Tuesday, 28 July 2026

Clause 1 (17:41)

Richard WELCH: My first question is: the government’s response of October 2022 records Judge Palmer’s 49 recommendations. The government supported 22 in full and 15 in principle and considered that 11 required further consideration. What became of the 11 that required further consideration, and what consultation was performed on those?

Jaclyn SYMES: As you have indicated, of the 49 recommendations in the Palmer report, 24 will be addressed by these bills. I do not intend to go through every one of his recommendations and where they match up; it is probably quicker to go to the second part of your question in relation to the other recommendations. Since the government response was released, the government has adopted a final position on recommendations that required further consideration or were noted. The government now support four additional recommendations – that is, 7.1, 7.2, 9.2 and 11.4; support in principle one additional recommendation, 6.2; support in part two additional recommendations, 9.1 and 12.2; do not support four additional recommendations, 4.3, 4.4, 6.3 and 7.4; and recommendation 6.1 will be considered during the development of the regulations, which will occur after the bills have passed.

Richard WELCH: In October 2022 the government stated its preference at that time was for a new dangerous goods act that harmonised with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, with explosives and the high-consequence dangerous goods remaining under the Dangerous Goods Act 1985. That was option 2 of the recommendations, but this bill is on option 1, so at some point in the last 3½ years there has been a change in position. When was that decision changed and on what advice, and who was consulted?

Jaclyn SYMES: It was pretty clear from the events and the applicable legislation that there needed to be streamlining and consolidation of laws that would be much easier to regulate and apply and be understood. This is effectively a regulation reduction type exercise in one sense. Obviously through the report and through the consultation the position became apparent of the best way forward. The bill provides for the continued application of the Australian dangerous goods code. The ADG code sets out requirements for the transport of dangerous goods by road and by rail in Australia by providing rules and guidelines for classifying, packaging, marking, labelling and transporting dangerous goods safely. There are two bills. Arguably it could have still been one, but the advice after the review was that it was clearer and better for industry to have the two.

Richard WELCH: I agree. I can see that. When that decision was made, in consultation with whom was it made?

Jaclyn SYMES: There are two separate questions there I think. The form that it took was an evolving process of what was going to be the best vessel to produce the easiest legislative framework and regulations et cetera, which is why we have landed in the dual response. But particularly on stakeholder engagement, since the review began WorkSafe Victoria have engaged 560 individuals and 270 organisations, including targeted consultation with stakeholder groups, industry representatives and then also the public consultation via the regular Engage platform. Those consulted include government departments and agencies across all levels, unions, associations, alliances, institutes, stakeholder reference groups and businesses. Some of the examples here I have got are Ports Victoria, Victoria Police, CFA, EPA, Qantas – all the people that you would think would have an interest in this legislative reform.

David ETTERSHANK: The bill has sound objectives related to enforcement but seems to do little for prevention. How does the bill materially improve the ability of Victorian regulatory authorities to identify dangerous situations before they become another West Footscray or Campbellfield?

Jaclyn SYMES: Thank you, Mr Ettershank, for your question and your observation around the dual roles and responsibilities of many people that work in this industry as well as regulate this industry. The introduction of the Dangerous Goods Transport Bill 2026 will increase Victoria’s alignment with the model – sorry. Just give me two secs.

What is a response to the question in relation to prevention is the new general duty to eliminate risk of harm to a person, property and the environment arising from the transport of dangerous goods. Where it is not reasonably practical to eliminate risks, duty holders must reduce the risk so far as reasonably practical. It is a new general duty to act to eliminate risk. Eliminating risk is a prevention measure.

David ETTERSHANK: I guess the long-term success of these reforms will depend not only on stronger penalties and enforcement powers but on ensuring regulators are adequately resourced to identify risks before they become disasters. Minister, can you advise on what resources the government is proposing to apply to increase WorkSafe’s capacity to actually administer the scheme?

Jaclyn SYMES: As you would appreciate, I am more than happy to take some of that on notice and ask the relevant minister. I have only got the content of the bill for the purposes of today.

David ETTERSHANK: I would appreciate it if you could follow it up with the relevant minister. That would be much appreciated. Given that these reforms arise from incidents that occurred in 2018 and 2019, what work does the government intend to undertake between now and the commencement of the act to ensure industry, emergency services and regulators are ready to operate under the new framework?

Jaclyn SYMES: At the outset I did take the chamber through the extensive stakeholder engagement, and as a part of being involved in the engagement you are involved in the follow-through of the advice of how the legislation has been developed and how it will be, hopefully, passed through the Parliament and become operational. In relation to some other advice about this, again, through the review, through the consultation, WorkSafe are able to gain important insights on work health and safety and dangerous goods legislations from interstate regulators across New South Wales and Queensland. Implementation will also include engagement with stakeholders nominated during the previous phases, as I indicated, plus direct communication of the changes to duty holders, employer representatives and, as I said, anybody that had signed up through the Engage website, emergency services and other regulators. So there will be communication with everybody that was identified as relevant and any of those people who were engaged in the consultation process.

David ETTERSHANK: We are just dealing with everything under clause 1 as I understand it, so I will reference a couple of other clauses if I may. In clause 3, ‘Definitions’, the ‘dangerous goods’ definition includes ‘any prescribed substance or article’. Will this include toxic fly-ash that is generated by waste-to-energy incinerators?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I understand it, Mr Ettershank, there has been no change to definitions from the existing scheme. There has been no change to the list of existing dangerous goods. The definition of ‘dangerous goods’ is that they are substances or articles that pose an immediate physical risk to people, property or the environment because of their chemical or physical properties – for example, substances that are corrosive, flammable, combustible, explosive, oxidising or have other hazardous properties. What was a dangerous good previously will continue to be so under this legislation.

David ETTERSHANK: If I could just persist a little bit on that question, I guess waste-to-energy fly-ash is kind of a new problem. Obviously the government is supporting the introduction of multiple waste-to-energy incinerators, but we do not have a lot to draw on in terms of large-scale general waste incinerators. I guess my question strikes to whether or not in the drafting of this legislation, and in particular this definition, that toxic fly-ash, which will be produced in huge quantities, has been contemplated as meeting that definition of any prescribed substance or article?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, as I explained in my substantive answer, there is no change to the definitions in relation to any type of chemical or substance, whether what you are referring to or otherwise would be a matter for regulations for specific requirements. There is the possibility to prescribe future substances as they are identified, and that is able to be done and facilitated through the legislative framework.

David ETTERSHANK: I guess to the people of places like Sunbury or Wollert or Lara that may not be a terribly comforting response given that they are facing the prospect of the transport of hundreds and hundreds of tonnes of that material on a weekly basis, often through residential areas. I guess I will just note that.

Jaclyn SYMES: I am not in a position to provide specific answers to a specific example in the way you have articulated. What I have indicated is that the legislative framework is able to be responsive to a range of matters. I am not going to comment on the example you are putting forward because that would be a matter for those in the industry. But what I could also point to is that duty holders must comply with stringent health and safety requirements for the transport of any dangerous goods.

David ETTERSHANK: In clause 10(1)(c), in the event of a dangerous goods incident will Fire Rescue Victoria (FRV) and other emergency responders have real-time access to dangerous goods manifests, licence information and transport records?

Jaclyn SYMES: Deputy President, because the member has referred to a specific clause, I just want to look that up. It is my advice that the regs will contain those requirements.

David ETTERSHANK: Could you elaborate a little bit, please, on what systems or protocols will be in place to ensure first responders know what they are dealing with?

Jaclyn SYMES: It was in my answer, Mr Ettershank. The regs will contain requirements along the lines of what you have identified, so they will be prescribed in regulation and are not yet prescribed.

David ETTERSHANK: Has the consultation occurred with Fire Rescue Victoria over what that might look like? Because we are talking about at the moment systems that simply do not communicate, that do not talk to each other, and I wonder whether that has been factored into implementation timeframes and the like.

Jaclyn SYMES: There has been heavy consultation in relation to the development of this legislation, which will continue across into the development of regulations. There is high engagement from CFA, VicPol, FRV and Emergency Management Victoria, for example.

David ETTERSHANK: Looking to clause 21, which identifies reportable incidents by reference to serious injury or death, serious risk to health and safety and serious risk to property, environmental damage is not listed. Given that environmental protection is a central object of the bill, can the minister explain why clause 21 does not expressly include incidents involving a serious risk of environmental damage and whether the government is satisfied that significant dangerous goods spills or releases with the potential to contaminate waterways, soil or groundwater, with obviously consequential damage potentially to workers and to the citizenry, would be consistently and promptly brought to WorkSafe’s attention with the bill as currently drafted?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is important to understand this bill in the context of where it fits with other regulators. At the outset, I think in my response to some of Mr Welch’s observations, this was about consolidation and reducing duplication, and the matters that you have raised are already regulated by the EPA. We did not want to create two mirroring systems for different regulators.

David ETTERSHANK: I do not know if I quite get that response, I am afraid. While the person who is responsible for a pollution incident must notify the EPA where the incident causes or threatens to cause material harm to human health or the environment, the concern is that a dangerous goods transport incident presenting a serious environmental risk may trigger direct notification to the EPA but not necessarily to WorkSafe, and as I understand it there are not protocols in place to ensure that notification of one results in advice to the other. I ask again, Minister: how will the government deal with this apparent shortfall in the communications between the agencies, and why is it not possible to simply ensure that environmental risk is included within the catchment of the bill?

Jaclyn SYMES: I disagree with the way you have articulated this. Your assessment that there is an apparent gap is not supported by the government’s position. This is about our regulators working together, not all duplicating roles and stepping on each other’s toes. In fact that is not good governance. It is not a good response to really important issues such as dangerous goods, because you have a situation where people are pointing at each other going, ‘I think that’s your job. I think that’s your job.’ That is something that you want to remove out of government regulation as much as possible, because otherwise you do not get people taking full responsibility and acting in accordance with the way they should. WorkSafe, the EPA and the emergency services already have intelligence-sharing arrangements in place. The intention is that the regulators receive information and act together rather than creating unnecessary duplication and multiple reporting pathways. The concern I have about the way you have articulated what you see as the appearance of gaps is I think you need to be thinking about the fact that it would be a gap if there was just one regulator responding, but when it is appropriate for two or three to respond, they go and do their jobs and work together – as opposed to trying to do everybody else’s job under the framework of their specific task. That is where you get a lack of accountability.

David ETTERSHANK: But surely that assumes that environmental incidents are in one nice box and WorkSafe-related incidents are in another nice little box and that you can treat them with some nice, clean thing. The reality is that they overlap, and we have seen in recent years multiple examples where in fact authorities have not been advised in a timely manner because exactly what you are saying was happening. All we are saying is: given that the environment is an objective of the bill, why can you not include WorkSafe as being notified in the context of what would otherwise be deemed to be an environmental spill, recognising that it will have potential impacts on workers and citizens?

Jaclyn SYMES: The way you are telling this story, Mr Ettershank, I do not think reflects the response from the agencies. As I said, WorkSafe, EPA and the emergency services already have intelligence-sharing arrangements. They already work in tandem. We do not want to create duplication. We do not want unnecessary duplication and multiple reporting pathways. We want this to be a strong response with everybody knowing what their response is. I do not know how you took from my answers that this is about putting things in little boxes. It is the opposite. It is about a multipronged approach by appropriate regulators, not expecting them all to do everybody else’s job just because they are first on site or the issue is predominantly theirs. That is not a good outcome.

David ETTERSHANK: I think, Minister, we are talking at entirely cross-purposes here. I guess I will just leave it there, having put those concerns on the record, and let us hope that my concerns prove to be entirely ill-founded.

Clause 22, if I can move on to that, imposes an incident notification obligation on the consignor, prime contractor and driver or vessel master, but not the consignee. Given that the bill expressly recognises unloading and receipt of dangerous goods as activities involved in dangerous goods transport, can the minister explain why the consignee has not been included amongst those required to notify WorkSafe of a reportable incident?

Jaclyn SYMES: The government does not consider there to be a gap in the reporting framework. The two bills operate together to ensure dangerous goods incidents are reportable at both the transport stage and the handling stage. The Dangerous Goods Transport Bill imposes notification obligations on parties responsible for the transport activity itself, including consignors, prime contractors, drivers and vessel masters. Where an incident occurs during transport, these parties are required to notify WorkSafe. Once dangerous goods have been received and are being unloaded, stored or otherwise handled, the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Bill 2026, when it becomes an act, will apply through the dangerous goods handling framework. If a spill, leak, release or other notifiable incident is identified at that stage, existing incident notification obligations under the OH&S framework apply.

David ETTERSHANK: Am I correct, Minister, in saying that your position is that, where a consignee receives, for example, a container that is leaking, and it has not been identified as leaking by the transporting body, that that obligation for timely reporting to WorkSafe and/or the EPA exists under the current occupational health and safety framework?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I indicated, once dangerous goods have been received and are being unloaded, stored or otherwise handled, that is when the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Bill applies – so, yes.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (18:09)

Richard WELCH: Treasurer, the minister’s second-reading speech explained at some length why the reportable priority waste exemption is being removed, but nothing anywhere is said about the primary producer exemption. Is that omission a deliberate policy position or is it an oversight, or do primary producers have any further exemptions?

Jaclyn SYMES: Licence types will be in the regulations, and primary producers may be exempted from requiring any licence in the regulations themselves.

Richard WELCH: I am going to quickly skip through because there are several questions on that theme that were answered that I do not need to ask now. But I will conclude with a summary of questions by asking: will there be an assurance that primary producers will not be worse off in licensing terms than they are under the current act?

Jaclyn SYMES: I anticipated that we might go to primary producers and farmers, so I might make just a few comments and see if I have covered off most of your queries. The reforms will impact duty holders, including farmers who may store or handle dangerous goods. In addition to any potential employer duties or self-employed duties, there will be new dangerous goods general duties that may apply to farmers who handle dangerous goods. Irrespective of the business structure or size, the bill will introduce a new broad duty for any person handling dangerous goods. This is to ensure that dangerous goods are regulated in workplaces and places where there are no workers. However, the standard remains qualified by reasonable practicability, which considers many factors, including availability, suitability and cost. The bill will provide an aggravated general duty offence to ensure alignment between the penalty for egregious behaviours and the penalty for other contraventions. This is, again, supposed to be an easing of regulations. This is about not creating new burdens, but in fact hopefully making it more modern and making it much easier to know how to comply.

Clause agreed to; clauses 10 to 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 (18:12)

Richard WELCH: I will read this slowly. The minister’s second-reading speech concedes the bill includes differences from the national approach, naming the broad general duty as the example. If national consistency is the objective, why impose a duty that operators in other jurisdictions do not carry, and what does that divergence cost cross-border operators?

Jaclyn SYMES: My advice is that there is generally quite good alignment with the frameworks across jurisdictions and there is flexibility within the system to be agile and to respond to emerging issues.

Clause agreed to; clauses 18 to 52 agreed to.

Clause 53 (18:14)

Richard WELCH: Treasurer, this is in the area of general powers of entry. Clause 53(2) requires written record of a seizure to be given to the occupier of the place. Where a loaded vehicle is stopped on a public road, who is the occupier of the place?

Jaclyn SYMES: Can you ask that again?

Richard WELCH: Clause 53(2) requires a written record of a seizure to be given to the occupier of the place. Where a loaded vehicle is stopped on a public road, who is the occupier of the place?

Jaclyn SYMES: I can get some advice from the box, but there are powers to inspect vehicles and vessels in the clause above it. It actually talks about written directions to be served on the owner or the person having control or management of the vehicle or the vessel, so I think the clause above it pretty much – yes, they are nodding. Just looking at it, I think it is addressed in clause 52.

Clause agreed to; clauses 54 to 74 agreed to.

Clause 75 (18:16)

Richard WELCH: This is on power to give directions. A direction may be given orally. Failure to comply carries 500 penalty units and is an indictable offence. Why is a written record of an oral direction not required?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, you are right; a direction may be given orally or in writing. In circumstances of it being delivered orally, it would be outlined in the entry report, which would then in turn be a written record of that oral advice.

Clause agreed to; clause 76 agreed to.

Clause 77 (18:18)

Richard WELCH: Treasurer, this is on powers to issue a costs notice. Clause 77 contains no cap on the amount recoverable and expressly includes legal services within reasonable costs. What safeguards apply against a disproportionate costs notice?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, just going back to my attorney days, reasonable costs is something that is a matter for the court, and the system protects –

Richard Welch interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: Well, we can have an argument about ‘reasonable’, but what is reasonable would have to be justified based on the costs incurred and the cost of the inspector taking the action. There is nothing different in this bill in terms of reasonable costs, as would apply across a lot of the statute books in the state.

Clause agreed to; clauses 78 and 79 agreed to.

Clause 80 (18:20)

Richard WELCH: According to my records, 80 to 82 covers statutory charge on land. An unpaid costs notice may become a charge on land –

Jaclyn SYMES: Where are you?

Richard WELCH: Sorry, clause 81(1), I think it is. An unpaid costs notice may become a charge on land, which under clause 81(1) has priority over any other encumbrance. Was the effect on mortgages and farm finance considered?

Jaclyn SYMES: Given the materials that I have, obviously consideration was given to this particular element of the bill. If a person does not comply with a cost recovery notice, the bill allows unrecovered costs and interest to become a charge on the land under certain conditions. A charge on land is a legal claim placed over a property to secure payment of a debt or obligation. The charge must be registered on the register of titles. If a charge has been registered for at least 12 months, a court has previously made an order requiring payment of the costs recovery notice and any interest and the payment still has not been made within 12 months after the order is made, WorkSafe can take steps to sell the land. WorkSafe must give the owner of the land written notice of its intention to sell. It also must display a copy of the notice on the land and publish a copy on its internet site and in at least one other manner no later than one month before the date of the sale. Charges ensure strong incentives for duty holders to comply with their obligations, and therefore it was deemed an appropriate response for non-payment.

Clause agreed to; clauses 81 to 93 agreed to.

Clause 94 (18:22)

Richard WELCH: Treasurer, Judge Palmer recommended that step-in decisions not be subject to merits review. The government placed recommendation 9.2 in further consideration and identified the availability of merits review as the specific matter requiring consultation. The bill adopts the ‘no review’ position. What did that consultation find and with whom was it conducted?

Jaclyn SYMES: I have gone through all of the consultation during the review and in the development of legislation, as I said, which would continue through to the regulations. On this particular matter this approach is consistent with the Environment Protection Act 2017, which similarly limits merit review for equivalent types of directions. I think we have had similar conversations about some procedural fairness types of issues, you and I, Mr Welch, but procedural fairness is preserved because judicial review remains available, ensuring inspectors remain accountable for the lawful exercise of their powers without undermining the immediacy and technical nature of their decisions. So again, it is going back to this being about reducing burden, making compliance easier and simplified, and therefore being consistent with similar acts was important.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 95 (18:25)

Richard WELCH: This is internal review. Clause 95 allows 10 business days from when a decision came to the person’s notice. Where no notice of seizure is required to be given to a vehicle or freight owner, when does that period begin for them?

Jaclyn SYMES: The entry report would trigger the 10 days.

Clause agreed to; clauses 96 to 170 agreed to.

Clause 171 (18:26)

Richard WELCH: With clause 171 we are into the regulations. The question here is: when will the exposure draft regulations be released, and what will the consultation period be? I could join this with the following question: will they be subject to a regulatory impact statement under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994, and when will that statement be published?

Jaclyn SYMES: We will work backwards. Yes, there will be a regulatory impact statement. We of course want to give industry time to get across the changes. Any notice period will be in accordance with the guidance issued by Better Regulation Victoria.

Richard WELCH: Just quickly, maybe I missed something in the answer there, but when will the exposure draft be issued?

Jaclyn SYMES: We have to wait until the legislation is passed.

Clause agreed to; clauses 172 to 175 agreed to.

Clause 176 (18:28:428)

Richard WELCH: Transitional regulations – the explanatory memorandum states that the power exists so that existing licence-holders can be transitioned into equivalent schemes. Primary producers hold no licence because they are currently exempt. What mechanism transitions the position of those currently outside the licensing system?

Jaclyn SYMES: The bill provides for a regulation-making power that enables transitional regulations to be made. This will enable, where appropriate, existing licence-holders under the DG act and regulations to be transitioned into equivalent licence classes made under own acts. This will allow for the impact on existing licence-holders to be minimised when transitioning from the DG act to the OH&S act. The transitional provisions will allow additional time for duty holders to obtain licences if that is needed.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

That the meal break scheduled for this day, pursuant to standing order 4.01(3), be suspended.

Motion agreed to.

Clause agreed to; clauses 177 to 187 agreed to; schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (18:31): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (18:31): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

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