minister to redact confidential and commercially sensitive information. This works to ensure transparency and accountability while also protecting legitimate commercial interests.

Changes to the Adoption Act 1984 will empower the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety not to disclose certain adoption information, particularly where they believe it may increase the risk of harm to another person, including family violence. These changes are in line with the information privacy principles of Victorian government agencies already sharing information with each other, aligning the Adoption Act 1984 with minimum standards for how Victorian public sector organisations manage personal information. Crucially, this serves to better protect members of the community impacted by adoption legislation that would be impacted by alerts. In 1928, when adoption legislation was first introduced to Parliament, approximately 64,000 Victorians had been adoptees. While these numbers decreased significantly after the 1970s, that is a significant number of Victorians today who would be impacted by this legislation, and it is critical that we update it to maintain relevance to these Victorians.

Changes made to the Electricity Industry Act 2000 will also allow the Essential Services Commission to set the minimum solar feed-in tariff for the upcoming financial year up until either the date that is declared by order published in the Government Gazette or by Governor in Council on the recommendation of the minister or, if no declaration is made, by 28 May in the preceding financial year. The significance of this change in date to 28 May in the preceding financial year, in comparison to 28 February, is that it reduces the time between when a determination must be made and the start of a new financial year, which of course is 1 July, to which it applies for three months. Furthermore, the legislation removes certain mandatory reporting requirements for government and industry where the data is of limited or no use either to government or to stakeholders and provides for further transitional provisions in relation to determinations.

Amendments to the Environment Protection Act 2017 mean that the Environment Protection Act will better be able to target its regulatory and enforcement activities. This means the EPA will be able to pursue a business or business owner where the vehicle owned by that business has been used to illegally dump waste and revoke a registration for a certain prescribed authority on a prescribed date on which it will take effect. Further, environmental notices or orders will apply to officers of a body corporate at the time when they were issued, not after. In simple terms, responsibilities cannot be avoided or delegated, nor should they be.

The second intention of the bill is to promote consistency with other legislation and existing policies. The bill does this by amending the Service Victoria Act 2018. Changes will ensure Service Victoria has the flexibility to deliver new value-added services to customers, as backed by the appropriate charging in line with the Victorian pricing or value guidelines. Before any fee can be set there will be a mandatory public consultation. This is imperative, as it will address gaps in legislation coverage of Service Victoria’s ability to charge fees for the services it provides. Specifically, this will be done by inserting a new section in relation to the act’s provisions which gives the Service Victoria CEO the power to request fees and charges to be paid by customers using the services or products provided by Service Victoria, subject to certain limitations set out under the section and according to the fee charge amounts as prescribed by the act. Through this amendment the implementation of this section does not extend to fees or charges which are already payable for the services or products laid out under any other acts or regulations.

The registrar of titles will also be able to collect fees on a value-for-money basis through the amendments to the Transfer of Land Act 1958. This is in line with Victoria’s pricing-for-value guidelines and fees in other Australian states and territories, without being limited to cost recovery.

Amendments to the Subdivision Act 1988 will ensure that changes made to the Transfer of Land Act 1958 are consistent and will also be reflected in the part of this act which represents fees and charges by revising the section which sets out the matters on which the Governor in Council may make regulations under the act to broaden the provisions regarding the making of the fees and services provided by the register in regulations. Further amendments to the TLA will clarify that the forfeiture of fees applies in all cases where an instrument is subsequently withdrawn, refused or rejected after lodgement. The bill will also remove the ability to pay a half fee or claim a refund on a full fee for instruments that have been relodged following the withdrawal, refusal or rejection, as the cost and time put in the examination by the registrar for a second lodgement would be just the same as for the initial analysis. The electronic instrument pre-lodgement validations provided by the registrar have minor amendments, which include the removal of references to paper conveyancing transactions and other redundant provisions relating to assurance contributions. This will ensure that the TLA remains up to date, providing the best and the most accurate services to Victorian people, a goal which this government always has at the forefront of everything we do.

Aligning with various recommendations and reviews, the bill will amend the Adoption Act 1984 to ensure that the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety is able to disclose adoption information in response to a court order, subpoena or request from a royal commission.

Changes to the Housing Act 1983 will remove the requirement of registered housing agencies to provide their bank details, including details of their financial institutions and account numbers, to the housing registrar. This is an important change to protect the security of agencies’ financial details when they are generally unnecessary for the housing registrar to hold. This information can be accessed by the housing registrar in situations deemed necessary through alternative means already in existence.

Finally, amendments to the Circular Economy (Waste Regulation and Recycling) Act 2021 revise the list of prohibitions in which a civil penalty order can be made by aligning with the changes brought into effect by the Environment Legislation Amendment (Circular Economy and Other Matters) Act 2022 already in force.

This bill aims to support effective and efficient regulation as well as address minor regulatory issues by streamlining processes and reducing bureaucratic delays in the day-to-day activities of government, businesses and individuals. This will help in modernising legislation, reducing regulatory burden on businesses and improving regulation. It will also ensure that the regulatory framework is fit for purpose. Yearly omnibus bills such as these help to ensure that Victoria has a modern, adaptive and fit-for-purpose regulatory system that is applicable to the needs of Victorians today. It is a clear demonstration of this government’s efforts to modernise and adapt our regulatory arrangements wherever possible, but it does more than that.

The Allan Labor government has a strong record of pushing for the cutting of burdensome red tape which holds Victorians back and reforming our regulatory framework to the benefit of all Victorians. Over the past 10 years we have reviewed and reformed regulations to liquor, environment protection, essential services, electricity, building construction, health planning, consumer affairs, fee pricing, owners corporation and more. We have also legislated regulatory improvements to automatic mutual recognition, cladding safety, wage theft, gender equality and casino and gambling laws, as well as worker screening processes, green energy and greater energy market protections, to name a few. These are comprehensive reforms which modernise our regulatory framework while removing outdated processes, helping Victorian households and businesses get on with it. It is about striking the balance between dispensing with the old and modernising the regulations to suit today and promoting economic growth across Victoria, and I commend the bill to the house.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (01:14): Thank you for the call this morning to speak to the bill before us, the last one of this sitting week, the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025. Upon reading this bill and of course additionally the statement of compatibility provided I am reminded of my work as a member of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, and I do recall the very detailed actual examination of this bill before us from a human rights perspective. What I found quite interesting was that while this bill has many, many areas of reform to a number of acts contained within it, there are some that particularly struck a chord with me. So if you all do not mind, I am going to take my time to speak to the bits of this bill that were of particular and profound interest to me. They include – and other speakers have spoken to them – the reforms around adoption, but particularly I will take the time to speak to the adoption of Aboriginal children and the connection of Aboriginal families. I have spoken about it once; I have spoken about it maybe more than once if I think back correctly. There is so much that this government has done to make sure that Aboriginal families are kept strong and thriving in culture, and so I will say I was absolutely delighted by the examination of this bill through the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee and now the opportunity to speak on it this morning to discuss its particular impacts on Aboriginal children.

We all would remember with much interest the large-scale changes that were enacted by this place to section 18 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, an area that for me I recall was of great interest before entering this place. That was a particularly impactful bill and a particularly impactful act, because what it does is allow Aboriginal agencies and Aboriginal community controlled organisations to actually have the powers and authority to care for Aboriginal children, which for so many years has actually stood with the secretary of the relevant department. The bill before us this evening actually enables some changes to section 18 of the Children, Youth and Families Act, and it is actually called ‘section 18’ out there in communities. What it does is allow us to really bolster the powers available to Aboriginal agencies so that they can intervene, where appropriate, to continue to protect the rights and safety, wellbeing and cultural care of Aboriginal children so that they remain with Aboriginal agencies, because first and foremost, we must be considering the child’s best interest, particularly with respect to continuing that connection between the child and their extended family. Kinship care, as we know, is a very common practice in not only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities but many others, to take on the care of their young ones. So the changes that came about in part 3 of this bill to allow Aboriginal agencies to continue to intervene to secure the welfare, the health and the wellbeing of Aboriginal children was one that I was happy to make a contribution on here this morning but also in the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulation Committee.

There are many other diverse parts to this bill, and I can speak to them, but I do want to first and foremost speak to section 18 and take a moment to acknowledge all of those organisations that have with such goodwill taken on the very significant role of caring for our most vulnerable children in the community, and those are the children in out-of-home care. Thank you to those organisations, with a particular reference to those that I have worked with very closely, not only through the Aboriginal Children’s Forum but also in the youth justice space.

There are some further amendments that have been made in this bill, and they go to the cultural rights of Aboriginal children, because as members may recall, the charter of human rights also provides for the protection of the cultural rights of persons. Be they of a particular cultural, linguistic, religious or racial background, they cannot be denied the right to practise their culture, religion or languages in a community of others of the same background. That is particularly relevant when you look at section 19(2) of the aforementioned act, which recognises the distinct cultural rights of Aboriginal persons. They must not be denied their rights to enjoy their identity and their culture, whilst also maintaining their languages and kinship ties.

The maintenance of those distinctive spiritual, material and economic relationships with land, waters and other resources which they have a connection to under traditional law and customs are also secured under that act. While this right sat with section 19 of the charter, there was really some tightening up that needed to be done in section 18 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, which we have been given that opportunity to do with the bill before us. Part 3 of this bill is really intended to allow principal officers of Aboriginal organisations and agencies to be clear when performing their functions that they can be undertaken with respect to an entire sibling group where Aboriginal children are in families with non-Aboriginal siblings – it does happen. What this does is avoid delays to protective intervention that would result from separate authorisation and promotes the cultural rights of Aboriginal children. When the government does intervene in the ongoing care of Aboriginal children, there is absolutely a consideration for maintaining the child’s rights to their siblings’ cultural heritage, communities and, as I said, those rights that are protected under section 19 of the charter, including their cultural, linguistic and racial background being recognised with respect to the practice of their culture, religion or language in the community.

There are of course some proposals that are in part 2 of this bill which do give the secretary access to certain adoption-related records held by Births, Deaths and Marriages Victoria which will enable the secretary to carry out their role, particularly with regard to historical adoptions where there is missing or incomplete information, which I must confess often happens in stolen generation adoptions, as sad as that is. This proposal before us would promote the cultural rights particularly of Aboriginal persons by enabling the process by which they can re-establish their cultural identity and their kinship that they were denied as descendants of the stolen generations. As somebody who is a descendant of the stolen generations, I am absolutely delighted to have an opportunity to speak here in the early hours to a bill that might not even pique the interest of many. For me, it is a bill that enables stolen generation families and their descendants to much more quickly connect with their family, identity and culture and the rights bestowed upon them as First Nations people but also as Victorians under the charter.

There are of course parts of this bill that also would allow natural relatives, including siblings, aunts, uncles or grandparents, to access identifying information under the Adoption Act 1984 about the adopted person to enable them to identify or connect with family. That might include their name, their date of birth, the name of their parents and their adoption date. This amendment has the potential to promote the cultural rights of adopted persons and their relatives, enabling them access to their cultural background. In the case of Aboriginal persons this also enables the ability to reassert kinship ties, which may be strengthened by having access to the records about their identity, their family and their cultural ties. I know many of the organisations involved in section 18 of the Children, Youth and Families Act – that is, Aboriginal community controlled organisations – really are at pains to make sure that children under the care of organisations are actually afforded opportunities to connect with their family and with their culture.

In fact one of the leaders in our community is Aunty Eva Jo Edwards. She will be in here tomorrow in fact in Parliament providing cultural leadership to a group of Aboriginal young people who will be coming in here for some cultural leadership opportunities, and anyone that is in the Parliament right now will actually see that we have got the yarning circle that is being prepared out in the gardens. Aunty Eva Jo is a very esteemed leader in our community, with a particular focus on connecting stolen generations and their descendants to their community, to their culture, to their heritage, to their language and mostly to their families. Despite this late sitting, I will be back here tomorrow with much enthusiasm as I meet many, many Aboriginal young people who are on their own leadership journey – leadership not just in their education but also in their knowledge of their culture and their place in the community. To Aunty Eva Jo Edwards: can I give you my thanks and let you know that I am looking forward to seeing you tomorrow. It is bills like this that we are talking about right now that make her work just that little bit easier as she works with Aboriginal agencies right across the state to ensure that the cultural ties of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care are strengthened, not lost, through the really tough situation of being a child under the care of Aboriginal organisations under section 18 of the Children, Youth and Families Act.

There is of course so much that I could otherwise speak to in this bill. I do know that others have spoken to various elements of the bill before us, and I thank them. But it would be quite remiss of me to not reaffirm how entirely powerful it is that we have a bill before us that will continue to connect Aboriginal children to culture and to family, as so many young people in fact are in contact with the out-of-home-care system and particularly those under the care of section 18 of the act and the leadership of Aboriginal organisations. There is so much that they do, so much that is unrecognised and undervalued. I want to tell you right here and right now that that is not the case for me and it is not the case for so many in the Aboriginal community who know just how much you do to make sure that we do not have another stolen generation in our lifetime, because the health outcomes and the wellbeing outcomes of those that were removed from home is just too devastating to go into.

But there is of course hope when the leaders like Aunty Eva Jo and Uncle Ricky Baldwin, who will be here tomorrow, are leading the next generation, and some of those kids I am given to understand have come through the out-of-home care system. They have come through and they are thriving, and tomorrow they will be here in our Parliament. I cannot wait to have the opportunity to speak to them about the bill before us and how it was that in the early hours of this morning we came together to make change that makes their life and their communities all that much more valued and makes their connection to Aboriginal people and Aboriginal culture reaffirmed through the protections available through section 18 of the Children, Youth and Families Act.

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (01:30): Thank you to everybody who has contributed today to a very wideranging and important bill which does provide a greater measure of regulatory certainty across many, many parts of the statute book. This contemplates changes to 14 acts that provide really simple and straightforward improvements. They are improvements which, as we have heard this evening from those around the chamber in their contributions, are supported by people irrespective of party alliance and agenda, because fundamentally this is about having a system of regulation that is consistent; that is free to the best extent possible of unnecessary duplication; that references, considers and reflects the modern priorities of industry, of business, of decision making and of access to services and programs; and that provides Victorians with a measure of consistency around the way in which the statute operates across various parts of the state and in a range of different frameworks. We have small and technical amendments which are part of this bill, again, in the way in which we are helping councils to collect better data. We heard extensive contributions on that from Mr Galea and Mr Batchelor. I think Ms Crozier may also have touched on the provisions around the Domestic Animals Act 1994 in her contribution. We also heard very significantly from Ms Watt and Mr Mulholland I think around amendments to the Adoption Act 1984 to remove barriers that are going to help families who have experienced forced adoptions to reunite.

I want to touch on a couple of the things that were raised by Dr Mansfield and Ms Gray-Barberio around the Victorian Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages and also the amendments to the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972. There was, as Dr Mansfield pointed out, a proposal to really firm up and to strengthen work through the Victorian Conservation Trust Act. This was something which Dr Mansfield indicated with a measure of optimism would be the subject of ongoing conversations with the Minister for Environment, which I think is an appropriate process for these discussions to take place through. This is something which sits adjacent to the bill which is before the chamber today, and those conversations can and indeed should take place directly with the minister, who can consider the merits of the proposal that Dr Mansfield has put today and which are also, as I understand it, already part of an engagement between the Greens and government in that regard.

There was also a comment and some narrative from Dr Mansfield on the births, deaths and marriages registry and the proposals that were put in Dr Mansfield’s contribution around changes to the registry. I want to note Dr Mansfield’s comments around the changes that were speculated upon by the former Treasurer but were very, very clearly ruled out in relation to changes to the births, deaths and marriages registry. The former Treasurer was really clear in that he did not see any public benefit to be gained in pursuing anything along the lines of the concerns around privatisation, value capture, partnerships, whatever the terminology might have been; it is not in fact part of the priorities or indeed the direction of government in this regard. But there are, again, some other pertinent points around the way in which Births, Deaths and Marriages Victoria functions operate that make it really clear that operating through the Department of Government Services means that we need to make sure that it can continue its work and it can continue to provide people with the support, the access, the consistency and the efficiency of decision-making that they deserve. So I hope that makes clear, on two components of the contributions from Dr Mansfield and Ms Gray-Barberio, the positions of government: firstly, ongoing conversations around conservation of land; and secondly, births, deaths and marriages being something which is not the subject of any speculation around changes as they relate to direct decisions being made by government without any interface with the private sector or industry more broadly.

There are a number of amendments that, again, have been the subject of really broad contributions this evening. I want to just touch on a couple of those examples, again, around the Adoption Act 1984 and the work that has been done here to enable the secretary to refuse to disclose certain information when they reasonably believe it may jeopardise someone’s life or physical safety or cause them harm. This is a really critical reform that will mean that we can better protect individuals where there is the potential risk of family violence. There is also the work that has happened to ensure that the secretary can comply with a court order to produce documents in court proceedings or in a royal commission, which is not currently the case, and the bill would allow natural relatives to access identifying information about the adopted person so that they can be reunited. This is the work of the Parliament, as routine and as technical as it may be, that facilitates better outcomes for people, particularly people in what are often devastatingly vulnerable circumstances – people who are living without access to information about their identities, their histories, their genealogies, their countries of origin or their cultures of origin. This is again where making sure that connections are able to be created, located or sustained with family for people who are emerging after being in a vacuum of information about who they are is of essential importance to good decision-making but also to having a government which reflects the values which bring us all to this place and to our commitments to the work that we do.

We also want to make sure that when we are streamlining processes to reduce administrative burdens we are doing so in a way that means that regulators are not collecting or retaining unnecessary data from community housing providers. Amendments to the Housing Act 1983 will be covered in that regard. This will help to keep really sensitive banking information with owners and also make sure that we are removing those unnecessary reporting requirements for licenced electricity sellers.

There are a number of scenarios in which the integrity of data and information is borne out, and these are everyday transactions of a nature which might seem commonplace but where things go wrong, where there are gaps in the way in which information is collected, is used, is stored, is shared or is otherwise destroyed. We know that can have very far reaching and significant and permanent consequences for people where that information is shared inappropriately or unlawfully.

We do also have a range of reforms that are taking place within the broader statute book and broader statutory reform, and this is where, again, these sorts of regulatory reform bills do enable us to ensure that there is a good reflection of further legislative change within existing law. When we make sure that we do this, we want to also address ongoing reform through liquor regulation, environmental protection, essential services, electricity, building and construction, health, planning, consumer affairs, fee pricing, owners corporations and more. When we look to the other sorts of experiences that people have in their everyday lives, we are talking about everything from cladding safety through to worker screening processes. We are investing in regulatory reform because it is the right thing to do and because the law needs to adequately reflect and explain the framework of regulation of rights and responsibilities of accountability and transparency. That is exactly what this bill does.

I thank everybody for their contributions to this wideranging debate this evening and for their forbearance in what is a technical but nonetheless essential bill. Particularly at this time of the morning it is often hard to stay the course, but I commend everybody who has done so this evening. On that basis, I will conclude my summing-up remarks and commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (01:41): I move, by leave:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.