Wednesday, 17 June 2026

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (10:06): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Planning Amendment (Restricting New Fast Food Developments) Bill 2026.

In my opinion, the Planning Amendment (Restricting New Fast Food Developments) Bill 2026, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

The bill amends the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to strengthen the authority of local governments to determine whether new fast-food establishments should be permitted within their municipal boundaries.

Human Rights Issues

Protection of families and children

Section 17 provides that families and children have the right, without discrimination, to be protected by society and the State. The bill advances the protection of children and families by restricting certain food environments near schools. By prioritising public health through the mandatory consideration of obesity data, outlet density and proximity to schools, the bill ensures the protection of children’s health which supports children’s right to health, well being and equitable living conditions and promotes the community’s overall wellbeing.

Taking part in public life

Section 8 provides that every person has the right and opportunity to participate in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives. Through strengthening local government authority and locally relevant planning decisions, the bill enhances the ability of communities to participate in local decisions that affect their environment and amenities. In this way the bill reinforces democratic governance structures at a local government level.

By mandating consideration of local obesity rates and density of unhealthy food outlets in applications, the bill enables the targeting of health inequities in local areas and potentially decreases the disproportionate burden of health inequities in disadvantaged and low socioeconomic communities. In this way, the bill creates a clear legal framework for the protection of community wellbeing.

Limitations

Property rights

Section 20 provides that a person must not be deprived of that person’s property other than in accordance with law.

While the provisions of the bill may limit the ability of the landholder or developer to use their land for legitimate commercial purposes, the limitation is proportionate and justifiable where this right diminishes the health and wellbeing considerations of the community, as expressed above. The bill limits the use of land only where such use contravenes public health considerations and the protection of children.

Fair Hearing

The insert of s86A overrides a specific VCAT decision and reinstates the original council decision to refuse an application and may contravene s24 the right to a fair hearing.

Conclusion

While the bill may limit certain rights, including property rights and the right to a fair hearing, I believe these limitations are reasonable and proportionate to achieving the objective of protecting children and promoting democratic participation and equity.

As such, I consider that this Bill is compatible with Charter obligations.

David Ettershank

Member for the Western Metropolitan Region

Legalise Cannabis Victoria

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (10:06): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Statewide Treaty Act 2025:

1.   In my opinion, the Planning Amendment (Restricting New Fast Food Developments) Bill 2026 is compatible with the matters set out in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

2.   The bill proposes to amend the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to restrict the development of new fast-food outlets and to prioritise public health as an overarching consideration in planning decisions. The bill introduces planning mechanisms to regulate or prohibit fast food outlets with consideration of public health impacts, including proximity to schools and existing density of fast food outlets.

Consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl

3.   Due to the recent establishment of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl, it was not possible to give the First Peoples’ Assembly the opportunity to advise on the Bill or for the Assembly to otherwise make representations about the effect of the Bill on First Peoples.

Compatibility of the Bill with each of the objects in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025

4.   I have considered the potential impacts of planning law and public health outcomes on First Peoples in Victoria and consider the aims of the bill is compatible with the objects at section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 of:

Advancing rights and self-determination (s66(3)(d)(i))

5.   The Bill does not directly engage mechanisms for First Peoples’ self-determination, such as decision-making authority or specific consultation rights in land use planning. However, by embedding public health as a central planning objective, the Bill may indirectly support improved community wellbeing outcomes, which are foundational to the exercise of self-determination.

5.1   The Bill does not limit the ability of First Peoples to exercise rights in relation to land, including under native title or Traditional Owner Settlement frameworks, as it applies broadly to planning controls across all land.

Addressing disadvantage arising from historic wrongs (s66(3)(d)(ii))

6.   The bill does not contribute to the disadvantage experienced by First Peoples as a result of historic and ongoing injustices.

6.1   By enabling planning authorities to restrict fast food development in areas of high concentration or near schools, the Bill seeks to make a positive contribution to addressing entrenched public health disparities. Given the disproportionate burden of diet-related illness among First Peoples, measures that improve the food environment may support efforts to reduce these inequalities.

6.2   The Bill does not introduce punitive or enforcement-based measures that disproportionately impact First Peoples, but instead operates at a systemic, environmental level through planning controls.

Equal enjoyment of human rights (s66(3)(d)(iii))

7.   The Bill applies uniformly across Victoria and does not single out First Peoples for differential treatment. To the extent that it alters land use planning considerations, it does so in a way that is directed toward improving public health outcomes for all communities.

7.1   By addressing environmental determinants of health, including access to healthy food, the Bill may contribute to more equal enjoyment of the right to health and related human rights for First Peoples, who presently experience poorer health outcomes than non-Indigenous Victorians.

Conclusion

8.   In my opinion the Bill does not affect any of the objects specified in section 66(3)(d)(i) to (iii) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 and is therefore compatible with each of those objects.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (10:07): I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Planning Amendment (Restricting New Fast Food Developments) Bill 2026 seeks to strengthen the authority of local governments to determine whether new fast-food establishments should be permitted within their municipal boundaries.

The bill amends the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to:

•   ensure that public health is an appropriately weighted priority when decisions are made about the use and development of land, including by restricting use and development of lands for fast-food development (proposed section 4(2)(db));

•   amend the planning scheme to provide for the regulation or prohibition of land for fast-food outlets (proposed section 6(2)(ea));

•   ensure that before approving an application for a fast-food outlet the responsible authority has considered whether the applicant has demonstrated that the outlet will not cause harm to the public health of residents of the municipal district in which the land is situated; and has considered:

•   the applicable land’s proximity to schools;

•   the number of fast-food outlets within a 5-kilometre radius of the land; and

•   local obesity or public health data for the municipal district in which the land is situated;

•   set aside the decision of VCAT in McDonald’sAustralia Limited v Darebin CC [2026] VCAT 283 and reinstate the decision of Darebin City Council in application P1041/2025.

This is a timely bill and one that empowers local communities, residents and businesses, and their councils, to have a say over fast-food developments proposed for their neighbourhoods.

The bill comes in the wake of the VCAT decision to overturn Darebin City Council’s rejection of an application to build a McDonald’s in Northcote – a development that was met with overwhelming community opposition.

Northcote is far from being the only community to oppose the expansion of the fast-food industry in this state. Many of you would know of the local opposition to the development of a McDonald’s in Castlemaine. We are seeing a similar situation in Phillip Island and in Bendigo.

Local governments have attempted to give expression to the strong opposition conveyed by the parents, families and young people of their community but have invariably seen their decisions overturned on appeal by corporations to VCAT.

Even while local governments are legally obligated under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 to protect, improve and promote public health, they cannot do this under the current planning framework, which facilitates the uncontrolled expansion of the fast-food industry.

The impacts on health and wellbeing are profound

Evidence shows a consistent link between regular fast-food consumption and increased risk of chronic diseases, driven by its high-calorie, low-nutrient composition and its contribution to inflammation and weight gain.

These negative effects and poor health outcomes are exacerbated among low-income populations and in outer-suburban and growth area environments. In Australia, children from disadvantaged communities are twice as likely as children from more advantaged communities to be above a healthy weight.

Melbourne is officially Australia’s fast-food capital. Its growth areas have experienced a near-doubling of outlets between 2008 and 2016, leading it to be accurately described as a food swamp by Deakin University researchers. In some parts of our city there are now nine fast-food outlets for every healthy food outlet.

Fast-food consumption has surged in Australia, raising critical concerns for public health. Pre-COVID industry research found that Australians were spending around a third of their weekly food budget on fast food, rising to nearly 40 per cent for 18- to 35-year-olds.

Worse still, Victorian and Australian taxpayers are subsidising the profits of the $30 billion multinational fast-food industry.  The Obesity Evidence Hub has shown that the economic burden of chronic dietary-related ill health will pass $60 billion by 2030 and reach $230 billion by 2060, fully 3 per cent of Australia’s GDP.

Safeguarding community health and wellbeing, especially of vulnerable populations including young people, must be a principal priority of the Victorian planning framework. Consistent with the agency pillar of the FAO definition of ‘food security’, Victorian communities must be able to meaningfully shape their local food environments.

Internationally, more and more jurisdictions are recognising the cost of the unchecked development of fast-food outlets.

Countries with comprehensive public health and nutrition regulations – such as taxation on unhealthy food, advertising restrictions and strong planning controls – report lower dependence on fast food and improved public health outcomes.

Research has also found that a multidimensional policy strategy results in a significant density decrease in fast-food outlets. These policies include restrictions from schools, control of density of fast-food restaurants and limits through the obesity rates of children. More than half of local authorities in the UK have now introduced one or more elements of these policies to improve public health outcomes.

In Ireland, ‘no fry zones’ of 400 metres from schools and early years centres have been introduced to decrease the public health burden of childhood obesity.

And in Australia, the South Australian government last year took the bold first step of banning junk food advertising on all forms of public transport.

We need a multipronged approach to this problem. However, Victoria can demonstrate its commitment to a healthy future for its children and young people by passing this legislation to empower local governments to restrict, for the first time, the further expansion of the fast-food industry.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:14): I move:

That debate be adjourned for two weeks.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for two weeks.