Thursday, 2 April 2026

Clause 1 further considered (14:07)

Richard WELCH: I have got just the one question actually, and it is regarding the EPA ‘stop the clock’ measure. Minister, the concern on this is that it is not a ‘stop the clock’ as such, it is an ‘extend the deadline indefinitely’. We are going from a 28-day fixed-response period, which by requiring that may have perverse outcomes, which I happily acknowledge. But the remedy has gone to an open-ended approval window instead, which I think will have its own and equal perverse outcomes as well. Why that, and why not a structured extension period that is measurable and gives those seeking it certainty?

Jaclyn SYMES: Just starting with the purpose of the amendment, the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Act 2021 requires the EPA to determine applications for an exemption from a regulation or service standard within 28 days of receiving an application. There is currently no mechanism in the act to stop the clock and allow extra time if, for example, the EPA needs to request or seek further information. Under these circumstances the EPA can only refuse the application and restart the process, keep the application live and breach the statutory timeframe or risk making a poor decision without adequate information. The amendments allow the EPA to pause or extend the 28-day statutory timeframe for deciding exemption applications when further information is required from the applicant or the EPA considers it necessary for other reasons, such as identification of a potential risk.

Adding a mechanism to allow a pause in the required exemption application assessment period will result in a more efficient administrative process and better application outcomes. It may also save costs associated with the time and administration burden for applicants to reapply for an exemption. Once it is reasonably practical for the authority to consider the application, the prescribed timeframe starts again. It is not time bound, as it depends on the nature of the information requested or required, particularly allowing the applicant the time required to prepare complex information. The proposed amendment requires that the longer period be ‘reasonably required’. The use of ‘reasonably required’ and ‘reasonably practical’ rests on the established principles in legislative interpretation and is treated as an objective test. It just means that what is reasonably required and reasonably practical can be assessed on a case-by-case basis rather than prescribing an end to the statutory timeframe pause, which can recreate the issue this amendment is designed to address.

Richard WELCH: I would be just debating it really, so I will make a statement. I think 80 per cent of that is perfectly reasonable, absolutely perfect. What is not reasonable is that it is left to the EPA to define what reasonable is in a practical sense and require the applicant to contest it. In terms of certainty and putting the appropriate administrative pressure on the EPA to deliver to a service standard, a fixed extension time period – even if it needs to be a series of fixed extension time periods: one week, 28 days – would be a far better mechanism that keeps all parties honest.

Jaclyn SYMES: I appreciate that Mr Welch meant that as a statement, but I think it would be useful just to put on record another example of where a mechanism to pause the statutory timeframe works well, including permissions, licences and permits assessed by the EPA under the Environment Protection Act 2017. Sections 51A and 51B of that act allow the EPA to pause the statutory timeframe for assessing applications for permission until the requested materials are provided, after which time the assessment resumes. This has been found to work well because it prevents the regulator from needing to refuse incomplete but potentially approvable applications or breaching statutory timelines. My advice is that it works as intended.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Treasurer, I invite you to move your amendments 1 and 2 on your sheet JS82C, which test amendments 3 and 4.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 3, line 13, omit “amendments.” and insert “amendments;”.

2.   Clause 1, page 3, after line 13, insert –

“(l) 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; and

(ii)   to increase the penalty for certain existing offences against the Act.”.

Minister Stitt circulated these amendments during her contribution. There have been questions and discussion during the committee, so I do not have anything further to add to the purpose of these amendments other than what has already been put.

Richard WELCH: As this amendment matches the other amendment we have already made, we will be supporting this amendment.

David LIMBRICK: Can I just clarify which amendment we are talking about? I am a bit confused now after Mr Welch’s comment.

Jaclyn SYMES: These are the Fuel Emergency Act 1977 amendments, Mr Limbrick. Did you want me to further elaborate?

David LIMBRICK: No, that’s fine

Jaclyn SYMES: You do not want another short summary?

David LIMBRICK: Of course.

Jaclyn SYMES: Okay. As we know, Victoria already receives fuel supply data from industry. This amendment will force fuel distributors to supply end-to-end supply data and create a consistent reporting standard for all fuel businesses across the state. Where necessary, the changes will deliver a complete picture of fuel supply and distribution, helping us plan and prepare for the future. Obviously in this current environment this is something that we consider precautionary and therefore necessary. It also puts us in a better place to act quickly and if required, intervene to keep essential services, regional communities, freight and agriculture moving, and indeed it aligns us with other states.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for that clarification. The Libertarian Party will be opposing this amendment. As stated earlier, I do not wish to enable this intelligence for the purposes of central planning through emergency powers at the federal government level. Therefore we will be opposing it.

Council divided on amendments:

Clause 20 (14:21)

Richard WELCH: I move:

1.   Clause 20, lines 4 to 9, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

Jaclyn SYMES: The government opposes this amendment. The bill removes the requirement for private landholders to display physical notice of their entering into a land management cooperative agreement. This is based on experience and feedback, and the government is wanting to protect innocent landowners who are trying to do what they think is the right thing by the environment so they are not subjected to negative actions by individuals that oppose renewable projects or housing projects in regional and rural areas.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarians will also be opposing this amendment. I actually see this as quite dangerous and divisive in these communities. I am not sure what the opposition –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Mr Limbrick. I cannot hear you. I am just wondering if we could have a little less chatter, please, on the benches.

David LIMBRICK: I actually see this as fairly dangerous and divisive – allowing people to be demonised in this way. If people want to enter into contracts and not have a sign on their land saying that they have entered into a contract, I do not see why they should be forced to do that, so the Libertarians will be opposing this.

Council divided on amendment:

Clause 34 (14:30)

Jaclyn SYMES: My amendment is to omit this clause. After consultation with the opposition and crossbench the government is withdrawing the change to the bill to allow the provisions to continue as is. For certainty, it will remain mandatory for arbiters to refer serious misconduct applications to the chief municipal inspector.

Richard WELCH: The coalition will be supporting this amendment because it is the same as the amendment we circulated earlier. Having spoken to some councillors who came in to visit today, they are very pleased to know that we have achieved this amendment to this bill.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The Greens are very supportive of this amendment. We thank all parties for their cooperation on this. In particular I thank the government for listening to the opposition and our concerns about this part of the bill.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will also be supporting this amendment. As I indicated in my second-reading speech, I have serious concerns about the operation of the councillor code of conduct. I was concerned about adding yet more sanctions without fixing the root problem, which is the code of conduct itself, so I am happy to remove this part of the bill.

Clause negatived.

Clauses 35 to 37 agreed to.

Clause 38 (14:32)

Rachel PAYNE: I have four questions around spent convictions, just to make the chamber aware. I have some questions here in relation to sentencing hierarchy and consistency. The principle of proportionality is foundational to our justice system. How does the government justify a scheme in which a person who receives a lesser sentence, an adjourned undertaking, must wait longer for relief from its collateral consequences than a person sentenced to a fine?

Jaclyn SYMES: I thank Ms Payne for her question and her interest in the spent conviction process in Victoria – something that we are very proud to have brought in. As you would appreciate, there has been a statutory review, so a lot of the changes that are in this bill are as a direct result of seeing how it is working and to bring about some improvements.

The review of the act identified the concerns that you raised and recommended enabling adjourned undertakings without conviction to be spent immediately; that was recommendation 10. Ensuring adjourned undertakings with conviction do not recommence the conviction period of the statutory review was recommendation 11. Adjourned undertakings are sentences specifically tailored to an individual, with conditions designed to help address underlying causes of offending and any ongoing risk factors. The goal of an adjourned undertaking is to provide a person the opportunity to reform their behaviour and prevent further contact with the criminal justice system. In consultations responding to both recommendations 10 and 11 some stakeholders identified that allowing for a conviction to be spent prior to the completion of the conditions of an adjourned undertaking may send a message that noncompliance with an adjourned undertaking is acceptable and behavioural reform is therefore not required. Given this, further consideration and stakeholder engagement is required before government determines whether to progress recommendations 10 and 11.

Rachel PAYNE: Just in regard to financial disadvantage created by the current framework, and your response did point to this, is the government aware that the current disparity in spent conviction timing for fines versus adjourned undertakings creates a two-tiered system that disadvantages people who cannot afford to pay a fine and therefore accept an adjourned undertaking as a financially accessible alternative? What has the government done to assess or mitigate the extent of this inequity?

Jaclyn SYMES: At the outset, please accept an invitation from the Attorney-General to have further conversations about these matters. As you can appreciate, she is well placed to have more detailed conversations, but I will use the opportunity to give you as much information as I can. Of course there are a wide range of factors that a court must determine in setting the appropriate sentence for an offence. In setting a fine as part of a sentence, courts consider a wide range of factors, including the financial circumstances of the offender, the nature and burden of that payment and the amount and method of payment of that fine. There are a number of considerations that an offender would need to work through with their legal representatives in considering how they may respond to a proposed sentence. They include the impact of a fine compared with the ability to comply with any conditions that might be associated with an adjourned undertaking. During the statutory review, some stakeholders identified that when a conviction may be spent is one of these considerations. It is not clear how often that eligibility to spend a conviction is the overriding consideration in a person declining an adjourned undertaking. As stated before, there are differing views on how adjourned undertakings should be treated under the act, and further consideration and stakeholder engagement is required before government determines whether to progress this issue in response to the review. As indicated, the invitation to have detailed conversations as part of that process – for you in particular – is forwarded.

Rachel PAYNE: On the immediate spent status and adjourned undertakings, the bill presents an opportunity to align the spent conviction timing for adjourned undertakings without conviction with that of fines. Has the government had consideration around amending the bill so that adjourned undertakings without conviction are treated as spent immediately upon being entered, consistent with how fines are treated?

Jaclyn SYMES: I touched on some of the considerations of fine versus undertakings. Recommendation 10 of the statutory review of the act recommended enabling adjourned undertakings without conviction to be spent immediately rather than after the conditions of the undertaking are completed. But as stated, in consultations on this recommendation some stakeholders have identified that allowing for conviction to be spent prior to the completion of the condition of an adjourned undertaking may send a message that the noncompliance with an adjourned undertaking is acceptable and behavioural reform – the intention of an undertaking – may no longer be required. Given this and accepting that there are strong views on either side, further consideration and consultation before progressing recommendation 10 is what the Attorney intends to do.

Rachel PAYNE: Just a final question in relation to subsequent adjourned undertakings during the waiting period. Under the current framework a subsequent adjourned undertaking during the waiting or conviction period can restart the clock, yet a subsequent fine does not. Can the minister explain why these two sentencing outcomes are treated differently in this respect, and does the government believe that inconsistency is justified?

Jaclyn SYMES: Under the act most subsequent offending will restart the 5- to 10-year waiting period before an eligible conviction is spent either automatically or on application. Only very minor offending will not restart the clock, including where no penalty is imposed, no conviction is recorded, the only penalty is an order to pay restitution or compensation or the only penalty is a fine of 10 penalty units or less.

Recommendation 11 of the statutory review recommended ensuring adjourned undertakings with conviction also do not recommence a conviction period. As stated in the conversation that we have been having, consultations on this recommendation with some stakeholders identified that the sentence of an adjourned undertaking is a tailored sentence aimed to address underlying offending behaviours and compliance is really important. They considered that it would therefore be inappropriate to not restart the waiting period. Given this difference in views, again, this is another conversation that you are welcome to join in on.

Clause agreed to; clauses 39 to 58 agreed to.

New clauses (14:41)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

3.   Insert the following New Part after Part 12 –

‘Part 12A – Amendment of Fuel Emergency Act 1977

58A Definitions

In section 2 of the Fuel Emergency Act 1977 insert the following definitions –

“Commonwealth Minister means the Minister administering the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 of the Commonwealth;

information direction means a direction under section 2A;”.

58B New sections 2A to 2D inserted

After section 2 of the Fuel Emergency Act 1977 insert –

“2A   Directions for the giving of information relating to the production, supply, distribution, sale, use or consumption of a fuel

(1)   The Minister, by written notice, may direct a person to give the Minister information, in the person’s possession or control, relating to the production, supply, distribution, sale, use or consumption of a fuel.

(2)   A notice under subsection (1) must specify –

(a)   the kind of fuel (the specified fuel); and

(b)   the kind of information that the person must give the Minister; and

(c)   the manner and form in which the person must give the Minister the information; and

(d)   the date by which the person must give the information to the Minister.

(3)   A notice under subsection (1) may be given during a period of emergency.

(4)   In addition, a notice under subsection (1) may be given when there is no period of emergency if and only if the Minister is of the view that –

(a)   there is or is likely to be a threat to the production, supply or distribution of the specified fuel; and

(b)   the kind of information specified in the notice is relevant for the planning of, and preparation for, the production, supply, distribution or sale of the specified fuel to ensure a sufficient amount of the specified fuel will remain available to meet the reasonable requirements of the community.

(5)   To avoid doubt, section 41A of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 applies to this section.

2B   Compliance with information direction

A person who is given an information direction must comply with the direction unless the person has a lawful excuse.

Penalty:   In the case of a natural person, 60 penalty units.

In the case of a body corporate, 2500 penalty units.

2C   False and misleading information

A person must not, in purported compliance with an information direction, give information to the Minister that the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular.

Penalty:   In the case of a natural person, 60 penalty units.

In the case of a body corporate, 2500 penalty units.

2D   Confidentiality

(1)   A person given confidential or commercially sensitive information under an information notice must not disclose that information.

Penalty:   120 penalty units.

(2)   Subsection (1) does not apply to a disclosure of confidential or commercially sensitive information of the following kind –

(a)   a disclosure made with the consent of the person who gave the confidential or commercially sensitive information; or

(b)   a disclosure made for the purposes of the exercise of a power or the performance of a function under, or in connection with, this Act or the regulations; or

(c)   a disclosure made to the Commonwealth Minister for the purpose of administering the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 of the Commonwealth; or

(d)   a disclosure made by the Minister for the purposes of any arrangement entered into by the Minister and the Commonwealth Minister under section 15(1) of the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 of the Commonwealth; or

(e)   a disclosure made in the performance of a function or exercise of a power under the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 of the Commonwealth that is delegated, under section 49 of that Act, to –

(i)   the Minister; or

(ii)   an officer or employee of the State; or

(iii)   a person who constitutes, is a member of, or is employed by, an authority established by or under a law of Victoria; or

(f)   a disclosure made to a court or tribunal in the course of legal proceedings; or

(g)   a disclosure made pursuant to an order of a court or tribunal; or

(h)   a disclosure of confidential or commercially sensitive information that is in the public domain at the time of the disclosure.”.

58C Compliance with directions etc. of Minister

In section 5(1) of the Fuel Emergency Act 1977, after “direction” (where first occurring) insert “(other than an information direction)”.

58D Application and operation of directions etc.

In section 7(1) and (2) of the Fuel Emergency Act 1977, after “direction” insert “(other than an information direction)”.

58E Provision for compensation to persons complying with directions

In section 8(1) of the Fuel Emergency Act 1977, after “direction” (where first occurring) insert “(other than an information direction)”.

58F Section 9 amended

(1)   Insert the following heading to section 9 of the Fuel Emergency Act 1977 –

“General offence”.

(2)   In section 9(1) of the Fuel Emergency Act 1977, after “direction” insert “(other than an information direction)”.

(3)   In section 9(2) of the Fuel Emergency Act 1977, for “50 penalty units” substitute “in the case of a natural person, 120 penalty units and in the case of a body corporate, 2500 penalty units.”.’.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will also be opposing this, but as I have already made my point I will not be forcing another division.

New clauses agreed to; clause 59 agreed to.

Long title (14:42)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

4.   Long title, after “Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Act 2025” insert “, 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”.

Amendment agreed to; amended long title agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments, including amended long title.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (14:43): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (14:43): I move:

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

Council divided on motion:

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 with amendments.

David Davis: On a point of order, President, there is a problem with the lifts coming into this building. A number of us have encountered this in recent days. There is a genuine risk that somebody – they could be of either party; it is not a partisan thing –

Members interjecting.

David Davis: I was about to say the crossbench too – could be caught with the slowness of the lifts coming up from the bottom floor. I think it is something we need to attend to. I do not want to be the one, and I do not want others to be in the position where they miss a division because of the, dare I say, antiquated lifts.

The PRESIDENT: Yes, if ‘antiquated’ is a few weeks old, then I will look into it, and I suggest to members that you might have to not wait for the lifts if you are concerned. Then we can consider 5-minute divisions if it is a big problem –

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: No, I am just putting it out there. I do not know. I am spitballing here – trying to fix the place.