Thursday, 2 April 2026

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:13): I am pleased to rise to speak today on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2026, which includes an exciting array of measures to improve regulation in this state. There is one very significant amendment that has been circulated by Minister Symes in the past couple of days, which I will come to shortly.

This bill covers a wide range of different areas of regulation under various different acts. What this bill includes measures such as promoting the integrity of local government by ensuring that former councillors cannot be appointed to CEO roles within two years of leaving office. It will protect property owners from negative community sentiment when participating in land management cooperative agreements. It will simplify court application processes for people who have done their time and rehabilitated themselves so that they can get on with becoming productive members of the community, improving their chances of getting jobs, housing and opportunities so that they can continue and hopefully thrive and prosper in the rest of their lives. It will modernise payment methods for the workers compensation scheme, removing the need to draw checks by moving to more modern, up-to-date and faster payment methods. It will also replace some gendered pronouns in legislation to reflect modern community standards on the use of inclusive language. There are also some productivity measures contained within this bill, ensuring that Victorian laws reflect the latest intergovernmental agreements on national competition policy to lift economic performance and improve our living standards. These amendments recognise that regulations do touch every aspect of our community, from big business to small business, to local governments, to individuals and indeed to community organisations as well. Unlike some in this place, we are striving not for no regulation but for effective regulation.

There are also amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 2017, which will relieve property owners of the requirement to clean up dumped waste when the person responsible for the illegal dumping and for the issue is identified. They should be the ones to be held accountable and also to clean it up. Changes to the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Act 2021 will allow the regulator to reference external documents in exemptions granted, in service standards and in other guidelines. There are also various amendments to the Local Government Act 2020, which will confirm that VCAT can hear disputes on council election results in its original jurisdiction, providing a faster resolution of disputes and certainty to communities about the outcome of their democratic elections. Back to the circular economy act, we are introducing a stop-the-clock mechanism to that act to ensure that the regulator can make the best decision with the best available information from the applicant.

Given that this is a wideranging regulatory act, it is actually a very opportune moment for us to be bringing in amendments to this that do cover different aspects of regulation in relation to ensuring that we can keep our oil supply secure. We also have amendments that will expand the powers afforded to the Minister for Energy and Resources, which are currently reserved for use in a declared emergency situation when it comes to being able to evaluate and monitor fuel supply levels through all parts of industry. Those measures will now be extended so that an emergency does not need to be declared in order for it to be effected, which I very much hope will help us to avoid any such fuel emergency. It is one extra step that this government can take to do everything we can to ensure that as we enter these turbulent times through a foreign war launched not by Australia, not with Australia’s consultation or involvement, but one that is nevertheless reshaping the global economy in dramatic and rapid ways that we need to respond to. That is where we find ourselves with the opportunity through this bill today to include new amendments which will support this situation.

We know that Victorians are concerned about the fuel supply situation, which is why we are taking this action today. I note that the Premier and the Minister for Energy and Resources have already held two industry forums and multiple meetings with fuel suppliers since the start of the war in Iran. The government also continues to work closely with the Commonwealth and other jurisdictions to monitor the situation through regular meetings of the NOSEC, the National Oil Supplies Emergency Committee, and the Fuel Supply Taskforce. Through this engagement we know that there is still sufficient fuel coming into the country to meet normal demand over the forward outlook. I know the member for Lara is very proud of the Viva oil refinery in her electorate, which is continuing to power and fuel our state. Around 1000 workers work at it. Ms Tierney, who is in the chamber with us, is very, very aware of this issue and is supporting the workers who are putting their absolute all in at the moment to keep our state running.

We do know, despite all these best efforts, that some Victorians, particularly in regional areas, are sometimes struggling to access the fuel that they need. We also know that almost all Victorians are suffering the effects of higher fuel prices caused by the war. I have already talked previously in this place about the Servo Saver and the ways in which people can ensure that they are getting the best deal, but there is further action that needs to be taken. In order to do that I note that the Australian government has released 20 per cent of its domestic reserve, targeting it into regional areas that are experiencing shortages and where we are seeing those shortages occur. The federal government has also halved the fuel excise and reduced the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero for three months. They have released the National Fuel Security Plan, with the nation now at level 2 to keep Australia moving forward with some precautionary measures in place. They also increased the ACCC’s monitoring powers and penalties to ensure that Australian consumers are not being ripped off, especially as we see the fuel excise easing off, to make sure that is being actually passed on to customers, which is the very least that they deserve. There are also temporarily relaxed fuel standards so that all fuel that we make here can be sold here and we can import more diesel.

We have worked together with the Commonwealth and other jurisdictions to develop the National Fuel Security Plan, which was agreed to at national cabinet this week. The plan includes four alert levels to provide clear guidance to Australians about the situation. As mentioned, we are currently at level 2, which is ‘Keeping Australia moving’. At this level we do know that the global conflict is causing an unprecedented shock to global oil and gas supply, pushing up fuel prices for Australian consumers and businesses. This global outlook remains unpredictable and volatile, and it is the responsibility of all governments to plan for these challenges as they emerge. We are in a secure position right now, but it is the responsibility of all governments to plan ahead for every scenario. In accordance with this plan, Victoria is strengthening our fuel security preparedness. In addition to these regular industry meetings I have already mentioned, we have also appointed a class 2 energy controller under the emergency management framework to coordinate access and action across government.

We are now also amending, through this bill today, the Fuel Emergency Act 1977 to enable the Minister for Energy and Resources to compel fuel suppliers to provide information that will help with contingency planning. Victoria already receives fuel supply data from industry, but this amendment will enable the provision of end-to-end supply data outside of an emergency situation, as I have already mentioned. With this information Victoria will be better placed to act quickly and if required, intervene at an early opportunity to keep essential services, regional communities, freight and agriculture moving.

This is different data to what is currently reported on Servo Saver, which reports on localised pricing and localised outages. The data that would be available to government under this amendment includes how much fuel distribution companies are receiving and where it is going, which will deliver a complete end-to-end picture of fuel supply and distribution, which will help us that little bit more to be one step ahead in helping us to plan and prepare for the future should this situation worsen further. The minister does already have considerable powers to compel information under the Fuel Emergency Act 1977, but as I said, they apply only if an emergency is formally declared. Whilst I will reiterate the point that fuel supplies are currently healthy, it is absolutely prudent that we are doing everything that we can to prepare for any eventuality so that if the worst should come to the worst, we are in the best possible position to act.

There are many other important actions being taken through this, specifically these specific amendments and through broader amendments to regulations in this bill. I can see my colleague across the chamber Mrs McArthur is champing at the bit to have her say on this bill, and I am excited to hear her contribution so I will conclude my remarks there.

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (10:23): Thank you, Mr Galea, for your contribution and shout-out. I will concentrate my remarks this morning on the local government provisions of the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2026, which proposes a number of amendments to the Local Government Act 2020.

The key changes in the local government area are these. Clause 32 aligns the ground of serious misconduct relating to the disclosure of confidential information with the existing offence provision in section 125 of the Local Government Act. That is a sensible tidying-up measure, and we have no objection to it. Clause 33 reintroduces the restriction against former councillors becoming a council’s chief executive officer within two years of leaving office. Section 48(6) of the act already prevents a council from appointing a former councillor as a member of council staff within two years, but that restriction does not explicitly cover the CEO position. This amendment closes the gap in that particular aspect, and on the face of it that is a reasonable measure, but I would note that it is likely to renew a broader conversation within the sector about the appropriateness of former councillors transitioning directly into CEO roles within the very municipalities they represented and about what constitutes an adequate cooling-off period.

Clause 35 harmonises the sanctions available to a councillor conduct panel (CCP) with those available to an arbiter. Under the current framework, an arbiter may impose sanctions for certain misconduct that are not available to a councillor conduct panel, which is plainly inconsistent. The amendment would mean that a councillor subjected to a councillor conduct panel could be directed to attend training or counselling, prevented from attending or participating in specified council meetings or prevented from holding the office of mayor or deputy mayor for a period of up to 12 months. Sanctions should be proportionate to the severity of the misconduct, not dependent on which body happens to hear the matter, so we support the intent of this clause. Clauses 36 and 37 clarify that an application for a review of the declaration of an election result under section 311(1) is to be heard by VCAT in its original jurisdiction, not its review jurisdiction. That is not something we are opposing.

The clause that does give us pause, and I know it gave pause to a number of stakeholders we consulted, including a senior local government lawyer and a council officer acting on behalf of the CEO, is clause 34. This clause removes the mandatory requirement for arbiters to refer apparent serious misconduct to the chief municipal inspector. Instead, it would give arbiters discretion as to whether a referral should be made. I accept the argument that this may improve efficiency and reduce delays in cases where matters are simply referred back to the arbiter, but serious misconduct carries significant penalties under the act. That means substantial fines, suspensions and potential disqualification from council elections. The question is whether such matters should, at the very least, be considered by the chief municipal inspector to determine whether the CMI or a CCP is best placed to deal with them. We are not satisfied that removing this safeguard is justified, and the government has not adequately explained why a mandatory referral mechanism is being replaced with unguided discretion.

Let me make a broader point: these are incremental amendments to an act that needs wholesale reform if we are serious about empowering local democracy in this state. The coalition believes local government reform should be guided by clear principles, reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens on councillors, including mandatory training requirements, protecting freedom of speech through reform of the councillor code of conduct and ensuring that where the state intervenes in local councils, it funds those interventions fully, rather than allowing them to become instruments of politicisation. That is the direction of reform this sector needs, not piecemeal tinkering with misconduct processes while the fundamental architecture of the act remains unfit for purpose. We will not oppose this bill, but we will be moving an amendment that reflects our concerns, and I look forward to moving that amendment and discussing it further in the committee stage.

 John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (10:29): I rise to speak on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2026. This bill forms part of the Labor government’s ongoing work to ensure that Victoria’s regulatory framework agenda functions as it should, ensuring that it remains practical, up to date and fit for purpose. While the amendments contained within this bill may be technical in nature, regulatory reform plays an important role in supporting increased economic productivity, whether for the purpose of clarification or keeping legislation up to date with modern or new systems and structures, making it easier to do business in Victoria, ensuring that our legislative framework continues to protect consumers, community health and safety and the environment. The bill contains more than 40 proposals across 13 different acts and seven ministerial portfolios.

The amendments deliver meaningful improvements that will benefit Victorians by strengthening clarity, accessibility and consistency across our legislative framework. These amendments are in relation to the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Act 2021, relating to the incorporation of documents in the circular economy risk, consequence and contingency plan and in exemptions, guidelines and other service standards under the act; the determination of the applications for an exemption under the act; the consultation process for preparation and amendment of the Victorian recycling infrastructure plan; the disclosure of information to the Secretary of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action; and submissions to the responsible entity risk, consequence and contingency plans and statements of assurance.

The bill changes the Competition Policy Reform (Victoria) Act 1995 in relation to an obsolete reference to the code of conduct agreement; the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 in relation to information to be given to the public about land management and cooperative agreements; the Environment Protection Act 2017; the Gas Industry Act 2001; the Grain Handling and Storage Act 1995 in relation to obsolete references to the competition principles agreement; the Local Government Act 2020 in relation to the government’s oversight, local government and VCAT jurisdiction with respect to applications disputing the validity of an election; the Spent Convictions Act 2021; the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972; the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013; the Accident Compensation Act 1985 in relation to payments by cheque; the Labor Hire Legislation Amendment (Licensing) Act 2025 and the Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Act 2025 in relation to minor or statute law revision amendments. The bill supports effective and efficient regulation. The bill seeks to make further minor amendments to a number of pieces of legislation, ensuring consistency and clarity, because it is important that our legislation impacting a variety of industries and services conveys correct information to those impacted. This is good governance.

Local governments across the state, with a separation between decision-making and operational management, are critical to maintaining integrity in these spaces. A minor amendment will be made to the Environment Protection Act 2017 relating to the criteria which the Environment Protection Authority Victoria is obliged to take into consideration when determining whether to amend or refuse an application to amend a permit: the Environment Protection Authority or the local council, if a case requires it, must refuse to amend a permit if the activity specified in the application process poses an unacceptable risk of harm to human health or the environment or any prescribed circumstances that may exist. These changes streamline the way in which the legislation can be navigated, creating increased ease and comprehension of the act.

This bill addresses matters across many portfolios but follows the same aim: improving existing legislation to be clearer and fairer while improving accessibility of government schemes, strengthening integrity measures for local governments and refining regulatory tools for agencies, demonstrating this Labor government’s commitment to ensuring our legislation is clear and effective. I believe it is an uncontroversial bill, simply for the purpose of streamlining systems, clarifying legislation and making it easy to access and understand for Victorian individuals, organisations, entities and regulatory bodies. I support this bill in its entirety, and I commend the Minister for Government Services in the other place for presenting it to the Parliament.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (10:34): This bill is an omnibus bill. It picks up a range of different changes, but I am not going to talk about the bill as a whole, I am only going to talk about the government’s proposed amendments, the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2026 amendments proposed by Jaclyn Symes in the Council. And I just want to be clear with the chamber, this new pattern that is emerging of the government providing amendments – major amendments, new amendments, amendments outside the shape and form of an act requiring an instruction motion, but a whole new addition – is becoming a pattern with this government.

So in middle afternoon on Monday my office got a call to tell us that the government was proposing these amendments. We were briefed – and thank you to the minister for providing a briefing at 5:15 that afternoon – and we circulated material to many in the sector to ask their views. The question is why the government has this hurried approach. They must have known that this was coming the week before and they must have known that there were opportunities to inform the opposition and other parties ahead of time, so there is a process issue that I really do take exception to here. A government with all the power and machinery of departments, thousands of bureaucrats, towers lit up, able to do enormous amounts of items, with huge power – and using these last-minute amendments. The opposition will not oppose this amendment, but we do have some serious reservations about it.

I hasten to add that there is obviously a significant international situation. We heard the Prime Minister last night making his slightly offbeat, I thought, presentation to the Australian people. It did not really go anywhere. It seemed to make no particular announcement as such. I think he was trying to reassure people, but it seems to have had a counterproductive effect, with more people purchasing fuel in the afternoon, as they understood the Prime Minister was about to make an address, and the press obviously conveyed that to the broader Australian and Victorian community. There is clearly a significant issue in the Middle East, and the supplies of both diesel and petrol are significantly impacted. Nobody is quibbling about the issues and the challenges faced by Victoria on these matters, but it does appear the state government was slow to respond on a number of these things. It does appear that they could have entered the field with this a lot earlier. They could have informed other members of the chamber at a much earlier point.

I do want to indicate roughly what this amendment does, and it is a very broad power. Amendment 2 is an amendment to clause 1 and inserts the Fuel Emergency Act 1977:

(i)   to confer a power on the Minister to direct persons to give the Minister information relating to the production, supply, distribution, sale, use or consumption of a fuel and create related offences …

So there is a power to direct, there are offences and it goes on. We asked at the briefing what this meant – a demand for information from anyone involved in the ‘production, supply, distribution, sale, use or consumption of a fuel and create related offences’. The government has tried to say this is only for the broad, large companies that are involved, but that is actually not what the amendment reads. The amendment is an enormous power. This would give power to the minister to direct every truck driver to provide information and every service station to provide information. Read it. I saw Ms Watt looked a bit shocked when I said that, but actually just read it:

… direct persons to give the Minister information relating to the production, supply, distribution, sale, use or consumption of a fuel and create related offences …

Goodness, it is a very, very broad power indeed. Every truck driver, every farmer, every petrol station owner, every person involved in the production, supply, distribution, sale, use or consumption of a fuel – that is almost everyone in the state. It is a huge power that is being employed here. It may be used responsibly – and we will have some questions in committee about this – or it may not. I have little confidence in this particular minister; in other ministers I have more confidence, but I have little confidence in this particular minister that she will use this responsibly.

Companies that are clearly in the gun for this are concerned that it is duplicative. Much of this information is already provided to the Commonwealth and much of the information has already been requested by the ACCC, so there is huge duplication here. I think we want to know whether the minister has actually sought to access the Commonwealth material or whether she, in a sprint of activity, has decided that she is going to go after them and appear to be doing something. I think this is more of an action item for the minister to appear to be doing something. I do not think we have received from the government the requested table that had all of the other jurisdictions and their various powers. It might be that it has slipped through. I am happy to concede it could have slipped through, and I will have my staff check again to see if it has come through. That was something that was committed to.

In my consultation I have had a number of people come back to me, and I am going to read some of these. There is concern for the ‘compliance-related costs from duplicative reporting’:

We’d want to ensure that reporting on production is not duplicative (we already report production numbers etc) and information remains contained to what is in our control.

The Victorian Minister would gain an explicit power to direct producers and other market participants …

and the list is there of all the things.

This applies to oil, gas, condensate, LPG and refined products if specified in the notice. The information can be anything in your possession, control, or knowledge, not just published data.

That is feedback to me on this. It continues:

A key change is that information directions do not require a fuel emergency.

This is a point, and I understand what the bureaucrats were saying when they briefed us on this. It continues:

The Minister can issue a direction outside an emergency if they believe:

•   there is or is likely to be a threat to production, supply or distribution, and

•   the information is needed for planning and preparedness to ensure sufficient fuel supply …

•   A bit like in gas we’d want to understand the rules in the playground for this to trigger so its based on well informed information and not a perceived risk.

There is a risk on the international scene at the moment, as we understand, but it is the translation of that that I think people are pointing to. There is a question here, and we will ask it in committee:

Has the Victorian Government worked with the federal ALP Government to access the information that the industry is already providing to the Commonwealth on a weekly basis?

It was not clear to me from the briefing whether that was the case or whether they are going to just double up on these matters, and I think that that is a legitimate question. Further:

Is the Minister proposing to collect this data from all suppliers to the market, or just the big four?

I think the answer, from the briefing, is it is a much broader group, but who is on the list? We will ask the minister: can you provide us a list of who is intended to be clobbered with these requests? Further:

Where does the Minister want fuel companies to be focused, on the supply or fuel or the supply of spreadsheets?

That is one piece of feedback that was provided. They looked at item 6. This is a suggested amendment:

A direction under subsection (1) may not require a person to provide information that the person has already provided, or is required to provide, to the Australian Competition Consumer Commission or the Australian Energy Market Operator within the 12 months preceding the date of the direction, to the extent that information is accessible to the Minister under section 2D(2)(c)or (d).

I think that is a reasonable proposed amendment. The arguments for this amendment:

No information gap exists. AEMO’s Gas Statement of Opportunities, the ACCC’s gas inquiry reporting regime, and mandatory short-term trading market obligations already give Commonwealth and State regulators detailed visibility into domestic producers’ supply positions, contracted volumes, production capacity, and pricing. The Minister can access this data through existing Commonwealth interface …

The amendment’s own architecture supports this …

and they talk about the proposed amendment:

The proposed s.2D already contemplates information sharing with the Commonwealth Minister …

Contracted supply is not a supply security risk in the same way. The mischief the amendment is aimed at – understanding fuel supply availability in a crisis – is less acute for domestic gas producers whose majority output is sold under long-term contracts with known counterparties. The supply picture is already visible for regulators; it is spot or uncontracted supply chains where information gaps are more likely to arise.

I think that distinction between diesel and petrol as opposed to gas is a legitimate one. Again, we will ask some questions in committee to tease out whether the government intends to apply this to gas in the same way, given that there is already significant information in the market.

I do not propose to go on much longer, other than to state it the way the amendment is phrased – I mean, you can only to some extent go by what the hard words of the amendment say:

to confer a power on the Minister to direct persons to give the Minister information relating to the production, supply, distribution, sale, use or consumption of a fuel and create related offences …

I will be interested to see if the minister is willing to provide us an assurance that the trucking industry, the service stations and other parts of the industry will not also be clobbered with this. Where there are larger firms that may have stores, will they be required to provide information where they are storing an amount of fuel? Is that what we are going to see here? I think again this Lily D’Ambrosio overreach, as always, goes very hard on these matters and intends to clobber the industry. I think there is a level of fury amongst many in the sector that the government has done this without appropriate consultation and discussion and is just seeking to impose these enormous powers.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:47): I would also like to say a few words on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2026. Most of the amendments in this bill are rather technical in nature, but I have got some issues with this bill. One of these issues has been resolved by a foreshadowed government amendment and another one is being created by a foreshadowed government amendment. I will not go over all the things in the bill, but there are two things that seriously concern me. One is around the new sanctions on councillors. It is my understanding that this is going to be removed via amendment, but I am very concerned. I heard Mrs McArthur talk before about how the councillor code of conduct should be reformed, and I agree with Mrs McArthur. In fact we have seen many cases where the councillor code of conduct has been weaponised to silence councillors who, in my view, are doing what they were elected to do and speaking out about issues relevant to their constituents. They are being silenced, and I can cite a few cases of this. In fact our very own Libertarian councillor at Surf Coast shire, Cr Barker, was sanctioned. There was an event and the council stated the number of people at the event. He thought that the council was overstating the number of people at the event, so he actually got a photo of the event and used AI to count the number of people at the event, which was significantly lower than what the council had claimed. The council did not like him fact-checking what the council was saying, so he ended up getting sanctioned for that, which I thought was absolutely outrageous. I thought that councillors should be able to call out things that they think the council is saying that are wrong. If the council disagreed with Mr Barker, surely they could just say why he was wrong. But they did not do that, and he ended up getting sanctioned.

There is another case at Kingston council that is an ongoing issue. There have been attempts to silence Cr White, which is totally outrageous in my view. She is doing what I think the people elected her to do. She is calling out things that she thinks are shady going on in the council. I think that is what she thinks her job is and what she was elected to do. The idea that she would somehow be reprimanded for that is wrong.

There is another councillor at Hobsons Bay shire, Cr Kellander. Again, the code of conduct has been weaponised, and you see many, many cases of this. I think that we need to reform the Local Government Act 2020 so that councillors are guaranteed their freedom of speech, so that they can speak freely about issues that are of concern to their constituents and are relevant to their council. If they say things that the council does not like or that some people do not like, well, that is tough luck. Maybe they should fire back with their own version of things or have a civilised debate about it, because silencing councillors like this is just wrong and it is happening far too much. So that is the first thing. But my understanding is that these extra sanctions are going to be removed, so we will wait and see how that goes in the committee stage.

The other foreshadowed amendment by the government is around forcing fuel companies to provide information. It seems to be linked to the federal fuel emergency powers. I have got serious, serious concerns about what is happening here. The government are setting up a compulsory surveillance system whereby they can coercively obtain intelligence from these fuel companies, and one can only come to the conclusion that the reason that they are doing this is because they want to prepare for using emergency powers and centrally controlling our petroleum product supply chain. I have seen the state government and the federal government use emergency powers – in fact I was very much in the midst of it during the last term of Parliament, during COVID – and I do not think they managed things very well at all. The idea that the federal government is going to centrally plan and manage something as complex as the petroleum industry supply chain is, frankly, terrifying. So the Libertarian Party will not be supporting this amendment, and if this amendment succeeds, we will be opposing the bill overall. I have seen enough emergency powers usage in my time here to be totally sceptical, and in fact every Victorian should be sceptical of this type of thing.

I would like to point out a big blind spot. There has been a lot of talk about petroleum and diesel and petrol and these sorts of things, because these are what people use every day, and they are used for all sorts of things in industry and agriculture and everything. But I would like to point out that the petroleum supply chain has another aspect, to my mind – and I have spoken to manufacturers in my area about this in South-East Metro: polymer resins are something that I think the government needs to pay a lot more attention to. We are far more precarious in terms of our supply of polymer resins, particularly high-density polyethylene and polypropylene resins. Not many people put a lot of thought into this, but next time you go into the supermarket, have a look at the containers and the caps that you use on these things. They are all made of plastic. That plastic is made from resin. Much of that plastic is formed into these containers in my electorate in South-East Metro. There are blow moulding companies. There are companies that make caps. There are companies that import these resins. If we do not have these resins, it does not matter what farmers produce because they will not be able to package it. It does not matter what our pharmaceutical companies produce because they will not be able to package it. If you go into Chemist Warehouse or any other pharmacy, you will see just about every bottle is made from plastic. Many of these things are manufactured in Australia. In fact many are manufactured in Dandenong. If they run out, that means that those products can no longer be sold. It is not a simple matter of finding another container. I am sure most people would appreciate that the amount of testing and research that goes into making safe container packaging for pharmaceuticals or for foodstuffs is actually enormous, and you cannot simply just switch it out. It is not a simple matter of just switching it out. You need to make sure that the medicines are going to be safe and not degrade and that the food is not going to spoil or become contaminated somehow. Lots of work goes into designing these things and you cannot just easily switch them out. I think that we need to pay a lot more attention to this.

I think the answer in the short term, from what I have been told, is that we need our federal government to urgently have some sort of diplomatic activity with the United States. They are one of the few suppliers that can supply these sorts of polymer resins at the moment. We need to be talking to the United States to make sure that resin shipments come to Australia. I know that everyone is worried about petrol and diesel and stuff, but let me tell you, if these polymer resins stop flowing and we can no longer manufacture and package food and medicine, we are in trouble – big trouble. We need to pay more attention to that. The way to do that is to allow markets to operate as freely as possible and make sure that we have as much trade as possible – in this case, trade with the United States – because the shipments from the Middle East are either slowing or non-existent. We need to act on that now.

This idea that the federal government and the state government are going to collect all this data and intelligence and somehow manage that supply chain – these supply chains are so incredibly complex. The reason that I oppose central planning in the first place is because governments cannot control these sorts of supply chains. They are just far too complex. The idea that they can worries me, because both this government and the federal government have the fatal conceit of thinking that state power can solve everything, and it really cannot. Sometimes state power will make things worse. I have seen how governments have used emergency powers and this sort of thing in the past. The idea of them using emergency powers to control our petrochemical supply chain is frankly terrifying, and the Libertarian Party will not be supporting it.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (10:57): Thank you very much for the opportunity to rise today. I similarly will be following Mr Davis and only making a contribution with respect to the amendment, just for the benefit of the chamber. That is the amendment relating to fuel supply information. That is, to my mind, an amendment that shows that the government is listening and responding to the volatility across the world. Victorians should know that we here on this side have their backs. There has been understandably a deep concern across the community about both the availability and the price of petrol, and our government is taking action. Across Northern Metropolitan Region and indeed across the state we have made public transport free this month. Every trip on a bus, train or tram every day of the week will cost you nothing, and you do not even need to touch on. This is a significant measure during significant times.

Of course there is more than one lever that government can pull. These amendments are obviously not as significant as free public transport or as broadly understood by the many, many commuters that I shared the tram with this morning, but they are indeed another lever, granting the Minister for Energy and Resources additional powers to act to protect Victorians. Right now the minister has significant powers under the Fuel Emergency Act 1977, including the power to direct companies to provide necessary information, but these powers are only able to be used if a state of emergency is declared and there are no interim powers to assist in the meantime. This bill and the amendments accompanying it prove to Victorians that there does not need to be an emergency for us to pull every lever in helping Victorians at the bowser. Over the last few years we have seen that unscrupulous companies will take advantage of hardworking families during a crisis. Our government is ensuring that petrol companies cannot do that to Victorian families as the conflict unfolds overseas. These amendments hold these companies accountable during the crisis, forcing them to improve access to accurate, comprehensive and consistent information if they are supplying fuel to consumers. Times of crisis require more transparency, not less, and our government is forcing these companies to provide just that to Victorians.

These amendments are pieces of a larger puzzle. Governments at every level are taking action to address the crisis and pull all the levers. Like I said, these amendments will not solve the crisis, but they will allow us to better prepare for it, to manage fuel supply for the future and give Victorians reassurance that fuel companies are not going to exploit these difficult times for financial gain. No government in Australia can control the events overseas that have pushed up the price of petrol, but we can take action to soften the blows for Victorians, who are already feeling the cost-of-living pinch. In Canberra the federal government has halved the fuel tax for the next three months, saving motorists 26 cents per litre, and we are all certainly keeping an eye on the cost at the bowser to make sure that that is indeed passed on. In Victoria what we have done is we have made public transport free for the next month, allowing Victorians, where possible, to leave their cars at home. Obviously we recognise that for some folks that is not possible, but hopefully the relieved pressure at the bowser is felt in the prices reflected at the pump. These amendments push fuel companies to publish valuable data that our government can use to further navigate the crisis. Victorians need to know that we have their backs at the pump, in Canberra and on Spring Street with substantial actions that may be small – sometimes they are big – that are impactful for the times that we live in right now.

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (11:01): My contribution this morning on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2026 will be brief. My colleagues Mr Welch, Mrs McArthur and Mr Davis have gone through various elements; Mr Welch was most comprehensive on Tuesday. I would like to confine my contribution to the amendment that is in my portfolio. I note that this bill amends some 13 different acts across nine portfolios, but the word ‘reform’, I would think, is used out of context, because this is not a reformation type of bill, this is overwhelmingly a minor omnibus bill, except for the amendment that the government has circulated right at the last moment in relation to fuel.

My interest relates to part 4 of the bill, the amendment to the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987. Clause 20 of the bill removes the obligation of the Secretary of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action to erect and display a notice on property advising that the property is subject to land management and cooperative agreement. Specifically, I note that this clause updates section 80 of the act, which governs public notification requirements for land management and cooperative agreements. At the moment the act requires a public notice to be published in the Government Gazette and a statewide newspaper and a conspicuous sign to be displayed on the land where that agreement has occurred so it is there for all those passing. It is a public display of what is happening now. That has been the case for some decades. This is now changing in this bill and a there are a couple of other minor parts to that.

Our concern is in relation to removing that notice based in a public display. The minister said in his second-reading speech that the amendment was introduced because:

This requirement causes landowners stress, safety and wellbeing issues, particularly where there is opposition in the broader community …

But during the committee, during the bill review and bill briefing stage, we were given only one example where allegedly a landowner had been subject to negative community sentiment after it was deduced, by virtue of the location, that he had received money from the developer, but it is still through that space, after entering into an agreement which allowed his property to be used as native vegetation offset for the construction of a wind farm.

Let me put on record: I am not against the plethora of energy transition, renewables and the like, but what we do not want to see is even further erosion of transparency by this government. We have seen in our regional communities our landholders and our farmers feeling that they are being run roughshod over and that their rights are being taken away in terms of transparency and in terms of action and in terms of appealing to the VCAT tribunal in relation to proposed transmission lines or renewables. They feel again and again that their rights are being eroded and transparency is being eroded as well. So with that, we believe that this is not in the best interests of the general public.

I note that a couple of years ago the Liberals and Nationals, when there was in 2021 another bill titled ‘regulatory reform bill’, stood very strongly against the fact that the government wanted to ‘modernise this section’, and what it did was it removed from all of our regional community towns right across the state ads displaying certain material that the government was required to display, and they amended that act back then.

I raise this because I want to ensure that we are on a reasonable footing in this part, so I made a considerable effort to consult with regional newspapers. I said, ‘In relation to this specific part of the act and this specific change, are you concerned that some of your income and some of the ads received in your papers would be diminished?’ And they overwhelmingly said there would be negligible to no impact, meaning that the status where it has got to be displayed in a statewide newspaper does not filter down to our regional papers. So with that, I have been very happy to work with our parties to ensure that we move amendments in the committee stage in relation to continuing the display of that sign in the public domain. I say ‘my communities’, but it is so regional community newspapers are not going to be unfairly disadvantaged by the change to a digital platform and also still being published in the Government Gazette. With those few remarks, I will conclude my contribution and continue this in the committee of the whole.

 Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (11:08): Victoria is seriously in need of regulatory reform, and I want to quote some of the things that were said in the other place from, first of all, my colleague Bridget Vallence, who said:

Regulatory reform? Absolute spin.

She went on to say:

This bill has nothing to do with regulatory reform. The government, quite frankly, would not know regulatory reform if it fell over it.

She also went on to say:

With the exception of the proposed amendments concerning the spent convictions regime that have resulted from a review of the Spent Convictions Act 2021, this bill has not been informed by any regulatory reform inquiry or recommendations.

…

There is nothing about consumer protections, community health or safety in this bill …

Another contribution said titles do not bind anyone legally, but they still make a claim on what the public is being led to expect, given the bill contents and intent. So it begs the question: ‘What has been reformed?’ That was my colleague Mr Welch. After looking through all of this, sadly, regardless of the title, I do not think a single Allan Labor government member is going to go down in history as a great reformer, because there just is not any reform in here. I think the spent conviction things are very good; however, I want to use this opportunity to talk about where we really do need reform.

There was an article in the paper this morning, and I am going to read a bit about it. It is about a 15-year-old gang member accused of killing two boys and then pulling a knife on a youth prison worker. He said he does not believe Victoria’s adult time for violent crime laws will be enforced. One of the eight youths charged with the Cobblebank stabbing, he told a child protection officer that using a knife was the best way to get what he wants. This is absolutely horrific. When that worker asked whether pulling a knife and using violence was the best way to get what he wanted, the boy said yes because he did. Essentially what happened is this kid that was locked up was not happy with what he was provided for dinner that night, therefore he pulled a knife on the worker, which is absolutely horrific – nobody should have that at work, in a workplace – and then he got what he wanted.

What is so upsetting here is that I have now spoken with many members of the South Sudanese community that are crying out for real reform and real change. I met with one of Chol’s and Dau’s friends in my office probably a month or so ago. He was a fantastic guy. He had come from crime himself. He had managed to turn his life around. He said that because of the soft-on-crime approach here in Victoria under the Labor government there is no deterrence for young people getting involved in crime, and because of that, they are going down that path. They commit a crime, they get bailed. They commit a worse crime, they get bailed. They then commit an even worse crime, get bailed, and then something like this ends up happening, where two innocent children are murdered and the person that murdered them does not even take it seriously and does not think they are going to have to face the consequences.

This is where we need reform. We need reform in the area of youth justice. We need reform in the area of stalking, and it is something that I have spoken about so much. It has now been years since that document was handed down – 45 recommendations on how to change the stalking laws in order to protect the most vulnerable Victorians that need it. All these years on, all these media releases, all these press conferences from Labor ministers and Labor premiers on the steps of Parliament, and do you know what they have done? Implemented two of the 45 recommendations. I am telling you that the cost of reports like this and the cost of not implementing recommendations like this is people’s lives. This government should be thinking seriously about reform and actually making the changes that are recommended to them, not just bringing a bill like this one.

The other area that we need to see reform in is the area of emergency management days. I do not understand how violent and high-risk offenders are getting out of jail before their non-parole period is served because they have been somehow inconvenienced in prison. What is more upsetting is that we have had so many signatures, thousands and thousands of signatures, petitioning the government for real change. And what have we got? Absolutely nothing, zilch. This government claims that they are about safety, that they are about women’s rights and that they are about protecting the vulnerable, and we have had absolutely nothing.

Another area that we absolutely need to see reform in, which relates to this as well, is the area of crime prevention. It is absolutely disgusting that during a crime crisis every 50 seconds in Victoria somebody becomes a victim of crime – every single day in Victoria there are 750 new victims of crime because of Labor’s weak laws. Every 16 minutes there is a car stolen. It is just unbelievable. Every home invasion, or at least four out of five of them, is carried out by the same children that are on bail. There are a thousand children that over and over again carry out four out of five home invasions in this state, yet what reform are we seeing on that? Absolutely nothing.

That is why we are going to reform this area. When we come into power, when we are sitting where you are sitting right now, we are going to deliver real reform that actually keeps the community safe, that allows kids to have off-ramps, not to stay in a life of crime and continue down this spiral that not only ruins their lives but ruins the lives of the 750 Victorians that become victims of crime every single day. None of this talks about them. That should be at the forefront of your mind. It is on the forefront of ours, and there are some areas where we are going to deliver some real reform because, I tell you what, there is none in this bill. It is more wasted time. There is probably one thing there of substance, which is the spent convictions. We are very pleased that that is happening in here. We will not be opposing this, but that does not mean that we do not see through the rubbish and see that the fact that this is called a reform bill is nothing but propaganda and political spin.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (11:15): Thank you for the contributions this morning on the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2026. It is of course a bill that forms part of the government’s broader regulatory reform program. Regulatory reform contributes to increased productivity and makes it easier to do business in the state. It protects consumers, the environment and the integrity of our democratic institutions.

When it comes to reducing the regulatory burden on business, the government is advanced and is committed to cutting red tape and making it easier for businesses to grow and invest in Victoria. We introduced the Business Acceleration Fund and backed it with almost $40 million in funding. The BAF incentivises state and local government regulators to reform their processes, do away with unnecessary red tape and improve the efficiency of approvals while balancing the need to have appropriate regulations to protect Victorians. The reforms implemented through the BAF are expected to deliver more than $250 million of annual benefits by reducing red tape, simplifying processes and speeding up approvals. This is complemented by many of the measures in this bill, which I will not go through because other speakers have done that ahead of me, but I will take the opportunity to point out that the government is proposing two house amendments. One introduces amendments to the Fuel Emergency Act 1977; that was noted and circulated by Minister Stitt. The second house amendment relates to the Local Government Act 2020, and I know that there have been some conversations with the minister’s office and members around this amendment. It is an amendment to omit a clause. This is due to being mindful that it has only been a short time since the last reforms to this section of the Local Government Act. As I said, there has been consultation with opposition and crossbench members, and with that in mind there is the proposal to withdraw this change at this time to allow the provisions to continue to operate as is. Therefore it will remain mandatory for arbiters to refer serious misconduct applications to the chief municipal inspector. On that, I will take the opportunity to circulate that amendment that, as I said, just seeks to omit clause 34 of the bill. While that is being circulated, I might take the opportunity to leave my comments there. We have got an instruction motion after the second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

 The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman) (11:19): I have considered the amendments on sheet JS82C circulated by the Treasurer, and in my view the amendments are not within the scope of the bill. Therefore an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 14.11 is required. I remind the house that an instruction to committee is a procedural motion.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (11:19): I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that they have the power to consider amendments and new clauses to amend the Fuel Emergency Act 1977 to confer a power on the minister to direct persons to give the minister information relating to the production, supply, distribution, sale, use or consumption of a fuel and create related offences and to increase the penalty for certain existing offences against that act.

Motion agreed to.

Committed.

Clause 1 (11:21)

Richard WELCH: Minister, the bill has the word ‘reform’ in the title. I am curious to know what reforms produce productivity gain or economic reform. Which elements of the bill are actually reform?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, as you would appreciate, this bill is ensuring that we have responded to feedback from people that have been operating under different acts. You would appreciate there are a number of acts involved in this bill – it is an omnibus bill – to make sure that we can make interactions with government easier and smoother and improve the operations of things such as the spent convictions scheme. When things run smoothly and when it is easier to interact with government and you avoid barriers, that has an obvious efficiency and productivity benefit in a number of ways.

Richard WELCH: Can you point to any modelling or analysis that demonstrates those efficiencies that you have just described?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have any of that at hand, Mr Welch, but as I have indicated, it goes without saying that if you make interactions with government easier and more straightforward, things run smoothly and that is better for everyone.

Richard WELCH: How much in savings will the bill deliver in the forward estimates?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, for this bill I have not had DTF look at financial benefits. This is very much about responding to issues that have been raised by stakeholders, issues that departments have picked up to make sure that things run more efficiently. It may have a savings element because often they do go hand in glove when you have less steps involved in particular issues or you have made things easier for people so it has less bureaucratic involvement and therefore that produces savings. But we have not calculated that for the purpose of this bill.

Richard WELCH: Just on the added fuel section, as Mr Davis pointed out, it was very rushed, and we did not really have time to contemplate it or to consult with stakeholders et cetera. In the absence of information, you wonder what are the motivations et cetera. We did not really feel that the case was strongly made as to what specifically this achieves over existing reporting and data that are coming through and what is new to this reporting, other than it comes directly to the Victorian government. Could you provide further explanation?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am sorry, what exactly are you asking?

Richard WELCH: What is the need for this data? What is in this new data that is not in existing data streams?

Jaclyn SYMES: The advice I have, Mr Welch – and I do appreciate that this is a house amendment; we sought an instruction motion to make this happen after consultation with the Commonwealth and consideration of what other states were able to do in their planning. As you would appreciate, this is a response wanting to make sure that we are the best prepared that we can be. This is a useful mechanism because it will provide information to the government to be able to better undertake consequence planning. It informs communications to suppliers and users in the first instance. It can also inform the government whether an emergency should be declared under the Fuel Emergency Act 1977 or whether the matter should be escalated to the Commonwealth for national action.

The reason that the powers are sought is that recent fuel market volatility and heightened supply risks have highlighted gaps in the information available to government for proper planning. The powers support earlier access to critical information, being better prepared and reduced reliance on the emergency powers. The act currently gives the Commonwealth powers relating to an emergency only after the Governor in Council declares an emergency. Prior to that the government has to rely on voluntary compliance with information requests, and they will only be triggered if the current cooperative information-sharing arrangements are no longer working or information flow is not sufficient. So as outlined, Mr Welch, there is the ability for voluntary compliance, but ensuring that there are no barriers to that is one of the purposes of this request. At the moment the state has to rely on making a request to the Commonwealth for this information. That requires the Commonwealth to seek that information and then relay it to Victoria. At this stage the process is working, and we are not saying that this is something that we need today. The powers will only be triggered if the current cooperative information-sharing arrangements fail to work or the flow of information is delayed or not sufficient.

Richard WELCH: Thank you, Minister, for that helpful answer. I guess the question is on the requirement for compulsion. Were there indications that the fuel suppliers would not be cooperative in this process, whether that is in fulsomeness or timeliness?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I indicated, Mr Welch, at this point in time we have not identified issues that are saying that the information required is not flowing, but other states have got the ability to ensure that they can respond to any potential barriers or delays. What we would say in relation to these powers is that they are targeted and proportionate and limited to information that is necessary for fuel supply monitoring and preparedness. They do not direct commercial operations or interfere with business decision-making. They will only be triggered if the current cooperative information-sharing arrangements are no longer working or information flow is not sufficient, and I am not saying that that is a current issue.

Richard WELCH: Again, this question is really a product of the short notice, not really anything else. There is a slight cognitive dissonance in pre-emergency emergency powers. We are voting here today to adopt an emergency power without a state of emergency in effect. Perhaps a mitigating quality to that would be if it was time-based or it was because there was a particularly acute issue that we had rather than an ongoing one. My understanding is that this is an ongoing power and will not lapse, but therefore, as an emergency power, it has not been given the full range of balances and weights and controls that you would expect around an emergency power. Do you consider this normal, and do you consider this the appropriate way to deal with emergency powers outside the declaration of an emergency?

Jaclyn SYMES: It might be useful, particularly for the Hansard, Mr Welch, just to go over again what this is doing, because of the narrative around it being an emergency power. This is a power that already exists in other states. What it facilitates is, if the trigger is met, the minister may require information relating to the entire fuel supply chain, including production and extraction, storage, transportation and logistics, supply and distribution, sale and purchase and use and consumption of fuel. So this is really about knowing which parties hold fuel, how much, what type, at what location and how much of it is already contracted to a buyer. In addition, the information could be on a distribution plan or the strategy to replenish the stock. So again, the powers would only be triggered if the current cooperative information sharing arrangements are no longer working. This is a cautionary, pre-emptive measure, but in reality it is just bringing us up to speed with New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania. At the moment, this state has to rely on making the request to the Commonwealth for information. The other states do not have to do that. I think, to ensure that we are nimble and agile in the current environment in relation to fuel and ensuring that we are protecting the interests of Victorians, we want to make sure that we are in the same position as other states.

David LIMBRICK: I would just like to ask one more question related to this data that the government may be able to force industry participants to provide. Some of this data would appear to be highly sensitive information, in particular like how much current stock is contracted out. That would be considered commercially sensitive, I would think. What sort of protection is the government providing for information security and confidentiality here? If that information got into the hands of competitors, for example, it may actually make market competitiveness worse.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes. I appreciate the question, Mr Limbrick. These are issues that have been considered. The bill includes safeguards to protect commercially sensitive and confidential information. Information can only be requested for defined purposes, must be handled securely and is subject to confidentiality and restricted disclosure provisions under existing legislative frameworks. There are significant penalties that will apply to any person who discloses confidential information they have received further to these provisions. Exceptions apply under particular circumstances, such as compliance with the Commonwealth’s Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984. There are some limits in relation to the information that can be requested. While it is a broad power, there are important constraints. The information must be relevant to planning and preparation for fuel availability, the timeframe for providing information must be reasonable and the notice must specify how the information is to be provided. The instructions also state that the minister does not intend to require copies of commercial contracts, though information such as whether fuel is uncontracted and available to the on-the-spot market may be requested.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for clarifying that. Okay. So the confidentiality clauses are preventing people presumably within the public service disclosing information without authorisation, but who is actually entitled to receive and share this information internally within the government?

Jaclyn SYMES: The handling of sensitive information is not unique to the issues that we are discussing through this amendment. The department have strict protocols in relation to the level of seniority of handling of information and the like, and similar internal processes would apply to the information in the event that information such as this is obtained.

David LIMBRICK: Petrochemical supply chains are very, very complex and require lots of expertise. What sort of expertise does the government have in actually analysing this data and making sense of it for planning purposes?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not know the experience of every individual within departments, but I think particularly in my time as Minister for Regional Development and Minister for Agriculture we had supply disruption issues a number of times, whether through a natural disaster or indeed during COVID and the like. Understanding and working with industry to understand supply chains and understand freight routes – these are things that we deal with all the time. I am very confident in the ability of the public sector to not only have a lot of that information but work with industry to make sure they understand.

David LIMBRICK: In my previous life I spent most of my career working in business analytics and analysing data, and one of the big problems with collecting and consolidating data is ensuring that we are actually comparing apples with apples. What sort of processes does the government envisage to standardise this data being collected from these companies, because I know that the way that companies measure these things would likely be different from company to company? They might have different frequency, they might have different ways that they measure these things that the government is asking for. If the government does not understand the complexities in that data, then they may form incorrect conclusions from that data or be comparing things from different companies that are not the same thing. What sort of processes is the government looking at to ensure that this data is standardised in some way so that they can make meaningful decisions from it?

Jaclyn SYMES: At the outset, a lot of the requests for information are already flowing. In terms of the advice, particularly in relation to who is having supply issues and the like, that is already coming through to government. You have got the Minister for Energy and Resources in a position where she is well briefed on who and what towns, for example, have issues. As I said, the information that would be sought in relation to the entire fuel supply chain includes things like production, extraction, storage, transportation and logistics, supply and distribution, sale and purchase and use and consumption of fuel. The Commonwealth can already obtain this information. This is really a way of facilitating it direct to the state in a less cumbersome way. A lot of these companies are national companies, and I would, without being an expert in this field, anticipate that the information that they provide to one state would mimic that in another if it is a national company.

David LIMBRICK: I would like to ask a question not related to the fuel monitoring. Clause 25 is about the EPA. Regarding clause 25, if the EPA or a relevant officer issues a notice to the occupier of a place to remove or dispose of waste that is reasonably believed to have been dumped by someone else, not the occupier, and the occupier does not comply with that notice, will the occupier be held liable for any offences relevant to that dumped waste, even though they are not the person that did it?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick, my advice is that they are held liable if the person responsible cannot be found.

David LIMBRICK: It does seem like a miscarriage of justice though, doesn’t it? Basically it is rewarding criminals that are good at covering their tracks and is holding someone liable that did not actually commit an offence. I can only ask an opinion on that, which I am not going to ask, but it does seem like this is potentially a miscarriage of justice here, where people are going to get fined or somehow sanctioned for actions that they themselves did not commit.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Limbrick, being held to be liable just starts a process of you being able to argue the case. It is why the bill allows for a notice to be revoked if the person responsible cannot be identified.

David DAVIS: Treasurer, I have a number of questions, and I do not intend to drag this out. I am only interested in the amendments to the Fuel Emergency Act 1977.

Jaclyn SYMES: We have done a lot of this already.

David DAVIS: I know. I have a couple of other points to add. Amendment 2 refers to ‘production, supply, distribution, sale, use or consumption of a fuel’. Does that include storage?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, Mr Davis. We have all information relating to the entire fuel supply chain: production, extraction, storage, transportation, logistics, supply and distribution, sale and purchase, use and consumption.

David DAVIS: Could a future minister request information from trucking companies?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, the scope is intentionally broad, so the minister can form an accurate and complete picture of fuel availability across Victoria. However, the minister can only issue a notice if she believes the information requested is relevant to planning and preparedness for fuel supply.

David DAVIS: So the answer is if she believed it was relevant or he believed it was relevant, they could issue such notices to trucking companies, for example?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, the minister can require information relating to the entire fuel supply chain, which includes transportation and logistics. So I would take from that that if there are issues in terms of the distribution part of the supply chain to do with transportation, it would be useful to know and have the information so that you could respond appropriately.

David DAVIS: I think that means yes.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes.

David DAVIS: Could, for example, the minister require information from farmers who might have storage and usage plans?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, the purpose of seeking the information is about knowing which parties hold fuel – how much, what type, at what location and how much of this is already contracted to a buyer. So this is more about how to get available supply through existing distribution mechanisms and where it is going, so that it can be supported and protected. The information requested is only as needed, and it is targeted. Routine blanket reporting is not intended in relation to that. But the powers are, again, currently utilised in a cooperative and non-mandatory way. There is no need to go out and be much broader than the existing mechanisms. This is just ensuring that it can be smoother and quicker and that everybody understands the process, again, as is the case in other states, including New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania.

David DAVIS: I think the answer is again potentially yes if the minister formed that view. Let me ask another one. If the minister formed the view that she believed it was helpful to obtain information from individual service stations –

Jaclyn Symes: We already do.

David DAVIS: Every individual service station? I think you do for price but not for volume stored and so forth.

Jaclyn Symes: Yes. I just answered that to Mr Limbrick.

David DAVIS: But every service station will have to put in direct details? They could.

Jaclyn SYMES: They could. That is currently happening. The minister is being alerted to individual petrol stations that have got supply issues now. She has been able to indicate to the public which –

David Davis: So the answer is yes.

Jaclyn SYMES: That is already happening in terms of information. This is what this discussion is all about. It is wanting to make sure that we have the information to be able to respond and ensure the best outcomes for Victorians regardless of which part of the state they are in. As I have indicated, at the moment the information can flow, and it is. As in the conversation I had with Mr Welch and Mr Limbrick, this is not identifying a current problem with the flow of information. It is just making sure that we are best placed and aligned with other states in the event that we need to make sure everyone is clear on the information and how it can flow.

David DAVIS: The minister could expand the amount of information that is sought from individual service stations if she formed the view that that was in the interests?

Jaclyn SYMES: Coming back to the reasons that this might be necessary, the information that the minister would seek is to ensure and identify issues with supply chains. If that requires information from individual businesses, that may very much be required. The conversation just before you came in, though, was that this is about targeted information. It must be relevant to the planning and preparation of fuel availability, must have consideration of the timeframe for providing information being reasonable and the notice must specify how the information is to be provided. It does not intend for the minister to require copies of commercial contracts. It is really about fuel – whether it is contracted, whether it is available. They are the types of information that could be sought. But as is currently happening, individual service stations are providing information through their networks, which is coming through to government so that we know where there are issues.

David DAVIS: Directly from the fuel stations?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think so – correct, yes.

David DAVIS: And that can be expanded at the will of the minister when she believes there is a reason.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, can we just –

David Davis: I am trying to get to –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hang on. Can we just slow this down? Mr Davis, you asked about directly through fuel stations. Treasurer, can you give your answer to that first question before we go on to his second question, because Hansard needs to record what the answers are.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis asked whether information could be sought from individual service stations and followed up with whether information from individual service stations is coming direct to government now. The answer is yes, information from individual service stations is coming through to government now. Then Mr Davis followed up with a question around whether the minister will expand that scope. I am a little confused about where he is trying to take this line of questioning because the information is currently coming to government. The changes that are proposed in this amendment are only intended to be triggered if the current information flow is not working, and there is no evidence that it is not working currently. We just want to make sure that we are well prepared and aligned with other states in the event that circumstances see that we need to make those adjustments.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Treasurer, for that clarification. I think everyone would be a little confused with the way that interaction was going, where questions were being fired off, answers were given halfway through questions and questions were being fired off again. Can we please just have one question at a time, and can you wait until you have the call.

David DAVIS: I will try to go more slowly, Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, it is not about going slowly, it is about giving the courtesy to the house and Hansard of knowing that whoever has the call is speaking and Hansard having the time to record the answer.

David DAVIS: I think what we have established is that it is true that if the minister forms the view that further information is required directly from service stations, not via their networks, he or she is able to acquire that information.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, that is possible, Mr Davis. As I said, individual service stations are already speaking directly with government, particularly independents, for example. There are broader businesses that are collectively talking to government as well.

David DAVIS: The matter of company sites rather than the independents – are the company sites now providing information directly to government? Or is it coming via the head office?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, that information is currently coming from both. As you would appreciate, there are many lines of communication with government directly with industry, with suppliers and with users. We are in a challenging global situation. The flow of information is coming from a range of sources, and we certainly welcome that. We want to make sure that we are getting on-the-ground advice from those that are experiencing it, which may be different in different parts of the state. We do not expect that to change.

David DAVIS: Just in a sense backing up a little, currently information is provided to the Commonwealth and information is provided to the ACCC, as I understand it, in a fairly regular way. Is the state government routinely accessing the information provided to the Commonwealth?

Jaclyn SYMES: At the moment the state has to rely on making a request to the Commonwealth for information in a formal sense. That requires the Commonwealth to seek that information itself and then relay it to Victoria. At this stage this process is working and there is direct information coming not via the Commonwealth. It is not our only source of information at the moment, as we just had a conversation about. There are individuals that are coming directly through to state government. If there was something that we wanted to make a request for, we would currently have to go through the Commonwealth, but at the moment we are getting the flow of information from industry anyway.

David DAVIS: The Commonwealth is also requesting information from not just firms but a wide variety of suppliers, and this does seem to me to have the real risk of a double-up. Is the state government working to ensure that there are no double requests that overlap?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, we are sharing info, but the supply chain is complex and the Commonwealth does not have all the info, but it is a two-way flow. Just to be clear about your concern about double requests and overlap, we are receiving the information without requesting it. People are wanting government to know what is going on. When you asked before about whether it is head offices or individual petrol stations, people want to tell us what is going on, so the information is coming to us without any requests.

If we needed to make a request for specific information, the current mechanism would require us to go through the Commonwealth and for them to make the request and come back to us. This change puts us on the same footing as other states, which means we could make the direct request. People are trying to work together. We are not having an information problem at the moment, but we want to make sure that we are well placed to be able to be quick and agile in the event that we need to and not behind other states.

David DAVIS: I appreciate the minister’s answer but – and I will be quick; I do not want to drag this out – with respect to the issue of overlap and duplication, are the minister and the government seeking to avoid that issue of Commonwealth requests and state requests that do overlap, do require duplication, and thereby minimise the pressure on those supplying it?

Jaclyn SYMES: Of course.

David Davis: How?

Jaclyn SYMES: We want to avoid duplication, absolutely, and everyone is having these conversations. There are taskforces, our state government arrangements have a federal representative, and I can get you more information on some of the processes that we have set up within government. We have got SEMPC, we have got a fuel taskforce and we have got the bureaucratic group that, as I said, has a federal representative on it. So this is everyone working together. We do not want to inundate people with requests for information, but as I indicated, at the moment that flow is actually voluntarily coming because people want the government to be across the issues regardless of where they are.

David DAVIS: I am appreciative of the minister’s response there, and I do hope that that is the case, that those duplicative and overlap issues are –

Jaclyn Symes: Industry is not raising that concern.

David DAVIS: Well, they have with me. They have explicitly raised it. They are worried about increased compliance costs from duplicative reporting. That is in the first paragraph of some correspondence:

We’d want to ensure that reporting on production is not duplicative (we already report production numbers etc) and the information remains contained to what is in our control.

This is one particular firm. So in a sense I am just saying to you I am not making it up. Multiple firms have come to me and made exactly this point:

Has the Victorian Government worked with the Federal ALP Government to access the information that industry is already providing to the Commonwealth on a weekly basis?

And:

Is the Minister proposing to collect this data from all suppliers to the market, or just the big four?

You have answered that in terms of it is actually anyone. It could be a farmer, it could be a truckie, it could be the whole works. And:

Where does the Minister want fuel companies to be focused, on the supply or fuel or the supply of spreadsheets?

That is a question that was posed to me. I am trying to be reasonable here. Perhaps I have said enough, but people understand the concern.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Davis, we are working very closely with the Commonwealth and with other jurisdictions and the major fuel suppliers and have received really good information to date on the overall supply. However, there are gaps in the information simply because the supply chain is so complex, so there may be a need to access information to help our own planning but also support the Commonwealth’s planning. As we know, through this the minister has significant power to compel companies to provide information in a fuel emergency, but these powers can only be triggered once an emergency is formally declared. We want to make sure we are in a position to best support everyone, including the people that you have indicated may have concerns about duplication. It is a stressful time for these businesses; I understand that. It is not intended to be duplicative, it is intended to be of assistance to industry as well. The minister is regularly meeting with all suppliers and has provided reassurance to the issues and concerns that you just raised. She has done that personally, and she will continue to have those interactions with those businesses.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.